"Racism is dead in America." Bullshit

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 19:02
VIEWED: 28806
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?

You can't legally punch someone for hitting you, but you CAN kill someone for your self defense (if they're poor).
So, jungle anyone?

The Mal-like Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Ha ha, frack that; I looked my menacing German Shepherd in the eye and asked it if it wanted to be dead.
I was not in a good mood. It realized that I was not to be fracked with.
Intent is important when dealing with animals.

Riddickisall

" It's an animal thing. "

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:44 AM

AU, that was great, LOL!!

The Mal-like Chrisisall

OONJERAH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:04 AM

Yo, Chris, how's it going?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:14 AM

Stayin' strong in the struggle, my friend!

Makin' the models I can.

Lovin' my Wife & Son...

Waiting for John Carter to come out on DVD (Loved the flick).

Preparing for the subtle but inevitable Fascist power grab circumventing our Constitution.

I SO can't wait for future President Romney to leave office...

The Mal-like Chrisisall

KWICKO

Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll

I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?

Also, if you're armed, stalking someone and accosting them, you're not "standing your ground" or defending your "castle"; you're hunting people, plain and simple, and just begging for any excuse to kill someone.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:55 AM

I stand by my comments.

And, FYI - someone forwarded the available info and case specific data to former states attorney and governor jennifer granholm, who I have a ton of respect for - and while she said it far more diplomatically, her review of the situation is in all particulars identical to mine.

Second degree murder.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:39 PM

Quote:
If people were smart, they would use this as a way to talk about the real issues.- Wulf

And what, in your estimation, are the "real issues"? - Kwicko

Did we ever get Wulf's wisdom on the topic?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I stand by my comments.

That makes two of us.

The Mal-like Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:12 PM

The issues here are not racism, or gun-control, or stand-your-ground laws.

The issue is that there is a perception that a certain group (or groups) are dangerous. For the most part, its earned... but its also cultivated.

Then, thrown into the mix, is the idea that "clothes make the man". Combine the 2, a perceived dangerous group, in clothing that promotes said image of savagery...

along with a man who is determined to keep his area safe...

and this is what happens.

I won't pretend things like this won't happen in the future.... but a solution will require a shift in culture of said group.

Culture X needs to radically alter their behavior, and goals.

I wonder what would have happened, if it had been an asian kid. Asians are not known as being an overtly dangerous group.

Now, if the kid was asian, and wearing gangster gear (Fubu, hoodie, Tims... whatever) would this have turned out the same? It might have.

Its what I was talking about before. Stereotypes don't just happen. Sometimes its made up to make one group feel superior to the other...

and other times its "earned" in that enough of "outsiders" have observed certain behaviors by a group that it can be reasonably given.

The answer here might simply be that this kid, being part of certain group through no fault of his own (birth), wearing clothing associated with the negative steretypes of said group, ran afoul of another man, who was bound and determined to keep his area safe from the negatives of said group.

In other words, this kid was a victim of the negative aspects (both perceived and vetted) of his grouping. Wearing clothing that added to said negative view.

Maybe the group should work to change its perception by the other groups living with and near it.

Yes, we are all individuals. As individuals we can be awesome. However, we are each judged daily... by the clothes we wear, our hairstyle, the way we walk, the way we talk,

add to that, the things we cannot change.

So, you are grouped especially by the things you cannot change. Maybe, you should work towards promoting a good image of said group.

Before you jump on me, I'm not saying its this kids fault for being shot. Far from it. I'm pointing out that there were aspects outside of him, that helped lead to this. He got caught up in them with tragic results.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

CAVETROLL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Injuries are substantive proof of assault

CT, it's not 'assault' if it was Trayvon acting in self-defence, which seems to have been the case. Even if Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, HE WAS BEING STALKED - so such an action could reasonably be construed as defensive.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Exactly. Z's injuries are substantive proof of nothing.

As to the alleged eye-witness, we've already heard one witness state that their statements to police were changed from what they said they heard and saw.

You say self defense. Was Zimmerman approaching Martin with a gun out? Zimmerman had the same right to be in that place as Martin. He had the right to follow a suspicious looking person. His neighbors had appointed him to the community watch. In essence, asking him to do that very thing.

Zimmerman's injuries do back up a justification for use of force. Which is all required under Florida law. "Why did you use deadly force?" "Because I was being battered by the decedent." End of story. Brutal, but the end.

CAVETROLL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll

I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?

As long as the gun is holstered, it has no bearing on the events. There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that spot. Whatever happened between the two of them remains a mystery. But from an eyewitness and the subsequent physical injury to Zimmerman we know that Martin battered Zimmerman. At that point, the gun comes into play. Zimmerman had all the justification to use deadly force required under law.

Do I think it was right and prudent? Depends on the circumstances. Did Zimmerman try to hold Martin at gunpoint? Unknown. Could it have gone down better? Absolutely.

CAVETROLL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?
You can't legally punch someone for hitting you, but you CAN kill someone for your self defense (if they're poor).
So, jungle anyone?

Under Florida law, yes. Under Florida law you can punch someone for hitting you. Since the law is silent on the use of non-deadly force when threatened, it is permissible. In fact, since an eyewitness saw Zimmerman and Martin fighting, we can conclude that Zimmerman did or attempted to, punch Martin for hitting him.

Where does relative wealth enter into it?

CAVETROLL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll

I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?

Also, if you're armed, stalking someone and accosting them, you're not "standing your ground" or defending your "castle"; you're hunting people, plain and simple, and just begging for any excuse to kill someone.

There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place. There was no prohibition for Zimmerman following Martin. In fact, as a community watch member he had a justification for doing so.

What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?

CAVETROLL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I stand by my comments.

I could have accepted an insult delivered in heat. But when calmer demeanors return, I expect an apology from an adult.

Quote:

And, FYI - someone forwarded the available info and case specific data to former states attorney and governor jennifer granholm, who I have a ton of respect for - and while she said it far more diplomatically, her review of the situation is in all particulars identical to mine.

Second degree murder.

Thankfully, politicians and security guards are not part of law enforcement. One group passes laws ignorant of their unintended consequences. The other is not held to the same standards of performance as police.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:05 PM

Quote:

Relevant quotes:

"The issues here are not racism"

"
The issue is that there is a perception that a certain group (or groups) are dangerous. For the most part, its earned..."

"Then, thrown into the mix, is the idea that "clothes make the man". Combine the 2, a perceived dangerous group, in clothing that promotes said image of savagery..."

"a solution will require a shift in culture of said group."

"Asians are not known as being an overtly dangerous group."

"if the kid was asian, and wearing gangster gear (Fubu, hoodie, Tims... whatever) would this have turned out the same? It might have."

"this kid was a victim of the negative aspects (both perceived and vetted) of his grouping."

"Maybe the group should work to change its perception"

And of the perpetrator?

"a man who is determined to keep his area safe..."

Hello Wulf,

Your comments remind me of the Wulf I knew.

Apparently, when black people start behaving themselves, there will be less incidents like this one.

Also, Asians are alright, but not when they dress funny.

I note that you place the real onus of change on the cultures of the victims, and not the culture that may prey on them because of gross racial and style generalizations.

--Anthony

ETA: Relevant quotes from Wulf's post.
_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:16 PM

I take offense to that.

"cultures of the victims"? Explain that.

Also, stating that a culture has a perception is not un-true, or un-kind. It just is. If it has a negative aspect, working to change it for the positive might be the SMART thing to do.

AND, as to "and style generalizations.." Are you kidding me?

Heres a test. If you dress up as a police officer, would you be surprised if people thought of you as law-enforcement?

Same thing. Clothing does invoke perception. Arguing that you can dress up as a cop (when you are not one) and then be angry if people think you are law-enforcement is just stupid.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:28 PM

Quote:
I take offense to that.

Hello,

I also found it offensive.

Quote:
"cultures of the victims"? Explain that.

In this case, the victims are those who are murdered because of the gross generalizations you mention. You put the onus of culture change on them, so that they are no longer murdered because of what people assume about them.

Quote:
Heres a test. If you dress up as a police officer, would you be surprised if people thought of you as law-enforcement?

What an interesting leap. Obviously if I dress in a manner proscribed to a profession, I will be determined to be of that profession. The iconic nature of police uniforms is actually protected by law in some places.

Quote:
Same thing. Clothing does invoke perception.

Yes, my wife's beloved hoodies, by your example, mark her as a gangsta who may be pre-emptively murdered by some shlub trying to protect his neighborhood.

Meanwhile the culture of gun-toting neighborhood commandos is given a pass for jumping to conclusions about people due to the color of their skin and choice of clothing.

