In this case though, his face was not covered, though he did put some shades on that doesn't appear to have been objected to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Printable View
In this case though, his face was not covered, though he did put some shades on that doesn't appear to have been objected to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Meh, the US Congress has a dress code and he violated it. Then he got ejected. It was a silly but relatively straightforward act of civil disobedience. Although, interestingly, it seems that most of the time Congress is pretty lax about enforcing the dress code, so perhaps (probably) Rush was ejected mostly because he was irritating.
There's now a motion to consistently enforce dress code in Congress. Yeah, works for me. Lord knows they follow very few of the rules they make for us; they might as well follow the few they have for themselves.
Yes you need to watch it again. He's obviously starting into some whole dramatic act with changing clothes and sunglasses and making a wacky speech. Has nothing to do with some bias against hoodies.
So he's an indian fan of The Clash?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
the kid was a thug get the hell over it.
can we stop calling this guy white he wasnt freaking "white"
Its funny how mixed minorities love to ignore whatever white is in them. Barrack Obama is black....
So hey this guy isnt Hispanic hes white since it makes this an awesome more racially charged crime.
This country is a joke
Then this whole controversy would be over nothing?? I don't get it... is this some kind of riddle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Yes, some big dramatic speech about "hoodies not being hoodlums" and he was stopped once he raised his hood. Like I said, he was grandstanding but he either did the act to make a point or made one via some form of political idiot-genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
You're milage may vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Antonio Banderas, Hispanic or white?
Hispanic, right?
Well, he's from Spain and we Europeans considered Spaniards white.
So.... your milage WILL vary.
Yes. He is White and Hispanic. Hispanics can quite obviously be of any race. Banderas being a Spaniard is White. In the New World though, a sizable number of Hispanics are not White. Amongst Mexicans especially, many of them look like they came straight off some Mayan frescoes, and that's what they mostly are: Maya and Aztecs. Not White.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I mean, he kind of murdered someone. That's what the controversy is about. The legal discussion is secondary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Nevermind...I was fooled by the pictures they showed. But latest I read they were about the same size.
Incidental. No deeper meaning :shrug:Quote:
Yes, some big dramatic speech about "hoodies not being hoodlums" and he was stopped once he raised his hood.
Maybe he's just white?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"Hispanic" is a meaningless term here, we have "Spanish" and "Portugese", Antonio Banderas is not "Hispanic", he's spanish.
My point is, saying the shooter is "not white" is a non starter, you need to demonstrate he isn't "white" and that he's actually an Aztec is disguise.
I dunno, he sounds like a doddery old man but I'm assuming if he's that socially..odd he must have redeeming qualities to keep getting elected. Cunning is a common one. Even if he didn't make the point deliberately, it's still there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
EDIT: White also isn't really a "race", is it?
http://themostrequested.tv/wp-conten...-Zimmerman.jpg
Oh yeah when I look at that guy the first thing I think is this dude is as Caucasian as they get. He's not. He's Peruvian.
It is completely irrelevant what Europeans believe. This is an American case and what Europeans see as race is 100% irrelevant in it. I'm just sick of everything being blamed on the white guy for every little problem by people like Spike Lee and the Black Panthers to the extent where this dude is now being called white where if he walked into the hood and said the n word no one would blink.
No way to tell. He'd pass for Italian or possibly Catalan or Cypriot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
He isn't Black, and if you think he is your white-o-meter is far too sensative, I would probably fail, but then you've probably never seen a Sami.
Actually, saying that.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people
For that matter, Arabs are white too. So are Iranians (but the latter actually makes a lot of sense)
"Arab" and "Iranian" are both very broad terms, as is "Turk". Ethnic Turks are not white, they are Asian, but many modern Turks are actually Mediteranian, likewise ethnic Persians and Medes are "white" where Asiatic Iranians are not. "Arab" is brobably the broadest cultural-ethnic terms there is other than "African American", but obviously Semetic Arabs are white, because Semetic Jews are considered white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Oh, hey, some Afgans are white too, the Pashtuns are supposedly Jews who got dumped there by the Babylonians during the Exile.
The point being, this guy is NOT Black, certainly the mother of the boy who was shot doesn't think he was Black.
