davjohns

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.

OK. I'll try your side of the fence. TM has recently been involved in street fighting. He has been involved in drugs. But we'll pretend he's a peaceful kid. TM notices he is being followed. He loses his follower. He circles around to confront his follower. He tells his friend on the phone he's being followed by "some crazy-ass cracka". He reaches his follower and looks down at him. He politely asks, "I'm sorry, but your activities are spoiling my enjoyment of this fine evening. Might I inquire as to why you persist in observing my evening respite?" GZ suddenly begins to pummel TM's fists with his face. With one hand, he pulls TM over on top of him. With the other, he draws his pistol. On his way down, he realizes it will look better if he is bleeding, so he intentionally blows his judo breakfall to hit his head on the concrete. TM cries out as GZ's weight pulls TM to the ground. GZ fires. You are absolutely correct that nobody knows for sure how the fight started. All we have is the evidence before us that gives us inference. If GZ thought he was going to shoot someone, he really should not have called the police and expressed frustration with criminals first. If TM was peaceful, he really should have called the police or just walked home. If one of them held a racial bias toward the other, it would appear to be TM. TM's injuries were consistent with an assault. GZ's injuries were consistent with being assaulted. There is no way to know for sure how it started. That is exactly why the prosecution never had enough evidence to bring a case. Given the facts we do have and the statement of the survivor, there was never any real case. You are right that we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt who threw the first punch. Fortunate for GZ that he did not have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.

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.

Hmmmm.... My little story. When my paternal grandfather (caucasian male) was 69, he picked up his pension check one fine day and cashed part of it at the bank. He and his wife walked down the sidewalk to the library. They were unaware of the three twenty-somethings (black males) that saw what they had done and were following them. At the library, one 20yo exited the vehicle and told my grandfather to give him the money. My grandfather asked, "what money"? The 20yo pulled a .32 revolver and shot my grandfather in the chest. My grandfather pulled a .22 revolver from his pocket and shot the 20yo. The other two men drove away. My grandfather survived (barely). The newspapers reported that the black man approached a white man asking for money and the white man shot and killed the black man. There was no mention of age or the fact that the black man had a gun...let alone shot first. Words like robbery and theft were not used. It read as if a white man shot a homeless man. It did manage to give my grandfather's address and name. After a few weeks in the hospital, my grandfather moved into a house he had never seen before. The father of the 20yo claimed racial motivation and got the young man's gang to promise they would kill my grandfather. He received death threats in the hospital until he was put under a false name. While he was in the hospital, we moved my grandmother and all of their possessions to a house owned by a fellow church member (under police escort). My grandfather had lived in his home for over 40 years. Their utilities were opened in my name. My grandfather went out very little after that. You're going to have a difficult time convincing me that this case would have gone differently if the races were different. (I notice you insist GZ is white...also inconsistent with evidence.) If a black man were patrolling the neighborhood and called the police about a suspicious white man, lost the man, returned to his vehicle, was attacked by the white man, and defended himself with a weapon...not guilty. Just like the jurors found in this case. They followed the facts. It's the media and those crying 'foul' who are ignoring the facts. 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.

I'm very concerned about this argument that the terrorist attacks of 9-11 are justified or otherwise understandable in light of the crusades or any other such events. I'm not aware of any evidence that people harmed in those events are connected to the terrorists except through religion. I'm pretty certain the British involved in the crusades are fairly remote from the people in the towers on 9-11. So, the only connection there would be...relgion, again? So, we are at war with Islam? I think the pilot presumed that nobody was at war with Islam. The comments about past behaviors justifying recent terrorism tend to presume the US is at war with Islam. Disturbing. I would have understood if anyone had said something like, "From the perspective of someone raised in that culture...". But what I think I'm reading is that some people here think the terrorist attacks had justification. Perhaps I misunderstand. 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.

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 have to correct myself on something I stated previously. Apparently, there was evidence that race was a motivator in this case. I thought there wasn't. I just found out that moments before confronting GZ, TM told Rachel Jeantel that that he was being followed by a "cracker" or "cracka". So, there is evidence that TM was racially motivated. Sorry I stated the evidence incorrectly previously. 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.

Not a bad agument. Let me help a little. You don't have to believe the person is going to kill you. You have to reasonably believe they are going to kill or cause severe bodily harm. We have no idea how far TM would have gone. IMO, if three guys came at you (and one was armed) you would be within your rights to fire on them...all else being equal. Glad you came out alive. I don't think anyone said it is acceptable to end a fist fight with a gun shot. In the dark, assailed by a stranger, how do you know it's just a fist fight? Is it still a fist fight when your head hits the pavement? Your comment on the difference between right / wrong vs legal / illegal is perfectly valid. People are wrong long before they cross into that area where society is willing to lock them up. 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.

