Where is the media circus?

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Where is the media circus?

Just read it...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/justice/georgia-baby-killed

Where is the media on this one? Sure, there are little snippets here and there across the web, but no giant media circus. And... they don't even need to lie about the pictures; this time it was really a little kid who was murdered.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 It doesn't fit any of

 It doesn't fit any of their favorite story lines. The news media likes stories they can sensationalize such as beautiful co-eds (as assailant or victim), celebrities, those where they can play up racial tensions and serial killers. 16-24 year old black males murder more people than any other demographic, so it is hard to sensationalize "Black teen shoots ________" And the whole discussion about why black teens are so prone to violence is a rather boring discussion that the news media doesn't really want to spend time on. When they are talking about a murder, they don't want to talk about the social, economic, political and societal influences that influenced the murder.

They just want to cut straight to the hot button stuff. That is why Zimmerman was called "white" even though in other circumstances he would be called "latino" and why they focused on the "stand your ground" law even though the law played no role in the defense's case at all and did not apply to the situation. The Zimmerman case could be portrayed as an act of racism, this case can't. The story line "Racist Black teens shoot baby" doesn't fit when everyone knows it was a mugging.

So the only real hot button you have is the infant being shot and across the country there are infants killed in more gruesome ways by their own mothers/fathers.

In short; it isn't racist, it isn't sexy and it isn't gruesome enough.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:In

Beyond Saving wrote:

In short; it isn't racist, it isn't sexy and it isn't gruesome enough.  

I did some research and found the guy who shot the baby was mental. They said he is most likely a psychopath.

Nothing note worthy about a psychopath unless he is an old, charismatic, cannibal named Hannibal.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

In short; it isn't racist, it isn't sexy and it isn't gruesome enough.  

I did some research and found the guy who shot the baby was mental. They said he is most likely a psychopath.

Nothing note worthy about a psychopath unless he is an old, charismatic, cannibal named Hannibal.

 

I think we can say with a fair amount of confidence that anyone who intentionally shoots an infant has mental problems- no psychologist needed. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The media also wants to fire

The media also wants to fire up your emotions. This is too sad and meaningless for headline news.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The media also

Vastet wrote:
The media also wants to fire up your emotions. This is too sad and meaningless for headline news.

 

     In terms of reporting,  what is your thresh hold for what constitutes "sad and meaningless" as opposed to other murders which receive saturation coverage concerning headline news ?  

 

      Is it the age of the victim ?

      Is it the number of victims ?

      Is it what type of weapon was used ?

      Is it the "race" ( phenotype ) of those involved ?

      I'm just curious, that's all. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't have a threshold, I

I don't have a threshold, I mearly observe that others do. A grown adult intentionally shooting a kid to death crosses the threshold I've observed in mass media outlets like Fox and CNN. You might see it on the ticker, but there's no hero in the story, and the villain is a psycho who's been caught. You can't blame guns or the police or any other identifiable group or thing, so there's no way to get all pissed off about it. Therefore you won't get an on scene reporter or an anchorperson talking about it. Maybe at trial or sentencing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The media also wants to fire up your emotions. This is too sad and meaningless for headline news.

In terms of reporting,  what is your thresh hold for what constitutes "sad and meaningless" as opposed to other murders which receive saturation coverage concerning headline news ?  

 

      Is it the age of the victim ?

      Is it the number of victims ?

      Is it what type of weapon was used ?

      Is it the "race" ( phenotype ) of those involved ?

      I'm just curious, that's all. 

He rejects stories like this because he can't get emotional about them. He is numb from feeling emotions because he has been desensitized.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're a fool.

You're a fool. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You're a fool.

Vastet wrote:
You're a fool. Smiling

No more or less than you areEye-wink


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You're a fool. Smiling

No more or less than you areEye-wink

MUCH more a fool than I.

"I mearly observe that others do. A grown adult intentionally shooting a kid to death crosses the threshold I've observed in mass media outlets like Fox and CNN."

And yet you ignore this and make the ridiculously false claim that I'm unable to be moved by the story. Look up idiot in the dictionary and find a picture of yourself. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You're a fool. Smiling

No more or less than you areEye-wink

MUCH more a fool than I. "I mearly observe that others do. A grown adult intentionally shooting a kid to death crosses the threshold I've observed in mass media outlets like Fox and CNN." And yet you ignore this and make the ridiculously false claim that I'm unable to be moved by the story. Look up idiot in the dictionary and find a picture of yourself. Smiling

Shooting a baby is one thing, shooting a young man who attacks another human is another. One is unjustified. The other is completely justified.

When I looked up the word idiot the definition said, "Don't bother, Vastet has cornered the market on stupidity".