Where is the talk about the culture of the aggressor? The culture of might-makes-right, assumptions are warranted, I am a yahoo cowboy, and God can sort em out?

If that culture changed, then all the other cultures and people who enjoy types of fashion would be safe. Including my poor wife and her gangsta hoodie.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:35 PM

Again.

If you don't want people to think you are a cop, don't dress and act like one.

If you don't want people to think you are a thug (and treat you like one), same thing applies.

Sorry that pisses you off. It doesn't change that its true, however.

We all have our crosses to bear. Being a tall, handsome, white, male... I have had to deal with being thought of as wealthy. Born with a silver spoon and all of it. I wasn't.

But because there is a perception of certain characteristics, culture and the like, you will be judged in the first 10 seconds of someone seeing you.

Its the way of the world. You may not like it, but do grow up.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:53 PM

Quote:
You may not like it, but do grow up.

Hello,

A grownup is someone who knows that you can't judge a person by their appearance.

It's what you do that matters.

'Walking while gangsterish' is a crime only in immature minds. The culture that needs to change, Wulf, is yours. The culture of people who excuse abuses. The "that's what they get for dressing that way" culture.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:17 PM

Only a fool ignores certain things in life.

The sky is blue, rain is wet, people are judged by many things (their appearance, mannerisms, history of groupings included.)

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point. That things are, as they are, is.

You are upset that someone could be judged by their clothing, their mannerisms, their skin, the way they walk, the way they talk... ok.

Its cute, but it is also like being angry at the sun for being too hot, or the wind for being too cold.

Sharks hump their backs before they attack. We know this because there have been studies done, observations made, and conclusions drawn.

As a diver, if you see a shark humping its back, you can reasonably conclude that it will attack. So you take precaution.

Is this wrong? No, you are protecting yourself, by knowing the signs that signal danger. Humans have long learned to do that, with the natural world and with each other.

Your statement is as intelligent as saying, "You can't judge a shark by the behavior of its species. So what if a shark has teeth that bite, and it shows what is known to be aggressive behavior! Turn you back to it and swim away. Being bitten is better than being cautious and acting in your own self-defense."

You may choose to do that. Others are not so willing.

The difference is that you would have us all turn our backs and take whatever comes. I say, be cautious, act accordingly, and be willing to fight.

This is going to go over the head of a lot, but it still needs to be said.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again.

If you don't want people to think you are a cop, don't dress and act like one.

If you don't want people to think you are a thug (and treat you like one), same thing applies.

Sorry that pisses you off. It doesn't change that its true, however.

We all have our crosses to bear. Being a tall, handsome, white, male... I have had to deal with being thought of as wealthy. Born with a silver spoon and all of it. I wasn't.

But because there is a perception of certain characteristics, culture and the like, you will be judged in the first 10 seconds of someone seeing you.

Its the way of the world. You may not like it, but do grow up.

I agree with all of this except the "grow up" part.
This happens in a lot in threads, where one person approaches a subject from the angle of 'what things should be like' and another person comes at it from the 'how they are' angle. It's not always fair to prejudge but it happens. If you want to you can hope people judge you fairly and openly, but you'd be wise to count on people judging you in a variety of ways and many of them might not be exactly kind or well thought out. All of us are judged every single day, even here.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NIKI2

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:05 PM

Been listening and reading the facts emerging as this goes along. It paints a pretty strange picture, even as to whether he WAS a neighborhood-watch captain, and whether he was "on duty" or just running a personal errand, among other things. So here is what I've gleaned, from numerous sites. I've left out duplicative stuff:

Quote:
Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) -- the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch -- it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

"In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."

Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot -- all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies. http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-
of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php

Mind you, not every neighborhood watch program HAS to be part of this organization.

Quote:
Zimmerman followed another man a year later, saying the man had spit on him. {following someone because they spit on you?}

Zimmerman’s record becomes spottier over the following years as he had a handful of run-ins with the law. In July 2005, Zimmerman was arrested after a tussle with law enforcement outside of a bar near the University of Central Florida. It was a first offense, and Zimmerman got off with a pretrial diversion program.

In August of the same year, a petition for injunction was filed against Zimmerman by a woman who cited domestic violence, and Zimmerman responded with his own petition. Both injunctions were issued.

Despite these scrapes, Zimmerman reportedly wanted to enter law enforcement himself, and was attending Seminole State College, which has a law and public safety program. In 2008, he applied to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office program for citizen law enforcement.{If he applied, why didn't he follow through? If he followed through, why did he go against every tenant of neighborhood watch?}

It is not clear where Zimmerman was employed at the time of the shooting, but records show that he was working for CarMax for an undetermined period of time before 2008.

On Monday, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office released recordings of six non-emergency calls in which Zimmerman is heard reporting mundane happenings around his neighborhood. In one of the calls he reports spotting two African-American males who match the description of suspects from a recent robbery. In another, he reports a neighbor’s open garage door.

Others members of the community, including Ibrahim Rashada, told reporters that Zimmerman’s behavior was sometimes unnerving, as when the watchman emailed a description of a suspect to other residents. “I fit the stereotype he emailed around,” Rashada said. After that, Rashada didn’t feel comfortable taking walks around his neighborhood. “I don’t want anyone chasing me,” he said. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-the-
man-who-shot-trayvon-martin-profiled-by-family-and-neighbors.html

Quote:
When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman's c

NIKI2

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:22 PM

Wulf, you are still stuck in that world of yours where everything is black and white.

Quote:
You are upset that someone could be judged by their clothing, their mannerisms, their skin, the way they walk, the way they talk... ok.

Its cute, but it is also like being angry at the sun for being too hot, or the wind for being too cold.

That's a stupid statement. In your world, everyone should dress alike, walk alike and talk alike, or it's THEIR fault if someone attacks them. It's precisely the mentality of "It's her fault she was raped; look at what she's wearing"...which, come to think of it, you probably agree with as well.

What happened to that "libertarian" belief that we should be free to do as we want without anyone forcing us to do what THEY want? Apparently that's interpreted as "look like and do whatever the majority wants, or you have no rights".

In your world, Indian women shouldn't wear saris, Jews shouldn't wear things on their heads, Catholics shouldn't wear crosses, and on and on, because it makes them "different" from the "norm". The fact that people are stereotyped is exactly because of mentalities such as yours. Not everyone sees a Black man wearing a hoodie as someone they should attack because they are different. Some do; too many do; that doesn't mean everyone should give up their rights because others prejudge them.

Actually, it's not even looking like the majority--the VAST majority of people have no problem with people looking differently from them. It's the small MINORITY who pick on the "other". So in your world, we should all be ruled by the minority of bigoted people who won't accept us unless we meet their precise requirements. Not try to change them, not try to widen their horizons, not insist they treat those differently from them with respect, just obey this minority's "laws", in order to survive.

These people aren't the "sun"; they don't have the right to demand we all acquiesce to their stereotypes. The sun is a FACT; racism and prejudice aren't scientific facts, they are aspects of society we MUST somehow eventually minimize to such a degree that people don't get killed because of others' prejudices. Denegrating this by calling it "cute" is indiscribably offensive. It's absolutely amazing for someone who has always professed the attitude you have displayed to say that everyone should bow down to a minority because "that's the way it is". According to you, a woman shouldn't try to assert her rights in any Muslim country; no society should ever evolve; slaves should never have fought for their freedom; people who beat their wives shouldn't be punished by the law because "she should have known better than to piss him off". I'm sure you can't see or understand any of that, but that is how it REALLY is.

I can't even find words to describe how utterly racist and horrible your concept is.

KPO

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:25 PM

Quote:
There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place.

There was no stalking?? What planet are you living on? Zimmerman said by his own account that he stalked Martin.

Quote:
There was no prohibition for Zimmerman following Martin.

Sure, but if you stalk somebody in the dark they have a right to feel threatened and to protect themselves with force under Florida self-defence laws.

Quote:
What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?

See above. By the way, I love how you've filled in all the blanks in this case yourself. You've established that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman have you? Based on what?

It's not personal. It's just war.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:28 PM

So, black teenagers should stop wearing hoodies. The problem is this: how do gangsters dress? LIKE YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. Was Martin wearing colors, bandanas, anything that would actually distinguish him as a gang member??? Not on your life.

It's not the clothing that makes white folks think "gangster," it's black people in the clothing. Wolf wants black people to dress like Urkle or Bill Cosby so as not to get shot at. This is disgusting. And women who wear a dress that falls more than a hand's width above the knee are asking to be raped. It's the same specious logic. And so, because a significant number of violent bastards in our culture think this way, then their multitudinous potential victims should damn well act accordingly or be branded stupid and "asking for it?"

