Protecting the truly important stuff
-
@Sutherlands said:
Zimmerman was not stalking. Look up what stalking is in Florida. Zimmerman was following. Following does not justify attacking.
Zimmerman was not wrong that Martin was suspicious, given the totality of the circumstances. However, trayvon had not done anything illegal*.
Even if Zimmerman was a racist, trayvon does not get to attack him, that is still illegal on trayvon.
Personally, I'm not lacking in sympathy, it's a tragic circumstance. But Martin WAS a thug and given his home life, was likely to turn out to be a felon.
Obama said this was a racist incident so it is a racist incident. Obama knows how it feels because as an Indonesian national who studied in the USA using a scholarship for foreigners, he often felt left aside by people who had to pay their own tuition. Yet he made his way up to the White House silverware cupboards, so there is hope that as a nation we will heal.
What I find beautiful in this story is that a beautiful young black women* that does not even have a GED will probably get a radio or tv show out of this terrible event. This tells me that as a society we have learned from this experience and we all get a little something out of it.
- any ressemblance with a Star Wars character is purely coincidental
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
Yeah, let's get all of our information from comedy shows!
Jesus Christ, you do realize it's a comedy show, right? That it deliberately misrepresents reality for laughs? Please tell me you're not so retarded you don't understand that..
To be fair to John Oliver though, sometimes all he needs to do to get a laugh is paint a fundamentally accurate picture.
-
@Snooder said:
(A) Being followed by a strange white man at night in the south is pretty threatening.
Florida's hardly the real South.
@Snooder said:
(B) We have nobody's word but Zimmerman about what happened when they finally met up.
This ignores the physical evidence already mentioned. But even if all we had was Zimmerman's word and his wounds, that's not evidence of shit. You're just playing "What if?" and making up accusations. It's the behavior of a thug-loving sociopath. Look, I know you failed out of law school (as surprising as that is, because law school is so easy..), but we don't convict people based on completely made up speculation from some random asshole on the Internet. Idiot.
@Snooder said:
I'll ignore that middle part because nobody here has said that, so it's clearly you just trying to distract everyone.
Um, yes, you said nearly the same fucking thing. You said the act of him following him around in his own neighborhood was grounds for him to brutally attack Zimmerman. That's plain, bat-shit crazy.
@Snooder said:
He was stalking someone.
Wow, you really don't know what the fuck that word means, do you?
@Snooder said:
Getting his ass-kicked for that is not out of bounds.
Yes, it is. Once again: it's no shock you failed out of law school when you are this fucking stupid. Here's what I hope: I hope one night you see someone acting suspiciously, you call the police and then you are battered by this person. You fight back, kill him and then you are charged, convicted and you get the needle. Or maybe you get life and those big boys in prison bend you over and run a train on you, like those truckers do with your mom. You know, but without the meth. You might learn some compassion for punishing the victims of crime who fight back. Or not. I don't give a shit. You're clearly a worthless human being.
@Snooder said:
And given that fear, it's not unreasonable for him to defend himself physically.
Yes it is. It's also illegal. You know, unlike what Zimmerman did. Battering someone because you think they might be a racist is not a fucking defense. Jesus Christ, how bad were your law school grades? What's more, if we actually applied your logic equally, Zimmerman would have been justified in cutting the little shithead down right off the bat, because he suspected the kid might have been a burglar. But that's not legal, nor would it be justifiable. What is justifiable is to call the police on someone acting suspicious. What's also justifiable is killing someone who is beating the shit out of you. Both of those things are completely legal and morally justifiable. What you are saying is so fucking stupid..
@Snooder said:
The only thing here that's hard to comprehend is how you can be entirely lacking in empathy for the 17 year old
He's 17 and he assaulted an innocent man.
@Snooder said:
This is the part that makes people think you are a bloodthirsty monster.
Who gives a shit what morons think? Cry some more tears for all the thugs who got what was coming to them. Gacy? Man, that guy was misunderstood..
@Snooder said:
Martin was a fairly typical 17 year old kid.
One: 17 years old isn't a kid, you fucking dipshit. We try 17 year old as adults. A 17 year old is an adult, he just can't legally enter into contracts. Two: if you think Martin is a typical 17 year old, you are a fucking idiot. Most 17 year olds don't get in trouble for stealing from classmates. They don't sell drugs. And they don't batter older men.
