there is a video of him attacking people before others jumped him
WaPo still couldn’t help but give a deceitful headline to it.
(10-10-2017 12:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]WaPo still couldn’t help but give a deceitful headline to it.
I had to read the first sentence twice before I understood what it was saying.
(10-10-2017 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2017 12:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]WaPo still couldn’t help but give a deceitful headline to it.
I had to read the first sentence twice before I understood what it was saying.
It's stuff like this that justifies having a standard to be me to be classified as "the press." Don't meet the classification, no 1st Amendment protection.
(10-10-2017 12:54 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2017 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2017 12:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]WaPo still couldn’t help but give a deceitful headline to it.
I had to read the first sentence twice before I understood what it was saying.
It's stuff like this that justifies having a standard to be me to be classified as "the press." Don't meet the classification, no 1st Amendment protection.
While I'm not a supporter of some kind of standard I can certainly see the call for one.
I think this particular instance falls more into the intentional category than the unintentional one.
They seem to be outraged by the simple rule that you can't go around hitting people, no matter who that is.
If this were tried in the press I would fully expect them to argue that this was somehow justified because, "we all hate white supremacists, am I right?"
So, someone from the racist group thrusting a flag pole at the counter protesters that could have a pointy point that could harm or kill someone, and this guy that got beaten by the racist group swung in self defense? Lets stop making this hate groups victims of any crimes. They are the instigators in the whole mess, and they need to be stop. I would not have brought charges against the black man who was savagely beaten by the racists group. What they did to him was a hate crime.
(10-11-2017 07:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]So, someone from the racist group thrusting a flag pole at the counter protesters that could have a pointy point that could harm or kill someone, and this guy that got beaten by the racist group swung in self defense? Lets stop making this hate groups victims of any crimes. They are the instigators in the whole mess, and they need to be stop. I would not have brought charges against the black man who was savagely beaten by the racists group. What they did to him was a hate crime.
Wut?
Your rendition of the facts is flawed.
The video shows the counter-protestor attacking first. Thus, charges.
The protestor, or Nazi, or whatever you want to call them, actually was indeed the victim.
(10-11-2017 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 07:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]So, someone from the racist group thrusting a flag pole at the counter protesters that could have a pointy point that could harm or kill someone, and this guy that got beaten by the racist group swung in self defense? Lets stop making this hate groups victims of any crimes. They are the instigators in the whole mess, and they need to be stop. I would not have brought charges against the black man who was savagely beaten by the racists group. What they did to him was a hate crime.
Wut?
Your rendition of the facts is flawed.
The video shows the counter-protestor attacking first. Thus, charges.
The protestor, or Nazi, or whatever you want to call them, actually was indeed the victim.
lol, apparently there was a city council meeting last night in Charlottesville where folks "demanded" the charges be dropped. Bless their hearts.
Remember, stand your ground, like the 2nd Amendment, only applies to white people who are attacking black persons, apparently.
(10-11-2017 09:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, stand your ground, like the 2nd Amendment, only applies to white people who are attacking black persons, apparently.
He went up and hit someone with a flashlight. Not exactly stand your ground. Nobody was threatening him specifically. Try reading the story before putting out inane nonsense.
(10-11-2017 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, stand your ground, like the 2nd Amendment, only applies to white people who are attacking black persons, apparently.
He went up and hit someone with a flashlight. Not exactly stand your ground. Nobody was threatening him specifically. Try reading the story before putting out inane nonsense.
you know your replies towards him are fruitless, is like talking to a wall. All we have to do is just wait for Trump to put him in a interment camp.
(10-11-2017 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, stand your ground, like the 2nd Amendment, only applies to white people who are attacking black persons, apparently.
He went up and hit someone with a flashlight. Not exactly stand your ground. Nobody was threatening him specifically. Try reading the story before putting out inane nonsense.
And Trayvon was walking home with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea.
(10-11-2017 10:00 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, stand your ground, like the 2nd Amendment, only applies to white people who are attacking black persons, apparently.
He went up and hit someone with a flashlight. Not exactly stand your ground. Nobody was threatening him specifically. Try reading the story before putting out inane nonsense.
