Florida, Florida, Florida

[Lennys Tap]

Slim to none.

Jimmy is young, healthy, on an uptick. Dwyane is none of the above. He'll almost certainly miss time due to injuries, so I don't think it's far fetched to think that Jimmy's numbers will be close to Dwyane's next year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I ask where is the anguish for the thousands of young African American men children dying every year in this country at the hands of other African American men? There is genuine tragedy of a far more horrific and greater scale than what happened in Florida. It is easy to pontificate while sipping chardonnay.   

FIFY

[MU B2002]

Jimmy is young, healthy, on an uptick. Dwyane is none of the above. He'll almost certainly miss time due to injuries, so I don't think it's far fetched to think that Jimmy's numbers will be close to Dwyane's next year.

The statement was a "better year" than DWade, but care to make it interesting?


I think that Jimmy will have a solid year, but Wade still has gas in the tank.

But honestly, just think how preposterous this argument would have sounded 4 years ago.  Gotta love it.

[real chili 83]

What part needs further explanation, happy to provide it.

Help me understand...because he  helped out certain communities, he gets a pass on beating women?  Is that YOURposition, or are you saying certain communities give him a pass on being a violent, woman beating pig of a human being, because he helped those communities.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Help me understand...because he  helped out certain communities, he gets a pass on beating women?  Is that YOURposition, or are you saying certain communities give him a pass on being a violent, woman beating pig of a human being, because he helped those communities.

I'm saying there are certain folks that commit crimes in our society, or cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or fill in the blank societal no-no and they are given a pass. A chance to rehabilitate.  A "oh that's just XX being XX".   I can rattle off an amazing list as I'm sure you can as well.

There are other folks, that may commit those exact same crimes, may cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or have committed some other societal no-no and there is no pass.  They are convicted in the court of public opinion on the spot, with never a chance for recovery or rehabilitation.  No second chances.  No reelection.  Done.  Toast.   

My comments were in general, that some folks because of who they are, because media is in their corner (or on the flip side, not in their corner), etc, get a pass or a gentle slap on the hand.

[Lennys Tap]

The statement was a "better year" than DWade, but care to make it interesting?


I think that Jimmy will have a solid year, but Wade still has gas in the tank.

But honestly, just think how preposterous this argument would have sounded 4 years ago.  Gotta love it.

I also think Wade has some gas in the tank. He'll average more points, assists and probably more rebounds per game than Butler. But if Jimmy plays 80 games and Dwyane plays 50 how do you judge "the better year"?

Your final thought is dead on - the idea that this would even be a matter for discussion 4 years ago was absurd. Go Dwyane, go Jimmy.

[real chili 83]

I'm saying there are certain folks that commit crimes in our society, or cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or fill in the blank societal no-no and they are given a pass. A chance to rehabilitate.  A "oh that's just XX being XX".   I can rattle off an amazing list as I'm sure you can as well.

There are other folks, that may commit those exact same crimes, may cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or have committed some other societal no-no and there is no pass.  They are convicted in the court of public opinion on the spot, with never a chance for recovery or rehabilitation.  No second chances.  No reelection.  Done.  Toast.   

My comments were in general, that some folks because of who they are, because media is in their corner (or on the flip side, not in their corner), etc, get a pass or a gentle slap on the hand.

I agree with your generalized comments whole heartedly.  One of the biggest "communities" that is guilty of this, in my opinion is the media.  A more recent example is the Martin/Zimmerman deal.  Look at how certain groups lined up behind (fill in the blank), without regard to the facts, because it supported their narrative.

[Golden Avalanche]

The statement was a "better year" than DWade, but care to make it interesting?

I think that Jimmy will have a solid year, but Wade still has gas in the tank.

But honestly, just think how preposterous this argument would have sounded 4 years ago.  Gotta love it.

Well, it isn't really a discussion. One is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer nearing the end of his career whereas the other one is a serviceable NBA player who had a nice three week stretch during the Playoffs.

I know the Butler lovefest is out of control in this forum but let's see Jimmy get to the level of Wesley Matthews first before we start claiming he'll be better then the greatest talent to ever wear our jersey.

[MerrittsMustache]

Well, it isn't really a discussion. One is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer nearing the end of his career whereas the other one is a serviceable NBA player who had a nice three week stretch during the Playoffs.

I know the Butler lovefest is out of control in this forum but let's see Jimmy get to the level of Wesley Matthews first before we start claiming he'll be better then the greatest talent to ever wear our jersey.

Well said.

If Butler puts up 13-5-2, it would be a huge step up for him.

