Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Another Kid That Should Have Run

Spooner thought he had a suspicious neighbor. Somebody stole one of his guns. Spooner , knowing that, "these assholes always get away", accuse Simmons of stealing it. Simmons was an athletic looking teenager. Spooner was a fragile old man.

Spooner brought a gun with him for protection. After all, he was convinced that he knew who stole his other gun. Simmons, being young and dumb, chose to stand his ground. Suddenly, maybe because Spooner was in fear for his well being, shot Simmons. Shot him dead.

What happened? Was Spooner justified? I am not talking law here. I am talking right and wrong.

Should Spooner have called the cops? Is Simmons responsible for his own demise? Did Simmons have it coming? If Spooner was afraid, was he justified in shooting Simmons?

In this case, one can see for themselves: -- Web Link

Simmons should have ran or at least carried a gun.


Comments

There are some that will say that this incident mirrors the recent Martin incident. All I know about this one so far leads me to believe that the two incidents have no relationship at all, other than the needless death of yet another young black male.

Here's the piece I saw and read on this today: "Darius Simmons Murder: John Henry Spooner, Wis. man, 76, guilty in fatal shooting of 13-year-old teen neighbor" Web Link

13 year old neighbor would be the first difference. In reading the piece, it seems fairly evident that Spooner knew the young boy and went to confront him with intentions.

Further, after confronting the young teen, who was out front of his home with his Mother, Spooner shot him - right in front of his Mother.

Aside from another needless, senseless gun death, I don't see the two matters as similar. What I do see however, is one very disturbed old man that hopefully will spend the rest of his natural born days locked up, and one more death of a young boy - and another Mother who tragically lost her son.

It has to just tear at your heart to read the account of what happened and it is just one more in a long list of sound reasons to rethink our firearm laws, specifically background checks.


So if you can't win an argument on the Zimmerman case just find another case to parade around instead...

We can also plaster this board with black on black killings, white on white, or black on white. What would that prove either? Only That there are a lot of dumb guys out there.


Win an argument? A 17 year old kid is dead. The killer got away with it. The police messed the investigation to the extent of testing the dead kids blood for drugs but not the shooter. YES the case as delivered was judged properly by the jury. That does not mean justice was served. Shame, shame, shame.


^^^ The police messed the investigation to the extent ... ^^^

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

All you're doing is fanning the flames of racism.


For a complete list of how the police botched the investigation Honey click on the web link I posted in your topic re:Trayvon. Then apologize.


let me make it easy for you

Web Link

Just the fact that they tested the blood of the victim but not the shooter should give any sane person pause. Maybe the sane part explains everything.


^^^ Just the fact that they tested the blood of the victim but not the shooter should give any sane person pause. ^^^

That article is over a year old and is loaded with speculation.

It's not surprising that you hold such speculation in higher regard than evidence presented at trial, especially the photos of Zimmerman's head injuries.


Man you are a stubborn old coot.

Fact: They did not impound Zimmerman's vehicle

Fact: They did not test Zimmerman's blood for drugs or alcohol.

if you really need a more recent article to confirm this Boo Boo I can find one but honestly.

NO surprise you think voicing concerns about the way this investigation was handled is "fanning the flames of racism." You are part of the problem HoneyBadger not the solution.


Back to the Martin/Zimmerman trial, there are two distinct arenas:

There is the trial which is an artificial, hermetically sealed process that can decide what evidence is permissible or not. The jury does not have all the facts, they only have the facts that are orchestrated and approved by the court. "truth" is negotiated and manufactured in accordance with the standards and legal parameters of the court. The jury made their decision accordingly.

Then there is the arena of the real world where Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Whole different paradigm and nothing at all like the artificially created realm of the court.

To equate the two is naive at best and, in the many cases I'm seeing on these threads, disingenuous, self-serving and cold-blooded, IMHO.


Coasters raises a very important point here, one that I don't believe most people really understand, but non-the-less is very real and valid.

I have not spoken to the Martin case, other than to call it the tragedy it is/was. I have not done so because I'm not sure what to believe, other than another young man was killed that night and nothing will change that fact. But did we get all the facts? Did we, the public, get all the details as they occurred, unfiltered? I don't know that I can say we did - and the jury got even less.

The power of 'the court', which in reality is the judge, is enormous. I never realized just how much influence the judge has, until I had judicial dealings. Coasters offers a very good description of what is, separating what is from what many believe.

The case can only be judged on the facts as presented. If some of the facts are not admissible, therefor not presented, the jury doesn't have that as part of their consideration. Further, the judge has an obligation Prior to deliberations to explain the laws that are under consideration in the case and how the jury is to consider the case - including highlighting special circumstances that might apply, like rulings on other cases that may have bearing on a particular aspect of this case.

My own experiences with the judicial system have altered the way I view that branch of our government. I suspect most that don't have personal experience may not understand and realize what Coasters has pointed out.


thank you George. I get all that and have said numerous times I agree with the verdict. That being said, there are some very disturbing facts that should be discussed and would be discussed if the victim was our own child. As for the way judges can make choices on the validity of evidence and the impact it can have on justice...let us remember Ito would not allow the Bronco chase and the letter OJ penned that Kardashian read, as evidence. That letter in which OJ pretty much said "I did it."

I think Trayvon Martin's parents have a right to demand answers to questions regarding the way the Sanford police handled the investigation. I also think that because of the way that investigation was mismanaged we might see a Civil Rights case.


1) - the shooting by Spooner cannot be morally justified - it was wrong. I suppose that Spooner might have been crazy. If so, that would attenuate moral guilt and affect the way Spooner is handled, but it would not make the shooting right.


The Spooner and Zimmerman cases are very different. So why post it, Bring Me?


JS, I suspect it was because the two cases have a few points of alignment including:

1) Private citizen (allegedly) took Law Enforcement into their own hands, acting as a vigilante

2) That vigilante (allegedly) murdered a child

3) That dead child is an African American


How many times have you heard your friends grouse about the TSA "searching the wrong people" like 85 year old ladies, kids in wheelchairs, returning veterans missing a limb, or a young blonde mother juggling two preschoolers. "They're obviously not terrorists so why are they stopping them instead of those two foreign middle eastern guys in their twenties? Like that little blonde mom is going to set off a bomb. Idiots."

That's typical, normal thinking since airline terrorists have been foreign middle eastern guys in their twenties. That's profiling. Racial, gender, age profiling.

Department and convenience stores profile too. Teens shoplift more so they watch them more and even limit the number of teens in a store at one time. It doesn't mean they think they're guilty, it just means they fit the description and should be watched.

The bad guys have been X, so let's be more careful of those who are X.

It's normal. Expected. Get over it. We all do it and you're lying if you say you don't. People have to protect themselves.

So why is it worse for a property owner to profile people if young men of one color or another in hoodlum style clothes have been committing crimes in his neighborhood? Don't blame him, blame the group that's committing the crimes.

Obviously the real solution is for that group to clean up its act and join the other "profiles" that aren't suspected. Or get used to being profiled.


So why post it, Bring Me?

Because it reflects the broader "In Your Face" attitude that Stand Your Ground mentality exacerbates.

The problem isn't race. The problem isn't guns. Sure they are factors but not the root cause of this kind of stuff.