You must be confused. My picture was located next to the word "idol".

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Shooting a baby is one thing, shooting a young man who attacks another human is another. One is unjustified. The other is completely justified.

Neither are justified, and justification has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in this topic. But then you're so braindead you don't recognise your own name and picture, nor understand basic dictionary definitions. So I suppose it's not particularly surprising.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Shooting a baby is one thing, shooting a young man who attacks another human is another. One is unjustified. The other is completely justified.
Neither are justified, and justification has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in this topic. But then you're so braindead you don't recognise your own name and picture, nor understand basic dictionary definitions. So I suppose it's not particularly surprising.

The shooting of another in self defense is justified.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, it isn't. Come here, or

No, it isn't. Come here, or to any civilised country (note that civilised countries don't have gun fetishes), and try it. I'll laugh as your ass is thrown behind bars.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, it isn't.

Vastet wrote:
No, it isn't. Come here, or to any civilised country (note that civilised countries don't have gun fetishes), and try it. I'll laugh as your ass is thrown behind bars.

I'm a pacifist. I don't carry guns or other weapons. Don't need them. Dont' believe in them. They are tools of the ego.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a pacifist, but I do

I'm not a pacifist, but I do think guns are generally the tool of the coward.
The fact remains that deadly force is not justified simply because one is assaulted. Deadly force is only justified in the face of deadly force. Not force, and not even the threat of deadly force, but actual deadly force.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
  They are tools of the ego.

 

    OMFG !


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I am a pacifist and that

 I am a pacifist and that is why I'm a big fan of guns. Guns have a tendency to pacify a violent situation expeditiously.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not a

Vastet wrote:
I'm not a pacifist, but I do think guns are generally the tool of the coward. The fact remains that deadly force is not justified simply because one is assaulted. Deadly force is only justified in the face of deadly force. Not force, and not even the threat of deadly force, but actual deadly force.

When exactly do you know you are in trouble? Experience? Training? Both?

When an attacker is bashing you on the cement, what are you thinking? How much time has passed? Did you tell your wife and kids that you loved them? Did you forget to walk the dog?

Depending on the amount of pain being inflicted, how does a person react? Some people have a higher threshold of pain, so responses will vary. What if a person held stereotypes about the person beating them? Would they be more afraid of a black man than a white man?

The issue needs a lowest common denominator. That LCD is specifically who is attacking who and not about who was tracking who, who had a gun, who was stealing, who was doing drugs or even if a person was a sexual perv. What matters is who is attacking who.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I am a

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I am a pacifist and that is why I'm a big fan of guns. Guns have a tendency to pacify a violent situation expeditiously.

lol


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
  They are tools of the ego.

 

    OMFG !

Liked that one did you?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"When exactly do you know

"When exactly do you know you are in trouble? Experience? Training? Both?

When an attacker is bashing you on the cement, what are you thinking? How much time has passed? Did you tell your wife and kids that you loved them? Did you forget to walk the dog?"

If your argument had any validity at all, cops would shoot first and ask questions later during any incident that was violent or even had potential for violence. Your implied suggestion that any assault should be treated as a potential murder is barbaric and archaic. If someone has the intent to kill, they generally do so. It isn't hard. Life is exceptionally vulnerable to death. That Zimmerman was still alive and had only cosmetic injuries is irrefutable proof that the kid didn't have the intent to kill.
As an aside, the whole blindsided argument is inherently ridiculous. If I'm going to blindside someone with the intent to cause serious injury or death, I'll pick up a rock and crack their head open in one swing. I won't be pummelling them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If I'm going to

Vastet wrote:
If I'm going to blindside someone with the intent to cause serious injury or death, I'll pick up a rock and crack their head open in one swing. I won't be pummelling them.

Now you are comparing Martin to your extensive training. Hmmm now that is ridiculous. Your entire post is invalid. Please take your time and re-post. I'm sure you'll get it right eventually.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"When exactly

Vastet wrote:
"When exactly do you know you are in trouble? Experience? Training? Both? When an attacker is bashing you on the cement, what are you thinking? How much time has passed? Did you tell your wife and kids that you loved them? Did you forget to walk the dog?" If your argument had any validity at all, cops would shoot first and ask questions later during any incident that was violent or even had potential for violence. Your implied suggestion that any assault should be treated as a potential murder is barbaric and archaic. If someone has the intent to kill, they generally do so. It isn't hard. Life is exceptionally vulnerable to death. That Zimmerman was still alive and had only cosmetic injuries is irrefutable proof that the kid didn't have the intent to kill. As an aside, the whole blindsided argument is inherently ridiculous. If I'm going to blindside someone with the intent to cause serious injury or death, I'll pick up a rock and crack their head open in one swing. I won't be pummelling them.

