Politcal Ramblings

[Aslan]

How is it travon was a thug?

Definition of Thug:
- Bowling ball by DV8.
or
- a violent person; usually a criminal.

According to the accounts believed by a majority of his peers (jury); he attacked a man, knocked him to the ground, and smashed his head repeatedly into the pavement. That would meet the definition of "battery", which is a crime...and is a violent act. Therefore, by simple definition....he is/was a "Thug".

He was a teenager with skittles and ice tea.

What if he wasn't? Mike Brown wasn't. He was walking through a neighborhood he didn't live in, a neighborhood that had experienced recent break-ins. Do we 'know' why he was walking through that neighborhood. I don't care what stuff he bought at the convenience store or his favorite candy....I'm more interested in what he was doing there...and Zimmerman was too. That's how neighborhood watches work. Granted, at least he didn't man handle the cashier and steal the skittles and iced tea (ie M. Brown)...but still. Why do we give him a 'automatic pass' that he was some choir boy with candy and tea?

He was being followed by a grown man and if he shot him in self defense would it have gone the same way?

Probably. Hard to say for sure. But the law in Florida does allow one to stand their ground and given the circumstances, the irony is, that he could have shot Zimmerman and got away with it using the same law Zimmerman used. Do you have any (non racist) reasons for assuming it wouldn't go the same way?

I know thugs...he wasn't one. I feel People based that notion of his "thug life" off of Facebook pictures with him flipping the camera off, which has been done by rockstars decades ago.

Why do you automatically assume he is not a thug? What would someone have to do to meet that definition according to you?

There is no point where you should be able to shoot someone who is fleeing because of what they might do in the future. You aren't a fortune teller and a criminal doesn't always remain a criminal.

Statistically speaking, most criminals remain criminals. White, black, Hispanic, Asian....doesn't matter. The rehabilitation rate for criminals is astronomically low.

I was having this conversation with a co-worker this morning. If a person breaks into your home, and is attempting to steal your (insert anything like a TV, IPod, IPhone, Xbox, etc...); SHOULD you have the right to shoot them? The law says, only if you feel your life is in grave danger. So could I break into your house, announce that I am simply there to steal your stuff....and am no threat to you or your family....I'll be out of your hair in 4 minutes...and I'm too big for you to detain physically...should you be able to shoot me?

What if I committed a violent crime? I don't want to get graphic...but use your imagination. I break into your house, take a break from stealing stuff to do something horrible to your family, but immediately afterwards announce "I apologize for that! I will never, ever do that again....I am NOT a threat to you and your family...I am just going to leave peacefully with your stuff." Can you shoot me? I'm leaving. Are you gonna shoot me in the back as I'm leaving your house?

What things play into this determination of 'right' versus 'wrong'? If I decide to let the man go with my Xbox because hey, I can was going to get a new Playstation 4 anyways....no sense killing a person over. What if that person goes to my neighbor's house and murders him and his family because they resisted? Is that my fault? Should I have stopped him when I had the chance? Or am I "predicting" things that won't happen?

My take is this. When you DECIDE/CHOOSE (it's the criminal's choice) to enter a person's home...when you've entered uninvited with intent to commit a crime (violent or non-violent doesn't matter)...you have CHOSEN (remember, it's their CHOICE) to risk your life. You're right, I can't predict what that criminal will or won't do. I have to work with the knowledge and facts I have:
1) This person is willing to break the law.
2) This person is desperate enough to risk his/her life to commit a crime.
3) This person does not respect me nor what is mine.
4) This person has questionable moral judgement.
5) There is zero indication that should I allow this person to leave, he/she will not commit additional crimes.

So yes. I would kill them. Entering, leaving, sitting around smoking a blunt, climbing over my balcony, taking a bath in my bathtub....it doesn't really matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter their 'justification'. They CHOSE that life. Now, do we need someone like Bernie Sanders to start to close the income gap and give more opportunity to minorities and those that are vulnerable to get into a life of crime....absolutely....100%. I support that whole heartedly. But will I cry a tear for a person that doesn't even respect me enough not to steal from me? No. And I will answer for that. In California...I'll end up in prison for God's sake. But I don't care. I don't answer to Jerry Brown. I will have to answer for my choices, someday. And when I stand before God and St. Peter...I have to hope that God sees my actions as protecting myself, my home, my family, and my community...not as a careless act of violence against God's children. And my faith prohibits me from assuming what that judgement will be. But there's right and there's wrong. We can tolerate the wrong or we can oppose it.

It's about equal treatment, that's what they want.

If I go for a cop's gun in Chipotle while they are eating lunch....I'm just as dead as a black man going for a cop's gun. It's not even a debate. Is affirmative action "equal" treatment? Are reparations for slavery "equal" treatment? I once had a coworker that was abusive towards me in the office. Many a day I had to either go home early...or stay and take the abuse. Don't get me wrong...I could have easily "dealt with" him. He was older and handicapped from a stroke he had before I knew him. He did stuff that you hear and think, "Really? No he didn't. Really?" He stole my corporate credit card number and bought stuff at a smoke shop. He had my phone pranked called 100s of times. He even had brothels and massage parlors send me appointments to my work email. He even physically abused me....hitting me with a golf club and throwing ice cubes at me. Do you know why I can't make a workplace harassment claim against him with the State? Because I'm a male and I'm white. See, in order to claim workplace harassment, I have to be in a "protected class". Unfortunately, white, male, and Christian....are the 3 non-protected classes. Where is my "equal treatment"?

I don't live in blackcandyland as you call it...I shouldn't have to fear being stopped an search because I'm black, that's the issue. That fat black guy was named Eric, illegal chokehold for illegal cigarettes? Seems fare to you I guess. It wasn't OK. He could have been restrained other ways. They aren't arguing for cops to stop shooting those who deserve it they argue that cops need to be held more accountable for bad judgment calls, only when necessary of course.

You do remember that said 'Eric' had a rap sheet a mile long and was twice the size of the cops who arrested him right? So you think selling illegal cigarettes isn't a crime that a person should be harassed about? See, that's what I meant by "black candyland"....this belief that some laws we have to follow and some laws we don't. This belief that a person should only be shot...if they have a gun out, loaded, pointed at a cop, and have no other excuses for their actions...such as they are poor or from a bad area, or an immigrant, or homeless, or drug addicted, or abused....insert any excuse.

The events you brought up....every single one...could have been prevented by the person who died. Black parents, please stop telling your kids white people and cops are out to get them.. Please stop chipping the shoulder of our minority youth so that as soon as some idiot white guy asks them what they are doing...they don't feel that it is 'okay' to just punch the guy. Mike Brown could have NOT stolen things....NOT roughed up a clerk...NOT been walking in the middle of the road...NOT responded violently to the cop...and NOT went for the cop's gun. Multiple bad decisions. Eric (Gardner or Garner?) could have chose a LEGAL profession versus an illegal one. He also could have surrendered to police when confronted. He also didn't need to be 450 pounds and in such bad physical shape that wrestling with cops is a fatal activity. Lots of bad decisions. And even the kid that got shot with the toy gun. Toy guns have inserts in them to stop the very thing that happened from happening. If your kid removes those...then takes said gun out in public....that's questionable parenting.

I guess my point is, as much as you think there is some bias against other races, which I absolutely admit exists...you seem very comfortable with the concept of excusing every type of lawlessness. It's like, you want criminals to be brought to justice...but only if they do something really, really, really bad...and even then...only if they turn themselves in or can be brought in alive versus shot. And you seem to excuse their behaviors as being normal.

[Aslan]

There has to be a better way to arrest people than shoot them.

Meanwhile, that's the BEST way to arrest someone. It costs less and is 100% effective at getting them to stop committing crimes. Just saying.

My advice to any young white or black person is to not resist at all and kiss their *** to stay alive.

