Teens pick wrong guy to rob - gets dead

[soulcougher73]

No, and I think if you read what I said in the context in which I said it instead of picking it out like that you'd understand that.

When I said don't bring up a person's genetics, I meant don't use that as a basis for being critical against them. Not don't describe their appearance. Is being critical of their genetics racist? It is if the only thing we know about them genetically is their race.

Well we know he was robbing someone with a gun and lost his life for it. So when getting the details we found out he was black. But that isnt the issue. The issue is he was robbing someone. So we know he was black commiting a crime. Sounds fair to be critical of him without being racist to me.

 

[Exophase]

I beg to differ. What would you call a gun wielding thug who holds a guy up?

Why call him anything beyond that, a criminal in the process of a violent crime? The legal system should convict the person based on the crimes they commit, not on a characterization of whether or not the person is good or bad.

Well we know he was robbing someone with a gun and lost his life for it. So when getting the details we found out he was black. But that isnt the issue. The issue is he was robbing someone. So we know he was black commiting a crime. Sounds fair to be critical of him without being racist to me.

You're totally missing what I'm saying. Of course it's fair to be critical of what he's doing. I specifically said that being critical of his genetics is racist, when the only thing you know about him genetically is that he's black. That's what it means when someone's relieved that this person didn't procreate.

Maybe the whole genepool comment is commonly used when criminals die and it's not actually supposed to be a statement on the genetic traits you can determine but a assumption that the criminality was entirely determined by heredity. But that's stupid and people should stop doing it. People should also stop saying crap like "I hope you don't reproduce" to insult someone.

 

[WackyDan]

Maybe some will. Probably at least some are more willing to steal than they are to kill and won't find it worth the risk. The police are going to put in a lot more effort trying to catch you if you murdered someone than if you stole their wallet.

Stealing in some states can also get you killed. Stealing and threatening your victim with physical assault can and will also get you killed. You don't need to use a weapon on your victim in order for that victim to be justified in using deadly force in return. I thought by now most here would have been educated on that nuance. Some states are better at defining it and some states would have a problem with it... But in my state the minute you use force against me in commission of a crime (ie; I don't give you my wallet so you attack me) I'm free to use deadly force. Start a fist fight with me over something stupid, then I can't.

 

[Exophase]

Stealing in some states can also get you killed. Stealing and threatening your victim with physical assault can and will also get you killed. You don't need to use a weapon on your victim in order for that victim to be justified in using deadly force in return. I thought by now most here would have been educated on that nuance. Some states are better at defining it and some states would have a problem with it... But in my state the minute you use force against me in commission of a crime (ie; I don't give you my wallet so you attack me) I'm free to use deadly force. Start a fist fight with me over something stupid, then I can't.

But what does that have to do with what I said? What about my comments made you think I was uneducated about self defense rights?

The claim here was that thieves are going to be more willing to shoot their victims to prevent them from getting shot themselves. I'm saying that at least some thieves are going to be less willing to rob someone if it means having to kill them too, and that increased risk of getting shot will deter some from the robbery altogether. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Theb]

Guess I have to tell the Richard Sherman story again to highlight what I mean by assuming a black man is a criminal.

Richard Sherman was the guy who gave a post game interview after the NFL NFC championship game. He yelled about how good he was and the twitter universe went crazy with n-word, thug, animal, criminal etc.

Turns out RS is a

A+ high school student
Stanford grad
works hard at his job makes a good living.
No criminal record
No arrest record

Yet people went ballistic calling him a thug, including spidey. Turns out the bar is pretty low if you are a black man from Compton wearing dreads

So what would you call people who label Richard Sherman this way??

Bumping because I'm also curious what it is that makes Richard Sherman a thug.
http://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-richard-shermans-thug-justin-bieber-rob-ford-arent-vide/

 

[HomerJS]

Bumping because I'm also curious what it is that makes Richard Sherman a thug.
http://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-richard-shermans-thug-justin-bieber-rob-ford-arent-vide/

That question was for Geo

 

[NetWareHead]

Why call him anything beyond that, a criminal in the process of a violent crime? The legal system should convict the person based on the crimes they commit, not on a characterization of whether or not the person is good or bad.