The evidence showed it was a racially mixed neighborhood. TM's black father lived there as well as the racially mixed GZ. Now, I'm certain we're talking about different cases. Can you provide a link to the one you are discussing so the rest of us can follow? Thanks! Seriously, Bill...these two comments were not up to your usual standards. I often disagree with you. But I can at least see your point most of the time. 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.

The evidence showed that Martin was the attacker. Are we talking about the same case? 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.

Seriously? Cant go after Zimmerman because you don't have a case. So you lobby an organization to after Florida because a law was in place that had absolutely nothing to do with the zimmerman trial everyone is all up in arms about. I believe we are witnessing a political two step. Sorry, Turtle. For a moment, I thought you made up that quote. "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense" was so outrageous to me that I thought it was a joke. I looked it up. It's a quote. Sometimes, I'm quite certain I am stuck in 1984...the Orwell verision, not the Van Halen version. I side with the Buddhist philosopher Jun Fan Lee. He said, "React to violence with greater violence." So, the words "senseless" and "self-defense" just don't go together. 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.

I understood. I just meant that juries are funny creatures and hard to pigeonhole on anything. As to civil rights charges...the only way I can think of to bring civil rights charges is to be able to say race was a factor in the case. The FBI (Department of Justice) investigated and said there was no evidence of that. The juror that has spoken out said it was not a factor. I'm curious what the DoJ is contemplating at this point. 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.

Juries are such funny creatures...I would hate to call anything about them 'common'. 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.

Which one should I drink once a day to get all of my nutrients? 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.

That doesn't mean anything. I did jury duty and got myself elected foreman. The other jurors didn't come from professions where they were trained to think logically (at least one of the lawyers used up their peremptory challenges disqualifying doctors, engineers, and lawyers - I got empaneled after that with an MD as an alternate) and the initial votes were understandably based on emotion and incomplete understanding of the laws in question. On one count I persuaded all 11 to change their minds from guilty to not guilty because the defendant did not violate the law as written. Something similar happening in the Zimmerman trial seems quite reasonable. I don't know how accurate it was because it was paraphrased. But I heard on the radio a little while ago that the one juror who has talked about it said three wanted to convict of something when they went into the jury room. Then, they read the law and discovered he didn't commit a crime. Pretty funny...and good on them for understanding the difference between their emotional response and reason. 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.

I guess I missed the part where he beat up the clerk and stole the skittles. I could definitely see the fear in that clerk's eyes. Sure, he wasn't 12 years old. What's your point? A 12-year-old is a cute little kid, but a 17-year-old black male in a hoodie must be a thug? As much as the picture of TM the 12-year-old is misleading, the point of videos like the one you posted just as bad, as the point is to cater to the all-too-ingrained fear of black males that is epidemic in US society. "The video they don't want you to see" indeed! Don My point is exactly what I said. The media was never objective on this case. They twisted it from the beginning to get people stirred up and make news. The point of this video is bad? It's the last accurate depiction of the 'child'. How is the most accurate information possible a bad thing? No, a 17 year old black male in a hoodie is clearly not a thug. But if he has been smoking dope recently, has a history of drug use, has a history of petty theft, has a history of street fighting, is discussing buying and selling guns, has been sent to his father's because he's been suspended from school...the picture of the cute 12 year old in his football uniform just isn't honest anymore, is it? 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.

3... 2... 1... I said....LAWYERS! Heheheh 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.

It took long enough, but here are last images of TM. Not what the media portrayed. Still think they were objective on this case? Think they are now? http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/65465-the-trayvon-martin-picture-the-mainstream-media-dont-want-you-to-see/ 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.

Lawyers? 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.

Put me in the stupid category. I read the letter as saying, "Part of your community is loudly proclaiming to act on your behalf. If they are not representing you correctly, you need speak up loud and clear. I don't want to paint your community with that brush." I think it clearly says that the author doesn't want to see the Muslim community as homogenous and supportive of terrorism, but he needs the Muslim community to step up and make that point clear. He points out the specifc events that encourage that perception. It pins the rose the only place it can logically be pinned. It says he wants Muslims as freinds and neighbors; he just needs them to confirm that's what they want as well. Seems obvious to me. Hardly anti-muslim. 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.

I've waited a while to get into this discussion. It's been heated. GZ, with whatever faults he may have, has one quality that I greatly admire. He got involved. He was trying to make things better for his community. It seems to me that may be the crime for which he has been persecuted. TM is now known to have been a thug, but people continue to make him a saint. I even saw a picture this weekend that someone did up of TM having a white robe placed on his shoulders by a diety. Wow. Tangible evidence indicates he was into street fights, drugs, theft, and gun dealing. He got killed in a streetfight. How this leads to heaven, I really don't know. Both men had faults. One was trying to do good. The other was making some bad choices. Maybe he would have turned around. Who knows. We will never know exactly what happened that night, but we know there is not evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ committed a crime. From my viewpoint, (1) the media misrepresented facts to make it more sensational (white man kills black child. Here's a picture of the cute 12yo. Etc). They started the storm of racial indignation that they likely wanted. It gave them a year of juicy news. Even last night, I saw where CNN continues to misrepresent facts in their summation of the story. They specifically say that GZ was told by the dispatcher to not follow TM. This was disproven in the trial and is widely available on the internet. But they spin the stories just like everyone else. (2) POTUS stired the pot. He failed to remain impartial until the facts were known. Not the first time he's done this. He often seems to have opinions without having facts. I consider it one of his few real flaws. (3) Special interest groups stirred the pot. They make money from these things. They can claim righteous indignation, but they make money from claiming someone's color is the reason they were shot. The jury seemed to think it had to do with him sitting on someone's chest pounding their head in the pavement, but what do they know? (4) The media kept the heat on. They make money from it. Funny how often money keeps coming up here. (5) POTUS is now using this for political advantage. Eh. He's a politician. They all do it. Can't really hold that against him. (6) Special interest groups continue to profit from stirring things up. GZ is probably a deeply flawed man. I'll stand beside him. I am also deeply flawed. I know many of you are not. Good for you. I am of the opinion that deeply flawed men attempting good is far better than perfect men doing nothing; perfect men doing evil; evil men doing evil; evil men doing nothing, and often; perfect men attempting good. My father always told me that no good deed goes unpunished. Sometimes, it's just hard to argue with him. I'm very sorry this young man died. I'm sorry about the anguish this has caused his family. Sometimes, people's choices catch up with them. Sometimes, it happens before they have a chance to learn from their mistakes. It is very sad. It is even sadder to claim the man who was trying to do good was actually doing evil. It indicates we have lost our perspective entirely. I'm going to blame this one on the media. Pull out the flamethrowers. 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.

Personally, I take issue with them. I think hilighting the line between groups makes the division greater. I don't see many groups seeking unification or equality. I see groups that are looking for a bigger slice of pie for their constituency. That makes them, by definition, racist or sexist or whatever discriminatory criteria they use for membership / issues. The reaction to that is resentment on the part of the 'majority'. Caucasians rebel that there are (for instance) black contestants in Miss America, but only black contestants in Miss Black America. So, the organizations foment discord by getting their constituents fired up. The backlash foments discord among non-constituents. I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. It was once synonymous with racial discrimination. But in the 70's and 80's when I was growing up, there was precious little of it in my eyes. I had plenty of black friends and never though twice about it. As the years went on and these special interest groups drew the line darker and deeper, there has been a backlash. I don't like it. 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.

People are really giving up their direct connect pressure gage for these things? I still don't own a computer. It's just too easy to figure out residual nitrogen the old fashioned way. If I was going to go techy, I might want one of the HUD masks...but not at the expense of my existing console. Simple is best for me. 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.

I'll buy that. It's a perception issue. Chew on this: consumption of alcohol is completely avoidable, destroys brain cells every time, and there are no mitigation techniques to keep it from causing you harm...you can only limit how much harm it causes you and others. Seems pretty 'high risk' to me. But, like you said, it's really a matter of perception, isn't it? I think that was my underlying point. I just think you hilighted it better than I did. 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.

A fairly ambiguous story from a factual perspective. She was screwing everyone. She claims the men took advantage of the fact that she had a history of sexual abuse. (Nothing indicated that they knew about that history or who initiated sexual advances) Her friend said the men took advantage of the fact that she wanted to please, couldn't say no, and had lots of sex. (Could define a victim or a slut) Without more facts than were in that article, it's hard to say if she is a slut who reported this for her own advantage or if she was a victim of a male dominated profession with too much testosterone. Text messages and emails were mentioned, but who initiated them or the content were not. It's possible men were targeting her. It's possible she was targeting them. We just don't know. 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.

Just move to France, already done. Actually, Alabama has a law that addresses this. It was to thwart KKK activities, but is still on the books and rather general. 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.