12 years old?

The family of a 12-year-old auto theft suspect who was shot and killed by the vehicle owner say the man should face criminal charges.

The first line of the original article says: “A 12-year-old car theft suspect died of a gunshot wound after being confronted by the vehicle’s owner, according to the Denver Police Department.” It would be more accurate to say “12 year old shot and killed while attempting to murder the owner of the vehicle whose car he was stealing.”

The vehicle owner tracked the vehicle using an app. When he approached the vehicle, the occupants began shooting at him. The owner of the vehicle returned fire. The vehicle drove away and wrecked a short distance away. The police found the wrecked vehicle with a driver inside who was suffering from a gunshot wound. The other occupants of the vehicle ran off from before officers arrived. The wounded driver died at the hospital and was identified as 12 year old Elias Armstrong.

How did I know?

The Denver District Attorney’s Office decided to not file charges against the vehicle owner.

The family acknowledges Elias was caught up with the wrong crowd that day, but does not believe he should have been killed. “Even though they were joy riding, it was never that serious for somebody to have to lose their life or for [the car owner] to track down the car the way he did,” said Alicia Henderson, Elias’ sister.

He committed an armed burglary, illegally carrying a concealed weapon, attempted murder, armed robbery, grand theft auto, carjacking, and multiple other violent felonies. To minimize these crimes as harmless and call them “joyriding” is bullshit. The same kid has been in the Denver news more than once.

Said Henderson: “I’ll never get over this, I’ll never stop fighting for it until something is done about it. That doesn’t necessarily have to be a murder charge. However, manslaughter still comes into play because [Elias] was a child. The use of unnecessary force was present at the time and it wasn’t right.”

Unnecessary force? This little felon had a gun and shot at the legitimate owner of the vehicle. Just what level of force was necessary? Look at the little hoodlum’s picture that the family has put on a Tshirt.

Many of the articles say he was “involved in an exchange of gunfire” which is a rather odd way to phrase “he was trying to kill the law abiding, legitimate owner of the vehicle when the citizen did society a favor by removing his criminal, thieving black ass from the gene pool.”

The family has, of course, set up a change.org petition. The opening paragraph is grounds for a lawsuit for defamation, in my opinion.

On February 5th 2023, 12 year old Elias Armstrong was inside a stolen vehicle when the owner tracked the vehicle down using an App. The vigilante then took it upon himself to run toward the vehicle and shoot inside 15 times, ambushing the 3 occupants. Elias drove a few blocks away before he succumbs to multiple bullet wounds.

Hey, if Trump can lose millions for defamation for saying “I didn’t rape that woman, I don’t even know who she is,” then this certainly is a winner. The last paragraph is right out of the Trayvon playbook:

Denver Police told the Elias’ family that the shooter was on the phone with them for 20 minutes prior, and he was told NOT to pursue the stolen vehicle. The angry man decided to take justice in his own hands. We need him to be held accountable for HIS actions, and District Attorney Beth McCann needs to charge him for this crime that HE committed.

People are sick of the criminals, and they are sick of the fact that the cops aren’t doing shit. However, the shooting wasn’t vigilante justice. That little armed piece of shit tried to kill a man, and he came in second in a gunfight. I hope that little asshole burns in hell.

Situational Awareness

Note that, at 1:15, he tucks a handgun into the waistband of his pants. It is at this point that the bicyclist needed to either draw a firearm, or needed to immediately disengage and leave the area. He is lucky he wasn’t shot.

Also note who the racists are in this video. When dealing with blacks, you have to assume that they hate you. All of them. You also have to assume that they are all violent and will kill you out of a sense of entitlement.

But it’s whypeepo who are races

Take a look at the video below. You will find my comments below the video.

Blacks are being raised to hate whites and to hate police, even from a young age. There is no saving people when they are being raised from cradle to grave to believe that you are the enemy. They believe themselves to be your enemy, and whether or not YOU think they are your enemy doesn’t matter.

They hate you, they hate everything that you stand for, and want to destroy you. Your opinion or feelings on the matter just aren’t their concern.

How many data points do people need? Yeah, I know what you are thinking- “This isn’t what ALL of them believe. These kids are outliers.” Ok. Take some of these facts to heart. According to surveys of US blacks conducted by Pew research:

This post is laying the groundwork for me to tell you what happened with my sister and the meeting where she was being accused of racism.

