devildog

tkhayes

back to my original post. White people don't whine because they are not being regularly discriminated against by a system that is biased by color.

When was the last time you got stopped and frisked for no good reason?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/06/white-vegan-woman-sues-over-brooklyn-stop-and-frisk/

She didn't riot.

Andy9o8

***And yes the judge looks alot like Chris Farley in a wig.

This, right here, is one of the top 5 reasons why Republicans are losing more women voters and, resultingly, more elections: because Conservatives just love to publicly bash the appearance and/or sexuality of strong, middle-aged women in public office who are not "classically" attractive: Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Janet Napolitano, Justice Elena Kagan, and now Judge Debra Nelson.
hahaha
a
haha
haha
ha
a

Are you serious? Liberals *never* drag conservative women through the mud do they? They never make fun of their looks, call them sluts, whores, call them stupid bitches, ugly horse faces, etc.

It blows me away that people buy into this narrative that Democrats are someone "for women's rights" when history has shown them to be consistently against.

yoink

******He's gonna have some issues with the rights of states.

Half of them at that.

I cannot imagine a world in which I cannot defend my life.

Liberals don't want you to defend your life when your life is threatened. They're into allowing people to run wild, shooting up the town, doing drugs, etc. all while they're taxing your right to have a gun, and even taking away your right to own a gun.


weak Troll juju.

Not one of your best.

Not hard to show he's right. They'd rather you literally pee on yourself if being attacked/raped. And specifically encourage passive resistance if your life is in danger.

http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado-college-advises-vomiting-or-urinating-stop-rapists-after-lawmakers-pass-gun-control-bills

Edit: You can blow a whistle too :)

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/rape-prevention-101-blow-your-whistle-in-a-safe-zone-next-to-the-call-box/

tkhayes

I did read it. Did you read "The New Jim Crow"? It is filled with real data, real stats, real references to real stuff.

really.

The article talks about violent crime - and a narrow scope. The New Jim Crow deals with a systematic problem in America that targets people of color.

And how then does that negate the fact/notion that people from broken homes are more likely to break the law?

And since we're attacking sources just based on who they are, I roll my eyes at almost anything the NAACP endorses. Talk about a bunch of race baiters there.


Edit: Reading through her introduction, so far she's not saying anything that goes against what I've said. Her claim is that chapter 3 shows that blacks are not more likely to commit crimes. I don't know how she gets to that, but I would agree. On the surface it seems that they do, but as I said before, once you factor in the brokenness of homes, race disappears. In other words, blacks are no more likely to be criminals than whites (or any other race) once the total environment is taken into account.

tkhayes

The Heritage foundation? Really?

At least the book I quoted is backed up by data from real sources. Real data, real sources. Not opinions written by PhD's hired by a conservative think tank.

His quotations are simply parroting of other right-wing conservative opinions. I actually enjoy the use of facts. real data.

I bet you didn't even read it. If you want to counter with studies showing that broken homes have no role whatsoever, be my guest. I'd like to see your "data from real sources."

kelpdiver

We know how often CCW carriers use their weapons in public. If carrying tends to embolden people to enter a gun fight, we'd see it happening. It is quite rare. Why? Because gun fights are dangerous with uncertain results. Even if you shoot the other guy, he doesn't die like in the movies. Even after being shot he is a lethal threat to you. One thing that is stressed by CCW training and defensive gun use in general is that if you shoot someone, it's nearly certain you're going to jail and will be spending considerable money in legal costs, even for justified shootings (like this one). Not something you leap into just for the heck of it.

So no, I don't consider your supposition very credible.

Trying to find the article I read a while back, but the gist of it is that CCP holders draw their guns less frequently than police by a wide margin, and by an even wider margin, end up shooting the wrong person far less often. While I'm trying to dig it up, here's a little side blurb that's rather interesting, courtesy of the NYT (who was attempting to show the opposite)

"According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than the average citizen."

Break down of the data used (NC population and CCP holders) is found here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

GeorgiaDon

So it seems the law in Florida allows someone to provoke a confrontation, even to throw the first punch, and then to kill if the fight turns against them. Presumably they could still be accountable for assault for throwing the first punch, but not with murder. Seems like an open invitation for hotheads to me.

