Andy9o8

Testify, sister. I use a cartoon as my avatar to keep the number of women throwing themselves at me down to a dull roar. It's a cross I generally bear stoically. Seriously, though, nobody really presumed you were not real. It's an ongoing form of joke on here. You and your cousin are welcome. Here's another piece of advice I've given before, although I doubt many (or even any) have listened: I worry about the safety of women on here who post their actual photographs in their avatars or other photos online. It gives true creepers the ability to go to their home DZs and stalk them without them even knowing it. As the father of 2 attractive young women in their 20s, it's something that gives me pause.

You're still presupposing that wearing a hooded sweatshirt - impliedly by a black male in particular - is "dressing like a criminal". That's just bullshit. My wife (who, like me, is white) occasionally wears a hooded sweatshirt. I don't see the mommas hidin' they chilluns when she walks down the street.

No, what he clearly meant, without your "spin", was that as a young man he, too, could have easily been profiled as "suspicious", based at least partly on racial appearance and being "out of place", while walking down the street. I've seen lots of people, both white and black, dressed in hooded sweatshirts. They weren't thugs; they were people wearing hooded sweatshirts. Yes, nowadays, it is a style of clothing popular among many urban black people. So now it's ok for white guys to wear hooded sweatshirts but black males aren't allowed to wear them because that means they dress like nigger thugs in hoodies? That's bullshit. As for how Martin spoke BACK to GZ after DZ confronted him: you need to have a grown-up understanding of group psychology as influenced by group history. In the US, there is a long, long history of black people, especially men, being presumed to be criminals just because they're walking down a public street in a neighborhood where they look "out of place". And you know what? - as a group, they are sick to death of it; and now, in the post civil rights era, they're conditioned, and teach their children and grandchildren, not to take that kind of shit any more, just because someone thinks they look like a "nigger out of place". GZ wasn't a cop, and didn't ID himself as a cop. He was just some total stranger in civilian clothes asking questions about who TM was & what he was doing. Well, he was walking down the street, as he had the right to do. Sure, TM could have answered politely; but why should he be morally required to? Another perfectly appropriate answer to this total stranger civilian GZ was that it was none of his fucking business, and that's what TM told him. That's not acting like a thug; that's a person walking down the street reserving the same that right you and I reserve: to tell total strangers who get in our face to mind their own business.

Yep; not just replaced, but in some instances held in contempt of court. Prospective jurors are questioned, under oath, re: whether they have any biases that would predispose or interfere with blah blah, etc. They're required to answer such questions truthfully as much as any other person speaking under oath. So if they answer "No" and then engage in jury nullification, then at the very least they've violated their oath of office as a juror, and it might even be viewed, by a pissed-off judge, as perjury. Some years ago I spent a day on jury duty. I got called as a prospective juror in a capital murder/death penalty case. When we as a group were asked if anyone was so opposed to the death penalty that they could not in good conscience convict, I was one of several who raised their hand; and I was excused from that panel. I thought about maybe trying to get on a capital case just so I could prevent the death penalty from being imposed during the penalty phase; but doing so would have violated at least 2 oaths, so I was just straight-up honest about it.

No, what he clearly meant, without your "spin", was that as a young man he, too, could have easily been profiled as "suspicious", based at least partly on racial appearance and being "out of place", while walking down the street. Actually, in the laws themselves in many jurisdictions, at least until the mid 1960s. But more to your point, the disparity is felt most not in the abstract, but "on the ground", as it were - in the actual enforcement of the laws. And the history is there. And I'm still in the system myself, and I tell you from first-hand observation that it's still there, palpably. Of course it was, it always was. It was part of the context of GZ's state of mind, and possibly TM's as well. Until GZ's attorneys made the tactical decision not to invoke SYG as an affirmative defense, it was the potential 900 pound gorilla in the (court)room. Frankly, even after that it really was, as evidence was admitted at trial that GZ took criminal justice courses in which SYG was part of the curriculum. So SYG was never out of the picture; it always resonated throughout the case.

Every day for years millions of people were more amazed that people voted George W. Bush into the Whie House for a SECOND time. So it goes. You can either waste energy worrying about it, or you can enjoy your next beer.

I didn't see where it named the state. 16 is common. It's the age of consent in Alabama. Federal Law is 18, but it only applies on federal property. Were they having sex in the Federal Courthouse? I've been fucked more than once in Federal Court.

Really? that quite the statement given how this case even got to trial Thanks for the laugh Really out there Is it possible you're both more or less right? They're not mutually exclusive. Arguably, the prosecution may have been desperate to show non-black people behaving badly toward blacks. Then the verdict was followed, quite predictably, by people desperate to show black people behaving badly.