What in god's name is the readily available, cheap and practical alternative to the hoodie? Something, btw, anyone who shops at Old Navy--a notorious gang supply house--will own. So, okay, it's not racism, it's class and culture war. So, now if it isn't the race of the victim, it's the fact that the victim can't afford a $150 rain jacket from REI.

Pizmo, any argument that proceeds from the premise, "This is HOW things are" can and will be employed by the ruling class to keep the underclass "WHERE they are." It's a logical fallacy, it's an argument from authority (heh). The argument that black teenagers should change the way they dress to avoid getting shot at by random "good citizens" serves no one but those who would rather not be held accountable for their atrocious attacks on black teenagers. It doesn't serve you or me. And it doesn't serve Trayvon Martin's family.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
How can people not, at the very least, have questions about Zimmerman and his story, and the police? I just don't get it; there's so much that is illogical or questionable about how it was handled, I don't understand why people are so determined to defend Zimmerman without even knowing all the facts, and with what facts are available clearly indicating there is something wrong with how it was handled.

I've not seen or heard anyone anywhere defend Zimmerman - someone in this thread?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:33 PM

Quote:
Your statement is as intelligent as saying, "You can't judge a shark by the behavior of its species. So what if a shark has teeth that bite, and it shows what is known to be aggressive behavior! Turn you back to it and swim away. Being bitten is better than being cautious and acting in your own self-defense."

Hello,

You are wrong. Once again you create a framework for your argument that has no basis on the discussion. Your statement has massive logical fallacies.

Your logic is as follows: Gangsters are violent people who wear hoodies.

Hence: Everyone who wears hoodies is a violent gangster.

Which is not only logically incorrect, but OBSERVABLY incorrect as well. We all know that this same clothing is sold to gangsters and non-gangsters alike. Yet you still claim it is a correct assumption to assume "Person dressed X is obviously a gangster and I have to protect myself from their aggression or crime."

In fact, the problem is twofold. Not only are illogic leaps being made to reach conclusions which are observably false in many instances, but illogical responses are being made based on these illogical leaps. Even if your twisted thinking assigns a twisted identity to someone based on appearance, to then pursue escalation behavior with that person is ludicrous.

The problem isn't perception, it's laziness. This is because while you may have observed gangstas with hoodies, you have also observed non-gangstas with hoodies. But delving deeper is too much work, so it's easier to just slap the label on across the board. Then you excuse the behavior with, "It's just the way things are" thereby absolving yourself of any responsibility to change.

THEN after absolving yourself of such responsibility, YOU ACTUALLY ASSIGN THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS!

"They" should change so that you can continue to make your lazy assumptions. "You" can enjoy life the way it is.

Here's the way life really is. "They" aren't all the same. "You" can't be bothered. But you sure want to justify bothering "Them."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

KPO

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm hoping someone can answer this question: if I decide to murder someone, and I have a gun, and I wait till there is no one else around and then shoot that person - can I get away with it as long as I claim self-defense? B/c as long as there are no witnesses to say any different, the police can't really assume it was murder. Right? It seems like that's what it boils down to in this case.

I might try this. Go to Florida or some other US Southern state, hassle some white kid (I'm a black man by the way), acquire a few cuts and bruises, shoot him dead, and then when the police arrive claim self-defence. I'll be released on the spot right?

It's not personal. It's just war.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So, black teenagers should stop wearing hoodies. The problem is this: how do gangsters dress? LIKE YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. Was Martin wearing colors, bandanas, anything that would actually distinguish him as a gang member??? Not on your life.

It's not the clothing that makes white folks think "gangster," it's black people in the clothing. Wolf wants black people to dress like Urkle or Bill Cosby so as not to get shot at. This is disgusting. And women who wear a dress that falls more than a hand's width above the knee are asking to be raped. It's the same specious logic. And so, because a significant number of violent bastards in our culture think this way, then their multitudinous potential victims should damn well act accordingly or be branded stupid and "asking for it?"

What in god's name is the readily available, cheap and practical alternative to the hoodie? Something, btw, anyone who shops at Old Navy--a notorious gang supply house--will own. So, okay, it's not racism, it's class and culture war. So, now if it isn't the race of the victim, it's the fact that the victim can't afford a $150 rain jacket from REI.

Pizmo, any argument that proceeds from the premise, "This is HOW things are" can and will be employed by the ruling class to keep the underclass "WHERE they are." It's a logical fallacy, it's an argument from authority (heh). The argument that black teenagers should change the way they dress to avoid getting shot at by random "good citizens" serves no one but those who would rather not be held accountable for their atrocious attacks on black teenagers. It doesn't serve you or me. And it doesn't serve Trayvon Martin's family.

I'm not arguing anyone should change what they wear, but everyone should at the very least understand that the world is full of bad people JUST LIKE ZIMMERMAN, and they will judge you just like he did.
I think we should work every day to make the world more fair and change the attitudes of people like Zimmerman, I don't think we should ever settle, and in the mean time as we improve things let's be smart about how effed that world can be.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
How can people not, at the very least, have questions about Zimmerman and his story, and the police? I just don't get it; there's so much that is illogical or questionable about how it was handled, I don't understand why people are so determined to defend Zimmerman without even knowing all the facts, and with what facts are available clearly indicating there is something wrong with how it was handled.

I've not seen or heard anyone anywhere defend Zimmerman - someone in this thread?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

Quote:
I've not seen or heard anyone anywhere defend Zimmerman - someone in this thread?

Hello,

Only indirectly by implication. The shooter was just a man trying to defend his neighborhood. He made reasonable assumptions. The victim's 'group' is to blame for those assumptions. They should improve their P.R. to protect people like this unfortunate shot boy.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:39 PM

"It's not the clothing that makes white folks think "gangster," it's black people in the clothing.."

Sorry, knew plenty of white boys in Fubu, that made me think gangster.

I get a kick when idiots with no history, no experience, no knowledge, try to talk like they know what is going on.

This is something you have no intelligence on. Keep to talking about Apple, and niche music, hipster.

Stick to what you know, and stop making a fool of yourself.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Only indirectly by implication. The shooter was just a man trying to defend his neighborhood. He made reasonable assumptions. The victim's 'group' is to blame for those assumptions. They should improve their P.R. to protect people like this unfortunate shot boy.

I thought the case against him was pretty open and shut after he ignored police telling him "don't follow him." My only question is what he'll plea.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I think we should work every day to make the world more fair and change the attitudes of people like Zimmerman, I don't think we should ever settle, and in the mean time as we improve things let's be smart about how effed that world can be.

But Pizmo! Last week no one was thinking, "Wearing a hoodie is an easy way to get shot in this effed up world." You're letting this one man's act of slaughter redefine reality, which is EXACTLY its deepest intent.

That's what violence is about. That is precisely why violent people commit violence: to control and define reality for the victim and, by implied threat, for anyone who is watching.

It's what the attackers on 9/11 wanted to do. They wanted the terror of that morning to redefine our reality. And, to our unutterable shame in this country, they have largely succeeded.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I think we should work every day to make the world more fair and change the attitudes of people like Zimmerman, I don't think we should ever settle, and in the mean time as we improve things let's be smart about how effed that world can be.
But Pizmo! Last week no one was thinking, "Wearing a hoodie is an easy way to get shot in this effed up world." You're letting this one man's act of slaughter redefine reality, which is EXACTLY its deepest intent.

That's what violence is about. That is precisely why violent people commit violence: to control and define reality for the victim and, by implied threat, for anyone who is watching.

It's what the attackers on 9/11 wanted to do. They wanted the terror of that morning to redefine our reality. And, to our unutterable shame in this country, they have largely succeeded.

And why did they succeed?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NIKI2

Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:20 PM

Well, well:

Quote:
Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee said he must "temporarily remove myself" from duty, a day after the City Commission voted 3-2 in favor of a nonbinding measure of no confidence in him.

"My role as the leader of this agency has become a distraction from the investigation …." Lee said during a news conference.

Zimmerman has not been arrested. Police say they have not charged Zimmerman because they have no evidence to contradict his story that he shot in self-defense, leading to a new debate over a controversial state law. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/sanford-police-chief-temporarily-
steps-down/?hpt=hp_c1 last is curious, to me, and brings to mind Kiki's question about killing someone then claiming self-defense. They have no evidence his story is TRUE, either, yet they chose to think in terms of "We can't prove he's lying". That's like saying "if you're dead, and nobody can offer evidence that you were killed wrongly, you get away with it", just as Kiki posited. How insane! There is no logic to this whatsoever. They HAD evidence Zimmerman was stalking him. They HAD evidence he's been over-zealous before. They HAD evidence Trayvon had nothing but skittles and ice tea on him, whereas Zimmerman had a gun. All that before anything else came out!

