Noose Found Around The Neck Of Statue Honoring Civil Rights Icon At Ole Miss

[Cigar]

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/sgtmfw9027cp8zetcknn.jpg

Police at the University of Mississippi are investigating a racially inflammatory incident involving a statue depicting a civil rights icon.

According to The Daily Mississippian (http://thedmonline.com/upd-investigating-discovery-of-noose-and-flag-on-meredith-statue/), the student-run newspaper at Ole Miss, a noose was found on Sunday morning around the neck of the school's James Meredith statue. A pre-2003 Georgia state flag, which featured the "stars and bars" of the Confederacy, was also draped around the statue's shoulders.

Meredith became the school's first black student in 1962.

Authorities are investigating the incident and the Ole Miss Alumni Association has offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to an arrest, but University Police Chief Calvin Sellers told TPM they "don't have much" in the way of leads.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ole-miss-james-meredith-statue-vandalism-noose



Let's just let the responses speak for themselves ...

[MrJimmyDale]

$25,000 reward.....for a $0 property damage college prank?

WOW!!!!!

[MrJimmyDale]

case of beer say's it was a black dude...........

[Cigar]

case of beer say's it was a black dude...........

Make it Jack :laugh:

[Cigar]

$25,000 reward.....for a $0 property damage college prank?

WOW!!!!!

Try it .. in the Day Light ... I dare yea ... :laugh:

[MrJimmyDale]

Try it .. in the Day Light ... I dare yea ... :laugh: Do I get the $25k?

[MrJimmyDale]

Make it Jack :laugh: Quart of Shine?

[Cthulhu]

I guess they could call it vandalism. But that is a pretty big stretch considering ZERO property damage was done. Perhaps trespassing?

Overall? Lame case And the fact that they are willing to shell out 25k for it is just idiotic.

[Dr. Who]

I wonder what they would be charged with, since there was no property damage? It's not a property crime. While there is a hate message there, I'm not sure you could make it into a hate crime.

[MrJimmyDale]

I wonder what they would be charged with, since there was no property damage? It's not a property crime. While there is a hate message there, I'm not sure you could make it into a hate crime. If being an insensitive idiot with a bad sense of humor is a crime..........???

[Cthulhu]

I wonder what they would be charged with, since there was no property damage? It's not a property crime. While there is a hate message there, I'm not sure you could make it into a hate crime.

Which is why I am puzzled by the 25k reward. Bet you it is rescinded swiftly. This makes no sense.

Now that I think about it, I don't think even trespassing would stick. It is a public access kind of place. Unless they already have an existing restraining order, I can't think of a single thing they could charge them with.

Aside from 'disturbing the peace' and 'disorderly conduct' or some other invented crime.

[sachem]

It could violate some university bylaw or something.

It was an insensitive and stupid thing to do.

If it is a student, suspend her/him.

[Green Arrow]

Some folks have turned "reaction" into "overreaction."

[Captain Obvious]

You know 9 times out of 10 it's some dumb kids doing dumb shit, drunk or whatever and not some racial hatred "crime" or whatever.

But it will be treated like one.

I'm not sure which is worse TBH.

[Max Rockatansky]

$25,000 reward.....for a $0 property damage college prank?

WOW!!!!!

I'd drop a dime on you in a heartbeat for $25,000. Vegas, baby! Here I come!!!

[Max Rockatansky]

You know 9 times out of 10 it's some dumb kids doing dumb shit, drunk or whatever and not some racial hatred "crime" or whatever.

But it will be treated like one.

I'm not sure which is worse TBH.

Agreed, but I'd still turn in my college roommate for $25,000 off my college debt.

[Newpublius]

$25,000 reward.....for a $0 property damage college prank?

WOW!!!!!

I might have my wife turn me in.....hehe

[Newpublius]

Agreed, but I'd still turn in my college roommate for $25,000 off my college debt.

If I were your roommate, I'd "confess" to you to split the 25k

[Max Rockatansky]

If I were your roommate, I'd "confess" to you to split the 25k

Good plan!; set aside 5-10K for the legal defense, toss a coin to see who becomes a national icon for college pranks and split the rest!

[GrassrootsConservative]

If being an insensitive idiot with a bad sense of humor is a crime..........???

We'd need bigger prisons for all the Liberals in this country.

[Max Rockatansky]

We'd need bigger prisons for all the Liberals in this country.

Half the country in prison at an average cost of $30K/year? I think not.

[Cigar]

Half the country in prison at an average cost of $30K/year? I think not.

A College Tuition :wink:

[Codename Section]

What were those schools that had something similar happen in the Northeast and turned out they hoaxed it to get "positive attention" on race in America?

Old Miss is a college, not some back swamp locale. I don't believe it was a white kid on that campus since they drill you in racial sensitivity.

[Cigar]

http://politicalmpressions.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/repubs-head-in-sand.jpg

[Codename Section]

I'm not a Republican. I understand the games Republicans and Democrats play to try and confuse the masses and divide us.

[Cigar]

I'm not a Republican. I understand the games Republicans and Democrats play to try and confuse the masses and divide us.

Got it ... the Democratic Party is up to it ... :rollseyes:

http://www.stevescottsite.com/responsibility_head_in_sand.jpg

[Codename Section]

Got it ... the Democratic Party is up to it ... :rollseyes:




Students at Vassar fake Hate Crime (http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/365072/fake-hate-crime-exposed-vassar-college-nathan-harden)

Students at Oberline fake Hate Crime (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356529/how-oberlin-created-hate-crime-year-michelle-malkin)

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/31/hate-crime-hoaxes-present-burdens-lessons-college-campuses

Hate Crime Hoaxes





July 31, 2012


ByAllie Grasgreen (http://www.insidehighered.com/users/allie-grasgreen)


When threatening notes that targeted minority students started showing up around the Trinity International University campus in 2005 (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/27/hoax%20administrators), administrators spoke to the campus and conferred with police before ultimately evacuating all students of color from their residence halls. The Federal Bureau of Investigation came in to look into the apparent hate crime, and arrested a suspect in less than a week.
The whole thing was fake.
Things didn’t go quite that far this year at Central Connecticut State University (http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/07/03/bias-hoax-central-connecticut), after a student claimed to be receiving notes in her dormitory room that attacked her for being a lesbian. But hundreds of students did hold a rally for her in March, long before police discovered earlier this month (thanks to a camera in a hall closet, which was installed after the one initially placed in her room was turned off) that she was slipping the notes under her own door.
Rarely are apparent hate crimes uncovered as hoaxes, but those sorts of incidents have been popping up on campuses for years and are still a difficult phenomenon to address.
“From the university perspective, we’re always going to have to react based on the evidence,” said Jen Day Shaw, associate vice president and dean of students at the University of Florida and chair of the Campus Safety Knowledge Community of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
“Obviously we can be reactive to it,” she said. “To be proactive is really tough.”







Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/31/hate-crime-hoaxes-present-burdens-lessons-college-campuses#ixzz2tmAR4BT5
Inside Higher Ed

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not a Republican. I understand the games Republicans and Democrats play to try and confuse the masses and divide us.

Neither party has a monopoly on such games. Anyone with a political/social agenda might use such tactics.

