MariposaNegra
New member
That's seriously your best comeback? Yep! I'm a racist AND a homophobe because you can't admit your wrong. Nice one
Zimmerman Martin Case
- Thread starter ChristophB
- Start date
TazmanianDevil
Member
But he had offtopic training!!! LOL!!!
another thing that i didn't say: great white conspiracy against the entire african american population.
anything else you want to say for me? i've got mitlov and you putting words into my mouth. i would repeat what i've said, but i'll be accused of repetition and "whiney"-ness. so you might as well just talk for me.
anything else you want to say for me? i've got mitlov and you putting words into my mouth. i would repeat what i've said, but i'll be accused of repetition and "whiney"-ness. so you might as well just talk for me.
woodykarl9
New member
To be fair he wasn’t patrolling per him. He was on his way back from the store when he saw Martin and also that’s why he was armed because he was not on “patrol”.
SouljaGirl
New member
They aren't african americans. They are American's that happen to be darker than white people. An african american would be someone who was actually african. The majority of the "african americans" in the U.S. have MULTIPLE generations of living here. I don't call myself Welsh american or irish american.
That in itself IMO sparks racism. It's all PC crap that does more harm than good and needs to be done away with.
That in itself IMO sparks racism. It's all PC crap that does more harm than good and needs to be done away with.
killerx1224
New member
Apologies for my tardy reply.
You are absolutely right, and thank you for calling me out on this. I should not have listed these things as 'FACTS' as I do not have any empirical or irrefutable evidence to back these statements up.
Blame it on having too many beers (Heatwave in the UK at the moment, and I'm enjoying myself )
You are absolutely right, and thank you for calling me out on this. I should not have listed these things as 'FACTS' as I do not have any empirical or irrefutable evidence to back these statements up.
Blame it on having too many beers (Heatwave in the UK at the moment, and I'm enjoying myself )
Neighborhood watch programs are pretty common in the USA, particularly in area where public funding is collapsing and police can't maintain routine patrols with enough frequency to deter crime. Attacking the very concept of neighborhood watch because "we should leave it to the cops" ignores the reality on the ground in much of the USA that we simply don't have a police force sufficient to "leave it to the cops."
I think it's a darned good idea for someone involved in neighborhood watch to conceal carry--just in case someone decides to attack them. I think Zimmerman should have done a better job announcing that he was neighborhood watch (as opposed to some psycho KKK stalker or whatever Martin thought he was). But I also think Martin should have asked why he was following him before taking him down and slamming his head into the pavement.
It's true that had Zimmerman not been carrying, he wouldn't have shot Martin. That's a tautology. But that doesn't mean that if Zimmerman had not been carrying, nobody would have gotten hurt. The physical injuries suggest that Martin had followed him to the ground and continued the attack. Zimmerman was on the receiving end of a life-threatening or potentially-brain-damage-causing beating when he drew his firearm and used it. His head was being slammed into the pavement. You can only take that for so long before something really bad happens.
Both people could have handled the situation more responsibly. But Zimmerman carrying a gun was not the irresponsible part.
I think it's a darned good idea for someone involved in neighborhood watch to conceal carry--just in case someone decides to attack them. I think Zimmerman should have done a better job announcing that he was neighborhood watch (as opposed to some psycho KKK stalker or whatever Martin thought he was). But I also think Martin should have asked why he was following him before taking him down and slamming his head into the pavement.
It's true that had Zimmerman not been carrying, he wouldn't have shot Martin. That's a tautology. But that doesn't mean that if Zimmerman had not been carrying, nobody would have gotten hurt. The physical injuries suggest that Martin had followed him to the ground and continued the attack. Zimmerman was on the receiving end of a life-threatening or potentially-brain-damage-causing beating when he drew his firearm and used it. His head was being slammed into the pavement. You can only take that for so long before something really bad happens.
Both people could have handled the situation more responsibly. But Zimmerman carrying a gun was not the irresponsible part.
AlexisInfectious®
Active member
apparently you arent alone. I read that Morgan Freeman (himself african american) had said the same thing.
In Boston, people refer to themselves as Italian-American and Irish-American even though many of them have been in the United States since the nineteenth century. It's a label that refers to ethnicity and ethnic heritage, not nationality or citizenship, and I don't see a problem with either that or with the term "African-American."
i_am_ted_bovis
New member
sure its like my friend calling himself Chinese Canadian. Born in Newfoundland, as is his son, his parents are from China.
Just an ethnicity label.
Just an ethnicity label.
StarWarsFanattic
Member
Have nothing but respect for Morgan Freeman.
His views on 'Black history month'
Morgan Freeman on Black History Month - YouTube
Unless you was born in Africa and then came over to the USA, you are not a 'African American'. You are simply an AMERICAN.
P.S: LOVE IT when they guy says 'I'm Jewish' just as a random answer. And loved Freeman's response.
His views on 'Black history month'
Morgan Freeman on Black History Month - YouTube
Unless you was born in Africa and then came over to the USA, you are not a 'African American'. You are simply an AMERICAN.
P.S: LOVE IT when they guy says 'I'm Jewish' just as a random answer. And loved Freeman's response.
jager_bombzz
New member
How do you get that from what he posted about being butt hurt? That's not a homophobic phrase and "what really bothers me is you breeding" is quite the retort. A "well, that escalated quickly" meme would be appropriate in this case.
A lot of people are telling you both directly and indirectly that you're coming across as over the top and accusatory in regards to race. Maybe you should take into consideration that you are really coming across that way to others? It's not easy discussing an emotional subject with people who you disagree with. Continuing to relate your ideas in the same way and falling back into ad hominem isn't the way to go if you want to be understood. It's your obligation to adjust your way of thinking and relating your ideas so other people understand, not theirs to just accept what you say.