If you are on top of a cop and punching them in the face, odds are very high that you will get shot. Hell, police will often shoot you long before you get in punching range even if you are unarmed. Why a quick Google search finds the last such incident was just a few days ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384192/Police-officer-shoots-kills-unarmed-homeless-man-Hans-Kevin-Arellano.html

I wonder if Americans will be similarly outraged over this shooting...

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If you

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you are on top of a cop and punching them in the face, odds are very high that you will get shot. Hell, police will often shoot you long before you get in punching range even if you are unarmed. Why a quick Google search finds the last such incident was just a few days ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384192/Police-officer-shoots-kills-unarmed-homeless-man-Hans-Kevin-Arellano.html

I wonder if Americans will be similarly outraged over this shooting...

 

We have plenty of local shootings of innocent people by cops to get outraged over. If we got outraged over every cop shooting of innocent people world wide, we wouldn't have time to use the pot.

I'm on the "Zimmerman is guilty" side because he followed Trayvon against the express instructions of the police dispatcher. If the fool had ignored the young man and stopped following/stalking him, Trayvon would not have engaged with him. And I also agree with Vastet - a few cuts and bruises does not qualify as "life threatening." Having a loaded gun pointed at you is. If anyone was justified using deadly force to defend themselves, it would have been Trayvon in my book.

Which brings me to an interesting point - if you feel threatened and pull a gun, the other person then feels threatened and pulls a gun - who is the one "standing their ground?" The light skinned one or the dark skinned one? The guy who first pulls a gun or the second? I'd vote for the second being on the right side of the law - regardless of skin color - seeing as having a gun pointed at you constitutes having your life threatened.

But if the police do it - you're dead and they won't get much more than a few days suspension with pay.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If I'm going to blindside someone with the intent to cause serious injury or death, I'll pick up a rock and crack their head open in one swing. I won't be pummelling them.

Now you are comparing Martin to your extensive training. Hmmm now that is ridiculous. Your entire post is invalid. Please take your time and re-post. I'm sure you'll get it right eventually.

So now you've lost every point so badly that you've resorted to making shit up. lololol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If you

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you are on top of a cop and punching them in the face, odds are very high that you will get shot. Hell, police will often shoot you long before you get in punching range even if you are unarmed. Why a quick Google search finds the last such incident was just a few days ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384192/Police-officer-shoots-kills-unarmed-homeless-man-Hans-Kevin-Arellano.html

I wonder if Americans will be similarly outraged over this shooting...

If that happened here there would be public outrage and the officer would be suspended immediately pending an investigation which would likely result in the loss of his job and his freedom.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If you

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you are on top of a cop and punching them in the face, odds are very high that you will get shot. Hell, police will often shoot you long before you get in punching range even if you are unarmed. Why a quick Google search finds the last such incident was just a few days ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384192/Police-officer-shoots-kills-unarmed-homeless-man-Hans-Kevin-Arellano.html

I wonder if Americans will be similarly outraged over this shooting...

There is a movie coming out, I can't remember the name, but it was about a San Francisco transit cop who pulled the gun rather than a taser. The young man, black man, ended up dying.

The cop didn't get in trouble and the public outrage was minimal.

There doesn't seem to be any formula to how the public and the media react. I remember hearing about it, but there was really no coverage as the George/Martin trial.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:We have plenty of

cj wrote:
We have plenty of local shootings of innocent people by cops to get outraged over. If we got outraged over every cop shooting of innocent people world wide, we wouldn't have time to use the pot.

I'm on the "Zimmerman is guilty" side because he followed Trayvon against the express instructions of the police dispatcher. If the fool had ignored the young man and stopped following/stalking him, Trayvon would not have engaged with him. And I also agree with Vastet - a few cuts and bruises does not qualify as "life threatening." Having a loaded gun pointed at you is. If anyone was justified using deadly force to defend themselves, it would have been Trayvon in my book.

Which brings me to an interesting point - if you feel threatened and pull a gun, the other person then feels threatened and pulls a gun - who is the one "standing their ground?" The light skinned one or the dark skinned one? The guy who first pulls a gun or the second? I'd vote for the second being on the right side of the law - regardless of skin color - seeing as having a gun pointed at you constitutes having your life threatened.

But if the police do it - you're dead and they won't get much more than a few days suspension with pay.

Cops seem to be immune to being prosecuted against "accidental" shootings.

While I agree with you about "he should have stayed in his car" what he did wasn't illegal. It also wasn't a command from the dispatcher. She suggested that he stay at his vehicle.