Don

Negative. Well, at least according to a former detective that did my CCP class a while back. You can't bait someone into attacking you by starting a fight and walk away clean. It might not be 1st degree (though if they could prove you intended to kill them via a "self defense claim" they could), but you'd get manslaughter at least as you physically started a fight that resulted in death.

tkhayes

the book is not 'racism'. It's about racism. If you have not read it, then you have no reason to comment on it.

People of color are systematically discriminated against in this country and every judicial statistic supports that. Unless of course you have countering data, in which case I am all ears.

But you do not in fact have any data other that your own opinion.

Yes and no. There is certainly discrimination that goes on in the country, but its a far cry from what it used to be. As far as criminal stats go, the funny thing about it is that while certain ethnicity groups commit a disproportionate amount of crime (or at least, convicted of it), race goes right out the window when you factor in family status. In other words, it doesn't matter your skin color. If you come from abroken home, you're likely to commit crime and be jailed. Unfortunately, if you're part of certain groups, you're more likely to be from a broken home that's not so well off.

And I'm sure someone will demand a LMGTFY, so here's one of many links: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime

kallend

Sounds like a Tea Partyan Occupy rally to me

Which group had the rapes again? And the insane clean up?

Here's a handy chart if you need: http://www.lolbrary.com/content/42/tea-party-vs-occupy-26042.jpg

If memory serves, the majority of Occupiers (anarchists aside) are looney lefters.

jclalor

Quote

So we have you officially on record proclaiming a civil case will be filed and GZ will lose?

Yes.

After listening to one to the jurors tonight state that the first vote was 3 for not guilty, 2 for manslaughter, and one for 2nd degree murder, it was not the slam dunk that everyone here seems to think it was.

Yes, you've had quite the track record predicting this case. In about a day, that 3-2-1 went to 6-0 not guilty. Sounds like the 2-1 for some sort of guilt weren't terribly convinced of their own standing.

DanG

Quote

Lets see...what would the odds be in vegas that black folks would riot after zimmerman got acquitted...

Always bet on black?

WTF? They didn't riot, dude. Your racist fantasy didn't pan out. Maybe next time.

Did you miss all the stories about certain groups of people saying they would resort to violence and riot if GZ was found not guilty?

While I wouldn't call events full scale riots, Oakland CA has already seen some looting, fires and assaults by TM supporters "protesting."

billvon

Lot of racists despondent today about the disappointing lack of rioting by black Floridians. Why aren't the people in Florida supporting their stereotypes? It's getting to be so you can't even pigeonhole people any more.

They're all in CA. :)

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/15/conservative-filmmaker-trayvon-martin-protesters-in-oakland-slugged-me-kicked-me-in-the-head/

Skyrad

It sounds like a racist shot a kid and got away with it. No real suprise seeing as it happened where it did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6OuP-wiiQg#at=53

There again, I didn't sit through the trail so I don't really know either way. But it does sound well dodgy.

lol so you didn't sit through the trial and hold an opinion that completely contradicts every piece of evidence and an FBI investigation that says otherwise.

melch

Yea stopped reading right about here...

If the author of this piece does not know the difference between 'insure' and 'ensure' then I doubt they have written anything intelligent enough to warrent a thorough reading, much less an analysis of their opinion.

If the author of this post does not know the difference between "yea" and "yeah" ("warrent" and "warrant"), then I doubt they have written anything intelligent enough to warrant a thorough reading, much less an analysis of their opinion.

Nataly

******
And to all the folks who had a good chuckle at my "overdramatized" experience, I've got one question for you - what do you do when you have a serious lapse in your safety procedures?

Analyze and don't repeat.

Posting on DZ.com is a mixed bag. You can get valuable feedback if you can filter through the noise and you can share an experience that others can learn from. You can also elicit the ire of other jumpers who can view your post as over-dramatized or self-aggrandizing... it's a difficult medium for communication.