Maybe even go one step further and just agree not to commit crimes? I have a FAR less likely chance of getting shot by a cop by NOT committing a crime than I do because I happen to be white. Believe it or not. White people DO get pulled over too...again, believe it or not. And it's not any less of an inconvenience and is no less scary. It's not like the cop gets out of his squad car, walks over, and looks in the window and says, "Hmm....I thought you were black. My bad." Believe me, it doesn't work like that.

H***....I even had to get out of the car once and put my hands on the hood and get patted down. I did something that I never do...and haven't done since...I parked in a handicap parking space in front of a pizza joint while I ran in and grabbed my order. It was maybe 90 seconds. And in that time, someone walked by my car and keyed it end to end...then the cop showed up as I started to leave. I was so "nervous", I forgot to tell the cop when he initially came over...that "I had a permit to carry a firearm and had said firearm on my person." That's a big "no, no" when you carry a firearm concealed...you always, always have to tell a cop that pulls you over about the gun. Even if I didn't have it with me, I errored on the side of caution and would often tell them I had a permit to carry concealed but was not presently carrying.

Well, lets just say he didn't find my accidental omission very cute and I got to stand behind my car and get patted down in front of like 15 bystanders. The only good news is I think he felt so bad for me that I didn't actually get the ticket....which was significant, like $300-$400 or something. Never even considered parking in a handicap spot again...I'll park 2 blocks away and walk if I have to. But did I get off easy because I was "white"? I don't think so. I was smart....I was cooperative...I was pleasant. I knew that the cop was in a bad spot because he has to look out for his own safety and doesn't know me from Adam. So I didn't do anything stupid.

[Tony]

Please enlighten me then. I'd love to see a business open their books and show how tax increases/decreases were the leading reason they choose not to expand their business despite a market of increasing demand and decreasing supply.

You don't have to own your own business to understand simple economics. And every business owner I've ever heard speak on the subject, when truly pressed on the issue, will admit that the demand for their product is a far, far, far more important factor in whether they expand or invest more in the business than taxes could ever be.

To assume that a basic understanding of simple economics would enable you to decide that the demand for product would support expansion is one of biggest mistakes you could make.

For one thing what is the profit made on the product, what kind of a product is it, what resources does it take to make it, do you make it or source it out, whats the break-even quantity, what's the future projected demand. if the product is low margin and you are already producing to capacity of plant and equipment it's unlikely that expansion is a smart business decision.

It would be wise to have an in depth knowledge of cost accounting, first of all there are many factors the average person would not think to consider for example, What is the opportunity cost associated with reallocation of scare resources from one product to another product ? What about plant capacity and allocation of production space, consider equipment costs, What if your machine can make 1000 parts a day, what is your cost to expand to make 1200 parts, you have to allocate more space, more employees, capitol, and will the added output of 200 units payback the cost of a 100,000 for machine and setup. Certainly taxes, labor cost, energy costs, potential shift in demand, competing supply are all factors that would need to be considered.

While rising demand begs to look into the opportunity of increasing production, rising product demand in itself is certainly not the most important factor in expanding and investment in a business. Lets not pretend a basic knowledge of economic principles will provide you with the expertise required in these situations to determine what the best course of action will be.

As far as the issue of taxes compared to demand the answer is not as clear cut as it might seem, there are many factors and many different type of businesses. Making general statements as if they are fact or apply to every business based on limited actual knowledge are simply uneducated opinion and are generally of little value.

Yes, I have owned businesses and ran businesses and believe me there is a difference. I have a strong feeling you would be quite surprised at some of the factors driving business management that seem on the surface contradictory of basic logic, but that's what you get with many of the regulations and tax laws that companies deal with.

[Hot_pocket]

This was the account of Zimmerman because a dead man can't tell his side of the story. Yes he had bruises but did he not instigate the situation? As you said there is no argument about that he should have obeyed the order to not follow, simple as that.
I do know why he was walking through that neighbor and now i can assume you followed the coverage of the case very lightly. It was known he was coming from a store going home. When has it become a crime to walk in a neighborhood that is not yours? Do you not drive through neighborhoods other than your own? Once again to assume someone is going to commit a crime is not based on recent crimes in the area doesn't make it ok. Call the cops and let them handle it.


