WWTBAM Bored

Not the actor (who's been dead for thirty years), but the Florida man who shot an unarmed 17-year-old at a gas station two years ago in an argument over loud music the deceased and his companions were playing. His defense was that he thought the young man was carrying a gun and intended to use it. No firearms or other weapons were found in the teenagers' car. In his first trial, he was convicted of various lesser charges including wounding the dead man's companions, but the jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge. This time, there was no deadlock. It took the jury less than six hours to reach its verdict.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /16529665/

I'm still not in favor of the death penalty. Just put him in a cellblock with some of the black prisoners and let nature take its course.

I apologize for not hunting out the previous thread and reviving it.

I'm not sure I could go for first degree murder, but I don't know all the technicalities and facts. I certainly could go for second degree. He should not have drawn his weapon. He should not have shot. If he was in fear for his life, it was because he put himself in that situation when he did not need to.

Where's James West when we need him?

silverscreenselect wrote:Not the actor (who's been dead for thirty years), but the Florida man who shot an unarmed 17-year-old at a gas station two years ago in an argument over loud music the deceased and his companions were playing. His defense was that he thought the young man was carrying a gun and intended to use it. No firearms or other weapons were found in the teenagers' car. In his first trial, he was convicted of various lesser charges including wounding the dead man's companions, but the jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge. This time, there was no deadlock. It took the jury less than six hours to reach its verdict.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /16529665/

I'm still not in favor of the death penalty. Just put him in a cellblock with some of the black prisoners and let nature take its course.

I apologize for not hunting out the previous thread and reviving it.

I'm not commenting on the case-sounds like the guy was a douchebag all around. What I find interesting is your lib credentials reflecting a bit of a racist tinge. Transpose the color combo and what would you be saying?

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Not the actor (who's been dead for thirty years), but the Florida man who shot an unarmed 17-year-old at a gas station two years ago in an argument over loud music the deceased and his companions were playing. His defense was that he thought the young man was carrying a gun and intended to use it. No firearms or other weapons were found in the teenagers' car. In his first trial, he was convicted of various lesser charges including wounding the dead man's companions, but the jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge. This time, there was no deadlock. It took the jury less than six hours to reach its verdict.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /16529665/

I'm still not in favor of the death penalty. Just put him in a cellblock with some of the black prisoners and let nature take its course.

I apologize for not hunting out the previous thread and reviving it.

I'm not commenting on the case-sounds like the guy was a douchebag all around. What I find interesting is your lib credentials reflecting a bit of a racist tinge. Transpose the color combo and what would you be saying?

Liberals see race in everything. But it's OK because they are racist in the 'right' way. We'll never be a colorblind society until liberals can give up their stereotypes and judging everyone by the 'group' they define them by.

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Not the actor (who's been dead for thirty years), but the Florida man who shot an unarmed 17-year-old at a gas station two years ago in an argument over loud music the deceased and his companions were playing. His defense was that he thought the young man was carrying a gun and intended to use it. No firearms or other weapons were found in the teenagers' car. In his first trial, he was convicted of various lesser charges including wounding the dead man's companions, but the jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge. This time, there was no deadlock. It took the jury less than six hours to reach its verdict.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /16529665/

I'm still not in favor of the death penalty. Just put him in a cellblock with some of the black prisoners and let nature take its course.

I apologize for not hunting out the previous thread and reviving it.

I'm not commenting on the case-sounds like the guy was a douchebag all around. What I find interesting is your lib credentials reflecting a bit of a racist tinge. Transpose the color combo and what would you be saying?

Wow. Just. Wow.

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm still not in favor of the death penalty. Just put him in a cellblock with some of the black prisoners and let nature take its course.

You sound confused. You're against the legal system putting someone to death after a conviction and lengthy appeal process, but totally OK with convicted criminals committing murder? Is it OK for white or Hispanic prisoners to kill him, too?

silverscreenselect wrote:I apologize for not hunting out the previous thread and reviving it.

Use the search feature. It takes a matter of seconds to find it when you search on "Michael Dunn." Look past hits in this thread, a reference to the actor and there it is, from July.

Beebs52 wrote:
I'm not commenting on the case-sounds like the guy was a douchebag all around. What I find interesting is your lib credentials reflecting a bit of a racist tinge. Transpose the color combo and what would you be saying?

Let's wait until a middle aged black man shoots at a car full of unarmed white teenagers who are playing loud music and then claims that one of them was going for a gun and ask me then.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberals see race in everything. But it's OK because they are racist in the 'right' way. We'll never be a colorblind society until liberals can give up their stereotypes and judging everyone by the 'group' they define them by.

I don't see race in everything, but if you think this shooting wasn't about race then you're hopelessly naïve.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
I'm not commenting on the case-sounds like the guy was a douchebag all around. What I find interesting is your lib credentials reflecting a bit of a racist tinge. Transpose the color combo and what would you be saying?

Let's wait until a middle aged black man shoots at a car full of unarmed white teenagers who are playing loud music and then claims that one of them was going for a gun and ask me then.

Remove the "middle-aged" qualifer for recent events. You say that something like this has never happened. You, like some others, just love to make shit up, no?

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberals see race in everything. But it's OK because they are racist in the 'right' way. We'll never be a colorblind society until liberals can give up their stereotypes and judging everyone by the 'group' they define them by.

I don't see race in everything, but if you think this shooting wasn't about race then you're hopelessly naïve.

This is the funniest thing yet! Please, point me to the portion of anyone else's post in this thread that indicated the "douchebag" shooting wasn't about race. Know what? Never mind. Throw all the sparkly stuff you want; your original post stands in all its glory and shows your thought process for what it is.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberals see race in everything. But it's OK because they are racist in the 'right' way. We'll never be a colorblind society until liberals can give up their stereotypes and judging everyone by the 'group' they define them by.

I don't see race in everything, but if you think this shooting wasn't about race then you're hopelessly naïve.

There are, unfortunately, murders that occur every day. By highlighting and expressing outrage over selected murders that happen to fit a specific agenda, to the exclusion of others that don't fit the specific agenda shows the bigotry I am talking about. And extrapolating, it shows the bigotry of the liberal mindset, the main stream media and many individuals whom you can fill in yourself.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberals see race in everything. But it's OK because they are racist in the 'right' way. We'll never be a colorblind society until liberals can give up their stereotypes and judging everyone by the 'group' they define them by.

I don't see race in everything, but if you think this shooting wasn't about race then you're hopelessly naïve.

There are, unfortunately, murders that occur every day. By highlighting and expressing outrage over selected murders that happen to fit a specific agenda, to the exclusion of others that don't fit the specific agenda shows the bigotry I am talking about. And extrapolating, it shows the bigotry of the liberal mindset, the main stream media and many individuals whom you can fill in yourself.

Flock:

The press is selective in what crimes it chooses to report, but it's generally driven more by ratings and sensationalism than anything else. If people will watch or read about it, they'll report it. No crime has ever gotten the press coverage of the O.J. Simpson case and that was a black man accused of killing two white people.

And you seem to overlook the fact that Fox News is just as big an outlet as the so-called liberal media, and they often tailor what they choose to report and express outrage over based on their own political agenda as well. It works both ways.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
I don't see race in everything, but if you think this shooting wasn't about race then you're hopelessly naïve.

There are, unfortunately, murders that occur every day. By highlighting and expressing outrage over selected murders that happen to fit a specific agenda, to the exclusion of others that don't fit the specific agenda shows the bigotry I am talking about. And extrapolating, it shows the bigotry of the liberal mindset, the main stream media and many individuals whom you can fill in yourself.

Flock:

The press is selective in what crimes it chooses to report, but it's generally driven more by ratings and sensationalism than anything else. If people will watch or read about it, they'll report it. No crime has ever gotten the press coverage of the O.J. Simpson case and that was a black man accused of killing two white people.

And you seem to overlook the fact that Fox News is just as big an outlet as the so-called liberal media, and they often tailor what they choose to report and express outrage over based on their own political agenda as well. It works both ways.

It doesn't appear that you have addressed the question about YOUR selective outrage. Aren't you more reasoned and informed than the media?

tlynn78 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberals see race in everything. But it's OK because they are racist in the 'right' way. We'll never be a colorblind society until liberals can give up their stereotypes and judging everyone by the 'group' they define them by.

I don't see race in everything, but if you think this shooting wasn't about race then you're hopelessly naïve.

This is the funniest thing yet! Please, point me to the portion of anyone else's post in this thread that indicated the "douchebag" shooting wasn't about race. Know what? Never mind. Throw all the sparkly stuff you want; your original post stands in all its glory and shows your thought process for what it is.

I would say that the part of Flock's post that you quoted: "Liberals see race in everything."

As for my own comment, it was intended primarily in jest. I do not think that prison officials should establish a de facto death penalty, which they pretty much could do to anyone based on how and around whom they imprisoned him. The part that was not in jest was an observation that this guy is going to have to watch his back very carefully, and I certainly won't lose any sleep if he or any of the other brutal killers in jail come to a bad end.

Take a look at this thread:

http://wwtbambored.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... e+#p358265

and my comment:

I'm not a fan of capital punishment but I'm not going to lose any sleep over this guy....A truly disgusting, revolting excuse for a human being.

Beebs52 wrote: It doesn't appear that you have addressed the question about YOUR selective outrage. Aren't you more reasoned and informed than the media?

I am outraged any time some gun-toting vigilante tries to take advantage of some our the current ridiculous "self defense" laws to blast some unarmed person in a situation that could easily have been avoided. And I'll continue to express my outrage. The sad fact is that such claims sometimes become more palatable with juries when a white person is making a claim of feeling threatened by a black person.

I'm just as outraged about this guy, who also got what he deserved:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/29 ... urder-case

The difference is that the Minnesota case didn't make the front page of the USA Today throughout the trial and I don't spend all my time looking things up on the Internet to get outraged about.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: It doesn't appear that you have addressed the question about YOUR selective outrage. Aren't you more reasoned and informed than the media?

I am outraged any time some gun-toting vigilante tries to take advantage of some our the current ridiculous "self defense" laws to blast some unarmed person in a situation that could easily have been avoided. And I'll continue to express my outrage. The sad fact is that such claims sometimes become more palatable with juries when a white person is making a claim of feeling threatened by a black person.

I'm just as outraged about this guy, who also got what he deserved:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/29 ... urder-case

The difference is that the Minnesota case didn't make the front page of the USA Today throughout the trial and I don't spend all my time looking things up on the Internet to get outraged about.

As a remnant of the 60's/70's white liberal guilt juggernaut, and faux altruistic aspirant, there are so many of you, that you are, you still refuse to address a direct question about your own reverse racism. I realize that you and your ilk are the only people capable of feeling outrage when douchebags commit crimes against people because they're black. I know it's not fashionable to be aghast at those same crimes if the victim is white. Sometimes one grows up and realizes the total wrongness of that, but sometimes one doesn't. It's easier to follow the cause du jour, or decade, than to examine the reasons inside you that make you who you are. You're evading.

Beebs52 wrote: As a remnant of the 60's/70's white liberal guilt juggernaut, and faux altruistic aspirant, there are so many of you, that you are, you still refuse to address a direct question about your own reverse racism. I realize that you and your ilk are the only people capable of feeling outrage when douchebags commit crimes against people because they're black. I know it's not fashionable to be aghast at those same crimes if the victim is white. Sometimes one grows up and realizes the total wrongness of that, but sometimes one doesn't. It's easier to follow the cause du jour, or decade, than to examine the reasons inside you that make you who you are. You're evading.

You must not have read my comments about the Emmanuel Hammond/Julie Love case.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: As a remnant of the 60's/70's white liberal guilt juggernaut, and faux altruistic aspirant, there are so many of you, that you are, you still refuse to address a direct question about your own reverse racism. I realize that you and your ilk are the only people capable of feeling outrage when douchebags commit crimes against people because they're black. I know it's not fashionable to be aghast at those same crimes if the victim is white. Sometimes one grows up and realizes the total wrongness of that, but sometimes one doesn't. It's easier to follow the cause du jour, or decade, than to examine the reasons inside you that make you who you are. You're evading.

You must not have read my comments about the Emmanuel Hammond/Julie Love case.

I just did. I don't recall you referencing vigilantism/racism/crazy gun owner stuff in that particular case. Although I will credit you with providing an example of crime committed against a white person.

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: It doesn't appear that you have addressed the question about YOUR selective outrage. Aren't you more reasoned and informed than the media?

I am outraged any time some gun-toting vigilante tries to take advantage of some our the current ridiculous "self defense" laws to blast some unarmed person in a situation that could easily have been avoided. And I'll continue to express my outrage. The sad fact is that such claims sometimes become more palatable with juries when a white person is making a claim of feeling threatened by a black person.

I'm just as outraged about this guy, who also got what he deserved:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/29 ... urder-case

The difference is that the Minnesota case didn't make the front page of the USA Today throughout the trial and I don't spend all my time looking things up on the Internet to get outraged about.

As a remnant of the 60's/70's white liberal guilt juggernaut, and faux altruistic aspirant, there are so many of you, that you are, you still refuse to address a direct question about your own reverse racism. I realize that you and your ilk are the only people capable of feeling outrage when douchebags commit crimes against people because they're black. I know it's not fashionable to be aghast at those same crimes if the victim is white. Sometimes one grows up and realizes the total wrongness of that, but sometimes one doesn't. It's easier to follow the cause du jour, or decade, than to examine the reasons inside you that make you who you are. You're evading.

Rec to Beebs.

