Posted on 12/24/2016 4:04:51 AM PST by marktwain
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- It was Saturday afternoon, the 26th of November, on Highway 138 in Georgia. The traffic was heavy after the college football game between Georgia and Georgia tech.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
“Swinged” is incorrect but given the general collapse of English literacy, I’d probably let it slide unless said speaker was being a tool about it, lol.
So I guess swang is the right word to use, even if it does sound hokey! ;-)
Sometimes, the hicks are the literate ones although they likely can’t tell you why. They speak as they’ve always spoken, as their parents and grandparents before them. Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric have no sway there. Heck, they probably even call the capital of China “Peking.”
“At least the writer didn’t use a creative past participle of shot and had the gun “shat” bullets.”
No, but I bet the other three white guys “shat” some bricks...
I disagree. “Pulled in front” could easily mean merged in turn. If the four in the pickup chose to, they could have been trying to budge forward out of turn.
There is not nearly enough information to draw such a conclusion.
It was a road rage incident, escalating and leading to a fatal confrontation. If you want to think he politely merged in front of those guys, you’re certainly free to do so. But, the circumstance points to cutting them off.
I’ve got a fair number of backwoods country folk in my family tree. I choose to own the term rather than be offended by it.
Handy trick. I learned it from the leftwing media. Sometimes they don’t realize just what they’re teaching, with their “teachable moments.”
“Why did you leave out the fact that the sheriff was also black?”
Does that matter? The statement infers that somehow it’s a lesser deed had the cop been white.
Just contributes to the “truth” of the matter.
Same here, I am a city girl, Houston born and bred but I have a lot of hicks on mom’s side that I adore.
Bull. As written, absent other information, you are making a conclusion unsupported by evidence.
If you have other evidence supporting your conclusion, please identify it.
Your conclusion is similar to the SJW BLM claims. It might be true, but is specious until supported by credible evidence.
>>>But then, there’s the little matter of the “pulling in front” thing that occurred prior to the confrontation<<<
If I had a nickel for every time I beat up someone who cut me off in Traffic, I wouldn’t have a nickel. #;^)
You don’t believe it was a road rage incident that escalated between the two parties? The black man was just accosted out of the blue for innocently merging? I suppose it’s a remote possibility, but it just doesn’t match the circumstance.
If you had a dollar for every time you thought about it, you’d likely be a wealthy man.
Probably... LOL
The circumstances just as solidly point to 4 drunks getting aggressive. From my experience most road rages result from one innocent person and some subpsychotic nutcase an inch away from snapping. They usually snap over very trivial things, or even nothing at all.
If you want to believe that this guy didn’t somehow engage them and escalate the matter, you’re certainly free to do so.
I KNOW from the lack of specific information in the article that no conclusion can be drawn either way.
Your conclusion may be correct, or it might not be the truth. From this article, one cannot determine the truth.
Yeah sure. The first guy alone in a car saw 4 guys in a truck and started crap with them.
Then the sheriff decided to jump in and help him out. That detail tells me who was biligerent and who wasnt.
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.