Chris Brown aint fooling me!

[newmoanyuh]

Not very believable and I'm still on the fence about this but

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]EXCLUSIVE: Witness: Chris Brown Used Eye Drops to Fake Cry at BET Awards[/size][/font]

Crocodile tears?

Chris Brown caused a lot of chatter at the BET Awards Sunday when he broke down in tears during a Michael Jackson tribute.

An insider tells UsMagazine.com the crying was fake.

Before he took the stage to belt out "Man in the Mirror," a backstage source tells Us one of Brown's bodyguards gave the singer, 21, tear-inducing eye drops.

Brown's rep denies it, telling Us that Brown simply "was moved by the opportunity to pay tribute to his idol." But the witness says Brown definitely used drops.

Says the source, "He rubbed it in and he started crying."

 

[newmoanyuh]

Not very believable and I'm still on the fence about this but

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]EXCLUSIVE: Witness: Chris Brown Used Eye Drops to Fake Cry at BET Awards[/size][/font]

Crocodile tears?

Chris Brown caused a lot of chatter at the BET Awards Sunday when he broke down in tears during a Michael Jackson tribute.

An insider tells UsMagazine.com the crying was fake.

Before he took the stage to belt out "Man in the Mirror," a backstage source tells Us one of Brown's bodyguards gave the singer, 21, tear-inducing eye drops.

Brown's rep denies it, telling Us that Brown simply "was moved by the opportunity to pay tribute to his idol." But the witness says Brown definitely used drops.

Says the source, "He rubbed it in and he started crying."

 

[moneymike88]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

According to the affidavit she gave to the LAPD.

Here is the official document:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0305093brown1.html

Also, remember that Chris Brown plead guilty, so he basically agrees with this report.

No, she did not hit him first. He land his hand on her first. My point was that even if she did, he is saying he does not fault him for retaliating even though he took it too far. So, let's say she slapped him on the face, so then what kind of force would it be justifiable or "understandable" for him to retaliate?
  

Oh ok, I was just wondering where you got that from. That is all.

In regards to you question, I think if anyone hits anyone else they are liable to get knocked the hell out. That is just my personal beliefs. I think it is justified for CB to smack the hell out of Rhianna if she hit him first. Yes. Once that boundary is crossed, ethics/morals are all out of the window. She wasn't a "lady" when she hit him so she can't be a "lady" when she is about to get it. Every action will produce an equal or greater reaction. Little girls need to be taught that. And if it was my daughter, and she told me some boy hit her, I will FIRST ask her if she hit him and go from there.

And also, just because someone pleads guilty to a crime doesn't mean they agree with a police report. You can watch Law & Order to know that.

But that is beside the point.

I doubt that if you had a daughter who slapped her boyfriend/spouse on the face during an argument and then he punches her out and gives her a black eye that you will be ok with him retaliating that way. So, that is where it is hard to argue where to cross the line. If she slapped him, then he can hold her and restrain her. But, you say it is understandable if he gives her a black eye for her slapping him in the face? Unless he is being brutally attacked and he has to strike back due to self-defense, that is understandable. That is because when it comes to men, since they are stronger, they are bound to use excessive and greater force which will be detrimental. There is a difference when it comes to retaliation vs. self-defense.

Women should not hit men first either.

Well, yea, you are right, it does not mean he agrees with the report. But, still, he did plead guilty.

This is pretty funny...Men don't slap on reflex though, they punch

 

[moneymike88]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

According to the affidavit she gave to the LAPD.

Here is the official document:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0305093brown1.html

Also, remember that Chris Brown plead guilty, so he basically agrees with this report.

No, she did not hit him first. He land his hand on her first. My point was that even if she did, he is saying he does not fault him for retaliating even though he took it too far. So, let's say she slapped him on the face, so then what kind of force would it be justifiable or "understandable" for him to retaliate?
  

Oh ok, I was just wondering where you got that from. That is all.

In regards to you question, I think if anyone hits anyone else they are liable to get knocked the hell out. That is just my personal beliefs. I think it is justified for CB to smack the hell out of Rhianna if she hit him first. Yes. Once that boundary is crossed, ethics/morals are all out of the window. She wasn't a "lady" when she hit him so she can't be a "lady" when she is about to get it. Every action will produce an equal or greater reaction. Little girls need to be taught that. And if it was my daughter, and she told me some boy hit her, I will FIRST ask her if she hit him and go from there.

And also, just because someone pleads guilty to a crime doesn't mean they agree with a police report. You can watch Law & Order to know that.

But that is beside the point.

