Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ronin-Sage wrote:In this debate, I lean in favor of Martin(from what I know), but one thing auxiliary to this whole thing I do find disturbing:

Neighborhood watches aren't typically allowed to carry firearms -- does that make sense? Sure, they're purposed with observation and reporting, not direct confrontation, but they could be putting themselves into situations where they would need to defend themselves.

It's not a question of "allowed". Neighborhood watches aren't formally regulated, to the best of my knowledge (though they may voluntarily register themselves with local authorities). There's a national handbook with a lot of recommended policies and procedures, but it's not part of the law. The national group which produced the handbook recommends not carrying a gun while doing it, precisely to discourage people from acting like cowboys or pretend police. To help themselves remember that they are observers, and need to call the actual cops if something happens.

The media frenzy surrounding the shooting has turned up several conflicting accounts. Zimmerman, who has gone into hiding and has not been charged, reportedly has claimed he shot in self-defense. Others claim Zimmerman followed the unarmed teen and should be charged.

Now that's a little shocking. With all this dispute and strong evidence over what could very well be a murder, the only possible suspect has not even been charged? You would think that this would at least to go trial.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I, for one, welcome any opportunity to deny scum like this a gun.

this scum wrote:Racism should be met with protest. Whether it's the klan in white robes or the klan with a tan, it has no place in a civil society. Here at The White Voice we are unashamedly pro-White. But that doesn't mean that we bash people of other races.

You're right he's completely unreasonable making statements like that. We should deny him his constitutional rights because his position is different than yours.

@AustonT: The argument that Trayvon shouldn't be held as a role model is one thing, but to say that if Obama had a son he would be a Ghetto Hoodlum like Trayvon?

Hazardous Harry wrote:@AustonT: The argument that Trayvon shouldn't be held as a role model is one thing, but to say that if Obama had a son he would be a Ghetto Hoodlum like Trayvon?

It's a hyperbolic play from Obama's statement that of he had a son he would look like Trayvon. If I get on my laptop I'll attach some pictures from similarly minded websites.

AustonT wrote:
You're right he's completely unreasonable making statements like that. We should deny him his constitutional rights because his position is different than yours.

When you start making up statistics, such as:

80% of the inmates in the Federal Prison System are non-Whites.

People are going to question your motives (its more like 50-60%), though he might be equating "white" with European.

Then there's this little gem...

We recognize that White racial salvation can only occur when we love our race more than others.

...which doesn't really jive with the absence of supremacist beliefs. And then there's this...

To establish our self-determination, it is our goal to bring about the creation of our own exclusive country, which for now, we shall call the White Republic.

...which is eerily similar to Volksfront.

Mannahnin wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:In this debate, I lean in favor of Martin(from what I know), but one thing auxiliary to this whole thing I do find disturbing:

Neighborhood watches aren't typically allowed to carry firearms -- does that make sense? Sure, they're purposed with observation and reporting, not direct confrontation, but they could be putting themselves into situations where they would need to defend themselves.

It's not a question of "allowed". Neighborhood watches aren't formally regulated, to the best of my knowledge (though they may voluntarily register themselves with local authorities). There's a national handbook with a lot of recommended policies and procedures, but it's not part of the law. The national group which produced the handbook recommends not carrying a gun while doing it, precisely to discourage people from acting like cowboys or pretend police. To help themselves remember that they are observers, and need to call the actual cops if something happens.

Exactly.

Having said that, I don't want the feds getting involved. they'll only screw it up, and they have no constitutional authority todo so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

The media frenzy surrounding the shooting has turned up several conflicting accounts. Zimmerman, who has gone into hiding and has not been charged, reportedly has claimed he shot in self-defense. Others claim Zimmerman followed the unarmed teen and should be charged.

Now that's a little shocking. With all this dispute and strong evidence over what could very well be a murder, the only possible suspect has not even been charged? You would think that this would at least to go trial.

In civilized countries you have to have evidence before you can charge someone. Thats in process now.
Admittedly, we don't know how Louisiana would do this.

Dogma wrote:I see 3 people there. Where did the other 4 go?

They also don't say that those people saw anything, it just lists them as ADULT-WITNESS. If I am painting a mini and I hear a gunshot then later see the police in the area and tell them I heard a gunshot I would be listed on a report as ADULT-WITNESS. That doesn't mean I know who fired it or why, just that I can give testimony as to hearing a gunshot around a certain time. Part of the issue with the incident is that there haven't been any direct witnesses to actually see what happened. There are people that heard noises and voices, but that is about it. If there were actual visual eye witnesses there would be less questions about what happened.

