that first punch wasn't a love tap, that was a brutal haymaker.
she was able to leave the restaurant after her attacker stopped once he was shot, if he wasn't shot who knows what state she'd be in.
Mother instructed 14-year-old son to shoot, kill man at hot dog stand,
- Thread starter Forlife44
- Start date
she was able to leave the restaurant after her attacker stopped once he was shot, if he wasn't shot who knows what state she'd be in.
When you say someone is brutally beaten that typically means they have serious injuries.
she did not even have a black eye.
NZA
LOL
considering the narrative has changed radically, what is the evidence that she wanted him to kill a witness?
We know he punched her... We all seen it.
We all seen her not shutting the fukk up either.
If Somebody warns you "hey...I'm going shoot you if you don't shut the fukk u"
Do you
A) shut the fukk
Or
B) Keep talking
The question I asked was about personal responsibility. And I posed it to someone else.
You chimed in with that bullshyt lol
Anyway, I watched that press conference.
The most important thing to me is the alleged txt message to the son.
If there was actually NO txt.
Then I can say fukk it to anything else that happened that night.
Even if the boy did gun him down outside (allegedly) it's all in the heat of the moment.
Along with everything else.
Since murder was on the table and they felt like they wouldn't get that. Then they probly wouldn't waste their time pursuing lesser charges, seeing that the woman did get attacked.
At the press conference, the media asked about the alleged txt message.
This is probably the biggest piece in the situation and most people who are looking at Ms. Hood funny its because we believe she txt her son to come in with the hammer.
So they had an opportunity to dispel that allegation.
They chose not to answer that question for some reason. Smh
The most important thing to me is the alleged txt message to the son.
If there was actually NO txt.
Then I can say fukk it to anything else that happened that night.
Even if the boy did gun him down outside (allegedly) it's all in the heat of the moment.
Along with everything else.
Since murder was on the table and they felt like they wouldn't get that. Then they probly wouldn't waste their time pursuing lesser charges, seeing that the woman did get attacked.
At the press conference, the media asked about the alleged txt message.
This is probably the biggest piece in the situation and most people who are looking at Ms. Hood funny its because we believe she txt her son to come in with the hammer.
So they had an opportunity to dispel that allegation.
They chose not to answer that question for some reason. Smh
Last edited:
LINK AND TIMESTAMP ME BREAUGH
LINK AND TIMESTAMP ME BREAUGH
I don't know how to timestamp brother...
But the question is at 10:10
if she's suing the city, it doesn't make a lot of sense for her to offer up that info now. if the narrative about her texting turns out not to be true she could let the prosecutors claims to the media be speculated upon by the public even longer to prove defamation/damage to her reputation thus increasing any potential payout by the city.
if the lawsuit reaches trial then we'll know what was communicated over text and to who.
Hawala Man
All Star
Whole bunch of mommy issues posters ( in this thread) who would fold under pressure if their mother, sister and wives were punched in the face by another man.
14 year old got more heart than majority of men he did what he had to do.
14 year old got more heart than majority of men he did what he had to do.
Hmmm, I guess.
I like the line of thinking but I can't get jiggy with it.
If thats their reasoning, the prosection can make a case that she is damaging her own reputation by not being forward about the allegations in the media and public.
It isn't their fault that when asked a straight forward question about an important part of the case, that calls in to question her character...Ms.Hood and her lawyers chose NOT answer.
Also, if there are people out there in her city that believe she txt her son to bring the gun. It keeps her and her son in danger of retaliation.
If they just put that claim to rest... Now it just looks like the son saw his mother in an altercation and did what he had to.
Like anyone else
Last edited:
even if she texted her son to bring the gun, it doesn't appear the kid even verbally engaged with the guy or brandished the gun when he entered the place. he demonstrated pretty good restraint watching that man be belligerent towards his mom and only pulled out the gun when his mom was physically assaulted. Only guessing but that should be sufficient to prove a lack of intent to kill.
Commiting a crime that leads to a murder, is going to be a murder charge for that person.
Instructing a minor to bring a gun in the store, is a crime... Which lead to the man being killed.
Also, the txt message can make it seem like she didn't deescalate or remove herself from the situation because she had her son with the gun...which can be painted as premeditated.
And I don't think the boy watch the verbal altercation in the store...
It seems like he entered the store just as his mother is being punched. But I could be wrong because the video is heavily edited.
Ineedmoney504
SOHH ICEY...WE EATIN
Men shouldn’t be arguing with no bytches in the first place
A certain race of women will bring it out of you
