Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12351  
Old 01-10-2018, 07:47 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yes, but your opinion doesn't align with reality or reason. Try again, without the chains of unsupported inferences.
...thanks for admitting you lied.

Quote:
Your entire argument lies on the claim that, because Martin used violence on Zimmerman, he must have had a good reason. Despite there being no evidence of a good reason.
Strawman.

Quote:
It's possible you started this without understanding what you were doing, and genuinely thought your reasoning was sound. But there's no way you can still believe that now, you've been shown repeatedly, by more than one person, what your mistakes are. So either you are the liar, or you are incapable of reason.
You've proven jack shit. Still no cites from you.

I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.

Prove that "I'm the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses."

Prove that "I'm the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because "they deserve it" based on their previous actions."

Prove that "Martin had no reason to fear a man with a gun that was stalking him at night."

Put up or shut up.
  #12352  
Old 01-10-2018, 11:56 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Simple. Jordan Davis was black, and Steophan doesn't believe black people are human. Ergo, no lack of humanity in his hateful and racist comments toward Jordan Davis.
His race is irrelevant, and if thus us going to be another idiotic attempt to claim "thug" is a racist word, then stop now. The only people that could possibly be racist against is Indians (Asian, not American), and that usage is archaic now.

The problem is, as I see it, I don't give a shit about race. I don't immediately assume any act someone makes I say racially motivated, I look at what actually happened. If you think my opinion of the Davis case would be any different had he been some white trash scumbag blasting Florid a Georgia Line st deafening volume and threatening a black guy who asked him to turn it down, you're sadly mistaken. But for some reason, cases where black people act in self defence aren't controversial here.

My guess for the reason for that is it's liberal guilt causing an overreaction, assuming that in any conflict the black guy gets the benefit of the doubt, rather than being a neutral observer.
  #12353  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:02 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...thanks for admitting you lied.
Fuck me, you really can't read for comprehension can you? You have stated an opinion, I've never denied that. What you still fail to do is present an opinion backed up with evidence, not speculation.

Show your reasoning from the evidence, not from chains of inferences, that Martin had reason to fear imminent attack from Zimmerman. Not "well he must have had some reason". Not "he shouldn't have been following him". Not "you can't prove he didn't threaten him", or any of your other false or irrelevant claims. Show why, based solely on the evidence and reason, why Martin should have feared imminent attack.
  #12354  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:10 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I see the endless characterizations of Martin "doubling back" and I think to myself: why was Martin not allowed to change his mind about where he went?
Two reasons it's relevant. Firstly, it's hypocritical in the extreme to say that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and not followed Martin, but not that Martin should have gone into his father's house (which he said on the phone he was right next to) instead of following Zimmerman.

Secondly, it proves that Zimmerman was not close enough to Martin to be an imminent threat, that Martin had "escaped" him, but chose instead to go back to him. It's evidence that, at least up to that point, Martin was scared for his life, and that Zimmerman wasn't in position to harm him.

For it not to be true, both Zimmerman and either Martin or Jeantel would have to be lying. So I consider it to be most likely true.
  #12355  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:41 AM
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 12,700
People, please stop feeding this piece of troll shit. Click the number next to the thread title: he has the lion's share of the posts in this thread. Mostly loathesome garbage. Just scroll past him, he is not worth the aggravation.
  #12356  
Old 01-11-2018, 01:14 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The first police officer arrived on the scene about 45 seconds after the gunshot that killed Martin was recorded on the 911 line. (Cite.) So, in forty-five seconds, Zimmerman
  • banged Martin's knuckles on the ground
  • hit himself in the face hard enough to break his nose and cause multiple contusions
  • banged his own head on the ground hard enough to cause multiple lacerations
  • put grass stains and moisture on the back of his own jacket
  • put grass stains and moisture on Martin's knees, and
  • convinced an eye witness to report that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and not vice versa.
If you believe that this is what happened, it does not seem to me that Steophan is the idiot.

Regards,
Shodan
Because there's no other explanation where there might have been a tussle instigated by the armed man following an unarmed teen around at night. Thanks for dropping another Shodan turd.
  #12357  
Old 01-11-2018, 01:30 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Because there's no other explanation where there might have been a tussle instigated by the armed man following an unarmed teen around at night. Thanks for dropping another Shodan turd.
There's are many potential explanations, but unless they're supported by the evidence they're just meaningless, idle speculation. There's no evidence Zimmerman started any physical confrontation. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's also possible that an unknown third party injured Zimmerman and shot Martin, or that Martin shot himself, and there's equally as much evidence for those possibilities.