He also wasn't stalking, but was trying to find out where the suspect had gone to. He was a overly concerned citizen.

Also, why was the gun pulled at the last few seconds of the fight? Why didn't George pull the gun on Martin early if he was "stalking".

I'd hope you never know what it was like to have yourself in George's position. When you reach that point where your mind says, "oh shit, I'm in trouble".

I agree. The police seem to have some sort of "we have the right to shoot you, even if you are innocent". In Orlando we have had several times when police raided homes which were the wrong homes. They damaged the house, in one case shot the home owner and also killed a dog which was defending the house.

What happened? Nothing. They said, "Ooops" and because the "undercover raid officers" had to be protected because of their identities, no investigations were ever presented to the public. The chief just said it was an accident.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If I'm going to blindside someone with the intent to cause serious injury or death, I'll pick up a rock and crack their head open in one swing. I won't be pummelling them.

Now you are comparing Martin to your extensive training. Hmmm now that is ridiculous. Your entire post is invalid. Please take your time and re-post. I'm sure you'll get it right eventually.

So now you've lost every point so badly that you've resorted to making shit up. lololol

George Zimmerman = Not guilty. A free man who defended himself and was found not guilty by a juror of is peers.

Trayvon Martin = A young man who should have gone home but instead thought he was in the movie "Fight Club" and decided to attack an innocent man who thought he was following a perp. He is now dead because he decided that confrontation was the best course of action.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
If you are on top of a cop and punching them in the face, odds are very high that you will get shot. Hell, police will often shoot you long before you get in punching range even if you are unarmed. Why a quick Google search finds the last such incident was just a few days ago. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384192/Police-officer-shoots-kills-unarmed-homeless-man-Hans-Kevin-Arellano.html I wonder if Americans will be similarly outraged over this shooting...
If that happened here there would be public outrage and the officer would be suspended immediately pending an investigation which would likely result in the loss of his job and his freedom.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/04/sammy_yatim_what_happened_in_the_words_of_witnesses.html

Yep... I guess that is what will happen here right?

Knife wielding, drug induced, penis holding idiot shot dead by a copy in Canada. What will happen?

Let's see. Suspended with pay; as to be expected. Public outraged; of course. Loss of job and freedom? Time will tell. I seriously doubt it; and if that does happened it will because the cop had a history of this sort of behavior. If it was his first situation of this kind and he was a "good cop" nothing bad will happen to them, certianly not loss of freedom.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

George Zimmerman = Guilty.

Fixed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Doubt whatever you like,

Doubt whatever you like, he's almost certainly going to lose his job. Cops who shoot people without justification in Canada don't remain cops, nor do they remain free. Posting that story is further proof of your stupidity as it hasn't been resolved. In fact, your stupidity is the only thing you've proven by posting it. Dig a little deeper. And come back when the situation is resolved.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Doubt whatever

Vastet wrote:
Doubt whatever you like, he's almost certainly going to lose his job. Cops who shoot people without justification in Canada don't remain cops, nor do they remain free. Posting that story is further proof of your stupidity as it hasn't been resolved. In fact, your stupidity is the only thing you've proven by posting it. Dig a little deeper. And come back when the situation is resolved.

You mean except for Constable Chipperfield who shot an unarmed (and completely innocent of any crime) Paul Boyd in the head while he was crawling on the ground with 7 bullet holes already in him. 6 years later he is still serving as an active police officer and the government had two investigations where they decided not to press charges. Now because of pressure from the BCCLA they are having a third investigation, any guesses how this one is going to turn out?

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.com/2012/05/police-execution-of-paul-boyd.html

Or how about Robert Dziekanski? The man was tasered FIVE times leading to his death. The four mounties involved remained on the force with nothing more than a "finding of misconduct". Three are still there today, the fourth Corporal Benjamin "Monty" Robinson recently resigned before being sentenced for an unrelated DUI hit and run (he got 1 month of house arrest and probation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

Or how about Ian Bush. He was in police custody, in the fucking interrogation room and he died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Constable Koester claimed that Bush was choking him to death... How the fuck do you shoot someone in the back of the head while they are choking you from behind? It is about as unnatural a way to shoot as is imaginable because you are shooting in the general direction of yourself. Koester was not charged and it never went to trial.   

http://www.ctvnews.ca/lethal-force-necessary-in-ian-bush-s-death-ruling-1.265827 

Yeah, would never happen in Canada...ever. Next time you make a ridiculous claim you should try spending 0.3 seconds on a google search. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I'm on the

cj wrote:

I'm on the "Zimmerman is guilty" side because he followed Trayvon against the express instructions of the police dispatcher. If the fool had ignored the young man and stopped following/stalking him, Trayvon would not have engaged with him. And I also agree with Vastet - a few cuts and bruises does not qualify as "life threatening." Having a loaded gun pointed at you is. If anyone was justified using deadly force to defend themselves, it would have been Trayvon in my book.

