Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 24, 2013 -> 08:49 PM) Earlier in the 2nd, the Pacers get a tech on Young, a tech on Brian Shaw, and a foul called in the same possession. The referee is Scott Foster. Sound familiar? To their credit, Kerr/Miller were all over him and referenced the bulls*** Bulls game. Both techs in this game were BS. Young got a tech for trying to grab the ball from Lebron. Funny that 10 minutes later Lebron did the exact same thing and nothing happened.

I despise the Pacers, but I'm really enjoying this.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 04:25 PM) Unfortunately some of the worst attacks on American soil have been committed by regular people who were not "gun toting bangers". The problem is that some people were "law abiding citizens" until they werent. So my general philosophy is to trust no one. Thus you create laws that equally apply to everyone. The guy with the cleavers was a law abiding citizen until he wasn't. BAN CLEAVERS. American Muslims are just normal folk until they're not and they become terrorists. BAN MUSLIMS. That's a really poor way of deciding policy. And creating laws that apply equally to everyone sounds great unless it infringes on your rights. "Cavity searches for all because some people try to smuggle drugs into the country. Hey, it's applied equally to everyone, totally cool you guys!"

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:51 PM) I was just making an argument to get a gun rights person to argue against stricter penalties. I knew that if I said jail time for failing to register it would immediately get pro-gun people to attack me and argue that penalty is to harsh. I just wanted to show that "not everyone agrees on making gun crimes harsher." That being said, I obviously agree that renewing your FOID card should be less of a penalty than actually having a gun while you commit a crime. I would also say that never getting a FOID card should have a greater penalty than forgetting to renew. But that wasnt the point of my statement. I merely was showing that when you try and create harsher penalties, you get blow back from gun rights people. Its also because Im so tired of hearing the nonsense "99.9% of gun owners are law abiding citizens". First of all its a made up number. Second of all almost everyone breaks the law at some point or another, gun owners non-gun owners a like. So when I hear a statement like that, I really just want to rip it apart, because its trying to create this magical world where gun owners arent real people. Lol, me saying I don't agree with jail time as a penality =/= that I disagree about having ANY penalty or making the existing penalty MORE harsh. It means I don't agree that increasing it to the level of jail time is reasonable. As to the last paragraph, 99.9% obviously isn't proven data, but the fact is we're overreacting to random shootings by crazy people that are incredibly rare compared to the number of people that own and use guns. That's the point being made when people say that.

