The other side of the Trayvon Martin story...

Post Reply New Topic

You know what? "Mumbo Jumbo" coming from you is like getting fact checked by Stephen Glass, if Stephen Glass were also slightly dyslexic. If what you do write is intelligible, it's larded up with lame attacks ("Dangerous Gun Usage", how long did that one take you to think up?), misconstrued, irrelevant or inaccurate facts, dripping in condescension and conveys nothing useful among the many abstractions. I think you're projecting quite a bit here, as there is someone in this thread who overvalues their own intellect and opinions while simultaneously repeatedly contradicting them self, and it's not me. I don't show up with some google links and some inscrutable references and call it genius, that's your gig. I'm a credentialed expert in my field; as far as I can tell you're a google lawyer who's been suing the state of California over a $20,000 a year job for the last 10 years who now has a lot of time on their hands.

I can't even speak for your reading comprehension as you seem to be confusing the terms "facts" and "ideas" with each other. I'll trust my doctor on the facts about my health, but I won't rule out a good idea because of it's source, even a fortune cookie. Simon_Says seemingly would base his opinion on whether it was an NRA fortune cookie or a CAP fortune cookie, while you seem to go whichever way lets you be the most insulting to whoever has got your dander up at the moment. Consistently inconstant, except for the unpleasant personality and unearned superiority of course.

I did actually look up your claimed disorder you know, Geschwind syndrome. It explains the rambling and some of the personality flaws, especially cirumstantiality and hyper-religiosity/hyper-morality, but the rest is all you. As a rule I don't like to club baby seals, it's unseemly and tiring on the wrists, but if you insist on nipping at my heels all the time I might just indulge you. In plain English: Keep insulting me personally and I will return the favor.

Hi John_Browning,

People distinguished by MMPI scores indicating paranoia and schizophrenia coincidentally are very frequent. You have added the word "conflict" that happens to bias the notion of "encounter". That is often characterized as the practice of "baiting" the subject.

Overall, "paranoid schizophrenics" are less likely than the "average" person to START a violent confrontation, but, the "average" person is MUCH MORE likely to initiate violent actions against an encountered "paranoid schizophrenic" than against an encountered "average" person. Most all individuals with any known mental disorders are assumed by the biased general population as being threatening to other individuals.

The chances of two "paranoid schizophrenics" encountering each other are much greater than a person encountering someone else during a day that has the same birthday (the "Birthday Paradox"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Your views of absurdity tend more to be what's absurd, as are biased views of what is "Law Abiding":



The overall bias of the general population against individuals identifiable on the spectrum of autism tend to leads to a high level of violent actions against the autistic individuals. Even extremely highly trained and professional law enforcement officers have a significant increased tendency to needlessly shoot to death autistic individuals, while trigger happy private citizens can deny the contention of illegal "needless shootings" by claiming "reasonable expectation of threats" that are intensely biased, but supported as "reasonable" by the general population, since the general population shares the intense bias.

Tadzio

So cite your own legal expert, as I already know what your personal legal opinion is good for. Or at least attack mine on an actual point and not *gasp!* his NRA membership.



Do you always trust/believe cops and prosecutors? The point of the law was in fact to protect people from overzealous cops and prosecutors, so hearing that it's thwarting some of them does not in and of itself mean anything.



And? I'm discussing available information; you're projecting your own morality onto the law and bemoaning the disparity. What has nearly every post I've made in this thread said? "Not enough information available to draw a conclusion". I'm not the one shooting from the hip on this.



You don't get to throw someone in jail on that little information, it's just not how the system is supposed to work. Jesus, I feel like all we need here is Nancy Grace and I'll get full fledged deja vu with the trial in the media and *everyone* so sure of someone's guilt.

Ive already discussed it and linked to many articles. Why would I do it again? I honestly don't believe that you'll accept any view that isnt 100% pro-gun. It will just be the word of an "overzealous prosecutor" or some other comment like that . So honestly why would I bother?



Overzealous cops and prosecutors. Is that like saying "NRA". Are you trying to evoke emotion by demonizing cops? Shame on you. They have a different take on these cases and after reading news accounts, so do I. But you'll just say that they are overzealous and the media is lying. So.... there is nothing to say.



I agree that you believe that.



I'm not throwing anyone in jail. But that you don't seem to find this case remotely troubling is interesting. And we are certainly free to discuss the facts as we know them.