[Codename Section]

Neither party has a monopoly on such games. Anyone with a political/social agenda might use such tactics.

True, it's not that I don't believe racism exists. We're predators. Racism is an extension of natural profiling gone warped. I just highly doubt a white kid at Old Miss with its history would chance it. I just don't.

[Max Rockatansky]

True, it's not that I don't believe racism exists. We're predators. Racism is an extension of natural profiling gone warped. I just highly doubt a white kid at Old Miss with its history would chance it. I just don't.

Young kids aren't always wise. It could have been a fraternity prank. I doubt it was the KKK.

More like the two idiots bookending the hot chick in the middle (https://www.facebook.com/KT.Marie0612?fref=ts) than actual racism:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/194i3wz219ix7jpg/ku-bigpic.jpg

[Codename Section]

Do you really think blackface is comparable to a noose? I don't. One is stupid the other threatening. That's why I don't think it's authentic. I believe in the power of stupid. I don't believe in the type of kids going to Old Miss with its racist legacy doing something to shed bad light on the school.

[Max Rockatansky]

Do you really think blackface is comparable to a noose? I don't. One is stupid the other threatening. That's why I don't think it's authentic. I believe in the power of stupid. I don't believe in the type of kids going to Old Miss with its racist legacy doing something to shed bad light on the school.A gun on the table isn't threatening even though I'm sure some Left-Wingers would wet their pants if they saw it. A gun pointed at you is threatening.

A noose around a statue is not a threat, it's a statement against racial equality.....or it's a stupid college prank. I'm guessing the $25,000 reward is going to net some results. When it does, we'll see what the intent of the "statement" was all about.

[Codename Section]

Putting a gun on a table in front of someone you know was once menaced by one is threatening.

[Max Rockatansky]

Putting a gun on a table in front of someone you know was once menaced by one is threatening.

Or maybe it's sticking into my side as I sit down. I'm not responsible for what other people think. However, I am responsible for my own intentions. If I did intend to be intimidating, then that's my fault. If I take it out, drop the magazine and lock the slide back, my intentions are clearer than if I just took it out and laid it on the table.

Do you think people should be convicted based on what others think or for what they intended?

[Ravi]

Or maybe it's sticking into my side as I sit down. I'm not responsible for what other people think. However, I am responsible for my own intentions. If I did intend to be intimidating, then that's my fault. If I take it out, drop the magazine and lock the slide back, my intentions are clearer than if I just took it out and laid it on the table.

Do you think people should be convicted based on what others think or for what they intended?

In Florida if you took a gun out of your pocket in my presence I could legally kill you.

[Codename Section]

In Florida if you took a gun out of your pocket in my presence I could legally kill you.

Would you use Kung Fu? :D

Hi Ravi.

[Max Rockatansky]

In Florida if you took a gun out of your pocket in my presence I could legally kill you.

Incorrect, but you'd get a fair trial to decide if it was justified.

[Cthulhu]

In Florida if you took a gun out of your pocket in my presence I could legally kill you.

Do please show the class that law. Because I'm calling BS.

[Ravi]

Incorrect, but you'd get a fair trial to decide if it was justified.
I would only need to feel threatened. Since I don't know you personally, if you whipped out a gun I'd feel threatened. buh bye!

[Dr. Who]

True, it's not that I don't believe racism exists. We're predators. Racism is an extension of natural profiling gone warped. I just highly doubt a white kid at Old Miss with its history would chance it. I just don't.

Might have been a townie looking to bring trouble on the students.

[Ravi]

Do please show the class that law. Because I'm calling BS.Here's the pertinent part.


However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or


Here's the whole thing. I only posted the pertinent part because posting the entire statute seems to confuse people.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

[Mister D]

Incorrect, but you'd get a fair trial to decide if it was justified.

Exactly. No, Ravi , you would claim self-defense in court appealing to this statute and most likely lose.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would only need to feel threatened. Since I don't know you personally, if you whipped out a gun I'd feel threatened. buh bye!

It's a little more than that, but go ahead and try that defense after you shoot someone. Let me know how it works out for ya!

[MrJimmyDale]

It's a little more than that, but go ahead and try that defense after you shoot someone. Let me know how it works out for ya! All depends on the Jury..........

[Ravi]

Exactly. No, @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) , you would claim self-defense in court appealing to this statute and most likely lose.
You don't need to go to court to use SYG. In fact, it is pretty much a get out of jail free card.

[Ravi]

It's a little more than that, but go ahead and try that defense after you shoot someone. Let me know how it works out for ya!
First you'd have to pull your gun on me.

[Mister D]

You don't need to go to court to use SYG. In fact, it is pretty much a get out of jail free card.

Wow

Ravi, you don't seriously believe that do you?

[Mister D]

First you'd have to pull your gun on me.

Right...not put it on the table. lol

[Ravi]

Wow

Ravi, you don't seriously believe that do you?
It's why Zimmerman wasn't charged to begin with. The police and DA pretty much decided he was justified under stand your ground. Happens quite a bit down here. That's one thing wrong with the law. There are all kinds of cases where people aren't charged because of SYG.

[Ravi]

Right...not put it on the table. lol

Why would I trust the intent of a stranger taking a gun out of his pocket in my presence?

[Mister D]

It's why Zimmerman wasn't charged to begin with. The police and DA pretty much decided he was justified under stand your ground. Happens quite a bit down here. That's one thing wrong with the law. There are all kinds of cases where people aren't charged because of SYG.

No, there was ample evidence that Zimmerman was accosted by a feral Negro. That's why Zimmerman wasn't charged. Better still, the reason he got off scot free was because of idiots who thought he shuold be charged with murder. Anyway, no, what you describe doesn't "happen quite a bit" anywhere.

[Mister D]

Why would I trust the intent of a stranger taking a gun out of his pocket in my presence?

Then trust yourself with court. You know you'll wind up there, right?

[junie]

No, there was ample evidence that Zimmerman was accosted by a feral Negro. That's why Zimmerman wasn't charged. Better still, the reason he got off scot free was because of idiots who thought he shuold be charged with murder. Anyway, no, what you describe doesn't "happen quite a bit" anywhere.


:rollseyes: and you wonder why people think you're a bigot...

[GrassrootsConservative]

:rollseyes: and you wonder why people think you're a bigot...

Only ignorant people think Mister D is a bigot.

[junie]

ps treyvon was standing HIS ground.

[MrJimmyDale]

ps treyvon was standing his ground. wth????

[junie]

wth????



what? some creep with a gun was following him and he felt threatened...

[MrJimmyDale]

what? some creep with a gun was following him and he felt threatened... Take your blinders off..........

[junie]

Take your blinders off..........



no, you!

[MrJimmyDale]

no, you! I said it first!!!!!!

(trying to communicate on your level)

[The Xl]

As reprehensible as this is, no property damage was done. 25,000 dollars? Jesus Christ.

[Mister D]

:rollseyes: and you wonder why people think you're a bigot...

Don't really care.

[Mister D]

ps treyvon was standing HIS ground.

He'll be lying down for a long while. :wink:

[Ravi]

No, there was ample evidence that Zimmerman was accosted by a feral Negro. That's why Zimmerman wasn't charged. Better still, the reason he got off scot free was because of idiots who thought he shuold be charged with murder. Anyway, no, what you describe doesn't "happen quite a bit" anywhere.Well, no, it happens a lot in Floriduh. You go right on talking about "feral negroes" as it shows how racist you really are.

