Hot dogs and cold b!tc%e$

MROTD: Let me analyze this properly for those who think that 14 year old is a hero. He's not a hero; he's just another dumb@ss. Ja Morant II is destined for an orange jumpsuit or coroner's slab before he turns 25. From the report:

The charges stemmed from an incident at a hot dog stand on June 18 in the 11600-block of South Halsted Street.

First, what did I tell you about being anywhere that has South or southside in it or is referred to as the #### block of something? The answer is get out. Now.

Now the deceased should've kept his hands to himself. Women are allowed to say whatever they want, no matter how vulgar or violent. And with a name like Hood, the universe is trying to tell you she was both. I can't hear most of what she said in the released clip, but she certainly isn't the type to de-escalate, is she?

How do we know this?

While it is hard for me to hear what she is saying, I can hear what he is saying. He says, "In the car? Who?" Given who was in the car and what he did, what do you think Carlisha Hood aka Dominique Jones II was saying right before he said that(which connects to what she was texting)? DJ Jr. here was essentially saying she was going to get her son or somebody to "shoot his s%!t up." Now you might rightly say to yourself that words, even bad words, don't give you the right to use violence. But let's think about this for a moment in context. If someone credibly threatens you with imminent physical harm, and you respond with violence (punches), are you justified?

If you are a white or a police officer and your target isn't, the answer is likely yes. If not, it's at least questionable. You can't just say anything to people and think you're automatically protected by the 1st amendment. If I yell fire where there is none and someone gets injured trying to escape, am I liable? All I said were words. Why are you literally tripping? The question is: Can what I say reasonably cause or justify a negative physical reaction? I promise you this is a conversation for them folks in the prosecutor's office depending on who you are.

Don't believe me? Watch this.

What happened during the Trayvon Martin case? George Zimmerman followed/stalked Trayvon Martin. This led to a confrontation/argument. Zimmerman was injured at some point. Zimmerman shot him. So who was wrong? Seems obvious, right? The trial and verdict showed you it was not for many. Some nonviolent actions or words can reasonably be interpreted as aggressive and lead to an aggressive response. I've seen the same person accept or reject this premise based on the case.

Now the deceased's reaction (punches) to her words led to the subsequent and escalated response by the minor holding his mother's gun. Here's what several reports say after the first shots:

"The man then fled the restaurant where the 14-year-old boy proceeded to follow him and fire more shots."

Are any of you actually familiar with any self defense/stand your ground cases? Like, AT ALL?? You think a prosecutor can't go after him for this or his mama for orchestrating this?😄 There's more info:

"Police said that Hood distracted a witness and then instructed her son to shoot Brown.

Chicago Police said that Brown died from gunshot wounds to the back."

The back, you say? Like running away and getting shot in the back by a minor who has no business carrying a gun? You don't think a prosecutor could justify an arrest and charges? Really?

But wait, there's more:

"Documents state there was a witness laughing and encouraging the incident."

That witness may or may not have been the deceased's girlfriend at the time. In any case, what do you call someone who encourages or incites violent crime?🤔 Oh, an inciter. And what s/he did is called incitement. It's almost like if what you say is inimical to public welfare(people at a restaurant) or directly leads to a specific crime(like a minor illegally carrying and then pulling a gun and killing someone), you can be held liable. Now what did Hood say to him again before instructing her minor son to kill him?🤔

After the shooting:

"Hood then diverged her attention to the witness(gf perhaps?) where she instructed her son to shoot them, court documents allege."

There's definitely enough here to pursue the matter legally. The prosecutor, Kim Foxx, who is Kamala Harris levels of corrupt, is simply choosing not to. The question is why. And it's not because of the video or the facts as they have been reported thus far. Maybe the optics were bad enough to where the negative press that would follow just wasn't worth it. Maybe she's attempting to position herself for the next phase of her professional/political life like Harris. But don't tell me there isn't enough evidence to proceed based on the verifiable facts alone.

And now the b!tch who turned her son into a killer when she had every opportunity not to by simply closing her mouth, is planning to sue. The best thing that could have happened here would be a three/four way shooting wiping them all out at once. You could then grind them all up, bonnets and Timberlands included, and put them into those hot dogs at that stand. You ignorant Soylent Green Simps would instantly turn that place into a famous chicken and waffles style eatery.

A final quote from a slave:

"No one else in the establishment did anything. And so, once he saw his mother get severely hit, he took action," said community activist Ja'Mal Green."

If you look up Ja'mal Green, you will see he is a BLM activist and failed Mayoral candidate. That's exactly the sort of resume it would take to turn the surviving 'Hood'lums into Rosa Parks and MLK. Feel free to become neighbors with these a$$%oles if you want. For me, the answer is no.