@Snooder said:
He didn't have a criminal record.
Once again: who cares? He was a thug. He attacked an innocent man.
@Snooder said:
Calling him a dangerous thug is slanderous and entirely un-called for.
He attacked an innocent man. What is with you stupid people? Why is it you ignore basic reality?
-
@Ronald said:
Obama said this was a racist incident so it is a racist incident.
Of course it was racist. Not because a black kid was shot, but because there are a bunch of tiny-brained assholes in the world who will cry an ocean if a white person fights back against a black criminal. It's sad and it's sick. The truth is, a higher percentage of black people are racist than white people.
Black teenagers gun each other down each day for no reason and these cocksuckers don't say one thing. Then a white guy is viciously attacked by this nasty criminal, and he's labeled a bad guy. Those doing the attacking are just as despicable as KKK members.
And of course it's all "Martin was a good kid!" Good kid!! See, I remember when a "good kid" was one who did well at school, participated in clubs, volunteered at church, helped his community. Apparently now the only qualification for being a "good kid" is dying before you can commit your first murder. Which he was just in the middle of trying to do when he was put down.
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
Yeah, let's get all of our information from comedy shows!
Jesus Christ, you do realize it's a comedy show, right? That it deliberately misrepresents reality for laughs? Please tell me you're not so retarded you don't understand that..
To be fair to John Oliver though, sometimes all he needs to do to get a laugh is paint a fundamentally accurate picture.
I'm not going to watch that. I haven't seen the Daily Show in, what, 7 years? It's not funny. It just regurgitates comforting lies for people who fear critical thinking. It's a propaganda tape, looping in the background as these morons go about their empty, meaningless existences. It's Chairman Mao, staring forth from the endless murals, his faint, magnanimous smirk assuring the mindless horde that, yes, they're in on the joke, too. They're part of the Outer Circle.
It reassures them that all of their problems--all of anybody's problems--are caused by the invisible goblins that appear when people have too much freedom. It strokes their dumb little heads while whispering that the only freedoms a person needs are the right to murder a baby, and maybe the right to light up another joint and suspend their critical reasoning skills for another hour still. It's the lowest form of entertainment. It's barely even entertainment, just gratification. Something to vacuously jerk off to while you do your part to advance entropy as you plod towards your belated grave.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Are people rioting over this? Jesus Christ, what a bunch of fucking idiots.
Weeelllll...it's pretty much just Oakland, and this was just the latest excuse. Not that they need much of an excuse. I've seen protests / vigils other places, where the people seem to be getting their information from Ben L, but not really anything I would describe as rioting.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Battering someone because you think they might be a racist is not a fucking defense.
Keep up, morbs. We now know he battered Zimmerman because he thought Zimmerman was a predatory homosexual. So that's totally OK.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
3:00-3:20 [clip of George Zimmerman's lawyer saying that if George Zimmerman was black, "he never would have been charged with a crime"]
3:20-3:40 "[sarcastically] because our legal system is notorious for being lenient on black people."Quote is taken out of context. The lawyer was saying that the only reason that he was charged was because people were outraged because for once a black kid was killed by a non-black. Had he been black, nobody would have cared (ala Chicago). The part that JO says is a complete non-sequiter.
When the case was in the hands of the people whose job it is to enforce the law, no charges were brought. It wasn't until Al Sharpton and the community organizing sector of the Justice Department got involved that this sham of a hoax of a trial was even seriously conceived of. You'd think people would have figured out that Sharpton is full of shit, and it's really disgusting that they're using our tax dollars to go out and rouse rabble in support of such despicable ends.
-
@boomzilla said:
When the case was in the hands of the people whose job it is to enforce the law, no charges were brought.
Interesting, I didn't know that angle.
Actually I didn't know any angle before this thread. I didn't even know (or care) about this crime or who these people are, prior to yesterday. Once it came up, I did what I always do: I looked to the side I felt less inclined to agree with, then read all of their arguments, giving them a chance to convince me of their position.