[Ravi]

Then trust yourself with court. You know you'll wind up there, right?As a white woman confronted by a stranger with a gun, no, I wouldn't wind up in court.

[Mister D]

Well, no, it happens a lot in Floriduh. You go right on talking about "feral negroes" as it shows how racist you really are.

Which is why you just buried me under a avalanche of evidence. Oh wait...lol

I will. I enjoy taking your self-righteous bologna and shoving it up your ass sideways. Seriously, I enjoy that.

[Mister D]

As a white woman confronted by a stranger with a gun, no, I wouldn't wind up in court.

So now the guy who pulls out a gun in your home is a stranger. :laugh: Well, yeah, Ravi your modified claim is coming much closer to reality now.

[Ravi]

Which is why you just buried me under a avalanche of evidence. Oh wait...lol

I will. I enjoy taking your self-righteous bologna and shoving it up your ass sideways. Seriously, I enjoy that.
:rolleyes: Your internet fantasies seem to be a substitute for sex. So sad.

I'll link it tomorrow if I remember.

[Mister D]

:rolleyes: Your internet fantasies seem to be a substitute for sex. So sad.

I'll link it tomorrow if I remember.

You're old and unattractive, Ravi. Please don't mention sex again.

You're old, Ravi. You won't remember. :grin:

[Ravi]

So now the guy who pulls out a gun in your home is a stranger. :laugh: Well, yeah, Ravi your modified claim is coming much closer to reality now.

Yeah, funny that. I could let in a seventh day adventist, he or she could put a gun on the table, and I could legally blow them away. It's happened, in Floriduh. No charges filed.

[Ravi]

You're old and unattractive, Ravi. Please don't mention sex again.

You're old, Ravi. You won't remember. :grin:
Not as old as you.

hey, could you send Mitten to visit me in a white shirt and tie? Tell him to leave his gun at home.

[Mister D]

Yeah, funny that. I could let in a seventh day adventist, he or she could put a gun on the table, and I could legally blow them away. It's happened, in Floriduh. No charges filed.

:laugh: Well, yeah, Ravi if a stranger walks into the home of an armed person and suddenly pulls out a gun he may just win the Darwin Award.

[Mister D]

Not as old as you.

hey, could you send Mitten to visit me in a white shirt and tie? Tell him to leave his gun at home.

Actually, you are a southerner so I wouldn't be surprised if you had your kids in your early teens. :undecided:

Who is Mitten, Ravi? :huh:

[GrassrootsConservative]

Lol the witch has gone senile.

Talking about her old black cats, probably.

Bet she names her next one Trayvon.

[Ravi]

:laugh: Well, yeah, Ravi if a stranger walks into the home of an armed person and suddenly pulls out a gun he may just win the Darwin Award.

Yep. And the killer would be justified in killing Max in Floriduh, no matter what his intent. Took you long enough to see it.

[Ravi]

Actually, you are a southerner so I wouldn't be surprised if you had your kids in your early teens. :undecided:

Who is Mitten, Ravi? :huh:
Your hero.

[Ravi]

Lol the witch has gone senile.

Talking about her old black cats, probably.

Bet she names her next one Trayvon.

I named it Grassy Ass because he's a lazy whiner that licks dirty dishes for a living.

[Dr. Who]

Let's leave out the personal innuendo, attacks etc. Thank you.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I named it Grassy Ass because he's a lazy whiner that licks dirty dishes for a living.

4/10

[Mister D]

Your hero.

Who is Mitten?

[Mister D]

Yep. And the killer would be justified in killing Max in Floriduh, no matter what his intent. Took you long enough to see it.

:laugh: Uh, Ravi, if a stranger suddenly whips out a gun in your home and gets shot has only himself to blame.

[Cthulhu]

Here's the pertinent part.



Here's the whole thing. I only posted the pertinent part because posting the entire statute seems to confuse people.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

Than indeed, you'd see your day in court. And likely be convicted if the guy wasn't menacing you in some way. Just having a gun is not a crime.

Now if the same guy is shouting profanity and behaving dangerously prior to and then tries to pull a weapon out - blast him, you'd probably be fine.

[Mister D]

In Florida if you took a gun out of your pocket in my presence I could legally kill you.

Ravi, this was your claim. no, Ravi, there exist a wide variety of circumstances in which you find yourself in jail. If a stranger suddenly pulled out a gun in my home here in new Jersey I would probably not get indicted.

[Mister D]

Than indeed, you'd see your day in court. And likely be convicted if the guy wasn't menacing you in some way. Just having a gun is not a crime.

Now if the same guy is shouting profanity and behaving dangerously prior to and then tries to pull a weapon out - blast him, you'd probably be fine.

Ravi doesn't seem time understand that the circumstances would decide the case.

[Cthulhu]

Ravi doesn't seem time understand that the circumstances would decide the case.

*shakes head*

I know...I know...I tried.

[Mister D]

*shakes head*

I know...I know...I tried.

What's funny is that I think SYG is bad law but this progressive misinformation usually puts me on the side of the state.

[Cthulhu]

What's funny is that I think SYG is bad law but this progressive misinformation usually puts me on the side of the state.

In a similar position myself. As much as I loath the state, I loath the progressive gun grabbing more.

[Ravi]

Than indeed, you'd see your day in court. And likely be convicted if the guy wasn't menacing you in some way. Just having a gun is not a crime.

Now if the same guy is shouting profanity and behaving dangerously prior to and then tries to pull a weapon out - blast him, you'd probably be fine.

You're right that just having the gun isn't a crime. However, if I felt threatened I'd be justified in shooting him and probably never charged because of SYG.

[Ravi]

Ravi, this was your claim. no, Ravi, there exist a wide variety of circumstances in which you find yourself in jail. If a stranger suddenly pulled out a gun in my home here in new Jersey I would probably not get indicted.english, please.

[Max Rockatansky]

You're right that just having the gun isn't a crime. However, if I felt threatened I'd be justified in shooting him and probably never charged because of SYG.

Try it and see what the jury says.

[Mister D]

You're right that just having the gun isn't a crime. However, if I felt threatened I'd be justified in shooting him and probably never charged because of SYG.

If your claim of being threatened isn't a plausible one you'll wind up in jail.

[Codename Section]

You're right that just having the gun isn't a crime. However, if I felt threatened I'd be justified in shooting him and probably never charged because of SYG.

Why is this a problem? Someone just came into your home with a gun. Why?

Hi Ravi.

[Mister D]

Try it and see what the jury says.

Exactly. She honestly seems to believe this law means you can go around shooting people at random and could just say you felt threatened. I'm stunned that anyone actually believes that.

[Ravi]

Try it and see what the jury says.
You'll have to take me by surprise. If we plan it out they won't believe that I felt threatened. ;)

Seriously, though, why would you argue that a stranger pulling out a gun isn't reason enough for me to protect myself? That's sounds pretty crazy. Even progressive.

[Ravi]

If your claim of being threatened isn't a plausible one you'll wind up in jail.
White woman. Strange man with gun. No brainer. Now if I were a black teen you'd be right.

