|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
672
   |
Posted - 2013.07.21 01:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
You are aware that the NDAA was signed again during that entire bullshit trial and incident right?
Far more things to be concerned about.
There's truckloads of injustice going on all over our country, and our god damned planet.
Should a woman be raped for dressing like a *****? No.
Should a man be shot for dressing like a thug? No.
Does it still happen? Yes.
Are people idiots? Yes.
Take this BS out of General Discussion and put it in The Locker Room.
I don't come to these forums to see this ****. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
672
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 02:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Jathniel wrote:You are aware that the NDAA was signed again during that entire bullshit trial and incident right?
Far more things to be concerned about.
There's truckloads of injustice going on all over our country, and our god damned planet.
Should a woman be raped for dressing like a *****? No.
Should a man be shot for dressing like a thug? No.
Does it still happen? Yes.
Are people idiots? Yes.
Take this BS out of General Discussion and put it in The Locker Room.
I don't come to these forums to see this ****. he wasn't killed because he was dressed like a thug, jesus youv been watching liberal news, he was trying to kill Zimmerman for no reason and Zimmerman defended himself, all there is to it
That's not all there is to it. Not that you give a damn.
Neighborhood watch is not law-enforcement.
GZ started the altercation with TM, and the fight didn't go as he expected, so he shot him.
You attack someone, and when they're about to kill you in self-defense, you kill them and then claim self-defense?
If that seems okay to you, then you are as twisted as the Devil at a nightclub.
The jury set yet another very dangerous precedent by acquitting GZ, and not even finding him guilty of manslaughter.
Again, this thread is in the wrong section. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 02:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Jathniel wrote:Void Echo wrote:Jathniel wrote:You are aware that the NDAA was signed again during that entire bullshit trial and incident right?
Far more things to be concerned about.
There's truckloads of injustice going on all over our country, and our god damned planet.
Should a woman be raped for dressing like a *****? No.
Should a man be shot for dressing like a thug? No.
Does it still happen? Yes.
Are people idiots? Yes.
Take this BS out of General Discussion and put it in The Locker Room.
I don't come to these forums to see this ****. he wasn't killed because he was dressed like a thug, jesus youv been watching liberal news, he was trying to kill Zimmerman for no reason and Zimmerman defended himself, all there is to it That's not all there is to it. Not that you give a damn. Neighborhood watch is not law-enforcement. GZ started the altercation with TM, and the fight didn't go as he expected, so I he shot him. You attack someone, and when they're about to kill you in self-defense, you kill them and then claim self-defense? If that seems okay to you, then you are as twisted as the Devil at a nightclub. The jury set yet another very dangerous precedent by acquitting GZ, and not even finding him guilty of manslaughter. Again, this thread is in the wrong section. he is guilty of killing the teen but this has nothing to do with race in the 1st place, in the recording he was actually talking with the police at the time he was following the teen, however did you hear the conversation that the teen had with his friend? they were assuming that Zimmerman was gay and wanting to **** him so the teen took the offensive and landed the 1st hit, its the teens fault
I never mentioned race.
In fact, it's hard to understand why white people had any reason to weigh in racially on the situation when it took place between two minority men. Racial profiling was a part of this situation. It's a fact that GZ profiled him. Profiling is not "racism" it's prejudice. Profiling happens for very sound reasons.
However, profiling is not what lead to GZ killing TM. GZ's bad judgment and course of action is. He had no intention of killing TM. He just wanted to keep his neighborhood safe, and he got over zealous. However, his good intentions should have never overshadowed the fact that he killed someone, in a situation that he provoked and caused.
You need to keep in mind, Zimmerman did not identify himself as neighborhood watch to Martin. He was stalking him without a word.
If someone is simply stalking and following you, you are going to make all kinds of assumptions.
Truth be told, this is exactly why my father taught me to make sure I was well-dressed and well-groomed whenever I went out. To avoid idiots like Zimmerman. As wrong as it is to profile someone, it happens. People judge a book by its cover, ALL the time. That's why we should always make sure we look presentable. If Martin was dressed like a street preacher or a Mormon, Zimmerman would have never profiled him incorrectly.