I don't have a non-racist reason. The same state jailed a black women, where you can stand your ground, for firing a shot in the air to scare off her abusive boyfriend. So tell me again how it seems oh so equal? No-one was killed or hurt but they made sure they charged her with something.

You are 100% right about that, I never said what happen with mike brown was wrong either so there is no point in that statement. Affirmative action is very equal if you understand the reason behind it, which i'm sure you dont because you're questioning it. Statistically minorities were less likely to be hired than whites, even if they possess the same or even greater skill level. It was also a way of undoing years of inequality, but most don't see it that way because they think in the now. What reparations for slavery are you speaking of? I really don't see us receiving land as the native Americans have. Let's get real about what you're saying. You can report it if you want. There is a thing called lawsuits, where if an employer takes disciplinary action against you for reporting any kind of workplace misconduct, you can sue the bank accounts off of them.
Once again you have missed my point. I did not say people should not be punished for their crimes. I said you should meet force with force in police sense. I know the difference as iv'e stated my career has taught me correct use of force and its a huge part of my job. Don't get me wrong a person breaks into my house and I'm most likely shooting them, but I'm also trained to possibly arrest someone without firing my weapon. A person should be allowed to defend their home without fear of consequence, obviously. What ifs however, don't hold up in the court of law so i'm assuming serving a life sentence for murder in the defense of stopping a possible future crime, is ok with you ?
I am beginning to believe you read to critique instead of understand. The term black candyland by the way is very racist and explains alot. I never once said they should not be held accountable. If you believe every situation calls for a gun to be used because the person is a criminal then you don't understand anything about the law.

You brought up the events, I gave my side about them. We don't teach our children that contrary to belief, society does. Just as based on your response I know society has taught you some really half way explained and one sided things. Tamir rice had a toy gun and it was a good shoot by the officer. Mike brown fought the cop it was a good shoot by the officer Eric Garner was chocked, bad decision by the officer. black kid defending himself is a thug but the shooter who started it all and wanted to avoid losing so he claims self defense. Last time i checked kids make their own decisions and lie to do things. The bad decision was whoever bought him the gun know the difference.
It seems as if you believe officers should never be responsible for their actions when they are wrong.

[fordman1]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

ATTENTION ATTENTION ALL HARDENED CRIMINALS: You must leave your gun in the trunk of your vehicle from now on. What if the guy JUST has a knife, crowbar, or basically is just going to beat you to death? At what point does a police officer or anyone have the right to save his or her life? There are police officers and instances that are just criminal like the guy unloading 16 shots or whatever it was on the guy wandering down the middle of the road for example. But if anyone is threatened with what they perceive in good conscious as a life threatening situation then it comes to what it comes to and hopefully the good side wins.

[fordman1]

If a police officer sees you out side of your house he has the right to shoot you. Leave your guns at home son, leave your guns at home. Having a gun on the street is an admission of guilt!!!

[Hot_pocket]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

This is like walking around the ally during a rainy day with no shoe cover, pointless. Who spends $400 on a gun to not be able to use it if necessary. I'm no gun nut but the saying goes its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. You should want someone who is conceal carrying around, they can protect themselves and you in a bad situation. Remember the bad guys don't follow laws so this would just be allowing them to commit crimes more freely.

[Hot_pocket]

If a police officer sees you out side of your house he has the right to shoot you. Leave your guns at home son, leave your guns at home. Having a gun on the street is an admission of guilt!!!

WHAT? so you walk outside an officer shoots you, you say, "what was that for?" he says "it's my right" you say "oh ok, hunny call 911 i've been shot, its all a big misunderstanding? concealed carry is not an admission of guilt its the admission that there are ******** that might shoot you in this world.

[fordman1]

If it is against the law to go out with a gun why would you have one concealed? You are a criminal. You don't need a gun in
the greatest country in the world.