Completely aside from anything else, they let him go with his loaded gun, with no sobriety test, nothing. Obviously, if it had been a Black man, neighborhood-watch captain or no, it wouldn't have happened this way. How they can conceivabl justify what they did is beyond me.

Hope this law gets trashed in every state where it exists. It literally DOES say that if you're found standing over the body of someone with a loaded gun and ADMIT you shot them, if nobody saw anything and before any investigation goes on--say as to whether your injuries were self-inflicted, whether you were drunk, whether you were stalking the person, whether they were armed or not, whether they were doing ANYTHING wrong--you go home with your gun. How crazy is that?!?!

There'd BETTER be a GOOD investigation, 'cuz there are too many questions and not nearly enough answers. Someone should take a good long look at that police department from top to bottom; given one of the police CONTRADICTED a witnesses statement that Travvon yelled help, and another questioned Zimmerman rather than let him tell his story, and the fact that it wasn't the police chief, it was the OFFICERS who took Zimmerman at his word and sent him home, there should be a serious investigation.

Yes, attitude is top down, but these officers had no problem doing what they did; THEY should be investigated as well.

CAVETROLL

Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place.

There was no stalking?? What planet are you living on? Zimmerman said by his own account that he stalked Martin.

Florida's legal definition of stalking.

Quote:

FLORIDA

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

Zimmerman's actions served a legitimate purpose. This was an isolated incident, not a pattern of conduct. There was no credible threat prior to the incident. There was no repetition prior to the incident. There was no injunction.

Calling it stalking fails every test against the law.

Quote:

Quote:
There was no prohibition for Zimmerman following Martin.

Sure, but if you stalk somebody in the dark they have a right to feel threatened and to protect themselves with force under Florida self-defence laws.
Do you know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin? Did Martin speak to Zimmerman or run? Did Zimmerman immediately get physical with Martin? It's a huge unknown. Supposition and guesswork only weaken any legal case that may come of this.
Quote:

Quote:
What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?

See above. By the way, I love how you've filled in all the blanks in this case yourself. You've established that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman have you? Based on what?

I said hitting, not attacking. Do not put words in my mouth. Read the ABC news report I have linked multiple times in this thread. (Which I am beginning to feel nobody is reading.) There was an eyewitness who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a bloody n

NIKI2

Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:32 PM

Quote:
There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place.

First, as mentioned, Zimmerman ADMITTED he was staling Traynor, first by car, then on foot. Second, Trayvon had the same right as Zimmerman to be in that place, as well.

Quote:
What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?

Leaving out that you have no way of knowing if Martin hit Zimmerman first or Zimmerman hit Martin, Trayvon's "justification" is the exact law that they say gave Zimmerman the right to shoot him. Feeling threatened. Going about his business, doing no harm, and having someone who has 100 lbs. on him follow him in the dark and demand to know what he's doing there. Remember that little "stand your ground" law?

Quote:
I get a kick when idiots with no history, no experience, no knowledge, try to talk like they know what is going on.

This is something you have no intelligence on. Keep to talking about Apple, and niche music, hipster.

Stick to what you know, and stop making a fool of yourself.

I see you're right back to your usual mud slinging, nothing has changed. Nobody here has shown "no knowledge", and your "experience" is YOUR experience, not the entire world. Merely stating "there was no stalking" when Zimmerman openly admitted he stalked the kid shows your deliberate ignorance. Claiming something is not what it has been STATED to be isn't ignorance, it's deliberate ignorance. Deliberate ignorance of the facts is stupidity.

Calling people fools and idiots does nothing but make you look like an idiotic fool.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:09 PM

"Higher" learning at Florida Atlantic University.

( dunno how long this'll be up....)

#!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/white-fuin-mother-fuers-would-die-fl-s
tudent-flips-out-in-class-threatens-to-kill-prof/

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:10 PM

Niki, you had pikes ready and set to put this guys head on... when he was white....

now you've backed off that, and are trying a different tact.

This was a bad situation, that had bad consequences. Nothing more.

I was trying to point out how this could have been averted, maybe set us all on a better path... but you and yours fall on the same tired tactics that led to this.

That in fact, CAUSED this.

You can't see it. Yet, there were (ARE) others who were (ARE) smart enough to know that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

Lo siento, but this might actually bring things to a head.

ETA: Cus, I for one, am past tired of this PC, post-hippy B.S.

Its done, its over. 1960s to 2012s. Over 50 years of it. Im heartened by the fact that this generation is now starting to buck. And, are starting to finally look at how things really are.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:26 PM

Quote:
I was trying to point out how this could have been averted

Hello,

Yes, your solution is telling.

Here, I paraphrase:

Wulf Solution: "All the people we make assumptions about need to change so that we stop making assumptions about them and hurting them."

Correct Solution: "We need to stop making assumptions about people and using those assumptions to hurt them."

Wulf Response: "You can't change people, man, that's just the way it is. But all those other people, the one's we're hurting? Yeah, THEY need to change."

People can't change, This is the way things are, and also, Those people need to change.

Personal responsibility is a concept that only seems to flow in convenient directions. A young man wants to wear 'gangsta' clothes? He needs to change. Another man wants to hunt down people in 'gangsta' clothes? He's just making reasonable assumptions. It's the way of the world.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:28 PM

I agree with Niki, it would be awful if this wasn't investigated any further, there's lots of stuff that needs looked into. From what I know in my state, if someone kills someone in self defense its looked into to check it out. Unfortunately there are situations where the self defense killing was justified and the person who killed still gets put in jail. :( This makes me really upset. But the Zimmerman and Martin case doesn't look like that, there's enough suspicious info here that not investigating would be downright criminal.

Wulf I see what you're saying about how sometimes steriotypes come from somewhere, but after that you totally lose me.

Trayvon sounds like ,gasp, a normal kid, it sounds like he was scared of Zimmerman too, I'd be scared if some bigger guy was following me around in the dark, I can't blame him for being frightened. I feel pretty bad for his family and his girlfriend.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NIKI2

Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:51 PM

Quote:
Niki, you had pikes ready and set to put this guys head on... when he was white....

now you've backed off that, and are trying a different tact.

Jezus, Wulf, you're amazing. I assume you haven't noticed that, as further facts came to light, I've first withheld judgment and, now that there are many more facts, I'm condemning Zimmerman? According to this I've "backed off"?? I've heard and read enough to give me serious cause to question this situation and at this point to believe Zimmerman is a loose cannon who appointed himself "chief" and wrongly killed a young man who was doing nothing. How is that backing off? And what "tact" (I think you mean "tack") am I using? Posting quotes from cites which have made me come to believe as I do? Gawd, I weep for your baby, having a father like you. If you keep it up, those who chastized us for how we feel about you will in short order understand WHY we do.

Cave:

Quote:
Was Zimmerman approaching Martin with a gun out?

Have you proof he wasn't?

Quote:
Zimmerman had the same right to be in that place as Martin

Martin had the same right to be in that place as Zimmerman, and he wasn't bothering Zimmerman.

Quote:
His neighbors had appointed him to the community watch

No. He appointed HIMSELF "neighborhood watch captain":

Quote:
When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, only one man stepped up: George Zimmerman

AND he was acting contrary to every rule of neighborhood watch, by pursuing someone rather than WATCHING, by carrying a concealed weapon and by accosting Martin.

Quote:
Zimmerman's injuries do back up a justification for use of force.

No, they don't. Has anyone mentioned any injuries Martin had? Surely if there was an altercation, NEITHER could get off without injuries, so how do Zimmerman's injuries prove he didn't hit Martin first?

Quote:
As long as the gun is holstered

Was it? Do you have proof?

Quote:
But from an eyewitness.... we know that Martin battered Zimmerman

You want witnesses?

Quote:
....witness Mary Cutcher ... said police only took a two or three sentence statement from her. Cutcher said a cry for help got her attention on the day Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in her backyard by Zimmerman.

Cutcher said it was short, and police never questioned her in detail until after she repeatedly reached out to them.

"Blew us off, and I called him back again and I said, "I know this was not self-defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling,'" Cutcher said.