If Zimmerman did pull the gun on Trayvon before the fight broke out he should have been found guilty. For the purposes of this discussion I am assuming that Zimmerman's side of the story is 100% true. I noted in another of the posts on this topic that I didn't watch the trial and testimony, so I don't have enough information to make an informed determination of whether or not Zimmerman is honest. Apparently the jury decided that Zimmerman's story was true at least the relevant parts of it. I am simply arguing the more abstract concept of being on the losing side of a fist fight that you did not start can be a basis for a reasonable fear of significant injury or death, and thus it is possible that using lethal force is appropriate self defense.

The root of the question is at that particular moment, would a reasonable person fear for their life or fear significant injury. People die in fist fights, some 800-900 people every year. So a fist fight can kill you and that isn't counting the numerous incidents of significant injury such as brain damage. The thing with getting hit in the head is that there isn't much between "a few cuts and bruises" and significant damage. The external damage is always a few cuts and bruises. The real danger is in the multiple concussions your brain is experiencing. The first concussion is rarely serious at all, but if the shock to the brain continues it can lead to instantaneous brain damage or even death as the brain swells and becomes too big. You go from having a few cuts and bruises to significant problems in the span of a few seconds. That is why in football they make players sit out after experiencing a concussion. Another significant hit even 3 or 4 days later could be very dangerous. So if you are being hit in the head by a complete stranger, it is utterly foolish to believe that your life and health are not in immediate danger.

The big question is, what would Trayvon have done if Zimmerman lost consciousness. Now, we have the ability of knowing that Trayvon had no criminal record and no real history of violence. We can rationally conclude that he was probably just a typical male teenager with too much testosterone and for whatever reason decided to confront this strange guy who was following him. Typical young male "tough guy" syndrome. We might further conclude that if Zimmerman lost consciousness that Trayvon is almost certainly the kind of person who would have stopped and walked away, letting Zimmerman go home with a few cuts, bruises and sore muscles. Maybe, certainly plausible. 

Zimmerman didn't know anything about Trayvon. He was blindsided (again, I am assuming his story is 100% true) and found himself on the ground being punched repeatedly. He screamed for help and apparently, no one was coming. He tried to defend himself with his hands and was failing. Eventually, he is going to be knocked out. Is this stranger going to stop beating him afterwards? Is Trayvon a gang member that has been robbing these houses and now going to beat someone to death? It does happen. Zimmerman had no way of knowing, he had to act while on his back getting punched in the face. 

Vastet did say either here or perhaps another of these threads that if Zimmerman were an expert fighter he would have been convicted. Probably the only accurate thing he has said. If George Zimmerman was George St. Pierre, there would be very good reasons to ask "why didn't you just do a reversal and flip trayvon on his back?" But Zimmerman isn't a professional fighter, and as far as I can tell no formal training whatsoever.

Even if you have had formal training, the first time you find yourself on your back getting your face pounded is very disorientating. It is exceptionally difficult to think clearly and really recognize what is happening. An experienced fighter can sit there and think "Ok, he isn't hitting too hard, my body can handle these hits. His base isn't very stable, I just need to get my right leg free. I can block the worst with my left arm and if I push his knee out with might right while arching my hips I should be able to get that leg free." It takes a lot of training and focus to have that sort of thought process because getting punched in the face kind of hurts.

Zimmerman wasn't an experienced fighter. He didn't have the skills to fight, and he had no idea how far Trayvon was going to go. All he knew, at that moment in time is that some stranger knocked him to the ground and was punching his face repeatedly and he didn't have the skills to subdue the threat physically. So he reached for his gun, which is an appropriate response. (Again, assuming that everything in the Zimmerman side of the story is 100% true)

 

 

cj wrote:
 

Which brings me to an interesting point - if you feel threatened and pull a gun, the other person then feels threatened and pulls a gun - who is the one "standing their ground?" The light skinned one or the dark skinned one? The guy who first pulls a gun or the second? I'd vote for the second being on the right side of the law - regardless of skin color - seeing as having a gun pointed at you constitutes having your life threatened.