And Trayvon was walking home with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea.
Not Guilty, 
Yep. The entire point is that black people can be murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules and black people cannot stand their ground ever against even white Nazis. All these stand your ground and 2nd Amendment "freedoms" are really not applicable to black males.
(10-11-2017 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 10:00 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 09:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, stand your ground, like the 2nd Amendment, only applies to white people who are attacking black persons, apparently.
He went up and hit someone with a flashlight. Not exactly stand your ground. Nobody was threatening him specifically. Try reading the story before putting out inane nonsense.
And Trayvon was walking home with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea.
Not Guilty,
Yep. The entire point is that black people can be murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules and black people cannot stand their ground ever against even white Nazis. All these stand your ground and 2nd Amendment "freedoms" are really not applicable to black males.
I am not surprised at the fact that you do not know the difference between the first and second amendment. You are not even worth having a discussion with.
(10-11-2017 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. The entire point is that black people can be murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules and black people cannot stand their ground ever against even white Nazis. All these stand your ground and 2nd Amendment "freedoms" are really not applicable to black males.
Care to name one black person who was "murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules"?
Note that four elements are required:
1) murdered, meaning killed intentionally;
2) without consequence;
3) for doing nothing; and
4) using 'stand your ground' rules.
(10-11-2017 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. The entire point is that black people can be murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules and black people cannot stand their ground ever against even white Nazis. All these stand your ground and 2nd Amendment "freedoms" are really not applicable to black males.
Care to name one black person who was "murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules"?
Note that four elements are required:
1) murdered, meaning killed intentionally;
2) without consequence;
3) for doing nothing; and
4) using 'stand your ground' rules.
Trayvon Martin
Nope.
No proof (or even indication) of the requisite intent.
Being arrested and tried for murder is hardly without consequence.
Maybe he was doing nothing, maybe not; that's the whole problem, you can't get a conviction for anything without a definite resolution of this specific issue.
The Fifth Amendment had far more to do with this result than SYG.
So, 0 for 4 on the specific elements. But keep going, it's a nice charade. And George Zimmerman is an a-hole who deserve punishment, at least you have that going for you.
Personally, I think you could use getting out of the car as sufficiently negligent to get negligent homicide, and possibly even sufficiently reckless to get manslaughter. But that's as far as the evidence would support. If the rabble-rousers had been willing to accept that, Zimmerman could be in prison where he belongs today. And if the rabble-rousers had been willing to allow the prosecutor to wait until the case could be made before moving forward, he might even be doing that time for murder.
(10-11-2017 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2017 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. The entire point is that black people can be murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules and black people cannot stand their ground ever against even white Nazis. All these stand your ground and 2nd Amendment "freedoms" are really not applicable to black males.
Care to name one black person who was "murdered without consequence for doing nothing using 'stand your ground' rules"?
Note that four elements are required:
1) murdered, meaning killed intentionally;
2) without consequence;
3) for doing nothing; and
4) using 'stand your ground' rules.
Trayvon Martin
Nope.
No proof (or even indication) of the requisite intent.
Being arrested and tried for murder is hardly without consequence.
Maybe he was doing nothing, maybe not; that's the whole problem, you can't get a conviction for anything without a definite resolution of this specific issue.
The Fifth Amendment had far more to do with this result than SYG.
So, 0 for 4 on the specific elements. But keep going, it's a nice charade. And George Zimmerman is an a-hole who deserve punishment, at least you have that going for you.
Personally, I think you could use getting out of the car as sufficiently negligent to get negligent homicide, and possibly even sufficiently reckless to get manslaughter. But that's as far as the evidence would support. If the rabble-rousers had been willing to accept that, Zimmerman could be in prison where he belongs today. And if the rabble-rousers had been willing to allow the prosecutor to wait until the case could be made before moving forward, he might even be doing that time for murder.
Shooting an unarmed black male in a traffic stop? No jail. How about a man in a wheelchair? No jail. 12 year old kid in a park? No jail.
Trayvon was straight up murdered by Zimmerman.