"We said, 'Is everything OK? And he just looked at us. Selma [another witness] asked him again, 'What's up, what's going on, everything OK? And he just said, 'Call the police,' kind of nonchalantly, kind of like, 'Leave me alone,' '' Cutcher said. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slay
ing/nLSqk/

Quote:
A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.” [ABC News] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-shoul
d-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

Quote:
Mary Cutcher describes what she witnessed that night.
"And at the time that we heard the whining and then the gunshot, we did not hear any wrestling, no punching, no fighting, nothing to make it sound like there was a fight," Cutcher said to Anderson Cooper.
Cutcher told Cooper that she does not believe the Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
"Originally, I didn't believe it was self-defense because of what we saw when we walked out on the porch. If it was se

OONJERAH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:13 PM

Quote Oonjerah: "Sponsors of Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law say George
Zimmerman should be arrested" :> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-sponsors-
florida-stand-ground-law-george-zimmerman-arrested-article-1.1048164

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Herald.
"When he said, 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley said
the law they wrote in 2005, which allows someone who feels threatened to
"meet force with force" without backing down first, was being misapplied
in the shooting death of the 17-year-old, the Miami Herald reported.

"They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,"
Peaden, a Republican, told the Herald. "He has no protection under my law."

Oonj: All things considered, I consider Zimmerman indefensible. Color him to be arrested soon.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:18 PM

Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty... or wrong.

In this case, its a bunch of snakes, trying to hide under a rock.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

OONJERAH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:22 PM

BTW, I wear a hoodie almost every day in cool weather. But I don't
pull the hood up unless it's colder.

I didn't realize that I look like a gangsta's moll. No one told me. :(

So is this Hoodie = Gangsta perception preDOMinant in the 49 Other States
but not sunny, sane California?

If I do get shot while wearing my hoodie, will someone please inform
my next of kin that I was asking for it?

I also have not started packing a gun whenever I go shopping.
(I'm always behind the times!)

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:29 PM

Pearles before Swine at this point... hoodies? In all of this? THATS what you choose to seize on?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Pearles before Swine at this point... hoodies? In all of this? THATS what you choose to seize on?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Hello,

Hoodies are what you seized upon, Wulf. Amongst other clothes. You also said the perception of Asians are that they are not as violent as Black people, UNLESS they wear particular clothes. And you also said that these 'groups' need to work to improve their public perception to avoid these situations.

It was pretty clear what these 'groups' were. And so I consider you a pretty voiciferous 'groupist.' Some people keep their 'groupist' tendencies under wraps, but you are more the loud and proud variety. You not only advocate treating people according to their 'group,' you claim this is the natural state of being. If these 'groups' want to stop having 'groupist' actions taken against them, they need to do some better P.R. work.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NIKI2

Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:17 PM

Oonj:

--California is not sane (I take offense at the very suggestion!)

--Maybe people just don't wear hoodies as much because of the weather here? Or maybe hoodies identifying gangstas is an East Coast thing?

--The "gangsta" mode of clothing here is usually pants worn down below the crotch, which kinda destroys the intent, 'cuz everyone just laughs at their efforts to walk. Black, White, Yellow, Purple and Green people wear them that way. And yes, some of them ARE gangers.

--I believe "prosecute" IS much better than "arrest": Prosecute the bastard!

--If the guys who WROTE the law think he should be prosecuted, I have no argument.

ETA: Ditto Anthony; he nailed it.
ETA: Wulf, enjoy your rock. If it ever gets too cold under there, you could always rejoin the human race. We won't mind.

OONJERAH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:22 PM

I kinda expected this thread to lull out for a few days while we
all wait for the shoe to drop in Florida. But instead, it went to
stereotypes. Some folks do modify their behavior accordingly.

Commentary: Why black parents give their sons a 'don't' list - by Jonathan Capehart =>
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/commentary/commentary-why-black-p
arents-give-their-sons-a-2250254.html

• "Don't run in public." Lest someone think you're suspicious.
• "Don't run while carrying anything in your hands." Lest someone think you stole something.
• "Don't talk back to the police." Lest you give them a reason to take you to jail or worse.

ETA: But, in the words of Mystique, "We shouldn't have to."

OONJERAH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:48 PM

Did he slur?

MAL4PREZ

Friday, March 23, 2012 12:16 AM

See, and I hoped the Wulfie would be the one to learn from all this. Silly me.

Yeah, Wulfie, you're the one who said that hoodies are the real issue to be discussed here. You really are living under a rock, and I pity the person you take your PTSD/groupist/hero-wannabe issues out on. I sure hope we aren't reading a story like this about you someday, and you aren't left having to live with the reality that YOU, like Zimmerman, are the real power of oppression, getting in the way of people's personal freedoms - by killing some poor kid because he wore the wrong thing and walked the wrong way while having the wrong color skin.

I am wearing a hoodie today, BTW. I do many days. Sometimes, I wear it with big black leather boots. Should I be shot? Or is that only if I slouch while I walk?

This is ridiculous!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NIKI2

Friday, March 23, 2012 1:01 AM

Amen Mal4.

Yeah, Oonj, that's where I heard it too. Problem for me was they never played the whole thing again, and played the supposed slur over and over and over. Had me talking back to the TV, it did, saying "So let us hear the whole thing again!" Having heard it again (thank you), I'm afraid I'm jumping off the fence on the side that he did say it. No, WHISPERED it...maybe even he knew how it would sound.

Sad, sad, sad. From everything I hear and read about the boy, I think we lost a good one, for no good reason.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:32 AM

"Zimmerman had the same right to be in that place as Martin."

Actually, no, he didn't.

He was STALKING Martin. And Martin knew he was being followed - he said so to his g/f. And dispatch knew Zimmerman was stalking, they told him not to. The fact that he was stalking Martin is well established. No one has the 'right' to STALK anyone. Then Zimmerman cornered Martin. You seem to keep thinking that Zimmerman was out for a pleasant walk and he and Martin just happened to pass on the street, both having the prefect right to be there. That wasn't the case. Zimmerman was acting in a threatening manner to Martin. If Martin had had a gun, he would have had every right to shoot Zimmerman.

What I wonder Troll, is why your arguments seem so factually deficient. I mean, you couldn't miss more salient facts if your name was ... oh, THAT'S who you are.

Well, gosh, I'm going to just have to ignore you from now on.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:54 AM

Quote:
If Martin had had a gun, he would have had every right to shoot Zimmerman.

Hello,

Ugh.

I'm not Ughing at you, Kiki, because I know what you are trying to say. But rather I ugh at the idea behind it all. The casual killer idea.

I don't think anyone would have been advised to shoot anyone else in this scenario, and I am very sad that it happened. I'm more sad that we may never get enough evidence to convict in a case that is probably murder, and a killer will be free to stalk again.

A lot of folks seem to think that if they have a gun and the law gives them the 'right' to shoot someone, (meaning they can get away with it) then they should go ahead and do it. But to paraphrase a favorite movie, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.

I love firearms. Shooting is a great sport. They also make great equalizers between the weak and the strong.

But damn if I don't think people are too quick to reach for a gun in order to solve their problems.

Perhaps it's just me being silly or foolish, but it takes more than someone acting in a threatening manner to get me to go about killing them. I'd have to actually believe that I was going to die. Mind you- not merely argue to an officer or a judge that I was in fear for my life, which is a legal technicality that must be observed. No. I'd have to actually think it was true. "Holy shit, I'm about to die, I'm out of options, God help me, I have to kill someone."

Because killing someone? It doesn't get much more terrible than that. It shouldn't be a casual thing or a first response or something we do just because we can get away with it.

It should be a terrible nightmare that happens when all better options slip through your grasp, and one that you deeply regret even if it was necessary to save yourself.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 7:09 AM

For myself, I can't even imagine shooting anyone. It's such a big blank it just doesn't have an imaginable form.

But people keep assuming that Zimmerman had the 'right' to do what he did. What about Martin's rights? He was being stalked. He got cornered. Martin was the person who was being threatened, and Zimmerman was the aggressor.

That's all I'm pointing out - there's the sauce, and the goose, and the gander.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 23, 2012 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

No one has the 'right' to STALK anyone.

Try telling the Paparazzi that one.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:29 PM

Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone.

But you know little Rappy, keep dreaming your little dream that Zimmerman was within his rights. That way when a rapist, mugger, car-jacker or robber corners a targeted victim and the victim fights back, you can always stick up for the rights of the criminal to shoot the targeted victim in 'self-defense'. Be loud and proud about it now. But don't forget to be consistent later. I will be posting quotes from you.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:46 PM

Troll (as if)

Just one more thing - you may want to quibble about the word 'stalking'. Go ahead. No one here is using it in the legal sense, they are using it in the common parlance. But go ahead. The next time a rapist corners a woman, or a mugger follows a victim, or a carjacker walks up to a car stopped in traffic, we'll all remember that you defend that on the basis that you'd rather quibble about the legal definition of a particular word choice. Just so you're clear that this will be hung around your neck.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:47 PM

Where does self-defense start and end?

