White House official accused of assaulting Native American over Redskin shirt

[troung]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...rticle/2599660

White House Indian education official accused of assaulting Native American over Redskins




By Rudy Takala (@RudyTakala) • 8/18/16 1:37 PM




Oklahoma Native American Says He Was Attacked Over Redskins Shirt









The official in charge of a White House initiative on American Indian education allegedly pummeled a Native American student who was visiting Washington, D.C., for displaying his support for the Washington Redskins.

The incident allegedly occurred when Barrett Dahl, an autistic college student from Oklahoma, showed up at a powwow in Washington wearing a Redskins football jersey, which he told Oklahoma's News 9 he viewed as source of cultural pride. Within seconds of sitting down, Dahl said, he was approached by William Mendoza, the executive director of the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education.

"He comes to me and calls me the name weetard not retard, weetard. 'You're a weetard for not understanding Redskins is offensive,'" said Dahl, who is a member of both the Choctaw and Sac and Fox Nations. He said Mendoza continued, "Where are you from? You're so stupid and uneducated. You don't understand Redskins is offensive? And I tell him I'm from Oklahoma as I'm very proud to be and that's when he spits on me."

An attorney for Mendoza, Mark Zaid, said Mendoza was traveling and unavailable for comment. However, he said that according to notes Mendoza had provided, Mendoza had approached Dahl to ask about the shirt. He said Dahl replied, "I don't have to [expletive] explain [expletive] to you. If you want to step outside and take this outside, I'd be happy to explain it to you."

[Double Edge]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...rcation-227184

The unlikely setting for the fight was an annual “Pow Wow” to encourage Native Americans and Hispanics to pursue careers in science, held at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center.

Mendoza said he and his wife had decided to make the Oct. 30 event a family outing with three of his kids. There they encountered a man in a Redskins jersey. Mendoza said his 9-year-old son asked him to explain “Injun Pimp,” emblazoned on the back of the jersey, and so he decided to initiate a dialogue with the stranger, whom he initially assumed was Caucasian.

“Mr. Dahl's accusations are not only completely fictional, but his story of what allegedly occurred seemingly gets worse as he feels emboldened to spread his lies,” said the attorney, Mark Zaid. “This unfortunate incident was, as every known eyewitness has stated, unilaterally sparked by Mr. Dahl's hostile and aggressive behavior arising from his wearing of a racist and insensitive jersey specifically with ‘Injun Pimp’ on the back in front of children at a Native American conference."

Dahl recalls the event very differently. He says Mendoza called him an “uneducated weetard” and spat in his face — claims Mendoza denies.

Dahl said he went to find security, and Mendoza followed him out of the ballroom and “attacks me at the escalator,” Dahl said. “I do everything I can to ward him off.”

Dahl also said he’s “90 percent sure” the Redskins jersey said, “Injun Player,” and not “Injun Pimp,” but the jersey is “torn to shreds” so he can’t check.

looks like a he said she said thing.

Mendoza, meanwhile, said the fallout has affected his whole family.

“My children … left a seemingly family event in a moment of joy only to see their father beaten, and that was traumatic to them, and traumatic for my wife,” he said.

Dahl insists the entire incident could have been avoided if Mendoza had not approached him.

“It would not have killed him to just sit on the other side of the room and ignore someone wearing a football jersey,” Dahl said. “It’s not illegal to wear.”

Everybody can be famous for 15 minutes.

[YellowFever]

Meh, this is what happens when some politically correct hack gets in someone's face because he felt offended by a shirt.

It doesn't even matter who threw the first punch....who the hell are you to even question what anybody wears?

[YellowFever]

Liberal mindset:

"You don't know what's offensive, let us tell you what you should consider offensive"


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f9a_story.html

[tbm3fan]

Sounds like Ryan Lochte's brother. I over exaggerated. That's it...

[Double Edge]

Meh, this is what happens when some politically correct hack gets in someone's face because he felt offended by a shirt.

Teasle: [after dropping off Rambo outside the city limits] If you want some friendly advice, get a haircut and take a bath. You wouldn't get hassled so much.

Teasle: [noting dirty American flag patch on Rambo's ragged military jacket] You know, wearing that flag on that jacket, looking the way you do, you're asking for trouble around here, friend.

