This is why vigilante justice can be soo bad.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You can only imagine what the Director Spike Lee intended to have happen by TWEETING George Zimmerman’s address. Wouldn't everyone feel great if someone did a little justice to Zimmerman's house? Maybe even bust down the door and start shooting. Only problem is it was the WRONG address. The poor elderly couple there had to leave in fear of their life.

Also Roseann Barr TWEETED the address of George Zimmerman’s parents and then sent another TWEET stating that she would go to their home. Come on. His parents??
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Tweeting out Z's address is obviously an invitation for further trouble, but tweeting out the address of parties that have nothing to do with what happened (like Z's parents, or the other couple Lee tweeted about etc) borders on criminal negligence.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
As long as it serves their agenda, no harm is to great :(
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,063
1,464
126
This is why the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" exists. Sure, it feels good temporarily to give someone what you think they deserve. But then you get situations like this. Hell, even if it had been the right address what exactly do you think would happen? Nothing good I'm sure. People should rightfully be outraged by the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the failure of the police to bring justice, and the ridiculous law that has allowed it to get this bad. But doing something outrageous in response certainly isn't the right answer and is in fact quite stupid and reckless.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
Damn, you can't even kill a black kid anymore without some loons getting all uppity. Who woulda thunk.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,507
2,703
136
Stupid people do stupid things.

Also, I believe the elderly couple has already settled with Spike Lee for the damage he caused.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Damn, you can't even kill a black kid anymore without some loons getting all uppity. Who woulda thunk.

I absolutely agree! They kill each other all the time and it barely makes the news, so obviously it's not too big a deal to them...
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,395
126
Someone accused of being a vigilante for revealing the address of a vigilante/killer?
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
Friom what I understand, Spike Lee has apologized and reached a settlement with the couple. He was still a complete moron for doing it in the first place, but at least he's tried to rectify the situation.
 
Last edited:

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Tweeting out Z's address is obviously an invitation for further trouble, but tweeting out the address of parties that have nothing to do with what happened (like Z's parents, or the other couple Lee tweeted about etc) borders on criminal negligence.

It would make a good episode for Law and Order. Bet it would end up being 2nd degree murder. Basically knowingly and intentionally inciting a racist mob to commit murder.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Tweeting out Z's address is obviously an invitation for further trouble, but tweeting out the address of parties that have nothing to do with what happened (like Z's parents, or the other couple Lee tweeted about etc) borders on criminal negligence.

It doesn't border on shit, it is straight up criminally negligent, and both of those pieces of shit should be arrested for instigating violence.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Someone accused of being a vigilante for revealing the address of a vigilante/killer?

Yeah, who needs that whole "due process" and "presumption of innocence" nonsense, trial by media, celebs and president is fine and more efficient! :rolleyes: The guy has not even been charged with anything as of yet. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but until he is convicted of something he's presumed to be innocent and all these celebs like Spike Lee and Barr are just showing themselves to be ignorant trash.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,063
1,464
126
It doesn't border on shit, it is straight up criminally negligent, and both of those pieces of shit should be arrested for instigating violence.

I'm not sure if it's actually criminally negligent unless an actual crime occurs because of it. It's certainly not a good thing and it's one of those things you would like to see some punishment as a result of. I just hope in the end that Barr and Lee don't end up with punishments worse than Zimmerman. What they did was wrong, but nobody died as a result of it at least.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
It's one of those gray areas.

It seems wrong if it's done in the spirit of "here's the home address of Zimmerman/abortion doctor/etc." to sic a mob or vigilante.

On the other hand, the occupy movement did a march in front of a Wall Street CEO's house. What if they published the address to meet at for the march?

On the one hand you want to say 'the people who use that address for violence are mainly responsible', but on the other, sometimes it's a clear contributory factor to put our information like that. So there's an issue of deciding which is which - what if one of the occupy people had run in the house and hurt someone? Would the march organizer have been criminally liable with no violent intent? Should we shut down all marches because of the chance of a problem? What about marches on Wall Street? In DC?

Actually IIRC when Martin Luther King planned the famous speech in Washington D. C., the government was concerned, 'what if that mob decides to march on buildings'?

They could have marched to Congress, how could hundreds of thousands of people have been stopped from mass damage if they wanted?
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
Most of the time newspapers only specifiy the street and sometimes the block of the accused . . .
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
It's one of those gray areas.

It seems wrong if it's done in the spirit of "here's the home address of Zimmerman/abortion doctor/etc." to sic a mob or vigilante.

On the other hand, the occupy movement did a march in front of a Wall Street CEO's house. What if they published the address to meet at for the march?

On the one hand you want to say 'the people who use that address for violence are mainly responsible', but on the other, sometimes it's a clear contributory factor to put our information like that. So there's an issue of deciding which is which - what if one of the occupy people had run in the house and hurt someone? Would the march organizer have been criminally liable with no violent intent? Should we shut down all marches because of the chance of a problem? What about marches on Wall Street? In DC?

Actually IIRC when Martin Luther King planned the famous speech in Washington D. C., the government was concerned, 'what if that mob decides to march on buildings'?

They could have marched to Congress, how could hundreds of thousands of people have been stopped from mass damage if they wanted?

The problem is you don't know the intentions of the person(s) coming to your house. in this case, with a 10k bounty, the intent is likely violent as opposed to a "peaceful" march in front of someones house.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
It just boils down to this.

Are rock stars responsible for a teen killing his parents because the lyrics said "kill your parents"?

These guys should be brought up on minor charges like criminal negligence (would that apply?), but they did not hire someone. This is slightly less onerous than yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, but it is also not completely excusable.

I think Spike was good in that he apologized and did not hide behind the "It's my RIGHT to do things that could hurt other people!" banner so many use in cases like this.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Scenario 1: The authorities say they are prohibiting people from marching on Wall Street streets not to suppress free speech, but simply security concerns.

The risk of their entering buildings, accosting people on the street, property damage is a problem so they can't allow the risk of violence.

However, a confidential memo from the public relations people is leaked showing the real reason was political and they used security as a justitication.

Scenario 2: an anti-abortion group posts the home address of the only abortion doctor in the state on the internet; it results in the killing of the doctor.

A memo is leaked from the group's leaders where they indicated 'if someone uses this information to attack the killer of babies, so be it.'

Depending which of these scenarios happened, it's easy to see how public opinion could be strongly for or against the 'free speech rights' involved.

But the policy needs to be decided in advance, to try to address both of them.

This is why freedom advocates say people have to expect there to be a price for freedoms - to try to prevent that creates 'police state' conditions. But as the public watches the freedoms abused and harm caused, it creates demand for stronger protections.

Whatever policy the leaders pick, they can expect to be attacked by 'the other side'.

This is why I think leaders tend to favor the position of "supporting freedoms - but dammit don't use them!"