Stand Your Ground in Danger

[VMI77]

To clear up your confusion...

Great job of completely missing the point of the person you are responding to. Also, yeah, "wrong" reporting is ok, just as long as it's not "completely wrong."

It's heartening to learn that you're not one of those fools who follow all the 24/7 media sensationalism.

It's clear you're being sarcastic in that last one, so you just called me a fool. Just in the interest of keeping the tone around here civil, it might not be the best idea to claim other people here are confused, do a great job of completely missing missing the point, stuffing words in their mouth that they didn't actually say, and calling them names. Just a suggestion.

I give what I get. Here's what you selectively quoted from my remarks:

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

Of course, you ignored the three reasons I gave for questioning the accuracy of the news coverage, then you selected this part of my response:

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

Here is your snide, dismissive, and insulting reply:

I figured.

If you want to ride around on your high horse you have to actually stay in the saddle. And you DID say the reporting wasn't "completely wrong," AND you "see no reason to question the veracity of the claim," which coupled together amounts to you accepting reports that aren't "completely wrong," or in other words, reports that are partially wrong --so I put no words in your mouth.

[74novaman]

Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

[VMI77]

Sorry but I don't believe that is the best way to start a debate if you don't know the details of the subject you introduce to the debate. You lose all credibility that way.

Differences from what I can see:
1. The white kid, though he goes to school with these kids doesn't seem to know who they are. While in the M/Z case all parties are known and there is no dispute as to whether or not Z shot and killed M
2. From what I can tell the gas can story is a few days old, compared to the Z/M story which is weeks old.
3. The suspects in the gas story have not been interviewed and let go due to a self defense claim. When there are witness who state otherwise.
4. I don't see any new laws being challenged in the gas story like there is in the M/Z story.

I could go on and on but I won't...

I'll try one last time, but I suspect it's futile because it seems to me that you're smart enough that you couldn't possibly be merely misunderstanding what I said. In the first place, your first 3 "points" are wrong, and the last one is irrelevant.
1. M didn't know each other either, and M in this case is dead, which is why he is known now. Also, I went to school with a lot of people and don't know who they are.
2. M was killed on February 26. The article on the kid says the attack took place in the "week before March 4."

Sunday, March 04, 2012

A 13-year-old boy who police say was doused with gasoline and lit on fire last week while walking home from school is recovering from first-degree burns to his face and head.

So, the attacks were basically in the same week. The article doesn't say what day, but it was a school day, so it if was as late as Friday, they occurred within five days of each other, if as early as Monday, within one day --NOT WEEKS as you claim. Maybe you should apply your "detail" expectations to yourself as well as others.

3. There are no witnesses to Z killing M. The only person who saw what happened is Z.
4. I wasn't making a direct comparison between the two events, I was merely pointing out the different reporting standards when racial elements are involved. Basically, it's analogous to the media reporting on self-defense acts.....if the story advances the liberal anti-gun agenda, like this one, it goes national. If the story undermines the liberal anti-gun agenda, it stays local. Black on White crime stays local, White on Black crime goes national. Of course, this isn't true in every single case, but it appears to be a general trend. Both elements exist in this story --it advances the anti-gun agenda and the victim is African American.

Finally, I will reiterate what the article I linked to says:

A 13-year-old boy who police say was doused with gasoline and lit on fire last week

This is what the media you apparently are disposed to believe said in the article --DOUSED. It says "who police say was doused." So, who am I supposed to believe, the police, the newspaper, or a TV clip that you say says something different? How do you know the TV didn't get it wrong and the paper got it right? Why would the paper lie about what the police said? Furthermore, the Blaze article YOU linked to says the same thing as the NY Daily News:

Police in Kansas City are investigating a possible hate crime after a 13-year-old boy was doused in gasoline and set on fire.

Except they don't say "the police said" they said flat out he was doused. Maybe you should take your own advice and get your facts straight before you start correcting others.

[PracticalTactical]

I think through bad behavior the deceased's family, the media and the rest of the lynch mob have impeached themselves beyond repair.

First, the deceased's family hired lawyers who have openly admitted that their strategy was to "campaign" for "justice". The city and the police there have pretty thoroughly explained why an arrest wasn't made, citing Florida statutes and everything. But, that's not good enough, having police and local government follow the law. They want "justice" but they don't care one whit about the law. Justice without law is just meaningless violence and anger.