Ahtman wrote:

Dogma wrote:I see 3 people there. Where did the other 4 go?

They also don't say that those people saw anything, it just lists them as ADULT-WITNESS. If I am painting a mini and I hear a gunshot then later see the police in the area and tell them I heard a gunshot I would be listed on a report as ADULT-WITNESS. That doesn't mean I know who fired it or why, just that I can give testimony as to hearing a gunshot around a certain time. Part of the issue with the incident is that there haven't been any direct witnesses to actually see what happened. There are people that heard noises and voices, but that is about it. If there were actual visual eye witnesses there would be less questions about what happened.

According to the sheet it also seems like they are witnesses to a homicide. I wouldn't look at a police report that states "Charge: Homicide. Witnesses: XXX" and interpret it as "those people must have seen him defend himself". I would interpret that as having witnessess that supported the charge, not witnesses that would clear the suspect.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I, for one, welcome any opportunity to deny scum like this a gun.

I assume he's working from personal experience.

Given that, people hate him for his awful fashion sense, not whiteness.

A polo, gym shorts, mid socks, and loafers? Really?

Somebody could claim self defense for their eyes

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

The media frenzy surrounding the shooting has turned up several conflicting accounts. Zimmerman, who has gone into hiding and has not been charged, reportedly has claimed he shot in self-defense. Others claim Zimmerman followed the unarmed teen and should be charged.

Now that's a little shocking. With all this dispute and strong evidence over what could very well be a murder, the only possible suspect has not even been charged? You would think that this would at least to go trial.

In civilized countries you have to have evidence before you can charge someone. Thats in process now.
Admittedly, we don't know how Louisiana would do this.

It is a fact that Zimmerman followed and shot Trayvon, there is absolutely no dispute about that. What is in question is whether immediately prior to the shooting Trayvon acted in a manner which made Zimmerman's actions reasonable, which is very much in dispute. It leads one to think that if a black man had acted in this manner and shot a white teenager, the police reaction would be to arrest and hold the perpetrator while the facts were settled.

Talky talky but evidence has to be gathered. My point stands.

Frazzled wrote:Talky talky but evidence has to be gathered. My point stands.

So it's common for police to play favourites in the states is it?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Talky talky but evidence has to be gathered. My point stands.

So it's common for police to play favourites in the states is it?

Thats your assumption, but then again, evidently guilt is a given, innocence must be proven, even though charges have not been filed. You're not a former judge for the Cardassian Court of Justice are you?

You know he was arrested and released pending charges right?

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Talky talky but evidence has to be gathered. My point stands.

So it's common for police to play favourites in the states is it?

Thats your assumption, but then again, evidently guilt is a given, innocence must be proven, even though charges have not been filed. You're not a former judge for the Cardassian Court of Justice are you?

Come now, from the way the article was written it appeared that he hadn't even been arrested.

You know he was arrested and released pending charges right?

Nope, but now I do.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Talky talky but evidence has to be gathered. My point stands.

So it's common for police to play favourites in the states is it?

Thats your assumption, but then again, evidently guilt is a given, innocence must be proven, even though charges have not been filed. You're not a former judge for the Cardassian Court of Justice are you?

Come now, from the way the article was written it appeared that he hadn't even been arrested.

You know he was arrested and released pending charges right?

Nope, but now I do.

Well your reference to GI Joe has redeemed you in my eyes Padiwon.




I had the GI Joe frogman complete with scary shark, GI Joe jeep, and GI Joe Howitzer.

d-usa wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Dogma wrote:I see 3 people there. Where did the other 4 go?

They also don't say that those people saw anything, it just lists them as ADULT-WITNESS. If I am painting a mini and I hear a gunshot then later see the police in the area and tell them I heard a gunshot I would be listed on a report as ADULT-WITNESS. That doesn't mean I know who fired it or why, just that I can give testimony as to hearing a gunshot around a certain time. Part of the issue with the incident is that there haven't been any direct witnesses to actually see what happened. There are people that heard noises and voices, but that is about it. If there were actual visual eye witnesses there would be less questions about what happened.

According to the sheet it also seems like they are witnesses to a homicide. I wouldn't look at a police report that states "Charge: Homicide. Witnesses: XXX" and interpret it as "those people must have seen him defend himself". I would interpret that as having witnessess that supported the charge, not witnesses that would clear the suspect.