Gosh, no. That would be too much like.... jury nullification.

So assign the reports to someone else. Why is that not a viable option? It sounds like now you basically have two people (her and you) producing the reports; why is reassigning the one task to someone else not a more efficient solution? Assign her something else that she's good at. Again, she is the only person who can produce the reports - she is the only person who has access to all the information. She is also the only administrator in that office. We are a small business. NO ONE ELSE can do these reports. Then, with all due respect, it's not factually accurate to describe her as "very good at her job". She's much like many people are - good at some aspects of her job, lousy at other aspects of it. A job is a single entirety, comprised of all of its parts, not just some of them. If you can't peel-off the one thing she's lousy at from her job description, then the sum total of her competence level, given that particular overall job description, is, at best, "mediocre".

dude do you get hard by sending people to jail?? The dude made a mistake and NO ONE was hurt, fire him don't jail a dump kid for making what young people do, make dump mistakes. Key being no one was hurt. I don;t get this lets search for a reason to GET THIS guy mentality. Considering how much time I've spent as (among other specialties) a criminal defense attorney, I think you greatly misunderstand my post, as well as me. I was discussing the legality aspect from an academic perspective. It's how it's done in the classroom.

I'm not trying to convince you to smoke another one and "give it a chance", because they are carcinogenic, and I take that very, very seriously. That being said, I imagine the taste of, say, a really good quality coffee, drunk black, might taste pretty yucky to someone who's never gradually acquired a taste for something like that. Similarly, tobacco smoke most definitely has flavor, that varies quite a bit from one variety or blend to another. And once a taste (not addiction; taste) is acquired, an excellent cigar or pipe tobacco can be as flavor-pleasurable as a cup of strong, high-quality black coffee.

The recent (over the last 10 yrs or so) up-tick in enacting paraphernalia laws (and broadening the definitions thereof; e.g., now a clean, empty sandwich bag can be "paraphernalia") are just another way of strengthening the draconian, Victorian-morality American drug laws rather than relaxing them to bring them in line with modern social attitudes and lifestyles, all the better to maintain the funding for, and jobs within, the vast police-prosecutors'-courts-prisons complex. I've been in the system one way or another for 35 years, so I'm speaking from first-hand observation. (Not trying to send this into SC; it's just the natural progression of the thread.)

Sounds like this chick needs a helicopter mom.

Being from across the pond what is it to you? Why don't you worry about the muslims who decapitated that soldier walking on the streets of london and whether they'll get fair trials, considering it was all on tape? There are at least a half-dozen Canadian DZ.com-ers (can you think of any?) who regularly participate in SC threads about issues or events occurring in the US. And that's just one example of how we all discuss events in multiple countries. It's pretty hypocritical for you to hold Skyrad to a different standard.

OK, so let's take the "drug criminality" out of the mix. Suppose, instead of reefer, it was, say, a perfectly legal little bottle of booze like they have in hotel mini-bars. And the douche hides it in a happy meal. If I was the kid's dad, I'd still want to kick the guy's ass. If I was his boss, I'd still fire him. As for the cops - well, how about reckless endangerment of a child who might ingest an intoxicating substance?

I'm already beyond caring.

Wow - that's about as serious an overreaction (and lack of recognition) of humor as I've seen here in a long time. But hey - thanks very much for the heads-up. Oh, P.S. - I'm the one who went into the Women's forum and cross-posted your Bonfire thread about your cousin, in the hopes that some of the women jumpers in here might give you some helpful comments. You're welcome.

You fool - "she's" probably a 49 year old stevedore named Gus.

Shhh! They'll hear you! You know, what with all that training they get on the Serengeti.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: this is Evil Negro Week in America. Go get 'em, tiger.

Very much so. Peruse: http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=it%27s+difficult+to+fire+employees+in+france&oq=it%27s+difficult+to+fire+employees+in+france&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.1395.10801.0.10968.46.37.2.2.2.2.679.11076.0j9j13j7j4j3.36.0....0...1c.1.21.psy-ab.wTg07USKgVY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.dmg&fp=80aa1d4f30425055&biw=1024&bih=605

It took 15 posts to say it? Yes! Then the company gets what it deserves. Or, deserves what it gets. Works either way.

Fuck em.

BWAHAHAHAHAA!!! That's like the little kid who's pissed in his pants sticking his fingers in his ears going "Blah blah blah I can't hear you blah blah blah". How old are you? Hey, have you made that first skydive yet, slugger? You know, like the reason why the rest of us are on here?