The article claims the victim is bi-racial and both girls know each other.
And you believe that?
Posted on 06/28/2015 3:43:48 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: SEE IT: Texas teen rips girl by the hair from toddler, beats her up as other youths cheer (WARNING - GRAPHIC VIDEO)
A Texas teen wrenches another girl away from a 3-year-old relative by the victim's hair and beats her as other teens cheer in disturbing footage that has surfaced online.
Police in Dallas suburb Rowlett say the family of the 13-year-old who assaulted the other girl June 19 behind an elementary school will bring her to authorities, who aren’t releasing the juvenile’s name.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
A pattern you say? They were not even going to charge her for a felony for hitting the older girl only because the baby was hurt! That is crazy. She should be charged with a felony for both.
The girl in this story have not come out because they are afraid of the blacks. Just like at the Texas pool party.
White people are afraid to say “the black people are wrong” because the blacks will attack them. Well I will say it! The black people in this video are WRONG. The black girl in this video needs to be in jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1-1d2V2k
but not this one
[white] Woman Attacks Teenage Girls
the girls appear to be white but the violence here is the same.
an investigator with the Rowlett Police Department told KTVT that . . . . the victim was biracial.
Try to keep up.
I can’t tell from that video, they faded out the faces but it looks like white and black and maybe one half breed girl(s) fighting in the street.
The difference in our video is all those chicks where fighting each other. It seems a lot of girls have taken to this these days. You hardly ever saw that when I was in school. In this one the girl was sitting with her baby minding her own business. The black girl picked a fight and the girl holding the baby did not want to fight.
The article claims the victim is bi-racial and both girls know each other.
And you believe that?
It's virtually a physical version of what happens in the last battle in the last book of The Chronicles of Narnia.
This story can’t be real. The lame stream news did not show it on tonight’s newscast.
If it is not on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo it simply did not happen.
That could be. The whole thing has been shoved under the rug by all involved. I think I saw a reference that Indianapolis was the location. Not surprised if there are two very similar occurrences.
Trying to hide facts stirs racial enmity in the worse way.. we know that it is not all blacks and it is not all whites..
and I know that Federal crime statistics are a rebuttal to the race-grievance industry lies.
Atypical for female aggression.
” the victim was biracial. “
Who was holding a blonde haired, blue eyed child. No the kid was not hers but was still a relative. That is why I call that part of the story bogus, or not entirely accurate. She may be a half breed of some other race but to have a relative with those freatures means she is part white so why is this not a “hate crime”? If not for her, then definatly the baby!!
“And you believe that?”
No in fact I don’t. I’m looking for a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
“And you believe that?”
No in fact I don’t. I’m looking for a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
The perp performed a mere assault on the black/white victim.
If the victim was all-white, she would have been killed.
Leni
How can you tell what color the child’s eyes are?
And, by the way, a biracial girl could have blond, blue-eyed relatives.
Not necessary to use that word.
Yes, I was surprised to hear this was Texas, too, because I also read it happened in Indianapolis.
Maybe those early stories were mixing up this video with the other video of the girl attacked and her little brother knocked down. (That one did occur in IN.)
That could be.
Just curious, what specifically is this based on?
well I guess you’ve gone blind. I looked at a picture of the baby. The child’s eyes are blue.
A commenter at Conservative Treehouse is saying that that’s not a photo of the child in the video. (See my post somewhere above.)
Which makes sense because the child in the video looked bigger and was reportedly 3 years old. The baby in the photo looks much younger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.