If Wade puts up 18-4-4, people would be calling for him to retire.

[MattyWarrior]

JFB,don't get married for a while!!

[mu_hilltopper]

Sorry for the 3-4 messages above that are JFB related.  The topic split is a meat cleaver. 

You can re-post in the JFB thread.

[Sunbelt15]

If ever my neighborhood watch officer is following me and my kids around, he damn well better have a gun.... because it's not me he's following, it's the guy who's following me that he's following.

I guess you feel this kind of tragedy can NEVER happen to you. Wake up dude. Anyone can be profiled.

[LAZER]

Your life experiences and your intellect invariably add needed perspective.

I think we need Keefe to publish an autobiography so he can finally for once get off his chest how worldy and intellcatually superior he is to everyone.  Hell, we might even be able to do it ourseleves by piecing together his posts on here.

[Benny B]

I guess you feel this kind of tragedy can NEVER happen to you. Wake up dude. Anyone can be profiled.

Anyone can win the Powerball seventeen times in a row, too... that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

I've introduced myself to my neighbors, I don't attack people I don't know, I don't run from the authorities, and I don't walk around in strange neighborhoods.  Suffice to say the chance of a tragedy like this happening to me is so infinitesimal, it might as well be a statistical impossibility.

[nyg]

I think we need Keefe to publish an autobiography so he can finally for once get off his chest how worldy and intellcatually superior he is to everyone.  Hell, we might even be able to do it ourseleves by piecing together his posts on here.

Nice....

[RawdogDX]

Anyone can win the Powerball seventeen times in a row, too... that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

I've introduced myself to my neighbors, I don't attack people I don't know, I don't run from the authorities, and I don't walk around in strange neighborhoods.  Suffice to say the chance of a tragedy like this happening to me is so infinitesimal, it might as well be a statistical impossibility.

Who ran from authorities?   Who was walking in strange neighborhoods? 
I agree it is a statistical impossibility, cause you are white.  To think, you don't ever walk in your aunt's hood or you won't defend yourself when attacked is silly.

Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok.  period.  I don't care about this instance.  I can go to Florida, pick a fight and then shoot the other guy if they start kicking my ass.  Who likes that idea?

[MerrittsMustache]

Who ran from authorities?   Who was walking in strange neighborhoods? 
I agree it is a statistical impossibility, cause you are white.  To think, you don't ever walk in your aunt's hood or you won't defend yourself when attacked is silly.

Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok.  period.  I don't care about this instance.  I can go to Florida, pick a fight and then shoot the other guy if they start kicking my ass.  Who likes that idea?

You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.

[reinko]

You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.

Pretty straightforward.

A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.   (From wiki, sue me)

We don't know all of the facts, but it is fairly certain the events below happened.  All of the racial implications, dozens of 911 calls by GZ in the past, obsession with neighborhood watch, while somewhat relevant, are not deciding factors in this case.

1. GZ called police on TM because he looked suspicious.
2. TM noticed GZ following him, and tried to evade him.
3. Police said, don't leave your vehicle, let police handle it.
4. GZ left his vehicle anyway and confronted TM.
5. Unknown: Did TM run and attack GZ, did GZ pick a fight with TM???
6. Evidenced suggested GZ was getting beat up by TM.
7. GZ shot TM in the chest.

GZ had multiple opportunities to not escalate the situation, but he didn't.  According to state law, it is not illegal to ignore police commands, have horribly poor judgement, and escalate situations while armed, thus not guilty.

[MerrittsMustache]

Pretty straightforward.

A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.  (From wiki, sue me)

We don't know all of the facts, but it is fairly certain the events below happened.  All of the racial implications, dozens of 911 calls by GZ in the past, obsession with neighborhood watch, while somewhat relevant, are not deciding factors in this case.

1. GZ called police on TM because he looked suspicious.
2. TM noticed GZ following him, and tried to evade him.
3. Police said, don't leave your vehicle, let police handle it.
4. GZ left his vehicle anyway and confronted TM.
5. Unknown: Did TM run and attack GZ, did GZ pick a fight with TM???
6. Evidenced suggested GZ was getting beat up by TM.
7. GZ shot TM in the chest.

GZ had multiple opportunities to not escalate the situation, but he didn't.  According to state law, it is not illegal to ignore police commands, have horribly poor judgement, and escalate situations while armed, thus not guilty.

#3 and 4 are common misconceptions. At no point did the police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. While he was on the line with the police dispatcher, he got out of his car and began following Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and when he stated that he was, the dispatcher responded, "We don't need you to do that." During the trial, even Martin's lawyers acknowledged that there was no directive for Zimmerman to stay in his car.