Also, by this point Martin was following Zimmerman, not the other way round as you claim.
  #12358  
Old 01-11-2018, 01:58 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Fuck me, you really can't read for comprehension can you? You have stated an opinion, I've never denied that. What you still fail to do is present an opinion backed up with evidence, not speculation.

Show your reasoning from the evidence, not from chains of inferences, that Martin had reason to fear imminent attack from Zimmerman. Not "well he must have had some reason". Not "he shouldn't have been following him". Not "you can't prove he didn't threaten him", or any of your other false or irrelevant claims. Show why, based solely on the evidence and reason, why Martin should have feared imminent attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Two reasons it's relevant. Firstly, it's hypocritical in the extreme to say that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and not followed Martin, but not that Martin should have gone into his father's house (which he said on the phone he was right next to) instead of following Zimmerman.

Secondly, it proves that Zimmerman was not close enough to Martin to be an imminent threat, that Martin had "escaped" him, but chose instead to go back to him. It's evidence that, at least up to that point, Martin was scared for his life, and that Zimmerman wasn't in position to harm him.

For it not to be true, both Zimmerman and either Martin or Jeantel would have to be lying. So I consider it to be most likely true.
...Prove that "I'm the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses."

Prove that "I'm the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because "they deserve it" based on their previous actions."

Prove that "Martin had no reason to fear a man with a gun that was stalking him at night."
  #12359  
Old 01-11-2018, 02:03 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Prove that "I'm the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses."

Prove that "I'm the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because "they deserve it" based on their previous actions."

Prove that "Martin had no reason to fear a man with a gun that was stalking him at night."
The third is proved by the fact that there was no man with a gun stalking him. The first two are proved because you have repeatedly blamed the victim of a serious assault for defending himself, and said that he us a murderer. You don't accept that victims of crime should be believed, you think they should be locked up.

Your turn.
  #12360  
Old 01-11-2018, 03:56 AM
SaneBill SaneBill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
For you to call Zimmerman a murderer, you would need to know, not merely speculate without evidence that Zimmerman caused those injuries, not Martin.
I don't think I've ever called him a murderer or said that the verdict was wrong. All I've said is that I don't know what happened.
It seems that I shouldn't be participating this exactly for that said reason. But before you congratulate yourself, let me tell you it was Shodan who convinced me to get off the way.
But I still don't know for sure what happened there. You however seemed to be dead sure which is why I've been challenging you.

And nothing changes the fact that you have been lying, moving goalposts, and redefined meanings for words "imminent", "reasonable", "proof", "evidence", "dangerous" etc. into what ever you felt suitable for the time.

Now I stop feeding the troll. Don't bother to reply, it's no use.
  #12361  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:13 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
His race is irrelevant, and if thus us going to be another idiotic attempt to claim "thug" is a racist word, then stop now. The only people that could possibly be racist against is Indians (Asian, not American), and that usage is archaic now.

The problem is, as I see it, I don't give a shit about race. I don't immediately assume any act someone makes I say racially motivated, I look at what actually happened. If you think my opinion of the Davis case would be any different had he been some white trash scumbag blasting Florid a Georgia Line st deafening volume and threatening a black guy who asked him to turn it down, you're sadly mistaken. But for some reason, cases where black people act in self defence aren't controversial here.

