Lotion raw bruises...Lotion raw bruises...
Love it.

YOWW! Hope they got plenty of ®Acme Bruise Cream on hand in the locker room for these gals....

Yeah, cut off the bottoms of my feet,
Make me walk on salt.
Take me down to the police,
Charge me with assault.
Smile on her face,
She does what she wants to me.

That's right.
She don't care what kind of wounds she's inflicting on me,
And she don't care what color bruises that she's leaving on me,
Cause she's got freedom in the 21st Century.
Alright.

Listen. Two black gadgets in her hand, it's all she thinks about.
No responsibility, no guilt or morals cloud her judgement,
Smile on her face,
She does what she damn-well please.

Right. And she don't care what kind of things people used to do,
And she don't care if what she does has an effect on you,
Cause she's got freedom in the 21st Century.

Cut off the bottoms of my feet,
Cut off the bottoms of my feet,
Make me walk on salt,
Make me walk on salt,
Take me down to the police,
Take me down to the police.

Raise your hand if you are the nephew of someone who did this while show-boating as a teenager. While practicing (for the 5th time) his quick draw interpretation, "BOOM!" the slug lodged in his holster as it bruised his thigh....he screamed like a girl (so goes the story from eyewitnesses during holidays) when he thought he'd been shot!! HA-HA FOR YOU, UNCLE!! "DUUUUUUuuuuuuRRRR!???"

My guess is under those uniforms, they have bruises everywhere.

>> ^Morganth:

Looks like his head hit the curb. Walking away means he lived, but it doesn't mean he'll be okay. I had a buddy get hit in the head with a softball that bounced off his glove. He got up, said he was fine, and went on...then his brain swelled from the bruising on both sides. It took years to recover, but some of the damage is permanent.
Yes, walking away is wonderful. It means you lived. But it doesn't mean you're alright. Wear your fucking seatbelt.


Sorry to hear about your friend, hope he's coping ok.

Looks like his head hit the curb. Walking away means he lived, but it doesn't mean he'll be okay. I had a buddy get hit in the head with a softball that bounced off his glove. He got up, said he was fine, and went on...then his brain swelled from the bruising on both sides. It took years to recover, but some of the damage is permanent.

Yes, walking away is wonderful. It means you lived. But it doesn't mean you're alright. Wear your fucking seatbelt.

I'm alright. But my ego is bruised.

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake.

Why isn't this mentioned in the original text?

How and why did people suddenly realize the serpent was actually Satan a few thousand years later?

God works by progressive revelation. However, you can find something about it in Ezekiel 28.

Why didn't God recognize Satan in the form of a serpent? It seems God's omniscence was on the fritz that day; he didn't know where Adam was hiding and didn't know he and Eve had eaten the fruit.

God did recognize Satan, which is why He pronounced this judgment, which is also a prophecy of the Messiah:

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It's a prophecy about Jesus defeating Satan on the cross.

Have you ever asked a question you knew the answer to? Then you can understand why God asked Adam where he was.

If God did recognize Satan, why did he punish all serpents to crawl on their bellies and eat dust and all that?

Can you see how those words would have a deeper meaning to an angelic being who is condemned to stay on Earth?

And why did they continue to do business together for the next few thousand years until the Fall? If Satan was just doing his original job (tempting humans), why was he punished at all?

The fall was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Satans original job was the worship leader in Heaven. Since falling from grace, he has attempted to corrupt and destroy Gods creation. He tempted Adam and Eve to gain power over them, and because Adam has dominion over the Earth, he would become the defacto ruler.

Satan has played a role as a prosecuting attorney against God creations. God allowed him to serve in this capacity, but it wasn't a "job". It was Satans delight to do so, and part of his determination to ruin the creation.

Why was this required? Why can't God just change the rules if that's what he wants? Why does he need to jump through all these hoops?

I answered this question in messangers reply if you want to look there..

>> ^xxovercastxx

I used to do this with my friend in high school. Just kicked the shit out of each other's shin. And you wake up the next day and find your shin bruised bloody red lol

>> ^Jinx:

also, survivors of realllly long falls typically hit the ground lying flat (apparently). You know, so all the bones in your legs don't suddenly end up trying to occupy the same space as your liver, intestines, lungs, heart...all that shit that kinda keeps you alive basically.
I was also told once that even in short falls often somebody who is drunk or unconscious comes away with less injuries than somebody who is alert and awake, altho I think on balance I'd rather break and arm or a wrist than fall on my head.


Watched a show documenting a tornado sucking a guy out of his house and him surviving being throw like a mile or two away with bruises and scraps, no broken bones that I recall and no major injuries. Supposedly he walked home.

Their answer for him surviving was that he was knocked out as soon as the tornado got a hold of him, something in the house bashed him in the head and knocked him out or whatever.

Now their reason for him being basically unharmed is that because he was young and knocked out, his tendons and musculature weren't holding his bones rigid like you would when you fell by instinct. And since he was young his bones had flexibility, like bones are meant to, they will flex instead of break when there's nothing holding them rigid or fixed.

So he hit and rolled and rolled but because he was out cold he never reacted to the force and tried to control yourself by holding yourself rigid and trying to grab or hold to stop yourself.

So, I'd say what you've heard is probably true. And I don't think anyone would be able to survive unscathed like that guy did if they were alert when it happened...because you would react to the pain and force of the blows...especially if you were unable to see due to the crap blowing around.

I agree -- SYG is a bad law. The very idea that you need to pass a law to "protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives" seems misguided to me in the first place. SYG in particular seems almost designed to create exactly the kind of situation we have with Treyvon Martin.

I've got no problem with people having a right to self-defense, including even the use of lethal force, but like any other right the place where you ultimately get to assert that right is in court. You shouldn't be passing laws that require courts and the police to just take people's word for it. There should be an arrest, a criminal investigation, and if the evidence suggests it wasn't self-defense, then criminal charges and a trial.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?
This is the problem with the SYG laws. Quite often the only witness to the incident is the person who got killed, and the only person left to testify is the person who killed them. Then it is all "he said/they said", and so the judge doesn't have much choice except to throw the case out. SYG is supposed to protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives. They are not supposed to be used to deliberately provoke a fight with someone you don't like in order to kill or injure them.

Ultimately, that's why I'm so upset about this whole mess. Republicans and ALEC have essentially decided that not having any meaningful control on gun ownership wasn't good enough, they needed to give gun owners a license to kill too.

This is a very high-stakes version of the burden of proof fallacy. Why is it that Zimmerman got to shoot and kill someone based solely on his suspicions, but we can't arrest him for it unless we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Treyvon wasn't a threat?

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

Why isn't everyone unanimous in saying that we have to get to the bottom of not only what happened, but how we can fix our laws and institutions to treat a situation like this in a just way?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

Dunno how anyone can see stuff like that transpire and think it's a good idea to let someone go under that law who actively pursues and kills.

The Wiki on SYG has this blurb:

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[36] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[37][36] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[36] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used." This is in reference to Sarah McKinley, a teen widow with her infant child, who shot an intruder who broke through the front door. The intruder was apparently drunk, screaming and at the wrong house


Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands. And I doubt they count these cases as "crimes", making their crime rate lower. Reinforcing the idea that the law is sound.


And I'll just note, I've never heard of your stabbing case prior to you mentioning it. Whether it's got no racial elements to exploit or no gun involved to exploit for news, I don't know. But people care a lot less if it's anything but a gun involved.

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.
Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.
But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.
In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.