[Ravi]

Exactly. She honestly seems to believe this law means you can go around shooting people at random and could just say you felt threatened. I'm stunned that anyone actually believes that.
Did you read the law? It doesn't say at random but it does say if you feel threatened you are free to use deadly force.

[Mister D]

Did you read the law? It doesn't say at random but it does say if you feel threatened you are free to use deadly force.

Just go around shooting folks and say you felt threatened. See how that works out.

[Codename Section]

Did you read the law? It doesn't say at random but it does say if you feel threatened you are free to use deadly force.

Do you believe that you must be beaten up rather than use deadly force? I think that is a religious/personal choice and not a "have to".

[Mister D]

White woman. Strange man with gun. No brainer. Now if I were a black teen you'd be right.

If you were a black teen you would be MUCH more likely to be killed by another black teen. Anyway, again, if you're claim wasn't plausible you're going to jail.

[Ravi]

Just go around shooting folks and say you felt threatened. See how that works out.
:rolleyes: Where did I say that? I said if Max (a stranger) took a gun out of his pocket in my presence, I would feel threatened and in Florida that is enough to justify shooting him.

[nic34]

In a similar position myself. As much as I loath the state, I loath the progressive gun grabbing more.

Here we go with the ususal "gun-grabbers" divisive flamebait.

It just so happens that there are a lot of places that see gun violence as a major problem, and would like people on the other side of the "debate" to help come up with some workable solutions on the issue instead of more tired divisive rhetoric.

[Ravi]

Do you believe that you must be beaten up rather than use deadly force? I think that is a religious/personal choice and not a "have to".
English, please.

[Ravi]

If you were a black teen you would be MUCH more likely to be killed by another black teen. Anyway, again, if you're claim wasn't plausible you're going to jail.
It would be plausible.

[Mister D]

Here we go with the ususal "gun-grabbers" divisive flamebait.

It just so happens that there are a lot of places that see gun violence as a major problem, and would like people on the other side of the "debate" to help come up with some workable solutions on the issue instead of more tired divisive rhetoric.

This surprises you when SYG is hysterically mischaracterized as a license to kill?

Yes, those places are very...uh let's say dark. So what do we do, nic? Ignore that and pretend we have to worry about white yahoos?

[Mister D]

It would be plausible.

What would?

[Codename Section]

English, please.

Do you believe that you have to be beaten rather than kill someone who would brutalize you?

[Ravi]

Do you believe that you have to be beaten rather than kill someone who would brutalize you?

Maybe I'm lacking caffeine but I can't figure out what you are asking.

Do you mean that I think someone would actually have to physically attack me before I shot them? If so, then the answer is no. If I thought they were a threat I wouldn't wait.

I object to this SYG law though. If people really are acting in self-defense they should take their day in court. The police and the DA shouldn't decide using a poorly crafted law who is guilty and who is not.

[Codename Section]

Maybe I'm lacking caffeine but I can't figure out what you are asking.

Do you mean that I think someone would actually have to physically attack me before I shot them? If so, then the answer is no. If I thought they were a threat I wouldn't wait.

I object to this SYG law though. If people really are acting in self-defense they should take their day in court. The police and the DA shouldn't decide using a poorly crafted law who is guilty and who is not.


Thank you for answering. :)

[Max Rockatansky]

You'll have to take me by surprise. If we plan it out they won't believe that I felt threatened. ;)

Seriously, though, why would you argue that a stranger pulling out a gun isn't reason enough for me to protect myself? That's sounds pretty crazy. Even progressive.

Sorry, but you are the one trying to twist SYG into open-season on anyone with a gun. Obviously that's not true since 46 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 22 have SYG laws. Yet, unlike your assumption, people aren't shooting each other down just because they see a gun.

http://cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm

The Castle Doctrine and “stand-your-ground” laws are affirmative defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law justifies the use of reasonable physical force, including deadly force, in defense of premises. Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one's home, to the extent that a person's conduct does not rise to the level of a crime. Deadly force is justified in defense of one's property by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the criminal trespasser to commit any crime of violence.
Twenty states have stand-your-ground laws. Generally, these laws allow an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first if the individual (1) has a legal right to be at the location and (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity. Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law. Connecticut law specifically requires an individual to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/states-with-stand-your-ground-laws/16557217-2-eng-US/States-with-Stand-your-ground-laws_full_600.jpg

[Ravi]

Sorry, but you are the one trying to twist SYG into open-season on anyone with a gun. Obviously that's not true since 46 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 22 have SYG laws. Yet, unlike your assumption, people aren't shooting each other down just because they see a gun.

http://cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm


http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/states-with-stand-your-ground-laws/16557217-2-eng-US/States-with-Stand-your-ground-laws_full_600.jpg
Where did I say open season on anyone with a gun? I was very specific. If you, as a stranger, pulled out a gun around me I'd feel threatened.

I was reading this morning that the states with SYG laws have had an increase in "murder", I'll see if I can find the article.

[Captain Obvious]

Sorry, but you are the one trying to twist SYG into open-season on anyone with a gun. Obviously that's not true since 46 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 22 have SYG laws. Yet, unlike your assumption, people aren't shooting each other down just because they see a gun.

http://cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm


http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/states-with-stand-your-ground-laws/16557217-2-eng-US/States-with-Stand-your-ground-laws_full_600.jpg

Highlighted in peach or grey?

I'm assuming peach since Fla...

[Max Rockatansky]

Peach.

[Ravi]

Indeed, a January 2013 study by Texas A&M researcher Mark Hoekstra found that homicide rates have increased by 7 percent to 9 percent in the 23 states that have Stand Your Ground-type laws versus those without them.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/19/3946891/are-the-unarmed-unequal-under.html


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/19/3946891/are-the-unarmed-unequal-under.html#storylink=cpy

[Max Rockatansky]

Where did I say open season on anyone with a gun? I was very specific. If you, as a stranger, pulled out a gun around me I'd feel threatened.

I was reading this morning that the states with SYG laws have had an increase in "murder", I'll see if I can find the article.You're the one who brought up shooting someone for displaying a gun. If you did so, you'd receive a fair trial but risk going to jail.

Contrary to the Left-Wing meme, SYG is not open season on whomever you'd like to kill.

[Ravi]

You're the one who brought up shooting someone for displaying a gun. If you did so, you'd receive a fair trial but risk going to jail.

Contrary to the Left-Wing meme, SYG is not open season on whomever you'd like to kill.It's a stupid law that gets people killed unreasonably.

Come on down here and whip out your gun around anyone in Floriduh and see what happens.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's a stupid law that gets people killed unreasonably.

Come on down here and whip out your gun around anyone in Floriduh and see what happens.

Allowing people to drive automobiles results in over 30,000 deaths per year. What are you going to do about that?

[Mister D]

It's a stupid law that gets people killed unreasonably.

Come on down here and whip out your gun around anyone in Floriduh and see what happens.

Sigh...

That's what should happen if Max were to suddenly whip out a gun in a threatening manner. If, however, Max did not act in a way that his shooter could plausibly argue he felt threatened it likely means manslaughter or worse.

[Ravi]

Allowing people to drive automobiles results in over 30,000 deaths per year. What are you going to do about that?
So he changes the conversation. Awesome.

