Eager liberal journos claim white female tried to steal a black guy's purse during Baltimore riots
Clearly a struggle is occurring here: Both the guy and two of the three girls are leaning backward. Guy's carrying a bottle of booze (with quick-pour spout still attached--didn't know they sold 'em that way. Maybe it's a Baltimore thing...). He's gripping the strap of a purse, and it certainly looks like he's trying to take it away from the white redhead on the far side, whose arm happens to be through the strap.
Looks pretty straightforward, eh?
But then comes a tweet from a so-called reporter for the Baltimore City Paper--one "Caitlin Goldblatt"--who claims she stopped the woman from stealing the purse from the black guy.
Goldblatt says "The drunk redhead was trying to grab that guy's bag..."
What the f...? That seems...most unlikely. But apparently your pervasive racism and white privilege made you misinterpret that first pic and blame that innocent black guy for trying to steal the white gal's purse, when "Caitlin Goldblatt" has told you exactly the opposite--that the redhead was actually trying to steal his bag!
If Goldblatt's story seems...unlikely, here's what appears to be confirmation of Goldblatt's story from one "Brandon Soderberg:"
Soderberg is the guy dragging the redhead away. If the pic isn't clear here's what Soderberg wrote:
"There are pictures of me and my friends trying to stop a woman from provoking protestors. [sic] It is being used to suggest we were with her and protecting her. I was covering and part of the protest, not at a bar getting shitfaced on such a momentous day. She was provoking protestors. [sic] She tried to steal one guy's bag (you will see photos that suggest he was taking her bag. She had no bag.)....Another white barhopper threw a stool at me. Drunk white people looking for a fight were part of the violence narrative last night."That seems to clinch the matter: Soderberg clearly says "she tried to steal one guy's bag." He adds "you will see photos that suggest he was taking her bag. She had no bag."
Oh, and to make it seem more believable he also implies she was drunk ("shitfaced") and says she was "provoking protestors" [sic].
Now if you're a liberal or Democrat that's the end of it. Case closed. Oh, and if you thought the black guy was trying to steal her purse you're a racist.
But if you have more than a room-temperature IQ a whole bunch of alarms should be telling you both Goldblatt's and Soderberg's stories are pure fiction. For one thing, how many black males carry a purse before 9pm? Second, how likely is it that an unarmed white gal wades into a crowd of rioting blacks and steals anything from a black guy? And wearing high heels in case she needed a fast getaway, I guess.
Fortunately a lot of folks were taking pics, so let's see if we can learn more. Start here: Here's the same redhead standing in front of the same bar shown in Soderberg's pic above. Notice there's a metal chair behind her, draped over some sort of stone object. And what's that over her left shoulder?
Is that a black purse?
Wait, that can't be right. Didn't Soderberg write unequivocally that "She had no bag."?
Why yes, yes he did. (See his quote above.) Not "I don't remember her having a bag," or "Things were so crazy that I didn't have time to see if she had a bag." No, not a single qualifier.
And now for the redhead's version:
As for the purse-snatching thing: It was my purse and the guy turned around, called me a bitch and tried to yank it from me. He also had a mostly empty bottle of vodka in his other hand. Let’s do the math: violent protester with a HALF EMPTY BOTTLE OF STOLEN VODKA (because you can see the pourer is still on it) vs. some chick in heels and a skirt. Also, here is another photo of me with my purse. You can’t see it in the other photo as it was on my left side.
UPDATES: You want my story and to know its me? Look at this: http://imgur.com/gallery/pvqsBit/new
and this: proof the man in white snatched it: http://www.gfycat.com/JadedWigglyFly
HERE IS THE MAN WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE [Soderberg] BEING ANGRY AT ME: http://www.gfycat.com/ThatSomeAustralianshelduckHmmm....This is...odd: We have two people--Goldblatt and Soderberg--saying the white gal was trying to steal the black guy's bag. Soderberg even adds that the white gal didn't have a bag. But then there's the pic of the same gal seemingly just seconds before Soderberg dragged her away, with a black bag on her shoulder. Very odd indeed.
Well here's an interesting tidbit: turns out Soderberg works for the same paper as Goldblatt. Ain't that a coincidence.
So here's what Soderberg wrote for City Paper at 4:22 a.m. EDT, April 28, 2015:
The pleading woman followed the protesters up to the bar Frank & Nic’s.... I stopped her from walking toward a protester who was throwing a chair at a window, and that’s when the picture was taken. City Paper contributors Caitlin Goldblatt and Gianna DeCarlo were also talking to the woman at this point and a protester with a big bag and a bottle of vodka that he clearly stole from one of the bars (it has a pourer on it) approached her. That’s where we got the image of a protester, who was most certainly looting, who looks like he’s stealing a purse, but I was there and I’m really not sure if that’s what is happening.Wow, that's strange--because as you saw above, later he wrote
"She tried to steal one guy's bag (you will see photos that suggest he was taking her bag. She had no bag.)"
Hmmm. Why did Soderberg tell two diametrically different stories? And how could he relate the second version ("she was trying to steal his bag; she had no bag") so unequivocally, as if it were absolute fact?
Folks, this is how they do it. Soderberg and Goldblatt both know what The Narrative is supposed to be. Soderberg's first version (posted at 4:22 a.m.) didn't support The Narrative. But rather than find the redheaded gal and ask for her version--like, "Was that your purse the guy was hanging onto?" or view some of the other pics, they just...re-wrote the event so it supported the Narrative.
It's the liberal way.
Oh, and if you still stupidly believe The Narrative and can't figure out who's telling the truth, check this video. If it's too small you can get it by clicking the link to "wigglyfly" above):
Okay then, hopefully you've learned that even small-paper reporters will shamelessly lie to support the Narrative. If they'll lie about even small things, they'll lie about everything.
You can't trust a word they print. Same for their big-name comrades at the majors.
In fact, I suspect showing any integrity as a minor-league journo automatically disqualifies you from being hired by the major mainstream media. Which would explain a LOT.