Rioting over the zimmerman case should be an embarrasment to blacks

[OHCHUTE 0]

The Liberals media loves violence as they are after viewers/ readers. They distort the truth and bury facts to gain the reactions they seek. Z injuries are hardly talked about. At which point, number of bones broken, should you commence defending yourself. Z's nose was broken before the fatal shoot, clearly indicating TM was beating him to death. Perhaps if Z had not shot TM, Z might have been beaten to death. Of course if Z had been beaten to death, there would not have been as much media attention as it's pretty regular that black guys are murdering people, (mostly other black guys) which the viewing public has little interest in.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The evidence showed that Martin was the attacker.

No it didn't. The evidence failed to show Zimmerman was the attacker. Big difference.

- Dan G

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Just to clarify...you have an issue with assholes carrying guns...what if we aren't an asshole? Who determines if we are an asshole and ineligible to carry a gun? Do we have to be adjudicated an asshole by a judge like the crazy people do?

I agree with that. Responsible gun ownership is fine. now go and write a law that puts that into place. It is the dilemma.

I have a different view about responsible gun ownership versus 'people getting needless shot in situations that could have been prevented'.

No one wants anyone to not be able to defend themselves. no one wants assholes walking around with guns either. No one wants innocent people getting shot in situations where a gun probably did not need to be used, but the law allows that to happen.

Where's the line?

[tkhayes 348]

while your personal story is valid, it is only valid to THOSE people in THAT situation and does not make a case for the nation.

If your story is valid as a reason for everyone to carry guns, then Oscar Grant's story is a reason to remove all guns from society - and just as valid.

just sayin'

[Darius11 12]

Quote

ALL media loves violence as they are after viewers/ readers. They distort the truth and bury facts to gain the reactions they seek.

Here i fixed it.

Please don’t tell me you think that conservative or right wing media has your best interest at heart? They don’t it’s a freak show and there would be no argument and no need if there was no other side to argue with. There the same.

Agree with everything else you said.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rushmc 23]

tkhayes

Where's the line?

More important, in your senario who decides where that line is?

The laws we have currently work as well as any that can be written and not cross the Constitution
If such a law was possible, it would have been put out for consideration

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

tkhayes

while your personal story is valid, it is only valid to THOSE people in THAT situation and does not make a case for the nation.

If your story is valid as a reason for everyone to carry guns, then Oscar Grant's story is a reason to remove all guns from society - and just as valid.

just sayin'

I was on 288 in Houston this week coming home. There were hundreds of black people blocking the road and throwing rocks and trying to break windows of white people driving to assault them. But yeah who was the genius that said there were no riots...because they didn't happen in your town doesn't mean that they never happened. Im tired of all these fucking black people whining like bitches. Get the fuck over it already. White people didn't whine like this when OJ got off.

[rushmc 23]

thought you might find this interesting

Quote

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[OHCHUTE 0]

DanG

Quote

The evidence showed that Martin was the attacker.

No it didn't. The evidence failed to show Zimmerman was the attacker. Big difference.

The evidence shows Z's nose was broken before the fatal shot. It appears Z was assaulted and took defensive action. The idea of who attacked who first went out the window as TM was over Z rendering harmful blows. Following someone is not assaulting someone. Big difference the general public is failing to recognize.

[davjohns 1]

DanG

Quote

The evidence showed that Martin was the attacker.

No it didn't. The evidence failed to show Zimmerman was the attacker. Big difference.

I thought it showed that TM's only injuries consistent with a scuffle were to his knuckles?

I thought GZ had matching injuries to his face?

I thougth GZ had injury to the back of his head?

I thought GZ stated TM was the attacker?

I thought TM was shot while above GZ?

If the evidence did not show that GZ was the attacker, but there was an attacker, doesn't that make TM the attacker by default? Or was there a third party?

The evidence showed that TM was the attacker. You can reject the evidence and go with your feelings. But I stick by my comment.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The laws we have currently work as well as any that can be written and not cross the Constitution
If such a law was possible, it would have been put out for consideration

arguably the laws that we had written BEFORE Stand your ground and the carry laws we have today also 'worked as well as any that could be written'.

part of the "Where's the line" argument is "who decides it" yes, that what laws do.

The stand your ground law in Florida today is far from perfect - given that two people could both get shot defending each other's 'rights'. they would both be right and they would both be dead.

These have large consequences for society as a whole and some of the criminals you hope to stop have actually been set free in Florida due to the law that you so staunchly uphold.

[tkhayes 348]

back to my original post. White people don't whine because they are not being regularly discriminated against by a system that is biased by color.

When was the last time you got stopped and frisked for no good reason?

[DanG 1]

Quote

I thought it showed that TM's only injuries consistent with a scuffle were to his knuckles?

I thought GZ had matching injuries to his face?

I thougth GZ had injury to the back of his head?

All true. None of that has anything to do with how the fight started.

Quote

I thought GZ stated TM was the attacker?

Sure he did. I don't accept his unsworn statements at face value.

Quote

I thought TM was shot while above GZ?

Sure. Again, all that shows is that Zimmerman was losing. It doesn't speak to how the fight started.

Quote

If the evidence did not show that GZ was the attacker, but there was an attacker, doesn't that make TM the attacker by default? Or was there a third party?

Holy shit, aren't you a lawyer? The fact that the evidence did not show that Zimmerman was the attacker is not the same as showing Martin was. It's simple logic. I hope you're just trying to use rhetoric, and don't think the two are logically equivalent.

