Lawyer for gun-toting St. Louis couple describes his clients as "melanin-deficient human beings"

Well, now it’s time to wave goodbye to Chad and all his kin
They’ll thank you all for marchin’ out the same way you got in
And if you find yourself again in this locality
You’ll face a heapin’ helpin’ of their pale hostility.
(Barefoot, that is. Keep off the grass! Don’t touch our stuff now, hear?)


How about “because they recognize a kindred spirit?”

How about: the problem is the howling void in their souls where conscience and compassion normally reside.


In State of Missouri v. James Strughold, Watkins successfully defended a white elementary school principal accused of felonious sexual misconduct involving ten African American third-grade students.

And for what possible reason would he include the races here?? /rhetorical


Continuing the discussion from Lawyer for gun-toting St. Louis couple describes his clients as "melanin-deficient human beings":

“Watkins ceaselessly fought for recovery for the surviving child of Anthony Lamar Smith, an unarmed young man of color shot point blank by a St. Louis City police officer. A seven figure judgment was procured, requiring the unprecedented re-opening of discovery in a federal civil rights case to show the State’s Attorney General Office and St. Louis City Counselor’s failed to disclose crucial DNA evidence supporting the fact the deceased was unarmed at the time of the shooting.”

…wait, that excerpt doesn’t fit the narrative. Unless you wanted to make a point about unprincipled ambulance chasers valuing money over racism.

That self-serving excerpt from this lawyer’s own (largely unflattering and borderline sociopathic) bio page doesn’t mean he is principled or anti-racist. It just means he saw an opportunity for a big payday. You think he didn’t get a healthy slice of that seven-figure judgment?


And yet - he’d have shot him for walking down the street?


That’s an excellent point. I was being facetious when I suggested making the point, but now that it’s been made, I’m going to have to agree with you on that.

Members-only cutoff, but the one box text is suggestive



“Accidentally”? Try “with malice”

1 Like

How they see themselves, in Rob-vision:


I want to commission this painting!


What took him so long?

I really expected this would be a part of his’ lawyers first public statement.


the way this odd little verb is used to dehumanize people could use more attention

1 Like

ya I would think they had the guns already and also that none of that happened because they would have shot anyone running towards them and tried the ‘I shot cause the big black person made me shit my pants’ defense. there would be a body even if only for the fact they keep their fingers on the trigger even when at rest.

1 Like

“Your honer, my clients claim to be the other 2/5’s from Three-Fifths Compromise …”


I can see it being that the vile lawyer saw them in meme form and then approached them claiming to be able to tame this viral media shit storm.

I mean, its still like minded people finding each other but my way has more ambulance chasing-esque behavior involved.

1 Like

I don’t see it - care to elaborate?

Rereading it though, I was struck by this:

(but) two individuals … proceeded to charge at

Aiming their guns at all BLM protesters because of two “bad apples”?

the verb “charge” as in “move toward” is usually used to describe animals, like bulls and rhinoceroses

like how cops describe people as “males” and “females” when anybody else would say men and women