I doubt that if you had a daughter who slapped her boyfriend/spouse on the face during an argument and then he punches her out and gives her a black eye that you will be ok with him retaliating that way. So, that is where it is hard to argue where to cross the line. If she slapped him, then he can hold her and restrain her. But, you say it is understandable if he gives her a black eye for her slapping him in the face? Unless he is being brutally attacked and he has to strike back due to self-defense, that is understandable. That is because when it comes to men, since they are stronger, they are bound to use excessive and greater force which will be detrimental. There is a difference when it comes to retaliation vs. self-defense.

Women should not hit men first either.

Well, yea, you are right, it does not mean he agrees with the report. But, still, he did plead guilty.

This is pretty funny...Men don't slap on reflex though, they punch

 

[casperjr]

what ever you said it worked got people talking about him now more then ever

 

[casperjr]

what ever you said it worked got people talking about him now more then ever

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by newmoanyuh

Not very believable and I'm still on the fence about this but

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]EXCLUSIVE: Witness: Chris Brown Used Eye Drops to Fake Cry at BET Awards[/size][/font]

Crocodile tears?

Chris Brown caused a lot of chatter at the BET Awards Sunday when he broke down in tears during a Michael Jackson tribute.

An insider tells UsMagazine.com the crying was fake.

Before he took the stage to belt out "Man in the Mirror," a backstage source tells Us one of Brown's bodyguards gave the singer, 21, tear-inducing eye drops.

Brown's rep denies it, telling Us that Brown simply "was moved by the opportunity to pay tribute to his idol." But the witness says Brown definitely used drops.

Says the source, "He rubbed it in and he started crying."

An insider tells Us magazine the crying was fake. Before he took the stage, one of Brown’s bodyguards gave the singer tear-inducing eye drops.
Brown’s rep denies it (but) the witness says Brown definitely used drops. “He rubbed it in and he started crying.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by newmoanyuh

Not very believable and I'm still on the fence about this but

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]EXCLUSIVE: Witness: Chris Brown Used Eye Drops to Fake Cry at BET Awards[/size][/font]

Crocodile tears?

Chris Brown caused a lot of chatter at the BET Awards Sunday when he broke down in tears during a Michael Jackson tribute.

An insider tells UsMagazine.com the crying was fake.

Before he took the stage to belt out "Man in the Mirror," a backstage source tells Us one of Brown's bodyguards gave the singer, 21, tear-inducing eye drops.

Brown's rep denies it, telling Us that Brown simply "was moved by the opportunity to pay tribute to his idol." But the witness says Brown definitely used drops.

Says the source, "He rubbed it in and he started crying."

An insider tells Us magazine the crying was fake. Before he took the stage, one of Brown’s bodyguards gave the singer tear-inducing eye drops.
Brown’s rep denies it (but) the witness says Brown definitely used drops. “He rubbed it in and he started crying.

 

[noblekane]

Originally Posted by Key 2 Life

if it was genuine crying i doubt it was because of MJ.....moreso his own situation, and making it back to that stage again in front of his "peers"

yup. this dude been trying to make a comeback. you guys are so gully...

 

[noblekane]

Originally Posted by Key 2 Life

if it was genuine crying i doubt it was because of MJ.....moreso his own situation, and making it back to that stage again in front of his "peers"

yup. this dude been trying to make a comeback. you guys are so gully...

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by DatZNasty

Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada

It's amazing how much sympathy people have for this hooligan.

but u know eybody that aint a fan of his just be hatin'

Conversely, admitting he did a great job with the MJ tribute doesn't amount to condoning his actions either. People on either side are going way too far IMO.  And who else could have done that performance anyways? Sure, if it's just singing Neyo kills Chris Brown 7 days a week, but nobody else out is killing the dance moves like him? Closest would be, Omarion? Justin Timberlake? Usher? There's probably some random person on Youtube or something who does, but nobody famous.

And btw, R Kelly did that %@%+ bruh. Ever since even the beginning of his case when he was arguing it can't be him on the tape and his lawyer was saying the girls are 18, to then when they tried to imply it was his brother, and then the implication it could be photoshopped, the circumstational evidence reference his marriage with Aaliyah when she was 15, the fact you can match the house in the tape to the house he showed on MTV Cribs and BET's How I'm Living, etc. It's a MOUNTAIN of evidence against dude. Somehow (likely witness tampering), Sparkle's niece all of a sudden decided it was embarassing and that it wasn't her in the tape anymore. Has to be the only case in history where the whole thing is on tape, but the prosecution still loses. How he get the trial delayed for 4yrs anyways? 1 yr continuance because the judge hurt his ankle? Case has $@!*@*+* pissed all over it.

Damn bruh.. You do have a point...

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by DatZNasty

Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada

It's amazing how much sympathy people have for this hooligan.

but u know eybody that aint a fan of his just be hatin'

Conversely, admitting he did a great job with the MJ tribute doesn't amount to condoning his actions either. People on either side are going way too far IMO.  And who else could have done that performance anyways? Sure, if it's just singing Neyo kills Chris Brown 7 days a week, but nobody else out is killing the dance moves like him? Closest would be, Omarion? Justin Timberlake? Usher? There's probably some random person on Youtube or something who does, but nobody famous.

And btw, R Kelly did that %@%+ bruh. Ever since even the beginning of his case when he was arguing it can't be him on the tape and his lawyer was saying the girls are 18, to then when they tried to imply it was his brother, and then the implication it could be photoshopped, the circumstational evidence reference his marriage with Aaliyah when she was 15, the fact you can match the house in the tape to the house he showed on MTV Cribs and BET's How I'm Living, etc. It's a MOUNTAIN of evidence against dude. Somehow (likely witness tampering), Sparkle's niece all of a sudden decided it was embarassing and that it wasn't her in the tape anymore. Has to be the only case in history where the whole thing is on tape, but the prosecution still loses. How he get the trial delayed for 4yrs anyways? 1 yr continuance because the judge hurt his ankle? Case has $@!*@*+* pissed all over it.

Damn bruh.. You do have a point...

 

[stillmaticshay]

the only thing i found to be odd was, after all those fast records with spot on dancing, how does man in the mirror exactly fit into the performance? it just seemed out of place to me number one and also i thought it was odd that in he was crying from the very beginning of the song. "i'm gonna make a change...." he was already crying. true indeed man in the mirror is a song that makes you think, it brings out the emotion in people no doubt, but how do the emotions come out 5 words into the song? he did not even get the first line out and was completely emotional. during all the other songs in the tribute he seemed to be happy, focused and confident.

i kinda think it was planned to go down that way. in my opinion the timing seemed off with this whole crying portion of the tribute. it was a majority of dancing which he appeared to be totally fine and for the one thought provoking record, 5 words in and he already boo-hooing?

overall, i think he did an amazing job with the dancing it was pleasure to see for sure.

lots of valid points in the whole thread, supporting him and non supporting.

 

[stillmaticshay]

the only thing i found to be odd was, after all those fast records with spot on dancing, how does man in the mirror exactly fit into the performance? it just seemed out of place to me number one and also i thought it was odd that in he was crying from the very beginning of the song. "i'm gonna make a change...." he was already crying. true indeed man in the mirror is a song that makes you think, it brings out the emotion in people no doubt, but how do the emotions come out 5 words into the song? he did not even get the first line out and was completely emotional. during all the other songs in the tribute he seemed to be happy, focused and confident.

i kinda think it was planned to go down that way. in my opinion the timing seemed off with this whole crying portion of the tribute. it was a majority of dancing which he appeared to be totally fine and for the one thought provoking record, 5 words in and he already boo-hooing?

overall, i think he did an amazing job with the dancing it was pleasure to see for sure.

lots of valid points in the whole thread, supporting him and non supporting.

 

[superflyinchopstickninja]

^damn you're still around here?

 

[superflyinchopstickninja]

^damn you're still around here?

 

[alife epidemix]

Chris Brown's performance would have been EPIC without that last piece, regardless if the tears were genuine or not. Brown wouldn't have been able to pull off singing Man in the Mirror live anyways, which would have weakened his tribute. If they cut out the song, people would be saying "damn Chris killed it tonight 

" rather than putting his character into question AGAIN. If the crying was a PR stunt, it was a terrible, stupid, and [as we can see] risky idea. Unless dude is that confident in his acting skills, he should have been smart enough to ditch that song. If the performance wasn't a hoax, he STILL should have been smart enough to admit "Ain't no way I can hit those notes, I'm gonna stick to dancing".

 CB took another L walking into that performance knowing Man in the Mirror was gonna be played, fake crying or not.

 

[alife epidemix]

Chris Brown's performance would have been EPIC without that last piece, regardless if the tears were genuine or not. Brown wouldn't have been able to pull off singing Man in the Mirror live anyways, which would have weakened his tribute. If they cut out the song, people would be saying "damn Chris killed it tonight 

" rather than putting his character into question AGAIN. If the crying was a PR stunt, it was a terrible, stupid, and [as we can see] risky idea. Unless dude is that confident in his acting skills, he should have been smart enough to ditch that song. If the performance wasn't a hoax, he STILL should have been smart enough to admit "Ain't no way I can hit those notes, I'm gonna stick to dancing".

 CB took another L walking into that performance knowing Man in the Mirror was gonna be played, fake crying or not.

 

[younglloyd]

Yeah agree with above he aint THAT great at actin..im figurin the song reminded him of what he did..regardless he still won back heaps of fans and KILLED that performance. Dude makes good music though..

 

[younglloyd]

Yeah agree with above he aint THAT great at actin..im figurin the song reminded him of what he did..regardless he still won back heaps of fans and KILLED that performance. Dude makes good music though..

 

[Betonblck]

Man in the Mirror was part of the set in MJ's 1988 grammy performance. This was like a reinactment. That's why it was selected. I'm not saying it was a good idea to still do Man in the Mirror, just that there was a reason that it was selected.

Anyways, I thought his "The Way You Make Me Feel" was great and the rest wasn't good.

The crying was a bit over the top, I'll give him a pass because he's still young.



He should never be compared to MJ though.  I don't think anybody did compare them in this thread but inside this thread or outside of it, he is not even in the same ball park as MJ.

 

[Betonblck]

Man in the Mirror was part of the set in MJ's 1988 grammy performance. This was like a reinactment. That's why it was selected. I'm not saying it was a good idea to still do Man in the Mirror, just that there was a reason that it was selected.

Anyways, I thought his "The Way You Make Me Feel" was great and the rest wasn't good.

The crying was a bit over the top, I'll give him a pass because he's still young.



He should never be compared to MJ though.  I don't think anybody did compare them in this thread but inside this thread or outside of it, he is not even in the same ball park as MJ.

 

[iblink]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

No, she did not hit him first. He laid his hand on her first. (1)My point was that even if she did, he is saying he does not fault him for retaliating even though he took it too far. So, let's say she slapped him on the face, so then what kind of force would it be justifiable or "understandable" for him to retaliate?
  

(1) Wrong. That's not at all what I'm saying.

I cannot believe some of you have this mentality of justifying men hitting women back. The only reasonable justification for a man to hit a women back is if he felt very threatened or in self-defense. Women should not hit either. But, that is because when it comes to men, if he hits back, due to his strength, he can go into a fury and hurt her very badly. But, that's besides the point. In this case, she did not even hit him first.
Some things you say don't quite add up. Everything I posted was under the presumption that what was reported (her initiating the violence) was in fact true. Not once have I argued for him wailing on her had she not hit him first. If she put hands on him initially, then what he did can be considered "self-defense" as you put it. Notice how many times you mention "hitting a woman back". Be real, that's elementary. If someone hits you, male or female, it's at your discretion whether you hit them back or not. Young children are taught this. Adults are taught this. Don't make it acceptable only when it's at your gender's advantage, then discredit it when it's not.

When it comes to physical aspect of the situation, I expect that all women are well aware of the ramifications of their actions. You know good and well if the dude you're about to slap in the face can beat you senseless. Yet a lot of women have the mind set that men won't retaliate, which is ridiculous. Women argue for equality in damn near every other aspect of life, yet they want to reserve the right to hit a man and not have any recoil.

All I said is that if she put her hands on him, as some have reported, then I don't fault him for retaliating. I love how you ignored the fact that I said "He took it a bit far with his retaliation". That's the crux of everything I've been saying.

 

[iblink]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

No, she did not hit him first. He laid his hand on her first. (1)My point was that even if she did, he is saying he does not fault him for retaliating even though he took it too far. So, let's say she slapped him on the face, so then what kind of force would it be justifiable or "understandable" for him to retaliate?
  

(1) Wrong. That's not at all what I'm saying.

I cannot believe some of you have this mentality of justifying men hitting women back. The only reasonable justification for a man to hit a women back is if he felt very threatened or in self-defense. Women should not hit either. But, that is because when it comes to men, if he hits back, due to his strength, he can go into a fury and hurt her very badly. But, that's besides the point. In this case, she did not even hit him first.
Some things you say don't quite add up. Everything I posted was under the presumption that what was reported (her initiating the violence) was in fact true. Not once have I argued for him wailing on her had she not hit him first. If she put hands on him initially, then what he did can be considered "self-defense" as you put it. Notice how many times you mention "hitting a woman back". Be real, that's elementary. If someone hits you, male or female, it's at your discretion whether you hit them back or not. Young children are taught this. Adults are taught this. Don't make it acceptable only when it's at your gender's advantage, then discredit it when it's not.

When it comes to physical aspect of the situation, I expect that all women are well aware of the ramifications of their actions. You know good and well if the dude you're about to slap in the face can beat you senseless. Yet a lot of women have the mind set that men won't retaliate, which is ridiculous. Women argue for equality in damn near every other aspect of life, yet they want to reserve the right to hit a man and not have any recoil.

All I said is that if she put her hands on him, as some have reported, then I don't fault him for retaliating. I love how you ignored the fact that I said "He took it a bit far with his retaliation". That's the crux of everything I've been saying.