Considering Germany is pulling 101 year old Nazis into court, I don't think age is/should be a barrier. It's simply whether people are willing to confront the very feminine history of lynch mobs and how they were mostly co-ordinated by women off accusations made by other women.
It's not that hard to believe that a woman lied about this sort of thing. I mean...they still do it now. 67 fucking years later.
It's a bit weird that it's not on tape, but not really surprising. She probably confessed before it could be recorded so she could finally admit it (a form of duper's delight) now that she's pretty much immune from consequences.
She wasn't even the one who reported it and spread the story. She feared her husband finding out because she thought he would do something stupid (like lynching a black kid).
The idea that she recanted her story was based on the book of Tim Tyson, who claimed (without providing any evidence) that the claim was recanted. Obviously, you should know never to trust an SJW.
No, justice failed when she wasn't in jail by 1960.
But setting the example still matters. Proving how hateful women were still matters.
I'd love for all the race grifters to learn the truth about their "allies" when it comes to lynching. It was nearly always co-ordinated by women, off something a woman stated, using the strength of men to enforce it.
"Women are wonderful" effect. None of them questioned it.
Ironically, women's vile ranting about not being in control of their actions that they use when they murder their partners applies here. The women are the most guilty because they knew it was bullshit. The men took the women's word as fact and hunted down the person they believed was a rapist.
Depends if they present the facts of the case, that the accusation was a lie, that the women spreading it to create the lynch mob knew this and that this woman acted on information she knew was false, using men who didn't know it was false to enforce her will.
The women are the most guilty because they knew it was bullshit. The men took the women's word as fact and hunted down the person they believed was a rapist.
No, they thought he wolf-whistled at her. Are you seriously trying to justify this lynching, if only to try to exculpate the men involved?
using men who didn't know it was false to enforce her will.
Just out of curiosity: why was it 'her will' that this boy should die? Let me guess, you believe that just like Kim Potter, she 'took the opportunity' to kill a guy?
I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that those who spread the false information that leads to a person being killed are arguably more guilty. Are you really trying to tell me that white knighting for a woman who claims to be a sexual assault victim isn't supported by society, especially in tradcon 50s culture?
During the murder trial, Bryant testified that Till grabbed her hand while she was stocking candy and said, "How about a date, baby?" She said that after she freed herself from his grasp, the young man followed her to the cash register, grabbed her waist and said, "What's the matter baby, can't you take it?" Bryant said she freed herself, and Till said, "You needn't be afraid of me, baby",used "one 'unprintable' word"and said "I've been with white women before."
She accused him of way more than whistling. Although it wasn't rape. It was only sexual assault she accused him of. I always thought it was rape.
Why was it her will? Ask her. How the fuck would I know why? All I know is that she's proven to have lied, which means she was 100% knowledgeable of what the consequences would be for him, and the piece of shit said nothing.
67 years later and they're doing the same shit still, but thankfully lynching has been condemned to the history books.
Considering Germany is pulling 101 year old Nazis into court, I don't think age is/should be a barrier. It's simply whether people are willing to confront the very feminine history of lynch mobs and how they were mostly co-ordinated by women off accusations made by other women.
It's not that hard to believe that a woman lied about this sort of thing. I mean...they still do it now. 67 fucking years later.
It's a bit weird that it's not on tape, but not really surprising. She probably confessed before it could be recorded so she could finally admit it (a form of duper's delight) now that she's pretty much immune from consequences.
It's also not hard to believe that blacks will happily rally around the guilty. They still do it now. Nigh incessantly in fact.
She wasn't even the one who reported it and spread the story. She feared her husband finding out because she thought he would do something stupid (like lynching a black kid).
I didn’t even know she was still alive
Emmett Till was never accused of rape (even though he probably did rape this woman)
You can read the story here: https://www.mississippicir.org/perspective/carolyn-bryant-lied-about-emmett-till-did-author-tim-tyson-lie-too
The idea that she recanted her story was based on the book of Tim Tyson, who claimed (without providing any evidence) that the claim was recanted. Obviously, you should know never to trust an SJW.
Aren't you the guy who said people should have to be married to be allowed to work and earn a living?
She was named a long time ago, dummy.
Is it justice to try to punish a woman 70 years after the fact?
Justice? No. Delayed, is denied.
Just? Yes.
No, justice failed when she wasn't in jail by 1960.
But setting the example still matters. Proving how hateful women were still matters.
I'd love for all the race grifters to learn the truth about their "allies" when it comes to lynching. It was nearly always co-ordinated by women, off something a woman stated, using the strength of men to enforce it.
"Women are wonderful" effect. None of them questioned it.
So wait, the murderers were not punished, but that didn't bother you. How typical.
Who do you think will read this and conclude that "women are hateful"?
Ironically, women's vile ranting about not being in control of their actions that they use when they murder their partners applies here. The women are the most guilty because they knew it was bullshit. The men took the women's word as fact and hunted down the person they believed was a rapist.
Depends if they present the facts of the case, that the accusation was a lie, that the women spreading it to create the lynch mob knew this and that this woman acted on information she knew was false, using men who didn't know it was false to enforce her will.
No, they thought he wolf-whistled at her. Are you seriously trying to justify this lynching, if only to try to exculpate the men involved?
Just out of curiosity: why was it 'her will' that this boy should die? Let me guess, you believe that just like Kim Potter, she 'took the opportunity' to kill a guy?
I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that those who spread the false information that leads to a person being killed are arguably more guilty. Are you really trying to tell me that white knighting for a woman who claims to be a sexual assault victim isn't supported by society, especially in tradcon 50s culture?
She accused him of way more than whistling. Although it wasn't rape. It was only sexual assault she accused him of. I always thought it was rape.
Why was it her will? Ask her. How the fuck would I know why? All I know is that she's proven to have lied, which means she was 100% knowledgeable of what the consequences would be for him, and the piece of shit said nothing.
67 years later and they're doing the same shit still, but thankfully lynching has been condemned to the history books.
Could you point to where in his comments he says that it did not bother him?
Somehow I doubt women's little race grifters will jump on this one.