The general rule for drawing a gun is that if you do not have the legal right to fire it, you do not have the legal right to draw it. In most states, drawing a gun is considered the equivalent of aggravated assault. So unless you have enough justification to shoot in self defense, you have become the aggressor which removes your right to claim self defense. So if Zimmerman, for example, had confronted Trayvon and pulled out the gun in an attempt to detain him until the cops arrived or something, then he was the aggressor and would be guilty, while Trayvon would be the one who was acting in self defense. Which I see as a plausible story. The problem with any case which involves two parties fighting is determining who was the aggressor and who the victim whether weapons are involved or just fists. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:He

digitalbeachbum wrote:

He also wasn't stalking, but was trying to find out where the suspect had gone to. He was a overly concerned citizen.

Also, why was the gun pulled at the last few seconds of the fight? Why didn't George pull the gun on Martin early if he was "stalking".

 

Because he was/is an idiot? HE DIDN'T NEED TO FOLLOW TRAYVON, HE DIDN'T NEED TO FIND OUT WHERE TRAYVON WAS GOING, HE DIDN'T NEED TO BE ANY WHERE NEAR TRAYVON. Overly concerned my ass. Overly prejudiced.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'd hope you never know what it was like to have yourself in George's position. When you reach that point where your mind says, "oh shit, I'm in trouble".

 

I have been mugged 4 times. Twice at age 20, once at age 33, once at age 45. Each time the cowards ran away and I was neither raped nor robbed. I have never felt "in trouble." My feeling was more along the lines of - "what an idiot." No, I am not trained. No, I am not a martial artist. No, I did not have a weapon. Admittedly, neither did any of the idiots (like Trayvon). I did nothing more than be alert and confident.

I am aware most of you won't believe that statement. Don't care.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:We can

Beyond Saving wrote:

We can rationally conclude that he was probably just a typical male teenager with too much testosterone and for whatever reason decided to confront this strange guy who was following him. Typical young male "tough guy" syndrome.

 

Most of your post is reasonably rational. But I take exception to this statement. If some stranger is following me, I would want to know who and why. I would have confronted Zimmerman as well. Whether he would have thought I was threatening, is debatable but not likely. An old white women would not seem as threatening to most people as a young black man.

Since we don't have a reliable witness, we don't know just how the confrontation played out. So speculating about was Trayvon more like a young stupid male or more like a person who just wants to know what is up with this very large white dude following him is a waste of time. I still say Zimmerman should have left Trayvon alone, and Trayvon had every right to ask what was up with him.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:a bunch

Beyond Saving wrote:
a bunch of irrelevant bullshit that I'll destroy with a single sentence.

I never said never.

There are always occasional hiccups and mistakes by various parties that allow some to go free due to insufficient evidence or insufficient interest or sloppy work or even just a shitty government,
But BY FAR on average, such assholes do not get away with it here. Certainly not anything like as often as they get away with it in the US.

Beyond Saving wrote:
For the purposes of this discussion I am assuming that Zimmerman's side of the story is 100% true.

Admitted bias. Bye bye credibility.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
George Zimmerman = Not Guilty.
Just ignore me. I'm a fucking Canadian and we are all fucking nuts.

Fixed

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Doubt whatever

Vastet wrote:
Doubt whatever you like, he's almost certainly going to lose his job. Cops who shoot people without justification in Canada don't remain cops, nor do they remain free. Posting that story is further proof of your stupidity as it hasn't been resolved. In fact, your stupidity is the only thing you've proven by posting it. Dig a little deeper. And come back when the situation is resolved.

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched dopey.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Doubt whatever you like, he's almost certainly going to lose his job. Cops who shoot people without justification in Canada don't remain cops, nor do they remain free. Posting that story is further proof of your stupidity as it hasn't been resolved. In fact, your stupidity is the only thing you've proven by posting it. Dig a little deeper. And come back when the situation is resolved.

You mean except for Constable Chipperfield who shot an unarmed (and completely innocent of any crime) Paul Boyd in the head while he was crawling on the ground with 7 bullet holes already in him. 6 years later he is still serving as an active police officer and the government had two investigations where they decided not to press charges. Now because of pressure from the BCCLA they are having a third investigation, any guesses how this one is going to turn out?

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.com/2012/05/police-execution-of-paul-boyd.html

Or how about Robert Dziekanski? The man was tasered FIVE times leading to his death. The four mounties involved remained on the force with nothing more than a "finding of misconduct". Three are still there today, the fourth Corporal Benjamin "Monty" Robinson recently resigned before being sentenced for an unrelated DUI hit and run (he got 1 month of house arrest and probation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

Or how about Ian Bush. He was in police custody, in the fucking interrogation room and he died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Constable Koester claimed that Bush was choking him to death... How the fuck do you shoot someone in the back of the head while they are choking you from behind? It is about as unnatural a way to shoot as is imaginable because you are shooting in the general direction of yourself. Koester was not charged and it never went to trial.   

http://www.ctvnews.ca/lethal-force-necessary-in-ian-bush-s-death-ruling-1.265827 

Yeah, would never happen in Canada...ever. Next time you make a ridiculous claim you should try spending 0.3 seconds on a google search. 