SSS, you and your ilk are always free and quick to put labels on anyone who questions your point of view. You are right and everyone else who doesn't think you are right are racists, gun loving crazies, men who are unsure of their manhood, mouth breathers or whatever. But some, like you, are intelligent enough to know that you really need to back up your bigotry by using facts and rational arguments. Fortunately, you are provided by 'facts' all over the internet by those people who share your bigotry and compile one sided 'facts' to support your views and are so good at disseminating this information that you often see people like you using the same exact wording to support their views.

I am not right about everything. It is often difficult or impossible to get the truthful story about important issues. One so-called expert says one thing, and another so-called expert says something that is 100% contradictory and both quote 'facts' to support their argument. Who is telling the truth and who is lying? Or maybe they are both telling the truth, but only highlighting the 'facts' that support their view. Michael Dunn may well be what you make him out to be. But that does not indict anyone else other than him. And I resent you and everyone else like you that want to extrapolate what Micheal Dunn might be onto the rest of us, and use the power of the government to impose your 'solutions' on everyone else who have not committed or even ever think of committing crimes.

Beebs52 wrote: I just did. I don't recall you referencing vigilantism/racism/crazy gun owner stuff in that particular case. Although I will credit you with providing an example of crime committed against a white person.

This wasn't a case of vigilantism. It was a case that outraged me personally because it was big news in Atlanta when it happened and I was exposed to a lot more details of the case over a period of several months than of most crimes. Of course, there was a lengthy delay before Hammond was executed but the details of the crime itself and the aftermath stayed with me and most people here in Atlanta for quite a while.

Ironically, the Hammond/Love case resembled Gone Girl in some ways. Julie Love disappeared on her way home one night and for a long time, police suspected her boyfriend of the crime even though he was very active in putting out flyers to try to locate her. Her body was discovered months later near where she was forced to use the ATM machine. In another irony, police checked with the bank to see if there were any withdrawals made on her account, which there weren't, but they didn't think to check for any failed transactions, and she apparently gave her kidnapper an incorrect PIN number so the transaction couldn't be processed. If police had been aware of that, they probably would have found her months earlier.

If I or anyone here wanted to turn this Bored into an outrageous crime of the day Bored, we'd have tons of traffic in no time. I post about those crimes that particularly get to me. The Hammond case did, and the Dunn case did.

Haven't been around much lately. Decided to destress and avoid things that are pointless and raise my blood pressure.

This thread, however, is solid gold entertainment.

Watching the backstroking from the "I can't be racist because I'm a liberal" yet posted something that is so obviously racist is worth buying the large popcorn and soda.



edited to add: I don't necessarily think SSS is a racist. I don't know him. But what he wrote, if a conservative had written it, or he had reversed the races involved, would have been held up to the world as "See, those conservatives are all old, white male racists"
even if the poster had been a black, female lesbian with one leg and a degree from Harvard. *

Stereotypes - convenient shorthand for ignorance.

* not that there's anything wrong with that...

Flybrick wrote:Haven't been around much lately. Decided to destress and avoid things that are pointless and raise my blood pressure.

This thread, however, is solid gold entertainment.

Watching the backstroking from the "I can't be racist because I'm a liberal" yet posted something that is so obviously racist is worth buying the large popcorn and soda.

Welcome back.

Conservatives love to distract from their own racial attitudes by trying to find ways in which unfortunate white people are victimized unfairly.

Edited to add I didn't read Flybrick's edited to add before I posted this. I would have worded my response somewhat differently.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Flybrick wrote:Haven't been around much lately. Decided to destress and avoid things that are pointless and raise my blood pressure.

This thread, however, is solid gold entertainment.

Watching the backstroking from the "I can't be racist because I'm a liberal" yet posted something that is so obviously racist is worth buying the large popcorn and soda.

Welcome back.

Conservatives love to distract from their own racial attitudes by trying to find ways in which unfortunate white people are victimized unfairly.

Edited to add I didn't read Flybrick's edited to add before I posted this. I would have worded my response somewhat differently.

What exactly are my own racial attitudes, SSS? Be specific please....

silverscreenselect wrote:
Conservatives love to distract from their own racial attitudes...

So it is your contention that to be conservative is to be racist?
I would really appreciate a serious reply to this question. Is that what you think?

And as far as distraction, while munching the popcorn, I note, as has everyone else on this thread, that it was your words expressing your thoughts that were racist yet you try to shift the light towards multiple others.

It's ok to just admit you goofed.

"I made a mistake" or "I didn't mean how that came out" is a perfectly fine way to deal with the racial corner you backed yourself into.

No blaming anyone else, conservative or otherwise, for putting you there. You did it all by yourself.