In defense of your life? Your families life? Your home? Your country?

Riddle me this. Answer that. When does the taking of another life, have no justification?

Some would say when its about property. Yet, if that property sustains you, and your family, is it not justified?

Or, if the continual plundering of property (your neighbors as well) threatens the health and safety of your home and family... is it not justified?

Again, I still say this was a clusterfrak... a perfect storm of culture clashing..

There is no answer to it, no law that will ever stop it from happening, no magic bullet.

But maybe, since we do live in a society where every people and culture are included, there should be an understanding.

However, I know that these words will fly over the heads of at least 92% of the population.

Its just easier to find a scapegoat, instead of actually fixing the problem. Such is the way of idiots.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:52 PM

Whatever. You've shown yourself to be completely irrational. Apparently you think Martin deserved to be killed in 'defense' of the neighborhood b/c he committed the crime of walking while black.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:55 PM

Quote:
Its just easier to find a scapegoat, instead of actually fixing the problem. Such is the way of idiots.

Hello,

On this point, I agree. Blaming the victim's 'group' is finding a scapegoat, not fixing the problem.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:06 PM

What is the problem, Anthony?

That a boy was killed for "walking while black"?

Allow me this little test.

I will pick 5 of my best friends. Asian, Black, White, Hispanic, Undetermined.

I will dress them as I see fit. Have them walk through your neighborhood.

I will instruct them to walk, talk, and carry themselves in a certain manner.

Whom do you think will have the police called on them? Why?

Of course, this test would only be workable if you had people in your neighborhood who cared about keeping themselves and their neighbors safe.

But lets pretend.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:11 PM

Hello,

My community has a good neighborhood watch group. If you don't break any laws, you can expect to not have the police called on you.

It's shocking, I know.

--Anthony

ETA: Also, our community watch doesn't follow people around or shoot them. Also shocking.

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:17 PM

Not shocking. Not in the least. I expected as much.

"You live behind the ivory walls. What do you know of real life?"

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:20 PM

"Whom do you think will have the police called on them? Why?"

Oh that's an easy test that's already been done, if you substitute the word 'drive' for 'walk'. The black person, three times as often as the white person.

Oh, here's a HI-larious clip of ... oh, you just have to watch it.

ETA: Hmmm. Why'd that come out so large? Maybe I can find another copy ...

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Not shocking. Not in the least. I expected as much.

"You live behind the ivory walls. What do you know of real life?"

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Hello Wulf,

I live in real life. Not in an action movie starring myself.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

STORYMARK

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:30 PM

Well, nice to see Wulfie has returned to us full time, with his signature style of buffoonish racism.

Spoon!

NIKI2

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:34 PM

Oh, gosh, where are my ivory walls? I'd LOVE some! Maybe I could sell them and get back into that "middle class" Wulf keeps saying I'm part of; that would be neat!

(Uh, Wulf, I think maybe it's "ivory towers" you're thinking of? I've never heard the term "ivory walls", but I'll take 'em, happily, if you'll ship 'em.)

We don't have an official neighborhood watch where I live. People put up signs saying there is one, but there isn't...the signs are a bit of a deterrent I imagine. We just pass the word. If someone's bicycle is stolen, neighbors tell neighbors and we keep an eye out. But there's nobody who's been given the authority to carry a gun and strut around like a faux policeman, with all the rights of one without the responsiblities.

And I can absolutely guarantee that if anyone, dressed any way and walking any way, were to walk down my street, nobody would raise a ruckus. We have a halfway house two doors down from us, and we've had people of every race walk around acting VERY strange; nobody bothers them.

Unfortunately for you, I, like Anthony, live in real life, not an action movie starring myself. That's where YOU live, as you've illustrated over and over by your past habit of putting up movie and TV clips of "heroes" to make points about supposed "real life" as you see it. You're not the one standing between me and the dark, by a long shot, tho' you'll never believe anywhere in America is unlike what you experience or believe. That may be the single saddest thing about you; the inability to conceive of (or give credence to) anything outside your own small world.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:44 PM

Hello Niki,

I just realized that Wulf does remind me of one superhero. I'm surprised I never made the connection before now.

Wulf idolizes figures like Captain America, but he behaves much more like Captain Hammer.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NIKI2

Friday, March 23, 2012 8:40 PM

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

I get a kick when idiots with no history, no experience, no knowledge, try to talk like they know what is going on.

This is something you have no intelligence on. Keep to talking about Apple, and niche music, hipster.

Stick to what you know, and stop making a fool of yourself.

Wulfie, now you've finally figured out why I've been laughing at you for all these years. You're a dolt, a mere child. You know nothing of the world, and very little of your own self, but you are hell-bent on teaching us a lesson, aren't you?

You know the difference between you and Zimmerman? A few hundred miles of geography. That's it. You're him, he's you, and you'd actually LOVE to be in his shoes and finally have lived out your wet dream of getting to blow one of "them" away.

You've become the caricature, the Internet Tough Guy™, and you just can't wait to show us all how "street" you really are. You think you're the only one here who's ever been robbed, mugged, beaten, shot at, burglarized, or attacked? You're not. You're just the only one who can't let it go.

Climb down off your cross, Wulfie, my child. Tear down the cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and then GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 23, 2012 8:59 PM

You are on your own.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The issues here are not racism, or gun-control, or stand-your-ground laws.

The issue is that there is a perception that a certain group (or groups) are dangerous. For the most part, its earned... but its also cultivated.

Then, thrown into the mix, is the idea that "clothes make the man". Combine the 2, a perceived dangerous group, in clothing that promotes said image of savagery...

along with a man who is determined to keep his area safe...

and this is what happens.

I won't pretend things like this won't happen in the future.... but a solution will require a shift in culture of said group.

Culture X needs to radically alter their behavior, and goals.

Is "Culture X" the gun-happy cowboys like Zimmerman?

Quote:

I wonder what would have happened, if it had been an asian kid. Asians are not known as being an overtly dangerous group.

Obviously you have never been to Chinatown, or heard of the Yakuza.

Quote:

Now, if the kid was asian, and wearing gangster gear (Fubu, hoodie, Tims... whatever) would this have turned out the same? It might have.

Its what I was talking about before. Stereotypes don't just happen. Sometimes its made up to make one group feel superior to the other...

and other times its "earned" in that enough of "outsiders" have observed certain behaviors by a group that it can be reasonably given.

So you would agree that the gun-crazy vigilante stereotype isn't an unwarranted one, especially in this case, right?

Quote:

The answer here might simply be that this kid, being part of certain group through no fault of his own (birth), wearing clothing associated with the negative steretypes of said group, ran afoul of another man, who was bound and determined to keep his area safe from the negatives of said group.

In other words, this kid was a victim of the negative aspects (both perceived and vetted) of his grouping. Wearing clothing that added to said negative view.

Yes, Zimmerman's determination to wear - and USE - a gun certainly seems to have been key in this situation. Had he just not been so gung-ho on wanting to look the part of his "gang" that he affiliates with, none of this would have happened.

Quote:

Maybe the group should work to change its perception by the other groups living with and near it.

... by putting down their guns for a bit, no doubt.

Quote:

Yes, we are all individuals. As individuals we can be awesome. However, we are each judged daily... by the clothes we wear, our hairstyle, the way we walk, the way we talk,

add to that, the things we cannot change.

So, you are grouped especially by the things you cannot change. Maybe, you should work towards promoting a good image of said group.

How will you promote a good image of gunbunnies, Wulfie?

Quote:

Before you jump on me, I'm not saying its this kids fault for being shot. Far from it. I'm pointing out that there were aspects outside of him, that helped lead to this. He got caught up in them with tragic results.

No, you really pretty much ARE saying that it's his own fault. You've said as much, saying he wanted to look like a certain image, and that got him shot. You'll blame every single thing on Earth EXCEPT the guy with the gun. And you're too much a coward to even face that fact about yourself.

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You are on your own.

Whew - THAT is a relief! For a second there, I thought you were going to say you were on my side! Trust me, boy - I definitely don't need you on (or anywhere near, or within 500 miles of) my side.

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
I take offense to that.

Hello,

I also found it offensive.

Quote:
"cultures of the victims"? Explain that.

In this case, the victims are those who are murdered because of the gross generalizations you mention. You put the onus of culture change on them, so that they are no longer murdered because of what people assume about them.

Quote:
Heres a test. If you dress up as a police officer, would you be surprised if people thought of you as law-enforcement?

