Um we do...they showed actual clips of the white guy asking the black guy "how much to shine my shoes" and the black guy got mad and etc... I'm not saying that it justifies the black guys actions but it better explains why he was so angry. He was drunk and the white guy insulted him.... Is it right, no of course not but is it understandable, sure. I've gotten into fights for much less in my younger days. I've seen guns drawn over two quarters left on a pool table... I really don't know where some of you live that violence is such a foreign concept but it has been a large part of my life. As Tommy so rightly pointed out, on another day, on another bus that altercation would have resulted in gun shots or stabbings at the very least. I don't know, maybe some of you live in places where if there is a disagreement, the two parties, walk outside and square off using Marquis of Queensbury rules, fight it out, shake hands afterward and return to the bar... I've never seen it...:idk:

I meant from before that. What made the girls decide to start recording?

Part of the prefight "shine my shoes" conversation concerned what the black dude had said when he walked past the white dude earlier. That back and forth was not recorded, or at least it hasn't been shown.

That's what I was getting at, in my passive/aggressive way. There had been comments made that the "shine my shoes" statement was made in response to something else, which doesn't appear in the recordings that have been shown.

Hmmm...so of course we should assume that it's was started by the black guy even though Tom has been less than consistent in his telling of the story. I do have a feeling that Tom and his buddy were talking and the black guy walked by and heard a comment about getting a shine and in his drunken stupor thought that they were referring to him... I agree that it is possible that he misheard them and made some snotty comment back starting the argument. In my experience, there are none more ignorant than a drunken fool.

I guess that I just was somewhat disappointed that almost everyone here immediately jumped to the conclusion that the black man was at fault, was a young thug, and thus "got what he deserved"... :idk:

Well technically speaking the Black man WAS at fault, because he committed the first assault. I'd like to know where it all started.

:lol:

To again agree with Papa, the black guy assaulted the white guy first. The white guy certainly contributed to it by continuing to goad the black guy, but that is irrelevant from a legal standpoint and the black guy was at fault. I think that particular issue is settled and it has nothing to do with race.

What happened before the recording began is another issue. I don't know what happened. Unless you were there or have seen another recording of which I am unaware you don't know what happened either. I would be curious to see how the whole incident began. You seem to think I have made assumptions about how it began. I have not.

I think that his main assumption about how it all began, is that it began at the precise moment that the girls started recording and that shoe shining comment was made. This is obviously an erroneous one.

That is probably it... I am making the assumption the a shoe shining comment was the start of this situation. Whether it was made towards the black Guy or not is the only real question. I also include the entire disturbance in my assessment of "blame " and not necessarily when the first contact was made. Unlike you all I admit that I can and have been pushed into violence in the past.