Rob's House

Way to miss the point.

For those of you asking if TM would have still looked suspicious if he were white, ask yourselves this: would he have still looked suspicious if he were black and wearing a tucked in polo shirt and khakis?

The theory that he wouldn't have looked suspicious if he were white is cognitive bias at its finest and most blatant. The only thing people who say this are communicating is that they assume racism anywhere it could exist, and treat their assumption as irrefutable proof. That's why this case is likely counter-productive for the race hustlers, because while they may get some air time & headlines, and stir up the fringe, they're losing all credibility on the issue with everyone who has any sense & is paying attention.

Is it still too soon to make fun of "Boston Strong"?

The defense motion for summary judgment should have been granted and if not for the political nature of this supposed trial it would have. Regardless of what verdict a handful of dupes too stupid to get out of jury duty return, it doesn't change the fact that the state didn't meet its burden. And everyone who knows the first thing about criminal law knows it. There is no way a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence, and therefore it should not go to a jury, but it will b/c the judge doesn't want the notoriety. It won't surprise me if the jury, either out of fear of backlash or on account of being comprised of people like dog or the well respected moron who PMd him who either don't understand the law (or just don't care) and are perfectly content to convict on a hunch.

If I'm wrong, then nothing happens. I'll go to jail, peacefully, quietly. I'll enjoy it...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/07/06/urban-meyer-denies-enabling-aaron-hernandez/2494937/ Looks like a predictable crowd with 20/20 hindsight has taken to blaming Urban Meyer for enabling Hernandez to become a killer. God I hate people sometimes. :wallbash:

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes… The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!

This is why no one debates you. You made some incoherent comment about the neighborhood watch guy saying, "eyes and ears only. report it." When asked what your point is you give this response - you've offered no connection between your premise and conclusion. WTF does this comment have to do with criminal negligence? What's your point?

And your point is?

Dude, he lied to a reporter about "stand your ground". Try to keep up.

That's par for the course with him. That's what makes it so satisfying. It's one thing to lose a fight after showboating, but to get knocked out WHILE showboating...that's priceless.

http://news.yahoo.com/weidman-beats-silva-win-ufc-middleweight-title-050321622.html I bet he's not talking **** now.

To be fair, his argument has evolved. You now have to have walked a mile in his shoes to understand his theory of the case. Don't worry about walking a mile in Zimmerman's shoes though. We know all we need to know on that front. This is the lynchpin that holds the case together.

That would be a worthwhile class. The only problem is that whoever implements such a class, as well as whoever teaches the class, is inevitably going to be someone from within the school system, and damn near everyone in the school system has the unquestioned belief that anything that fits under the heading of "education" has intrinsic value, and that a college degree is necessary to achieving financial success.

It's kind of like playing Madden on the easy settings. Not terribly challenging, but it's still a lot of fun...for a while anyway.

I suppose you're right, although interestingly enough, they haven't really used this story as a gun control vehicle, at least not on the national stage. They tried to use it to attack "stand your ground" laws until all but the slowest of the imbeciles figured out it wasn't applicable. The main angle seems to be the racial one, which would have seemed to have collapsed once they realized that the Great White Klansman who shoots down little black boys for kicks, turned out to be Hispanic - I missed the chapter in American history where there was an ongoing legacy of black oppression at the hands of racist Hispanics, but then there's a lot about this case (and its coverage) that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. My working theory right now is that they committed themselves to their side of the story when it was reported as a little black angel methodically profiled, hunted down, and slaughtered for being black, by a racist white devil, and now that the story is debunked they refuse to re-evaluate their position. I assume it is because they lack the character, courage, self-awareness, and morality to admit they jumped the gun and take a look at this case from a logical POV.

One thing I find interesting about this case, and particularly this thread, is the political divide here. Other than the contrived racial angle, there's really nothing about liberal idealogy that would cause libs to flock to the prosecution side of this case. In fact, strangely enough, liberals tend to overwhelmingly flock to defense and conservatives to prosecution. Yet, here we are. Even in this thread the resident libs that have shown up have almost unanimously (save SameoldBills) supported convicting Zimmerman. I get that the major players want to push this case for political reasons, but other than a theory of confirmation bias (belief perseverence to be exact), I can't see why the rank and file continue to support this bogus cause.

What the hell does walking in another man's shoes have to do with what you're peddling here?

Another meaningless answer. Since you can't provide any logical analysis that leads to your conclusion, again, you serve up some empty rhetoric as a substitute. You just said that if you're part of a neighborhood watch group you relinquish the right to defend yourself. That's your argument.

Interesting, so you support conviction w/o the most critical element of the offense?

I pretty thoroughly decimated your arguments before. You holding firm like the Flat Earth Society doesn't change that. But just for ***** & giggles why don't you explain for us what duty GZ violated, explain how it rises to the level of criminal negligence, and also how it LEGALLY precluded him from defending himself. And saying in your opinion getting out of the car = criminal negligence doesn't cut it.

I just find it irritating when people who don't know what they're talking about try to pass themselves off as a voice of authority. You're like a guy who walked into a group of engineers designing a stock car engine & attempts to set them straight by gracing them with the vast knowledge you obtained from a Chilton's when you changed the spark plugs on your '95 Escort.

The motto of pussies. I've tolerated you to this point b/c I seem to recall having a positive impression of you, but I can't abide this dumbass **** any longer. You keep repeating this candy ass line as if it somehow grows less retarded with each subsequent recitation. You don't even understand the role of police. They have no duty to protect you. Their job is to investigate crime and make arrests. You probably shouldn't have a gun either. If someone attacks you just call the police & pelt him with tampons. That should work.

Translation - "I don't know the difference between civil and criminal negligence"