I think you are conflating a few different things in this post, and sending out a muddled message because of it. First of all, there is very little evidence that Martin was a "thug." Did he have a juvee or criminal record? No. Did he have any known gang affiliation? No. Any firsthand accounts of violence, crime, theft, arson, anything? Nope. So what's your basis for calling him a thug?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
The only people for whom the shooter's race is of paramount importance are the racists and the race-baiters. Of which we have (in my opinion) a small number of each, making a great deal of noise. (And it can be very hard to tell the two groups apart.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Nah, this country is pretty darn great. Look, in this case race can matter exactly as much as you want it to. But I think the urge to discredit and blame Martin for his own shooting, as expressed by you and Whacker in this thread, is misguided, and comes from a sense that liberals and blacks such as Al Sharpton are trying to milk this incident for their own purposes. (Which undoubtedly they are.) So to defuse it, and redirect your anger, you reach for calling Martin a "thug," based on slim to zero evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I get what you're doing, but I think it is misguided. Martin's shooting can be a horrible tragedy and a softball for race-baiters. One does not exclude the other. The "stand your ground" laws can be a horrible perversion of justice and Bobby Rush can be a grandstanding idiot. One does not cancel out the other.
Think about the standard for lethal violence written into Florida's law: you merely need to "feel" threatened to use deadly force. Contrast that with the standard for violence, in, say, the Old West, where you typically had to demonstrate that they other feller touched his gun first. We're more lax than that, which is kinda head-snapping if you think about it.
Don't let racist idiots and/or race-baiting trolls derail you from the serious issues at stake here.
-edit-
A side-note: We've had three years of gun ownership and 2nd A groups screaming that Obama was going to take our guns away. Even though not a single legislative or administrative move has been made, they're still going on about it. And all the while, concealed-carry permits have been getting okayed in state after state, the castle doctrine has been expanded in almost every state, and something like 26 states have passed "stand your ground" laws with the support of ALEC and the NRA. It certainly seems that the more the NRA gets exactly what it wants, the harder it screams and cries to its membership. I wonder if there is any end-game or final state that would actually satisfy them. You want to talk about special-interest groups that scream "victim" constantly with little to no basis in fact or reality?
You need a reality check again. I said this kid is most likely a thug, given his track record, as the evidence is strongly leaning that way. Multiple suspensions, from vandalism to swinging at a bus driver, and a very nice public presence with some pretty nasty statements. Both sides have produced "evidence", both sides are decrying, denouncing, or dismissing the other's. You've mentioned this a few times, as this is apparently "just another kid trying to be cool" or pretty much dismissing this as irrelevant or not a good judge of character. Sorry, don't agree whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You need to re-read what I've said several times in this thread. I'll repeat it here for your benefit. I said the kid's probably a thug. I said I'm going to wait before I make the final judgment, but that's how I'm strongly leaning now. I said the kid didn't DESERVE to be shot, very few people in this world do. I said I'm going to wait until the trial's over before I decide if I think he earned his dirt nap. Big differences. But I do appreciate your awful attempts to put that spin on what I say, makes me feel special.
I didn't say he deserved to be shot and I don't know why you always insist on doing this to people like whacker and I. I said he was a thug.
No record for theft? He was found with womens jewelry in his backpack.
He was a thug. I sincerely doubt he weighed 150 pounds or whatever they said since he was around 6'3'' and I just want this to go to trial so I can hear some actual facts instead of anyone who disagrees being labeled a racist animal and a fool.
Is it really if they "feel" threatened? I thought it was something like "reasonably believes" and only under certain circumstances...
Actual statute:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Fla. Stat. ยง 776.012. Use of force in defense of person
So you must have a reasonable expectation that you will face death or bodily harm. But it's all contingent on your "belief," which is a bit of a lawyer's paradise. And note the "forcible felony" clause, which covers a lot of turf, given how broadly a felony is defined in some jurisdictions.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or[...]
Nothing in that statute leads me to believe the local prosecutor acted in accordance with the text or spirit of the law, but as others have pointed out, we the public are functioning with incomplete information. It's reasonable to want an investigation and, if appropriate, a trial.
Whacker, Centurion, what can I say? The main thing both of you bothered to say was that Martin was a thug, neither of you could be bothered to link to a primary or even secondary source; you expect everyone to accept your "thug" evaluation at face value. You have nothing to say, apparently, about the law, the circumstances, the shooter, the police or the prosecutor. The sole object of your scorn is the guy who did the dying. And you're shocked, shocked that anyone could interpret that as anything but a cool, logical evaluation of the case. How dare they? The cheek! The nerve!
If your overall point is "we don't know" and "don't rush to judgment," that's great. But you undermine yourselves by jumping on the Thug Train, and having that be the most conspicuous point you make. You want to have a more serious conversation? By all means. Let's.
The fact that he's been suspended three times is well known. The BS he spouted on his Twatter account is also well known. Hell even one of your (horrible) op-ed pieces referenced this, the one that indicated I'm clearly a racist for not seeing this as representative of race issues in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Because I don't have any opinion on those yet? Because I haven't read anything that I think is "solid" that gives me enough of an impression to have an opinion? Shocking, isn't it.Quote:
You have nothing to say, apparently, about the law, the circumstances, the shooter, the police or the prosecutor.