It doesn't even matter who threw the first punch....

yeah it does

[YellowFever]

Teasle: [after dropping off Rambo outside the city limits] If you want some friendly advice, get a haircut and take a bath. You wouldn't get hassled so much.

Teasle: [noting dirty American flag patch on Rambo's ragged military jacket] You know, wearing that flag on that jacket, looking the way you do, you're asking for trouble around here, friend.

1) And like the movie, Mendoza was an idiot.

2) I have no idea what your point is by quoting a movie.

yeah it does

As you so eloquently put it, it was a he said she said thing.

So by all means, we can pick this back up once the legal dust settles.

What's not in debate is a person approached another person wearing a football jersey that no one but a few politically correct morons find offensive to cause the confrontation.

Call me old fashioned but if a stranger gets in my face about the choice of clothing I wear, especially if I wear it with pride, it tends to piss me off.

[Double Edge]

1) And like the movie, Mendoza was an idiot.

2) I have no idea what your point is by quoting a movie.

1) can say the same about Dahl too
2) physical appearances can lead to altercations regardless of political affiliation. Are the quotes that far off from reality.

What's not in debate is a person approached another person wearing a football jersey that no one but a few politically correct morons find offensive to cause the confrontation.

Anyone can take offense to how you choose to express yourself. And like you are free to express yourself so are they to give you a piece of their mind. So long as that's as far as it goes.

Now we have parity. In the US everybody is free to shoot their mouths off.

Call me old fashioned but if a stranger gets in my face about the choice of clothing I wear, especially if I wear it with pride, it tends to piss me off.

Get pissed off all you want so long as that's all you do is my point.

You can't threaten them because they verbally affronted you and neither can they eject you from the premises (if they aren't management) or remove what you have on. They can't prevent you from expressing yourself. They may protest.

But things developed further in this case and that is why who made the first physical move matters.

As you so eloquently put it, it was a he said she said thing.

So by all means, we can pick this back up once the legal dust settles.

Am seeing a guy with 3 kids at a family outing and thinking the most this guy is going to do is tell you not to do it and make you feel dumb for doing it. The other guy has more liberty to take things further. Prima facie.

[TopHatter]

Liberal mindset:

"You don't know what's offensive, let us tell you what you should consider offensive"

Big time.

"And if you don't 'get' it, then I'll have beat it into you"

"Or show you what a big tough -but caring- person I am"

Remember this liberal asshole?

[YellowFever]

1) can say the same about Dahl too

Dahl didn't approach Mendoza questioning his attire.

2) physical appearances can lead to altercations regardless of political affiliation. Are the quotes that far off from can lead to altercations regardless of political affiliation. Are the quotes that far off from reality.

It can but it shouldn't. So don't excuse someone for causing a confrontation because he didn't like someone's appearance.

Yeah, the quote is far from reality. In the past, sheriffs could question someone's appearance but not anymore. Teasle would be fired today and sued if Rambo brought it up to the press.

Can't believe we're actually talking about the Rambo movie in a serious subject like this.

Oh well...

Anyone can take offense to how you choose to express yourself. And like you are free to express yourself so are they to give you a piece of their mind. So long as that's as far as it goes.

Technically true.

But I'm taiking about common sense.

I have the perfect right to walk up to an Sikh and give him a piece of my my mind
about his turban. I could give an Arab guy hell for wearing a dishdasha in public or the same with a Jew over a yamulke or a Christian with a cross because I don't like the way they dress.

Do I?

Of course not

It's called common sense and etiquette.

Do you have the right to keep talking about Ukraine/Russian policies in the Minskaya thread? Of course you do. We ask that you don't because of common sense and etiquette.

Now we have parity. In the US everybody is free to shoot their mouths off.

Yes we do. So does a lot of other places. What's your point?

Get pissed off all you want so long as that's all you do is my point.

You can't threaten them because they verbally affronted you and neither can they eject you from the premises (if they aren't management) or remove what you have on. They can't prevent you from expressing yourself. They may protest.

Again, common sense.

