Andy9o8

There you go, getting all mathematical on us. Now I'm just lost.

I didn't say you're the one who made it up. Those who make the shit up count on a network of enablers and willing participants to spread the shit with the coy implication of truthiness.

Looks like a nutcase in the process of going off the deep end, and when his bosses fired him from an easy job for being a whack job, he went postal in a manner that acted out his delusions. Sorry that doesn't fit the meme.

Billy the article coyly fails to mention that this was a black guy- clearly a multiplier to the Muslimocity connection. What are they trying to hide? Time to wake up and smell the chitlins and camel dung, people.

I call it making shit up and spreading it. Sad when that's what one needs to do to have a conversation.

Then unless it's credibly corroborated, it has no more presumption of credibility than, say, a Ferguson police officer's "broken eye socket" that really wasn't. You know, just for example.

I Googled it. The "disowned" meme is making the usual recirculation thing in the right wing blogospere and talk radio, but nowhere else that I saw. That subjects its credibility to scrutiny. Do you have a mainstream source?

Yawn.

Was it violent? Yes. Was it in a work place? Yes. Seems pretty accurate to me. When the average person hears 'workplace violence'...do they think of a black muslim decapitating a co-worker? Don't be a pedant. Mental case with a criminal history commits copycat crime. Nothing new here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime Look, the racists and bigots don't care, and never will. This just keeps them happy because it keeps them fed.

The tired, old references to them are meaningless, as I've explained. Also rebutted up-thread. You just don't seem to see it, and want to toss slogans.

Yup, I get myself in trouble that way almost daily.

psst.. I think the key take-away from the story is that what he dropped was an iPhone 6 Plus. Where's the outrage??

I'm not going to take the time to googlesearch it for links now, but seems to me it's pretty frequent that there are black clergy sermonizing against violence in their communities, or ad-hoc coalition of black moms and grandmoms organizing vigils to protest such violence, etc. And there's the outrage. Most of the time, it gets reported on the local level. Just because it's not on your radar doesn't mean it's not there. p.s. - who gives a shit what Sharpton does or does not do? He doesn't represent the majority of the black community; like, say, Pelosi, he's far more valuable to the far right as a "target symbol" than to anyone else.

Hey, I'm solidly in your corner! And I still pine for belly-bands and Frenchie boots!

Eh, each case stands or falls on its own, after a jury of non-lawyers (if it gets that far) decides what does and doesn't pass the smell test. Yep, us, too. As a kid 40 yrs ago I lived in an under-construction neighborhood for a few years. The perfect playgrounds. My first ciggie was thanks to a pack a workman left lying around a site. Nothing was ever secured, and man, we really got into, and did, all sorts of shit. Which is kind of the point.

I'm just hoping he doesn't say "square" and "keyboard".

It isn't hard to file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, that puts a burden on the construction company to defend themselves, or else the complainants may get a default judgement. While I don't generally advocate for new laws, I think perhaps there should be a law that bars people from suing for injuries they suffered while they were committing a crime. I recall reading a while ago about someone suing a property owner because they were electrocuted, while stealing copper wire! The following is not advocacy, it's just an explanation. The legal doctrine, which is applied to certain (but not necessarily all) juvenile actors, is commonly known as "Attractive Nuisance". (No, it has nothing to do with hooking up with up a jailbait 16 year old hottie.) Here's a Wikipedia article explaining the Attractive Nuisance doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine And here's one article about the Chicago case John mentioned: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Family-of-Boy-Crushed-During-Alleged-Theft-Files-Lawsuit-277079721.html If you read both my links, you can see that the plaintiffs' attorney seems to be trying to apply the Attractive Nuisance doctrine to his theory of the case. Having said this, whether a judge will allow the case to go to trial (I presume there will be one or more pretrial motions to dismiss), and if so, whether a jury will seriously consider it, or call bullshit on it, remains to be seen.

Agreed, and my intent with the quotation marks was to highlight the use of a colloquial term. Sadly, this topic has been so politicized and polarized, that all we have left are co-opted labels (sort of like the abortion issue...). If any on that side of the discussion have a preferred term, let me know and I'll gladly adapt. They're really aren't just 2 "sides". Many people, including myself, have moderate views and try to harmonize all of the policy concerns of this issue, even though many concerns are in tension with each other. "Terms" themselves, I think, part of the problem.

Most of my round jumps were on a French Pap. Being French, it turned and ran exceptionally well.

I'll bet that really bugs him. I'm sure it'll tick him off. ...in a nit-picking way.

I'll bet that really bugs him.

As does everyone. The crux of the issue is that some people understand that cannot be accomplished legislatively and some do not. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp for a large portion of the population. Criminals, by definition, break the law, so how is a law going to stop them from doing something? I just don't get the "grabber" mentality... It's more a theoretical issue, when applied to the US in particular, because it has to do with overall supply versus demand in the first place. The US already has a massive supply of guns resulting from 250 years of history, so to criminals and crazies guns are both readily available, and reasonably affordable, not just on the legal market, but also on the non-legal market. That's why Skydekker noted that any solution would take generations to implement. BTW.. re: your usage of the term "grabber"... it's not as bad as John Rich's sloganistic "gun-o-phobe", but it's in the same ballpark: it's a pejorative label that vilifies people that don't share your opinion. You don't see anyone in this thread talking about "gut nut mentality", for example. And that's the problem with trying to have a sane discussion about gun policy with anyone: it instantly gets personal. Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Irrelevant; but in any event: We've moved on. ---------------- ETA: Sorry for being a conversation................. ............Nazi.

Hopefully we can get it back on the rail: There was an article in one of the recent "Parachutist" magazines, which talked about the disciplinary process. They didn't mention this Winstock incident in particular. But they talked about how the structure and procedures of the organization only allowed disciplinary action to be taken if initiated by the Regional Director, or something like that - the board had no authority or power to do it on their own. So I took it as implied that this incident wasn't pursued because the RD failed to, or was unwilling to, take any action on it. And then the article went on to say how the rules were changed to allow a subset of board members to independently investigate any future incidents, if a RD fails to do so himself. Anyone else remember reading that? I kind of had this incident in the back of my mind as I read that, thinking; "So that's why nothing was done!" but he's not going to investigate himself since no accident ever happened... it was the bench that fell onto the spectator. bad stuff happens Her hard feelings or not are irrelevant to the point, which you're clearly either missing or evading. And by brushing it off as "drama.com" you're being an enabler of the problem, and you're insulting everyone in the community who is concerned about this and feels it should be taken seriously. Your approach is the problem, not the solution.

You just referred to Baumchen as "those like you". I urge you to stop and think about that for a sec.