Why should I withhold judgment of his character? My characterization of his persona is directly based on his actions. Let's call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush. His actions make him a "bad" person. You as well characterized him as a violent criminal. I'm not shedding any tears when I read he died. He deserved it.

 

[Theb]

I agree. skittles are just the poor mans M&M's. they are nasty.

The green apple skittles are pretty good. If they do something better with the yellow ones they'll really have something. I haven't been happy with chocolate M&Ms lately, but peanut butter ones are outstanding.

 

[WackyDan]

But what does that have to do with what I said? What about my comments made you think I was uneducated about self defense rights?

The claim here was that thieves are going to be more willing to shoot their victims to prevent them from getting shot themselves. I'm saying that at least some thieves are going to be less willing to rob someone if it means having to kill them too, and that increased risk of getting shot will deter some from the robbery altogether. Do you disagree with that?

No I actually don't... If more perps were shot in kind then yes, they would have to think long and hard about their actions prior to committing to them.

I think I interpreted part of what you said as "then they'll rob them and not use a weapon". Not sure where I got that from, but with enough posts in this thread already I might have gotten crossed up.

 

[5150Joker]

This guy was completely justified in defense of himself. completely.

But, as usual, spidey's so giddy over it that it turns people off to his point of view. Not every black teen is a skittle, spidey. shit man, that's not even clever word play. It's transparent stereotyping.

I must be getting old, last I checked a skittle was a piece of candy. What's it code for in this case?

 

[spidey07]

I must be getting old, last I checked a skittle was a piece of candy. What's it code for in this case?

It's a word that describes people who always defend a violent criminal or are violent criminals themselves, protesting how they didn't do anything wrong. A skittle will also typically blame the victim of the violent crime saying they had it coming to them or should have known better.

The perfect example is a treyvon martin supporter, that is a skittle.

 

[Pens1566]

It's a word that describes people who always defend a violent criminal or are violent criminals themselves, protesting how they didn't do anything wrong. A skittle will also typically blame the victim of the violent crime saying they had it coming to them or should have known better.

The perfect example is a treyvon martin supporter, that is a skittle.

No. At least be consistent. They are your "skittle lover" which is synonymous with SAs "thug supporter" which are both the new PC version for ... well you know.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I must be getting old, last I checked a skittle was a piece of candy. What's it code for in this case?

Spidey is making reference to Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman. Trayvon was carrying ice tea and skittles. Coincidentally, Trayvon did not have a gun. If he had, things may have gone differently. Spidey will try to tell you that he's using the word as slang for criminals, but it's a crude reference relating two black teens, whether or not it's valid or not.

edit: looks like he beat me to it two posts ago...and followed suit.

back to snow removal....bbl

 

[blankslate]

Nothing wrong with that. If that is true, I applaud him for willing to put himself at personal risk in order to perform a good shoot on a less productive member of society.

There's nothing wrong with responding with lethal force if you have it directed at you. That's a justifiable killing.

However it's wrong to be gleeful over it happening.

While I agree that this appears to be a legal shoot, I doubt anyone but a psycho would consider the outcome a happy ending.

Except for being relieved to still be alive, I doubt the shooter is happy that he had to do what he had to do.

This. There is no such thing as a "good shoot", only a justified shoot. Only a sociopath would celebrate having to take another person's life.

These two are correct the violent end of a human life in a civilized society isn't something to celebrate. The off-duty police officer was entirely justified but I doubt he's as celebratory about it as our resident wannabe psycho-shooter is.

" CBS 2 has learned the robber who pulled the gun was 16-year-old Deonta Dewight."

I noticed that, even though the shooter is a sheriff's deputy, the first thing he did after the incident was over was to grab his phone and call 911.

The problem with Spidey is that he can't differentiate between the actions of the shooter in this case and the shooter in the Florida case or he just doesn't care. They were teens so the shooters are both correct in their actions after the shootings in Spidey's bizzaro world.