Martin had minor scratch on his hand but no other injuries aside from the obvious. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin. Martin may have felt threatened and started a fight, but that we just don't know.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Who ran from authorities?   Who was walking in strange neighborhoods? 
I agree it is a statistical impossibility, cause you are white.  To think, you don't ever walk in your aunt's hood or you won't defend yourself when attacked is silly.

Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok.  period.  I don't care about this instance.  I can go to Florida, pick a fight and then shoot the other guy if they start kicking my ass.  Who likes that idea?

Not sure I'm reading this right, are you suggesting TM was attacked?  Are you also suggesting GZ picked a fight?

[mu_hilltopper]

#3 and 4 are common misconceptions. At no point did the police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. While he was on the line with the police dispatcher, he got out of his car and began following Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and when he stated that he was, the dispatcher responded, "We don't need you to do that." During the trial, even Martin's lawyers acknowledged that there was no directive for Zimmerman to stay in his car.

Martin had minor scratch on his hand but no other injuries aside from the obvious. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin. Martin may have felt threatened and started a fight, but that we just don't know.

Correct analysis.  It's amazing how effortlessly some ignore what the transcript says.

As for the question if Martin started the fight .. when Martin's "girlfriend" who he was on the phone with said she believed Martin threw the first punch .. only the most willing suspenders of disbelief can think otherwise.

[Benny B]

#3 and 4 are common misconceptions. At no point did the police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. While he was on the line with the police dispatcher, he got out of his car and began following Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and when he stated that he was, the dispatcher responded, "We don't need you to do that." During the trial, even Martin's lawyers acknowledged that there was no directive for Zimmerman to stay in his car.

Martin had minor scratch on his hand but no other injuries aside from the obvious. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin. Martin may have felt threatened and started a fight, but that we just don't know.

+1.  The State never entered any evidence that Zimmerman pursued or confronted Martin.  Not only that, the state didn't even attempt to spin the transcript from the 911 call in the prosecution's favor.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "OK."
Dispatcher: "Alright sir, what's your name."
Zimmerman: "George.... he ran"

Call me crazy, but when someone tells you that you don't need to follow someone you say "OK" and then you say "he ran," I'm pretty certain that a rational person would interpret that as the end of the pursuit right there.  But there's more... just 12 lines later:

Dispatcher: "What's your apartment number"
Zimmerman: "It's a home, it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."

It's kind of difficult to pursue someone when you don't know where that person is.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.

I'll be honest, I don't understand it at all.

In theory, I could take my gun, follow somebody around, and if that person attacks me, I can shoot them?

Is that right?

I know there is far more nuance in the Zimmerman case, but just from a big picture view, that's what it seems like.

Could I go out on Water St. and follow somebody around, get in a fight, and then shoot that person? Would that be "stand your ground"?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I honestly don't know how to interpret it.

[Hards Alumni]

You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.

This wasn't a stand your ground case.  The defense did not invoke it... for obvious reasons.

[Benny B]

I'll be honest, I don't understand it at all.

In theory, I could take my gun, follow somebody around, and if that person attacks me, I can shoot them?

Is that right?

I know there is far more nuance in the Zimmerman case, but just from a big picture view, that's what it seems like.

Could I go out on Water St. and follow somebody around, get in a fight, and then shoot that person? Would that be "stand your ground"?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I honestly don't know how to interpret it.

Historically, in order to use the argument of "self-defense" to justify a homicide of an attacker, you had to demonstrate that certain conditions existed, most commonly a) you attempted to retreat/avoid the situation and b) a threat of imminent danger to life/limb was present.

Before SYG, there was the "castle doctrine" which basically gives certain legal protections to a person using force in protecting their home/dwelling (their "castle") against an intruder (i.e. someone who is not invited and enters the home/dwelling illegally); most often, it is raised when the person uses deadly force against the intruder, but it can also be applicable even when no death or injury occurs.  The basis of CD was that requiring a person who was already in his/her home to "retreat" was unreasonable.

SYG is similar to CD but SYG extends beyond the home/dwelling provided that he/she is in a place/location they are lawfully permitted to be and removes the duty to retreat/evade the situation.

Not every state has SYG or CD, and of those that do, the conditions/protections/etc. vary amongst them.  Burdens of proof are different.  What constitutes "deadly force" is different.  To answer your question, though... Wisconsin does not have SYG, so what you portrayed in theory is not SYG.  Though if you could justify following someone around and were subsequently attacked by that person, you might have a defense in a SYG state if you injured or killed the attacker (regardless of whether or not you used a gun).