|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
My answer: Yes, you could be killed any day. Don't blame racism for this fact of your life. It's twenty times more likely that you'll be killed by another black person than by a person of any other race.
|
On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested.
"john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic.
At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up.
|
I think I read another editorial on Black parents having to teach there sons about the unwritten rules of being a black male in America. It's depressing that it's necessary, but it's true.
Geraldo Rivera has been getting a lot of shit about "hoodies", but I understand what he's getting at. There is still a lot of negative stereotypes about young black men in America, and the reality is that if you play into those stereotypes, or don't go out of your way to be over-nice or project a positive image, people will be suspicious of you.
Just look at scrutiny that Obama is under. He's half-black, highly-educated, articulate, Christian ... and there are still people out there that suspect he's a Muslim, or socialist, etc.
This why the NBA has a dress code for players, even when they're not in the game -- they don't want to contribute to that stereotype.
Sorry, I'm rambling. But thanks for the article.
|
I think it's very well written. It's an extremely delicate issue to address, and he does a fine job of it.
|
On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up.
Him being armed doesn't matter in the context of getting pummeled. The only way a gun helps in this situation is that you can kill the other person (which is obviously what ended up happening) - not physically stop them from hitting you before that.
|
On March 25 2012 09:22 Freddybear wrote:My answer: Yes, you could be killed any day. Don't blame racism for this fact of your life. It's twenty times more likely that you'll be killed by another black person than by a person of any other race.
Well, you should blame racism a little. Certainly Trayvon could if he was alive.
|
On March 25 2012 09:29 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. Him being armed doesn't matter in the context of getting pummeled. The only way a gun helps in this situation is that you can kill the other person (which is obviously what ended up happening) - not physically stop them from hitting you before that.
first off I'm not trying to say Zimmerman's story is patently false (although I do think that). I'm saying it certainly is not iron clad enough to give him complete immunity from arrest and prosecution- which is what he is granted by the SYG law.
and idn man, you want to try and turn around and assault me while I have a gun pulled? I wouldn't, and I doubt unarmed Martin on the phone with his girl friend would either.
But its not for me to judge, or the Sanford Police, it should be a jury of his peers. And that is what I have issue with.
|
On March 25 2012 09:19 stokes17 wrote:Beside using the word racism incorrectly (and its misused so often at this point its probably not a misuse anymore)
He's using racism in that post-modern academic way, meaning, "yup, we live in a society where whole cultures can be defined by race, and where people characterize and stereotype each other based on race, even when they aren't trying. "
Not sure how you define racism.
|
On March 25 2012 09:32 stokes17 wrote:
and idn man, you want to try and turn around and assault me while I have a gun pulled? I wouldn't, and I doubt unarmed Martin on the phone with his girl friend would either.
We're talking about a skinny 17 year-old with the build of Michael Jackson versus Paul Blartt Mall Cop. Neither of them have probably fought for their lives ever. Who knows what the hell that looks like.
|
United States1527 Posts
What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001
People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially fascist American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling.
You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals.
|
On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals.
So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks?
|
On March 25 2012 09:32 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:29 Dfgj wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. Him being armed doesn't matter in the context of getting pummeled. The only way a gun helps in this situation is that you can kill the other person (which is obviously what ended up happening) - not physically stop them from hitting you before that. first off I'm not trying to say Zimmerman's story is patently false (although I do think that). I'm saying it certainly is not iron clad enough to give him complete immunity from arrest and prosecution- which is what he is granted by the SYG law. and idn man, you want to try and turn around and assault me while I have a gun pulled? I wouldn't, and I doubt unarmed Martin on the phone with his girl friend would either. But its not for me to judge, or the Sanford Police, it should be a jury of his peers. And that is what I have issue with.
just going to make one point then retreat. we dont know the gun was pulled. it may have still been concealed when he confronted trayvon, and trayvon may not have known about it until the last minute. /retreat
|
On March 25 2012 09:32 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:29 Dfgj wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. Him being armed doesn't matter in the context of getting pummeled. The only way a gun helps in this situation is that you can kill the other person (which is obviously what ended up happening) - not physically stop them from hitting you before that. first off I'm not trying to say Zimmerman's story is patently false (although I do think that). I'm saying it certainly is not iron clad enough to give him complete immunity from arrest and prosecution- which is what he is granted by the SYG law. and idn man, you want to try and turn around and assault me while I have a gun pulled? I wouldn't, and I doubt unarmed Martin on the phone with his girl friend would either. But its not for me to judge, or the Sanford Police, it should be a jury of his peers. And that is what I have issue with.
I don't disagree with any of that, I sure as hell wouldn't try to assault someone with a gun pointed at me. I just think it's worth mentioning that outside of opening fire and killing the person, the gun isn't a lot of help in a fight. Being 'armed' doesn't instantly make you immune to unarmed attack, and even the potential intimidation is moot if the attacker isn't aware you have a gun.
This is all entirely hypothetical, of course, since we don't know precisely what happened.
|
On March 25 2012 09:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:29 Dfgj wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. Him being armed doesn't matter in the context of getting pummeled. The only way a gun helps in this situation is that you can kill the other person (which is obviously what ended up happening) - not physically stop them from hitting you before that. first off I'm not trying to say Zimmerman's story is patently false (although I do think that). I'm saying it certainly is not iron clad enough to give him complete immunity from arrest and prosecution- which is what he is granted by the SYG law. and idn man, you want to try and turn around and assault me while I have a gun pulled? I wouldn't, and I doubt unarmed Martin on the phone with his girl friend would either. But its not for me to judge, or the Sanford Police, it should be a jury of his peers. And that is what I have issue with. just going to make one point then retreat. we dont know the gun was pulled. it may have still been concealed when he confronted trayvon, and trayvon may not have known about it until the last minute. /retreat
O of course, but the questions out weigh the answers, which is why he needs to be tried in court
|
|
|
United States1527 Posts
On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks?
The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up.
|
On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up.
Don't worry, I'll always be a fucking asshole about it 
|
On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up.
Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments?
Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about?
I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo)
|
United States1527 Posts
On March 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up. Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments? Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about? I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo)
I feel like both go [unneccessarily] out of the way to act as an apologist to racism/fascism.
|
On March 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up. Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments? Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about? I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo)
agreed with the latter. I almost feel like Rivera is a victim to the same racial stereotyping he's trying to somehow combat. I'm white and I wear a hoodie all the time, I felt like tweeting him a pic of me saying "do I look suspicious? no? so basically hoodies look suspicious only if you're black. so basically you affirm being black leads to suspicion. im sure minority moms appreciate it.. right"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