 

Ouch! I felt that bitch slap all the way down here in Florida!

Hey Vas! Did it leave a mark?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I have been mugged

cj wrote:

I have been mugged 4 times. Twice at age 20, once at age 33, once at age 45. Each time the cowards ran away and I was neither raped nor robbed. I have never felt "in trouble." My feeling was more along the lines of - "what an idiot." No, I am not trained. No, I am not a martial artist. No, I did not have a weapon. Admittedly, neither did any of the idiots (like Trayvon). I did nothing more than be alert and confident.

I am aware most of you won't believe that statement. Don't care.

I've been in a three fights and one fight was against two black guys who jumped me just for me being white. I was scared for my life and didn't have as much training as I had now. Lucky for me I was able to take one of them out and escape.

I also have had 9 concussions from the age of 7 to the age of 35. I know what it is like to get your brain rattled and it isn't any fun. One time, I got a concussion and didn't even know it. I was walking around at work with glazed eyes when a co-worker said I should go to the doctor.

It turned out to be a walking-concussion and I was off from work for three days while I recovered. The doc said I was lucky because I could have blacked out while driving.

When do you know you have a concussion? Of all the times I had a concussion I never knew it because I was either unconscious or knocked about so bad that I couldn't think straight.

I agree with Beyond. If Trayvon would have knocked out George then he would have most likely walked away. Though, if he saw the gun I bet he would have stolen it.

Yet, that didn't happen. Trayvon didn't knock him out and George didn't pull his gun until the very last second. He had reached his point of "I need to get out of this mess" and he pulled the gun and fired. Do you think he tried for the heart? The lung? I seriously doubt he was aiming at any thing other than the general vicinity of his body.

You talk the talk Vas, but you certainly don't walk the walk. You speak of all these ways things are supposed to happen like your mind is the only reality. The truth is that there are too many variables to consider and since all of us weren't there that evening none of us will really know what happened.

So keep spurting out your bullshit rhetoric and fancy dreams of what you think should have happened and let us hope some time in the near future that racism and stereotypes become a thing of the past.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Beyond Saving

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

We can rationally conclude that he was probably just a typical male teenager with too much testosterone and for whatever reason decided to confront this strange guy who was following him. Typical young male "tough guy" syndrome.

 

Most of your post is reasonably rational. But I take exception to this statement. If some stranger is following me, I would want to know who and why. I would have confronted Zimmerman as well. Whether he would have thought I was threatening, is debatable but not likely. An old white women would not seem as threatening to most people as a young black man.

Since we don't have a reliable witness, we don't know just how the confrontation played out. So speculating about was Trayvon more like a young stupid male or more like a person who just wants to know what is up with this very large white dude following him is a waste of time. I still say Zimmerman should have left Trayvon alone, and Trayvon had every right to ask what was up with him.

 

Fair enough. I'm just thinking to how I might have reacted when I was a stupid testosterone filled young man. I probably would have confronted someone following me and would have been far more aggressive about it than someone like you would probably be. I could see myself getting right in his face and acting in a way that escalated the situation. There is a big difference between approaching someone following you and asking reasonably, "hey, why are you following me?" and how I would have gotten in his face and said something along the lines of "hey, ***** what the fuck is your problem?" The latter is far more likely to cause the situation to go bad as it is not a large step from that point for either one of them to cross the line and throw a punch or the possibility that Zimmerman drew his gun and Trayvon attacked out of self defense. 

Maybe Trayvon was far more mature and laid back than I was at that age. Then again, given how the situation turned into a fight, if I had to bet money on it I would bet that Trayvon acted more like I would have at that age. No real evidence one way or the other though, just an assumption based on my personal experiences. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
a bunch of irrelevant bullshit that I'll destroy with a single sentence.
I never said never. There are always occasional hiccups and mistakes by various parties that allow some to go free due to insufficient evidence or insufficient interest or sloppy work or even just a shitty government, But BY FAR on average, such assholes do not get away with it here. Certainly not anything like as often as they get away with it in the US.

You said

Vastet wrote:
Doubt whatever you like, he's almost certainly going to lose his job. Cops who shoot people without justification in Canada don't remain cops, nor do they remain free.

