To the moderator—are you going to warn David42 publicly for calling me a troll?
Are you the moderator? Calling me a troll and expecting not to get warned for it sounds you think you’re a moderator here.
Depends on the context.
Let’s consider the all-white jury. Until fairly recently, it was permissible for a prosecutor (or a defense attorney) to use his peremptory strikes to remove minorities from the jury. It wasn’t until Batson v Kentucky, in 1986, that the Supreme Court decided that a defendant who was tried by an all-white jury because the prosecutor deliberately used his challenges to remove minorities violated the Constitutional guarantees to a fair trial.
So – what would I do in 1960?
If I were sitting in judgement of a prosecutor who was accused of misconduct because he used his challenges to obtain an all-white jury, I would not sanction him.
Because his conduct wasn’t improper at the time. It’s not for me, as a member of the attorney disciplinary committee, to make the law. I have to serve as a judge and decide if certain conduct violated the law. It 1960, it didn’t.
Now let’s change the scenario. In 1960, I’m the Governor of a state whose legislature has passed a law forbidding jury challenges to be used to eliminate on the basis of race.
I sign the law. Because – although I could veto it – my role as governor is to sign into law those laws which I believe to be wise.
Not very willing. But for people who time and again go over and over the same ground, adding nothing new, refusing to take stock of explanations, learn where there mistake is, or point out how someone else is wrong, insult people, and just generally go on and on and on that your sensibilities trump the law, well, no, I’m not too upset if they are made to shut up.
It’s the “free and open exchange of ideas” that I strongly support. It’s not extremism that it’s ok to limit free speech in certain instances, first where it can cause harm, and secondly, where it impairs the free and open echange of ideas, like you are doing.
We all understand your point, you ahte Zimmerman and refuse to give him the protections of the law.
I’ve got no problem saying a reasonable person would have shut up by now, which I encourage you to do, unless you have a new point you’d like to make.
Excuse me, I apologize. Let me retract that statement and say instead you appear to increasingly impair the function of the board with inflammatory statements.
So far as I know, it is perfectly ok here to call a violation fo the rules to the attention of the moderators.
I guess you ARE a mod, since you haven’t been warned for calling me a troll.
I suppose I will leave the thread and not chance the trouble, even though I have an unanswered question posed to Bricker.
Until such time, that is, that you either voluntarily or forcefully stop what you’re doing.
Dude, I see no reason to think he doesn’t mean what he says, nor that mods will do anything; there really are people that dumb, and the SDMB rule is that you can be as dumb as you want as long as the mods think you’re sincere.
To the moderator—are you planning to do anything here, or do you just check the threads once a day?
I’d Pit all you who disagree with me, but you’re not worth the energy.
I am shocked, sickened, and saddened by the groundswell of support for Zimmerman, both here and elsewhere on the internet. Apparently I have been quite naive about the intensity of the undercurrent of hate that runs through this country.
Just because someone isn’t shouting about how much hate they have, doesn’t mean they don’t have it. I honestly had almost no idea. Lesson learned, I suppose.
David42 and al27052: I am instructing both of you to stop bickering about the rules and to stop junior moderating. If you think someone else has broken the rules, use the ‘Report this Post’ function. Don’t accuse other people of breaking the rules, don’t call people liars, don’t accuse them of trolling, and don’t insult them. I hope this is clear enough for both of you. If it happens again, I will warn either or both of you.
I apologized and do so again. I did not intend to do any junior modding; this all got started when I simply pointed out to you that there were other issues as well as the one you had caught. I suppose it is better to not post it in the thread and that’s the course I will take in the future if I think you missed something.
Does a warning on calling someone a troll (which I didn’t actually directly say, but did imply it) extend to a statement such as I said in #205? or is that ok?
It’s not against the rules since it’s a comment on his statements rather than al27052 as a person, but it doesn’t add much to the discussion. And furt, you can’t call another poster dumb in this forum either.
Gotcha. I agree, it’s not the best argument technique.
I will sincerely keep it in mind.
I have no idea. Maybe a friendly doctor? Black eyes might not show up until later, but a broken nose is gonna bleed, and the earliest evidence we have, not some medical report days later, is video of Zimmerman with no blood on his shirt and looking quite hale and healthy.
Martin did not physically harm Zimmerman, and pedestrians being followed by vehicles have a general right to feel threatened.
If you’d watched the video you’d have seen Zimmerman as he stepped out of the car at the police station. No blood, and a fully broken nose bleeds a lot more than you can clean up with tissues.
As for who is the weirdo criminal in this case, its Zimmerman. He was exactly the same kind of psycho who attacked you, except he had a gun. Listen to the 911 recordings. Dude was hyped for the kill, just like the dude you fought was hyped. I am glad he didn’t have a gun like Zimmerman did or you most probably would be no longer with us.
I agree, and I’m a bleeding heart liberal and recent crime victim. So, why should someone like Martin be stalked by a hyped up loser like Zimmerman. Martin was just walking back to his dad’s girlfriend’s house, minding his own business. He didn’t need to be followed. And the 911 dispatcher confirmed this to Zimmerman.
There were no criminals conducting malfeasence until Zimmerman, followed, confronted, and killed.
Those are the facts we know.
Well, that would be just regular self defense law, which was always quite adequate. But the Florida SYG law seems to create a paradox where both Martin (if he had attacked, and there is no reliable evidence he did) and Zimmerman could both have been justified, though I think the 911 tapes show Zimmerman in a bad light. Holmes was hyped.
Uh, where’s your visual evidence? I seem to be the only one posting actual evidence here. I’ve posted video of Zimmerman getting out of a police car all hale and healthy. I’ve posted a link where you can listen to all of Zimmerman’s hyped up 911 calls. Where are your pictures of Zimmerman’s bloody nose? Where are the black eyes? I want evidence. I have posted evidence that there was no beatdown. I have posted evidence that Zimmerman was hyped for action.
And I would totally bet that if I were to follow you in my car as you walked, you’d feel threatened.
Guys, you can have a broken nose without having a bloody nose.
Do people commonly get a bloody nose when their nose is broken? Yes. Can you have a broken nose without any exterior bleeding? Yes. Also, if it isn’t a severe break it might take many hours before it’s apparent that the nose is broken. This shouldn’t be a big surprise to any of us who have been severely bruised. Often times the injury looks much worse after a day or two than it did on the day of the injury.
Also friendly police, pictures, medical reports, etc.
Apart from a broken nose and gashes on his head.
We’ve gone over this. No they don’t, not to the extent of using violence.
Regards,
Shodan