Doesn't change the fact, that Zimmerman took a life through a situation that he provoked, although well-intentioned. A murder conviction would be extreme, an involuntary manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter charge would have been appropriate, but an acquittal shows a total disregard for the life lost. That sets a dangerous precedent and can lead to all kinds of political problems... Anti-gun advocates can look at this and demand more govt arms regulations saying:
"If the gun wasn't there TM would have never went for it, and GZ would have never used it. No one would have got shot."
ALL sorts of worms have been let out because of this case.
Race is the smallest of them. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 02:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:
Following someone is not illegal. Beating someone up is. Protecting yourself is not illegal (except in california).
I can follow you and i can saw whatever i want. Doesn't give you a right to kick my ass.
Gz is morally in the wrong. Tm is legally in the wrong. And dead.
Actually stalking is illegal.... in every state.
Stalking wasn't one of the charges... feel free to speculate on the "why" of that as much as you want.
Doesn't change the justice system's failure in this case.
Stay away from Florida. Get into a fight with someone there, and they can kill you and simply say you went for their gun.
Damn happy I don't live there anymore.
In Florida, if you attack someone, and they start to kick your ass, you have the right to kill them.
Have fun. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:"no one would've gotten shot"
yeah. it would have been someone stabbed, or getting beaten to death. An acquittal shows that the jury did their jobs in casting aside emotion to follow the facts and rule of law.
TM struck first. GZ had genuine fear for his life(whether said fear was rational or not is outside the law). which allowed for the usage of lethal force on his part to defend his life.
Thereby, acquittal was the appropriate verdict according to the law, which is to be the singular lens when the jury is to render a verdict. No emotion, no race, no religion, just the law.
GZ pursued TM. CHASING HIM. You can hear him panting as he runs pursuing TM. Who's the aggressor again?
Laws exist because OF emotion, and how people FEEL about certain things that we call "crimes".
No such thing as law without emotion.
What you speak of is called "procedural due process". Procedural due process requires that laws be fairly and equally applied.
What I speak of is "substantive due process" which is evaluating the fairness and equity of laws themselves, not just of how they were applied.
An example of the difference between procedural and substantive due process, consider a hypothetical law requiring all blue-eyed people to give half their property to the government. An analysis based on procedural due process would focus on whether the law was applied with proper procedure. If this hypothetical law were applied correctly by the courts, it would pass the test of procedural due process.
Substantive due process, however, evaluates the fairness of the law's substance, or essential nature. Would it be fair for the government to single out people with blue eyes and take half their money? Obviously, the answer is "No," even if the courts followed all the right procedures in applying the law.
The jury failed in it's duty. But an acquittal means that an appeal cannot be made. The case is over. Injustice based on prejudice prevailed.
The Martin family learned the hard lesson of making sure that their children go into public looking well-dressed and presentable.
Zimmerman should have learned that taking the law into his own hands is not as glamorous as the movies make it look, but instead he was praised, and let off the hook by a jury that ignored substance and robotically stuck to procedure.
Judges even reduce the pressure of a sentence both in criminal and civil law depending on circumstances, motives, the state of the defendant, etc. The law is only supposed to be blind in so far as who justice is being provided to, but NEVER blind to the substantive details of the case. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Jathniel wrote:Eurydice Itzhak wrote:
Following someone is not illegal. Beating someone up is. Protecting yourself is not illegal (except in california).
I can follow you and i can saw whatever i want. Doesn't give you a right to kick my ass.
Gz is morally in the wrong. Tm is legally in the wrong. And dead.
Actually stalking is illegal.... in every state. Stalking wasn't one of the charges... feel free to speculate on the "why" of that as much as you want. Doesn't change the justice system's failure in this case. Stay away from Florida. Get into a fight with someone there, and they can kill you and simply say you went for their gun. Damn happy I don't live there anymore. In Florida, if you attack someone, and they start to kick your ass, you have the right to kill them. Have fun. Stalking is NOT following. Public property was never left. Tm didn't have any cuts or bruising to suggested he was attacked. So where does that come into play? Completely make believe.
Simple Google search.
2011 Florida Statutes 784.048
Definition 2 of stalking: "Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention."
If you can't see the faults that BOTH sides have in this case, then you have one of the worse cases of confirmation bias that I have ever seen, and that makes your analysis no more insightful than the jury.