These arguments all boiled down to either: a) wild speculation about what Zimmerman might have done to force Martin to attack him (because Lord knows we should convict a man because we dreamt up things he might have done that were criminal); and b) retarded circular logic like that displayed by Snooder: "It was unreasonable for Zimmerman to fight back because we don't know 100% that he didn't initiate violence. Also, if Martin did happen to initiate violence it was probably because the shoulder aliens were telling him Zimmerman was a threat and he was just protecting himself."
Since that's the best these people have (that and thinly-veiled accusations of racism--because clearly it's racist to not make your entire decision based on their races), it's obvious they are wrong. They've moved well past this plane of reality and have settled on the "I'm just going to make things up and stamp my feet and hold my breath until my face turns blue" line of debate. And as far as I'm concerned that's just like waving a white flag and saying "We can't effectively counter, but we can piss down the front of our own pants and generally make a mess of things." Believe me, I deal with hippies a lot. I know their bullshit. (I recently had someone tell me a certain artificial sweetener was invented "at the Pentagon for use as a nerve agent.. I think Donald Rumsfeld was involved.. anyway, they realized that in small doses it would suppress neurological activity somewhat, making people into docile sheep the corporations can control." And this guy is a licensed medical doctor, if you can believe it..)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
To be fair to John Oliver though, sometimes all he needs to do to get a laugh is paint a fundamentally accurate picture.
I'm not going to watch that. I haven't seen the Daily Show in, what, 7 years? It's not funny...
@morbiuswilters said:
Once it came up, I did what I always do: I looked to the side I felt less inclined to agree with, then read all of their arguments, giving them a chance to convince me of their position.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
These arguments all boiled down to either: a) wild speculation about what Zimmerman might have done to force Martin to attack him (because Lord knows we should convict a man because we dreamt up things he might have done that were criminal); and b) retarded circular logic like that displayed by Snooder: "It was unreasonable for Zimmerman to fight back because we don't know 100% that he didn't initiate violence. Also, if Martin did happen to initiate violence it was probably because the shoulder aliens were telling him Zimmerman was a threat and he was just protecting himself."
Except, I never said that. What I said was "calling Martin a dangerous thug is slanderous and un-called for." I agree with you that self-defense is an appropriate affirmative defense to murder and that Zimmerman was entitled to that defense. We don't know what happened or who started shit, so Zimmerman walks. Where I don't agree with is calling the dead 17 year old a thug and saying that he's better off dead. There's zero goddamn evidence of that. Nor is it particularly germane to the question of whether Zimmerman was reasonably afraid of a threat of serious bodily injury, or made the correct judgement call in the appropriate level of force to respond to that threat.
-
@Snooder said:
I never said that. What I said was "calling Martin a dangerous thug is slanderous and un-called for."
That would be libellous and uncalled for, surely?
-
@Snooder said:
I agree with you that self-defense is an appropriate affirmative defense to murder and that Zimmerman was entitled to that defense. We don't know what happened or who started shit, so Zimmerman walks. Where I don't agree with is calling the dead 17 year old a thug and saying that he's better off dead. There's zero goddamn evidence of that. Nor is it particularly germane to the question of whether Zimmerman was reasonably afraid of a threat of serious bodily injury, or made the correct judgement call in the appropriate level of force to respond to that threat.
Absolutely germane to maintaining Morbs's faith in his own moral and intellectual clarity, though, which clearly trumps all other considerations.
-
@Snooder said:
What I said was "calling Martin a dangerous thug is slanderous and un-called for."
Only because you're not familiar with him.
@flabdablet said:
That would be libellous and uncalled for, surely?
Neither. In the US, at least, truth is a defense against either.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm kinda surprised that no one (that I have seen) has likened this to rape victims.
RobFreundlich's the kind of piece of shit who would accuse a woman of dressing too provocatively and getting herself raped.
Actually, RobFreundlich is the kind of person who would tell a woman who walked into a dark alley where she knew there was an angry convicted rapist that she was being stupid. Slight difference there.
But I also know that morbiuswilters is not the kind of person who can see the world in anything except polar extremes, so the distinction will be lost on him.*
*see earlier comments relegating him to the kids' table
-
@flabdablet said:
@Snooder said:
I never said that. What I said was "calling Martin a dangerous thug is slanderous and un-called for."
That would be libellous and uncalled for, surely?
Keep in mind: Snooder failed out of law school.