My guess for the reason for that is it's liberal guilt causing an overreaction, assuming that in any conflict the black guy gets the benefit of the doubt, rather than being a neutral observer.
Davis didn't threaten anyone, liar. What kind of scumbag believes a proven liar who shoots wildly at kids over multiple other witnesses, including the liar's girlfriend?
  #12362  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:16 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
For you to call Zimmerman a murderer, you would need to know, not merely speculate without evidence that Zimmerman caused those injuries, not Martin.
For you to call Davis a thug and dangerous you would need to know for a fact that Davis threatened Dunn, contrary to all of the evidence aside from the word of a liar.
  #12363  
Old 01-11-2018, 01:58 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, I've repeatedly and consistently said that a cop using force to do their job is not an attack or a threat
You can say the sky is lemon yellow, or that you really are a very stable genius, but you saying it doesn't actually make either of those statements true. Anyways, your broken record is getting incredibly boring, so it's time to block your pathetic ass and move on. I'm almost certain that everyone in this thread knows what a hypocritical sack of shit you are by now, but just in case they haven't, I'll let your own words speak for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
My views are fundamentally humane, in that they value humanity and human life
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yeah, I'm quite happy when sterling moral lawful gun owners get to shoot people that threaten them and get away with it.
  #12364  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:01 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Canuck View Post
You can say the sky is lemon yellow, or that you really are a very stable genius, but you saying it doesn't actually make either of those statements true. Anyways, your broken record is getting incredibly boring, so it's time to block your pathetic ass and move on. I'm almost certain that everyone in this thread knows what a hypocritical sack of shit you are by now, but just in case they haven't, I'll let your own words speak for you.
Yes. This. I agree. It's time to GTFO.
  #12365  
Old 01-12-2018, 02:11 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The problem is, as I see it, I don't give a shit about race.
Yeah, it's just a coincidence that when an innocent black kid is gunned down you rush right in with the racist comments. And you care so much about self-defense, but when its two black men defending themselves you say they should have been charged. And when a white man gets convicted for murdering a innocent black kid you say it was a miscarriage of justice.

When a white kid gets murdered you don't jump in with racist comments about the victim. When white people defend themselves you don't say they should have been charged. When a black man gets convicted of murder you don't say the case should have been thrown out.

Just own it--you're a racist.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #12366  
Old 01-12-2018, 04:29 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
... The totality of the evidence makes it reasonable to think Zimmerman was defending himself. Therefore, not guilty. Therefore, he maintains his presumed innocence.

As to what I actually believe, I think it's absurd to think it's likely Zimmerman caused those injuries himself....
You're correct that Zimmerman was almost certainly injured by Martin. And that, therefore, the claim that Zimmerman's actual killing of Martin was in self-defense was valid. The jury may have been correct to acquit based on the evidence they heard and the charges that were presented.

But in the bigger picture you are quite wrong. I thought of writing a long essay to explain this to you, but doubt you'd read it with an open mind, or even try to understand it. Instead, let me present you with a thought experiment.

Suppose a craven thug — call him Georgie Z — hates niggers and wants to kill as many as he can without ever going to prison. He finds unarmed black boys walking alone, taunts them until they react with fisticuffs, and then pulls out his concealed weapon and fires "in self-defense." Jury acquits, if he's charged at all. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Are Georgie Z's actions legal? Are his actions moral?

Answer these questions; then we can move further along.
  #12367  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:15 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Suppose a craven thug — call him Georgie Z — hates niggers and wants to kill as many as he can without ever going to prison. He finds unarmed black boys walking alone, taunts them until they react with fisticuffs, and then pulls out his concealed weapon and fires "in self-defense." Jury acquits, if he's charged at all. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Are Georgie Z's actions legal? Are his actions moral?

Answer these questions; then we can move further along.
Two things. Firstly, that's a complete mischaracterisation of Zimmerman based on his previous history, which involved anti-racist acticism. Secondly, taunting does not justify violence, ever, so if that happened then the person who started the violence would be the sole person responsible for the violence, and any injuries or deaths that result.

That's not to say that taunting someone is moral behaviour, and it may even extend to illegal harrassment. However, there's no evidence that Zimmerman's behaviour approached that level.

So yes, it is theoretically possible that someone could repeatedly, legally, provoke people and then shoot them. However, anyone can choose to avoid being killed like that by not responding to taunts, so I don't believe there is good reason to restrict the right to self defence based on this possibility.
  #12368  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:22 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Yeah, it's just a coincidence that when an innocent black kid is gunned down you rush right in with the racist comments. And you care so much about self-defense, but when its two black men defending themselves you say they should have been charged. And when a white man gets convicted for murdering a innocent black kid you say it was a miscarriage of justice.

When a white kid gets murdered you don't jump in with racist comments about the victim. When white people defend themselves you don't say they should have been charged. When a black man gets convicted of murder you don't say the case should have been thrown out.

Just own it--you're a racist.
We've not been talking about any cases where black people have defended themselves, so I've obviously not stated an opinion on any specific cases. However, self defence and stand your ground legal defences are disproportionately used by black people - usually in cases of black on black violence, as that is so disproportionately high - and I'm fully in favour of that. For whatever reason, those cases are rarely considered controversial, so don't get discussed.