DON'T FUCKING AFFRONT PEOPLE IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT-ESPECIALLY IF WHAT THEY DID TO OFFEND YOU IS NOT ILLEGAL AND A LARGE MAJORITY DOES NOT FIND OFFENSIVE-IN RETURN.

I don't walk around doing shit just because it's legal. Common sense stops me from doing it, not the law.

But things developed further in this case and that is why who made the first physical move matters.

Instigation.

Things wouldn't have "developed further" if a certain someone didn't walk up to another certain someone to question his choice of clothing.

Am seeing a guy with 3 kid...

Irrelevent.

What, guys with kids never commit violence?

...at a family outing and thinking the most this guy is going to do is tell you not to do it and make you feel dumb for doing it. The other guy has more liberty to take things further. Prima facie.

Thinking he will keep it verbal and not commit violence is your prejudiced thinking and not reality.

As I said before, we don't know who cause the physical confrontation to begin and will just have to leave it to the legal system.

My point is one guy walked up to another and caused a confrontation because his politically correct beliefs found something offensive.

res ipsa loquitur

[GVChamp]

Sounds more like the kid was looking to start a fight, tbh.

If you want to have a grassroots organized society, you need to have discussions like this between actual citizens, without turning to fisti-cuffs. Immediately resorting to obscenities at a family event strikes me as quite barbaric.

[Double Edge]

Dahl didn't approach Mendoza questioning his attire.

No, but wearing what he did was the trigger.

It can but it shouldn't. So don't excuse someone for causing a confrontation because he didn't like someone's appearance.

Yeah, the quote is far from reality. In the past, sheriffs could question someone's appearance but not anymore. Teasle would be fired today and sued if Rambo brought it up to the press.

Can't believe we're actually talking about the Rambo movie in a serious subject like this.

Oh well...

i should have said sentiment. Looking a certain way isn't welcome in some places.

Why the movie because everybody seen it. A newphew told me he once had a flat in a certain area of Texas, cops showed up and told him to be on his way once he was done. Not some inner city thing. Happens.

Technically true.

But I'm taiking about common sense.

I have the perfect right to walk up to an Sikh and give him a piece of my my mind
about his turban. I could give an Arab guy hell for wearing a dishdasha in public or the same with a Jew over a yamulke or a Christian with a cross because I don't like the way they dress.

Do I?

Of course not

It's called common sense and etiquette.

it happens just because people can. Where is the common sense. it isn't common is what i've found.

Yes we do. So does a lot of other places. What's your point?

Exactly, what you said below about not affronting people. Happens all the time. does not matter what the political orientation. Starts off as a friendly warning. And then goes wherever. The goal is basically to get you to trip up and then use the law to stop you.

Again, common sense.

DON'T FUCKING AFFRONT PEOPLE IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT-ESPECIALLY IF WHAT THEY DID TO OFFEND YOU IS NOT ILLEGAL AND A LARGE MAJORITY DOES NOT FIND OFFENSIVE-IN RETURN.

I don't walk around doing shit just because it's legal. Common sense stops me from doing it, not the law.

Yeah, i'm recalling a scene from another movie now. Something about wearing this board about not liking certain people and walking around in their neighbourhood.

This guy worked in the white house. There is a certain amount of in built arrogance and confidence that comes from a position like that that. This guy isn't afraid of affronting anyone for whatever purpose.

Instigation.

Things wouldn't have "developed further" if a certain someone didn't walk up to another certain someone to question his choice of clothing.

So the idea is to force a fault. Get the other guy to slip up. best way to deal with these people is to tell them to get lost and then ignore them. Once they get a rise out of you its game over. That is what Dahl should have done. Not allow himself to be provoked. The moment the other guy started singing he should have discontinued the conversation.

Irrelevent.

What, guys with kids never commit violence?

ok, just going on probability. The exceptions don't count.

Thinking he will keep it verbal and not commit violence is your prejudiced thinking and not reality.

As I said before, we don't know who cause the physical confrontation to begin and will just have to leave it to the legal system.

My point is one guy walked up to another and caused a confrontation because his politically correct beliefs found something offensive.

res ipsa loquitur

If somebody follows the case my prediction is one guys walks and the other gets the slammer. Maybe less if he can find a good lawyer. I think the white house guy will have an edge in that dept.