(Did Babymech just say that getting brutally gang raped in front of one's children by intruders in one's home is somehow comparable or "on par" with getting cut off in traffic? What the fuck is wrong with you?)

What Ms. Carrera doesn't appreciate here is that the assault of Cytheria undermines the narrative put forward by the Social Justice Warriors (i.e., modern feminists) that gives attention to the Duke lacrosse hoax, the Treyvon Martin case, and the Ferguson debacle, but completely ignores Cytheria's rape. Why? Because it negates the notion that rape is always a function of class and privilege (i.e., white affluent men raping poor minority females) and never not. If Emma Sulkowicz or Jackie Coakley lie about being assaulted, the SJWs are all over it, but if Cytheria reports being assaulted by underprivileged African American men, the SJWs simply ignore it.

Modern feminists don't care about rape victims. They never have. They aren't trying to protect women. They are trying to punish masculinity by displacing their own inabilities to cope with anything outside of their wealthy, upper-middle class bubbles...

I've heard people say that he wasn't a kid. He's not old enough to drink in the UK, he's not old enough to have sex in america. Does anyone remember being 17? I hadn't a fucking clue about the world. Sadly he'll never get the chance. And it doesn't matter if Zimmerman was found guilty or innocent. What matters is that there's a) there's a law in Florida allowing you to goad/intimidate/force someone into a fight with you and then shoot them with a concealed deadly weapon when they eventually do what you so badly want them to do, and b) there are people racist enough to try and pretend he wasn't a kid because it suits their agenda.

I hope Treyvon Martin's death is not in vain, i hope that it can be used for good in the same way Stephen Lawrence's was - we're still uncovering the scandal from that to this very day.

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

I get where you are coming from Boise, but we need to go back to the fact of the matter that you cannot judge a person on how they look, even if they are a smirking bastard. Being a smirking bastard does not make him guilty of a bigger crime than being a smirking bastard.

The problem is that if we let our justice system totally collapse and start putting people in jail because of what the Young Turks chooses to comment on partial information, it won't be the guys like this that will suffer, but rather so many others who are judged by their looks.

I was on a jury a few years ago where a tattooed asian guy with a shaved head was being accused of some pretty severe drug charges. There was literally no evidence against him other than he was present when the people with the drugs were arrested. He had no money, no drugs, no cellphone and the prosecution provided no context other than guilty by association. During the deliberations, one of the jurors said, "well, just look at him, he clearly looks guilty." It was one of the most frustrating moments of my life.

Anyway, that aside and back to this: again, you are all worked up because you only have heard what one side has to say. The problem is that because of the way the legal system works, it may not be possible to see the other side at this time. You said if your comment that this won't see trial. Where did you get that from? The criminal case was dropped, but the cabby can definitely do a civil case, which is why in the second video they refuse to give any information. They need to play their cards close to their chest because it is obvious that the cabby is going to bring it back in a civil suit.

Now don't get me wrong. I want to see the other side just as much as anyone and if it turns out to be bunk, then hell, this guy should get stiff sentencing and there should be an investigation into the circumstances as to why the prosecution dropped it. The thing is, it has to be done legally. You can't resort to the mob mentality or you will end up with innocent people being railroaded as has happened to so many people who may not be likable, but are not guilty.

The bottom line is: yes, he's not likable, but that doesn't mean that we know all that happened then.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ponceleon:
I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.
You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.
Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.
Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.
I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

>> ^ponceleon:

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.


I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.

You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.

Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.

Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.

I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

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.

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.

The fact that this law was in place is going to make it almost a lock that Zimmerman is not going to be prosecuted. If Zimmerman's defense team comes out and says, "Zimmerman had legitimate reason to believe that he was in danger of great bodily harm because Treyvon Martin jumped him, broke his nose, and was pounding his head on the sidewalk" then what can a prosecutor say? There are eyewitnesses that at least superficially confirm Zimmerman's story. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no such fear, but in fact that he deliberately WANTED to instigate the fight. So far no such evidence exists. All we've got are conspiracy theories, rumors, innuendo, blog rage, and "ooo - he was related to a judge".

>> ^NetRunner:

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

But, to be clear, my comment was not aimed squarely at you even though I quoted you. Your statement was just a good example for me to cite.

>> ^NetRunner:
Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.
I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.
So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").
As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.
I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida. If you're trying to say there needs to be a new local investigation (technically there was one at the time of the incident, it just sucked ass), then I agree and I'm not mad at anyone for demanding one.

If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.

When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset.

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.


Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.

I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.

So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").

As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.

I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

The Young Turks narrative is certainly biased and emotional. However:

1. Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch group. Period.
2. No neighborhood watch group in the United States advises carrying a gun, confronting a suspect, or doing anything other than calling the police when you see suspicious behavior.
3. According to the site you linked to, I don't see anything they list as "suspicious behavior" that can be applied to Treyvon Martin.
4. Plenty of people in America wear guns on their hips. Assuming they are always cops would be completely ridiculous. (I'm not sure why the fact that he displayed a gun makes you feel better?)
5. Zimmerman's injuries, though MAYBE caused by Martin, were a direct result of his escalating the situation contrary to the advice of both police and neighborhood watch guidelines.

I don't think Zimmerman ran out to shoot someone, he ran out to catch someone, and when things didn't go his way, he started screaming, because he realized he wasn't Charles Bronson.

Zimmerman chased down an unarmed child for no crime other than walking home. There was no justifiable reason for him to escalate the situation to the point where Martin felt he needed to physically defend himself. Not one. Martin's murder was a direct result of Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's, whatever the motive.