The problem is too many people Stand Their Ground instead of doing the sensible thing. For example, if you watch the extended video, you can see that Simmons had several opportunities to run. He didn't. Further, one has to take into the account the mindset of Spooner. He believed that Simmons had stolen a gun from him. Thus Spooner had every right worry that Simmons might shoot him with his own gun.

The mindset of the survivor is an important factor. He does not have to in fact be in danger. He just has to believe he is.

Spooner claimed that his house had been broken into multiple times. Right next door to him lived some people who he claimed had been a royal pain in the neighborhood. He knew that somebody had taken his gun and he was certain that he knew who that somebody was. He saw the person who he suspected of taking his gun.

Spooner had had enough. The a******s just keep getting away and the cops could not or would not do something about it.

Google up the video. You'll see plenty that a good lawyer could use to prove his client was just standing his ground and had reason to be in fear of his life. I am serious. I could make a great case for Spooner as long as the law of the land was like they have in Florida.


Coasters, you forgot 4) White killer.

But don't forget, the race that by far murders the most blacks is blacks.


Bring Me, I haven't seen the video yet (and don't want to if it shows someone being killed. ??).

Was the kid (Simmons) knowledgeable about Stand Your Ground? Being so young (though perhaps a thief), I wonder if he had given it any thought and if it actually affected his actions. Did he say anything to that effect?


Was the kid (Simmons) knowledgeable about Stand Your Ground?

If you mean the law, I don't know. Doubt it. If you mean the attitude, most Males and too many Females are taught it from birth. Hardwiring and Hormones contribute to the attitude too.

...I wonder if he had given it any thought and if it actually affected his actions.

How much did you when you were between the ages of 12 and 21?

Did he say anything to that effect?

Simmons? The dead kid? He is one of those a******s that didn't get away, perhaps.


Spooner committed murder. And, as much as some want the Zimmerman case to be like the Spooner case, it is not. Neither "stand your ground" or "self defense" apply. (I don't believe that Wisconsin doesn't have a "stand your ground" law.)

For that reason, the jury correctly found the defendant guilty.

Now stop projecting onto the Zimmerman case.


JS,

What does the statistic about B on B crime have to do with anything in this conversation? Why would you feel compelled to throw in a statistic that has no direct relation to the crime?


(I don't believe that Wisconsin doesn't have a "stand your ground" law.)

They don't. If they had, a competent lawyer could have made a strong case that this was a Stand Your Ground case. If any have the stomach for it, Google up the unedited version of the recording then prove to me that Spooner was not afraid of Simmons.

Cheeseheads might be crazy about the Packers but they are not crazy when it comes to Standing One's Ground. Logical folks avoid trouble. When they see suspicious types, they call the cops and then let the cops deal with it. Only a fool goes after somebody who he thinks is acting strange.

Even if the a******s always get away.


"He does not have to in fact be in danger. He just has to believe he is" - - - - - the belief has to comport with the situation and be reasonable.


OK so you're not talking about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" but a small letter "stand your ground" attitude. Not seeing the video I can't comment.


Spooner was confronting somebody who:

1) He claimed had been part of a family that caused problems.

2) He thought had stolen a gun and thus could have been armed.

3) Who chose not to run perhaps because he was high.

Watch the extended cut video Barnus. Notice how big Simmons is and how fragile Spooner is. Notice that even though Spooner made clear to all that he had a gun and even though Simmons had ample opportunity to turn and run, he didn't. To me, that is a sign the kid could have been high on dope. Why else would the fool just stand there and argue with a man who was waving around a gun?

A good lawyer would have been able to make a compelling case that Spooner's state of mind, at the moment he fired the gun, was fear. Who confronted who first is irrelevant. What started it, how it could have been avoided, who said what, none of it matters. For all any of us know, Simmons could have told Spooner that he was going to die that day.


Youtube. Search on Simmons Spooner.

Watch if you care to. It is disturbing.


Coaster, you made it about race with "3) That dead child is an African American"


According to Spooner's attorney, Spooner was suffering from a "mental disease" at the time. It might be a good idea to evaluate gun owners on a regular basis (annual check-ups, maybe?) to make sure they're still fit to own one and, if not, relieve them of their firearms and make sure they get professional attention for their mental illness.


"A good lawyer would have been able to make a compelling case that Spooner's state of mind, at the moment he fired the gun, was fear." - - - - - So what? A good (skilled) lawyer can make a compelling case about almost anything. Are you suggesting that self defense should not be allowed as a defense to homocide. I hope not.

I believe that the video did not show the boy to be standing his ground or posing any kind of threat to Spooner. He was outside of his own home and was backing away. Didn't help. He was shot anyway.

-

-

"It might be a good idea to evaluate gun owners on a regular basis (annual check-ups, maybe?" - - - - - I hope you are joking. Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate automobile license holders on that basis? Automobiles are factors in much more injury, death and destruction of property than guns.


Barnus, I'm aware of statistics re. both guns and automobiles. Cars are not designed to kill. Apples vs. Oranges.


A good (skilled) lawyer can make a compelling case about almost anything.

I should have ended it with, "made a compelling case and won, in any land that has Stand Your Ground attitude."

Spooner left a place of safety and confronted a person he suspected of acting being one of those a******s that always get away. He could have called the cops and waited but he chose to confront the person he was sure had stolen his gun.

If you watched the full length version, you saw that Simmons is bigger, faster, and looks like the kind of person that some say is deserving of additional scrutiny per the fact that folks of his color are often associated with crime. AKA profiling.

Simmons had ample opportunity to run. At one point, Spooner starts waving the gun around aimlessly. I would have ran then. I don't know if they drug tested the dead kid but he very well could have been high. Why else would he stand there?

Now if Simmons had instead acted rationally by either running away from Spooner he might be alive. Or if Simmons had instead rushed Spooner, knocked the fragile old man to might be still alive.

Spooner, like Zimmerman, chose to pack a gun to defend himself. Spooner, like Zimmerman, could have called the cops and then stayed where they were safe.

Simmons, like Martin, is a was a member of a group that many maintain has earned a reputation for being criminals that justifies added suspicion. AKA profiling. Thus both Zimmerman and Spooner had good reason to "Enhance their Fear". Simmons like Martin, had ample opportunity to run, or at least try. Simmons like Martin, was unarmed. Simmons like Martin, was bigger than the man who shot them. Simmons like Martin, started out just minding their own business. Simmons like Martin, is dead.

In this case there are two major differences. Wisconsin does not encourage folks to Stand Their Ground via rules that allow for it. Because of that one, Spooner had a difficult time justify why he left a place of safety instead of not leaving a place of safety. The other is the video.

Take out the video, and relocate the events to Florida, then tell me that the excellent lawyer that represented Zimmerman could not have gotten Spooner off.


^^^ Take out the video, and relocate the events to Florida, then tell me that the excellent lawyer that represented Zimmerman could not have gotten Spooner off. ^^^

Right. Everyone in Florida is a stupid racist that is easily swayed by contrived arguments over hard evidence.

I think that applies more to you than to the people of Florida.


I have spilled about all I care to on this topic, based on the information made public so far; however, there seems to be questions aimed in a direction that frankly makes me uncomfortable.

For example: JCU seems to be of the opinion that the young 13 y/o boy should have run when accosted by Simmons brandishing a gun: "Why else would he stand there?"

Now I will confess right up front that it is not as easy as it used to be for me to place myself in the position of a 13 y/o, but I was there once upon a time and although those memories cloud with the advance of time, I believe I can still pull out what I need.

Why would the boy run? He was in his own front yard. He had apparently just taken out the trash (under duress, I'm sure), and his Mother was there with him.

Simmons apparently even pointed the gun at the boy's Mother. That alone would be cause enough for me as a 13 y/o not to run. In fact, that would have been enough for me at that age to look for an opportunity to attack Simmons. Point a gun at my Mom? I never have played that way. Now, I may or may not have been successful in my attack on Simmons, but you can bet the full of your backside that I would not have run, leaving that crazy sob alone with my Mom, his attitude and his gun.

I gotta say, I am more than a little surprised that JCU is taking the position he is. It appears to me that JCU is strongly intimating the boy was in some way at fault, either by connecting drug use, or not running away, or by implying that the boy did know who stole Simmons guns (assuming of course that Simmons actually had anything stolen from his house; I have yet to see any evidence supporting that claim.

I have, however, seen ample evidence that Simmons needed more than one screw tightened, which leads me to discount some of his claim. Further, I can not find any justification at all for Simmons shooting the boy at point blank range, let alone doing it on the boy's property and even worse, in front of his Mother.

I can not even begin to imagine what the boy went through, and can not imagine what the Mother went through as she chased her son, caught him, and held him during his last gasp of air. It brings tears to my eyes as I bang this out on my keyboard. Absolutely shocking.

She will forever live with that needless, senseless action.

Can anyone out there even begin to relate? I don't know how, unless they have experienced something very similar.

None of us were there, so none of us can, with complete certainty, know exactly what happened; but we can form conclusions based on the data we have to date. Based on that data, it is my hope that Mr Simmons spends the rest of his life behind bars, and if we are lucky, perhaps his new neighbors will reciprocate the action which would accomplish at least 2 things:

1) end Simmons suffering

2) save the taxpayers the bills for more litigation, and the cost of room and board at a prison

John, if I am reading you right, what the heck are you thinking? Are you deliberately trying to be argumentative? Sure appears that way.


I am pointing out the absurdity of it all George. Martin could have kept running. Simmons, because he did not run even when he clearly had the chance, chose to stand his ground and got shot.

Zimmerman, like Spooner, chose to escalate the risk that he would be put into a situation in which he might be required to pull his gun. Zimmerman, like Spooner, was dealing with a larger person who was a member of a race that as some have stated, has earned a reputation that makes all of its members subject to enhanced suspicion, AKA profiling.

Spooner had reason to suspect that Simmons had broken into his home and stolen a gun. The fact is that Simmons is was part of a group deserving, according to many, of being profiled. Somebody, more likely than not Black, stole from Spooner. Simmons was Black and right next door. Perhaps he didn't do it but statistically he was more likely to have done it than say a White teen.

So right off the bat, Spooner was just a justified in his suspicions of Simmons as was Zimmerman of Martin. Per the way that the Martin Boy was shuffling around and because of the Boy's color, provided a reason to speculate that Martin was high. As one poster pointed out, Martin was known to use pot so could very likely have been in some sort of pot induced rage.

When watching the unredacted version of the video, one can see that at one point, Simmons ended up face to face with Spooner. That is when Spooner pulls his gun. Spooner being a fragile old man, and taking on somebody who was more likely to be high and a thug than say you or I, per profiling, had reason to be afraid, (would you not have been?), that Simmons was packing the gun that Spooner knew Simmons stole.

Then the then soon to be dead kid inexplicably does not run even though he should have been in mortal fear for his life. Your explanation is as good as mine is George. You say the kid was motivated by fear for his mother, I, as a good "Stand Your Ground" attorney offer that due to fact that Simmons was part of a race that deserved to be profiled, it is reasonable to think that Spooner had a justified suspicion that Simmons was high.

Remember, the state of mind of the guy who has the gun and lives to tell the tale is what counts. It does not matter that Simmons and Martin may or may not have done anything wrong. Their color justifies enhanced suspicion of everything they do. It does not matter that both Zimmerman and Spooner could have made choices that resulted in the police being given the first chance to deal with this. In a Land of Stand Your Ground attitude, only pussies do that. Niether Zimmerman or Spooner is a pussie and have proven it.

What matters is:

1) The fact that there is compelling evidence showing everybody what happened.

2) There is no use for "Stand Your Ground" attorneys in Wisconsin as they don't encourage that.

Transpose the case to a state where a man can act like a real man and "Stand His Ground" and I bet even I could raise reasonable doubt about what we all see in the video and prove to a jury that the Defendant had every right to confront somebody that he believed had stolen his property. I could prove to a jury that bringing a gun was justified per the enhanced suspicions that Black people deserve. I could make the case that Spooner was afraid of Simmons and that he had reason, like Zimmerman, to suspect that the soon to be dead kid was on drugs.

Again I stress, the physical facts are not as important as was the state of mind of Zimmerman and Spooner. As an attorney I would have to overcome only one hurdle in any land with a Stand Your Ground attitude. Was Spooner afraid for his life? It does not matter if that fear was not justified. How it came to that makes for a nice story that results in lots of billable hours. In the end though what counts is who thought what when the lead was let loose.

John, if I am reading you right, what the heck are you thinking?

I am thinking that Stand Your Ground Laws, like Stand Your Ground attitude, suck.

Are you deliberately trying to be argumentative?

Is that not what we do here?

I can not even begin to imagine what the boy went through, and can not imagine what the Mother went through as she chased her son, caught him, and held him during his last gasp of air. It brings tears to my eyes as I bang this out on my keyboard. Absolutely shocking.

Yep.


Bring Me: Here is another fellow who thinks it is wise to run. Start around 59:00

Web Link


"Cars are not designed to kill" - - - - - what does that have to do with anything? They are used to kill people and are at least as dangerous as guns in the hands of folk with mental issues. In fact, as I pointed out, they are a factor in more injuries, deaths and property damage than guns, and, unlike cars, are frequently used to defend - more than a million times a year. On the other hand, they have no back seat.


^^^ Martin could have kept running. ^^^

That's hard to do when someone is atop you beating you "MMA style."

Why do you keep deliberately distorting the facts in the Zimmerman case?


Barnus: It was shameful how hard that link made me laugh. It illustrates perfectly what I am saying.

When confronted with danger and you have a choice, don't be a dumb ass. Run!!

Otherwise, you might end up part of a Nigga Moment: -- Web Link


That's hard to do when someone is atop you beating you "MMA style."

HoneyBadger. The above is a response to my assertion that Martin should have kept running? Care to try that again or is your anger is causing you to have a Honky Moment? -- Web Link


OK, first I need to address my apparently complete screwup with names. I believe (above) that I substituted or rather exchanged the names involved in this matter. So, it would be my hope that those reading my comments to this are smarter than I and figure(d) out what my intent was. I do, however, use the 13 y/o term in my comments when referring to the boy that was shot and killed needlessly. I am apparently having difficulty with my writing today; don't know why.

It is my opinion regarding JCU's take that he is stretching the envelope well beyond manufacturers specifications. How you (JCU) get all that out of this matter is beyond my capabilities.