[Ravi]

Sigh...

That's what should happen if Max were to suddenly whip out a gun in a threatening manner. If, however, Max did not act in a way that his shooter could plausibly argue he felt threatened it likely means manslaughter or worse.
Sigh....

If a stranger takes a gun out of his pocket he's behaving in a threatening manner.

[Mister D]

Sigh....

If a stranger takes a gun out of his pocket he's behaving in a threatening manner.

The jury will decide that. :wink:

[MrJimmyDale]

The jury will decide that. :wink: The shooter decides that........

[Mister D]

The shooter decides that........

Oh, he or she will have to make a decision but whether it was ultimately justifiable or not won't be his to make.

[MrJimmyDale]

Oh, he or she will have to make a decision but whether it was ultimately justifiable or not won't be his to make. If they are charged and the case goes to trial.......you are correct.

[Mister D]

If they are charged and the case goes to trial.......you are correct.

Right. Surely you aren't arguing that SYG is a license to shoot people? Ravis eems to believe one can just claim he/she felt threatened and that's all it takes.

[Ravi]

If they are charged and the case goes to trial.......you are correct.
If being the key word.

[Mister D]

If being the key word.

Gun soem random people down. Tell the police you felt threatened. Write us from prison.

[MrJimmyDale]

Right. Surely you aren't arguing that SYG is a license to shoot people? Ravis eems to believe one can just claim he/she felt threatened and that's all it takes. In a way SYG IS a "license" to shoot someone. If they truly feel threatened or at least convince the police that they were reasonable feeling that way. If the prosecutor takes the shooters word that they felt threatened and the evidence that the police present validate the threat(real or not) then you would not be convicted of a crime.

That is my understanding of SYG anyway...........

[Ravi]

Gun soem random people down. Tell the police you felt threatened. Write us from prison.

LOL! You just can't admit you are probably wrong, can you? No one is talking about gunning random people down.

[Mister D]

In a way SYG IS a "license" to shoot someone. If they truly feel threatened or at least convince the police that they were reasonable feeling that way. If the prosecutor takes the shooters word that they felt threatened and the evidence that the police present validate the threat(real or not) then you would not be convicted of a crime.

That is my understanding of SYG anyway...........

One can truly say they felt threatened but if the circumstances don't make that claim plausible they're likely going to jail. Unlike Ravi, you seem to understand that the state will be involved in evaluating the "shooter's word".

[Max Rockatansky]

That's what should happen if Max were to suddenly whip out a gun in a threatening manner. If, however, Max did not act in a way that his shooter could plausibly argue he felt threatened it likely means manslaughter or worse.

Agreed. That becomes a legal matter for the prosecutor and, if necessary, the courts to decide.


So he changes the conversation. Awesome.

You commented "a stupid law that gets people killed unreasonably." Are you talking about laws that get people killed unreasonably or are you simply spouting anti-gun rhetoric?

If the subject is people getting killed, the automobile comment was apropos. If your simply spouting anti-gun rhetoric, then I can see why you're upset that I changed the conversation.

[Cigar]

In a way SYG IS a "license" to shoot someone. If they truly feel threatened or at least convince the police that they were reasonable feeling that way. If the prosecutor takes the shooters word that they felt threatened and the evidence that the police present validate the threat(real or not) then you would not be convicted of a crime.

That is my understanding of SYG anyway...........

Mark my words ... trust me ... and I also said this over a year ago ...

This law will get changed abruptly ... right after the powers-that-be start seeing the wrong people Standing Their Ground. :wink:

Remember ... The NRA Supports anyone having Firepower. :laugh:

[Mister D]

LOL! You just can't admit you are probably wrong, can you? No one is talking about gunning random people down.

So what exactly are you talking about, Ravi? :smiley_ROFLMAO:If a stranger breaks into your home brandishing a firearm you can shoot him? Was that your point? I can do that here. You should be able to do that. Or did you mean to say that if, for example, Bubba A unholsters his pistol to show it to Bubba B in your presence you could justifiably shoot him?

[Mister D]

It's incredible that some people honestly believe that all you need to do after a shooting is claim you felt threatened and that's that. :laugh:

[Ravi]

One can truly say they felt threatened but if the circumstances don't make that claim plausible they're likely going to jail. Unlike Ravi, you seem to understand that the state will be involved in evaluating the "shooter's word".
If by the state you mean the cops, yeah, you're right.

[Ravi]

Agreed. That becomes a legal matter for the prosecutor and, if necessary, the courts to decide.



You commented "a stupid law that gets people killed unreasonably." Are you talking about laws that get people killed unreasonably or are you simply spouting anti-gun rhetoric?

If the subject is people getting killed, the automobile comment was apropos. If your simply spouting anti-gun rhetoric, then I can see why you're upset that I changed the conversation.
My amusement at your tactics doesn't mean I'm upset. If you want to discuss automobile deaths, start a thread.

[Mister D]

If by the state you mean the cops, yeah, you're right.

And if the cops don't like what they see it means the prosecutor and likely the warden.

[Max Rockatansky]

In a way SYG IS a "license" to shoot someone. If they truly feel threatened or at least convince the police that they were reasonable feeling that way. If the prosecutor takes the shooters word that they felt threatened and the evidence that the police present validate the threat(real or not) then you would not be convicted of a crime.

That is my understanding of SYG anyway...........

SYG is more a license for self-defense. If a robber breaks into my house at night and I feel threatened personally or for the lives of others, I can use reasonable measures, including shooting the robber, to defend my home. What I can't do is walk up and execute them after I already dropped them with a wounding shot. What I can't do, similar to Melissa Alexander, is flee the house with my family, grab a gun from the car and go back in shooting.

Let's not forget that Michael Dunn is going to prison, effectively for life, for shooting into a car of innocent kids as it was leaving. The only reason he wasn't convicted for murdering Jordan Davis is because 1 or 2 jurors had reasonable doubt. If the anti-gun folks want to bitch, let them bitch at the legal system, not the Second Amendment.

[MrJimmyDale]

[I]Mark my words ... trust me ... and I also said this over a year ago ... This law will get changed abruptly ... right after the powers-that-be start seeing the wrong people Standing Their Ground
Just try to take it away from them now!!!!!

(my Cigar impression>
:)

[Ravi]

So what exactly are you talking about, Ravi? :smiley_ROFLMAO:If a stranger breaks into your home brandishing a firearm you can shoot him? Was that your point? I can do that here. You should be able to do that. Or did you mean to say that if, for example, Bubba A unholsters his pistol to show it to Bubba B in your presence you could justifiably shoot him?
I never said anything about someone breaking into my home. Why don't you go back and read the thread in a sober frame of mind?

[Max Rockatansky]

My amusement at your tactics doesn't mean I'm upset. If you want to discuss automobile deaths, start a thread.

Then be clearer in your statements and try backing up with facts.

[Mister D]

I never said anything about someone breaking into my home. Why don't you go back and read the thread in a sober frame of mind?

The problem is not you're not really saying much of anything, Ravi. That's probably because the circumstances will determine the plausibility of the shooter's claim of self-defense.