And within short order I was able to provide several examples where cops remained cops without putting in a significant amount of effort. Look here for even more http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2012-BCCLA-Report-Police-Involved-Deaths1.pdf

Is the problem larger/smaller/same size as the US? Impossible to compare as the size, demographics and crime rates in the US are completely different than Canada. All I'm saying is your "certainty" that he is going to lose his job shouldn't be so certain. There are not that many police shootings each year and no doubt, many police shootings are completely justified. (If they are not, that should be concerning in and of itself regardless of whether the police face punishment) That these cases all share the same features of police getting away with pretty obvious overuse of force is indicative that a problem exists.

 

Vastet wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
For the purposes of this discussion I am assuming that Zimmerman's side of the story is 100% true.
Admitted bias. Bye bye credibility.

If you paid attention you would notice I never criticized you on the conclusion to the specific case. I have only interjected comments when you made completely ignorant statements of fact. Such as when you claimed Trayvon was shot in the head. Your claim that it is "impossible" to draw a gun while someone is punching you from a mounted position. Your claim that "5 hits" will "probably knock you out" and your face will be "mush". Your ridiculous claim to the other extreme that being repeatedly punched in the head is not life threatening. Your assertion that because Zimmerman is alive is proof that his life was never at risk which is a circular argument that invalidates any argument for self defense because if you are dead you are incapable of defending yourself, but if you prevent your death by defending yourself, under your argument your life was not at risk.

The most I have said about the particular case of Trayvon and Zimmerman is that Zimmerman's story is plausible in the absence of evidence that it is false. I have also repeatedly pointed out several possibilities where Trayvon was the one acting in self defense. Since I didn't watch the trial, I don't really have enough information to come to a firm conclusion which story is most likely. Obviously, not having evidence is something that doesn't prevent you from reaching a conclusion though, as it is obvious you have no clue what occurred at the trial.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Just

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Just ignore me. I'm a fucking American and we are all fucking nuts.

Fixed

"Don't count your chickens before they are hatched dopey"

Look who's talking moron.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And

Beyond Saving wrote:
And within short order I was able to provide several examples where cops remained cops without putting in a significant amount of effort.

Actually you didn't. The first link is still ongoing and therefore doesn't support you. The second is the same. I guess someone hasn't been keeping wikipedia updated. And in the third there was no sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. So you posted 3 links that do not support your argument. Grats.

"Your claim that it is "impossible" to draw a gun while someone is punching you from a mounted position."

It is impossible.

" Your claim that "5 hits" will "probably knock you out" and your face will be "mush"."

It will.

"Your ridiculous claim to the other extreme that being repeatedly punched in the head is not life threatening."

Never made that claim.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Your assertion that because

"Your assertion that because Zimmerman is alive is proof that his life was never at risk"

Never said that either. I said that the fact he is alive and in perfect condition was proof that the assault wasn't sufficiently severe to warrant a deadly force response.

"which is a circular argument that invalidates any argument for self defense because if you are dead you are incapable of defending yourself, but if you prevent your death by defending yourself, under your argument your life was not at risk."

A ridiculous attempt to justify deadly force during a simple assault. I suppose you'd support shooting everyone who gets into a fight. Good thing you don't make the law.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 I was scared for my life and didn't have as much training as I had now. Lucky for me I was able to take one of them out and escape.

 

 

 

  digital, since you prefer to restrict yourself to unarmed combat in self defense situations I was wondering about how you intend to deal with aging and the gradual loss of physical prowess ?  This isn't meant to be a "gotcha" question or anything like that, just curious.

  Martial arts is my favorite spectator sport and it always amuses me that when top level competitors reach the age of 35-38 or so they're considered "senior citizens" in the sport, because they can rarely hang with the young bucks anymore.  The most important thing the "older" fighters lose is their speed and timing, so they get hit more often, accumulate more damage, etc.  There are always exception of course ( Randy Couture, Dan Henderson, etc )


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Just ignore me. I'm a fucking kick ass American and we are all fucking squared away down here.
"Don't count your chickens before they are hatched dopey" Look who's talking moron.

Ah, well considering that George Zimmerman is free... I'd say my chicken count is right on target and you are off your count, not one, not two, but three times.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  digital, since you prefer to restrict yourself to unarmed combat in self defense situations I was wondering about how you intend to deal with aging and the gradual loss of physical prowess ?  This isn't meant to be a "gotcha" question or anything like that, just curious.

  Martial arts is my favorite spectator sport and it always amuses me that when top level competitors reach the age of 35-38 or so they're considered "senior citizens" in the sport, because they can rarely hang with the young bucks anymore.  The most important thing the "older" fighters lose is their speed and timing, so they get hit more often, accumulate more damage, etc.  There are always exception of course ( Randy Couture, Dan Henderson, etc )

 

Here you go - for when you are an old fart---

http://www.elderguru.com/got-personal-safety-concerns-got-a-cane-get-trained-in-cane-fu-fighting/

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.