Andy9o8

They're not. It's The People, the citizenry, who are given the freedom of the press. But rights and privileges are mere illusions if The People are deprived of the means - the tools - to exercise those rights. Reporters and jorunalists are the means - the tools - through which The People exercise their constitutional right to freedom of the press. In order to do their jobs, reporters must be able to gather information; and in order to do that, they must be able to obtain information from confidential sources. They must be able to protect the confidentiality of those sources; for without that confidentiality, the sources would dry up, the journalists would get far less objective information, thereby depriving The People of that information. And without that information, the citizenry is deprived of one of the most crucial tools it needs in order to exercise Government By The People. Bear in mind that 50% of the 4 federal court judges (who are no intellectual slouches) who've already dealt with this case have sided in favor of the reporter, basically on the grounds I've just stated.

So . . . you're saying . . . WHAT? Political stance and leaning? WTF? Believe it or not, everything isn't about politics. Its pretty obvious where they stand politically. If you ain't there yet, then I hope your buds throw you a huge 44th birthday party - you know, what with the deep significance of, uh, the two same digits together and stuff. So yeah, what's up with Google? Pretty fucked up.

Ooh, sounds like a keeper.

It's the shortstop's fault. A shortstop is supposed to be on his toes, and on the ball. So easy a caveman could do it.

Andy! Buddy! How's it going old friend! We must hang out more often. If feels like its been forever! Speaking as a paw, your paws give me pause.

I've just hit a "quote" in firefox and responded. Actually, I saw this problem through these forums for years, some users were more consistent with it than others. I thought that some people just didn't quite understand the markup thing. Yeah, now it seems to be working ok. But yesterday I saw several peoples' posts w/that problem, and it happened to me earlier today. I had to go into edit & twiddle with stuff to separate my post from others'. Anyhow, I hope the powers that be keep an eye on this. ETA: here's a post w/similar problem - see? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4514194#4514194

I'll be darned. I was listening to what he had to say, didn't even notice how he looked. Psst. That's the point.

Lookit that gangsta goatee. If he wasn't in a business suit, I'd say he looks like a thug.

It's doing that thing again where when people hit "quote" to reply to a post, it makes it look like the reply is part of the post that's being responded to (in the box with blue background and indented text), rather than the new post being separated in a fresh white background without indentations. Same/similar thing happened a couple of months ago shortly after the roll-out of the new format. Using Firefox; haven't checked it out in other browsers.

Then what you're referring to essentially is jury nullification as a form of deliberate civil disobedience. And a hallmark of civil disobedience is the risk of punitive consequences (and I say that purely academically). As I pointed out above, a juror who deliberately engages in it runs the risk of contempt of court or even perjury. On a practical level, it may be hard to catch a juror at it, but if he's sufficiently open about it in the deliberation room, and another juror reports it to the judge, those consequences could occur.

Nonsense. None of that morally or practically requires someone to dress more than casually when walking to and from the corner store from his dad's house. I'm surprised that you would fall for that simplistic talking point.

Those piggies scare me. Fortunately, I have my Jesus string.

Hey jmy I remember him, too, from back in the SF days. Tall, & skinny as a strand of spaghetti, IIRC. Used to date short little C__ as I recall... they looked like Mutt & Jeff...

My above joke aside, nobody disputes that, Ron. So you take that factor, and then combine it with the factor I've been trying to get people to understand. Then light the fuse. Then run like hell. That's the perfect storm that ruined 2 young men's lives.

Imagine being born into a society where, solely because of your race, 87% of the rest of the population thinks you're thug-looking if you're dressed in anything more casual than a business suit. Eh, but that's just science fiction. Never mind.

Suspicious character - (American English) - A slang term occasionally used to denote a nigger wearing a hooded sweatshirt in a neighborhood where lots of white women live.

You're really too old to do all this twisting and stretching without hurting yourself.

Oh, stop. I addressed this silliness several times in that other thread you started. Your little for-the-record disclaimer notwithstanding, he wasn't "thug looking"; he was a young black male who was casually dressed; and it's asinine on multiple levels to describe wearing a hooded sweatshirt as "thug looking". Where did I say anything about a hoodie? Gosh, you're right; that wins the day! I surrender.

Oh, stop. I addressed this silliness several times in that other thread you started. Your little for-the-record disclaimer notwithstanding, he wasn't "thug looking"; he was a young black male who was casually dressed; and it's asinine on multiple levels to describe wearing a hooded sweatshirt as "thug looking".

All of this talk of TM having a thuggish character is only relevant if he was in the process of engaging in thuggery when GZ spotted him and decided to confront him. Otherwise, it's utterly irrelevant. GZ didn't know TM's personal history when he saw him. Put another way, if a person who is lawfully walking down the street happens to have a sketchy past, he's still just lawfully walking down the street. And it most certainly does relate to "today's circumstances". Even today, if you think a black male walking alone, in a residential neighborhood in the US that isn't predominantly black, does not raise suspicions in other people's eyes that he's up to no good, then you are naive indeed.

All those whose families have had a history of being presumed to be criminals as they walked on a public street solely due to their pasty, freckled complexions while wearing pastel Izod shirts and khakis. Care to answer the question now? And I have been judged buy my race more than once, and actually attacked twice over it. When the attacker was questioned why he attacked me, his answer was 'Little white guy'. So I ask again... Care to actually answer the question? I did answer the question, albeit sarcastically; you just refuse to see it. I generally don't play the game of re-answering a question I've answered; but ok, I'll re-phrase it, once. Whites didn't riot because - unlike black people in America - whites in America generally don't have a family- and racial-group history of being presumed to be criminals as they walked on a public street solely due to their race, or perhaps their race combined with their choice of clothing. Now if that still doesn't "answer the question", you're just going to have to figure it out for yourself. Or not.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4471124;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Perhaps? the dumbest statement ever written on this site. I have seen many times where blacks got longer sentences or found guilty more often than whites. I'm sure that's what he meant. Well, yes, but it also rather clearly suggests that race-based criminal laws did not exist in the US, at least in modern times. And that's simply incorrect. For example, Jim Crow laws in the Deep South were enforced by criminal sanctions until 1964. That's not only within my lifetime, it's within my active memory; and jokes about Twardo notwithstanding, that's modern enough for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/norwegian-woman-wages-public-fight-against-dubai-jail-sentence-after-reporting-alleged-rape/2013/07/19/069df602-f098-11e2-bc0d-556690a86be2_story.html

All those whose families have had a history of being presumed to be criminals as they walked on a public street solely due to their pasty, freckled complexions while wearing pastel Izod shirts and khakis.