1649
1650

Name one. (i.imgur.com)

robert32907Revanchist Conservative が 投稿

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。
並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]jdeezy -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (34子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

this is like saying, millions of species are going extinct per day, children are being beaten and killed, and tons of other stuff is going wrong. so one person dying has no significance.

[–]rjohnson99 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (19子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Not at all.

It's questioning why out of all these deaths is one being singled out.

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

But you could do that with literally whichever death(s) the media choose to cover. It doesn't apply to any one specifically. Why cover any murder trials, if all people are going to say is "why aren't you covering all the others?"

[–]rjohnson99 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I agree but you have to ask yourself why? Does the news of two teenagers shooting a baby in the face seem more sensational than this case? How about a 15 month old being shot 5 times in Chicago?

You would think the murder rate in Chicago alone would be a bigger story than an accident. When you get down to it that's what this was.

Did Zimmerman make stupid decisions? Yes. Did Martin make stupid decisions? Yes.

This was blown out of proportion by the same characters that show up every time they think they can get on tv by shooting racism.

What we have here is a Hispanic man who shot a black boy and was acquitted by six women but it's the white man's fault.>But you could do that with literally whichever death(s) the media choose to cover. It doesn't apply to any one specifically. Why cover any murder trials, if all people are going to say is "why aren't you covering all the others?"

[–][deleted] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Exactly. There are an almost innumerable amount of tragedies every year in a country of 300mil+ people. You can argue about how one particular tragedy didn't get as much coverage as another. It's a pointless argument.

[–]ACE_C0ND0R 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

You can't single out every death, that would defeat the purpose. By singling out every death, you've effectively singled out none of them.

[–]MrKequc -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Primarily interested in what it turns out the law says.

I don't know why that isn't obvious around these parts. It's as if conservatives still think that people opposed to the ruling "just don't understand the law". No, we get it. It's pretty damn clear what the law says seeing as he wasn't even charged with manslaughter.

The problem is the laws themselves. This case brought to the party a pretty public and (despite what some of you guys seem to be saying) easy to work out what happened, case. We were able to see mishandling of the law. General carelessness and ambivalence with the fact a teenager was dead. Followed by a drawn out and expensive legal proceeding. Which decided that looking for trouble, being a vigilante with an arrest record for assaulting a cop, domestic abuser, carrying a gun, in a vehicle and tracking a teenager. Being responsible for a confrontation resulting in that teenagers death. Means that he didn't do anything wrong.

It's 100 levels of stupid, saturated in hatred. American culture once again on display for everyone to see and it looks really bad as is now usual.

But yet you still have people dead set on saying nothing is out of the ordinary and this is the way things should be. It's an embarrassment and you guys should feel embarrassed. Just like all the people who have a problem with the way the law is structured and are saying "how did it get so bad?"

They aren't saying "we don't understand the law".

[–]rjohnson99 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

If you want to have a conversation about the law then that is a completely valid point. You are in the extreme minority however. My whole problem with this case is how it was MADE into a racial issue.

You can site all the things about Zimmerman's character while glossing over Trayvon's character all you want but it doesn't change the facts.

Let me preface with what I am about to say with this: George Zimmerman made some VERY STUPID DECISIONS.

No one that I've talked to thinks what happens is OK or that's the way things should've happened.

When you look at the facts of the case who started the physical confrontation? The DEFENSE'S WITNESS SUPPORTED THAT MARTIN DID!

You can say what you want about Zimmerman following Martin but once Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman physically that is what took this over the line. Do you really beleive that if a fight wouldn't have started and Trayvon wasn't on top beating on Zimmerman that he would have shot him?

[–]MrKequc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

So if you're someone who supports the law then.

At what point was Martin allowed to be fearful that his life is in danger, responding to that fear with lethal means? Let alone non-lethal means. climbing on top of someone and hitting them when you think your life is in danger, that isn't covered?

It seems to me if Martin was being tracked by a ugly dude like Zimmerman at night. Who has a vehicle. Who is legitimately someone who has a gun. Martin might feel afraid for his life, so would he have the legal right to have ended the confrontation by shooting Zimmerman? Is the only reason Zimmerman walked away and Martin received a death sentence, due to the fact that Zimmerman had and utilised a gun?

[–]rjohnson99 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I somewhat support the law.

At what point was Martin allowed to be fearful that his life is in danger, responding to that fear with lethal means?

In my opinion IF he was physically violated he would've had the right to respond with physical force.

At what point in America is it OK for you to beat the shit out of someone if you think they are following you? That's assault.

Martin might feel afraid for his life, so would he have the legal right to have ended the confrontation by shooting Zimmerman?

Apparently under Florida law, yes.

Is the only reason Zimmerman walked away and Martin received a death sentence, due to the fact that Zimmerman had and utilised a gun?

Again, under Florida law, yes. I could say that is true. I would submit however that when looking at the FACTS of the case Zimmerman only shot Martin AFTER he was physically assaulted and being pummeled on the ground.

You're making it sound as if Zimmerman hunted Martin down and then shot him with no provocation and then threw his hands in the air and yelled "SELF DEFENSE!".

[–]MrKequc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I suggested no such thing what so ever, nor do I see other people suggesting that. Yet I see it suggested all the time that people are taking that position.

[–]rjohnson99 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I don't understand your argument.

You believe that Martin didn't have the right to physically assault Zimmerman for following him? Correct?

So your problem is that Zimmerman used lethal force in responding to the assault?

[–]MrKequc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

My problem is quite involved by this point. But essentially it boils down to if you kill someone you should be charged for it. The way the law is currently in Florida, makes the place more of a wild west than a civilised society.

According to you if Martin had managed to get Zimmerman's gun and kill Zimmerman, Martin would have been in the legal right. So... that's it then. Kill first.

[–]Anon_DerpLibertarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

or this is like saying, "is a white person killing a black person any worse than black person killing a black person? Of course not. Why then are you all going crazy about this one murder just because of the races involved?"

[–][deleted] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The story got traction because it was peculiar that an armed man shot and killed an unarmed teenager and wasn't so much as arrested let alone charged with any crime. That's not something that happens every day.

[–]IIGe0II 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

That's because it was an open and shut case of self defense.

[–]rjohnson99 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Actually it does. In Florida alone look at the "stand your ground" cases.

[–]Anon_DerpLibertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The Stand Your Ground law was never invoked or even mentioned once in the Zimmerman trial. Using this case to attack such laws makes you sound uninformed.

[–]rjohnson99 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I am well aware of that.

I am also a proponent of Zimmerman and the stand your ground laws. I was simply pointing out to the gentleman above me that it's a fairly common occurrence that the stand your ground or self-defense laws are invoked.

[–]vampslayer53 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Go ask /r/blackladies they have race hatred galore over there.

[–]LiemptMonarchist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Silly rabbit, it's not racism if it's against whites! After all, we're the big mean oppressors. How could we possibly be the victims of anything? ;)

[–]kelustu -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The issue, originally (at least from my perspective) is that the outrage over the case was really just the representation of the ridiculous law. We all know that there are serious flaws in our system that disenfranchise black people. Whether that's societal, legal or some mix of the two, it's there. This was a new issue that's significantly easier to change. It's hard to change a society, it's easy to change a law.

[–]kks1236Natural Rights Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

No one is saying it isn't significant rather than why the Trayvon trial was, but those other cases conveniently aren't.

[–]ScotchforBreakfast 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

millions of species are going extinct per day

You know that's complete bullshit. Right?

[–]jdeezy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

no, i dont. the number might be off, but I know it's the largest effect on species at least since the last ice age.

[–]ScotchforBreakfast 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The red list is basically never updated.