A lot of people are telling you both directly and indirectly that you're coming across as over the top and accusatory in regards to race. Maybe you should take into consideration that you are really coming across that way to others? It's not easy discussing an emotional subject with people who you disagree with. Continuing to relate your ideas in the same way and falling back into ad hominem isn't the way to go if you want to be understood. It's your obligation to adjust your way of thinking and relating your ideas so other people understand, not theirs to just accept what you say.
someguy_with_an_opinion
New member
Giovanni, today I went from liking some of your earlier, more eloquent posts, to catching up to the craziness in them emerging, to going back to unliking them, to watching you lash out at everyone, to now thinking, "this appears to be a rare single day of self-destruction that typically results in a MAP ban." For your sake, and because you're probably an intelligent guy who has valuable input to contribute on and gain from MAP, I suggest a break to cool off for a bit. We all need 'em from time-to-time when we've personalized an argument. You are not articulating yourself well and then reacting very defensively for understandable Internet miscommunications.
Why does the CDC record this data? :S
Anyway. Do all crimes warrant shooting someone? For example if some chap comes up to you trying to mug you and you pop a bullet in his head, was that needed?
I'm sorry that statistic is really hard to believe given the recent mass shootings. And is killing criminals really such a good thing anyway? IMO that's still someone ending up dead, everyone loses.
EDIT: Mind you most crimes that are committed with guns that aren't registered, or have been bought legally and then changed hands illegally. I imagine that this skewed the statistics in a way were gun laws come out looking favourable; lets not forgot that Obama is very much still a Republican puppet. Either way both point to the negative elements of such a rich gun culture.
Care to share the source?
Anyway. Do all crimes warrant shooting someone? For example if some chap comes up to you trying to mug you and you pop a bullet in his head, was that needed?
I'm sorry that statistic is really hard to believe given the recent mass shootings. And is killing criminals really such a good thing anyway? IMO that's still someone ending up dead, everyone loses.
EDIT: Mind you most crimes that are committed with guns that aren't registered, or have been bought legally and then changed hands illegally. I imagine that this skewed the statistics in a way were gun laws come out looking favourable; lets not forgot that Obama is very much still a Republican puppet. Either way both point to the negative elements of such a rich gun culture.
Care to share the source?
windrainlove1055
New member
I'm not sure why the CDC instead of the FBI or something similar was used. Regardless, that's what they used.
Someone was not shot every single time a firearm was used in self-defense. Very often, people are held at gunpoint while 911 is called. In addition, when a home defense shotgun is loaded up with less-lethal munitions (rubber slugs, rock salt, birdshot, etc), the likelihood of a fatality is very low, but it still counts as use of a firearm in self-defense.
Shooting someone who is trying to grab a purse and run is generally not defensible, morally or legally. In the case of an armed mugger, a rape, or a home invasion, though, there's a very real chance that you'll be killed even if you cooperate, so using lethal force in self-defense is generally legally defensible under such circumstances and in my opinion is morally defensible as well.
That is the media's fault for distorting things so badly with sensationalist news coverage. Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny statistic that gets massive, massive attention. It's like airplane crash fatalities versus automotive fatalities. The media spends most of their time talking about the former, but the vast majority of travel fatalities are the latter. Likewise, mass shootings are statistically insignificant when compared to day-in-day-out gun crime connected with drugs, gangs, domestic violence, and armed robbery.
Slate (a liberal, anti-firearm publication) published a suofftopicry of the findings of the study: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
Guns.com (whose editorial bias should be obvious) published a suofftopicry as well:
http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/
Read both, and where the two articles overlap, you'll get a good sense of what the study said. Or you can pay $39 and get the entire study to read yourself: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
Someone was not shot every single time a firearm was used in self-defense. Very often, people are held at gunpoint while 911 is called. In addition, when a home defense shotgun is loaded up with less-lethal munitions (rubber slugs, rock salt, birdshot, etc), the likelihood of a fatality is very low, but it still counts as use of a firearm in self-defense.
Shooting someone who is trying to grab a purse and run is generally not defensible, morally or legally. In the case of an armed mugger, a rape, or a home invasion, though, there's a very real chance that you'll be killed even if you cooperate, so using lethal force in self-defense is generally legally defensible under such circumstances and in my opinion is morally defensible as well.
That is the media's fault for distorting things so badly with sensationalist news coverage. Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny statistic that gets massive, massive attention. It's like airplane crash fatalities versus automotive fatalities. The media spends most of their time talking about the former, but the vast majority of travel fatalities are the latter. Likewise, mass shootings are statistically insignificant when compared to day-in-day-out gun crime connected with drugs, gangs, domestic violence, and armed robbery.
Slate (a liberal, anti-firearm publication) published a suofftopicry of the findings of the study: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
Guns.com (whose editorial bias should be obvious) published a suofftopicry as well:
http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/
Read both, and where the two articles overlap, you'll get a good sense of what the study said. Or you can pay $39 and get the entire study to read yourself: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
Last night our house got robbed (they didn't break into the house but entered the private veranda and stole an old bike of mine), and the week before we got broken into were some valuables got taken. And I have no desire to shoot anyone, although I would like to see our stuff back.
We are taking extra steps to make sure that another break doesn't occur. I'm sleeping with my nunchucks and staff close at hand incase I need to clobber someone in the middle of the night
I should note that I'm visiting my parents at the moment, so I'm in the Caribbean and not in my lovely haven the Netherlands.
We are taking extra steps to make sure that another break doesn't occur. I'm sleeping with my nunchucks and staff close at hand incase I need to clobber someone in the middle of the night
I should note that I'm visiting my parents at the moment, so I'm in the Caribbean and not in my lovely haven the Netherlands.