What an interesting leap. Obviously if I dress in a manner proscribed to a profession, I will be determined to be of that profession. The iconic nature of police uniforms is actually protected by law in some places.

Quote:
Same thing. Clothing does invoke perception.

Yes, my wife's beloved hoodies, by your example, mark her as a gangsta who may be pre-emptively murdered by some shlub trying to protect his neighborhood.

Meanwhile the culture of gun-toting neighborhood commandos is given a pass for jumping to conclusions about people due to the color of their skin and choice of clothing.

Where is the talk about the culture of the aggressor? The culture of might-makes-right, assumptions are warranted, I am a yahoo cowboy, and God can sort em out?

If that culture changed, then all the other cultures and people who enjoy types of fashion would be safe. Including my poor wife and her gangsta hoodie.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Oh, darn - Anthony beat me to all the salient points again!

Good on you, Anthony!

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place.

There was no stalking?? What planet are you living on? Zimmerman said by his own account that he stalked Martin.

Quote:
There was no prohibition for Zimmerman following Martin.

Sure, but if you stalk somebody in the dark they have a right to feel threatened and to protect themselves with force under Florida self-defence laws.

Quote:
What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?

See above. By the way, I love how you've filled in all the blanks in this case yourself. You've established that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman have you? Based on what?

It's not personal. It's just war.

^^^ Bingo to all of this.

Troll is introducing "facts" into evidence that have no basis in reality, and have not been established in any way.

For all we know, Zimmerman is the aggressor here, and Martin was defending himself against him, for which he was then murdered for trying to fend off an attacker.

Yet troll seems perfectly willing to assume as fact the idea that it must have been the black kid who was attacking. Apparently in TrollWorld, that's how they do...

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, March 23, 2012 9:31 PM

Yeah, this case is awful and that law sounds dangerous. Armed neighborhood watch people sound wrong. The idea of gated communities makes me shudder. Pre emptive justice is just wrong.

There is just so much wrong here.

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So, black teenagers should stop wearing hoodies. The problem is this: how do gangsters dress? LIKE YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. Was Martin wearing colors, bandanas, anything that would actually distinguish him as a gang member??? Not on your life.

It's not the clothing that makes white folks think "gangster," it's black people in the clothing. Wolf wants black people to dress like Urkle or Bill Cosby so as not to get shot at. This is disgusting. And women who wear a dress that falls more than a hand's width above the knee are asking to be raped. It's the same specious logic. And so, because a significant number of violent bastards in our culture think this way, then their multitudinous potential victims should damn well act accordingly or be branded stupid and "asking for it?"

What in god's name is the readily available, cheap and practical alternative to the hoodie? Something, btw, anyone who shops at Old Navy--a notorious gang supply house--will own. So, okay, it's not racism, it's class and culture war. So, now if it isn't the race of the victim, it's the fact that the victim can't afford a $150 rain jacket from REI.

Pizmo, any argument that proceeds from the premise, "This is HOW things are" can and will be employed by the ruling class to keep the underclass "WHERE they are." It's a logical fallacy, it's an argument from authority (heh). The argument that black teenagers should change the way they dress to avoid getting shot at by random "good citizens" serves no one but those who would rather not be held accountable for their atrocious attacks on black teenagers. It doesn't serve you or me. And it doesn't serve Trayvon Martin's family.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Well said, HKC. I agree with every word of this.

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Your statement is as intelligent as saying, "You can't judge a shark by the behavior of its species. So what if a shark has teeth that bite, and it shows what is known to be aggressive behavior! Turn you back to it and swim away. Being bitten is better than being cautious and acting in your own self-defense."

Hello,

You are wrong. Once again you create a framework for your argument that has no basis on the discussion. Your statement has massive logical fallacies.

Your logic is as follows: Gangsters are violent people who wear hoodies.

Hence: Everyone who wears hoodies is a violent gangster.

Which is not only logically incorrect, but OBSERVABLY incorrect as well. We all know that this same clothing is sold to gangsters and non-gangsters alike. Yet you still claim it is a correct assumption to assume "Person dressed X is obviously a gangster and I have to protect myself from their aggression or crime."

In fact, the problem is twofold. Not only are illogic leaps being made to reach conclusions which are observably false in many instances, but illogical responses are being made based on these illogical leaps. Even if your twisted thinking assigns a twisted identity to someone based on appearance, to then pursue escalation behavior with that person is ludicrous.

The problem isn't perception, it's laziness. This is because while you may have observed gangstas with hoodies, you have also observed non-gangstas with hoodies. But delving deeper is too much work, so it's easier to just slap the label on across the board. Then you excuse the behavior with, "It's just the way things are" thereby absolving yourself of any responsibility to change.

THEN after absolving yourself of such responsibility, YOU ACTUALLY ASSIGN THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS!

"They" should change so that you can continue to make your lazy assumptions. "You" can enjoy life the way it is.

Here's the way life really is. "They" aren't all the same. "You" can't be bothered. But you sure want to justify bothering "Them."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Quick test for Wulfie:

Gangster? Or Superbowl-winning NFL coach?

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:07 PM

Has anyone else noticed that Wulfie is the only one trying to make an issue out of the shooter's race, and the only one who keeps bringing it up?

I really don't care what the race of the shooter is; I care why he felt the need to stalk, harass, intimidate, and then murder a 17-year-old kid.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone.

Try telling Princess Di that....oh, wait. Never mind.

Quote:

But you know little Rappy, keep dreaming your little dream that Zimmerman was within his rights. That way when a rapist, mugger, car-jacker or robber corners a targeted victim and the victim fights back, you can always stick up for the rights of the criminal to shoot the targeted victim in 'self-defense'. Be loud and proud about it now. But don't forget to be consistent later. I will be posting quotes from you.

Post this quote, then, kiki. You're gorram nuts. I never once, anywhere, here or elsewhere, made 1 comment as to suggest that this was lawful 'self defense', or that Zimmerman was well with in his "rights". Only in your fantasy world ( bleh ) does this person you accuse me of being actually exist.

I did note the media's knee jerk reflex to refer to Zimmerman as 'white', when in fact he isn't. And I did post about the incident K.C., of the punks trying to burn another kid. But other than that, I've not waded into THIS issue at all.

Which is funny, because you seem to think that you know me, and know my thoughts on the matter here. Which, clearly, you don't.

Crassic.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - So

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:21 PM

"Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone."

"Try telling Princess Di that....oh, wait. Never mind."

Paparazzi CONVICTED of invading Diana's privacy | Mail Online

Oh wait. Nevermind.

And what does this have to do with Martin?

Are you sure you don't want to bring out your sockpuppet? There is way too much FAIL associated with you at this point.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:24 PM

From the beginning of this post...

"Trayvon a 17 year old African American boy was shot in a gated community where his father lives in Florida. He was shot by a self-appointed White Community Watch Captain who was walking around with a gun. Zimmerman the community watch person decided Trayvon looked suspicious."

Kwickos response, now: "Has anyone else noticed that Wulfie is the only one trying to make an issue out of the shooter's race, and the only one who keeps bringing it up?

I really don't care what the race of the shooter is; I care why he felt the need to stalk, harass, intimidate, and then murder a 17-year-old kid."

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll (as if)

Just one more thing - you may want to quibble about the word 'stalking'. Go ahead. No one here is using it in the legal sense, they are using it in the common parlance. But go ahead. The next time a rapist corners a woman, or a mugger follows a victim, or a carjacker walks up to a car stopped in traffic, we'll all remember that you defend that on the basis that you'd rather quibble about the legal definition of a particular word choice. Just so you're clear that this will be hung around your neck.

I actually think Zimmerman might have met the legal definition for stalking and harassment, according to what Troll posted.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:29 PM

FWIW unless you are substantially Indian enough to belong to a tribe, Hispanics are counted as Whites. After all, their heritage is Spain, which, last I checked, is White. Just not Anglo.

KWICKO

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
From the beginning of this post...

"Trayvon a 17 year old African American boy was shot in a gated community where his father lives in Florida. He was shot by a self-appointed White Community Watch Captain who was walking around with a gun. Zimmerman the community watch person decided Trayvon looked suspicious."

Kwickos response, now: "Has anyone else noticed that Wulfie is the only one trying to make an issue out of the shooter's race, and the only one who keeps bringing it up?

I really don't care what the race of the shooter is; I care why he felt the need to stalk, harass, intimidate, and then murder a 17-year-old kid."

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

So your response to my pointing out that you KEEP bringing race into the thread is to point out the first post in four pages? Do you realize how many times you've brought that up? Do you now understand why I said that you're the only one who KEEPS BRINGING IT UP?