Only an idiot or deranged individual would think that.


....

 

[Theb]

That question was for Geo

Ok. No one else answer Homer, but I'm more generally curious what it was that made Sherman a thug given what is supposed to be a narrow and well defined definition of thug.

People were also calling him a n***** and we know why people were calling him that, but why were people calling him a synonym for criminal?

 

[soulcougher73]

It's a word that describes people who always defend a violent criminal or are violent criminals themselves, protesting how they didn't do anything wrong. A skittle will also typically blame the victim of the violent crime saying they had it coming to them or should have known better.

The perfect example is a treyvon martin supporter, that is a skittle.

That is not at all how you used the word "skittle" before. You said "But man that guy handled the skittle properly. Nice." You were reffing to the dead black "thug" by calling him a skittle. You are trying to make it into a derogitory racist term for black people. Its plain as day.

 

[spidey07]

That is not at all how you used the word "skittle" before. You said "But man that guy handled the skittle properly. Nice." You were reffing to the dead black "thug" by calling him a skittle. You are trying to make it into a derogitory racist term for black people. Its plain as day.

It's candy, not some derogatory racist term you fucking skittle. The skittle can be a violent criminal or a supporter of violent criminals like you, fucking skittle.

 

[QuantumPion]

This isn't a movie, people aren't just "good guys" or "bad guys", I can't believe someone would make that comparison. Appreciating that an innocent person wasn't killed is one thing, or even being glad that a dangerous person can't threaten anyone else, but saying happy endings all around is just perverse.

lol what? What planet are you from?




Oh I'm sorry that probably sounded racist against space aliens with no concept of morality. My apologies.

 

[QuantumPion]

That is not at all how you used the word "skittle" before. You said "But man that guy handled the skittle properly. Nice." You were reffing to the dead black "thug" by calling him a skittle. You are trying to make it into a derogitory racist term for black people. Its plain as day.

It's a derogatory term for sociopathic lawless violent thugs whom also happen to be black. And honestly I don't have a problem with offending that particular group of people.

 

[waggy]

The green apple skittles are pretty good. If they do something better with the yellow ones they'll really have something. I haven't been happy with chocolate M&Ms lately, but peanut butter ones are outstanding.

My daughter loves skittles. about the only candy she eats. I can't stand them. any of them. they all have a flavor i can't stand. Then again i can't stand much in teh way of sweets.

I love the peanut M&M's. the peanut butter are ok. i don't eat the plain ones but do use them in baking cookies.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's candy, not some derogatory racist term you fucking skittle. The skittle can be a violent criminal or a supporter of violent criminals like you, fucking skittle.

Apparently someone is in denial and also has not read my replies in this thread.

You would see how wrong you are if you had. Fucking racist bigot.

 

[hal2kilo]

That's a good thing but all the thousand word or shorter essays you type scream contrary. There is nothing to be ashamed of but please do us all the favour of stopping insulting us. Be who you are and be proud. You don't blend in well enough and you stick out so much to be a closet racist. Some times too many words start to tell more than you think.

Bingo.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's candy, not some derogatory racist term you fucking skittle. The skittle can be a violent criminal or a supporter of violent criminals like you, fucking skittle.

It's a derogatory term for sociopathic lawless violent thugs whom also happen to be black. And honestly I don't have a problem with offending that particular group of people.

Well the OP who coined the phrase would disagree with you. He would be wrong as usual though. Rage on.

 

[Kadarin]

It's a derogatory term for sociopathic lawless violent thugs whom also happen to be black. And honestly I don't have a problem with offending that particular group of people.

But it's apparently racist to point out that these sociopathic lawless violent thugs happen to be black. Much like it's apparently racist to point out that the "teen flash mobs" that rob convenience stores also happen to be black.

 

[NetWareHead]

But it's apparently racist to point out that these sociopathic lawless violent thugs happen to be black. Much like it's apparently racist to point out that the "teen flash mobs" that rob convenience stores also happen to be black.

Its not racial profiling if you end up being correct