The shooter (you like that? just avoid the name altogether) was/is out of his mind. I would add that anyone that attempts to justify his thoughts, his concerns &/or his comments should have a minimum of decades experience as a qualified and licensed psychiatrist specializing in dementia.

JCU states (regurgitates what the shooter claims) that he had guns stolen from his house. I have yet to see any evidence to support that claim. Next, JCU builds his case using that as a cornerstone for the shooter's defense. Big mistake, even if factually correct (which is questionable at minimum), which again we don't know.

Next, the shooter took it upon himself to accost the 13 y/o, which he should not have done - but he did it, and he did it brandishing a gun. If that doesn't tell all one needs to know right up front that something bad is going to happen, then I don't know what would.

In addition, he accosted the boy, brandishing his handgun right in front of the 13 y/o's home and right in front of the 13 y/o's Mother. While at it, it appears the shooter also swung the weapon in the direction of the youth's Mom, before turning the gun back on the child, backing him up, then shooting him in the torso at point blank range.

This shooter has issues big time. Problem is a 13 y/o lost his life because of this shooter's issues, making the issues now issues with the child, the child's Mother, the rest of the child's family and all that knew him.

And I'd mention that I don't care if that 13 y/o boy was 6'6" and the shooter is 4'10"; this is not a matter of size in relationship to intimidation. The intimidator is clearly the shooter.

I hope the sob rots in jail, although that will never bring that child back. It may, however, prevent the cold blooded murder of another child by this guy.

John, I just do not see nor understand your take on this at all. I do not see a relationship to the Martin matter, other than a needless death in result. In my view, these two matters may be as close as apples to oranges (both fruits, both results caused death), but they are in no way apples to apples - not as I see it.

They are both tragic and have resulted in the needless loss of life. That loss of life is spread out to all that know any of the participants and will effect them all. Neither of the two deaths can be reversed.

Short of that, I just don't get your take.

That's about all I have on this. What else I may have to offer I've already done above (even if I messed up on the names). Any further comment on my part would simply be redundant. Believe what you like and of course you will state what you feel, but I see no merit in your analysis and conclusions; not on this one.


This kid ran, too. He's a hero:

Web Link

It's too bad you can't show your support for the black community by showing them in a positive light instead of victims all the time.

In my view, the latter approach is racist, so be careful how you use it.


How you (JCU) get all that out of this matter is beyond my capabilities.

If I had a Harvard Law Degree and was getting three hundred bucks per hour, one could call my arguments a Zealous Defense of my client. Alas, I have no degree and have only hit the multi hundred dollar per hour rate a few times.

JCU states (regurgitates what the shooter claims) that he had guns stolen from his house.

Is that not what a good attorney would do in order to prove that there was a reasonable doubt on the part of my client as to his motivations and safety?

Big mistake, even if factually correct (which is questionable at minimum), which again we don't know.

Really? Ask Casey Anthony's attorney if regurgitating a frankly preposterous story can't create reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury.

Next, the shooter took it upon himself to accost the 13 y/o, which he should not have done - but he did it, and he did it brandishing a gun. If that doesn't tell all one needs to know right up front that something bad is going to happen, then I don't know what would.

The same logic pretty much applies to Zimmerman and Martin. If Zimmerman had not taken it upon himself to follow Martin, and if he had not been brandishing a gun, things might have been different. In fact, my guess is that if Zimmerman had left his pistol at home that sad evening, neither man would be known to us.

This shooter has issues big time.

Anybody other than a cop or a soldier, that would purposefully put himself in a position of following somebody they thought was acting strange as if they were high, has issues.

And I'd mention that I don't care if that 13 y/o boy was 6'6" and the shooter is 4'10"; this is not a matter of size in relationship to intimidation.

Maybe you don't but Zimmerman's lawyer scored many points by pointing out the Zimmerman was short and fat while Martin was big and athletic. Remember, all I am trying to do is create reasonable doubt in a land where real men stand their ground and Blacks deserve to be profiled per their shared racial guilt.

I have yet to see any evidence to support that claim.

That is because there is no such evidence. Don't need it either. All I am trying to prove to the mythical jury is that my fake client believed it was so and that per the profile of the dead kid, reasonable.

John, I just do not see nor understand your take on this at all.

That is because you are concerned about what is morally right. I, as a fake attorney, am ethically required not evaluate the actions of my client via the lens of morality. All I am paid to care about, as a fake attorney with a mythical client, is winning. To do that, all I need to do is create reasonable doubt. As long as I am practicing law in a Land where Real Men Stand Their Ground and pusseys run for cover, I think my arguments would prevail.

Neither of the two deaths can be reversed.

True. And if Spooner and Zimmerman had chosen to let the cops handle it there would have been two less dead kids.

Short of that, I just don't get your take.

That is because my take is both outrageous and legally effective.

... but I see no merit in your analysis and conclusions; not on this one.

Again, you confuse my purpose. The truth of my conclusions in not required. All I have to do is create reasonable doubt on the part of a jury. I think I have and sadly, I believe my arguments would have done the trick in any Land where a Real Man Stands His Ground.

Zimmerman was suspicious, Spooner was too. Zimmerman chose to escalate the chances of a confrontations with somebody he thought was a bad guy. So did Spooner. Zimmerman shot an unarmed but physically superior kid who seems to have been minding his own business prior to the confrontation. Same as Spooner. Zimmerman was man enough to bring a gun. So did Spooner. Martin is dead and his mama is broken hearted. Simmons is dead and his mama is broken hearted.

Both cases would have been non events if the cops had been allowed to do what they are paid to do. All four men chose to stand their ground vs fleeing for safety.

Other than the video and the fact that Wisconsin men are pussies who the law requires flee from danger if they can, I don't see much differance.


It's too bad you can't show your support for the black community by showing them in a positive light instead of victims all the time.

As has been said by more than a few here, the Black community deserves to be profiled. Just because some Black kid chases down some guy, who might have been Black, does not mean that Blacks deserve to be put into a positive light.

"So why is it worse for a property owner to profile people if young men of one color or another in hoodlum style clothes have been committing crimes in his neighborhood? Don't blame him, blame the group that's committing the crimes.

Obviously the real solution is for that group to clean up its act and join the other "profiles" that aren't suspected. Or get used to being profiled."

In my view, the latter approach is racist, so be careful how you use it.

Yep, Profiling is racist.


"If Zimmerman had not taken it upon himself to follow Martin, and if he had not been brandishing a gun, things might have been different." - - - - - there was no evidence or suggestion that Zimmerman had been brandishing a gun.

" Zimmerman shot an unarmed but physically superior kid who seems to have been minding his own business prior to the confrontation." - - - - - According to zimmerman, as told in his call to the police PRIOR to the shooting, Martin did not seem to be minding his own business. He was not just walking home. He was walking about in the grassy areas, not the sidewalk, and looking around. He looked suspicious. Zimmerman's job as a neighborhood watch person was to report suspicious activity, which he did. There is reason to believe that he left his car only after the phone person he was talking to asked for information that could only be obtained if he left his car. When, by reasons of sounds being transmitted, he was asked if he was following the suspect. He replied that he was, was told "we don't need you to do that. He said OK and turned to return to his car.

That is nothing like what occured in the Spooner case.


Profiling can be racist. It can also be practical and a valuable tool. In some cases it is unrealistic not to profile.


there was no evidence or suggestion that Zimmerman had been brandishing a gun.