[Ravi]

SYG is more a license for self-defense. If a robber breaks into my house at night and I feel threatened personally or for the lives of others, I can use reasonable measures, including shooting the robber, to defend my home. What I can't do is walk up and execute them after I already dropped them with a wounding shot. What I can't do, similar to Melissa Alexander, is flee the house with my family, grab a gun from the car and go back in shooting.

Let's not forget that Michael Dunn is going to prison, effectively for life, for shooting into a car of innocent kids as it was leaving. The only reason he wasn't convicted for murdering Jordan Davis is because 1 or 2 jurors had reasonable doubt. If the anti-gun folks want to bitch, let them bitch at the legal system, not the Second Amendment.

In Florida you can.

[MrJimmyDale]

What I can't do is walk up and execute them after I already dropped them with a wounding shot. That's why you don't stop shooting until you hear clicking or until your slide locks.

[Max Rockatansky]

I never said anything about someone breaking into my home. Why don't you go back and read the thread in a sober frame of mind?

You didn't answer Mister D's question and it should be clear to all why you are dodging it.

The answer is that Mister D pegged you correctly; you meant "if, for example, Bubba A unholsters his pistol to show it to Bubba B in your presence you could justifiably shoot him?" That, of course, is flat out wrong. You'd go to jail for it. Maybe murder if others testified you have a "thing" for people who carried guns, but most likely manslaughter.

[nic34]

How did the Second Amendment get involved here max? Is someone advocating that it be abolished?

[MrJimmyDale]

if, for example, Bubba A unholsters his pistol to show it to Bubba B in your presence you could justifiably shoot him? You would probably need to shoot both of them and manufacture a great and convincing story. Hope that the cops believe you!

[Max Rockatansky]

You would probably need to shoot both of them and manufacture a great and convincing story. Hope that the cops believe you!

In Florida, it would help if you were white and they were both black, but if vice-versa or they were both white, expect a full investigation.

[Cigar]

It's incredible that some people honestly believe that all you need to do after a shooting is claim you felt threatened and that's that. :laugh:

No ... First you leave the seen and casually drive an hour home.

Second you order Pizza ... with Mozzarella Sticks

Third you walk the Dog ... and don't pick-up the Dog Shit.

Forth you crack open a bottle of Wine ... the Cheap Trailer Trash Shit

... then maybe you Fuck the old lady a few times, then watch some late-night TV

But the absolute last thing you do ... is inform the Police that you discharged your weapon 10 times in a Vehicle more an hour away.

:wink: you want incredible ... now that's incredible.

Threatened ... who's threatened?

[MrJimmyDale]

In Florida, it would help if you were white and they were both black. Less and less advantages for being white everyday...........everywhere............

[Max Rockatansky]

How did the Second Amendment get involved here max? Is someone advocating that it be abolished?

Because the Left has had a problem with the Second Amendment for decades. That's what's behind all of this.

The problem, of course, isn't the Second Amendment or SYG, it's inner city violence and a problem with a disproportionate amount of black-on-white violence.

The Democrat's solution is to disarm everyone. Failing that, they want to criminalize taking a gun out of your home or defending yourself with it.

http://imageshack.com/a/img546/9653/kellyguncartoon800.jpg

[Ravi]

You didn't answer Mister D's question and it should be clear to all why you are dodging it.

The answer is that Mister D pegged you correctly; you meant "if, for example, Bubba A unholsters his pistol to show it to Bubba B in your presence you could justifiably shoot him?" That, of course, is flat out wrong. You'd go to jail for it. Maybe murder if others testified you have a "thing" for people who carried guns, but most likely manslaughter.

I try to avoid replying to nonsensical posts. There was no someone was showing someone else a gun in the scenario we were discussing.

[Ravi]

How did the Second Amendment get involved here max? Is someone advocating that it be abolished?
That's his paranoia. So here we have Max, a paranoid person, pulling his gun out around me and I'm not supposed to (or apparently allowed to) feel threatened.

[Ravi]

You would probably need to shoot both of them and manufacture a great and convincing story. Hope that the cops believe you!
It wouldn't be that difficult. Not too long ago some gang bangers got away with murder by claiming stand your ground.

[Mister D]

I try to avoid replying to nonsensical posts. There was no someone was showing someone else a gun in the scenario we were discussing.

There was no scenario at all. That's the problem with your argument. :wink:

[Cthulhu]

You're right that just having the gun isn't a crime. However, if I felt threatened I'd be justified in shooting him and probably never charged because of SYG.

No. You can *feel* however you want. But unless the aggressor is actually threatening you in some manner - you're totally hosed in a court room. Remember that ultimately it is the judge or the jury that decides whether your feelings were justified or not.

Example:

You sit down at a bus stop bench. Someone else sits on the other end. Magically, you feel 'threatened', and you blast him. Enjoy that prison sentence you'll be getting.

Example 2:

You sit down at the bus stop. Someone else sits on the other end. He looks at you and verbally shoots his mouth off. You get up to walk away, he follows, but this time with a knife drawn - you blast him. You still probably need to defend yourself in court, but odds are in your favor of not getting convicted. However this largely depends on the evidence presented at court I'd imagine.

Backstory and evidence have a lot to do with it. It isn't just as open and shut as you paint it out to be.

[Cthulhu]

Did you read the law? It doesn't say at random but it does say if you feel threatened you are free to use deadly force.

Typically in all but the most demented, there is a causative action that inspires the fear with being threatened. Meaning the guy had to be doing something do threaten you.

[Cthulhu]

Here we go with the ususal "gun-grabbers" divisive flamebait.

It just so happens that there are a lot of places that see gun violence as a major problem, and would like people on the other side of the "debate" to help come up with some workable solutions on the issue instead of more tired divisive rhetoric.

Places with high gun violence typically have higher violence in every category. Work on reducing the cause of the violence, not the implementation.

Progressives don't really care about violence. Just gun violence. As if it is more evil than beating someone to death with a lead steel pipe, or with your bare hands. Violence is violence. Some just hate certain types. Makes no logical sense.

[Cthulhu]

Sigh....

If a stranger takes a gun out of his pocket he's behaving in a threatening manner.

Um...no. Perhaps to you maybe. But not the rest of the world. Some might share your thoughts on it, but your declaration alone is not worldwide gospel.

Ever go shooting? Been to a gun show?

[nic34]

Places with high gun violence typically have higher violence in every category. Work on reducing the cause of the violence, not the implementation.

Progressives don't really care about violence. Just gun violence. As if it is more evil than beating someone to death with a lead steel pipe, or with your bare hands. Violence is violence. Some just hate certain types. Makes no logical sense.

Thanks for telling me what I really care about.

[Cthulhu]

Thanks for telling me what I really care about.

I am pretty sure that isn't what I did, however you can think as you will. But in all fairness, I shouldn't have used the catch all term 'progressives'. Even if they share the bulk of the responsibility.

[Ravi]

No. You can *feel* however you want. But unless the aggressor is actually threatening you in some manner - you're totally hosed in a court room. Remember that ultimately it is the judge or the jury that decides whether your feelings were justified or not.

Example:

You sit down at a bus stop bench. Someone else sits on the other end. Magically, you feel 'threatened', and you blast him. Enjoy that prison sentence you'll be getting.

Example 2:

You sit down at the bus stop. Someone else sits on the other end. He looks at you and verbally shoots his mouth off. You get up to walk away, he follows, but this time with a knife drawn - you blast him. You still probably need to defend yourself in court, but odds are in your favor of not getting convicted. However this largely depends on the evidence presented at court I'd imagine.

Backstory and evidence have a lot to do with it. It isn't just as open and shut as you paint it out to be.

What we were discussing is somewhat similar to example one, but the guy pulls out a gun.

Your scenarios are a little silly.

Read the law that I posted for you.

[Ravi]

Typically in all but the most demented, there is a causative action that inspires the fear with being threatened. Meaning the guy had to be doing something do threaten you.
Like taking a gun out of his pocket.

[Ravi]

Um...no. Perhaps to you maybe. But not the rest of the world. Some might share your thoughts on it, but your declaration alone is not worldwide gospel.

Ever go shooting? Been to a gun show?
Yes, and in both those places you expect people to display guns. Are you really as dense as you seem? A random stranger pulls out a gun. You go right ahead and raise your kids to smile and say, hey, wanna go for coffee? :rolleyes:

[Mister D]

Like taking a gun out of his pocket.

Dude A: Hey, Mike, check out my revolver

Dude C: Cool, where'd you ge---

bang bang

Ravi: Officer, I was scared cuz he had a gun!

Officer: hands behind your back maam...

[Ravi]

Dude A: Hey, Mike, check out my revolver

Dude C: Cool, where'd you ge---

bang bang

Ravi: Officer, I was scared cuz he had a gun!

Officer: hands behind your back maam...
Dude A: Takes gun out of pocket without saying a word.

Dude B: Bang, bang.

Cop: Good work, Dude B.

[Mister D]

Dude A: Takes gun out of pocket without saying a word.

Dude B: Bang, bang.

Cop: Good work, Dude B.

You're starting to get it, Ravi, even if slowly. Simply claiming you felt threatened isn't enough. The circumstances will be examined to determine if that is a reasonable defense.

[Ravi]

You're starting to get it, Ravi, even if slowly. Simply claiming you felt threatened isn't enough. The circumstances will be examined to determine if that is a reasonable defense.It is under the law. Which is why I said that if Max pulled out a gun I'd be justified in shooting him in Floriduh.

[Mister D]

It is under the law. Which is why I said that if Max pulled out a gun I'd be justified in shooting him in Floriduh.

Again, you make a blanket statement covering any possible circumstance. no, you could not shoot Max in FL or anywhere else. That's nonsense.

[Dr. Who]

I think context is everything. If someone pulls out a gun, say at the 7-11, the cashier might certainly have cause to feel threatened. If someone pulls a gun out in an elevator full of people, it is certainly possible he means to shoot someone. If someone pulls a gun from his holster in his backyard (possibly to clean it), his neighbor on the other side of the fence should not feel threatened unless of course said neighbors were just threatening each other. On the other hand, since people don't generally pull guns out just to fondle them, anyone unholstering their gun, or pulling same from a pocket or glove box in a public place might be automatically suspect, unless they are at a gun show or other suitable location.

[Mister D]

I think context is everything. If someone pulls out a gun, say at the 7-11, the cashier might certainly have cause to feel threatened. If someone pulls a gun out in an elevator full of people, it is certainly possible he means to shoot someone. If someone pulls a gun from his holster in his backyard (possibly to clean it), his neighbor on the other side of the fence should not feel threatened unless of course said neighbors were just threatening each other. On the other hand, since people don't generally pull guns out just to fondle them, anyone unholstering their gun, or pulling same from a pocket or glove box in a public place might be automatically suspect, unless they are at a gun show or other suitable location.

Of course! That this needs to be argued so insistently is kind of scary.

[Cthulhu]

Yes, and in both those places you expect people to display guns. Are you really as dense as you seem? A random stranger pulls out a gun. You go right ahead and raise your kids to smile and say, hey, wanna go for coffee? :rolleyes:

Why do you have to get so personal?

U mad bro?

Context and what leads up to one human being shooting another is of absolute importance.

[Cigar]

No ... First you leave the seen and casually drive an hour home.

Second you order Pizza ... with Mozzarella Sticks

Third you walk the Dog ... and don't pick-up the Dog Shit.

Forth you crack open a bottle of Wine ... the Cheap Trailer Trash Shit

... then maybe you Fuck the old lady a few times, then watch some late-night TV

But the absolute last thing you do ... is inform the Police that you discharged your weapon 10 times in a Vehicle more an hour away.

:wink: you want incredible ... now that's incredible.

Threatened ... who's threatened?

Notice the absence of Defence? :)

[Green Arrow]

Notice the absence of Defence? :)

Probably because most people ignore you.

[Mister D]

Probably because most people ignore you.

lol

[Bob]

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/sgtmfw9027cp8zetcknn.jpg

Police at the University of Mississippi are investigating a racially inflammatory incident involving a statue depicting a civil rights icon.

According to The Daily Mississippian (http://thedmonline.com/upd-investigating-discovery-of-noose-and-flag-on-meredith-statue/), the student-run newspaper at Ole Miss, a noose was found on Sunday morning around the neck of the school's James Meredith statue. A pre-2003 Georgia state flag, which featured the "stars and bars" of the Confederacy, was also draped around the statue's shoulders.

Meredith became the school's first black student in 1962.

Authorities are investigating the incident and the Ole Miss Alumni Association has offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to an arrest, but University Police Chief Calvin Sellers told TPM they "don't have much" in the way of leads.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ole-miss-james-meredith-statue-vandalism-noose



Let's just let the responses speak for themselves ...




My god, a statue, made of metal and a damned noose was on it?

This is too funny. I mean, it is metal.

Left wingers do far worse than that. They play their roles in removing human freedoms.

Today on this forum, a left winger got angry that congress says they are about done passing laws.

GOOD

Damn those people anyway. They keep shoving all those laws at us and we have the responsibility to learn them and obey them.

[nic34]

But what wasn't absolutely correct about what he posted, green?

[nic34]

You should also not make the mistake of assuming that progressives don't have or won't use guns.

[Green Arrow]

But what wasn't absolutely correct about what he posted, green?

No idea. I didn't read it.

[Akula]

:rollseyes: and you wonder why people think you're a bigot...

"feral" is an accurate description.
"Negro" is an accurate description.

What's the problem?

[Ravi]

I think context is everything. If someone pulls out a gun, say at the 7-11, the cashier might certainly have cause to feel threatened. If someone pulls a gun out in an elevator full of people, it is certainly possible he means to shoot someone. If someone pulls a gun from his holster in his backyard (possibly to clean it), his neighbor on the other side of the fence should not feel threatened unless of course said neighbors were just threatening each other. On the other hand, since people don't generally pull guns out just to fondle them, anyone unholstering their gun, or pulling same from a pocket or glove box in a public place might be automatically suspect, unless they are at a gun show or other suitable location.Exactly. So Max would be fair game in his scenario in Florida.

[zelmo1234]

You should also not make the mistake of assuming that progressives don't have or won't use guns.

Oh! we know that they will use guns. Starvation, furnaces, gas chambers,

Progressives will kill those that don't agree with them by the millions.