That isn't what it says though, and isn't what it means. It is a preliminary report, not a final determination. At the very top it says PARTIAL REPORT. Second, it doesn't say Homicide, it says Homicide-Negligent/Manslaughter-Unnecessary Killing to prevent unlawful Act. That isn't a charge yet, but what they believe the crime to be. Third, it doesn't indicate what 'side' the person(s) listed are taking, just that they are witnesses, of which there are a myriad of different kinds. None of them saw it though, as we know that there are no visual accounts of the incident besides Zimmerman's.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
You're right he's completely unreasonable making statements like that. We should deny him his constitutional rights because his position is different than yours.

When you start making up statistics, such as:

80% of the inmates in the Federal Prison System are non-Whites.

People are going to question your motives (its more like 50-60%), though he might be equating "white" with European.

Then there's this little gem...

We recognize that White racial salvation can only occur when we love our race more than others.

...which doesn't really jive with the absence of supremacist beliefs. And then there's this...

To establish our self-determination, it is our goal to bring about the creation of our own exclusive country, which for now, we shall call the White Republic.

...which is eerily similar to Volksfront.

You're really not making a case for him not being permitted to excersize his rights. He is a wacky nutjob, people said that about abolitionists too. There are plenty of racist organizations in America that don't get labeled scum by such open minded idealists as MeanGreenStomper. The NAACP and NCLR come to mind. In fact I know for sure that one of those two recieves government funding, and I'm fairly certain both do. For a guy like the one in the picture to push a race based agenda is really no different. If my heart was really in it I'm sure I could find hundreds of incorrect facts and racist statements by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and members of La Raza. At least the dudes final statement made sense, racism has no place in civil discourse, good point: go home.
As far as his final jab at Obama, perhaps the President should have had some research done and looked at some of the pictures and statements of @No Limit [see forum posting rules] before he said his son would look like a gold grilled, low level dealing, thug. I feel like he has people that are supposed to do that for him.

Did you just equate the NAACP and neo-nazi white power groups?

Ahtman wrote:Did you just equate the NAACP and neo-nazi white power groups?

Not going there but you sure can equate neo nazis and New Black Panthers.

Now when the NAACP was started it could have been hammered as being offensive speech. Thats the problem with limiting offensive speech. Today's offensive is tomorrow's institution.

Ahtman wrote:Did you just equate the NAACP and neo-nazi white power groups?

Point to the part that even resembles that remark.

I think we do need tighter gun control.
If peoople want to protect themselves they dont need a gun to do it. a tazer can do it.

As far as his final jab at Obama, perhaps the President should have had some research done and looked at some of the pictures and statements of @No Limit [see forum posting rules] before he said his son would look like a gold grilled, low level dealing, thug.

I don't think Obama said that his son would look like Zimmerman...

I'm an independent, and disagree with the Republican party on quite a range of issues.

But if I hear one more liberal pundit, or worse yet, some Brady Campaign donkey-cave, get on TV or the radio and start blathering about how we need to end concealed carry nationwide, I'm registering with the elephants tomorrow.

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen a 5'3" woman leap on a 6'2 pro-wrestler (this was a real fight, he shoved her down when she told him he couldn't bring Taco Bell into the restaurant) and begin to beat his ass. We aren't exactly talking about a Nicolay Valuev difference here.

So you've met my wife then?

Is she responsible for the Daniel Bryan and Sheamus 18 second match at Wrestlemania this past Sunday?

hotsauceman1 wrote:I think we do need tighter gun control.
If peoople want to protect themselves they dont need a gun to do it. a tazer can do it.

Out of curiousity, how well do tazers handle multiple targets?

Melissia wrote:

As far as his final jab at Obama, perhaps the President should have had some research done and looked at some of the pictures and statements of @No Limit [see forum posting rules] before he said his son would look like a gold grilled, low level dealing, thug.

I don't think Obama said that his son would look like Zimmerman...

Like I said I feel like the President has people for this.

Please do not post pictures containing ethnic slurs on DakkaDakka. Thanks ~Manchu

hotsauceman1 wrote:I think we do need tighter gun control.
If peoople want to protect themselves they dont need a gun to do it. a tazer can do it.

Horse gak. Enforce the laws on the books now. Further, depending on how the situation occurred in real life, instead of a dead teenager it might be a dead 35 year old.

I'll grant you that the first one looks like Martin. In the second the face is so shadowed as to be unidentifiable aside from 'black youth'.

EDIT: Doh! I was trying to quote AustinT...

AustonT wrote:Please do not post pictures containing ethnic slurs on DakkaDakka. Thanks ~Manchu

Seriously, Auston? Seriously?

What was that about just needing a taser? Oh and look its in the same county. Excellent.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-two-arrested-seminole-beating-20120402_1_victim-arrest-affidavits-crimeline