Zimmerman claims that Martin tried to take it from him. How would Martin know to grab for a gun unless he knew that Zimmerman had one? How would Marting know about a gun that was not being brandished?

There is reason to believe that he left his car only after the phone person he was talking to asked for information that could only be obtained if he left his car. When, by reasons of sounds being transmitted, he was asked if he was following the suspect. He replied that he was, was told "we don't need you to do that. He said OK and turned to return to his car.

If Zimmerman was only interested in obtaining some information why did he reply "Yes" when asked if he was following Martin?

Think about that some.


Profiling doesn't work. It creates blind spots. It's far more effective to focus on actual criminal behavior than assumptions. DHS started to figure this out a few years ago, which is why you see grannies getting frisked at airports.

Here's a good starter article about it.

Web Link

Profiling makes for good fantasy for those who know very little about physical security and are inclined to irrational prejudice. A kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you believe a certain race or group is predisposed to bad behavior, you'll notice it a lot while you ignore the same or worse behavior from other races or groups and that is dangerous and stupid.


Kind of like when you buy a new (new to you at least) car? All of a sudden you see them all over the place, when you never noticed before.

That has happened to me, and I doubt it was caused by a sudden earth shaking surge in sales over a very brief period of time in that model vehicle. But it appeared that way.


^^^ Profiling doesn't work. ^^^

I don't think you know what profiling is. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made such a silly blanket statement.


Honeybadger, a large part of my job involves designing, evaluating and implementing physical security strategies, measures and staffing for a multi-billion dollar Int'l business at over 3 dozen locations in North and South America. I work with local, state and Fed'l LE, security firms and teams (mostly composed of ex-FBI agents), employ dozens of security staff and, often work interact DHS to align those strategies with current best practices, BOLO's and other findings.

I'm game for casual or serious discussion about the topic with all of the fine people on the Coast, but not for name-calling, aspersion casting and other emotional outbursts.

What are your qualifications or security-related experiences that support derisive hyperbole about my statements re. profiling? What experience do you have in the law enforcement and/or security industries? If you're qualified to be authoritative on the subject, I may have a job for you - I'm almost always hiring at all skill levels. Let me know. I'm looking for English/Portuguese speakers right now.


don't expect an apology or admission of being harsh or wrong from the Badger. He still insists the taking and testing of a dead Trayvon Martins blood for drugs and alcohol and the not taking or testing the blood of George Zimmerman is a non-issue. Yep, the Sanford police did a fine job.


No HB apologies needed or desired, I'm just looking for data or credentials supporting HB's counterpoint opinion re. profiling. I'm completely open to changing my opinion if evidence supports that change.

Personally, I see profiling fail in the field. I also see the majority of security systems and procedures "catching" innocent people because of the system or protocol design. It's incredibly difficult to secure a facility or a person. It's impossible to look at a person and say, "they are/are not guilty/ or they are/are not dangerous". Making assumptions a la racial profiling is a form of intellectual laziness and a vestige of institutionalized racism. It's inefficient and ineffective.


Shut up, Frank J.

And Coasters, I don't believe for a that minute you're a security or law enforcement expert. No responsible professional would say "profiling doesn't work" because that's exactly what law enforcement does when they're seeking a suspect, especially an unknown suspect. Proper profiling does focus on criminal behavior.

^^^ I'm game for casual or serious discussion about the topic with all of the fine people on the Coast, but not for name-calling, aspersion casting and other emotional outbursts. ^^^

Sniffles! Now that's a response I'd expect from someone that is thinned-skinned. Noting the silliness of your statements is not "name-calling, aspersion casting or other emotional outbursts." But some of your posts could easily be characterized as such.


Brandish means to wave or flourish or a menacing or a defiant wave or flourish or to display ostentatiously. There was no evidence presented to indicate that Zimmerman brandished his gun and that was not argued by the prosecution. In fact, the prosecution argued the contrary in an effort to combat the claim that Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun.

Brandishing a weapon without good reason is a crime. The evidence is that Zimmerman's gun was tucked away in a holster inside his waistband under his shirt until he drew it to fire the fatal shot.

I don't know how Martin saw Zimmerman's gun or if he did. I do believe that the handle of the gun might have been revealed as Zimmerman twisted about trying to avoid blows.

"If Zimmerman was only interested in obtaining some information why did he reply "Yes" when asked if he was following Martin? - - - - - Good question - don't know.

A better question is why is it that Zimmerman's blood was not found on Martin's hands.

Both questions were discussed in final arguments. I guess the jury either accepted the explanations offered or believed that the questions were not sufficient to find Zimmerman to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


What an ass


Profiling has its uses. For example, if one is looking for a Mass/Serial Killer in America, one would usually start with White Males. White Males have earned the reputation and are typically profiled when one is looking for a mass/serial murderer.

One way that this information could be used in real time is at your local school. Mass school shooters are almost always White Males. Any limited resources that a school has for internal security should be focused on White Males.

So on this one, HoneyBadger is correct. Profiling does have uses.

But here is a thing. Most White folks, I think, realize that it makes sense to Profile White Makes when looking for a Mass/Serial Killer. Sure you might miss a DC Sniper team for a bit but overall, when one is looking for a Mass/Serial Killer, one is probably looking for a White Male. At least in America that is.

Profiling White Boys at the school yard would be quite a different thing. It would bother me anyways. Segregating White Boys to the metal detector line would be unacceptable. Searching their lockers and backpacks more frequently than that of other subgroups would not be cool.

Zimmerman was not a law enforcement professional. Neither was Spooner. They both should have remained safe and allowed law enforcement to do their jobs. Instead, they made damn sure that the a******s didn't get away.


Honeybadger,

I can meet at Peet's in HMB to compare CV's with you almost any Saturday AM. How about tomorrow at 7AM? It's a nice public place where we can feel secure. If I'm lying, I will hand you $100 with absolutely no strings attached. If I'm telling the truth, you buy latte's for everyone in the place up to a total of $100. I encourage anyone on this thread to come and witness that transaction. I suspect there are several regulars who'd like to see that.

If that's not good enough, we can meet at Chabot Gun Club on a Saturday AM and I will introduce you to my Global Security Manager (a Muslim, FYI - someone you might profile as a terrorist!). He's there almost every Saturday with his ex-SEAL buddies, shooting clay.

Come on out, HB and we'll talk security and profiling.

Now, are you willing to put your latte where your virtual mouth is? Is your CV up-to-date?


A better question is why is it that Zimmerman's blood was not found on Martin's hands.

Both questions were discussed in final arguments. I guess the jury either accepted the explanations offered or believed that the questions were not sufficient to find Zimmerman to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that is the key isn't it? Neither question really matters. In Florida, one does not have to justify why one followed somebody one thought was suspicious. And in all trials, (except for Perry Mason) , the defense is not required to prove what happened. All the Defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt.

Here is a transcript of the Zimmerman interrogation: -- Web Link


So Bring Me thinks it's OK to profile adult White Males (tm) but objects to profiling adult blacks and middle easterners. Why?


Just Sayin', have you not had a second cup of coffee yet? I said it was OK when one was investigating a specific crime. I said it would be wrong to subject White Boys to enhanced suspicion at school.

