Out of Pod Experience

Nope, just glad to see Americans are already reaping the benefits of Florida's "Stand your Ground" laws.

I'd renew my NRA membership, but I'm already a lifetime member.

Note to self: Send another $100 donation.....

Dharun Ravi livestreams his gay roommate Tyler Clementi smooching with a dude.
One jumps off a bridge and the other gets deported. Who won?

Trayvon Martin gets into a fight with George Zimmerman.
One ends up dead and the other goes to jail. Who won?


I swear the left has collectively lost their mind.

Err, how is this even relevant to your final comment? You don't have to be part of "the left" to see that Ravi was guilty of a massive violation of Clementi's privacy, and should pay for his actions.



And once again you lie about the facts of the case and portray it as a case of "getting into a fight" when it was really "being stalked and then attacked by a paranoid vigilante". Stop acting like this is just a "fight" where both parties were equally guilty.



What the hell does any of this have to do with "the left"? Seriously, this isn't even an attempt at an argument, you just babble incoherently for a few sentences and then yell something about "the left". Perhaps your tinfoil hat isn't covering you well enough, and you should make yourself a new one before posting again?



This.

At least there's no question left that you're a troll, a sociopath, and a complete ****ing idiot.


Edit: TBH, you give a lot of credibility to Herzog Wolfhammer's paranoid rants about "paid discussion controllers". It's almost easier to believe that you're really part of "the left" and just doing this to make conservatives look bad than it is to believe that anyone could honestly be as stupid as you are.

The most common conspiracy theory archetype is one where the lack of information giving a clear and rational explanation is the proof the believer has.

I.E. Area 51 theories.

The sign says do not enter or you will be shot, now....... there are a metric 8888-ton of those signs on residences that aren't the home of "top secret"

The motivation behind that one is "lets get group support and find out what the top-of-the-line, not-for-public-consumption technology is".


But there is another form of conspiracy that doesn't qualify for the description.... because no words are used, social blindness.

Much like Herzog states the outrage is going to be there, everyone agrees that the story got whats known as a "media frenzy". The reality is, ofc, that there will be a month or 3 of vigilance, as stated by others, then the recognition of these factors will be decided.


In Northern Ireland there was a lot of violence, that ended up with a diffused situation of perpetual hostility, with the occasional eruption of violence. This was self-perpetuating, due to the fact that every subsequent generation would have come into contact with someone "who knows a guy who knows a guy, that was knee-capped/victim of police brutality".

This opened up the dynamic playgroung-politics situation.

If "anyone" finds out "crucial" facts, at the time of event, does it affect their judgement? The answer in Youth is that finding out crucial information in adolescence is the number one impression that forms the underlying basis of any psychological schema that follows thereafter.


Imagine:

Plaground, swing, couple of spring loaded sheep-seats
4 children.
The Zimmerman vs. Martin story.

All are told:

Police told Zimmerman to back off while they arrived
Zimmerman assumed the police would not arrive in time and continued to follow Martin around "Zimmerman's" patch.
The teenager Trayvon Martin was unarmed.
Trayvon Martin was shot after Zimmerman left his SUV.
Zimmerman is not authorised to use deadly force in the line of his security role.


Playground politics would create several different opinions that could form in the vocabulary of the 4 children whilst they talk about the case, with each fact gaining traction or being debunked based on the affluence of the group and their tuition.


If, at the end of the first consideration the children are then presented with "Zimmerman was spotted on the ground being punched in the face, prior to shooting the assailant" Zimmerman walks away clean.

If, at the end of the first consideration the children are then presented with "Zimmerman was told by a bona fide authority not to pursue, and hence engage the future victim." Authority conformance comes into play and Zimmerman is only classed as having committed some form of wrong doing, no clear law to test

BUT: If the guy in the upstairs landing window says "You can identify where this crime took place, my name will only prove that I am indeed who I say I am, you can use me in the news article" The area in question doesn't look dangerous, the normal citizens are upstanding and forthright and the whole debate is rendered pointless.


That's an example of the "psyop" method Herzog appears to be defining in earlier posts. Word selection defines the context within which considerations are based.

Unfortunately for the majority, those facts are most often "construed" by the reporting body. I.E. not the silenced police force with no on-the-scene witnesses in their own force.


It is still a tragedy that Trayvon Martin was shot, Zimmerman was not authorised to pursue with the option of lethal force in any legal context. However, lack of declaration of intent was the number one factor why Zimmerman should be charged.

The "self-defence" claim appears to rely on the fact that Zimmerman was nearly incapacitated on the floor prior to using his sidearm. Was the 17-yr-old able to beat him to death in this time, would he have chosen to beat Zimmerman to death? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannysmackin' )

Finally, would you hire someone as a security guard for a residential complex who lacks the delegation skills to allow the police to provide the only intervention, and also lacks the diplomatic skills to diffuse a situation without violence? I wouldn't.

One child, a teenager, a friend to other people was gunned down.
A security guard was nearly proven to be incompetent by a beat-down from someone he tried to arrest.

Two lives were lost, but the only one that is inconsolable is Travyon Martin's cessation of life function, everything Zimmerman has to deal with could happen to absolutely anyone at absolutely any time, even if its "just a mistake" on a legal document at the white house.

When Zimmerman took that beating he lost his credibility as a security officer, personally I think that escalated the life/death considerations that caused Zimmerman to use lethal force. Not a 17-yr-old beating him up.

Stand your ground only comes into question when you're not the one attacking or provoking a fight... You dont get to look shocked in bar when someone hits you in the head with a bottle after you felt up some guys girlfriend, or shoved him in the first place.

Or say you break into someone's house and then claim "Well the own was going to shoot me so... I defended myself."

Perhaps the context of crazy should be a off duty cop hassles someone without first identifying themselves or their intentions an altercation breaks out and the cop shoots the guy... Ok now get upset cause "the man" had a part in this.

I dont see how it's racist to think the kid shouldnt have been shot, and Zimmerman wasn't technically defending himself.

But lets me seek clarification... You stated you were happy the kid died... AKA "the black idiot." And were pulling the race card?

How? Because him fighting isn't in question... And I still have yet to hear what the detractors in the kids shoes would have done in his place... Such that a guy driving around stalking you and then getting out of his car with a gun while youre walking home... And not saying anything to you.

What would you do?

So you are saying its perfectly acceptable to follow someone around, then threaten them with a gun and start a fight so if they fight back you have the right to shoot them?

I'd like you to think about the scenario you're putting forward.

You're saying that Zimmerman was brandishing the gun and this 17 year old started a fist fight with a guy who was pointing a gun at him.

Do you really think that's likely? Or do you think it's more likely that Trayvon confronted him, assaulted him, then Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot him?

Because the latter sounds a lot more likely to me. Normal people don't run toward an armed assailant. Even cops don't do that, and they're trained to deal with them.

Maybe you've read something I haven't. I'm not going to pretend to have read everything about this story. But I just don't find your scenario likely.

What is more aggressive - following someone or beating the **** out of them? Because Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Then Trayvon beat the **** out of him. This is according to the witness and the police.

And I'm still waiting to know where you're reading that Zimmerman was pointing a gun at the kid terrorizing him with it. I haven't read that anywhere and I'm genuinely curious to know where you're getting that from.