The idea that the local police would engage in conspiracy to let a man go who killed a black "kid" is ludicrous. Were the local police so evil and so racist, they would have been investigated and set straight by the FBI for civil rights violations years ago. They want police to protect the community, but they don't want the police to follow the law. I say we drop them off in a place with unlimited police power or anarchy in a third world country and see how they like it.

Second, the activists (probably at the direction of the lawyers) are targeting everything they can, the law be damned. What's with the protest at the Division of Licensing office? The Division of Licensing is bound by law to keep a permit valid unless the law directs otherwise, and thus far the law does not direct otherwise. Once again, they want "justice" but have no use for the rule of law. Demanding the police chief resign? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? The chief follows the law, not public opinion polls.

Third, the media has proven themselves not worthless, but malicious and evil in this case. First they tried racebaiting, but got caught with their hand in the cookie jar when pictures of Zimmerman got out. Then they misrepresented or oversimplified the facts in the case. Every picture of Martin shown is several years old to help support the assertion that a black "kid" was killed. Seventeen year olds are practically grown, not children anymore. Then they just started reporting on the "public outrage" without talking about why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. Then they started attacking concealed carry, stand your ground and anything else they could from an anti-gun angle.

I have no use for the family, the activists or the media right now. They've proven themselves to not be untrustworthy anarchists with a propensity for whipping up division and hatred with the aim of destroying our rights. Shame on all of them.

[gdanaher]

Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

Yes, I still have my day job and can't crawl through all this garbage on an hourly basis. The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

[matriculated]

Here is your snide, dismissive, and insulting reply:

I figured.

Wow! A bit of an over-reaction, wouldn't you say? I didn't mean it the way you took it, so you might want to take it easy on the reflexive defensiveness. Either way, I still don't see how you feeling offended justifies calling me names. Look, I'm not trying to get into a big back-and-forth with you, I say we call it even and move on with our lives.

[gdanaher]

Apparently the Florida law was enacted in 2005. Is there anyone here sufficiently familiar with Florida CC laws to hazard a guess as to the likelihood that Zimmerman's license training should have covered this topic either initially or as a renewal? Their consistency is likely no better than ours, but I'm wondering if it could be argued that he had not been properly educated. He was working as a neighborhood watchman. Did that job, paid or unpaid, require additional formal training or licensing in Florida?

[bayouhazard]

There's a security license if you do it for pay but that's not required to drive through the neighborhood where you live and keep an eye on things. Kind of like how I don't need to pass the bar to answer your question for free.

[speedsix]

Apparently the Florida law was enacted in 2005. Is there anyone here sufficiently familiar with Florida CC laws to hazard a guess as to the likelihood that Zimmerman's license training should have covered this topic either initially or as a renewal? Their consistency is likely no better than ours, but I'm wondering if it could be argued that he had not been properly educated. He was working as a neighborhood watchman. Did that job, paid or unpaid, require additional formal training or licensing in Florida?

...this is what he was SUPPOSED to be doing...a program sponsored by the local PD...used nationwide...notice in bold on page 1 of their handbook...guess Z didn't read that... http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... ndbook.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... -zimmerman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

Here is your snide, dismissive, and insulting reply:

I figured.

Wow! A bit of an over-reaction, wouldn't you say? I didn't mean it the way you took it, so you might want to take it easy on the reflexive defensiveness. Either way, I still don't see how you feeling offended justifies calling me names. Look, I'm not trying to get into a big back-and-forth with you, I say we call it even and move on with our lives.

Nice try, but this post just confirms my interpretation of your last post. Since I was being serious your RLOL emoticon and the "Wow!" expression of amazement, is patronizing, and therefore, insulting. Next comes your condescending "you might want to take it easy on the reflexive defensiveness." Next you tell me how I "feel" --again, patronizing and insulting. And of course, then you want to "call it even" and "move on." I've seen these kind of passive/aggressive rhetorical games many times and you're not fooling me.

I don't think you're stupid, so I can only conclude that you're being disingenuous. I might have given you the benefit of the doubt if your reply hadn't been so smug, patronizing, dismissive, and condescending.....but by repeating your previous tone you force me to conclude that I read you correctly.