"Tyranny of the majority".
GÇ£Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.GÇ¥ -- The Federalist No. 55
May I never find myself on the bench of judgment before a jury of my fellow Americans. I hate you guys. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:substantive is separate from procedural for a reason. you cannot evaluate the law on an individual basis, picking and choosing how to apply the law to each and every crime, or else we just become a bunch of blood for blood screaming children, demanding the law change with every crime.
The law should be evaluated regularly, but should not on a "oh well I don't like how it worked this time" basis. The law should be evaluated for its capacity to protect those whom live under it's rule. If a law does not provide for the protection of the general public, it should not exist.
As the law stands, GZ is in the right. TM was also in the right until he decided to confront and attack GZ. after that, he was in the wrong. GZ then killed him as he felt his life was threatened(again, rational or irrational fear is irrelevant). GZ never left his legal rights. TM did.
I do not rewrite laws to my favor. I follow the ones that agree with my current path.
Law is always evaluated on an individual basis. Always. On each and every single charge ever brought against a person.
Just read about Dred Scott.
Congress passed a number of laws to support slavery, including a series of fugitive slave laws. The Supreme Court also helped maintain slavery. In the Dred Scott case, the Court decided that when the rights of a slave-owner to his human "property" came into conflict with laws prohibiting slavery, the property rights triumphed. The Dred Scott case effectively stripped even free blacks of basic citizenship rights.
The Supreme Court based its decision in Dred Scott on a broad interpretation of the Due Process Clause. The Court argued that it was not substantively fair to deprive the slave-owner of his property rights, even at the expense of another human being. Ironically, the Court's decision in Dred Scott originated the concept of substantive due process, which later became an integral element of arguments in favor of civil rights.
Interpretation of the law AND evidence is absolutely EVERYTHING. It happens, each and every time. EVERY TIME. For us to trust a jury almost entirely comprised of women, given the stereotypes surrounding women fearing young black men... how can we expect the jury to look at this with a number of different viewpoints logically? They could never interpret the application of law properly here, to reach a verdict.... but then again they did, didn't they?
Oh well, it's over now. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:substantive is separate from procedural for a reason. you cannot evaluate the law on an individual basis, picking and choosing how to apply the law to each and every crime, or else we just become a bunch of blood for blood screaming children, demanding the law change with every crime.
The law should be evaluated regularly, but should not on a "oh well I don't like how it worked this time" basis. The law should be evaluated for its capacity to protect those whom live under it's rule. If a law does not provide for the protection of the general public, it should not exist.
As the law stands, GZ is in the right. TM was also in the right until he decided to confront and attack GZ. after that, he was in the wrong. GZ then killed him as he felt his life was threatened(again, rational or irrational fear is irrelevant). GZ never left his legal rights. TM did.
I do not rewrite laws to my favor. I follow the ones that agree with my current path. This man understands. Ok, wait. I assume you've all heard the recording of the phone conversation. So after being told not to follow the kid, he does so anyway, accosts him in a small space with limited room to escape, and Martin doesn't know if this guy is some serial killer or a pedophile or something. I'm to understand that "Stand your Ground" only applies to the guy with the gun? What sense does that make? And would you really just stand there and hope the guy coming at you with a hostile manner doesn't want to hurt you or anything? Your logic is pretty off there. But all of that is beside the point. Why is this even here? We have an Off Topic section for a reason.
There's no point. The verdict of the Zimmerman trial is something they "emotionally" agree with. Therefore, the precedent set is irrelevant. "The law is the law, and that's it." until it comes back and bites them in the ass in the some way.
Could you imagine if the Supreme Court made that verdict? The precedent set for the country would have been astounding.
I'm done with this topic. This should have been moved to The Locker Room along with the other trash a long time ago. I never go in there. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:substantive is separate from procedural for a reason. you cannot evaluate the law on an individual basis, picking and choosing how to apply the law to each and every crime, or else we just become a bunch of blood for blood screaming children, demanding the law change with every crime.
The law should be evaluated regularly, but should not on a "oh well I don't like how it worked this time" basis. The law should be evaluated for its capacity to protect those whom live under it's rule. If a law does not provide for the protection of the general public, it should not exist.