Actually, I thought I commented on this, but I guess I forgot.
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
To be fair to John Oliver though, sometimes all he needs to do to get a laugh is paint a fundamentally accurate picture.
I'm not going to watch that. I haven't seen the Daily Show in, what, 7 years? It's not funny...
@morbiuswilters said:
Once it came up, I did what I always do: I looked to the side I felt less inclined to agree with, then read all of their arguments, giving them a chance to convince me of their position.
Well first off, I don't know how a video about Australian gun control is pertinent to this discussion. Two, do you think that show is going to provide a stronger argument than has so far been presented in this thread?
Three, I don't watch video. Maybe if it's short and it's a primary source I might, but I'm not going to spend 7 minutes watching people clown about in front of the camera, making silly faces and weak jokes and terribly misrepresenting a serious issue for comedic and agitprop effect. Especially when their entire argument could accurately be summed up on a cocktail napkin, I'm not going to waste time on a video. It's a ridiculously inefficient medium for conveying information like this. The entire reason to use video rather than the written word is to circumvent critical reasoning centers of the brain and appeal to base emotion. So, no, I won't be watching it.
-
@Snooder said:
Where I don't agree with is calling the dead 17 year old a thug and saying that he's better off dead. There's zero goddamn evidence of that.
He brutally beat a man for no discernible reason. Are you saying that's not the behavior of a thug?
Look, people aren't that hard to understand. A man who resorts to terrible violence against another without reasonable cause is the kind of man who will do that again. Could Martin have straightened up and become a productive member of society? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. Was is likely is that he would have beat other people (and this is assuming Zimmerman was his first, which I sincerely doubt--he probably battered several people before.) What is likely is that he would have been the kind of guy who verbally and physically abuses his significant others and any children he might have. And what is likely is that he would have eventually killed somebody. If society were lucky, it would just be another thug, but it's also possible he could have killed someone who's life was worth something, and that would be a tragedy.
Now, of course, I'm speculating on the kind of person he would become. But you have to be pretty naive to think that a man who would commit attempted murder against a stranger for no justifiable reason is somehow not a thug. And I say attempted murder because smashing a person's skull against the sidewalk is a good way to kill someone. If Zimmerman hadn't been armed, he may have ended up murdering him. So I would like to ask: what possible actions on the part of Zimmerman would justify Martin in attempting to kill him, while still not making him a thug?
I'll give you a hint: being afraid of a white guy isn't justification. You throw around the word racist, but you're clearly the racist if you think that is justifiable reason to batter someone. If we applied your reasoning equally, then any white guy who was afraid of a black guy would be justified in trying to kill him. Clearly that is insane and racist. Part of my problem with you is that your positions are so clearly racist. If a younger white man attacked and older black man and tried to kill him--and the only reason you've given so far is that the attacker might have been afraid of being attacked for his race, so let's assume this takes place in Cabrini Green--and the older black man was lucky enough to shoot and kill his attempted murderer, you'd call that guy a hero. And if the city of Chicago tried to prosecute him (and given left-wing gun laws and the races involved, you know the fucking would) you would call it a grave injustice, and you would be right.
I'll also point out that that's giving Martin all the benefit of the doubt. I mean, what other possible explanations are there? That idiot Rob Freundlich hinted that maybe Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin and that's why Martin attacked him, but that's insane for one very big reason: nobody is going to try to punch a guy who has a gun on him. What's more, it implies that Martin somehow managed to not get shot, beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but never disarmed him. It doesn't make any sense. So, again, please explain to me what Zimmerman would have to do to make Martin not a thug for trying to kill him.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
Actually, RobFreundlich is the kind of person who would tell a woman who walked into a dark alley where she knew there was an angry convicted rapist that she was being stupid. Slight difference there.
So by your reasoning, Martin represented an extremely clear and present threat? I mean, that's the only way your analogy makes any sense. Zimmerman would have to know ahead of time that Martin was a violent thug who was very likely to attack him. How would he know this?
Now, what's interesting is that this doesn't jibe with anything else you've said. I think it's instructive to highlight the ways you're being stupid; not so much for your own benefit, since you're clearly too far gone to be a decent member of society, but so that others may learn. I mean, if we take the example of the rapist in the alley, that's a situation where we know there is a very high probability of being raped. So extending this to Martin, you are claiming Zimmerman knew there was a high probability of Martin battering someone. First off, there's no evidence of that. All Zimmerman seemed to know is that Martin was acting suspicious.
