People aren’t mocking you; they’re trying to understand your bizarre behavior. If your behavior was due to your mental illness, I think you’d find people would be a lot more compassionate toward you (though to be honest this depends on what your mental illness is–don’t expect much compassion if it’s sociopathy).
Here’s a list of your behaviors (this is not me being mean, this is an honest assessment of your behavior):
[ul]
[li]You lie. A lot. A LOT. About stuff that it’s obvious you’re lying about.[/li][li]You seem incapable of learning things. For example: Did you know Dunn was convicted of the first degree murder of Davis? You should! You talk about the case ALL THE TIME. But you don’t! That’s weird.[/li][li]You seem incapable of empathy. A normally functioning human should be able to understand to some extent the feelings of a young black kid being stalked late at night in an unfamiliar neighborhood by a large man with a gun. You can’t. This is something a person with normal cognitive abilities should be able to do, regardless of whether they agreed with the outcome or not.[/li][li]You de-humanize the “other.” You use language like “thug” to de-humanize those you don’t feel are worth of life. Innocent people are “anti-social” or “thugs”, never “people” or “kids”.[/li][/ul]
I can think of three explanations for the above, and the proper way to treat you depends on which is correct. For example; maybe you’re incapable of remembering that Dunn murdered Davis because you’re stupid–In that case I would treat you with compassion. Or maybe you’re can’t demonstrate empathy because you’re a sociopath–in that case I would disengage from further conversations with you. Or maybe you use “thug” language because you’re a racist troll–in that case I would continue to make fun of you.
Of course I’m aware of that, I wouldn’t have said that either the law or the jury were wrong otherwise.
And I’ve only talked about the case recently because iiandyiiii repeatedly brings it up, claims I said things I didn’t (then posts quotes that show what I actually said, amusingly), and proceeds to spread misinformation about the case.
Speaking of spreading misinformation… That’s an extremely poor descyof what happened to Trayvon Martin, to put it mildly. There was no stalking, no gun on display, it wasn’t late at night by normal standards, and so on. I suspect I understand his feelings, though. He was angry at being followed, questioned, and possibly profiled, to the point that, even when he was no longer being followed, he went back to find Zimmerman and attacked him. Now, I have no proof that it happened like that, and I’m not going to say for a fact that it did, but that’s what I suspect happened. But because empathy, because suspicions based on emotion, are at best irrelevant and at worst dangerously misleading when trying to discover facts, I’ve mostly avoided talking about it.
It would certainly have been reasonable for Martin to feel that way, but anger doesn’t justify violence.
“Worth” has nothing to do with it. None of them deserved to die, but that’s irrelevant as their deaths weren’t given out as punishment.
As for names like “thug” being dehumanizing, quite the opposite. Only humans are capable of such intentionally harmful behaviour. Right and wrong, morality in general, only applies to human acts. And some humans are at least partly immoral, bad people, and more than a few are just plain evil. The purpose of society is to allow humanity to flourish despite those destructive tendencies, and that requires some form of defence against the antisocial. When it’s accidental or minor, such as excessive noise, telling someone to cut it out should be all that’s necessary. When it’s someone unfamiliar in a private place, asking them why they’re there is perfectly acceptable. Anyone saying Dunn was wrong to tell them to turn the music down, or Zimmerman wrong to ask Martin why he was there, fundamentally misunderstands society.
Why are you so unable to have empathy with Zimmerman, who suffered a violent, unprovoked attack? Why are you unable to remember that he’s not a murderer? And why do you continue to insist “thug” is a racist word, when it’s not in the context I’m using it, and could only possibly be against certain groups of Indians?
Or, to put it another way, why assume I’m saying anything other than the plain meaning of my words? I’m not the one trying to redefine terms like “murder” or “stalking” to fit Zimmerman, despite those words having actual meaning.
Also, whilst I’m talking about accuracy, “sociopath” isn’t an actual diagnosis, and the closest thing to that informal term, Antisocial Personality Disorder (or Dissocial Personality Disorder, depending on which manual you use) is nota mental illness, it’s a personality disorder.
In all honestly this was a 90% reasonable response. The 10%, though…
Claiming that people have said things they didn’t say IS lying. You do that repeatedly.
Here’s the definition of stalk, which you have been given multiple times by multiple posters:
pursue or approach stealthily.
“a cat stalking a bird”
synonyms:
creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt
You’ve been told this before. You should know it. But you don’t. That’s weird.
That’s a definition, which firstly doesn’t describe what actually happened, based on the evidence, and secondly is deliberately misleading when we’re discussing whether or not a crime was committed, as “stalking” is a crime, and completely different from that definition.