I could have created a thread about the "near death experience" I had today... no shit...I really thought I was going to buy the farm, but my mistake was on the level, worse actually, of misrouting a chest strap...noob. But, just like a misrouted chest strap there is not much to be learned by the "community" from my experience. I knew exactly what mistakes I made that lead up to that "near death experience" and that was enough for me and the other jumper who I endangered.

That said, don't take the heat from the post seriously. Anyone who is prone to posting online is going to get flamed from time to time.

You like to blog and that's cool, you just have to consider your audience... at least one of your respondents did almost die in a "no shit I woke up a month later" kind of way and I don't recall them posting about it on DZ.com. There are A LOT of incidents, if not the vast majority, that never made it on this board and most here are aware of that fact. Again, consider your audience....

In the end though, it's great that we are reading this "over dramatized" thread instead of reading an incident report.
/\ /\ /\ THIS.

Poor choice of words (for this crowd). Like telling a room full of war-veterans about almost getting hurt...

Good analogy.

jclalor

Quote

There is no negligence here. TM tried very hard to hurt or kill GZ. GZ defended himself the only way he could. Prior to being attacked, GZ committed no crimes at all in reference to TM. Again, even if he did 'follow' him, 'following' is not a crime unless it is perhaps 'stalking', on a serial basis, or maybe 'menacing' - but we have no proof whatsoever that there was ever any 'menacing', in fact, GZ was on the phone much of the time...

Who knows what the jury thought? they very well may have thought that he was most likely guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that equals an innocent verdict. In a civil suit, that same conclusion would be a win for the plaintiff. It's nice when the primary witness against you is dead, but it will be a different ballgame in a civil case, ask Orenthal James.

Or maybe they thought no way in hell GZ was guilty at all. Love you how continually try and spin it.

Because Alabama lets people go for attempted murder?

Gravitymaster

******Well hopefully the obligatory civil suit that is sure to follow will succeed.

Well, I hope NOT.

There's been a trial, he was found not guilty. That should be the end of it.

Don't need a federal "civil rights" suit, a civil suit for damages, or whatever.

Just let it go.

Agee 100%. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to stoke emotions. Let it go.

Sure there is. Race baiters gotta continue to make a name for themselves and make money off inciting hatred.

jclalor

Quote

******If GZ goes free I don't think there will be any substantial rioting, if any. Because the main complaint/protest at first is that people wanted GZ arrested, charged and tried. Well, he was and people have to accept the verdict just like OJ.

Miami disagrees. So do those affected by the Rodney King riots.

I hope your safe and secure in your home during these times of tumultuous Negro civil unrest.

That's because I live in SW Fl and not Oakland CA.

jgoose71

That's one of those "If a tree was falling in the woods and if know one is around to hear it" statements. You have no way of proving it....

We have plenty of ways of disproving it though. Should we play "Lets find all the black people murdering white people" stories and see how many of them make it to trial w/o mysteriously dying in jail? :)

jclalor

If it had been a 27 year old black man that had shot and killed a white 17 year old kid who had just walked to the store, rest assured they would have found him dead after his first night in his jail cell after committing suicide by blunt force trauma.

Yeah, sure they would have

Gravitymaster

I agree that 20 years is pretty excessive. I would have thought maybe 60 days and then some anger counseling would be more productive.

Did you have a point?

You would give 60 days for attempted murder?

skinnay

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

She was sentenced for attempted murder.

She got into an argument with her ex. Left. Went to the garage. Went to her car. Got the gun out of the car. Went back to the ex. Took a shot at him (and missed) and then tried to claim self defense / warning shots. While she was out on bail, she got re-arrested for approaching the victim and getting in a fight with him.

jclalor

Quote

******Well hopefully the obligatory civil suit that is sure to follow will succeed.

Why? Because you have mountains of evidence saying GZ is guilty that the jury didn't have?

The burden of liability is much less in civil court, a jury need only find a person more likely than not to have acted negligent. it's also going to be nice to see all usual suspects that claim the system work, applaud the civil verdict.

I'm aware of that. So you think the evidence shows that it is 51% likely that GZ did something wrong? Because I wouldn't even give them 5%.

jclalor

Well hopefully the obligatory civil suit that is sure to follow will succeed.

Why? Because you have mountains of evidence saying GZ is guilty that the jury didn't have?