Two, if Zimmerman knew there was a high probability that Martin would batter someone (let's say Martin had been convicted several times before for battering people in the same neighborhood, because if we're talking about a rapist in the alley who was convicted multiple times, then you'd have to extend the same prerequisite to the Martin case) then he would be completely justified in keeping tabs on him to make sure he didn't batter someone who couldn't defend him- or herself until the police arrived. If we go back to the rape analogy, it's like a woman noticing the rapist in the alley and calling the police, then staying way out on the sidewalk to make sure no women inadvertently go down the alley.
So taking your analogy at face value, Zimmerman was more than justified in keeping tabs on Martin.
Now I'd like to take a step back and criticize your rape analogy. While it might be stupid for a woman to walk down a dark alley where she knows a convicted rapist to be waiting, do you think that has any impact on the law? The rape would still be a crime, yes? I mean, I hope to God you're not saying that a woman who is raped because she did something dumb deserved it and her rapist shouldn't be punished.
To take your analogy a bit further, let's say a woman was "acting stupidly" and walked down Rape Alley. She is attacked and the rapist starts doing his thing. Are you seriously suggesting that she wouldn't have the right to fight back? Basically, she just has to let him rape her because, well, she made a mistake? I'm really curious for how your twisted reasoning works here. I mean, even if Zimmerman was "acting stupidly" (a favorite phrase used to bash victims by liberal scum like yourself), that doesn't make the battery any more legal. Nor does it deprive Zimmerman of his right to ventilate the little asshole, does it? Or do you think that criminals should basically be allowed to murder someone if that person did something stupid that caused them to draw the attention of the criminal?
To people other than Rob: this is why I call people like Rob names. This is why I question their basic human decency. I know it seems like "Hey, Morbs is being an asshole", but if you follow their reasoning and apply it equally and without bias or racism, then you realize they are full of shit. You realize that their first response is to "blame the victim". If someone like Martin attacks someone like Zimmerman, it's Zimmerman's fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, if Zimmerman fights back, it's still Zimmerman's fault, because.. why?
The truth is, as much as Rob and Snooder and the others don't want to admit it, they are vile little racists. If the races were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with an older black man defending himself against a younger white attacker. The problem they have is that a white person killed a black person, and in their tiny, cancerous minds, that's all that matters. They can't see these people as human beings, can't work through the reasoning fairly and impartially. What's sadder is that they see anyone who is acting impartially and without racial bias as being the real racists. Because in the twisted moral calculus of their depraved existences, race is all that matters and if you don't subscribe to their paranoid racial hierarchy, then you are the bad person.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I think I'm going to have to disagree there. Especially given RobFreundlich's posting history.@boomzilla said:
I'm kinda surprised that no one (that I have seen) has likened this to rape victims.
RobFreundlich's the kind of piece of shit who would accuse a woman of dressing too provocatively and getting herself raped.
Actually, RobFreundlich is the kind of person who would tell a woman who walked into a dark alley where she knew there was an angry convicted rapist that she was being stupid.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
If the races were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with an older black man defending himself against a younger white attacker.
Minor point I'm sure, but isn't GZ Hispanic/Latino, not "white"?
-
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
half, but he grew up in Hispanic cultureIf the races were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with an older black man defending himself against a younger white attacker.
Minor point I'm sure, but isn't GZ Hispanic/Latino, not "white"?
-
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
If the races were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with an older black man defending himself against a younger white attacker.
Minor point I'm sure, but isn't GZ Hispanic/Latino, not "white"?In the US, taco-chuckers are classified as "White (Hispanic)" whereas normal people are just "White (Non-Hispanic)".*
(*Yes, I'm obviously joking when I say "normal people" or "taco-chuckers". It's sad I have to point this out.)
-
@Sutherlands said:
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
half, but he grew up in Hispanic cultureIf the races were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with an older black man defending himself against a younger white attacker.
Minor point I'm sure, but isn't GZ Hispanic/Latino, not "white"?I subscribe to the One Drop Theory. When you drop your glove in the mud, the mud don't get glove-y.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
(*Yes, I'm obviously joking when I say "normal people" or "taco-chuckers". It's sad I have to point this out.)