Same with cases where black men are wrongfully convicted of murder. On this board at least, there would be no controversy, and little to discuss. I suspect that there's quite a few wrongfully convicted people who, had they been able to afford the quality of lawyers Zimmerman had, would be free. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman should be convicted to make things fairer...
  #12369  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:25 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
For you to call Davis a thug and dangerous you would need to know for a fact that Davis threatened Dunn, contrary to all of the evidence aside from the word of a liar.
No, I wouldn't. His behaviour even as described by his friends was sufficiently antisocial.
  #12370  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:36 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, I wouldn't. His behaviour even as described by his friends was sufficiently antisocial.
So "antisocial" = threat? How about a cite for the statements of his friends, as well?

And an antisocial youth is enough for you to call him a "thug" as well as to be fine with his death? And you call other people inhumane? What the hell is wrong with you on a human level? A kid died, for at worst playing loud music, and you are fine that he's dead and slander him in death. Why would you say such terrible things about a dead kid? That's someone's brother; someone's son.

Disgusting. Hopefully you're not as disgusting a person in real life as you are on this board. But on this board, you're a disgusting liar, and a cruel and callous person. Shame!
  #12371  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:50 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
A kid died, for at worst playing loud music, and you are fine that he's dead and slander him in death.
I don't think you know what "at worst" means... That's not all he did even based on the testimony of his friends, and their testimony is the at best, not the at worst things he did.

The lengths people here are going to to defend violent, antisocial scumbags who make people's lives a misery, just because they are black, is absurd. I've never seen the sort of defence for frat boys who do the same sort of thing from you.
  #12372  
Old 01-12-2018, 02:43 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I don't think you know what "at worst" means... That's not all he did even based on the testimony of his friends, and their testimony is the at best, not the at worst things he did.

The lengths people here are going to to defend violent, antisocial scumbags who make people's lives a misery, just because they are black, is absurd. I've never seen the sort of defence for frat boys who do the same sort of thing from you.
The lengths you're going to to defend slandering a dead black kid are revolting. The lies you're telling (that he was "dangerous", that he threatened anyone, that he was "violent") about a dead black kid are revolting. Davis didn't threaten anyone with a gun. Davis didn't do anything violent. At worst he turned the music up and yelled at a crazy asshole who ended up killing him (who then lied about it multiple times) and shot wildly into a car full of kids.

Why is being right so important to you that you're willing to go to the mat just about saying terrible (and false) things about a dead black kid? Doesn't his family deserve at least the minimum compassion that would include not lying about their dead son?
  #12373  
Old 01-12-2018, 05:43 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
I've no interest in lying about anyone, I get nothing from that apart from anything else. His race is irrelevant too, I've no interest in that either, and it seems the only people who do are the supposed liberals. As for his family, I'm not aware that they're reading this. If they were, I'd probably avoid the topic. I'm not going to change my views based on what might hypothetically hurt someone if they knew them, though. Right or wrong, true or false, don't depend on that.

At least you've upped your standard for "at worst" somewhat. That's a start, maybe you are capable of listening.
  #12374  
Old 01-12-2018, 07:01 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I've no interest in lying about anyone, I get nothing from that apart from anything else. His race is irrelevant too, I've no interest in that either, and it seems the only people who do are the supposed liberals. As for his family, I'm not aware that they're reading this. If they were, I'd probably avoid the topic. I'm not going to change my views based on what might hypothetically hurt someone if they knew them, though. Right or wrong, true or false, don't depend on that.

At least you've upped your standard for "at worst" somewhat. That's a start, maybe you are capable of listening.
Says the liar who lied about Jordan Davis, a dead black child, repeatedly, and for no discernible reason. You called him a thug, dangerous, and violent, when the evidence overwhelmingly showed that he didn't threaten anyone and didn't act violently in any way at all. You're a liar and a slanderer of dead children.