No Words

These two healthcare workers abused an elderly patient AND LIVESTREAMED IT. The people in there were commenting and making fun of the elderly female dementia patient. Note that the press doesn’t mention the race of the victim. You bet your ass if two white nurses were abusing a black patient, it would be MSM coverage 24/7, complete with grifter black attorney Crump, Obama, and a visit to the White House.

Why isn’t this a hate crime? I will bet a large sum of money that this isn’t being mentioned by the media and was funny to everyone involved because the victim/patient was white, and they were all black.


My sister called me last night. She works as a teacher here in Central Florida. She was contacted earlier in the week by her Principal because the mother of one of her students contacted the Superintendent’s office to complain that her son was being “targeted” by his teacher, as evidenced by his poor grades and discipline problems. The district office is sending an administrator to my sister’s school, so that they can meet with my sister, her Principal, and the parent to discuss the problem.

The problem? The kid is being suspended for calling another kid a “nigger” while they were at lunch. My sister isn’t the one who wrote the referral, the Principal is. My sister, as the teacher, was required to email the parent, as per district policy. The mother was very angry and claimed that her child “doesn’t even know that word.” She then demanded that my sister call her so they could discuss it. My sister wisely refused, and wants everything dealt with in writing. So that is why the parent has complained.

As soon as I heard “targeted” I knew without being told that this was a black student who was going to throw down the race card. I told her that, since this was a discipline meeting, she was entitled to have her union representative there as a matter of Federal law. I don’t really like a lot of what the union does, but in this case, it’s important to remember that there will be two administrators and a parent there. You will be alone, and need a witness there that will be somewhat impartial.

When I told her that, my sister replied, “Oh, no. The principal told me that this wasn’t a meeting where I would be disciplined. It’s just an informal meeting.” No. There is no such thing as an informal meeting when there are multiple administrators in a room with a parent making racism accusations against you. You are white, and that means you are guilty. If either of those administrators can avoid trouble by tossing you in front of that bus, they will do it without a second thought. That’s when my sister said, “Oh my principal is black. She told me that she knows I am not a racist.”

Oh shit. It was at that point that I began to wonder whether or not my sister should bring not just a union rep, but a lawyer. If this woman wants to claim that racism is why her child is failing and getting in trouble, the only white person in the room is going to be the target.

Racism is a serious charge for a teacher. Not only will it cost you your job, it can cost you your teaching license. There goes your career, and my sister doesn’t have the looks for only fans.

I’ve seen this show before. I know how it turns out. You can win, but you need lawyers, representation, witnesses, and money. I got in that fight back in 2016, and I wound up quitting and going to a different school. The old school then tried to have my professional licenses revoked. They failed and I won, but it cost me nearly $10,000 in legal fees and I wound up switching jobs.

I don’t think that my sister has that kind of money.

So when the meeting happens this week, she will have a union representative there. At least she took my advice. She usually asks for my advice, then goes in a different direction. Then she comes to me and wants advice on the situation that she got into because she didn’t follow my original advice. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The Legal Case for Genocide

CNN now says, well- it’s too crazy to paraphrase, so here is the quote:

Perhaps you posted that meme of supermodel Tyra Banks exploding in anger on “America’s Next Top Model” (“I was rooting for you! We were all rooting for you!”). Or maybe you’ve simply posted popular GIFs, such as the one of NBA great Michael Jordan crying, or of drag queen RuPaul declaring, “Guuuurl…”

If you’re Black and you’ve shared such images online, you get a pass. But if you’re White, you may have inadvertently perpetuated one of the most insidious forms of contemporary racism.

So to sum up contemporary equity theory: No matter what you do, if you are white, you are a racist. See, we already know that the mere allegation of a white man calling a black man a “nigger” is considered to be justification for aggravated assault in the minds of black people. There have been many court cases proving that. It’s called the “n word” defense.

a white person calling a black person a “nigger” is fighting words that justify whatever happens to the white person as a result of violence on the part of any black person within earshot.

In fact, the Nevada Law Journal has put forward the Critical Race Theory idea(pdf alert) that racial words activate a syndrome in blacks called “post traumatic slave syndrome,” which according to them is “a condition that exists when a population has experienced multigenerational trauma resulting from centuries of slavery and continues to experience oppression and institutionalized racism today.”