You are so full of fail, Wulfie.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
FWIW unless you are substantially Indian enough to belong to a tribe, Hispanics are counted as Whites. After all, their heritage is Spain, which, last I checked, is White. Just not Anglo.

Really? Did you tell La Raza that ? And is there a test by which one must take, and then be declared 'native' ? 500 years of Spanish, Caribbean and Native American intermixing has sorta confused the issue. So, do YOU know Zimmeran's full ancestry ?

OR, is this whole 'white' thing nothing but a horrific smoke screen, and a ploy, by some to use for their political purposes ?

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - So

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:47 PM

"I actually think Zimmerman might have met the legal definition for stalking and harassment, according to what Troll posted."

I was looking at that. I'm just not sure what counts as 'repeated'.

But this is what I was thinking -

Let's say a woman is walking down the street at night. No one else is around except for a man who seems to follow her through several turns a few feet behind. Then she turns down a blind alley and he corners her.

Now according to Wulfie, and little Rappy 'and' Troll, by virtue of being on a sidewalk or street, the stalker is entitled to be wherever he wants to be doing whatever he wants to do --- even if it happens to be following a woman and cornering her on a deserted street. After all, it's a public (or at least commonly accessible) street --- right?

OTOH there are rules describing what you can and can't do on a commons with regard to other people. You are not allowed to impede them. You are not allowed to harass them. So sayeth the Supremes. In addition, you're not allowed to act in a ways that threaten or intimidate.

The problem with Wulfie, and little Rappy 'and' Troll is that their simplistic thinking gets stuck on 'it's a public sidewalk' and like an ant at a chalk line, can go no further. Anything beyond that is too complicated.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
FWIW unless you are substantially Indian enough to belong to a tribe, Hispanics are counted as Whites. After all, their heritage is Spain, which, last I checked, is White. Just not Anglo.

Hello,

This is accurate information.

However, I'm not sure it matters. Anyone can be racist. Er, pardon me... groupist.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Now according to Wulfie, and little Rappy 'and' Troll, by virtue of being on a sidewalk or street, the stalker is entitled to be wherever he wants to be doing whatever he wants to do --- even if it happens to be following a woman and cornering her on a deserted street. After all, it's a public (or at least commonly accessible) street --- right?

You're lying, Kiki. Again. You might want to see to that.

Cite where, and I mean EXACTLY where I've made any such claim about this case to which you've assigned me. And that's literally what you've done, is assign me an opinion about this case , of which I have said NOTHING, on the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - So

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 11:58 PM

"Anyone can be racist. Er, pardon me... groupist."

Oh, I was quibbling just to quibble. That whole 'Hispanics aren't white!' thing was just too inviting. Please forgive me. I find the whole question about white v Hispanic to be mind-numbingly unimportant.

Now if you were to talk about HERITAGE - about the culture you were brought up in, the beliefs you absorbed, the customs you followed - I'd be rapt. THAT happens to be a self-identified group that sets itself apart from others. And I would want to know why they thought they were different.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 24, 2012 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Wulf idolizes figures like Captain America, but he behaves much more like Captain Hammer.

I shouldn't laugh, but given his refusal to even see his own blindness, what else can one do ?
And yes, I was TRYING to diplomatically tell Wulfenwhiner that his own mental concept is identical to Zimmermans and will lead him down the same path - but he ain't gonna listen, the harsh cold light of reality is only ever gonna dawn on him when his cement airplane meets ugly reality in a fashion much like this unfortunate event.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/violence_geeks.htm

As for yon pathetic exercise in racist bullshit masquerading as an experiment - lest one forget I *AM* official, uniformed, hired and paid for, security for this place, WITH a free hand to run it however I think is best.

Provided they do not actually agress, none of those people would be bothered or even confronted, even if they WERE acting suspiciously, so long as they are being observed the capacity for trouble is almost negligable.
We get all types here, even actual gangbangers and thugs on occasion as visitors or guests, all of whom have a fair idea of basic ground rules and turf-respect, besides which they've no reason, no incentive, to do anything cause the risk-reward equation is well below the margin.

Hell, if anything they're an extra level of defense cause they'd rather the devil they know, who so long as his turf is left alone, leaves well enough alone - than some other asshat cop-wannabe who'd be snitching them out for every little stupid thing...
I am *NOT* a Law Enforcement Officer, I am a HIRED GOON, and my only priority is protecting this place, the people in it, and their stuff, violations of law which do not impact those things mean nothing to me.

But of course, diplomacy, detente, and negotiation are as foreign as any realistic concepts to the boy, pointless even to mention, just as they woulda been to Zimmerman.

Speakin of, all the whining and whinging about how supposedly unfair it is for the justice system to actually operate like it's supposed to by those who say nothing when it loads in their favor, often enough, here's how it's gonna be.

This is gonna go to grand jury, they will indict, and Zimmerman is gonna get smacked with Second Degree Murder, and prolly weasel or plead it down to Manslaughter - or his lawyer will, in hopes of settling matters before Zimmermans ego and flapping yap sink him in any deeper.

Which is as it should be, and SHOULD HAVE BEEN without public outrage having to force the wheels of justice into operation to begin with.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 24, 2012 12:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Obviously you have never been to Chinatown, or heard of the Yakuza.

Apropros of nothing...

My ex's new husband, whom as I mentioned is a decent guy I actually LIKE, surprisingly, is Japanese-Canadian and seriously, other than having all his fingers and lacking the tats, he really does LOOK like a freakin Yakuza, and a mean one.

Even funnier is that some of us know him as XXXXXX The Butcher - cause that's actually what he does for a living, but it's also a joke on playstyle on certain games.

And yet he's one of the nicest, most reasonable guys you could hope to meet, if only folks can look past their own self-deception.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 24, 2012 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Now if you were to talk about HERITAGE - about the culture you were brought up in, the beliefs you absorbed, the customs you followed - I'd be rapt. THAT happens to be a self-identified group that sets itself apart from others. And I would want to know why they thought they were different.

Hello Kiki,

If you want to know anything about my own hispanic heritage, feel free to ask. Of course, different hispanic people will have different experiences, perceptions, and customs, but I'd be happy to share with you anything I can.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

1KIKI

Saturday, March 24, 2012 1:08 AM

How quick a typist are you? Is there some way to facilitate the process and avoid the tedium?

BTW, it's not just about Hispanics. I'm interested in all kinds of backgrounds, even the ones that are generic 'American' that have lost all semblance of original culture. There is more than enough regional, historical, and demographic difference to fascinate me.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 24, 2012 1:36 AM

Oh, now that deserves its own topic, I have fascinating ancestors and cultural history, starting with the Wataugans, the closest thing the colonials had to anarchists, and goin on from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watauga_Association

Colonel Sevier was a special kinda crazy, the kind of lunatic people follow just to see what kind of crackbrained stunt he'd pull next - like rooking some pirates into helping fight the battle of new orleans with dismounted ship cannon, or trying to forcibly annex his own state...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

1KIKI

Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:08 AM

I guess I'd want to know - where are your immediate ancestors from? How much do you know about them? I can see how you'd have a hard time answering much about your father (though it would be interesting to know what kind of family he came from), but what about your mother's family? Or are you a dislocated urbanized line - bereft of a whole lot besides you immediate family? That's where I'd start.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:14 AM

Am I the only one who finds it pathetically, uh... pathetic... that rappy has to quote the one or two positive things that people have said about him? And yanno, I'll bet those peeps are now regretting EVER having said anything positive, especially when it keeps being burped up at them!

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone."

"Try telling Princess Di that....oh, wait. Never mind."

Paparazzi CONVICTED of invading Diana's privacy | Mail Online

Oh wait. Nevermind.

And what does this have to do with Martin?

Are you sure you don't want to bring out your sockpuppet? There is way too much FAIL associated with you at this point.

The fail is all over you, actually.

Did the Paparazi 'invade Diana's privacy' ? Or did it lead to her DEATH ? Big effing difference, is it not ?

But more to the point.

A - I have no sock puppet. So, that's a big giant humongous suck on your part.

B - TWICE in just this thread, you bore false witness against me. Lumping me in w/ those how have specifically given their views on this case in FL, while I have said nothing. Not ONE gorram thing. And yet , you continue to fabricate this notion out of thin air that I have some how given Zimmeran some sort of pass.

I've asked you to produce evidence of what you claim are my views, a record of what I've said, and you have failed.

Apologize. Take back anything and everything you've said which ties me in w/ what you accuse others of saying.

If you have a molecule of decency and honor in you, you'll admit your error.

Ball's in your court.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE