Teen faces expulsion after brining stun-gun to school to fend off bullies

[manic_depressive13]

-snip-

-snip-

I disagree. I think that due to the low level of maturity of high school students it's better to simply remove issues of contention and try to tackle the ones that are inevitable, instead of putting extra pressure on teachers who are underpaid and already have enough to deal with. I don't think imposing a dress code is a bad thing. I also don't think children will be crippled if they are unable to "express themselves" through the clothes they wear.

 

[Treblaine]

-snip-

-snip-

I disagree. I think that due to the low level of maturity of high school students it's better to simply remove issues of contention and try to tackle the ones that are inevitable, instead of putting extra pressure on teachers who are underpaid and already have enough to deal with. I don't think imposing a dress code is a bad thing. I also don't think children will be crippled if they are unable to "express themselves" through the clothes they wear.

Well that's just giving up. Why should teachers be paid so badly? Children aren't made mature by turning 18, they are made mature by their education. And it is FAR better that trouble is ironed out in school that in adulthood where the consequences are far worse for the individuals and society as a whole.

The problem is not JUST inability to express oneself, it is how to deal with the way other people look and act.

There is also the cultural issue, what if someone comes from a culture with a very different dress code like they must wear a turban, have long hair, shaved hair, or a full headscarf. Then the school will either be cruel to them forcing them to conform or capitulate and make special exceptions. This is how you breed hatred.

Really you should take a step back and have a less strict dress code that works for all people. Like a list of what you cannot wear rather than you "must wear". Like don't dress like a neo-nazi. And how whatever you wear you must not expose your swimsuit area. These are laws like you find in society. Laws people will have to live with in the real world when they leave school. The law doesn't say what you must do in a very particular way, there are limits to what you cannot do.

" also don't think children will be crippled if they are unable to "express themselves" through the clothes they wear."

So you if you were in this school where this poor gay kid is being tormented, would you side with the bullies that he should conform.

You are on the side of the bullies. You are on the side of disregarding public spending in schools as an excess to be cut. You are on the side of delaying problems so they are worse.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Well that's just giving up. Why should teachers be paid so badly? Children aren't made mature by turning 18, they are made mature by their education. And it is FAR better that trouble is ironed out in school that in adulthood where the consequences are far worse for the individuals and society as a whole.

I don't think they should be paid badly, but they are. It's also pretty much impossible to do anything about bullies. Honestly, tell me what you expect them to do.

The problem is not JUST inability to express oneself, it is how to deal with the way other people look and act.

There is also the cultural issue, what if someone comes from a culture with a very different dress code like they must wear a turban, have long hair, shaved hair, or a full headscarf. Then the school will either be cruel to them forcing them to conform or capitulate and make special exceptions. This is how you breed hatred.

Don't use absurd slippery slope arguments. Almost every school in Australia has a uniform code and we had plenty of kids who wore turbans and head scarves at my school. If you can't see the difference between telling someone they can't wear their hijab and telling someone not to wear their trilby, I think you have some reading up to do.

Really you should take a step back and have a less strict dress code that works for all people. Like a list of what you cannot wear rather than you "must wear". Like don't dress like a neo-nazi. And how whatever you wear you must not expose your swimsuit area. These are laws like you find in society. Laws people will have to live with in the real world when they leave school. The law doesn't say what you must do in a very particular way, there are limits to what you cannot do.

School is an institution, not a trip to the mall. If you get a job, chances are you will be expected to wear some sort of uniform. School is designed to prepare you for the workplace.

" also don't think children will be crippled if they are unable to "express themselves" through the clothes they wear."

So you if you were in this school where this poor gay kid is being tormented, would you side with the bullies that he should conform.

You are on the side of the bullies. You are on the side of disregarding public spending in schools as an excess to be cut. You are on the side of delaying problems so they are worse.

I am not on the side of the bullies. What the fuck are you talking about. I'm studying to become a teacher. Why would I want to cut public spending on schools? How the fuck do you make such a deduction from my claim that school uniforms are a good idea? I can't believe you just accused me of that.

I think the important point you're missing here is I don't think HE should conform. I think they should all conform. That's the difference between saying "they should have a uniform" and "he should have dressed more sensibly". The latter is wrong in wrong in my eyes. However, I don't see how suggesting that removing a cause of bullying and cliquiness by having a uniform is the soul-crushing, right-wing, homophobic evil you're making it out to be.

 

[J.d. Scott]

Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

If you bring a weapon to a fight against a group of presumably more violent individuals than yourself, you are a fool not to expect them to retaliate. They are likely more proficient with weaponry than you anyway, and more likely to use it.

At the end of the day, I didn't claim the school had a perfectly safe environment. It doesn't. That isn't practical, and would be terrible preparation for reality. What I said was that there is a reason the bullies picked on the kid, for being overtly camp. There are certain ways people have to learn to act, and ways not to act in certain situations. Its not ideal, but its true. In a room full of evident homophobes, don't parade yourself as homosexual. After all, in the jungle with wild animals I wouldn't try to parade myself as being tasty.

We can't change the way animals act. That doesn't mean we provoke them, either with unwise actions or attacking them.

I still think we're putting too much onus on the high school student to conform. And the fact is, they only have to conform if they stick out in certain ways. If he was a black militant, it most likely wouldn't have been a problem, or if he had gone exceptionally urban, or skater or gothic or whatever kids do these days.

In fact, being gay and open about it is the last bastion of truly forced conformity. We don't expect militant black people to take off their dashiki, or muslims or sikhs to remove their turbans and burqas. (It's not universal, but general). Black girls can wear apple bottoms, and I've seen school students walk into school with obvious pot parodies and "Rack City *****" t-shirts. However, being gay and wearing purple is grounds for forced conformity.

At the end of the day, the permissive attitude (you compared the bullies to wild animals, denoting that homophobia isn't a learned behavior) and easy push to conformity is the problem. The fact that you accept this as reflective of reality is both a problem with you and reality. You may think you're just being pragmatic, but you're condoning their actions and allowing them to perpetuate their cycles.

 

[ElPatron]

A .22 rifle is still a freaking firearm.

I didn't say "a person has been killed by .22", I said a BEAR.

A knife won't break? It won't if you pay decent money for a folder and you don't do retarded shit with it, but it will definitely break if it's a budget folder.

Like I said in my post.

No right to guns doesn't mean no right to self-defence

I meant to say "can't get away with MURDER by claiming SELF-DEFENSE".

Clearing out gangs is not personally protecting you, it is a general public service which IS the job of the police.

I won't argue with CCW reducing crime (though I will ask for a source) but as to the correlation between high levels of violent crime and strict gun laws why do you assume the causation is one way rather than the other? It could simply be that high levels of violent crime lead to more comprehensive bans on firearms just out of futility, the legislature feel they must do SOMETHING.

What I mean is that the WHOLE point of CCW is deterring crime. I didn't post stats because correlation does not imply causation.

Zimmerman himself confirmed he was chasing him down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.

And the call keeps on going. He eventually talks about returning to his vehicle.

It's clear that Treyvon, not under any threat, resorted to stalking George back and attacked him.

And I hope you posted a video by the YoungTurks by accident, because those videos have the same legitimacy as the Daily Heil or Faux News. Just saying.

Zimmerman clearly was prepared to destroy that poor kid and he had no reason to, he's a big guy this skinny kid couldn't "bash his head in" with with his puny fists.

You missed the part when he played football and had assaulted a bus driver. Plus, he had height advantage over Zimmerman.

I saw the footage of Zimmerman on his arrest that night, he was not wheeled out in a gurney nor had any bruises nor facial lacerations. Its very easy to get a nose bleed from the slightest knock and he obviously didn't have a huge bleed as footage of him being processed on the nigh of the arrest.

I have seen the blood in the back of his head and the officers at the scene reported the bloody nose, injuries on his head and marks from the struggle on the grass on his coat.

And you can't miss shooting someone in the head if you press the muzzle right up to their cranium.

First, it is perfectly possible to fail to incapacitate someone from a headshot.

Second, try to claim that you shot the person in legal fashion by executing someone.

Now if I did catch a sick rapist doing that I'd put the gun to his head but wouldn't shoot. He could have a fully-automatic uzi for all it matters, they aren't dodging this close, they have no choice but to stop and surrender then I'll make it clear he isn't going anywhere her till the police arrive. It is worth reasoning with in that situation because when you have the drop on him then armed or not there is no way he could turn a weapon before being shot, so there is no necessity to shoot.

Does the average rapist correspond to the definition of sane?

Or are you 100% sure there aren't drugs or alcohol involved? Because people are actually stupid enough to try to draw at gunpoint. I have met people who killed criminals even at gunpoint because they carried a gun near their wallets.

You can't just assume person X on the street isn't a quickdraw. Doesn't matter if he has a gun or a knife, you don't want the victim to be killed because of negligence.

You'll find that legally accountable self-defence classes don't say it's permissible to dump a mag against any or all threats. Which is incidentally why I think Zimmerman had an ND or a moment of spiteful rage. If he REALLY thought that kid was a threat he would have mag-dumped. I think he was either mad that this punk kid dared to hit him and in a moment of wrath pulled the trigger, or was just careless and flinched.

Treyvon was shot once in the leg when he was on top of Zimmerman.

I am trying really hard to find sauce on this, because a few weeks ago I read that the casing did not eject the weapon properly. Which goes against the accounts from the police, who found the casing in the scene.

So Zimmerman might have had a stovepipe and cleared it. That indicates that his draw was hindered or that Treyvon tried to grab the gun (like Zimmerman said), which prevented the firearm from cycling fully.

Anyway, I am still trying to find any mention to a FTE in Treyvon's shooting.

Stovepipe or not, take into account that the proper authorities asked for the people to not outrage at the verdict. Guess why? Because they know that it will be a total shitstorm.

Zimmerman was already on trial by the Media. I think it's disgusting because people are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[coolman9899]

The kid brought a weapon to school. The instant someone does that, you absolutely have to expel the kid, no matter what the circumstances were. I'm not sure that there was a good option for the kid if the administration genuinely wasn't doing enough, but worst-case scenario, the stun gun could kill someone, and you only use something like that in a genuinely life-threatening situation, one that I doubt was really ever a possibility. If there was a real threat to the kid's life, he wouldn't have been going to school. At least he didn't actually use it on anyone, so he probably won't end up with a criminal record.

There is a difference between the stun gun and the handheld one. Highly doubtfull that the tazer could kill somebody, expecially at that age. Most incedents are with the stun guns which fire the barbs, not with the handheld tazers. Also I am pretty sure that it is law that a person has to go to school. Lastly the media has already gotten a-hold of the story, and with all the gay right stuff floating around, theres no doubt that they will let him off with a warning just to save their ass.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Well, he did bring a fucking stun-gun to school. But only because the school wasn't doing enough to stop the bullying. So, if anyone got hurt, it would be the school's fault, honestly. And laughing at a socially crippled kid and disowning him is bullying. Threatening a kid because of their sexual-orientation, forced beleifs or race is just downright bigotry. So, in the end, if it wasn't the school's fault, it was the bullies'. And it's nice that the kid stood up for himself. But a log or a toy-gun would've been nice. But a stun-gun? Really?

Capcha: moon cheese. Oh God, I love The Escapist...

 

[Treblaine]

I don't think they should be paid badly, but they are. It's also pretty much impossible to do anything about bullies. Honestly, tell me what you expect them to do.

No. Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible.

Putting bullies and abusers in detention every lunch break till they change their behaviour is well within the realms of possibility. As is removing them from sports teams and other positions of honour and accomplishment, threaten expulsion and use suspension. These are all possible.

Don't use absurd slippery slope arguments. Almost every school in Australia has a uniform code and we had plenty of kids who wore turbans and head scarves at my school. If you can't see the difference between telling someone they can't wear their hijab and telling someone not to wear their trilby, I think you have some reading up to do.

I have used no such slippery slope argument.

I have made the argument that making exceptions for religions but not homosexuals or transgender establish a double-standard that stays with people. They see special treatment for those who complain to their magical beliefs but not for those who have genuine gender or sexual identity differences. No slippery slope. No argument that allowing a minor thing to happen with make the more extreme extent inevitable which is a slippery slope argument.

What is so special about religious dress? It is nothing but kowtowing to religion because religions are large, powerful and make extreme claims like what happens to your consciousness after you die.

A dress code should be broad in its tolerance. If a headscarf can be tolerated, then a Trilby can be tolerated. If a turban and long hair can be tolerated then why cannot a pink fluffy scarf can be tolerated? Special exceptions ONLY for religion is not what secular societies do.

School is an institution, not a trip to the mall. If you get a job, chances are you will be expected to wear some sort of uniform. School is designed to prepare you for the workplace.

What are you talking about, most jobs (where you don't work directly with the public) there is no uniform. There is a dress code as in things you cannot wear and a general rule of the style of dress, such as dress smartly for a job in an office but they don't specify what you must wear and especially not give you a uniform!

Uniforms are for being seen in by the wider public, like soldiers/police wear uniforms to be identified as soldiers/police. McDonalds staff wear for public image of commitment, and in a in a factory they must wear overalls but that is for safety reasons so someone doesn't wear a nylon shirt one day that combusts from a stray spark.

I am not on the side of the bullies. What the fuck are you talking about. I'm studying to become a teacher. Why would I want to cut public spending on schools? How the fuck do you make such a deduction from my claim that school uniforms are a good idea? I can't believe you just accused me of that.

I think the important point you're missing here is I don't think HE should conform. I think they should all conform. That's the difference between saying "they should have a uniform" and "he should have dressed more sensibly". The latter is wrong in wrong in my eyes. However, I don't see how suggesting that removing a cause of bullying and cliquiness by having a uniform is the soul-crushing, right-wing, homophobic evil you're making it out to be.

Hmm, saying you are going to be a teacher is no defence, this story establishes that the teachers and entire schools establishment are in agreement with the bullies and give them tacit support. It's well established how much bullies and teachers are willing to work together to be complicit in harassment and abuse.

You seem far more willing to cut teacher responsibility than to provide more of a role to justify more spending and to avoid cuts. Why do you think school spending is cut so easily, because they don't see them doing their job of making adults out of children

Saying "I don't think a bad thing should be done to one, I think the bad thing should be done to all" doesn't make it any better, it makes it worse. You have not given an explanation for why one is acceptable and the other not, "in my eyes" is nothing but baseless opinion. I don't know your reasoning, if you are just concluding this for the convenience or your bias or if you have simply faulty inconsistent reasoning. I have given my reasoning.

And what you have not addressed is that the central issue of intolerance is NOT being solved by a strict uniform policy (with special exceptions to the more powerful religions) but a responsibility of schools is being dodged by creating an artificial conformity so that students don't learn how to respect others who are different, in ways other than religion. And there is the chance many students will detect this double standard and resent religion for its special treatment and see how it gets there by special-pleading, not by reason.

"However, I don't see how suggesting that removing a cause of bullying and cliquiness by having a uniform is the soul-crushing, right-wing, homophobic evil you're making it out to be."

Of course you don't see that BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID MY STANCE WAS!

If you are going to be a teacher, learn about the fallacy of Straw Man arguments.

The cause of the bullying is the bullies. The gay kid did not "cause" the bullying. You know if a student was bullied because of their religious headscarf you would NOT say they had to ditch the headscarf and have the same uniform as everyone else, NOR would you blame them for being a victim.

In case you haven't followed, I am saying people should be allowed to wear dress in school corresponding to their religion without abuse nor harassment, but that should not be a "Special Privilege" of religion, it should be for all students, without discrimination.

 

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

A .22 rifle is still a freaking firearm.

I didn't say "a person has been killed by .22", I said a BEAR.

A knife won't break? It won't if you pay decent money for a folder and you don't do retarded shit with it, but it will definitely break if it's a budget folder.

Like I said in my post.

No right to guns doesn't mean no right to self-defence

I meant to say "can't get away with MURDER by claiming SELF-DEFENSE".

Clearing out gangs is not personally protecting you, it is a general public service which IS the job of the police.

I won't argue with CCW reducing crime (though I will ask for a source) but as to the correlation between high levels of violent crime and strict gun laws why do you assume the causation is one way rather than the other? It could simply be that high levels of violent crime lead to more comprehensive bans on firearms just out of futility, the legislature feel they must do SOMETHING.

What I mean is that the WHOLE point of CCW is deterring crime. I didn't post stats because correlation does not imply causation.

Zimmerman himself confirmed he was chasing him down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.

And the call keeps on going. He eventually talks about returning to his vehicle.

It's clear that Treyvon, not under any threat, resorted to stalking George back and attacked him.

And I hope you posted a video by the YoungTurks by accident, because those videos have the same legitimacy as the Daily Heil or Faux News. Just saying.

Zimmerman clearly was prepared to destroy that poor kid and he had no reason to, he's a big guy this skinny kid couldn't "bash his head in" with with his puny fists.

You missed the part when he played football and had assaulted a bus driver. Plus, he had height advantage over Zimmerman.

I saw the footage of Zimmerman on his arrest that night, he was not wheeled out in a gurney nor had any bruises nor facial lacerations. Its very easy to get a nose bleed from the slightest knock and he obviously didn't have a huge bleed as footage of him being processed on the nigh of the arrest.

I have seen the blood in the back of his head and the officers at the scene reported the bloody nose, injuries on his head and marks from the struggle on the grass on his coat.

And you can't miss shooting someone in the head if you press the muzzle right up to their cranium.

First, it is perfectly possible to fail to incapacitate someone from a headshot.

Second, try to claim that you shot the person in legal fashion by executing someone.

Now if I did catch a sick rapist doing that I'd put the gun to his head but wouldn't shoot. He could have a fully-automatic uzi for all it matters, they aren't dodging this close, they have no choice but to stop and surrender then I'll make it clear he isn't going anywhere her till the police arrive. It is worth reasoning with in that situation because when you have the drop on him then armed or not there is no way he could turn a weapon before being shot, so there is no necessity to shoot.

Does the average rapist correspond to the definition of sane?

Or are you 100% sure there aren't drugs or alcohol involved? Because people are actually stupid enough to try to draw at gunpoint. I have met people who killed criminals even at gunpoint because they carried a gun near their wallets.

You can't just assume person X on the street isn't a quickdraw. Doesn't matter if he has a gun or a knife, you don't want the victim to be killed because of negligence.

You'll find that legally accountable self-defence classes don't say it's permissible to dump a mag against any or all threats. Which is incidentally why I think Zimmerman had an ND or a moment of spiteful rage. If he REALLY thought that kid was a threat he would have mag-dumped. I think he was either mad that this punk kid dared to hit him and in a moment of wrath pulled the trigger, or was just careless and flinched.

Treyvon was shot once in the leg when he was on top of Zimmerman.

I am trying really hard to find sauce on this, because a few weeks ago I read that the casing did not eject the weapon properly. Which goes against the accounts from the police, who found the casing in the scene.

So Zimmerman might have had a stovepipe and cleared it. That indicates that his draw was hindered or that Treyvon tried to grab the gun (like Zimmerman said), which prevented the firearm from cycling fully.

Anyway, I am still trying to find any mention to a FTE in Treyvon's shooting.

Stovepipe or not, take into account that the proper authorities asked for the people to not outrage at the verdict. Guess why? Because they know that it will be a total shitstorm.

Zimmerman was already on trial by the Media. I think it's disgusting because people are innocent until proven guilty.

Whatever. It doesn't matter how big and tough you are, a bullet in the brain is VERY lethal, any high velocity projectile penetrating the skull sends shockwaves through the brain causing unconsciousness, and the brain then swells and is crushed. Only the most advanced medical techniques and anti-swelling drugs and blood-vessel repairing can make it possible to survive a bullet to the brain, size is irrelevant whether you are a chipmunk or an elephant

But the point is that guns are very capable to cause harm. The cheapest knife is far more capable of use as a weapon than any piece of stationary the force needed to break the cheapest folder is greater than the break any pencil. Again, no weapon should be permitted in school.

You should have said "get away with murder" then, not "cannot use self-defence". Very VERY different. You are right you can't use self-defence to get away with murder. But the way you talk about killing those who aren't an actual threat as being under "self-defence" that is in fact murder.

No. The whole point of CCW has NOT been broad crime prevention, it has been crime prevention against the specific individuals who carry and those under their direct care. All the arguments in the many separate legislatures that have argued for CCW laws have refuted every claim that it is for vigilantism, they have been adamant and consistent that CCW-licences are entirely for self-defence for people who did not seek confrontation. That it is a logical extension for a right of your gun in your home to defend yourself, to also have a gun when going about your legitimate business.

Absolutely not does CCW licence make you a DIY-cop. You can defend yourself in your business, not actively intervene in criminal affairs unless they are unambiguously committing a crime against you. "looking suspicious" as Zimmerman would put it doesn't count.

Uh, WHAT? George Zimmerman admitted to following him, to spite being told he didn't have to, and ran after him when HE RAN AWAY! What kind of "stalker" is ths kid if he runs away? Running from cops is suspisious but Zimmerman was no cop, he was some guy who the kid had no idea what mal intent he planned.

Are you suggesting YouTurks manipulated the recording? Otherwise it's utterly irrelevant that they have uploaded it. I skipped over their editorialising.

Boxing, you should know height advantage don't mean much. Mike Tyson was a mere 5-foot 10-inches in his prime, Zimmerman you can tell has the weight advantage. Again, if Zimmerman was having his "head bashed in" where are the injuries documented? A bloody nose is not evidence of "head bashed in" as you can get that from the slightest knocks.

I think the reason for the lack of sources on the kid being shot in the leg is because he wasn't, it's just an unsubstantiated rumour.

Give me one example in the history of firearms where someone has taken a point blank 9mm round (or similar) through the brain case and not just survived but had the strength and coordination to go on fighting. And if they reached for a gun and turned around ONLY THEN would I shoot them. The gun in their hand would be all the evidence needed to exonerate so I wouldn't shoot till I saw them pull any weapon and they'd be facing the wrong way so I could be a step ahead. No reason to shoot till a weapon is seen. You seem to suggest mag-dumping into centre mass when there is no immediate threat and every opportunity to get them to surrender.

Sane or insane, intoxicated or not, I'll give them a chance to surrender. If they are crazy and take that chance in a futile attempt at killing me or another, then they get shot. But only if they are crazy enough to actually make that attempt.

Your examples makes clear:

"I have met people who killed criminals even at gunpoint because they carried a gun near their wallets."

Yes, so you fire when the assailant draw the weapon, not before you know any weapon is even on them to be drawn. No need to shoot till an actual threat is shown.

"you don't want the victim to be killed because of negligence."

Change that to

"you don't want ANYONE to be killed because of negligence."

It is wrong to kill even the perpetrator when they pose no actual threat. You are not a judge, jury or executioner, just because you'd like the perpetrator of a crime to be killed doesn't justify killing them, only their their immediate threat to life or severe injury justifies that. NOR can you exaggerate their threat to justify arbitrarily killing them like saying "OOOhh, what if he had a super concealed weapon, was super fast at drawing it, was super accurate and super fast at firing, so fast I'd have to kill him before he even started moving"

Even if that kid did fight back and even if he had tried to grab the gun off him HE WAS IN THE RIGHT TO DO THAT as George Zimmerman was the aggressor. He was chasing him down when he'd done nothing wrong and Zimmerman had no reason to suspect him. Now if this EXACT SAME altercation had happened in Zimmerman's home and this kid had broken into his house, if would be different.

See it is not a crime for that kid to punch some guy who chases him down, where is HIS right to self-defence?!?

 

[aenimau5]

I realise that letting him bring a weapon to school sets a bad precedent but seriously fuck those bullying intolerantnarcicisticdickswi... oh crap I'm projecting again. (Seriously though taze their balls off!)

 

[ElPatron]

Whatever. It doesn't matter how big and tough you are, a bullet in the brain is VERY lethal, any high velocity projectile penetrating the skull sends shockwaves through the brain causing unconsciousness, and the brain then swells and is crushed. Only the most advanced medical techniques and anti-swelling drugs and blood-vessel repairing can make it possible to survive a bullet to the brain, size is irrelevant whether you are a chipmunk or an elephant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords

Size MATTERS. The bigger an animal is, the harder it is to disrupt vitals. Unless you are willing to defend yourself from a bear with .22LR (which is a respectable cartridge) don't say it will take down elephants.

Elephants have thick skulls and big brains. A headshot doesn't guarantee a kill when you need to cause massive damage to the tissues to actually disrupt his neural activity (you have to aim at specific planes, not the general "head").

You should have said "get away with murder" then, not "cannot use self-defence". Very VERY different. You are right you can't use self-defence to get away with murder. But the way you talk about killing those who aren't an actual threat as being under "self-defence" that is in fact murder.

No, I did not talk about that. You were the one who brought up the issue of using "self-defense" to kill enemy gang members. And I said "they can't get away with self-defense", as in "they can't get away with that!"

Absolutely not does CCW licence make you a DIY-cop. You can defend yourself in your business, not actively intervene in criminal affairs unless they are unambiguously committing a crime against you. "looking suspicious" as Zimmerman would put it doesn't count.

Again, dodging the part where Zimmerman was doing his job (reporting to the police and give them details) and he only shot after being confronted and assaulted.

Nobody ever said that CCW makes people cops.

Uh, WHAT? George Zimmerman admitted to following him, to spite being told he didn't have to, and ran after him when HE RAN AWAY! What kind of "stalker" is ths kid if he runs away?

Again, dancing around the issue. If he had ran away how could have he magically assaulted Zimmerman?

No. He stalked Zimmerman back.

Running from cops is suspisious but Zimmerman was no cop, he was some guy who the kid had no idea what mal intent he planned.

Treyvon was not forced to retreat (stand your ground law) but the law doesn't mean you can randomly beat people because they look at you funny.

Are you suggesting YouTurks manipulated the recording?

I'm not saying that because I did not even see the video (I had already listened to the recordings the week the whole thing happened) but the media actually edited Zimmerman's call (NBC). Not saying that YoungTurks did so, but I just don't trust them.

Boxing, you should know height advantage don't mean much. Mike Tyson was a mere 5-foot 10-inches in his prime

None of the people involved were boxers. Treyvon was a football player.

I think the reason for the lack of sources on the kid being shot in the leg is because he wasn't, it's just an unsubstantiated rumour.

It's all a clusterfuck. There are sources claiming it was in the back, in the chest, in the back of the head...

Give me one example in the history of firearms where someone has taken a point blank 9mm round (or similar) through the brain case and not just survived but had the strength and coordination to go on fighting.

First, you have to imply that the bullet does not graze/bounce off the skull.

I think it was in February, a robber got shot in the head by 9x19mm from very close range and just ran away. Trying to find news piece but like always I have trouble searching fore news.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363442,00.html
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/01/11/man-survives-9mm-head-shot/
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1308335_Pit_bull_takes_9mm_round_to_head__lives__saves_owner_and_family.html


Police officer shot seven times by .45 ACP, one in the head - and kept on going.

Comparison:

In the '86 Miami shootout, Platt was hit 12 times. The first hit was a 9mm round fired by Agent Dove which, "hit his right upper arm, just above the inside crook of the elbow. The bullet passed under the bone, through the deltoid, triceps and teres major muscles and severed the brachial arteries and veins. The bullet exited the inner side of his upper arm near the armpit, penetrated his chest between the fifth and sixth ribs, and passed almost completely through the right lung before stopping. The bullet came to rest about one inch short of penetrating the wall of the heart."

The doctor performing the autopsy believes that Platt's first wound was unsurvivable, and was the primary injury responsible for Platt's death.

He was a walking deadman that managed to kill two FBI agents and severely wound five others before dying.

And if they reached for a gun and...

Game over. You're already dead before you finished that train of thought.

If you can aim a handgun at a falling target and shoot it before it has a chance to shoot back at you... Why aren't you trying to pursuit a career as a sports shooter in the IPSC or whatever?

Yes, so you fire when the assailant draw the weapon, not before you know any weapon is even on them to be drawn. No need to shoot till an actual threat is shown.

My point is that it's perfectly retarded to point a weapon at an armed opponent.

Yet people do it, and fool the person with his gun out. If you don't want to die, don't draw a weapon on an armed opponent. If you want to live, never assume that the opponent isn't retarded to the point of drawing anyway.

Even if that kid did fight back

Except he attacked a man, not "fight back". He was a confrontational thug and he already had assaulted a bus driver.

and even if he had tried to grab the gun off him HE WAS IN THE RIGHT TO DO THAT

No. It's a stupid thing to do. Life is not like Lethal Weapon or those fancy Krav Maga youtube videos.

And it's specially stupid to do so if you are the attacker. Like Treyvon.

See it is not a crime for that kid to punch some guy who chases him down, where is HIS right to self-defence?!?

So you mean that being followed by someone on the phone looking at you funny is enough for self-defense?

Vigilantism anyone?

 

[manic_depressive13]

No. Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible.

Putting bullies and abusers in detention every lunch break till they change their behaviour is well within the realms of possibility. As is removing them from sports teams and other positions of honour and accomplishment, threaten expulsion and use suspension. These are all possible.

Based on what? A student walks up to you and says some other boys called him a "fag", for example. You sit them down and have a talk. The other boys deny ever making such a statement. Are you going to put them in detention for the rest of their schooling? Are you going to suspend or expel them? No, you are going to advise the initial boy to try and stay within sight of teachers at all times because, much as you'd like to help him, you have no fucking proof and you can't go rampaging around kicking people out of school every time some students have a fight and harsh words are exchanged.

I have used no such slippery slope argument.

I have made the argument that making exceptions for religions but not homosexuals or transgender establish a double-standard that stays with people. They see special treatment for those who complain to their magical beliefs but not for those who have genuine gender or sexual identity differences. No slippery slope. No argument that allowing a minor thing to happen with make the more extreme extent inevitable which is a slippery slope argument.

What is so special about religious dress? It is nothing but kowtowing to religion because religions are large, powerful and make extreme claims like what happens to your consciousness after you die.

A dress code should be broad in its tolerance. If a headscarf can be tolerated, then a Trilby can be tolerated. If a turban and long hair can be tolerated then why cannot a pink fluffy scarf can be tolerated? Special exceptions ONLY for religion is not what secular societies do.

The difference between religious dress and other clothes is that religious dress is not for fashion, nor self-expression, nor is it considered 'voluntary' for followers of the faith. Once you believe an all powerful god exists, and he has told you to dress a certain way, you are going to do it. The natural response for non-believers or followers of a different faith is pity, not envy.

You are claiming that a minor concession in the dress code is going to breed resentment and religious intolerance. You're correct. That's not really a slippery slope argument. It's just a really stupid one.

What are you talking about, most jobs (where you don't work directly with the public) there is no uniform. There is a dress code as in things you cannot wear and a general rule of the style of dress, such as dress smartly for a job in an office but they don't specify what you must wear and especially not give you a uniform!

Uniforms are for being seen in by the wider public, like soldiers/police wear uniforms to be identified as soldiers/police. McDonalds staff wear for public image of commitment, and in a in a factory they must wear overalls but that is for safety reasons so someone doesn't wear a nylon shirt one day that combusts from a stray spark.

Almost every job in retail has a uniform. Dymocks has a uniform. Target has a uniform. Most professional jobs require you to wear a suit consisting at the very least of black pants and a collared shirt. You can call it what you like but that's a uniform too.

Hmm, saying you are going to be a teacher is no defence, this story establishes that the teachers and entire schools establishment are in agreement with the bullies and give them tacit support. It's well established how much bullies and teachers are willing to work together to be complicit in harassment and abuse.

Of course.

You seem far more willing to cut teacher responsibility than to provide more of a role to justify more spending and to avoid cuts. Why do you think school spending is cut so easily, because they don't see them doing their job of making adults out of children

Yes, that is how things work. Well done.

Saying "I don't think a bad thing should be done to one, I think the bad thing should be done to all" doesn't make it any better, it makes it worse. You have not given an explanation for why one is acceptable and the other not, "in my eyes" is nothing but baseless opinion. I don't know your reasoning, if you are just concluding this for the convenience or your bias or if you have simply faulty inconsistent reasoning. I have given my reasoning.

It's not a bad thing, it's a uniform. That's all it is. A uniform. Not a terrible injustice, a uniform.

I have explained that having a uniform policy is just that. Uniform. It's non-discriminatory. There is a difference between saying "you can't dress flamboyantly" and saying "everyone is going to wear a uniform". If you can't understand that, you're beyond help.

And what you have not addressed is that the central issue of intolerance is NOT being solved by a strict uniform policy (with special exceptions to the more powerful religions) but a responsibility of schools is being dodged by creating an artificial conformity so that students don't learn how to respect others who are different, in ways other than religion. And there is the chance many students will detect this double standard and resent religion for its special treatment and see how it gets there by special-pleading, not by reason.

The central issue of intolerance needs to be addressed by society as a whole. I have explained why no one cares about the religious dress.

If you are going to be a teacher, learn about the fallacy of Straw Man arguments.

You mean the ones you have been making continuously by claiming I am complicit to bullying by suggesting a uniform?

The cause of the bullying is the bullies. The gay kid did not "cause" the bullying. You know if a student was bullied because of their religious headscarf you would NOT say they had to ditch the headscarf and have the same uniform as everyone else, NOR would you blame them for being a victim.

In case you haven't followed, I am saying people should be allowed to wear dress in school corresponding to their religion without abuse nor harassment, but that should not be a "Special Privilege" of religion, it should be for all students, without discrimination.

I didn't say the gay student caused the bullying. I'm saying people's readiness to judge others according to their clothing is problematic and introducing a uniform is the most reasonable, if not the ideal, response. It creates a sense of community because everyone is wearing the same thing. There has never been an issue with religion at any of my schools and your attempt to shoehorn it into this argument is strange and unecessary. This has nothing to do with religion. Stop being ridiculous, and stop using sensationalist and accusational arguments.

 

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

Whatever. It doesn't matter how big and tough you are, a bullet in the brain is VERY lethal, any high velocity projectile penetrating the skull sends shockwaves through the brain causing unconsciousness, and the brain then swells and is crushed. Only the most advanced medical techniques and anti-swelling drugs and blood-vessel repairing can make it possible to survive a bullet to the brain, size is irrelevant whether you are a chipmunk or an elephant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords

Size MATTERS. The bigger an animal is, the harder it is to disrupt vitals. Unless you are willing to defend yourself from a bear with .22LR (which is a respectable cartridge) don't say it will take down elephants.

Elephants have thick skulls and big brains. A headshot doesn't guarantee a kill when you need to cause massive damage to the tissues to actually disrupt his neural activity (you have to aim at specific planes, not the general "head").

You should have said "get away with murder" then, not "cannot use self-defence". Very VERY different. You are right you can't use self-defence to get away with murder. But the way you talk about killing those who aren't an actual threat as being under "self-defence" that is in fact murder.

No, I did not talk about that. You were the one who brought up the issue of using "self-defense" to kill enemy gang members. And I said "they can't get away with self-defense", as in "they can't get away with that!"

Absolutely not does CCW licence make you a DIY-cop. You can defend yourself in your business, not actively intervene in criminal affairs unless they are unambiguously committing a crime against you. "looking suspicious" as Zimmerman would put it doesn't count.

Again, dodging the part where Zimmerman was doing his job (reporting to the police and give them details) and he only shot after being confronted and assaulted.

Nobody ever said that CCW makes people cops.

Uh, WHAT? George Zimmerman admitted to following him, to spite being told he didn't have to, and ran after him when HE RAN AWAY! What kind of "stalker" is ths kid if he runs away?

Again, dancing around the issue. If he had ran away how could have he magically assaulted Zimmerman?

No. He stalked Zimmerman back.

Running from cops is suspisious but Zimmerman was no cop, he was some guy who the kid had no idea what mal intent he planned.

Treyvon was not forced to retreat (stand your ground law) but the law doesn't mean you can randomly beat people because they look at you funny.

Are you suggesting YouTurks manipulated the recording?

I'm not saying that because I did not even see the video (I had already listened to the recordings the week the whole thing happened) but the media actually edited Zimmerman's call (NBC). Not saying that YoungTurks did so, but I just don't trust them.

Boxing, you should know height advantage don't mean much. Mike Tyson was a mere 5-foot 10-inches in his prime

None of the people involved were boxers. Treyvon was a football player.

I think the reason for the lack of sources on the kid being shot in the leg is because he wasn't, it's just an unsubstantiated rumour.

It's all a clusterfuck. There are sources claiming it was in the back, in the chest, in the back of the head...

Give me one example in the history of firearms where someone has taken a point blank 9mm round (or similar) through the brain case and not just survived but had the strength and coordination to go on fighting.

First, you have to imply that the bullet does not graze/bounce off the skull.

I think it was in February, a robber got shot in the head by 9x19mm from very close range and just ran away. Trying to find news piece but like always I have trouble searching fore news.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363442,00.html
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/01/11/man-survives-9mm-head-shot/
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1308335_Pit_bull_takes_9mm_round_to_head__lives__saves_owner_and_family.html

In the '86 Miami shootout, Platt was hit 12 times. The first hit was a 9mm round fired by Agent Dove which, "hit his right upper arm, just above the inside crook of the elbow. The bullet passed under the bone, through the deltoid, triceps and teres major muscles and severed the brachial arteries and veins. The bullet exited the inner side of his upper arm near the armpit, penetrated his chest between the fifth and sixth ribs, and passed almost completely through the right lung before stopping. The bullet came to rest about one inch short of penetrating the wall of the heart."

The doctor performing the autopsy believes that Platt's first wound was unsurvivable, and was the primary injury responsible for Platt's death.

He was a walking deadman that managed to kill two FBI agents and severely wound five others before dying.

And if they reached for a gun and...

Game over. You're already dead before you finished that train of thought.

If you can aim a handgun at a falling target and shoot it before it has a chance to shoot back at you... Why aren't you trying to pursuit a career as a sports shooter in the IPSC or whatever?

Yes, so you fire when the assailant draw the weapon, not before you know any weapon is even on them to be drawn. No need to shoot till an actual threat is shown.

My point is that it's perfectly retarded to point a weapon at an armed opponent.

Yet people do it, and fool the person with his gun out. If you don't want to die, don't draw a weapon on an armed opponent. If you want to live, never assume that the opponent isn't retarded to the point of drawing anyway.

Even if that kid did fight back

Except he attacked a man, not "fight back". He was a confrontational thug and he already had assaulted a bus driver.

and even if he had tried to grab the gun off him HE WAS IN THE RIGHT TO DO THAT

No. It's a stupid thing to do. Life is not like Lethal Weapon or those fancy Krav Maga youtube videos.

And it's specially stupid to do so if you are the attacker. Like Treyvon.

See it is not a crime for that kid to punch some guy who chases him down, where is HIS right to self-defence?!?

So you mean that being followed by someone on the phone looking at you funny is enough for self-defense?

Vigilantism anyone?

Gage and Giffords were both immediately and severely incapacitated by their head injuries taking weeks to regain consciousness and both survived at all because they had a large part of their skull removed so their brain could swell without being crushed, in Gage's case it was due to the relatively large size but low velocity of the steel pole.

"[can't use] "self-defense" to kill enemy gang members."

So we are in agreement, armed citizens can't deliberately confront people they suspect of crimes and provoke action. So, what did Zimmerman do? He merely thought he was suspicious and you're saying it wouldn't even be self-defence if you confronted and actual gang member.

His job was to keep a distance from that kid and he clearly did not, against what the 911 adviser told him to do, he started the confrontation. You implied CCW gave him all the training he needed to pursue and harass this kid who was committing no crime nor was suspected of any actual crime.

How could he have hit Zimmerman? When Zimmerman chased him down as he admitted and accosted him. You cannot contort the fact of the kid being chased and confronted into suddenly becoming the stalker.

Trayvon was not forced to stand his ground either, he had every right to run and especially if he (rightly) suspected this weird guy was armed with a gun. After being chased by an armed man, wouldn't Trayvon then have a right to stand his ground and beat his assailant till he was no longer a threat? They can't BOTH be acting under self-defence, I think Trayvon was the one acting in self-defence due to him being the one pursued. Remember it was Zimmerman who confronted the boy for "looking funny", NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

Zimmerman had not only a weight advantage but was fully matured. Muscle and bone mass keeps growing to its peak potential at around 21 years old. Treyvon was just a skinny kid (police report said he weighed only 160lbs), he was no beefcake, he posed NO GENUINE THREAT. Definitely not enough to justify pull a gun on him as the only way to avoid losing life or limb.

Yeah, I said shot through the cranium, not-nicking-the-scalp or through the cheek or neck, but through the brain case. That is still no reason to shoot and kill someone before they are any actual or genuine threat.

You video example, I counted a whole 2 seconds between him making a very obvious move to grabbing a very obvious gun and firing. With a gun already drawn and ready you cannot outshoot that, there is still no justification for shooting an unarmed man. They'd get shot jsut as soon as they reached for the gun. And you are giving an example of someone who has gone under and EXCEPTIONAL amount of training, has been specifically chosen for his aptitude in demonstration, with equipment sacrificing conceal-ability for speed and he is doing this under hardly any stress after having multiple practice attempts.

Irrelevant comparison. Give him a holstered paintball gun an have someone stinging behind him with a paintball gun held in ready position see if he can then draw turn and aim quicker than him.

Your video is no excuse to kill a suspect who poses no immediate threat.

"If you don't want to die, don't draw a weapon on an armed opponent. If you want to live, never assume that the opponent isn't retarded to the point of drawing anyway."

OK, but that's no excuse to shoot an unarmed person. You shoot them when they draw a lethal weapon, not when they throw a few punches at you. Especially when you provoked those punches by chasing and accosting them.

The bus driver assault was clearly not serious or else he wouldn't be expelled, remember, assault is touching anyone without their permission. By "in the right" I meant his legal right to self-defence, as a last ditch effort to save his life from a man who was trying to restrain him and do god knows what to him. Schools kids are repeatedly warned of the dangers of pedophiles and if you were in his position would you take the chance as a bright faced boy some pervert may want to bad things to.

And if you are going to bring up Trayvon's past, why not the same for Zimmerman:

"In 2005, he had to take anger management courses after he was accused of attacking an undercover officer who was trying to arrest Mr Zimmerman's friend. In another incident, a girlfriend accused him of attacking her."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17809994

Hmm, most states you lose not only your CCW-licence but your ability to even own firearms after just a single case of domestic abuse. Florida must be different or else someone dropped the ball. No word on how well his anger management classes went.

STOP and put yourself in Trayvon's position. You advocate extreme force in self-defence of shooting someone who even MIGHT have a gun, but if some armed guy is chasing you and tries to interfere with you... you claim you wouldn't even strike him to escape whatever he had in store for you?!?!

Also put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes, did he draw his gun and shoot because he genuinely feared for his life, or because he was angry, again. Like he got angry at that cop who was rightly arresting his brother, or how he got angry and his girlfriend and stuck her, as she claims. He got a bail of ONE MILLION dollars and he had to wear an electronic tag with strict curfew, says something about the police's .

Zimmerman is NOT the champion of self-defence, he is an example of what is going too far. Gun owners of America, you draw the line here, you make clear you will learn from this and not be like him. And the STRENGTH of american gun laws will be demonstrated by Zimmerman's conviction. The law is right, Zimmerman was wrong.

And if he isn't convicted, you can except a whole new raft of more restrictive firearm law. Probably at the federal level where they cannot be avoided by moving states.

And you have to admit, what would be lost if Zimmerman hadn't gone after that boy, if after Trayvon (within his right to Self-Defence) struck him, had Zimmerman not drawn his weapon but just disengaged, would it be such a great injustice.

The basic thing is I cannot see how he genuinely feared for his life. He got these lumps by chasing him, why didn't he just break off?

 

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

No. Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible.

Putting bullies and abusers in detention every lunch break till they change their behaviour is well within the realms of possibility. As is removing them from sports teams and other positions of honour and accomplishment, threaten expulsion and use suspension. These are all possible.

Based on what? A student walks up to you and says some other boys called him a "fag", for example. You sit them down and have a talk. The other boys deny ever making such a statement. Are you going to put them in detention for the rest of their schooling? Are you going to suspend or expel them? No, you are going to advise the initial boy to try and stay within sight of teachers at all times because, much as you'd like to help him, you have no fucking proof and you can't go rampaging around kicking people out of school every time some students have a fight and harsh words are exchanged.

I have used no such slippery slope argument.

I have made the argument that making exceptions for religions but not homosexuals or transgender establish a double-standard that stays with people. They see special treatment for those who complain to their magical beliefs but not for those who have genuine gender or sexual identity differences. No slippery slope. No argument that allowing a minor thing to happen with make the more extreme extent inevitable which is a slippery slope argument.

What is so special about religious dress? It is nothing but kowtowing to religion because religions are large, powerful and make extreme claims like what happens to your consciousness after you die.

A dress code should be broad in its tolerance. If a headscarf can be tolerated, then a Trilby can be tolerated. If a turban and long hair can be tolerated then why cannot a pink fluffy scarf can be tolerated? Special exceptions ONLY for religion is not what secular societies do.

The difference between religious dress and other clothes is that religious dress is not for fashion, nor self-expression, nor is it considered 'voluntary' for followers of the faith. Once you believe an all powerful god exists, and he has told you to dress a certain way, you are going to do it. The natural response for non-believers or followers of a different faith is pity, not envy.

You are claiming that a minor concession in the dress code is going to breed resentment and religious intolerance. You're correct. That's not really a slippery slope argument. It's just a really stupid one.

What are you talking about, most jobs (where you don't work directly with the public) there is no uniform. There is a dress code as in things you cannot wear and a general rule of the style of dress, such as dress smartly for a job in an office but they don't specify what you must wear and especially not give you a uniform!

Uniforms are for being seen in by the wider public, like soldiers/police wear uniforms to be identified as soldiers/police. McDonalds staff wear for public image of commitment, and in a in a factory they must wear overalls but that is for safety reasons so someone doesn't wear a nylon shirt one day that combusts from a stray spark.

Almost every job in retail has a uniform. Dymocks has a uniform. Target has a uniform. Most professional jobs require you to wear a suit consisting at the very least of black pants and a collared shirt. You can call it what you like but that's a uniform too.

Hmm, saying you are going to be a teacher is no defence, this story establishes that the teachers and entire schools establishment are in agreement with the bullies and give them tacit support. It's well established how much bullies and teachers are willing to work together to be complicit in harassment and abuse.

Of course.

You seem far more willing to cut teacher responsibility than to provide more of a role to justify more spending and to avoid cuts. Why do you think school spending is cut so easily, because they don't see them doing their job of making adults out of children

Yes, that is how things work. Well done.

Saying "I don't think a bad thing should be done to one, I think the bad thing should be done to all" doesn't make it any better, it makes it worse. You have not given an explanation for why one is acceptable and the other not, "in my eyes" is nothing but baseless opinion. I don't know your reasoning, if you are just concluding this for the convenience or your bias or if you have simply faulty inconsistent reasoning. I have given my reasoning.

It's not a bad thing, it's a uniform. That's all it is. A uniform. Not a terrible injustice, a uniform.

I have explained that having a uniform policy is just that. Uniform. It's non-discriminatory. There is a difference between saying "you can't dress flamboyantly" and saying "everyone is going to wear a uniform". If you can't understand that, you're beyond help.

And what you have not addressed is that the central issue of intolerance is NOT being solved by a strict uniform policy (with special exceptions to the more powerful religions) but a responsibility of schools is being dodged by creating an artificial conformity so that students don't learn how to respect others who are different, in ways other than religion. And there is the chance many students will detect this double standard and resent religion for its special treatment and see how it gets there by special-pleading, not by reason.

The central issue of intolerance needs to be addressed by society as a whole. I have explained why no one cares about the religious dress.

If you are going to be a teacher, learn about the fallacy of Straw Man arguments.

You mean the ones you have been making continuously by claiming I am complicit to bullying by suggesting a uniform?

The cause of the bullying is the bullies. The gay kid did not "cause" the bullying. You know if a student was bullied because of their religious headscarf you would NOT say they had to ditch the headscarf and have the same uniform as everyone else, NOR would you blame them for being a victim.

In case you haven't followed, I am saying people should be allowed to wear dress in school corresponding to their religion without abuse nor harassment, but that should not be a "Special Privilege" of religion, it should be for all students, without discrimination.

I didn't say the gay student caused the bullying. I'm saying people's readiness to judge others according to their clothing is problematic and introducing a uniform is the most reasonable, if not the ideal, response. It creates a sense of community because everyone is wearing the same thing. There has never been an issue with religion at any of my schools and your attempt to shoehorn it into this argument is strange and unecessary. This has nothing to do with religion. Stop being ridiculous, and stop using sensationalist and accusational arguments.

Oh come on, you're becoming a teacher this is simple to figure out, you can hold a mini trial and become a master detective, it's easy@

Step 1: Hang the penalty of PERJURY over the accused, that if it is ever PROVEN they are making a false claim they will be most severely punished with the most privileges removed. Probably safe to continue, make them note down exactly what the crime was.

Step 2: give the accused a chance to confess now and get a light punishment or get a worse one when proven. But do not tell them the specifics of what they have been accused of. They have to confess to exactly the same accusation, the exact slur used. But if they are in flat denial... bring forth the witnesses.

Step 3: Find some people who would have overheard it and never let the bully know who. Play a variant of Prisoner's Dilemma with them, Separate them and ask them what happened with them knowing two things: someone else will be asked, and if they conceal something that they reveal they will be in trouble.

You have to be smart to be a teacher. Put an audio recorder in your classroom when you leave, and listen to the language they use.

Hear me well, you nip abuse and harassment in the bud, when it is just verbal, or else you end up with such severe bullying that mothers arming their kids with stun guns! Have you any idea how many gay people are driven to suicide by abuse?

And what's an appropriate punishment for verbal abuse like calling a gay kid a "F****ing fag" or some ethnic slur to another kid. You give them a taste of their own medicine. You give them the choice of sitting silently and taking the ear harranging of a lifetime or they can leave this school with an expulsion on their permanent record. You show them cases of racial and homophobic abuse that has lead to "fag-drags" and suicides. You shame them and say any further accusations will be believed.

"belief in an all powerful god... [who] has told you to dress a certain way, you are going to do it"

So ideas like freedom, expression and choice are worthless compared to the INTRANSIGENCE of ignorance and fear. I support religious freedom and tolerance as it is only strengthened by suppression. But this hold religion on a pedestal, of special exception. So when these children come to vote on laws like allowing gay couples to adopt, and when they hear the priests of many religions unite in saying God Forbids it, and they vote against it... the school can bear their ample share of responsibility.

"It's just a really stupid one"

You want to become a teacher with justifications like this?


I'm not saying Uniform is discriminatory, so why are you saying it isn't other than to insinuate that is my argument? I have made clear my issues with uniform and it in itself discriminating is not the problem. A thing in itself discriminating or not is not the only problem. You have to discriminate, you have to discriminate bullies and put them in detention.

Intolerance begins in school, it is a prime opportunity to end it there, it is too late to try to do anything once they have left school. 7-18 are the most important years of their life and you don't think they need to learn tolerance in that time?!?! You sure you want to be a teacher?

Yeah, you really do need to learn what a Straw Man argument is, because I claim you want school uniforms and you REALLY do want them, you want them BECAUSE they dodge the issue of learning tolerance. That IS your stance, the complicity with bullying is not a part of your stance.
A dress code requiring a suit ain't a uniform. I have worked in an office where there was a guy who to spite wearing a suit was clearly expressing himself with his choice of colours and combinations.


"I didn't say the gay student caused the bullying."

Earlier: "I don't see how suggesting that removing a cause of bullying and cliquiness by having a uniform..."

You have to admit, a uniform would stop the boy dressing flamboyantly. You say the cause is the clothes that the boy chose to wear. His choice. His cause.

Uniform is not the most reasonable response, it is arbitrary. Uniforms date back to VERY harsh time in schooling where schools were run like barracks and beatings were horribly common. It was purely a matter of conformity and is carried over today mainly as a point of facile pride. America doesn't have school uniforms because it never had a stage when its schools were run as harshly as it was in Europe and its colonies.

The most reasonable response is that you enforce the rules and the values of an inclusive and tolerant society.

Religion is relevant as it is important of the issue of tolerance, you seem to be attempting incredulity that religion has been brought up as a way to dismiss it and I find that disingenuous when you see how it factors in the issue of teaching tolerance.

 

[him over there]

The kid is probably going to end up expelled, which is a little upsetting but you know it's the principle of the thing, he did have an actual potential weapon. However the fact that proper channels have constantly failed him proves that we need to teach kids how to handle problems themselves, not constantly intervene. Also that isn't bullying, bullying is when the kid who has absolutely no social skills is shunned because people saw him eating his boogers. This is straight up discrimination.

Did you just say it's bullying when the victim deserves it?

OT: He did bring a weapon to school. That's not something you can get away with.

Not really, that was poorly worded, mostly do to hyperbole on my end. I was trying to separate generic stereotypical school yard bullying from a bunch of guys beating the shit out of someone for their sexuality.

 

[ElPatron]

Gage and Giffords were both immediately and severely incapacitated by their head injuries taking weeks to regain consciousness and both survived at all because they had a large part of their skull removed so their brain could swell without being crushed, in Gage's case it was due to the relatively large size but low velocity of the steel pole.

But the pole was massive. Kinetic Energy is 1/2 mass * v squared, if you have a rod thousands of times heavier than a .50 BMG bullet and propel it with explosives...

His job was to keep a distance from that kid and he clearly did not

Because Treyvon closed in the distance.

You implied CCW gave him

The necessary attributes to carry a concealed weapon.

I found your post misleading, or at least a little easy to misinterpret. When you mentioned he was armed it sounded like you were implying he was illegally carrying. He wasn't.

Trayvon was not forced to stand his ground either, he had every right to run and especially if he (rightly) suspected this weird guy was armed with a gun.

Gonna need sauce. Who said that Treyvon guessed he was carrying a weapon? a CCW holder shouldn't let his weapon get printed against his clothes, or he can get in trouble if the authorities suspect he is not concealing the weapon enough.

On the other hand, attacking an armed gunman is obviously the wrong answer in almost every situation.

Zimmerman had not only a weight advantage but was fully matured.

Which gives Treyvon the advantage of speed/agility, hormones, and possibly more determination. Don't underestimate skinny teenagers because they are perfectly able to kill with their own hands.

Yeah, I said shot through the cranium, not-nicking-the-scalp or through the cheek or neck, but through the brain case. That is still no reason to shoot and kill someone before they are any actual or genuine threat.

Still, trough the cranium implies that the bullet must reach enough depth. And we know that the skull is hard enough to make bullets bounce off.

Unless you're Vincent from Collateral or a highly trained Navy SEAL Spetsnaz DEVGRU Green Berret SAS Super Elite Operator as Fuck, don't aim for the head.

(disregard the advice in case of Zombie apocalypse)

OK, but that's no excuse to shoot an unarmed person. You shoot them when they draw a lethal weapon, not when they throw a few punches at you. Especially when you provoked those punches by chasing and accosting them.

Unarmed person is one thing, unarmed criminal is just like a Schrodinger's Cat.

It's all black and white when we're sitting on a computer.

STOP and put yourself in Trayvon's position.

I am putting this right here to make it clear, if for some goddamned reason I start beating someone's head into a red pulp I deserve to get everything coming at me.

You advocate extreme force in self-defence of shooting someone who even MIGHT have a gun, but if some armed guy is chasing you and tries to interfere with you... you claim you wouldn't even strike him to escape whatever he had in store for you?!?!

Dancing around the issue. Treyvon only saw the gun during the struggle. Hindsight does not make Treyvon right.

Also put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes, did he draw his gun and shoot because he genuinely feared for his life, or because he was angry, again. Like he got angry at that cop who was rightly arresting his brother, or how he got angry and his girlfriend and stuck her, as she claims. He got a bail of ONE MILLION dollars and he had to wear an electronic tag with strict curfew, says something about the police's .

It was a struggle for the gun and Zimmerman got to it first. Don't act like Zimmerman got all cowboy-ish and just executed with a shot to the chest (or whatever, didn't find coroner reports).

If Treyvon had killed Zimmerman, we probably wouldn't have heard of this case because "Black teen kills Hispanic" doesn't make headlines.

The law is right, Zimmerman was wrong.

And so far Zimmerman is still innocent and I refuse to call him "guilty" until the final verdict. Which is exactly how the law works.

Zimmerman was on trial by the media, it's impossible to have a fair chance when the media edited auido, interpreted it improperly, and shown video evidence that did not show blood UNTIL the image was corrected. I stand by Zimmerman's side because the media tried to portrait him as white to cause a big fuss, shown pics of Treyvon as a boy to make everyone think Zimmerman is a baby-killer.

 

[Treblaine]

<--- click through for origin

A .50BMG travels far FASTER than that iron rod. Faster means shockwaves rather than a sheering force that pulverise the entire brain rather than gouging out a section of it.

Nonsense. The 911 call makes clear Zimmerman is chasing after him. He admits to being the one closing the distance.

I never implied, at all, he was illegally carrying, it has been extremely well established that he was legally carrying. I implied that he WAS armed with a very lethal weapon and don't claim preposterous pencil lethality again. It can be easy to SUSPECT if someone is carrying from how they move, reaching inside their waistband.

It's telling that George Zimmerman half-apologised to the Martin family, not with a full sorrow but excusing himself that he wouldn't have shot him if he'd known he was an unarmed. Which implies he thought he was armed yet how could he? How could be be on a neighbourhood watch yet not recognise one of the neighbourhood kids, of a gated community no less?

I gave the the source that he ran, the 911 call. Why he ran, probably because he felt threatened, surely you know it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what he was thinking on account of him being deceased. He was close to his home, that was where he was running, he was no fleeing from any crime scene. Self-preservation made sense.

This is preposterous, giving the boy's immaturity as an advantage? The only advantage he had was GENUINE fear! An actual fight or flight response that comes from being chased and accosted by a stranger. Zimmerman has demonstrated a history of inflicting violence out of anger and had to take anger management classes even.

There is the issue of if Zimmerman tackled, grabbed or somehow cornered Trayvon, then that would have warranted him standing his ground and fighting back.


"And we know that the skull is hard enough to make bullets bounce off."

Nope.

What bullets from what angle at what range? Examples relative to my scenario. Sound like another bullet-myth that comes from exaggerations of shots that graze the scalp without any actual deflection. Remember you wouldn't hear the stories from people where it missed completely... especially not if it hit dead on.

I did say the CRANIUM not the skull in general which includes very thick maxilofaxial protrusions and the teeth and pallet, I said the thin dome of bone on the top, sides and back of the skull.

And what is this "don't aim for the head" when I didn't say I'd do that. I said if I caught a rapist in mid assault I would PLACE the muzzle on his head, got THAT FAR and would NOT shoot. And there is no reason to shoot before they tried any threatening attempt because I wouldn't even need the aiming stage and they'd know that unless they were insanely driven to kill and still went for their weapon and THEN I'd shoot.

Obviously if they somehow spun out the way and broke their head away and were going for a weapon, then centre-mass. Bloody hell. Stop this exaggeration about DEVGRU and SAS and stuff.

It's black and white in court as well. The schrodinger's cat analogy is as far as I can tell irrelevant.

You have still given no reason at all to excuse killing someone who is not immediate threat, I explained how you have drawn then you don't have and SHOULD NOT shoot until they draw.

"beating someone's head into a red pulp"

Irrelevant to Trayvon's case as:
1: he was justified in striking his aggressive armed assailant
2: he absolutely did not beat him so much as to even bruise his face.

I cut my head from slipping in the shower, it wasn't even a bad knock that I wasn't lightly concussed from but the cut bled like hell and to spite a towel on it soaked my shirt with blood. I asked the doctor why I bled so much, if I had broken an artery, he said all deep scalp wounds bleed very severely. The police report on Zimmerman's arrest indicate the bleeding from his scalp was only noticeable from inches away as he handcuffed him and all the medical attention he needed he got in the back seat of a cruiser. The footage of his initial arrest doesn't show his light shirt drenched with blood as if he had been severely bleeding.

That is NOT AT ALL consistent with serious gashes to scalp or a broken nose. He got a minor scratch on his scalp that didn't need stitches and a freaking nose bleed. Not even remotely close to "beaten to a red pulp", not by exaggeration, distortion or falsification.

You keep saying "dancing around the issue" then don't make clear why what I said isn't the issue and what is?

The LAW says he is innocent till proven guilty, but you have a reasoning mind, don't you? You can't just cop out and say he is beyond reproach till he gets a trial. I think this is a double standard you are using with Innocent till Proven guilty, as I think you agree with everyone else here that Usama Bin Laden is guilty as hell for 9/11 even though he was never put on trial in any court for it. You can look at what we know and still make an informed decision. You're right the jury in a court of law should be the ones who ultimate rule on his guilt, but that doesn't mean we cannot reason ourselves.

As to the media, while the aren't perfect, can you blame them for posting pictures of him as a child WHEN HE DIDN'T EVEN LIVE PAST 17!!!

I never brought up Zimmerman's race nor even Trayvon's. It's superfluous to this case and irrelevant to any point I have made about it. Anyone reading my comments you could never determine the race of anyone involved.

 

[ElPatron]

A .50BMG travels far FASTER than that iron rod. Faster means shockwaves rather than a sheering force that pulverise the entire brain rather than gouging out a section of it.

Nonsense. The 911 call makes clear Zimmerman is chasing after him. He admits to being the one closing the distance.

I never implied, at all, he was illegally carrying

That's why I posted he was legally carrying, despite the whole controversy about him attacking a police officer.

How could be be on a neighbourhood watch yet not recognise one of the neighbourhood kids, of a gated community no less?

Treyvon was living there temporarily.

This is preposterous, giving the boy's immaturity as an advantage? The only advantage he had was GENUINE fear!

What fear? I'm goddamned 18 years old. I know how our brains work. We want sex, food and challenge. We want to fuck up people with our own hands. We don't fear anything.

That's what gets us killed. Seriously? We're immature as fuck. Some of us control or urges. Others don't, and end up beating down random people, drinking and driving, etc.

There is the issue of if Zimmerman tackled, grabbed or somehow cornered Trayvon, then that would have warranted him standing his ground and fighting back.

The prosecution admitted that they can't disprove that Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.

The theory is that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The fact is that the prosecution is responsible to present their case - they are not all-knowing and you can't take their word for gospel, specially if they admit that they can't prove that Zimmerman is lying.

What bullets from what angle at what range?

We don't have squared craniums like in Minecraft. The forehead makes an angle and it's the hardest section of the skull. Any object will follow the path of least resistance given they have reasonable kinetic energy levels.

And what is this "don't aim for the head" when I didn't say I'd do that. I said if I caught a rapist in mid assault I would PLACE the muzzle on his head, got THAT FAR and would NOT shoot. And there is no reason to shoot before they tried any threatening attempt because I wouldn't even need the aiming stage and they'd know that unless they were insanely driven to kill and still went for their weapon and THEN I'd shoot.

Take a magazine from an autoloader, clear the chamber. Point the gun at your head (or chest) and pull the trigger.

Are you going to do it? No. It's one of those things you don't do. Like pointing at the head. If you have a gun why do you want to get close enough to have the slide knocked out of battery or get stabbed?

The schrodinger's cat analogy is as far as I can tell irrelevant.

Mental note: next time my life is threatened I will check for weapons.

You have still given no reason at all to excuse killing someone who is not immediate threat, I explained how you have drawn then you don't have and SHOULD NOT shoot until they draw.

The problem is that there are threating moves other than drawing.

I used to have a youtube link to a video but it got removed (because of all the blood). Basically it was about 5-6 police officers confronting and surrounding a man armed with a machete. They should have shot, but they hesitated.

They chose to spare the guy's life, but at what cost? He started running, and the police no longer had a shot because of fear of hitting other policemen (the dude was surrounded and completely cornered).

He just then started chasing down the officers like a madman, running back and fourth stabbing and slashing. Towards the end of the video you see bodies of the ground, people bleeding profusely and moaning.

1: he was justified in striking his aggressive armed assailant

[citation needed]

Again with hindsight? You can't tell Treyvon knew he was aggressive nor armed.

I cut my head from slipping in the shower, it wasn't even a bad knock that I wasn't lightly concussed from but the cut bled like hell

Perfect.

Someone grabs your head and pushes you against a bathtub - you might have just a scalp wound, but that's enough reason to shoot someone, right?

I think you agree with everyone else here that Usama Bin Laden is guilty as hell for 9/11 even though he was never put on trial in any court for it

I can make a video saying I was responsible for the Fukushima reactor meltdown, that doesn't count as evidence. Truth is, I generally don't care about who did 9/11 (anymore, I used to care when I was a 13 year old anti-American libtard) and I can't say I am sure of Osama's guilt.

You also have to take into account that President Bush and Obama made it possible for people to lose their American citizenship and be locked up/executed by Predator drones or whatever if they are suspects of terrorism. Osama Bin Laden was never even American in the first place (that I know of).

Assuming he was actually killed (which I am inclined to believe) it was far from a warzone but it was during a war. I mean, covert ops to kill Hitler were planned during WWII. Is that such a bad thing? Finally, I am fairly "neutral" towards the killing of OBL. It had it's wrongs and it's rights.

As to the media, while the aren't perfect, can you blame them for posting pictures of him as a child WHEN HE DIDN'T EVEN LIVE PAST 17!!!

The whole purpose of media is to SELL. They want to stir shit up. Look at the Jared L. mugshot. It was clearly photoshopped.

The "creepy smirk" is completely fake, the shadows make his head look like he was dropped in the head as a kid, the eyes were doctored to make him look like a freaking psycho.

They OBVIOUSLY chose to show an old photo of Treyvon while they chose a photo of Zimmerman where is dressed in orange and looked way fatter. Plus, they doctored the photo to make him look whiter.

AND DID I MENTION THAT NBC EDITED A PHONECALL? They said it was an "error" and fired some people. They probably also made a deal with some hush money for those people to stay quiet. Not even a drunk would have made that editing "mistake".

I am only bringing race up (I know you didn't) because the media used it as leverage. It makes Zimmerman look bad. They are cheering for the conviction of Zimmerman.

You can't have an unbiased opinion when the media has been spitting bull to make him look bad.

 

[Treblaine]

How could be be on a neighbourhood watch yet not recognise one of the neighbourhood kids, of a gated community no less?

Treyvon was living there temporarily.

How temporarily? How could Zimmerman not even consider this? Why didn't he just wave politely, walk up to the kid all friendly like saying he was the neighbourhood watch captain and ask him if he was staying here or visiting anyone. Instead of immediately calling the cops staring at him intensely and then chasing him when he heads off.

This is preposterous, giving the boy's immaturity as an advantage? The only advantage he had was GENUINE fear!

What fear? I'm goddamned 18 years old. I know how our brains work. We want sex, food and challenge. We want to fuck up people with our own hands. We don't fear anything.

That's what gets us killed. Seriously? We're immature as fuck. Some of us control or urges. Others don't, and end up beating down random people, drinking and driving, etc.

Did you ever stop to consider that might just be YOU! I wasn't like that when I was 18 nor when I was 17, I didn't want to "fuck people up with my own hands" and neither did any of my friends of the same age.

The prosecution admitted that they can't disprove that Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.

The theory is that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The fact is that the prosecution is responsible to present their case - they are not all-knowing and you can't take their word for gospel, specially if they admit that they can't prove that Zimmerman is lying.

Even if they can't prove Zimmerman is lying but that doesn't mean the jury don't have to believe him. You, the jury and I can confer Zimmerman's actions from what the said in the 911 call and not when he's had time to get his story straight. Zimmerman was last known chasing this kid and next thing you know he's shot him dead.

What bullets from what angle at what range?

We don't have squared craniums like in Minecraft. The forehead makes an angle and it's the hardest section of the skull. Any object will follow the path of least resistance given they have reasonable kinetic energy levels.

Are you seriously saying you can't draw a line perpendicular to a curve? You are all over the place, one second a .22Short will kill a bear, now 9mm bullets are likely to bouncing off people's skulls point blank at perpendicular angles.

And what is this "don't aim for the head" when I didn't say I'd do that. I said if I caught a rapist in mid assault I would PLACE the muzzle on his head, got THAT FAR and would NOT shoot. And there is no reason to shoot before they tried any threatening attempt because I wouldn't even need the aiming stage and they'd know that unless they were insanely driven to kill and still went for their weapon and THEN I'd shoot.

Take a magazine from an autoloader, clear the chamber. Point the gun at your head (or chest) and pull the trigger.

Are you going to do it? No. It's one of those things you don't do. Like pointing at the head. If you have a gun why do you want to get close enough to have the slide knocked out of battery or get stabbed?

What the hell are you on about. These are the Golden rules of Firearms:
1. Don't point your weapon you aren't intending to get shot
2. Finger off trigger till on target
3. Check your target and all downrange of it
4. Follow that maxim that "The gun is always loaded"

No where in there is:
"never point at the head of what you intend to shoot"

You have just made that up. Give me a source indicating that is a CAST IRON NEVER BROKEN RULE! A rule like the Big Four I just listed.

You have still given no reason at all to excuse killing someone who is not immediate threat, I explained how you have drawn then you don't have and SHOULD NOT shoot until they draw.

The problem is that there are threating moves other than drawing.

I used to have a youtube link to a video but it got removed (because of all the blood). Basically it was about 5-6 police officers confronting and surrounding a man armed with a machete. They should have shot, but they hesitated.

They chose to spare the guy's life, but at what cost? He started running, and the police no longer had a shot because of fear of hitting other policemen (the dude was surrounded and completely cornered).

He just then started chasing down the officers like a madman, running back and fourth stabbing and slashing. Towards the end of the video you see bodies of the ground, people bleeding profusely and moaning.

Oh for the love of god, HE ALREADY HAS A WEAPON DRAWN! The machete! In his hand! If he gets close, they shoot.

The police Broke rule Number 3: Be sure of your target AND WHAT IS DOWN RANGE! They shouldn't have gotten so close jsut to surround him, they should have stayed a safe distance (with free fields of fire) and kept everyone else away until someone comes with a way of disarming him, like a beanbad-round, tazer or just talk him down before you even resort to those.

Do you have ANY details as "Police Machete Madman" has too many irrelevant hits on google. Any key details at all?

1: he was justified in striking his aggressive armed assailant

[citation needed]

Again with hindsight? You can't tell Treyvon knew he was aggressive nor armed.

Yes he could tell he was aggressive, by him chasing him without any explanation or reason. And armed he could insinuate from reaching under his shirt for his waistband for one of those inside-the-waistband holsters.

I cut my head from slipping in the shower, it wasn't even a bad knock that I wasn't lightly concussed from but the cut bled like hell

Perfect.

Someone grabs your head and pushes you against a bathtub - you might have just a scalp wound, but that's enough reason to shoot someone, right?

Listen to Arnold... (except for the shooting part)

The blood doesn't excuse anything, it wasn't a severe injury but bled a lot. Zimmerman did NOT bleed a lot so had EVEN LESS an injury than that.

My point of the example was how Zimmerman could not have been hit hard as I was hit relatively lightly and created a huge gash. Also Zimmerman didn't need stitches to stop the bleeding. It was not a severed strike as it didn't even produce a superficial injury, nothing to remotely justifying shooting.

Remember, the justification for Self-Defence is:

"it's his life or mine, if I don't use lethal force to stop him, he'll kill me"

That is most definitely not the case with this minor scape on the back of his head with so little bleeding it didn't even soak his shirt.

Zimmerman provoked any of the hits that Trayvon gave him by his pursuit and they were not severe enough to justify drawing a lethal weapon nor using it on him. Where is the "him or me" here? He didn't have severe cuts (no severe bleeding), no bruises on his face, and had a weight advantage.

And within reason "life" can also be extremely sadistic assaults, like rape or injuries while not lethal would be debilitating, like someone trying to stab you with an "Aids Needle".

I think you agree with everyone else here that Usama Bin Laden is guilty as hell for 9/11 even though he was never put on trial in any court for it

I can make a video saying I was responsible for the Fukushima reactor meltdown, that doesn't count as evidence. Truth is, I generally don't care about who did 9/11 (anymore, I used to care when I was a 13 year old anti-American libtard) and I can't say I am sure of Osama's guilt.

You also have to take into account that President Bush and Obama made it possible for people to lose their American citizenship and be locked up/executed by Predator drones or whatever if they are suspects of terrorism. Osama Bin Laden was never even American in the first place (that I know of).

Assuming he was actually killed (which I am inclined to believe) it was far from a warzone but it was during a war. I mean, covert ops to kill Hitler were planned during WWII. Is that such a bad thing? Finally, I am fairly "neutral" towards the killing of OBL. It had it's wrongs and it's rights.

So you're not sure of Usama Bin Laden's guilt...


Well you have totally dodged the issue I stated that "You can rationally conclude on someone's guilt even if they haven't had a full trial" instead you are giving a weasel defence for a mass murderer like Usama Bin Laden.

As to the media, while the aren't perfect, can you blame them for posting pictures of him as a child WHEN HE DIDN'T EVEN LIVE PAST 17!!!

The whole purpose of media is to SELL. They want to stir shit up. Look at the Jared L. mugshot. It was clearly photoshopped.

The "creepy smirk" is completely fake, the shadows make his head look like he was dropped in the head as a kid, the eyes were doctored to make him look like a freaking psycho.

Are you serious.

Those are obviously completely different photographs in different places at different time with different lighting and different camera, they just of the same person with a similar smirk.

Why would they remove the overshirt, and the position of the collar, and the background, and everything else irrelevant to his demeanour. WHY would you assume photoshop, that is not photoshopped.

And I'm sorry but that is the original mugshot of a convicted psychopathic spree killer with absolutely no doubt that he committed this terrible crime, this is not a good example of the media being unfair. What are they going to do, photoshop the photograph so he looks less deranged... when his well established actions leaved his deranged status unambiguous.

I am really getting worried about you. Condoning the chasing and shooting unarmed kids, "not sure" on Usama Bin Laden's crimes, demanding more positive depictions of spree-killers by the media.

They OBVIOUSLY chose to show an old photo of Treyvon while they chose a photo of Zimmerman where is dressed in orange and looked way fatter. Plus, they doctored the photo to make him look whiter.

AND DID I MENTION THAT NBC EDITED A PHONECALL? They said it was an "error" and fired some people. They probably also made a deal with some hush money for those people to stay quiet. Not even a drunk would have made that editing "mistake".

I am only bringing race up (I know you didn't) because the media used it as leverage. It makes Zimmerman look bad. They are cheering for the conviction of Zimmerman.

You can't have an unbiased opinion when the media has been spitting bull to make him look bad.

How!?!? How did it make him look "white"? And white in what sense? White as in skin colour, don't think that works with latinos/hispanics just as when a Caucasian gets a tan he doesn't suddenly look hispanic. And what the hell do you have to compare it to? You can show a darker image side by side but how do I know someone didn't simply alter the image to make it look darker?

And I don't even live in America, I have seen no American broadcast news or newpaper articles on this I did not stick around for Young Turks editorial on the 911 footage, nothing. The only news I got was BBC news. In researching this I always went directly to the base sources, the police reports and the actual 911 phonecalls. Race and the media's presentation is irrelevant to me.

I can have an unbiased opinion. Better than that, I can and have used objective reasoning here.

You'll find no "I reckon" or "I believe" in my justifications.

 

[Brad Shepard]

My my, all these people who have no concept of reality and would rather use a weapon than their head.

Using your head is overrated. It's harder to hide the injuries afterwards. Plus, your neck hurts afterwards, as well as restricting the swing area required to make a good hit. Most people tend to protect their heads in these situations as one's fists, feet or carried object typically makes a better blunt weapon. Alternatively, a static stun gun or pepper spray. Those are the most effective and are more likely to doscourage the bully from trying again.

Unless you're referring to Macgyvering a shield out of the air, walls and floor as six brutes bear down on you. In which case, go ahead.

(Generally, people who tell bullied kids to "use your head" are simply too lazy and aloof and don't care enough to come up with an actual solution.)

Fortunately I'm from a country where both stun guns and pepper spray are illegal to use. Somehow kids manage to deal with bullies without that.Plus by finding solutions that don't involve a weapon they don't escalate the matter into a weapons battle that eventually they will lose, they don't break laws, and they actually find ways to stop problems that build their confidence and discourage future bullies by generating respect.

And I did supply a series of answers above to alternatives.

What we seem to have here is a cross dressing boy who wasn't smart enough to talk down agressors, tone down his dress, or simply have friends. He must have demonstrated lack of confidence or they wouldn't have picked on him for any length of time. Through the absense of the father in the story, he was probably without a father and thus didn't know how to handle himself as a man in that situation. So what did he do? Pulled a weapon? A cowardly response that will only make his life worse. He's lucky, for example, that they fled. He pulled a weapon first, at that point they could have taken him out and reasonably claimed self defence.

I cant tell if your a troll or just a jerk, So just because he was gay it means he is a cross dresser too? You are terrible, like everyone else is saying, I should not even be giving you the time of day with this quote.