EPTWe don't live in a Utopia. This is the real world.
Trayvon Martin 17yo Kid Shot to Death - Page 86
| Forum Index > Closed |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
We don't live in a Utopia. This is the real world. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
| ||
|
nOlifeTERRAN
United States153 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's about all we can say on this matter. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
a well ordered justice system would have to treat this as a prejudiced killing. if some existing system does not then that system is bankrupt and its defenders imbecilic. that's about all we can say on this matter. A well ordered justice system and a well ordered person would determine the facts before making sensationalist proclamations. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 25 2012 14:32 dogabutila wrote: Can we have a mod edit the OP to something less terribly inaccurate and sensationalist into something that is maybe a little bit more..... neutral? Hahahahahahahaha. "17 year old shot to death". Was he not 17? Was he not shot, resulting in his death? I don't get it. Seems totally accurate to me. Where is the inaccurate part? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Hahahahahahahaha. "17 year old shot to death". Was he not 17? Was he not shot, resulting in his death? I don't get it. Seems totally accurate to me. Where is the inaccurate part? That's the thread title, not the original post. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 25 2012 23:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: That's the thread title, not the original post. Totally read it as "change title", which made the complaint seem massively hilarious, given that the OP is just the text of an article (at least it was at one point -- didnt bother to check if its been updated to include 'inaccurate' stoofs) | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 25 2012 14:32 dogabutila wrote: Can we have a mod edit the OP to something less terribly inaccurate and sensationalist into something that is maybe a little bit more..... neutral? You do realize the entire OP is quoting the article linked at the bottom of it, right? | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 25 2012 23:28 Fyrewolf wrote: You do realize the entire OP is quoting the article linked at the bottom of it, right? Well the first line says something like "The story so far." Im not saying that OP isnt neutral, it would just be nice if it was updated as more information comes forward. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 25 2012 23:33 Lockitupv2 wrote: Well the first line says something like "The story so far." Im not saying that OP isnt neutral, it would just be nice if it was updated as more information comes forward. That's the title of the linked article. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
My other point still stands. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
And the point of the OP being a quote of an article still stands. The article is 5 days old. Kind of hard to update a quoting that doesn't change. This whole thing has been blowing up everywhere in the media. If you want newer information, read another article. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 25 2012 23:48 Fyrewolf wrote: And the point of the OP being a quote of an article still stands. The article is 5 days old. Kind of hard to update a quoting that doesn't change. This whole thing has been blowing up everywhere in the media. If you want newer information, read another article. Then change the OP to a series of articles so that we dont get people that come in just to make one post (and sometimes get banned) just because they read the OP. Information comes out pretty fast. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 25 2012 23:52 Lockitupv2 wrote: Then change the OP to a series of articles so that we dont get people that come in just to make one post (and sometimes get banned) just because they read the OP. Information comes out pretty fast. Well maybe it's just me then that is of the mindset that people should read a thread before posting in it. If someone gets banned, it's because they made an inflammatory and bad post. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 26 2012 00:03 Fyrewolf wrote: Maybe it's just me that is of the mindset that people should read a thread before posting in it. If someone gets banned, it's because they made an inflammatory and bad post. For smaller threads sure, this one has gotten pretty big. Makes it hard for other people to enter the discussion, which is why we have pretty much the same people posting. People arent gonna read all this. Just the OP, which is where all the asinine posts that have outdated info come from. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 26 2012 00:16 Fyrewolf wrote: The information in the article isn't really outdated or wrong though. The new information is that of the witnesses "Austin", "John", "Mary" and the other female who's name I forget, the girlfriend, and the DoJ getting involved. And a possible suit by the Martin's agains the homeowners association. None of the new information is conclusive to piecing together what happened between Zimmerman leaving the car and Martin being shot, the story is the same. The questions at the bottom have been answered, that's the only thing that I can see that might be an issue. Exactly, but why not try to give all the info or at least try to give all the info we know in the OP. Its not like OP updating is a foreign event on TL. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10347 Posts
On March 25 2012 23:48 Fyrewolf wrote: And the point of the OP being a quote of an article still stands. The article is 5 days old. Kind of hard to update a quoting that doesn't change. This whole thing has been blowing up everywhere in the media. If you want newer information, read another article. It's not about newer information. The article sucks. It doesn't even make mention of the fact that Zimmerman had wounds from the altercation - a pretty important detail since his defense is self-defense. It's not neutral and it is sensationalist, which are two good reasons to change it. What exactly is your problem with changing it, anyway? | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 26 2012 00:45 BlackJack wrote: It's not about newer information. The article sucks. It doesn't even make mention of the fact that Zimmerman had wounds from the altercation - a pretty important detail since his defense is self-defense. It's not neutral and it is sensationalist, which are two good reasons to change it. What exactly is your problem with changing it, anyway? I don't really have that much of a problem with changing it, but every article is sensationalist at this point, some one way and some the other. Of course the guy was bleeding, there's no reason to assume he wasn't, I think the most relevant information is the last phone call of the deceased which is still technically one person's hearsay. There's so many inconsistencies everywhere that I'm just waiting for actual concrete information that has actual significant impact on the story. | ||
| ||