Last edited by simon_says on 28 Mar 2012, 4:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Quoted for verification 03/28/2012 02:19 PM PDT

^
Yep, you finally irritated me to the point of drawing return fire. Congratulations, you must be proud.

Tadzio - you're getting too personal and snippy, and I'm inclined to believe it's intentionally provocative.
Knock it off please.

All other diatribe aside, the two videos speak volumes. One of your allies in this thread (maybe you too) fiercely believes that only "highly trained" law enforcement personnel should be trusted to carry a firearm in public but here you have two of those highly trained individuals, a narc and a deputy, having accidental discharges (AD's). One let a round loose in a classroom full of kids and the other nearly capped a suspect, Hmmmmm........

You also clearly indicate that you do not believe in firearms safety training which is clearly the best thing going to prevent accidental firearm related death and injury. That being the case you have no grounds to complain about firearms related accidents since you advocate enabling them....
Nuff said.

Hi Cornflake,

I was just in the process of verifying the source of what of a majority of observers I asked if I had just received another death threat from a person(s) identifying themselves as a member of WrongPlanet and stalking my personal information involving my disabilities, race, religion, etc. retained by WrongPlanet.

Please advise me through the inbox here for me at WrongPlanet of best procedure to follow to maintain my protection under the law and WrongPlanet's policies.

Tadzio

I'm going to ignore the rest because it's just you trying to deflect everything without answering anything... again. I'll extend the offer again: If you find this thread so pointless, the rest of us have it handled just fine.

Anyway, why I quoted that section is that you're putting words in my mouth in another attempt to smear me as some kind of knuckle dragging knee-jerk gun fanatic. Read back through my quotes, one of the first things I said about the case was "it sounds like manslaughter to me", hardly the words of someone who doesn't find an incident troubling. As more information has emerged, like the witness reports and wounds on Zimmerman, my opinion has evolved to better reflect the facts as we know them, unlike yours, which is seemingly static. Why would I defend Zimmerman if gun rights were my only concern? He's clearly been cast as the villain here and if political point scoring was my goal I wouldn't touch him. My better move would have been to throw his ass under the bus as an idiotic outlier who constitutes a rare example of a bad apple with a CCW and move on. What I'm doing is applying my knowledge and experience to the known information and giving an honest opinion, I don't know what it is that you're doing.

Fascinating. Any content? No. Just whining.



Oh, you said something once dozens of pages ago and I'm supposed to track it?

I see no reason to accept Zimmerman's word of what started the fight and neither did the detective. You obviously do. I see a guy with a history of problems and bad choices who has found his way into yet another mess. And I'm perfectly free to state my opinion. If that upsets you, well, that's your problem.

I find it a bit interesting how this is phrased. It seems to imply that the important thing about this case is to be emotionally disturbed by it, and not only that, but to discuss the emotional disturbance in detail.

While I find much of the behavior/alleged behavior involved disturbing on an emotional level, I think the important thing to do about the case is to keep in mind how little we know, so that we don't overreact.

I think it's also fairly important to keep in mind the inherent fallibility of news media organizations. I'm not talking about one group or another's bias (although that could also be a problem), I'm talking about problems of accuracy that are not caused by bias. I've had some detailed first or secondhand knowledge of a couple of events that got national news coverage (at least for a short time). In *every* one of these cases, there has always been at least one big factual error, in which they got something dead wrong. The chance that this did not happen in a case where even news reporters are calling the details sketchy and in which there is strong feeling on both sides is extremely small.

So when is Zimmerman going to get it? And what is going to happen after that?

After stating the details of the case as we know them for pages, I think my intent was clear. The details are troubling.

Emotionally I am as troubled for Zimmerman. This seems like manslaughter by a man whose brain doesnt work too well but if he's convicted there is a good chance he will be raped and killed in prison. I don't think that unofficial result is justice either.

Ancalagon wrote:

More like disturbing. Yes, some people would have us toss reason out the window and go strictly with emotion. The thing is, though, they really aren't all that emotional about it themselves aside from the joy of having a poster child, albeit a dead one, for their agenda.
"See, we told you this would happen!" is their battle cry behind their crocodile tears....

Amazing Fox is trying to put a spin to this.

Some "battles" are better not fought. Well, I guess for Fox News the right to kill "suspicious" looking people is VERY important.