They prepare for events they might require Federal resources. So it is comparing the exact same thing. Obama never ever said that he'd have a son much like Trayvon. He never said that. Please be careful. He said if he had a son would LOOK like Trayvon. That's a significant difference. I'm sorry I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't making a racist comment. I won't do so in the future.
But the law doesn't really evolve with every decision does it? We'd have a mess on our hands if it did.
No, not every decision. Just the ones that say it is ok to pack your gun and go looking for trouble like a modern day Wild Bill Hickcock.
Why would a non-event (a post-OJ or post-Trayvon jury decision) require Federal resources? According to you those are non-events. Just quit tying your PC garbage to my wagon! :grin: Obama's remarks about Trayvon were just insignificant no matter what they were. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable to talk about race. In the future, I'll have to hook up with my one black friend to engage thusly. At least with him talking about race does not make on a racist like it does with your narrow view.
This is the whole point you're missing. Again, after stating this half a dozen times, nobody thinks its ok to carry a gun and go look for trouble. There is no precedent to be set. We fully understand that you believe Zimmerman woke up that morning looking for someone to gun down and Martin was his man. You believe its borderline premeditated murder. If thats what really happened, then of course, he should be in prison. There is nothing to suggest this. If Zimmerman followed Martin, confronted him, got in his face, talked down to him and verbally abuse him, then absolutely, Zimmerman should be going to jail. If Zimmerman followed him, questioned what he was doing in the neighborhood and Martin jumped him, then Zimmerman has not done anything legally wrong. If he is found guilty for this, then yes, there could be legal precedent...Giving a thug a right to assault anyone that questions his activities.
Nowhere have I said, nor do I believe that GZ woke up that morning intent on killing. The only place I said that is in your imagination. He did, however, follow somebody around at night. That alone is a stupid thing to do. Certainly the fact that he had a gun emboldened his pursuit of TM. If GZ walks, it will send a message that it is ok to pack a gun and take police work into your own hands. You can say it doesn't a million times, but it won't make it true.
You have stated yourself Zimmerman should be executed. Execution is only reserved for those who commit premeditated murder.
I am a huge opponent of PC. I hate PC. Don't try and label me with that crap. you've gone off the deep end with the whole Federal resources thing. They were prepared to use them if they were needed, just like they would be prepared to use them if there were an attack by China. That doesn't mean that either of them would actually happen. But they are or would be prepared. If you can't get it, I guess I shouldn't spend any more time trying to make it clear to you.
You should probably do some research on premeditation in murder cases. You don't have to have some grandiose plan or wake up intending to kill. Premeditation can take place in mere moments. Try again.
Quite a few. It is a good way to check to see if anyone is home. I've seen several cases where a burglar rings the bell, gets no answer, and then heads for the back yard.
Not only that...I remember several years ago in Houston, a tourist from Scotland was lost, rang a doorbell at night and was shot to death. The homeowner was no billed.
Oh geez, you are the King of PC. You spent these last dozen or so posts trying to pigeonhole me as some kind of raving racist. I'm just attending to the facts, unafraid of them. Remember, this development by the Clinton Administration made the news.... I've gone off the deep end? The Federal government is not going to waste time and resources preparing for something that would not be devastating. Whether you see it or not, you've have included potential riots over the OJ verdict with our tensions with China... and you don't see that.
Had to google that. You're right. So who was the bright bulb that suggested Trayvon should have gone for the doorbell? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1398645.html Sadly, in either way, it seems he won't get justice.
It was me! For sure I'll never ring a doorbell again. Funny, Trayvon doesn't look Scottish..... You guys are being ridiculous. Refman is REALLY hung up on the issue of precedent. He lets on tragedy change behavior forever.
What I did was spend the last dozen or so posts trying to clarify that you weren't saying that you believe that you know that blacks will riot when court rulings are unfavorable to a large number of African Americans. To state that is a racist statement. Sorry, pal, but being against racism isn't a PC thing. Though people who say racist things often try and label it as if it is. You're also moving the goal posts with your Federal preparedness argument. I never said riots would not be devastating. I said preparing for something doesn't mean that it's going to happen, or even that it's likely to happen. I gave other examples that show exactly that. You aren't just dealing in facts. You yourself admitted that there's no way to prove that would have been riots if OJ was found guilty, or if GZ is acquitted. Those certainly aren't facts. But you stated them as if they were, and brought up race as your only descriptor.
My statements were made about high-profile cases such as OJ and Martin. You tried to put words in my mouth that it was the norm. I never said such a thing. The PC part comes about in the definition of racism. It's not racist to talk about race when it is an obvious factor-- such as the contrast in the OJ trial versus the Trayvon trial. And my point was that they don't spend time preparing for things that wouldn't be devastating. You asked several times for evidence that rioting was expected and I provided the Clinton Administration preparing for such. Nothing on the strawberry shortage yet? I'ad hve to look back at my language but I recall using words like likely, expected, probably. I'm in a hurry and can't do it now. We just had a Fire Drill and now I have to go..
And there are other high profile cases where riots didn't happen. That's the point I was making. You trying to make the point that when blacks are involved in a high profile case they will riot if the verdict doesn't go their way is a racist thing to say. I tried over and over to ask for clarification to see if you were actually saying something different. Nobody ever said that riots wouldn't be devastating, nor is that relevant to the discussion. The reason I pointed out that the Federal govt. prepares for unlikely things is because it appeared you were trying to say that the Clinton govt. had the same line of thinking you had. Whether something is likely to happen or not is more relevant to the discussion than if such a thing would or would not be devastating which nobody had a disagreement with. Here is your exact words. You said they were ready to riot. There was no probably, possibly, maybe, might, could-happen, or anything like that in your words.
Saying racist things and being racist are completely two different things. Saying a racist joke doesn't make you a racist, but since everyone is so PC, you're automatically considered a racist for making one.
I agree. I have no idea if someone is a racist. I'm not calling giddy a racist. I'm pointing out that he said something racist. Stating that you know blacks will riot if a verdict doesn't go their way is a racist thing to say. I have no idea if giddy is actually a racist or not. I don't necessarily think being a racist is an are/aren't type thing. I think there's a spectrum and people land different places on that spectrum.
Here's the original post on the matter: I commented on two specific cases-- both of which had publicity and more with regard to potential rioting. You tried to characterize me as saying that was the norm. That is inaccurate. I was comparing the OJ case and the Trayvon case and commented on the irony of it.