As the law stands, GZ is in the right. TM was also in the right until he decided to confront and attack GZ. after that, he was in the wrong. GZ then killed him as he felt his life was threatened(again, rational or irrational fear is irrelevant). GZ never left his legal rights. TM did.
I do not rewrite laws to my favor. I follow the ones that agree with my current path. This man understands. Ok, wait. I assume you've all heard the recording of the phone conversation. So after being told not to follow the kid, he does so anyway, accosts him in a small space with limited room to escape, and Martin doesn't know if this guy is some serial killer or a pedophile or something. I'm to understand that "Stand your Ground" only applies to the guy with the gun? What sense does that make? And would you really just stand there and hope the guy coming at you with a hostile manner doesn't want to hurt you or anything? Your logic is pretty off there. But all of that is beside the point. Why is this even here? We have an Off Topic section for a reason. Aggressive manner is heresay. No evidence supports it. Stand your ground law was not cited in this case. It was self defence laws. Standard ones that apply in nearly every state. No you cannot attack someone who hasnt said anything threatening or attacked you. It's a crime. The person who commited a CRIME died. No other crimes were committed.
Trayvon committed no crimes. This was already confirmed by the police officer who took the stand. The only person accused of committing a crime has been acquitted, regardless of him killing someone in an altercation that he provoked. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Assault is a crime. Or did Gz scream for help and have a bloody face because he tripped and repeatedly slams his face in the ground and rub grass on his back?
Tm committed no crimes. Gosh darn that's hilarious.
A stranger you don't know starts after you, 'not wanting you to get away' with something you haven't even done. I reckon "fight or flight" instincts would kick in for you too.
Assault only counts if you're the aggressor, which to public knowledge, Mr. Martin was NOT. Why don't you understand this? |
|
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:
I am a man of rules. I do not let my emotions govern my movements as they've... led to poor choices of action in my past.
Kindred spirits. Released from the military due to poor choices made regarding my fellow airmen. He broke no rules while i did. Kinda like tm. I beat kid twice my size over his gloating about a fight I was in where he snuck up like a coward and slammed my head into a wall a week prior(I was fighting his little brother, nice and orderly, both sides agreed to orthodox boxing. Was winning by a bit, kid had a mean right.) It took 3 of his friends to pull me off of him. I actually enjoyed that. I came home with a broken ankle, cracks in my forearms, shattered knuckles, busted ribs, and I loved that feeling. I've never forgotten it, I never want to feel that again. He wouldn't admit to having gotten his ass beat by some scrawny little **** like me and I started it. So no consequences beyond being lectured by my parents about how monumentally stupid what I did was. Edit: Evil me scares me that's basically the whole thing in a nutshell.
Then don't be evil.
Legality does not equal morality.
Your definitions of right and wrong and personal morals that you abide by.
But the law shouldn't be your moral barometer. As much as people claim they are immune to it, moral relativism effects us all, and it's an ugly thing. The Zimmerman trial is just more proof of that. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Jathniel wrote:Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Assault is a crime. Or did Gz scream for help and have a bloody face because he tripped and repeatedly slams his face in the ground and rub grass on his back?
Tm committed no crimes. Gosh darn that's hilarious. A stranger you don't know starts after you, 'not wanting you to get away' with something you haven't even done. I reckon "fight or flight" instincts would kick in for you too. Assault only counts if you're the aggressor, which to public knowledge, Mr. Martin was NOT. Why don't you understand this? really? he didn't throw the first blow? last I checked, swinging at someone first for any reason on public property where both of you have a right to be marks you as the aggressor under the law. following someone across public property is not a crime. christ, if that was a crime just about everyone would be guilty at some point or another just by having to go to the same relative places within a town.
Well, to be honest, you don't know who threw the first blow.
I seriously doubt, Martin, the unarmed person that was trying to run away did though. That's an opinion. lol oops. He didn't have a car. So much for running being useful anymore. I better turn and fight.
You seem to think that Zimmerman, the person in pursuit, had the intention of chasing him as vigorously as he did because he wanted to have a few words with him. lol oops! "I'm going to chase you down, because I have something I want to say."
Okay, shout to him then. Say "Wait!" Say, "Hey, chill! I'm not trying to hurt you!" "Hey! I'm with the neighborhood watch! Where are you headed?" "Don't run! I'm not your enemy!"