I said this:

Profiling White Boys at the school yard would be quite a different thing. It would bother me anyways. Segregating White Boys to the metal detector line would be unacceptable. Searching their lockers and backpacks more frequently than that of other subgroups would not be cool.

So, if a bomb goes off, I would have no problem with Islam as being part of a Profile meant to help catch the bastards that did it. When McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I initially assumed it was a Islamic attack.

What is not cool is to subject Muslims, or Blacks, to enhanced suspicion for the purpose of crime prevention. There should not be one line for folks who are tagged with a Yellow Crescent and another for those tagged with a Star of David and another for those tagged with a Crucifix.

Do you see the difference?


"In Florida, one does not have to justify why one followed somebody one thought was suspicious." - - - - - or anywhere else as far as I know.


Coasters (cork or roller?) it appears you approve of the TSA searching the 85 year old granny while two 25 yo foreign middle eastern males waltz on through. If not what would you do differently?

And Haha, about Coasters' proposed meetup with HB: So if you're wrong/lying you quietly hand HB $100 in shush money while if HB is wrong it's a huge announcement to the entire establishment. Too funny!


God Bless You Coasters!!!! You got him.



Bring Me, you must be on decaf lol. I specified ADULT to draw fair comparisons.

"So Bring Me thinks it's OK to profile adult White Males (tm) but objects to profiling adult blacks and middle easterners. Why?"


JS - Excellent point. Let's make it the same deal for both us. I was thinking he was getting the better deal because it was an "up to $100" deal - there might be only 5-6 people there at 7AM which is probably $30-$40 exposure. However, I see your point and I'm fine with it being the same deal for both of us. Not a problem at all. I will also bring my passport showing my international travel record/business VISA's and my business card, along with my current CV, my corporate security badges and, like I said, I can introduce HB to my Global Security Manager in another venue.


I was talking about people, not just adults. Neither Martin or Simmons was an Adult.

I'll try again.

If I was investigating a crime, I would use Profiling as a Technique.

If I was trying to prevent a crime, I would not approve of using Profiling as a Technique.

I said:

So, if a bomb goes off, I would have no problem with Islam as being part of a Profile meant to help catch the bastards that did it.

I am not a self hating Blue Eyed Devil. In fact, I like me! ;>)


You got him.

Nobody has ever gotten the Badger. Seriously.


"In Florida, one does not have to justify why one followed somebody one thought was suspicious." - - - - - or anywhere else as far as I know.

I should have added, , even if you kill them.


Coasters, I missed seeing your comment about blind spots and grannies, sorry. But if none of the airline terrorists have ever been anything but Islamist young middle eastern men, I cannot see the logic in wasting time frisking little old grannies. If a white granny or a Chinese child blows up an airliner that seems to be the time to expand searches.


>Nobody has ever gotten the Badger. Seriously.

And still nobody has.


Re. profiling as a Useful Technique. All I have to do is engage with a 75 year old white woman who has little to lose, provide her with the right tools and correct impetus and I bring down a plane. Like I said, DHS knows this now. I have an employee in Latin America who gets stopped at EVERY border and EVERY boarding lounge. He fits the surfer-dude drug smuggler profile, yet is a) a genius, b) straight as an arrow and c) if he wanted to, could circumvent most security measures and protocols in Latin America because they are relatively loose. What I DO like about countries like, say, Brazil, is that they are starting to use Israeli techniques of observing passengers. I had an officer come up to me my 1st time leaving Sao Paulo who employed those - she looked at my passport and ticket, but what she was looking for were telltale signs of nervousness. It was simple and brilliant. She was looking for actual signs of criminality, not profiling. THAT is effective.


Since there have been Black Terrorist that have blown up airplanes, should they not be segregated to the same line as all Muslims?

What about boob bombers? -- Web Link

Which breasts would you subject to enhanced suspicion? Large ones? Brown ones?

What about White Women who are Muslim? -- Web Link


What were you so nervous about at the Sao Paulo airport, Coasters? (just kidding). Yes, the Israelis know what they're doing and they don't mess around.

And interesting links, Bring Me. Explodive breast and butt implants, yikes.

So tell me, if we still frisk the 85 yo white granny in a wheelchair whose non-surgically-enhanced bosom is resting in her lap, why AREN'T we doing the same to the two foreign middle eastern young men who are still orders of magnitude more likely to bomb than the granny? You know, insane people can act eerily calm before they murder...


Web Link "Obama: Trayvon Martin ‘could have been me 35 years ago’"

Some people are thinking, 'we can only wish...'

Obama needs to BUTT OUT and take Holder with him. Tampering with justice by the Executive branch is way, WAY out of line. Web Link


JS,

Statistics, that's why. Neither represent a more or less significant risk. I realize that's hard to grasp, but you have to think of it mathematically and phenomenologically. Your assumptions and biases tell you that one is more dangerous than the other. Most people would agree with you. That's the blind spot problem.

Web Link

Say, you wouldn't happen to be both Just Sayin' AND Honeybadger would you?


So tell me, if we still frisk the 85 yo white granny in a wheelchair whose non-surgically-enhanced bosom is resting in her lap, why AREN'T we doing the same to the two foreign middle eastern young men who are still orders of magnitude more likely to bomb than the granny?

Really? They never frisk young middle eastern men but routinely frisk 85 year old Granny? Come on.

Some people are thinking, 'we can only wish...'

Those would be some nasty, sick, and downright unpleasant people.

You know, insane people can act eerily calm before they murder...

Insane people of all persuasions. Right?

Say, you wouldn't happen to be both Just Sayin' AND Honeybadger would you?

JS is far too pleasant to be masquerading as HB.


Sometimes it's fun to twist the dynamics a bit, and what with Perry Mason here providing his legal expertise, I thought this might provide interesting entertainment (although, what's being added here is not funny at all, I have no doubt we'll get more than one chuckle from responses): "Zimmerman trial turns spotlight on another Florida self-defense case", Web Link

This is how this piece starts out: JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - Three days after a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Jacksonville to call attention to another self-defense case that he called a "travesty" of justice.

Jackson spent an hour in a jailhouse visit with Marissa Alexander, 32, an African American who was sentenced to a mandatory 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into the wall of her home in 2010 to end a violent argument with her abusive husband.

"In one case Mr. Zimmerman kills a young man and walks away, free to kill again," Jackson said. "And Marissa shot no one, hurt no one, and she's in jail for 20 years."

Here's a bonus link for those interested: "Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin", Web Link How many times have we seen these two pointing fingers at many others while playing the saint? Are they really saints, or as some suggest, are they circling conflict like buzzards for personal gain, while either perpetuating a racial divide that has been closing with each new generation?


Okay, Honeybadger, you can come out now. I promise you don't have to meet me at Peets to see that I'm not a liar. You may resume your curmudgeon-ism, incredulity and haranguing with impunity. I hate to take a boy's or girl's (I sense a feminine tone in some of HB's posts) favorite toy away like this - it's like pulling the wings off a fly.


Shut up, Frank J.

You wouldn't need to bray about your CV if you didn't say such silly things.

Profiling is a useful crime investigation tool:

Web Link

Not perfect, but better than failing to consider criminal profiles as you insist.


Hero:

Web Link

But it's okay because he was killed by a black man. Right?


Honeybee,

The best you can up with is Wiki Profiling....