However they usually like to make sure that they are the only ones with guns? Not really big on fair fights.

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh! we know that they will use guns. Starvation, furnaces, gas chambers,

Progressives will kill those that don't agree with them by the millions.

However they usually like to make sure that they are the only ones with guns? Not really big on fair fights.Nazis were conservatives. So are the Taliban.

Progressives have a hard time organizing a rally. Look at what happened to OWC compared to the Tea Party. No leaders means nothing larger than a small groups. A bunch of small groups is a circus, not a movement.

[Mister D]

Nazis were conservatives. So are the Taliban.

Progressives have a hard time organizing a rally. Look at what happened to OWC compared to the Tea Party. No leaders means nothing larger than a small groups. A bunch of small groups is a circus, not a movement.

The Nazis were revolutionaries.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's why you don't stop shooting until you hear clicking or until your slide locks.

That's what a California highway patrolman told my squadron during a safety stand down. He said a clean shot between the eyes isn't a convincing case of "I was in fear of my life and had to defend myself". Better to just empty the magazine into them and the walls. Rough on the house paint, but much more persuasive to a jury.

[nic34]

OWC were mostly left independent and libertarians.

I was there in my town. And no, there were no guns.

[Cigar]

The Nazis were revolutionaries.

I guess that's why they're gone from Power :laugh:

[nic34]

Nazis were conservatives. So are the Taliban.

Progressives have a hard time organizing a rally. Look at what happened to OWC compared to the Tea Party. No leaders means nothing larger than a small groups. A bunch of small groups is a circus, not a movement.

Who is a t-party leader?

[Max Rockatansky]

The Nazis were revolutionaries.

Not really. They merely dressed up old traditional stuff with "der Fuhrer" replacing the concept of King. Wagner, Valkyries and, of course, for something to hate, anti-semitism.

The closet thing they had to being "revolutionary" was cherry-picking from Nietzsche.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/nietzsche_crimes/7.html

Hitler basically saw what he wanted to see in Nietzsche's writings. "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."

Thus, regardless of what he hoped for, Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race.

.....Like some killers today, Hitler appropriated Nietzsche's ideas and made them his own. It may not have been Nietzsche's intent to have his themes taken out of context, but few thinkers have the luxury of controlling what others do with their work. It's unlikely he would have viewed a petty, dysfunctional and tyrannical little man like Hitler as the Übermensch that would usher in a new age of self-realization and cultural achievement. Yet Hitler was indeed a "monster filled with joy" with the "conscience of a beast of prey," as Nietzsche described. Vague phrasing provided a certain flexibility of interpretation.

[Mister D]

I guess that's why they're gone from Power :laugh:

:huh:

[Mister D]

Not really. They merely dressed up old traditional stuff with "der Fuhrer" replacing the concept of King. Wagner, Valkyries and, of course, for something to hate, anti-semitism.

The closet thing they had to being "revolutionary" was cherry-picking from Nietzsche.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/nietzsche_crimes/7.html

The closest thing to revolutionary would have been a totalitarian state structure and ideology which is to say that Nazism was an utterly modern movement seeking a decisive break with the past. The Nazis weren't looking backward but forward toward the future, a new man, and a new German society.

[Max Rockatansky]

Who is a t-party leader?

Unlike the OWC, the Tea Party has both local groups and national groups. Liberals have always had a problem with organization compared to Conservatives.

One problem with the RNC today is that, due to religious influences, they've become more like the DNC than the GOP. The GOP was focused on business and national defense. The DNC was the party of all producing things like the "Rainbow Coalition". Much like the difference between a professional expert and a jack-of-all-trades. The "new and improved" RNC is similar in construction (meaning destruction) and only their goals are different. The RNC is interested in religious values and peeking into people's bedrooms, the GOP was not. The DNC has always been about preaching values even if those values are "all values are equal".

[Max Rockatansky]

The closest thing to revolutionary would have been a totalitarian state structure and ideology which is to say that Nazism was an utterly modern movement seeking a decisive break with the past. The Nazis weren't looking backward but forward toward the future, a new man, and a new German society.

They were using conservative, traditional values to refocus on their future of a master race and a new Germany. Why do you think they used "Third Reich" instead of "New Germany"? Hating the Jews was just using an old, traditional scapegoat to, literally, hang all of Germany's problems onto.

The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire in Germany.

The Second Reich was the unified German Empire created by Bismark.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/germany/a/Otherreichs.htm

The German word 'reich' means 'empire', although it can also be translated as government. In 1930's Germany the Nazi party identified their rule as a third Reich, and in doing so gave English speakers around the world a new, and wholly negative, connotation to the word. Some people are surprised to find that the concept, and use, of three reichs is not a solely Nazi idea, but a common component of German historiography.

[Mister D]

They were using conservative, traditional values to refocus on their future of a master race and a new Germany. Why do you think they used "Third Reich" instead of "New Germany"?

The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire in Germany.

The Second Reich was the unified German Empire created by Bismark.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/germany/a/Otherreichs.htm

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. If this somehow became a communist country but we still called it the USA would that make it the same?

Nazism was a revolutionary movement. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology. It, like Marxism, was a way of adapting to modernity. Did you know the Nazis also fought monarchists and other conservatives on their way to power? There was a reason for that. There was nothing conservative about the revolutionary movements of the 20th Century. Now you could argue that Nazism was the nationalist response to Marxism/communism but that, again, makes it a variant of Marxism.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. If this somehow became a communist country but we still called it the USA would that make it the same?

No, but as the saying goes, “If Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. I'm sure it will be a Protestant cross too!

[nic34]

Unlike the OWC, the Tea Party has both local groups and national groups. Liberals have always had a problem with organization compared to Conservatives.

One problem with the RNC today is that, due to religious influences, they've become more like the DNC than the GOP. The GOP was focused on business and national defense. The DNC was the party of all producing things like the "Rainbow Coalition". Much like the difference between a professional expert and a jack-of-all-trades. The "new and improved" RNC is similar in construction (meaning destruction) and only their goals are different. The RNC is interested in religious values and peeking into people's bedrooms, the GOP was not. The DNC has always been about preaching values even if those values are "all values are equal".

Problem is, t-party has a lot to do with "influencing" partisan republican politics. OWS doesn't and never intended to. OWS's anarchist roots is not really about organization.

[Max Rockatansky]

Problem is, t-party has a lot to do with "influencing" partisan republican politics. OWS doesn't and never intended to. OWS's anarchist roots is not really about organization.

First, I disagree that the OWS intentions weren't to change politics. Agreed their anarchist roots were one reason for their disorganization and, IMO, ultimate failure.

Except for breaking windows and setting fires (plus one bridge bombing plot in Cleveland) they didn't do much.

Are you disagreeing why they were disorganized? I'm not sure what you are objecting to here, Nic.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111103022154-occupy-protest-fire-horizontal-gallery.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111103115951-oakland-occupy-06-horizontal-gallery.jpg

[nic34]

Max, it's a stretch to call OWS a progressive movement...at all comparable to the T-pers.... that's all. :wink:

[Max Rockatansky]

Max, it's a stretch to call OWS a progressive movement...at all comparable to the T-pers.... that's all. :wink:

It's Liberals and Anarchists coming together and going nowhere. :)