The editor in question should be fucking pilloried. No way is that an innocent omission.
So you automatically assume that the editor in question purposefully omitted that information, and can’t imagine any wacky hypothetical situation in which they might not be at fault?
Fascinating.
(fwiw, I agree that most likely was not an innocent omission. I also think that it’s funny where and when people are inclined to see “obvious” skullduggery.)
It certainly appears to be a very bad job of editing, but its important to keep an open mind. Only a complete and total asshole of an idiot would come to any firm conclusions based on the flimsy evidence offered. Goddamit! I demand a calm and reasonable examination of the motherfucking facts. Only an objective and unemotional examination of the facts can deliver a sensible conclusion, you goddam fucking morons!
Because…
And because context matters…
Please, people! Can’t we wait until all the facts are in before rushing to judgment?
“The editor in question…is…innocent…”
—aldiboronti
That is so typical of you, Vinny, injecting humor and sarcasm in such a serious discussion. I abhor such crude jests, and would never stoop so low. Shame, sir! Shame!
Ha! Nicely.
Well done
I’m trying hard to imagine an an editor who didn’t have the nous to see the impact of that omission. And come on, if this had been Fox and an omission that reflected ill on Trayvon, are you seriously telling me you would not have seen intent there?
It’s probably justifiable given the fact that Bill O’Reilly beat the editor to within an inch of his life. Besides, if justice takes a back seat to media, we are all losers. We should wait until all the evidence is in, after all. We can’t really speculate until there’s been a Constitutional Amendment and a dissenting SCOTUS opinion. Anything else and we’d be jumping to biased conclusions (liberals only use emotions, see, they have no need for facts or logic). Besides, did anyone notice that they were using sympathetic lighting for O’Reilly to induce us to feel sorry for him? Here’s a more recent picture of him. Anyway, I’ll wait until the grand jury is assembled and Christ returns to Earth to judge us all before returning to laugh at you guys for making such biased conclusions, like in the faked memos case.
Well, gee, Aldi, first one was spot on, a near-perfect impression of a tighty-righty “point”. But repeating it, well, kinda drags it down, ya know?
Also, needs more cornbell.
Yeah. Some people are just awful. Can’t be helped, I guess.
God dammit people, my torch is burning low, my pitchfork is getting rusty, and this rope ain’t going to hang itself. What the fuck are we wasting time flapping our gums over this? We know we are right, let justice be served!!!
Damned straight!
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
This is for Stoid. I wish you were just being disingenuous regarding your interpretation of the law. All cases ultimately apply a rule of law to the facts of the case. It is not just the facts in Gibbs that gives rise to the rule that “provocation” as used in that statute means force or threat of force. Due to the racial insults in that case, there was a concern those could be construed as provocation. As a matter of law, they can’t be so there was a request for clarification.
The way you are reading it, you seem to think that is a rule only for this case. It’s not. Provocation is, to some extent, dependent on each situation, but it still must include force or a threat of force. There are very few cases in Florida even debating the issue–nearly all reported cases involving the statute are fussing over the “forcible felony” provision. Your reading of the term “provoke”, without clarification that it must include force or threat of force, would lead to multiple appeals since it would be the easiest standard to charge someone with. But it’s not.
I realize you probably don’t have access to the Outlaw v. State case cited in Gibbs, but I’ll just quote a headnote: “The mere fact that defendant, prosecuted for assault with intent to commit second degree murder, was riding in a car alone with the wife of another will not make him the aggressor in bringing on a difficulty with her husband, unless there was some act or attempted act of violence toward such husband or his wife.” Keep in mind it’s a 1921 case and riding with someone else’s wife might have been a bit more scandalous.
I am done trying to reason with you. I should have learned how this works from the thread[s] dealing with your appeal.
The “brown note,” if I’m not mistaken.
I take it, then, that you and I are both seething with rage and fury, and hence, blind to reason?
Great minds think alike. Twisted minds as well, it would seem.