Coasters claiming to be in the 21st Century, profiling makes for lazy people. Mathematical, technology, plus Corporations are now hiring Physicist.

Enough with the Web dueling, go deeper....


No, Coasters, we're not the same. HB and I disagree mightily sometimes, typically on population and environmental issues.

To respond to your statement, "Neither [grannies vs young middle eastern males] represent a more or less significant risk. I realize that's hard to grasp, but you have to think of it mathematically and phenomenologically. Your assumptions and biases tell you that one is more dangerous than the other. Most people would agree with you. That's the blind spot problem."

Could you please explain this to a non-mathematician? There are enough airline incidents and attempts on the books to be statistically meaningful. Also the difference between the two groups could not be greater: grannies = 0% while young middle eastern males = 100%. So how can you assign them similar current risk factors?

Maybe you completely ignoring proclivity to terrorism in favor of -anyone- potentially being a terrorist?

But since NO American granny -ever- has turned terrorist after all these years, isn't that also significant? It means the number or percentage of grannies-turned-terrorist will -never- approach that of middle eastern male terrorists.

Could it be a case of... “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” Cheers.


No it is not OK. We have already gone over that one and all seem to agree that Black on Black violence is no worse than Pink on Teal violence.

Asking us if it is OK is as stupid as asking if it was OK with you that McVeigh mostly got White Folks. Such a question would be ugly, ignorant, insulting, and counter productive.

Why the anger HoneyBadger?


Me: >>You know, insane people can act eerily calm before they murder...

Bring Me: >Insane people of all persuasions. Right?

Yes, I assume so (not being a criminologist).

Bring Me: >Really? They never frisk young middle eastern men but routinely frisk 85 year old Granny? Come on.

Of course they'll frisk young middle eastern men (YMEM) overall, but often enough the disabled granny is searched while the YMEM right behind her aren't. The TSA just searches every fifth passenger or so (as one told me some years ago).


Of course they'll frisk young middle eastern men...

I thought you said this:

So tell me, if we still frisk the 85 yo white granny in a wheelchair whose non-surgically-enhanced bosom is resting in her lap, why AREN'T we doing the same to the two foreign middle eastern young men who are still orders of magnitude more likely to bomb than the granny?

My bad. My only excuse is that I focused on the AREN'T part. Being all uppercase and all.


Coasters, could you please tell us what branch of security you're in? Is it cyber?


Just sayin'

What exactly do you fear?

You have l and l,048 chance of dying from an auto accident vs. a 1 and 99,000 dying at the hands of a terrorist.


No problemo Bring Me. Lots of comments flying around today. I misread often enough.


>You have l and l,048 chance of dying from an auto accident vs. a 1 and 99,000 dying at the hands of a terrorist.

True, grannyeg. But we're talking about methods the TSA and other security uses to profile or not. I'm not terribly worried about commercial flying, although I do keep my eyes open as they tell us to do.


You have a 1 in 25,000 chance of being killed during an assault with a firearm.

Maybe we should Profile Gun Owners.

Wait a minute. I own a gun. Nix that.


HoneyBooBoo,

Write down who you think is most likely to be a terrorist, then look-up the actual statistics (I provided a link in the previous post).

The difference between those two data sets - your perceived structure of the phenomenon of terrorism vs actual statistical analysis of terrorism - (real world phenomena vs your interpretation of real world phenomena)represents your personal margin of error when it comes to judging who will be and who will not be a terrorist.

If you are serious that "young middle eastern males = 100%", then your margin of error is 100% and it is just as likely that the next terrorist will be an elderly white woman as anyone else. We'll call that white lady a black swan.

The fact is, you have to be prepared for the next terrorist to be of any race, gender or age or you're not prepared. Successful terrorism will always be asymmetrical or it will fail. That means the last people you want defending against it are people who rely on preconceived notions and that includes profiling.


Also, Coasters, I'm only just referring to airline terrorists. Not commenting on general terrorism across America per your link. Hope we weren't talking at cross purposes.

Bring Me, I wouldn't have guessed you own a gun. Don't ask me why, I just assumed not.


Coaster, I wrote that, not HB.

(you reply, "If you are serious that "young middle eastern males = 100%", then your margin of error is 100%" )

Huh? 100% of airline attacks were by YMEM. Please explain 'margin of error' then, thanks.


I have an old beat up Remington 12 gauge back in Minnesota for hunting grouse and pheasant. I sold my Citori as for whatever reason, I can't hit a dang thing with it.

I am a Minnesota Man Just Sayin' and about as cliche as it gets when it comes to things Minnesota Men call fun. If it tastes good to me or somebody I know, I will shoot it, store some in the freezer, and bring my share to the Wild Game Feed that we usually had some time in January.

Well at least that is how it used to be for me. Far as I know, not much that you can shoot in California that tastes good.


Huh? 100% of airline attacks were by YMEM.

Way not so. Narco terrorists brought down a jetliner in Columbia. Red terrorists shot up airports and such during the 70's in Europe. Cuban terrorists have hijacked into and out of Cuba.

Some cherry picked factoids:

United Airlines Chesterton Crash 1933 Boeing 247 was destroyed by a bomb, with nitroglycerin as the probable explosive agent. A Chicago gangland murder was suspected, but the case remains unsolved.[2] It is thought to be the first proven act of air sabotage in the history of commercial aviation.

Continental Airlines Flight 11, registration N70775, was a Boeing 707 aircraft which exploded on May 22, 1962 in the vicinity of Centerville, Iowa, while en route from O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois, to Kansas City, Missouri. It was later discovered by investigators that one of the passengers, Thomas G. Doty, had brought a bomb on board the aircraft. This was the first in-flight bombing of a jet airliner.

Oct. 6, 1976 Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 exploded after takeoff from Barbados. 73 killed. Cuban exiles in Venezuela were convicted.

Air India Flight 182 1985 transatlantic flight of first 747 destroyed by sabotage. Aircraft exploded in-flight by dynamite placed in a stereo tuner with timers purchased by Sikh separatists. A similar second bomb intended for Air India Flight 301 exploded at the Tokyo airport killing two baggage handlers and injuring four others. This is the first plot to target two planes at the same time. The initial suspect Talwinder Singh Parmar confessed that Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode, leader of the Sikh separatist organization International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) was the mastermind. There are allegations that the ISYF has been supported by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence organization which has been linked to Islamic terrorism organizations.[8] Later Lockerbie attack would also involve suitcases with explosives placed in electronic music components on a 747. Khalistan activists believe it was a false flag attack by Indian government to discredit their movement.

Korean Air Flight 858, a flight brought down in November 1987 by liquid explosives concealed as liquor bottles by North Koreans who boarded the plane in Iraq. A similar pattern would be used by Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines in 1994

Avianca Flight 203, a Boeing 727 flying from Bogota to Cali was bombed in on 27 November 1989 killing 107 people plus a possible three on the ground. The bombing was planned by Pablo Escobar of the Medellin drug cartel. The motive was an assassination attempt on presidential candidate César Gaviria Trujillo, but the target was not on the flight.

2004 Russian aircraft bombings Islamist terrorist attacks on two domestic Russian passenger aircraft flying from Moscow. The bombs were triggered by two female Chechen suicide bombers. Shamil Salmanovich Basayev militant leader of the Chechen terrorist movement claimed credit.