Can't help it others, like you, willfully ignore parts of what I've said or willfully misrepresent and "spin" other things. This all works both ways. You have your panties in a huge wad that I've supposedly "condemned" the alleged victim already, I've stated multiple times I'm undecided on that. I find it equally annoying that you as well as many others have already indicated he is a "victim" in the overall situation, because that has yet to be established. If it turns out that he instigated the fight and gave Zimmerman cause to use lethal force, then victim he ain't.Quote:
The sole object of your scorn is the guy who did the dying. And you're shocked, shocked that anyone could interpret that as anything but a cool, logical evaluation of the case. How dare they? The cheek! The nerve!
So all of the ink spilled about Zimmerman, the local police and the prosecutor add up to "dunno." That's entirely fair. But based on what little you know about Martin, you're prepared to fight and die on the hill of "thug." This doesn't strike you as a bit strange?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Bull. I don't have an opinion on those aspects yet, and I will not until I've read enough that *I* feel is good enough to form one. Certainly the last thing I'm going to do is magically come up with one because you think I should, that's patently ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But your unsourced, unattributed whomever (I'm guessing some combination of WND and Daily Caller) are enough to convince you that Martin was a "little thug," and that's the one thing you're solid on. And you're willing to assert it without evidence, stand firm on it, and take it as the one gospel truth of a very confusing case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Even though the websites pushing this narrative (such as Daily Caller) have been walking it back for well over two days. This is the part of the case that seems solid and inarguable to you. And I'm being mean and unfair for pointing this out. I'm being a misrepresenting naughty person for saying, "Hey, chill the **** out on calling the guy who got shot names." But on every other aspect of this case, it's wait-and-see. This doesn't strike you as weird?
What would qualify someone as a "little thug"?
Still has to be "reasonable" belief...and that the force is "necessary"...the article I read recently had a pretty weak criticism from some prosecutor in florida with a bunch of experience with the law ("deserves a second look") or something so I'm doubtful that it's very bad...Quote:
So you must have a reasonable expectation that you will face death or bodily harm. But it's all contingent on your "belief," which is a bit of a lawyer's paradise. And note the "forcible felony" clause, which covers a lot of turf, given how broadly a felony is defined in some jurisdictions.
Yes. Would you punch him??Quote:
Originally Posted by Graphic
You just did this... "oh well he was being creepy and it was night time, he was asking to be punched!".Quote:
People downplaying this or dismissing it out of hand are playing the rape card, like a twisted version of "oh well she was wearing slutty clothes, she was asking for it!" The fact that you even mentioned that he was suspended from school is ridiculous because it's completely irrelevant.
I don't think this case is interesting in terms of self defense. It doesn't make much sense to have carrying a gun be legal but not have laws that err on the side of self defense. If shootings are your concern then you want to make carrying guns illegal. I also don't think the supposed racial issues with zimmerman or the prosecutors or anything are at all significant. Zimmerman is overzealous and the prosecutors are presumably right that there isn't a case.
The real problem is that every time there is a ridiculous overreaction to a story like this, and people are rallied to a bogus cause when most likely nothing is going to come of it, more and more people become disaffected.
:shame:Quote:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism is reporting that media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case has become the first story in 2012 to be featured more than the presidential race.
He was black and wearing a hoodie. And he may or may not have been tripping on pot. Sometime. At least, there was an empty baggy that smelled of pot in his backpack at school one time. That kind of indisputable evidence would make him a thug in any right-thinking person's mind. Come on Lemur. Get with the program. Jump on the team an come on in for the big win.Quote:
Originally Posted by LemurI think you are conflating a few different things in this post, and sending out a muddled message because of it. First of all, there is very little evidence that Martin was a "thug." Did he have a juvee or criminal record? No. Did he have any known gang affiliation? No. Any firsthand accounts of violence, crime, theft, arson, anything? Nope. So what's your basis for calling him a thug?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
In other news, I note that the gun rights groups are raising money for Zimmerman's defence:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2
Awesome. Finally someone is standing up for this unsung hero of street justice.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...teer-zimmermanQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/201...all.html?imw=Y
If I may repeat something I've said multiple times in this thread, Zimmerman should have his day in court. What creeped me out was the apparent attempt to prevent that from happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
It did go before the grand jury... Nothing since then. Maybe the jury decided there was nothing that would warrant a trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'd like to see a source for that. Last I heard it had not, and is now slated for a Federal grand jury. Did it actually go in front of a Florida grand jury? This is news.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg