Imma. gonna say it just to be a troll: George Zimmerman
don't look all that " white" to me.

I know. What a racist.

His family claims he is Latino.

This whole thing is so fucked up.

We shouldn't be trying this guy in the press. The police should have done a better investigation. One they can stand behind, and if charges were filed against him, he should have been judged by a jury of his peers. This is not the way to do it.

The shooting is suspect, but the backlash is worse. The public scrutiny should be on the police, the DA, and the law, not on Zimmerman. This is just as bad as a lynching.

Most people who were lynched probably weren't running around shooting people.

So you think it's OK to ruin this guy's future without giving him a trial?

Remember Richard Jewell, the Atlanta Olympics bomber?

edit: How about Steven Hatfill, the anthrax poisoner?
How about that white van the DC sniper was driving around in?

Oh, I was really just addressing the lynching comment. It's not quite the same thing.

No, he needs a trial. And if they can prove he did it without justification good for them: one less nut running around.

If they can prove he was justified then case closed.

Not quite the same, but very similar. Both are groups of people taking justice into their own hands with no regard for the law. Nobody has strung Zimmerman up in a tree yet, but I bet he doesn't feel very safe. I don't see him going out in public.

No, you're right about that.

My really real feeling sounds very bad, and I don't want to voice them.

One word: Sharpton. :headshake

"without giving him a trial" is what the protests are about.

OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider one of my previous postings.

I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?

Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.

If he'd asked to be shot, the other guy wouldn't have shot him? Like reverse psychology or something? What are you on about?

What's the point of a trial when under Floriduh law he's going to be found not guilty? It would be a show trial and the verdict would probably cause even more anger and possible riots.

Federal law may come into the picture... to determine if killing Trayvon Martin violated his civil rights.
That may sound strange, I know, but it's possible with the FBI being involved.

If he's found not guilty because of "stand your ground", rather than some technicality or exculpatory information yet to be mentioned, it may be useful for altering the "stand your ground" law for the better.

sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!

Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".

I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting. You turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia. I was comparing Lamplighter to Zimmerman both of whom are relevant to the discussion. You went off on a tangent contrasting Trayvon Martin to unknown euthanasia participants.

sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.

Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.

Thank you for your question.
[bold mine]
You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns." You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators. That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject. Thanks for the entertainment.

Gun nuts are SOOOOO touchy about hurting guns' feelings. :lol:

Guns don't hurt people's feelings...PEOPLE hurt people's feelings.

Like they think we think guns are alive or something. "Oooooh, that gun is a mean one. He once shot a guy just to watch him die. Then he went to Starbucks. Ooooohhh." :lol2:

It's almost as if that's the only argument they can fall back on. :rolleyes:

Still, it's a step up from court jester. :p:

Oops. I didn't say the above. Maybe you meant Sexobon?

Hey, Stormie, I do apologize... my bad... no idea how that came about.

Now that Stormie has responded, Lamp gets to put his post in the "Awesome Pick Up Lines....." thread. :cool:

Oh, sure I can: "People are killing others with guns"
I can also say people are unintentionally killing others with guns
I can also say people are unintentionally killing themselves with guns
And yes, I do portray people as victims... they are the victims.

Once again, it's down to name-calling and quibbling over my wording.
It's OK to write me off --- that matters little, and I'm sorry to lose the conversation.
But what does matter is to be aware of a problem, but find a pretext to avoid it.

Take care.

If there's a stand your ground law and someone is trying to commit suicide, is it acceptable for them to kill themself to prevent themself from killing themself?

Does this change if there is also an assisted suicide law?

and if you do it in a public place will they ticket you for littering and go after your estate?

Here's something I think we can all agree on: Geraldo is stoopid.

He says the hoodie was at fault for the shooting. He urged african-american and hispanic parents to not let their babies grow up to wear hoodies.

So hoodies don't get shot, people WEARING hoodies get shot.

What a maroon.

Somewhere there is a think tank with an empty chair...

I think you mean Jorge.

What we have here is a Fatal Fashion Faux Pas.

Quit making me guffaw out loud.

[Grammar alert!] The funny thing is that Mozilla spell check doesn't like the word "themself." Neither does it like "themselves." So I got all flustered and re-edited several times to please spell-check.

According to this site (warning: Canadian!):

and concludes

What do you think?

I've always heard it as 'themselves' but that doesn't really agree in number, does it?

You could say himself, or herself, or 'him or her self.'

It's an awkward word. Avoid it. ;)

But how else would you represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite when you want to use an anaphor that is bound by its antecedent?

He isn't. He's Hispanic. Or at least half-Hispanic.

If he were white-white instead of a deep beige, protesters would be burning down DisneyWorld.

I think you're avoiding the more important issue.

um. 5? :bonk:

Tain't necessarily so.

Listen carefully to the 911 tape, ignore the inflammatory comment for the time being.

He followed the kid around in his car.

Of course, we don't know what happened, but on it's face it would appear that a cop wannabe who made forty or so calls to 911 in the preceeding weeks and did not identify himself as Neighborhood Watch to the 911 dispatcher on this incident who told him not to follow the teen. Could he have provoked the situation that lead to the shooting?

I'm hoping to be able to listen to Michael Smerconish's show on Monday. He said today that he was going to go over the case point by point based on public information about the case. Should be interesting.

Stand Your Ground <> Stalk Through The Neighborhood.

If Florida would take the guns away from its law enforcement officers, then cop wannabes wouldn't have them to shoot people with either. Problem solved.

I thought it was 'Floorduh'...

I always thought it was legal to shoot someone wearing a hoodie. I guess I might need to change our policy & procedures manual.

Sarge, you've jumped from "should be" to "is".

Nice to see ya, BTW.

Why don't you want the process of investigation and due process to play out? Your statements confirm that you have convicted this shooter. Why don't you go to Florida and try to hang him?

Jessie Jackson is such a cock sucker...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2131299.story

Could be, I have no Idea, and all the better, because the point was to make a statement as stupid as the one I quoted.

The Florida legislator that introduced that law in the first place, is saying it's being distorted and abused by the police, and he intends to amend it to make that clear.

In The Hoodie (to the tune of In The Ghetto)

As the lights shine on a warm and mild Florida night
A neighboring young man is doin' alright in his hoodie

And his mama doesn't know 'bout something that she doesn't need
It's that his soul is soon to be freed from his hoodie

People, don't you understand they need a helping hand?
Or this will surely be a no man's land some day

Take a look at you and me, are we too blind to see
Do we simply turn our heads and look the other way?

Well the world turns and the young neighbor man in hooded clothes
Walks down the street as a warm breeze blows o'er his hoodie

And his temper flares under a watchful eye
And he learns to resist and he learns how to die in his hoodie

Then one day in desperation a community protests away. They call for an arrest, call for a trial, try to dispel the claims, but they don't get far
And his mama cries

As people rally around the young neighbor man
Who was killed in the street with nothing in his hand but his hoodie

Though a young neighbor man died on that warm and mild Florida night
Another local young man is feelin' alright wearin' his hoodie

And his mama cries.

That is awesome, sexobon.

Agreed. Although this case has NOTHING to do with the "Stand your Ground" law.

This case is about some asswipe who stalked a kid, chased him down and then shot him after instigating the altercation.
Show me ANYTHING in the "Stand your Ground" law that covers that reality.
Using that law is an abuse of it, by his lawyer.
Yup. Stop interjecting your damn facts or the extremists will have nothing with which to argue. :rolleyes:
A) The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that. He never specifically said NOT to do so.
Agreed.

Listen to the audio yourself. See if you hear what the asswipe says at 1:52 on the audio.

You tell me if he says "fucking coons"

This POS hunted this kid down and killed him intentionally. He was looking for glory and wanted an altercation.
IMO, he deserves all that he gets ... and I hope he rots in jail for it.

:D Wow Merc !
Where did you get all that from "Go go go NRA"
Maybe a little bit of transference going on here ?

Right. Zimmerman did the shooting. Zimmerman killed in the name of security. Treyvon Martin was killed by Zimmerman. Of course I

Actually, you introduced the flippant between Treyvon Martin and euthanasia:( Zimmerman providing "security" for his neighborhood)If he'd done what? Approached the armed man who's been following him around and asked him for protection from... what? Again, what are you on about?

Wow, that's not just a grammar Nazi talking, that's the whole Third Reich.:cool:

Kidding.

It's more the intersection of grammar and engineering.

@ Happy Monkey
XoB reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to make this point:
You missed that point and distracted from it by challenging the content thus going off on a tangent.
I also reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to reiterate xoB's point. You missed the point again and went off on a tangent. Now it's been explained to you twice.
All besides the point.

I know you as a contrarian more interested in antagonizing certain other personalities than in valid discussion and the type of person who will, to that end, even go so far as to present absurdities and suggest that it's what another person is implying just to bait them:
This is the last time I'm going to indulge you.

Even in States with concealed carry permits, brandishing a weapon is illegal. I've not seen evidence that this was done; or, that Martin had actually seen Zimmerman's weapon early on in their interaction. The stand your ground philosophy taken literally would have worked well for Martin as there was no need for him to approach Zimmerman whether Zimmerman was armed or not. That Florida is a concealed carry state was likely known to Martin; also, that Zimmerman could be armed. Martin might have been able to outrun Zimmerman; but, he couldn't outrun a bullet. Remaining in place and offering Zimmerman diffusing conversation was a viable option. Putting himself in a position of dependency by asking for Zimmerman's protection may have given Zimmerman the sense of control he needed to avoid his resorting to using a weapon. What did Martin need protection from?!!! Why his own emotions of course, Martin's fight or flight response was a contributing factor to his own death.

HM, this kind of in-depth discussion is generally of interest to men. Of what interest could it possibly be to you, Happy?

But had he seen his doodle?

And who had the biggest one?

and did he brandish it?

and was it licensed to kill (007")?

"Engineers who are poets" Next, on Dr. Phil

Slowly it turns...

LA Times
Tina Susman and Molly Hennessy-Fiske
3/25/12

Trayvon Martin case sheds light on 'stand your ground' issues

I repeat ...
This case is about some asswipe who stalked a kid, chased him down and then shot him after instigating the altercation.
Show me ANYTHING in the "Stand your Ground" law that covers that.
Using that law is an abuse of it, by his lawyer.

... and to offer a little levity (not really)
.
.
.

The "stand your ground" comes in when the police and/or DA don't think they can reasonably prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened. To a lot of us it's clear the police made a bad call, but they wouldn't have been able to make that (possibly racially biased) bad call if they didn't have a drastic standard of evidence to prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened - rather than Zimmerman having to show why HE felt threatened.

We don't even have all the facts yet.