They claim that using words that hurt people’s feelings is a form of violence that justifies the use of force in self defense, but only if the person using them is a heterosexual white male. The justification is that: “The problem of psychological assault appears across ethnic, gender, and socio-economic lines, but has a greater impact on marginalized social groups such as women, children, African Americans, and the LGBT community.” They call the use of these terms Socio-Psychological Tyranny (SPT), and claim that the Second Amendment serves as a constitutional basis for the use of physical force in protecting the liberty, psychological, and dignity interest of citizens—that is, it justifies defending the spirit as well as the body.

But only against white males.

The article in the Nevada Law Journal is written by a Law Professor, who is laying down a legal argument for genocide against whites. How does he propose to do this? Changing the law. His proposed law would read:

A person is justified in using non-deadly physical force to ward off abusive conduct that the person reasonably perceives as creating a substantial risk of causing serious psychological injury.

“Abusive conduct” is defined as: conduct that a reasonable person would find hostile or offensive without superseding social, business or cultural value.

“Serious psychological injury” is defined as long-term injuries such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress.

In determining whether offensive conduct rises to the level of abuse, courts should weigh the severity, nature, and frequency of the conduct . A single act normally will not constitute abusive conduct, but an especially severe and egregious act may meet this standard. Abusive conduct may include, but is not limited to: repeated infliction of verbal abuse such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating.

The part that makes this truly worrisome, and specifically targets white males is this:

The question of whether the target’s response was reasonable should take into account power imbalances between the aggressor and the target, and whether the aggressor was previously aware of the target’s “emotional vulnerability and needlessly attempted to exploit that vulnerability.

Power imbalance is how the left justifies saying that blacks can’t be racist, because they have no power.

The paper then goes on to claim that “the Second Amendment was framed to empower citizens to counteract power imbalances.”

It goes on:

Clearly, the Second Amendment is concerned with tyranny and oppression and the founder’s notions of tyranny and oppression far exceeded the threat of physical violence. Severe emotional and psychological abuse, such as the use of the word nigger in certain contexts and sustained psychological violence in domestic situations, clearly constitute oppression. When the powerful commit it against the less powerful, it signifies a brand of tyranny: SPT.

Get it? You are white, therefore a racist. Since you are a racist, anything that you do or say, including simply being a white male, justifies the use of force to rectify that situation.

The stage is being set for a genocidal war between straight white males and the rest of the nation. White males are being “othered” and targeted for elimination. I seriously don’t want to sound like this is a racist website, but it seems like more and more, people like me are being targeted with calls to violence.

Taxes Are Racist

It’s tax season, and now we have an article claiming that taxes are racist: “Black married couples face heavier tax penalties than white couples,” and it’s pure BS. This is the logic:

When a Black or white couple have the same income, deductions and family structure, they will have the same tax liability, Gale said. But given the average economic differences between white and Black couples, according to the report, Black married couples are still more likely to face penalties and smaller bonuses.

Before tearing into the faulty logic here, I want to point out that “white” is not capitalized once in the article, while “Black” is capitalized every time. A bit of subtle “othering” that happens in journalism today.

So the taxes aren’t racist, it’s just that black married couples have more children than their white counterparts and taxpayers with children generally tend to face larger penalties under our current tax code. So it would be more accurate to say that the tax code discriminates against those with children.

I call bullshit on that, too. If a couple has a child, they get additional personal exemptions, they also get:

  • child tax credit
  • dependent care credit
  • earned income credit
  • adoption credit
  • education credit

Let’s look at two married couples: they have the same income, same jobs, same financial situation. Each couple earns a combined $68,000 a year. Their employers withheld $5,000 from their paychecks for Federal taxes. The only difference is that couple one has no children, and couple two has two children.

Couple one is in the 12 percent tax bracket, with an effective tax rate of 11.03%. They will pay $4,644 in Federal income taxes this year, so they will get a $356 refund.

Couple two has two children. They are both latchkey children, so there are no childcare expenses to deduct. They are also in the 12 % bracket, and had the same effective tax rate as couple two. However, they get more credits, so only wind up paying a net $644 in Federal income tax, and will wind up with a refund of $4,356.

So if in fact black couples have more children that whites, blacks pay LESS in taxes.