As has been stated multiple times by multiple posters, both in this thread and the original threads about Zimmerman.
Still not sure what’s stupid about “thug” only being racist to Indians. Do you actually know what the word refers to? It has nothing to do with black people.
Okay, this is getting pretty serious, I think. This is what I said you said:
It’s there in the link. You said that someone who is a convicted murderer and shooter of fleeing children qualifies as “the sort of people normal people want around them”.
I only say this in a compassionate and caring matter – it’s not reasonable or rational to believe that convicted murderers and shooters of fleeing children are the type of person one should as their neighbor. It’s also not reasonable or rational to deny saying this when it’s there, clear as day, for everyone to see.
Please just call up a mental health professional. You have nothing to lose by this – there’s no shame in looking for help. I’m not trying to mock, I’m just trying to help.
Of the 1000 people cops kill every year, something like 200 are unarmed at the time of shooting. Several of these deaths occur during the course of an unarmed assault on a police officer (reaching for a police officers un seems to be particularly popular)There are no reliable statistics for non-fatal civilian injuries by cops using deadly force (e.g. shooting) that I could find.
Sure, and there are lots of ways that a SWAT team responding to a fake hostage situation can lead to horrible results despite proper behavior on the part of the SWAT team. The prank caller is certainly civilly liable and IMO criminally liable for depraved heart murder.
No, they don’t have a right to shoot black people with guns. It was an attempt at very dark humor.
The racism evident in how black people wit guns are treated compared to how white people wit guns are treated is pretty stark. Whites can not only carry guns, they can dare the police to do something about it.
If they weren’t unjustified then what’s the complaint? The cops shot when they were justified to shoot.
The words that you wrote in post 11983 says that you do indeed think that having the gun pointed at someone is a condition you would require before a cop could shoot:
In post 11983, you said:
"That’s why the standard should be “I saw a gun and it was pointed in my direction” "
I don’t know how you think this is supposed to respond to the notion that getting home alive is some sort of new paradigm that is the result of “some “guru” who has gone around the country training departments” AFAICT getting their officers home alive has ALWAYS been the number one priority of police departments, I can’t think of many things that ever took precedence over that. Its not a recent phenomenon, police have waned to go home to their families as far back as I can remember. They have been showing dashcam videos of cops getting shot during training since as far back as I can remember.
There is some evidence that there has been increased police killings as a result of a larger more active swat force but the incidence of regular beat cops killing civilians hasn’t really moved that much. In fact it dropped significantly over the decades.
Cops have no more right to use deadly force than anyone else in the same situation; but they have a right to use physical force (the police power) and cops almost never have a duty to retreat like civilians do. Civilians have a duty to avoid conflict, cops do not, and in the process of engaging in all this conflict, cops encounter more potentially deadly situations than civilians. They are frequently dealing with people who don’t just throw up their hands and give up. Sometimes they have to shoot.
If they shoot in a situation where a little old lady would not be justified in shooting, then its a bad shooting. Little old ladies who encounter suspected criminals that reach for their waistband are probably justified in shooting them.
If they reach for their gun while you are trying to apprehend them? Yes.
How often are the officer’s statements directly contradicted by the video in any meaningful way? So far we have one. I’m sure its not the only incidence that has ever occurred but I doubt it is anything close to common enough to undermine the credibility of all cops.
Yes, to avoid the “What if they have it pointed at a bank teller, or 7-11 clerk, or whatever” argument.
Great, so I can go around trying to make citizen’s arrests on people who I think are carrying illegally, and if they reach for their gun, I can shoot them?
I suppose there is an element of Monday morning quarterbacking, but we have all seen videos where: a) non-threatening people often reach for their wallet or move their hands and get shot when they are NOT reaching for a gun; and b) “reaching for his waistband” has been shown to be inaccurate and untrue when there is actual video evidence that contradicts the official police account. I expect professional police to be better trained and have tactics to de-escalate situations to avoid shooting non-threatening people.
The guy in Walmart who was shot carrying a BB gun. He was not pointing it at anyone, and absolutely did not point it at the cop who shot him.
The kid who was shot in a park walking by a gazebo. He made no threatening move at all and was shot.
The apparently crazy guy who was walking down the middle of the street and was shot. He was not cooperating and seemed out of it, but he made no moves to threaten the cops.
In all cases, the official police statements were that the non-cops threatened them in a deadly manner. I could spend time looking up the video cites, but I think most of us have seen the videos.