SOMETHING to indicate to the person that you're within ear shot of, that you have no intention of hurting them.
Would that be that hard? The person approaching another person is the one that sets the frame for the interaction. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
673
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Got it, unless I take a knee and slit my own throat when someone with differently colored skin than my lily white ass looks at me funny, I'm a racist.
who has a running list of words they aren't allowed to say? Who generates protests, demands for blood, etc when they legally defend themselves? Who gets passed up for jobs when they have the exact same(or even slightly better in some cases) qualifications due to color quotas?
man kills a child? That's sad, but not really newsworthy. White man kills a *insert color here* child? Media circus, protests, demands for blood.
people want to act like race no longer matters, but the reality is that the line has shifted.
That's a lot of pent up anger.
Zimmerman was not a white man. He was a minority, just like Martin. So you identifying with him, with those words is telling.
This entire post indicates a lot of anger on your part over dealing with black people period.
Look, I'm sorry you may have had some bad interactions with black people before.
The things you mention, don't tip the iceberg for how bad black folk have had it.
Who fought to protect a country in the Revolutionary War (and every U.S. war since), that denied them their basic rights as citizens right up until the middle of the 20th century? Who generates protests, demands for blood, etc when someone does not defend themselves on MORAL grounds, LEGAL grounds be damned! It was LEGAL to deny a black man his own livelihood if you considered him "property".
Who used that "running list of words" to cause harm and speak negatively BEFORE they weren't allowed to say it? Who still gets passed up for a job and still has the highest unemployment AND incarceration rate, despite the so-called "color quotas"?
Who's getting thrown in jail still? Who's killing who?
Race doesn't matter. Race only matters when you're taught that it matters. Even "the line" that you define is non-existent. Zimmerman being acquitted automatically negates that idea.
You have a viewpoint of "us vs. them", and you filter everything that happens through that.
The only way you'll shake those feelings that you have, is if you start valuing human life as a whole. Had the life of Trayvon Martin carried any weight in your eyes, then your interpretation of the law in this case would have been different. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
674
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 05:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:
the law is the only truly moral barometer. it judges all equally based upon their actions within its rules. the only problem is that the laws are applied by man, and man is fallible. if man were removed from the equation, the law would be infallible.
It is for the same reason the tinkerer of talmacht rejected god and chose death as his child's godparent. it is that death is the only true and just being. he cares not for your wealth, not for your attempts to forstall, not for any thing but his predetermined rounds. If your time had come, he was there to collect, no begging, whimpering, bribery, or status could stay his hand.
whereas god allowed all manner of injustice when he had all the power to stop it. the poor died sick and starving, the rich got fat off the labor of the poor, the devil walked the earth freely.
Weak.
I tell you to use your conscience and hold the lives of your fellow man as valuable, and you tell me about myths, the metaphysical, your belief that the law would be infallible without anyone to exercise it over. and that the law is the only true moral barometer?
Laws are based on Principles.
Example: Speed Limits, Traffic Lights, Lane Markers, are all implements of traffic law. What is the principle behind traffic law?
"To Drive Safely".
Even the god that you criticize had a law for his people. It said don't do this, don't do that, blah blah. Then later on he states that the principle behind is law is to simply: "Love thy God. Thyself, and thy fellow man."
Because if you give a pinch of a damn about someone else, you won't kill them, steal from them, etc etc.
I'm not here to teach you about Laws and Principles, but your statement on the law just frightens me as to how many weak-minded people walk this earth.
That is weak man. You got a lot of soul-searching to do. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
674
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 05:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:I mean, the ridiculous thing is that what the jury effectively found is that no one was killed.
That pretty much sums it up. Self-defense would protect him from a murder conviction.... but not say an involuntary manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter conviction, because he STILL killed someone, even IF it was by means of a legal act.
Somehow, they essentially said he didn't kill anyone. lol |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
674
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 06:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Jathniel wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:
the law is the only truly moral barometer. it judges all equally based upon their actions within its rules. the only problem is that the laws are applied by man, and man is fallible. if man were removed from the equation, the law would be infallible.