So that's perfectly acceptable as long as it's just a joke? I guess you can make jokes about any group of people without it being bigotry. After all, some of your best friends are Hispanic, right?
-
@joe.edwards said:
@morbiuswilters said:
(*Yes, I'm obviously joking when I say "normal people" or "taco-chuckers". It's sad I have to point this out.)
So that's perfectly acceptable as long as it's just a joke? I guess you can make jokes about any group of people without it being bigotry. After all, some of your best friends are Hispanic, right?For the record, I don't care that you made a racist joke. I think people who are too thin-skinned getting offended about everything is silly (I did start that Rabid Feminists thread). What does bother me is when someone acts like they have the moral high ground (no, it is you who are being racist!), when they're just as guilty.
I don't think anyone alive today is truly racially colorblind. Everyone has some biases, and maybe culture can overcome many of those, but we're not there yet. All this pointing and calling each other racists is funny because it's the pot and the kettle.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
A man who resorts to terrible violence against another without reasonable cause is the kind of man who will do that again. Could Martin have straightened up and become a productive member of society? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely.
I can see how that might appear to be true to somebody who has never raised a 17 year old boy.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I think it's instructive to highlight the ways you're being stupid; not so much for your own benefit, since you're clearly too far gone to be a decent member of society, but so that others may learn.
Ah! The Westboro Baptist manoeuvre.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I know it seems like "Hey, Morbs is being an asshole"
Yes, it really does.
@morbiuswilters said:
but if you
follow their reasoningignore their point andapply it equally and without bias or racismargue furiously against a straw man instead, then yourealizecan convince yourself they are full of shit.Just to recap:
The facts as established by the court: GZ shot TM in self defence.
Speculation by Internet blowhards: GZ was a hero / GZ was a monster / TM was a hero / TM was a thug.
Points per snooder, Rob et al: celebrating a violent death on the basis of speculation by Internet blowhards is crass, insensitive, uncalled for and possibly actionable.
-
@Ben L. said:
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
Its great how the The Daily Show just got a lot better since the British took over, don't you think?
-
@eViLegion said:
Its great how the The Daily Show just got a lot better since the British took over, don't you think?
The British are about to outlaw porn, so I'unno.
-
@dhromed said:
@eViLegion said:
Its great how the The Daily Show just got a lot better since the British took over, don't you think?
The British are about to outlaw porn, so I'unno.
Er, but were that even true, The Daily Show doesn't have porn in it, so it wouldn't really make much difference.
-
People are forgetting one major thing: Zimmerman didn't invoke Stand Your Ground at the trial, he invoked Self Defense. There's a difference between the two. Also, Trayvon was a thug with a criminal record who was going to that particular house (his father's house I think?) because he had been suspended from school or something like that. He wasn't just a poor innocent kid walking there. Also, last I checked provoking someone into hitting you isn't a crime, but hitting someone is, so even if you goad somebody into throwing a punch, THEY have then committed a crime, not you even if you provoked it.
-
@dhromed said:
Overstating the situation a bit. You now have to opt in by saying "I'm a pervert - please let me have porn" to your ISP so your name will go on some sort of list. Apparently telling them "stop censoring my fucking internet" won't work.@eViLegion said:
Its great how the The Daily Show just got a lot better since the British took over, don't you think?
The British are about to outlaw porn, so I'unno.
The fact that this the thin end of some sort of wedge and sites about breast cancer and Scunthorpe getting blocked seems to have gone over the heads of some of our politicians.
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
Also, Trayvon was a thug with a criminal record...
No, he really wasn't. Well he was a thug, but he didn't have a criminal record. He should have had one though, but didn't because police were under orders to fudge crime statistics in the area.
Police buried Trayvon's criminal history | WND | by Jack Cashill
Some deaths are more politically useful than others. Twenty years ago this week, the Clinton administration ordered a tank assault on the Mount Carmel community, killing 39 racial minorities, 26 of them black. The Clintons and the media suppressed the racial data so rigorously that I doubt even Al...
“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.
In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.
“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower the arrest rates,” confirmed another high-ranking detective.