Quote

The evidence showed that TM was the attacker. You can reject the evidence and go with your feelings. But I stick by my comment.

There's no evidence about how the fight started to reject. I accept that Zimmerman was losing when he shot Martin. That's pretty plain. There is no evidence about how he got into that position.

And I'll reiterate for the with-us-or-agin-us crowd. I think Zimmerman should have been acquitted, due to LACK OF EVIDENCE.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

tkhayes

back to my original post. White people don't whine because they are not being regularly discriminated against by a system that is biased by color.

When was the last time you got stopped and frisked for no good reason?

It appears you've forgotten Affirmative Action. The purpose of this program is to discriminate against caucasians. I've seen it many times. It just doesn't get media play.

Your question implies that black people are stopped and frisked without reason and at a higher rate than caucasians. You provide no evidence. I was a cop. My observation was that black cops were much harder on blacks than caucasian cops were. Just a personal observation. But it would be consistent with some statistics about black on black crime and such. Just in a different direction.

You're throwing out plent of emotion and stereotype. Not much fact or logic. Not trying to be offensive. I just think your arguments would work better if the underlying premises were supported.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

OK. So you say there is no evidence because you have decided the inferential evidence is not enough and you don't believe GZ. That doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It just means you assigned no value to it. That's your opinion. The evidence is still there.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[tkhayes 348]

that may very well be the case, but I have no problem with separating the issues:

1. racial discrimination is a problem in the USA, and people of color are protesting. Albeit today because of the GZ case, - so that in itself might be misguided, but people of color have EVERY RIGHT to be pissed off in this country.

2. Stand your ground and/or carry laws may very well have a black advantage, but that does not mean it/they are good laws. Innocent people get killed. criminals that you hope to stop with such laws walk away scott free because they too, were 'defending themselves'.

3. white people enjoy the privilege of being white. they DO NOT get pulled over as much as people of color because they look less suspicious. They DO NOT get stopped and frisked proportionately to the crimes committed. They DO NOT fill the prisons disproportionately due to petty pot or similar light-weight drug charges, yet use of drugs is pretty similar across all races.

People of color are pissed off and protesting. I understand why.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Your question implies that black people are stopped and frisked without reason and at a higher rate than caucasians.

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

at least 'attempt' to find some data before you denounce mine as non-existent.

That took me seconds to find. try harder....really.

[OHCHUTE 0]

tkhayes

back to my original post. White people don't whine because they are not being regularly discriminated against by a system that is biased by color.

When was the last time you got stopped and frisked for no good reason?

It's not discrimination or bias to help a race not kill themselves.
Regarding murder, it's mostly a black on black situation. Stop/ frisk laws of NY have worked to reduce crime as black on black crime is so rampant.

[davjohns 1]

That's certainly some interesting date. While I'm not wild about ACLU, let's go with the data.

I have some issues with the data and how you interpret it. But the biggest problem I have is exactly what I told you my personal experience was. I checked the demographics of NY City (the subject area). The stop and frisk percentages are out of whack with demographics, but not by much for Latinos and not as much as I would have thought for blacks. Turns out NYC's black population is about twice what it is nationwide. Still, the percentages of stop and frisks they make up is too high. So I then looked up the percentages of minority patrol officers in NYC. Turns out they are the majority of the patrol force. That's concerning. It suggests that my personal experience is consistent with this study. It suggests that stop and frisks are being made by blacks on blacks. Not conclusive, because that fact was not tracked.

Personally, I thought the data was totally stilted as soon as I saw it declaring a bunch of people 'totally innocent', but that's an aside.

Thanks for sharing the study, but I'm not sure it says what you seem to think it says. I didn't even get into the reporting procedures, out of balance demographics, extrapolation to a larger population, and many other issues.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

I tied to give you the benefit of the doubt. I ran a search. All I've found so far is that NYPD has a problem and the stats you quote are it. I'm trying to find something more representative of the US. Apparently Newark intends to make all of their data public, but I haven't found it yet.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Where's the line?

Along the 49th Parallel, more or less.

[toolbox 0]

>When was the last time you got stopped and frisked for no good reason?


Friday before super bowl 2009 I was stopped because my windows were down.
He asked if I had been drinking or using drugs.
I said no.
He then did a field sobriety test and searched me and then let me go.
It was 68 degrees and sunny that day.
I am white with blonde hair and blue eyes.

[billvon 2,990]

>It's not discrimination or bias to help a race not kill themselves.

Good point! Banning guns and alcohol would certainly help whites stop killing themselves.

[OHCHUTE 0]

tkhayes

back to my original post. White people don't whine because they are not being regularly discriminated against by a system that is biased by color.

When was the last time you got stopped and frisked for no good reason?

I"m whinning: I don't get free food, free education, preferential treatment during employment, free school breakfast and lunch, free books, free book bags, free housing, free heathcare, free methadone, free counseling, free parking, (have I missed anything), for not being a minority. (
Although our time is soon to arrive)

At the airport, I've got full body scans.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I"m whinning: I don't get free food, free education, preferential treatment during employment, free school breakfast and lunch, free books, free book bags, free housing, free heathcare, free methadone, free counseling, free parking, (have I missed anything), for not being a minority. (
Although our time is soon to arrive)

At the airport, I've got full body scans.

How do you look at yourself in the mirror every day?

- Dan G