It is for the same reason the tinkerer of talmacht rejected god and chose death as his child's godparent. it is that death is the only true and just being. he cares not for your wealth, not for your attempts to forstall, not for any thing but his predetermined rounds. If your time had come, he was there to collect, no begging, whimpering, bribery, or status could stay his hand.
whereas god allowed all manner of injustice when he had all the power to stop it. the poor died sick and starving, the rich got fat off the labor of the poor, the devil walked the earth freely.
Weak. I tell you to use your conscience and hold the lives of your fellow man as valuable, and you tell me about myths, the metaphysical, your belief that the law would be infallible without anyone to exercise it over. and that the law is the only true moral barometer? Laws are based on Principles. Example: Speed Limits, Traffic Lights, Lane Markers, are all implements of traffic law. What is the principle behind traffic law? "To Drive Safely". Even the god that you criticize had a law for his people. It said don't do this, don't do that, blah blah. Then later on he states that the principle behind is law is to simply: "Love thy God. Thyself, and thy fellow man." Because if you give a pinch of a damn about someone else, you won't kill them, steal from them, etc etc. I'm not here to teach you about Laws and Principles, but your statement on the law just frightens me as to how many weak-minded people walk this earth. That is weak man. You got a lot of soul-searching to do. I tell you about what shapes my belief in absolutes and you continue to ***** that I have no soul because I place little value in the 7 billion people on this planet. the god that I criticize had the power to act to enforce principles and did not act. he is less than worthless. I said that the problem with law is that man is the one to apply it. Not that man should be free from it. in an ideal world, the would be no need of laws, but this is not and never shall be an ideal world. I know where I keep my soul. I found it and discarded it long ago in the pain of others. you would attempt to speak of my weak mind, so I shall speak on your weak heart. You, who condemn and damn others for following and applying the rules under which we live, complain that they should not apply just because you saw a picture of someone when they looked cute. Your heart is so weak that you would casually discard all that separates us from mere beasts. You sicken me you bleeding heart, you simpering, weak fool! People like you are too weak in heart to live in this world. it will warp your values and break you. and I shall be there when you finally snap to the real view of things. I shall be standing there, resolute to offer you a hand so you can cast off your childish need to change the rules because you feel there is something special. No matter the amount of times you bat my hand away I will always be there, ready to welcome you to the real world. Good night, and may you one day see the light of our cruel binary world. EDIT: no, they effectively found that lethal force was applied within the law. they ruled out him having to deal with the legal ramifications of killing someone. Totally different items.
lol dramatic much? Such poetic posts. Are you debating or buttering me up? 
Listen. I don't know what history books you read, but those that passively just abided by the law didn't end up changing anything. You always needed a rebel or group of rebels to change things for the better. First, morally and then legally. The law said that minorities, women, the poor, and the young couldn't vote. People felt it in THEIR HEARTS to defy that. The law said that the colonies were supposed to be subservient to the Crown. People felt it in their HEARTS, to defy that too.
People with a strong heart, and enough motivation to challenge the status quo, are the ones that make life easier for subservient people like you.
lol even Jesus was a rebel.
Good night, dude.
The heart is the seat of motivation my friend, it's the engine. The mind is merely the steering wheel.
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
679
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 07:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:the mind provides governance to the heart. a direction. without it, you have a bunch of meaningless fluff that screams out every time it sees something it decides is an injustice.
do not mistake my rules and their execution for subservience. I said that I follow the laws that are in line with my current goals nothing more, nothing less.
I am the person who changes the rules from the inside, over time. not some idiot rebel who has to become a martyr to get any change made.
it is because my mind rules my heart that I can abide the laws I do not enjoy, and the slings and arrows of those who bleed freely.
IN THE MIND is the battle truly won. you can force change on someone with your heart, but until their MIND accepts this change it is worthless.
Sorry about the poetic nature of my posting, while it is your ass I'm roasting, now I don't mean to be boasting, but in this debate, you would appear to be a reprobate, please do know that it is that which i hate.
Now let me sleep god-damn-it, you keep setting off my bloody-heart-dar. it's like a radar but it alerts me to people who don't like the world and think that posting on a forum will change anything about it.
Then go the fk to bed, instead of bothering to make rhymes, you crazy *******. 
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:This is what bleeding hearted children actually believe. You know nothing of law. Just stop.