Disgusting.
  #12375  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:36 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
I really can't decide if you're stupid or just naive, to keep claiming that I'm lying about Davis. The evidence shows he was an antisocial thug, and would do so regardless of the shade of his skin. Your belief that, because he's black, any criticism must be racism, is just as idiotic as saying all black people are scum, or whatever.
  #12376  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:44 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I really can't decide if you're stupid or just naive, to keep claiming that I'm lying about Davis. The evidence shows he was an antisocial thug, and would do so regardless of the shade of his skin. Your belief that, because he's black, any criticism must be racism, is just as idiotic as saying all black people are scum, or whatever.
The evidence does not show that, liar. I'm calling you a liar because you keep saying things that aren't true. And lying to slander a dead child is particularly disgusting.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-12-2018 at 10:46 PM.
  #12377  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:29 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
We've not been talking about any cases where black people have defended themselves, so I've obviously not stated an opinion on any specific cases.
This is, of course, a lie. Your commitment to self-defense vanished like your integrity when you were faced with a video of black men defending themselves.

And, of course, when an innocent black kid was brutally murdered you were Johnny on the spot with the racist attacks.

And, of course, when a white man was fairly convicted by our legal system of the brutal murder of a black kid, your commitment to the integrity of the legal system vanished like your commitment to telling the truth.

You're a racist. Own it.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #12378  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:33 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,251
Not that there's anything not totally wrong with that. I mean, it takes all kinds, but some we could get along without.
  #12379  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:42 AM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
This is, of course, a lie. Your commitment to self-defense vanished like your integrity when you were faced with a video of black men defending themselves.

And, of course, when an innocent black kid was brutally murdered you were Johnny on the spot with the racist attacks.

And, of course, when a white man was fairly convicted by our legal system of the brutal murder of a black kid, your commitment to the integrity of the legal system vanished like your commitment to telling the truth.

You're a racist. Own it.
A racist and a rabid fan of the "police state".
  #12380  
Old 01-13-2018, 01:13 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I really can't decide if you're stupid or just naive, to keep claiming that I'm lying about Davis. The evidence shows he was an antisocial thug, and would do so regardless of the shade of his skin. Your belief that, because he's black, any criticism must be racism, is just as idiotic as saying all black people are scum, or whatever.
Just because he was an "antisocial thug" doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered. If that became the qualification for killing people the US would have a decrease in the millions. There are other avenues for dealing with "thugs" like prison, fines, civil suits, and other loses to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lose of life should not be one of them.
  #12381  
Old 01-13-2018, 01:43 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Just because he was an "antisocial thug" doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered. If that became the qualification for killing people the US would have a decrease in the millions. There are other avenues for dealing with "thugs" like prison, fines, civil suits, and other loses to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lose of life should not be one of them.
He also wasn't an "antisocial thug". It's bullshit lies based on nothing more than the words of a liar, so Steophan can pretend that it was reasonable for him to slander a dead kid.
  #12382  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:21 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
This is, of course, a lie. Your commitment to self-defense vanished like your integrity when you were faced with a video of black men defending themselves.
What video is that?
  #12383  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:24 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He also wasn't an "antisocial thug". It's bullshit lies based on nothing more than the words of a liar, so Steophan can pretend that it was reasonable for him to slander a dead kid.
No, it's based on the words of his friends, and his proven actions. If you don't believe that this kid was a thug, and took pride in being a thug, you are ridiculously naive.

It has nothing to do with race, either. The vast majority of "proud to be a thug" types I've met are white, and usually middle-aged. You know, actual lying racists.
  #12384  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:26 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
A racist and a rabid fan of the "police state".
A fan of a policed state, rather than the effective anarchy that a lot of people here, admittedly indirectly, endorse.
  #12385  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:35 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
A fan of a policed state, rather than the effective anarchy that a lot of people here, admittedly indirectly, endorse.
You live in a country with far fewer police killings, strict gun laws, and no stand your ground laws.

Do you live in an effective anarchy?
  #12386  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:38 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, it's based on the words of his friends, and his proven actions. If you don't believe that this kid was a thug, and took pride in being a thug, you are ridiculously naive.

It has nothing to do with race, either. The vast majority of "proud to be a thug" types I've met are white, and usually middle-aged. You know, actual lying racists.
His friends didn't say anything of the sort, liar. Why do you keep lying just to cast aspersions on a dead kid? Why is that so important to you?
  #12387  
Old 01-13-2018, 04:22 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You live in a country with far fewer police killings, strict gun laws, and no stand your ground laws.