Furthermore, your claim that I felt offended is disingenuous as well, since I didn't say that I felt anything as a result of your remarks, much less offended. Based on what you've written I'm pretty sure you know the difference between me saying that your remark is "snide, dismissive, and insulting" and me saying that I felt insulted or offended --but while I'm sure your intent was to be offensive you lack the skill to actually cause offense.

[Keith B]

OK folks. Last warning. No personal attacks or the thread will be locked.

As my Momma used to say, 'If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.'

[Jusster]

WMI77,

I’ll leave out all the quotes to shorten this post…..

1) My point was all parties are known. They are not known in the story you provided.
2) I will concede I was wrong about the dates. Guess I misread one of those alternative news sources.
3) There are witnesses to before and after the shooting. None in the story you provided.
4) Tell you what, how about we take a look at the ACTUAL original local news story. I don’t hear any racial tones being mentioned do you? I didn’t read anything about anyone being doused with gas either. In fact it sounds like this poor kid is being bullied at school. Nothing in this article indicates it was because he was white. Sounds like the story you provided is being embellished by those who have their own agenda don’t you think? (You don’t have to answer that)

Ok I will answer your main point as you say and leave it at that. Yes, I do think the other story you pointed out would have gone National if the following conditions applied:

1. The white teen died instead of superficial first degree burns.
2. The black teens were claiming self defense because the white teen looked suspicious and didn’t belong in their neighborhood.
3. Local LEO interviewed the black teens and released them because there was no evidence to refute their claim of self defense.

Now if you would have brought up a case like Jena Six….oh wait, you couldn’t because that would have tossed your theory right out the window. It did go National.

Jusster

[VMI77]

Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

Yes, I still have my day job and can't crawl through all this garbage on an hourly basis. The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

The statistics you're citing are pretty much meaningless. In the first place, poll results are meaningless unless they include the exact questions asked and a description of the population polled. No, it's not OK to assume the 44% you cite as being in favor of stronger guns laws as being anti-gun. I for instance, I might favor some better system of keeping guns away from people with mental problems. Without knowing precisely what laws this group approves of no conclusion about their position on gun ownership can be drawn. Next, no, we can't assume the 29% figure tells us how many individuals own guns because people may lie about owning a gun, and the bias will probably be towards denying ownership rather than falsely claiming ownership; and we can't say anything about whether individuals are more likely to dissemble on the question of ownership than households. The 42% number for households is questionable for the same reason as the 29% number. Your interpretation is also questionable because the nature of ownership is undefined. Some households may consider guns to be jointly owned, so that individuals may say they don't own a gun. Finally, the 14% who say they don't care may merely be satisfied with the status quo, and may well oppose many gun control measures from prohibitions on owning particular types of guns to confiscation (or they may not --we don't know).

[matriculated]

Here is your snide, dismissive, and insulting reply:

I figured.

Wow! A bit of an over-reaction, wouldn't you say? I didn't mean it the way you took it, so you might want to take it easy on the reflexive defensiveness. Either way, I still don't see how you feeling offended justifies calling me names. Look, I'm not trying to get into a big back-and-forth with you, I say we call it even and move on with our lives.

Nice try, but this post just confirms my interpretation of your last post. Since I was being serious your RLOL emoticon and the "Wow!" expression of amazement, is patronizing, and therefore, insulting. Next comes your condescending "you might want to take it easy on the reflexive defensiveness." Next you tell me how I "feel" --again, patronizing and insulting. And of course, then you want to "call it even" and "move on." I've seen these kind of passive/aggressive rhetorical games many times and you're not fooling me.

I don't think you're stupid, so I can only conclude that you're being disingenuous. I might have given you the benefit of the doubt if your reply hadn't been so smug, patronizing, dismissive, and condescending.....but by repeating your previous tone you force me to conclude that I read you correctly.

Furthermore, your claim that I felt offended is disingenuous as well, since I didn't say that I felt anything as a result of your marks, much less offended. Based on what you've written I'm pretty sure you know the difference between me saying that your remark is "snide, dismissive, and insulting" and me saying that I felt insulted or offended --but while I'm sure your intent was to be offensive you lack the skill to actually cause offense.

The poster above obviously doesn't feel offended. And oh, something nice.

[speedsix]

...dat mouse be just a'sniffin' at dat cheese...