Feel free to respond to any of my 6 other posts refuting all your arguments though.
You take pride in not having a "bleeding heart" huh? Someone made you cry when you were little and you decided to be a hard ass by being an icy cold sentinel of law?
Look up what the purpose of the law actually is. Read some history. Look at some cases. Learn what a legal precedent is, then come back and read everything you posted. When you feel dumb about it, you'll see why I didn't respond to you.
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
681
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 09:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Jathniel wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:the mind provides governance to the heart. a direction. without it, you have a bunch of meaningless fluff that screams out every time it sees something it decides is an injustice.
do not mistake my rules and their execution for subservience. I said that I follow the laws that are in line with my current goals nothing more, nothing less.
I am the person who changes the rules from the inside, over time. not some idiot rebel who has to become a martyr to get any change made.
it is because my mind rules my heart that I can abide the laws I do not enjoy, and the slings and arrows of those who bleed freely.
IN THE MIND is the battle truly won. you can force change on someone with your heart, but until their MIND accepts this change it is worthless.
Sorry about the poetic nature of my posting, while it is your ass I'm roasting, now I don't mean to be boasting, but in this debate, you would appear to be a reprobate, please do know that it is that which i hate.
Now let me sleep god-damn-it, you keep setting off my bloody-heart-dar. it's like a radar but it alerts me to people who don't like the world and think that posting on a forum will change anything about it. Then go the fk to bed, instead of bothering to make rhymes, you crazy *******. Eurydice Itzhak wrote:This is what bleeding hearted children actually believe. You know nothing of law. Just stop.
Feel free to respond to any of my 6 other posts refuting all your arguments though. You take pride in not having a "bleeding heart" huh? Someone made you cry when you were little and you decided to be a hard ass by being an icy cold sentinel of law? Look up what the purpose of the law actually is. Read some history. Look at some cases. Learn what a legal precedent is, then come back and read everything you posted. When you feel dumb about it, you'll see why I didn't respond to you. Far from a hard ass just not completely blinded by emotion. You wanted to talk about the facts of the case until you were proven to not have watched the trial. Then it becomes about changing the law and making a difference. You wanted to talk about being kinder to your fellow man yet it is you who keeps resorting to insults. The law has been abided by the surviving participate of the incident. It was not abides by the deceased. If you want to get self defence laws changed that's good for you, but this isn't your platform or thread or medium to get it accomplished.
Keep resorting to insults? What are you talking about? I haven't insulted you. The only problem with this case is the precedent it set, and the amount of legal wrangling that is going to get started from it. Even the POTUS, as much as I don't approve of his administration's actions, said it. The jury has spoken, the precedent set is dangerous. An armed individual had an exit option for an engagement, but chose to follow, fight and kill someone instead.
That's a deadly precedent for this country, no matter what law you quote.
What's worse is what it COULD mean for gun rights, self-defense laws, etc. At the CORE of it, is how much human life is valued, and people that agree with the verdict aren't paying attention to what that could mean for them. The government has a history of taking away civil liberties, or taking extreme action, when it feels that citizens are using those liberties against each other, or it simply deems something needed. This came from the Necessary and Proper Clause, which we can thank for the existence of the god awful central banking (Federal Reserve). Even things like "Right-to-work" laws; where people were using the rules of labor unions in unscrupulous ways. Their injustice to their fellow citizens, essentially prompted the government to do an injustice to them, and strip them of their right to make their rules as they see fit. Hypersegregation, then desegregation by the government. Leading to "Equal Housing" laws etc. Instead of using the right to live where we wanted to live with people we wanted to live with, and being tolerant of others. People started using their rights to BLOCK people they did not like from living in nice neighborhoods, and keeping they didn't like out of nice schools, etc. So the government jumped in, and basically took away that right to decide who your neighbors would be, because they were using that right to impeded the success of others.
As cool and right as it may feel to sit here and value law over puny emotional things like "truth and justice and love"...it all comes back around to principles.
If people don't want to see anymore injustice done, they need to stop devaluing each other's lives, and prejudging negatively.
Otherwise, yet more rights will be stripped, and they'll start going crazy like our boy Heathen, and others who believe that the world is turning against white people (or some batshit crazy crap like that).
|
|
|
| |
|