Do you live in an effective anarchy?
No, I live in a state with an effective police force. Just, unfortunately, also a state that also locks people up occasionally for defending themselves.
  #12388  
Old 01-13-2018, 04:30 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
His friends didn't say anything of the sort, liar.
Yes they did. Perhaps you need to go look at what was actually said again. We know the "dead kid", as you characterise him, was antisocial and aggressive, the only disagreement is whether that amounted to an imminent threat. He was not some uninvolved bystander, he was the one who turned the music back up to a level that was moving nearby cars - a volume that could cause damage to the hearing of those in them - and at minimum shouted aggressively at Dunn.

You take that "at minimum" as proof that Dunn was not threatened, for some reason.

Quote:
Why do you keep lying just to cast aspersions on a dead kid?
I don't. I am not lying, and my "casting aspertions on a dead kid" is basically irrelevant. He's dead, an accusation of any sort can't harm him, or affect him in any way. What it can do is help someone who claims to be a victim of him, and that's acually an imprtant thing.

Quote:
Why is that so important to you?
Because someone who claims to be a victim of him is in prison for murder. I don't like seeing people falsely jailed for murder, and I would hope that something like the Innocence Project - which has done great work helping mostly black victims of injustice - could do the same here.

It wouldn't get Dunn out of jail any time soon, as he's rightly been convicted of attempted murder. But it would set the record straight, and potentially affect his future as paroled attempted murderers are probably treated very differently from paroled murderers.
  #12389  
Old 01-13-2018, 04:53 PM
Wolf333 Wolf333 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 841
Don't you guys get it? He shouted aggressively from inside car! How much more thug can you get! Why, any rational person can see that the only response to being aggressively shouted at is to fire indiscriminately into the vehicle!
  #12390  
Old 01-13-2018, 04:53 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, I live in a state with an effective police force. Just, unfortunately, also a state that also locks people up occasionally for defending themselves.
Well, we live in a country with an effective police force too.

They make mistakes, both on the individual officer level and also on the department level. That's not a problem. The problem is that they refuse to admit their mistakes and seek to prevent repeating them.

That is all this thread is about, pointing out the mistakes made by the police, and holding them to account to address them and prevent their recurrence.

That you call such things calling for anarchy and all the other stupid shit you blather on about leaves only one question to anyone who reads your words, just how stupid of a lying troll are you?
  #12391  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:02 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yes they did. Perhaps you need to go look at what was actually said again.
I've looked, multiple times, liar. You're just being dishonest here. His friends didn't call him antisocial, or aggressive, or dangerous, and they all specifically said that he didn't threaten Dunn in any way (contrary to your lies), and didn't try and leave the car. They said he was in an angry conversation with Dunn, and that's it. No threats, no violence of any kind, no dangerous actions (except from Dunn).

Just continuous lies from you, to slander a dead kid, and defend (for some reason) a proven liar and convicted murderer. The jury got it right; lying fools like you and Dunn are wrong.
  #12392  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:19 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I've looked, multiple times, liar. You're just being dishonest here. His friends didn't call him antisocial, or aggressive, or dangerous, and they all specifically said that he didn't threaten Dunn in any way (contrary to your lies), and didn't try and leave the car. They said he was in an angry conversation with Dunn, and that's it. No threats, no violence of any kind, no dangerous actions (except from Dunn).
You really need to learn to read, and understand what you read. I've never claimed he tried to leave the car, I've claimed - backed up by statements from both "sides" that he was involved in antisocial behaviour. Behaviour which you gave repeatedly described, including in this post, and somehow still claim I'm lying about.

The sole reasonable point of disagreement is whether the angry conversation escalated to threatening. There's no reasonable doubt that Davis decided to turn the music back up to dangerous levels after his friends complied with the reasonable request to turn it down, and was angry and abusive to Dunn. Davis was observably an antisocial thug,.

Quote:
Just continuous lies from you, to slander a dead kid, and defend (for some reason) a proven liar and convicted murderer. The jury got it right; lying fools like you and Dunn are wrong.
You can't slander a dead person, you fucking idiot, they gave no reputation to harm. I will, however, defend someone who remains alive, and claims to be the victim of a crime, against people who just ignore that claim, and consider them a liar without goid reason. You, and others here, assume that anyone who claims self defence is necessarily an unreliable witness and a liar, which is abhorrent.