When asked by IA whether the M-DSPD was avoiding making arrests, that detective replied, “What Chief Hurley said on the record is that he commends the officer for using his discretion. What Chief Hurley really meant is that he’s commended the officer for falsifying a police report.”
-
@PJH said:
The fact that this the thin end of some sort of wedge and sites about breast cancer and Scunthorpe getting blocked seems to have gone over the heads of some of our politicians.
Freedom of speech is weird. In the US, everyone knows that the government can't forbid porn (thanks Woody Harrelson!), but they mostly don't realize that the real point is to keep political speech free. But when the question of political speech comes up (campaign finance, Citizens United) people think government control of speech is necessary, and the point of not allowing the government to censor porn is to make sure we can speak freely about actual important things.
Though this is more about the freedom to consume than to produce, so it's not quite the same.
-
@boomzilla said:
@PJH said:
In countries that have it, I suppose it is. We don't have that in the UK though. Section 127 of the Communications Act is the bit usually (mis)used to silence silly twitter users, for example.The fact that this the thin end of some sort of wedge and sites about breast cancer and Scunthorpe getting blocked seems to have gone over the heads of some of our politicians.
Freedom of speech is weird.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
@Sutherlands said:
Talking to someone about what they're doing in your neighborhood is not illegal, and should not be, and I would encourage it from anyone in my neighborhood. I'd much prefer that to someone calling the police if they don't recognize someone.
Me too. But once you call the police, you have to do what they advise. Zimmerman placed the call, and then ignored their advice.
Except that that's not true in this case: the dispatcher has made clear she was NOT giving him instructions, just suggestions. They carry no legal weight, and Zimmerman was not bound to follow them.
-
@Ben L. said:
Oh right he wasn't. He was chasing a person he described as "a black man". After being told not to follow him.Let me try to explain something to your stupid self, although I doubt it will work, as nobody has successfully managed so far. "We don't need you to do that" is not an order. It's a suggestion.
-
@Ben L. said:
1:50-2:20 "[recap of events] And if at any point during that process, you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say 'Well, you did what you could.'" note that disagreeing with this fact proves you aren't paying attention.
Here's your part that's wrong. The bar is a little higher than "you get scared, you can shoot [someone] to death."
-
@boomzilla said:
You'd think people would have figured out that Sharpton is full of shit
After Tawana Brawley and the Crown Heights riot and the other instances, it's pretty obvious that's not going to happen.
-
@FrostCat said:
@Ben L. said:
1:50-2:20 "[recap of events] And if at any point during that process, you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say 'Well, you did what you could.'" note that disagreeing with this fact proves you aren't paying attention.
Here's your part that's wrong. The bar is a little higher than "you get scared, you can shoot [someone] to death."Look, little things like facts aren't important here. People just want to yell, "RAAAAACIST!" Protip: if a group of people have to tell you that they're a reality based community, they aren't.
-
Any morons who want to fuss about a fistfight should also read this: http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/07/22/the-danger-of-fists/, including not one, but two videos of people being mounted and punched the way Zimmerman alleges Martin did.
-
@FrostCat said:
@RobFreundlich said:
@Sutherlands said:
Talking to someone about what they're doing in your neighborhood is not illegal, and should not be, and I would encourage it from anyone in my neighborhood. I'd much prefer that to someone calling the police if they don't recognize someone.
Me too. But once you call the police, you have to do what they advise. Zimmerman placed the call, and then ignored their advice.
Except that that's not true in this case: the dispatcher has made clear she was NOT giving him instructions, just suggestions. They carry no legal weight, and Zimmerman was not bound to follow them.
The point isn't whether they have legal weight or not, it's that it was good advice and Zimmerman chose not to follow it. It's his right and perogative to do so, but the ultimate result of his decision was that a 17 year old died. A 17 year old who, at the time Zimmerman chose to follow him and start the series of events that escalated, was doing nothing more "dangerous" or "thuggish" than walking home from the gas station.
Let me give an analogy to explain. Imagine that Martin was some loud obnoxious guido at a bar. He's hovering way too close to some girl and generally looks like the stereotypical image of a date-rapist. Now imagine Zimmerman is sitting a few tables away and sees (or thinks he sees) Martin grope the girl's ass. Zimmerman says "hey, I'm going to go talk to that guy." His buddies all tell him to chill and not start shit. He decides to go over anyway. Things escalate, and Zimmerman ends up shooting Martin. Now imagine that later on it turns out the girl was Martin's wife. I think we can all agree that Zimmerman's decision not to listen to his friend's advice was a poor one. How much poorer is it then when the person giving the advice isn't just a friend, but a professional?
-
@Snooder said:
The point isn't whether they have legal weight or not, it's that it was good advice and Zimmerman chose not to follow it.
Except that they say that, and he says, "OK." And then he starts giving them his name and stuff. So apparently the point is really that you have no clue what you're talking about.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
The point isn't whether they have legal weight or not, it's that it was good advice and Zimmerman chose not to follow it.
Except that they say that, and he says, "OK." And then he starts giving them his name and stuff. So apparently the point is really that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Wait, are you arguing that the dispatcher didn't suggest he shouldn't follow Martin, or arguing that Zimmerman did not follow Martin?
-
@Snooder said:
You really need to just stop. Once again, Zimmerman STOPPED following when the dispatcher suggested it. Your continued insistance that he didn't is baffling.@FrostCat said:
@RobFreundlich said:
@Sutherlands said:
Talking to someone about what they're doing in your neighborhood is not illegal, and should not be, and I would encourage it from anyone in my neighborhood. I'd much prefer that to someone calling the police if they don't recognize someone.
Me too. But once you call the police, you have to do what they advise. Zimmerman placed the call, and then ignored their advice.
Except that that's not true in this case: the dispatcher has made clear she was NOT giving him instructions, just suggestions. They carry no legal weight, and Zimmerman was not bound to follow them.
The point isn't whether they have legal weight or not, it's that it was good advice and Zimmerman chose not to follow it. It's his right and perogative to do so, but the ultimate result of his decision was that a 17 year old died. A 17 year old who, at the time Zimmerman chose to follow him and start the series of events that escalated, was doing nothing more "dangerous" or "thuggish" than walking home from the gas station.
Let me give an analogy to explain. Imagine that Martin was some loud obnoxious guido at a bar. He's hovering way too close to some girl and generally looks like the stereotypical image of a date-rapist. Now imagine Zimmerman is sitting a few tables away and sees (or thinks he sees) Martin grope the girl's ass. Zimmerman says "hey, I'm going to go talk to that guy." His buddies all tell him to chill and not start shit. He decides to go over anyway. Things escalate, and Zimmerman ends up shooting Martin. Now imagine that later on it turns out the girl was Martin's wife. I think we can all agree that Zimmerman's decision not to listen to his friend's advice was a poor one. How much poorer is it then when the person giving the advice isn't just a friend, but a professional?Just ask yourself the following questions:
1) Did Zimmerman do anything illegal before TM hit him?
2) Was TM justified in attacking GZ?
3) Was GZ in fear for his life when getting his head pounded into the ground?
-
@Sutherlands said:
Once again, Zimmerman STOPPED following when the dispatcher suggested it. Your continued insistance that he didn't is baffling.
Ok, so what did he do after receiving the suggestion and saying OK?
2) Was TM justified in attacking GZ?
The oddest thing is that I might in a filter bubble, since I only heard of TM beating up GZ in this thread, and nowhere else.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
The point isn't whether they have legal weight or not, it's that it was good advice and Zimmerman chose not to follow it.
Except that they say that, and he says, "OK." And then he starts giving them his name and stuff. So apparently the point is really that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Wait, are you arguing that the dispatcher didn't suggest he shouldn't follow Martin, or arguing that Zimmerman did not follow Martin?Why should I tell you when it's obvious that you won't pay attention?
Wikipedia:The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."
Do you have some non-shoulder alien derived information about this that no one else does?
-
@dhromed said:
"After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him."@dhromed said:@Sutherlands said:
Once again, Zimmerman STOPPED following when the dispatcher suggested it. Your continued insistance that he didn't is baffling.
Ok, so what did he do after receiving the suggestion and saying OK?
Are you saying you heard all about TM and GZ, but not that TM beat his head against the sidewalk?2) Was TM justified in attacking GZ?
The oddest thing is that I might in a filter bubble, since I only heard of TM beating up GZ in this thread, and nowhere else.
