Black Stabber Acquitted After Stabbing White Man Who Used Racial Slur Against Him

👉 Click here to support us: www.buymeacoffee.com/brushfiremind
👉 Join us on Rumble: https://rumble.com/register/BrushfireMind/

A Portland jury has acquitted a man who admitted to stabbing another man during a street confrontation — and the media’s framing tells you everything you need to know about how we got there.

Coverage leaned heavily on the claim that the wounded victim later used a racial slur. What most headlines quietly blurred is the key legal question:
there is no verified evidence that any slur was used before the stabbing occurred.

In today’s show, we break down how vague phrases like “during the encounter” collapse timelines, erase causality, and subtly invite the public to accept a dangerous idea — that offensive speech can retroactively justify violent force.

We’ll dig into:

Why self-defense law does not treat words as an imminent threat

How post-incident behavior gets laundered into moral justification

And how uneven narrative standards undermine equal justice

This isn’t about defending slurs.
It’s about defending the rule of law.

Because once words become violence, violence becomes negotiable — and no one is safe when feelings replace standards.