I assume you think the jury got it right in all the cases where black people have been released after years in prison after it was found that there was a miscarriage of justice? Or, for that matter, in all the cases where people have been found not guilty due to self defence, and you've claimed they are wrong? Or is it just this case, which happens to align with your prejudices, where you agree with the jury?

I'd like to see all people who g a deal been wrongfully convicted, whether because of an incompetent defence or because people don't believe in the right to self defence, freed. I'd like to see anyone who claims to have acted in self defence treated as a victim, not a suspect. Basically, I'd rather people get away with murder than people be falsely convicted, because I actually believe people have rights, and because I believe in justice, not vengeance.
  #12393  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:26 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
Don't you guys get it? He shouted aggressively from inside car! How much more thug can you get! Why, any rational person can see that the only response to being aggressively shouted at is to fire indiscriminately into the vehicle!
Depends how aggressive. If the shouting involves "I've got a gun and am about to shoot you" its a rational response, although discriminately shooting would be far preferred.

Regardless, aggressively shouting at someone who asks you to turn your dangerously loud music down is antisocial thuggish behaviour. Not bad enough to deserve death, or even any sort of violent response, by itself, but it's enough to make the claim of further threats credible.
  #12394  
Old 01-13-2018, 07:02 PM
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 12,700
“dangerously loud”?
  #12395  
Old 01-13-2018, 08:45 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
“dangerously loud”?
Excessively loud music can damage hearing, yes. I'm obviously not claiming that the music on its own is enough to justify any sort of self defence, but deliberately playing it in public, after being asked not to, is antisocial behaviour.
  #12396  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:24 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Excessively loud music can damage hearing, yes. I'm obviously not claiming that the music on its own is enough to justify any sort of self defence, but deliberately playing it in public, after being asked not to, is antisocial behaviour.
End the debate and produce a cite that brands him an "antisocial thug".
  #12397  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:45 PM
Wolf333 Wolf333 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Excessively loud music can damage hearing, yes. I'm obviously not claiming that the music on its own is enough to justify any sort of self defence, but deliberately playing it in public, after being asked not to, is antisocial behaviour.
And still not a good reason to kill someone.

Oh, and in case you missed it...

Dunn's fiance contradicted his testimony, as did the coroner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/u...-teenager.html
  #12398  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:07 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You really need to learn to read, and understand what you read. I've never claimed he tried to leave the car, I've claimed - backed up by statements from both "sides" that he was involved in antisocial behaviour. Behaviour which you gave repeatedly described, including in this post, and somehow still claim I'm lying about.
What antisocial behavior, liar? Arguing? Arguing isn't "antisocial behavior". Arguing is normal human interaction, you lying scumbag.

Quote:
The sole reasonable point of disagreement is whether the angry conversation escalated to threatening. There's no reasonable doubt that Davis decided to turn the music back up to dangerous levels after his friends complied with the reasonable request to turn it down, and was angry and abusive to Dunn. Davis was observably an antisocial thug,.
Bullshit on "dangerous levels", liar. That's just bullshit nonsense, and does not reasonably lead to violent behavior on Dunn's behalf unless you're inclined (as you apparently are) to automatically believe people who kill black people.

Quote:
You can't slander a dead person, you fucking idiot, they gave no reputation to harm. I will, however, defend someone who remains alive, and claims to be the victim of a crime, against people who just ignore that claim, and consider them a liar without goid reason. You, and others here, assume that anyone who claims self defence is necessarily an unreliable witness and a liar, which is abhorrent.
Dunn's own girlfriend (as well as all the other witnesses as well as physical evidence) contradicted his own testimony, liar. He also shot repeatedly at a car that was driving away -- and you fucking trust his word after that? What the fuck is wrong with you for trusting someone who shoots at kids driving away?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-13-2018 at 10:08 PM.
  #12399  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:27 PM
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What antisocial behavior, liar? Arguing? Arguing isn't "antisocial behavior". Arguing is normal human interaction, you lying scumbag.
The troll is arguing that not turning down loud music when asked by a stranger is antisocial, while asking someone to turn down their music is somehow not antisocial. It is not clear to me exactly what constituted “asked” in this case, but I get the impression that “please” was not part of the conversation.
  #12400  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:59 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
The troll is arguing that not turning down loud music when asked by a stranger is antisocial, while asking someone to turn down their music is somehow not antisocial.
Well, yes, obviously. No one who even slightly gives a shit about other people would disagree.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017