QUOTE (Boogua @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) A 5'9 white guy that won the college slam dunk contest. I'm not going to argue with you because it's pointless. Greatest athlete in NBA history: check out the dunks!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:06 PM) The ultimate problem is that a criminal is a criminal. You cant just say "Oh well thats not my type of criminal." I guess in my opinion I am fine with people owning guns, as long as they understand that owning a gun comes with responsibility. I do not believe that it is to much to ask to keep your FOID card registered, etc. If someone can not do that, why are they trustworthy enough to own a gun? The person who locked their gun up 20 years and hasnt seen it, doesnt know where their gun is. For all we know its been stolen, lost or is in the hands of a "real criminal" who will then use it to hurt someone else. I guess I just think there should be some give and take. If you want to play the "gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens", then shouldnt we hold them to that? And this isnt my opinion. I dont get to say who is a criminal or who is not. A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you want to create a different category "violent criminal" etc, well then we can have a reasonable discussion. But no one has framed it that way, everyone used the word "criminal" generally. The word means nothing when you look at it in this way. Every single one of us is a criminal because we've all driven faster than the posted speed limit or made a rolling stop instead of a complete stop. You have to look at it on different levels.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) Treyvon was an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. That is 100% objectively true statement of fact. That Zimmerman racially stereotyped him because he was a young, black male is an opinion, but one that I believe is reasonable, well-supported and most likely to be true. These pictures do not change that at all. Martin could have been an ex-felon, yet he would still have been an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. shack brought up a good point that this could be used to cast doubt on who started the confrontation, if that's the legal theory the state is going with. What these pictures unfortunately do for everyone else is allow people to engage in victim-blaming. Just look to the comments sections on these articles where you see vile and often openly racist statements that Martin was a 'thug' who 'deserved it' and Zimmerman did society a favor by killing this punk before he inevitably committed more crimes. I don't buy that just because you equate black kid with possible criminal activity that's racist when you know that black kids have been committing crimes in the neighborhood. If there was no crime at all in that neighborhood and he thought that, fine, that's racial stereotyping. But those aren't the facts here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) Is it possible that the jury could convict him of a lesser charge i.e. manslaughter? Or do they only have the option of guilty/not guilty on 2nd degree murder? Not sure how Florida works, but I'm pretty sure in Illinois you're stuck with the charges you bring.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:00 PM) Yeah but he objectively was racially stereotyping an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. None of these pictures change that. People like you on a jury frighten me.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) Being a lawyer yourself, I bet you wouldn't want to touch this case with a 10 foot pole. That phone call really screwed Zimmerman. People can't help but to conclude that he went after him after the dispatcher told him not too. Either way, Zimmerman is pretty screwed regardless of the outcome of the trial. Nope, it'll be a b**** for both sides. Edit: and yeah, I really hope he doesn't get hurt if he's found not guilty.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) Anyone got a count on how many posts we have hit in this series? Has to be at least a half of a dozen, right? I think 4 last night and 7-8 in game 3. Not sure about game 4.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:49 PM) If white people are the naive, I really feel sorry for them. There are so many different ways this scenario can go down it's not even funny. If Zimmerman got his ass kicked and then shot Trayvon after the fact, that's obvious. If Zimmerman chased him down and Trayvon got testy and a skirmish broke out then we have a situation. If Zimmerman was ambushed, got his ass beat, and then fired in self defense, then this should be an open and shut case. My question is, how do you prove any of it with 50% of the witnesses dead? This case is like a wirey, tanglely, thicket of bush. That's why this case will come down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman and finds him credible. And that's why the defense had a tough task to reverse the way he was portrayed in the media the weeks following the shooting as just another racist stereotyping an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:44 PM) No, but it will go a long way in convincing straight-laced white people that Martin may have been more willing to initiate or escalate the situation...i dunno what the composition of the jury is though... That's what they're hoping for, but it would be an easier case to sell to the judge if the suspensions were due to fighting or more aggressive behavior. I don't think being a burglar/pot smoker means you're more likely to attack someone. All that stuff i'm guessing will be barred unless the prosecution brings it up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:41 PM) Oh no! He smoked pot! He tried to look 'tough'! Martin was just another black kid. Like a lot of kids in general, the "normal, good ol' American boys", he used some mild drugs, had some bravado, and got into some minor trouble here and there. Who cares? That's how teenagers in general act because they're dumb. None of this has any relevance to this shooting. Even if Martin had a criminal past, Zimmerman wouldn't automatically be innocent. Yeah, most normal kids get suspended twice from school for burglary and drugs. Most take pictures of themselves with handguns. I get what you're saying, he's not the worst kid ever and he's largely normal, but I think it was ridiculous for people to be like "oh yeah that could have been my kid." I would hope someone who reaches the level of the President could raise a kid who is better than that. I would hope that everyone would aspire to raise kids that are better than that. But as I've already said, I agree this stuff is irrelevant. If the prosecution wants to start claiming Zimmerman killed a saint, well, then it's fair game.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) Who in the world said Trayvon was a good kid?!?!? The point being, before much of anything was known about Martin or Zimmerman or what actually happened that night, everyone felt compelled to victimize Martin as just another black kid. So there was an overreaction to him as being a normal, good ol' american boy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) So...guns are evil or? It's more the pot smoking, school troubled kid that happens to flash a handgun that seems like exactly the type of son Obama would have raised in Hyde Park. Since, you know, he had to come out and immediately claim that Martin was your average American kid that could be his own.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:32 AM) Well they are criminals. Having an unlicensed gun would be a crime, selling a gun without a license would be a crime. So those people dont fall into the completely made up 99.9% of gun owners dont commit crimes, they would be the .1% who are committing crimes. See Y2hh, this is why we cant have tougher laws. Because people will make up arguments about how "gun owners dont commit crimes". Even though the premise is not punishing a gun owner, its punishing someone who broke the law, which is a crime. I couldnt have made up a more perfect response to prove my point. So the way to curb gun crime is to make stronger penalties for owning guns which will create tens of thousands of new criminals who should be punished so severely that they'll be put in jail for a year, all for not getting a stupid piece of paper, even though those same people today have done absolutely nothing to contribute to said gun crime you want to prevent. That's the logic that's sound in this debate? Really?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:19 AM) They absolutely fight the consequences. Gun owners will not go for: "If you have an unlicensed gun 1 year mandatory sentence", they will not go for "If you buy/sell an unlicensed gun, 1 year mandatory sentence." These type of consequences wont fly in the current pro-gun environment. They fought the Brady Bill, they fight everything. If they didnt, why dont we have stronger consequences? Those penalties are unreasonably severe. That's why we don't have them. That, and 99.9% of gun owners don't commit crimes, so you're punishing tens of millions without any evidence that it would result in any changes in crime rates.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) People will make the contitutionality argument, but we prohibited alcohol and gave African American's 3/5ths of a vote at one time too. The Constitution can and will change as times change. Really, I have no problem with guns whatsoever, but I feel like owning and firing a gun is similar in power to owning and driving a car. You will almost always pay more for a car, but it's just as (if not more) dangerous than a gun and it takes extensive training to become skilled in the practice. Cars are more of a necessity than guns, but people can absolutely live without a car. Thus, much the same as cars, I believe people should be required to apply for a gun through the state - wherever - you should have to take a written test to have a gun "permit," and then you need to take a shooting test to have a gun "license." Every 3-5 years, people should have to go in and take a basic re-test to check for mental and physical stability to ensure that no dangerous changes have occurred. There would also be different types of licenses - rifles, shotguns, handguns, automatics, bazookas, chicken-launchers - and for each different license, you would have to test for it. Once you have a license, you are free to purchase and use any type of gun of that classification pending it's registration. Yes, it would be a pain in the ass, but that's the point - to actually get a gun legally, it is going to be a pain in the ass and you are going to have to make the economic decision as to whether it is worth it to wait and go through all that hassle to get a gun. If it is, then happy gun-owning. All of the major changes don't restrict rights, they expand freedoms. I'm fine with what you suggest in your second paragraph. Those seem reasonable to me. BTW, my comment was more about poking fun at Balta who seems to legitimately fear being killed in the crossfire of a shootout, as if that happens on a daily basis on every street corner in the country. I own many guns, and I can't tell you how many shootouts i've gotten into with my neighbors. And just think if the soldier - someone trained with weapons - could have been carrying a concealed weapon. I'd imagine this story would have ended very differently.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/Trayvo...e-photos-679832 Could have been Obama's son! Seriously though, I think this stuff is largely irrelevant unless the prosecution harps on what a good kid he was.

Terrible

Embarassing pp

Jesus, Howard saving everything

Omg another near make

Ugh, best chance