Oh I forgot you're into hunting, Bring Me. I'm a non-hunter but like to target shoot with friends (it's been a while). Ciao.


United Airlines Flight 629 In 1955, Jack Gilbert Graham packed a bomb containing dynamite in a suitcase carried by his mother. The explosion killed all 39 passengers and all 5 crew members. Graham was executed in 1957 for the pre-meditated murder of his mother, as there was no federal statute for the carrying out of an airplane bombing.

Wow, the guy used his mother to plant a bomb? How would one profile that?


Bring Me, I was only talking about American flights and annoying USA TSA screening practices for unlikely terrorist bombers... But in thinking about it maybe that's not good enough. To a passenger or the TSA, a bomb is a bomb no matter who's bringing it- a terrorist or anyone else with a mental disorder. Even though the last non-terrorist USA-originating flight on your list was a suicide for life insurance 50 years ago, it's possible it could happen again for any reason.

So I think I may actually change my position about random screening. A virtual HMB Coffee Company double decaf latte with soy for you, hehe!

1962 Thomas Doty bombing = Web Link =


Oh......My......God! After thousands and thousands and thousands of words, somebody finally seems to have thought about something I said.

I don't think I have ever experienced that before!

Now what do I do?

OK HoneyBadger. I'll shut up.


^^^ Why the anger HoneyBadger? ^^^

Why the dishonest question?

^^^ HoneyBooBoo ^^^

Who was it you recently accused of name-calling? It's on the tip of my tongue ... it'll come to me.

^^^ Write down who you think is most likely to be a terrorist, then look-up the actual statistics (I provided a link in the previous post). ^^^

Changing the subject from criminals to terrorists is pathetic. It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong making a blanket statement that "[p]rofiling doesn't work" during a discussion of racially-tinged crimes.


So funny, Bring Me :^) But don't get too excited- even though I'm OK with the random screening I still think YMEM should get an extra dose of scrutiny since -their- statistics over the last 50 years is much to be desired. Otherwise I would have bought a round for the whole TA cafe, woo hoo.

"We now return you to the usual squabbling..."


Just Sayin',

~1/3 of my job is managing the physical security of large industrial facilities throughout North and South America.


Honeybee,

Granny started calling you Honeybee, and some of the TA's took it to a different level and call you Honey Boo Boo. I prefer to attempt a sense of humor - you have taken it many times to a different level.

Do you remember the day you referred to me as an "old wretch"?

Profiling was never necessary wtih either case, they had a suspect.

If you didn't have a suspect, just how would you have profiled these cases? My guess is they were shot for drug money, stole someones girl friend, etc. Profiling may have never lead to the correct outcome. We just used terrorist as an example, plus Just sayin was curious.

The media and public made this a racially-tinged crime.


Thanks for the reply Coasters.

So about 23 posts back I was talking about USA-originating airline flights that were bombed being 100% bombed by YMEM. Not global flights. Not various ground attacks.

With that in mind could you please go back to my questions and tell me if you don't think we should specifically profile YMEM in US airports?

It's different than general criminal profiling. Thanks.

(PS to HB and Granny, Coasters directed the snipe to my comments, not HB's.)


Not to worry Just Sayin'. I long ago gave up hope that I could change anybody's mind. As profound and witty as my shtick is, I don't expect to provoke an epiphany upon anybody any time soon.

Provoking thinking I have found, is not much easier. I do enjoy the challenge though. And as a bonus, sometimes, (rarely because it sort of hurts), I am provoked into thinking too.

Thanks for the tip of the cap but the next one is going to be high, hard, and inside. Heads up.


^^^ Do you remember the day you referred to me as an "old wretch"? ^^^

Not a high priority for me, but it likely occurred when you were being wretched.

^^^ Profiling was never necessary wtih either case, they had a suspect. ^^^

I don't know what you're talking about. I rarely do because of your circumspect writing style.

^^^ (PS to HB and Granny, Coasters directed the snipe to my comments, not HB's.) ^^^

Sorry, I didn't realize "Honey Boo Boo" as a term of endearment for Just Sayin'.

^^^ The media and public made this a racially-tinged crime. ^^^

The media followed the lead of the race-baiters and immediately branded Zimmerman a racist. The gullible public just went along.


Excuse me, HB, but I speak 'Granny.' Her statement, "Profiling was never necessary wtih either case, they had a suspect," is clear. Profiling is used when you don't know who committed the crime. In the Zimmerman and Spooner cases the killer was obvious. No search / no profiling required.

Re: terms of endearment, I was just pointing out that Coasters thought you'd written my comments, that's all.


Honeybee,

The only reason they won this case is because they went for self defense.

What really should have been on trial was the "stand your ground."

Just a thought, but why is the NRA behind this movement?

The other day a lady reported that someone entered her home and had received a message on her phone. In checking her surveillance cameras she spotted the intruder. She in turn called a neighbor who called the Police.

Now if this complex in Florida had surveillance capabilities, do you believe that Trevon might be alive today?

Perhaps the NRA and Gun Companies fear future tecnology. Let us even take it a step further, perhaps technology can setup a format to taser the intruder.

The other day I came across an article where the Police have us under surveillance by key positioned cameras that we are not aware of while driving. My guess is this is part of Homeland Security.


The only reason they won this case is because they went for self defense. What really should have been on trial was the "stand your ground.

The reason the defense won the case is that the prosecution put on a lousy case. Given what they had, can't fault them. There really was no case.

I wonder, how did Zimmerman stand his ground? By failing to escape and run from the man straddling him, punching him, and banging his head on the sidewalk? Perhaps he should have just lain there and took it - as some have suggested.

"Now if this complex in Florida had surveillance capabilities, do you believe that Trevon might be alive today?"

Good question. Surveilance can be good or bad. It can also be expensive.


There's nothing wrong with 'stand your ground' laws. Maybe you feel safer facing the threat than turning your back on it. Do you turn your back on mountain lions? Not this kid.

Obama-Holder Inc. wants SYG gone-- it's a barrier preventing them from playing judge, jury and executioner when they should be focusing on bigger issues (and what a joke about Holder wanting Z's gun... to give it to another Mexican cartel per chance?)

Wiki: = Web Link = A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is common in multiple jurisdictions within the United States. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct.


If a person suspects he is in danger and chooses to confront the person who he perceives is dangerous, when he could have evaded it, that person is a fool.

Period. If Zimmerman had not looked for a confrontation, there would not have been one. We need to arm all! If Zimmerman had reason to think that Martin was packing too, he might have not been in such a hurry to make his day.


A. Standing your ground is not the same as confronting someone.

B. There's no evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin. Zimmerman following Martin to see where he goes isn't confronting him. If I were just passing through I wouldn't like someone following me either, but I would just keep going or call the police. I wouldn't jump the guy.

----------------------

Definition of confront (vt)

1. challenge somebody face to face: to come face to face with somebody, especially in a challenge, and usually with hostility, criticism, or defiance

2. make somebody aware of something: to bring something such as contradictory facts or evidence to the attention of somebody, often in a challenging way

3. encounter difficulty: to be forced to deal with something, especially an obstacle that must be overcome


Web Link


nice pae94037

Now imagine the outrage in that circumstance if the police

A) took/tested blood of that victim for drugs and alcohol but did not take/test the blood of that shooter

B) didn't impound that shooters vehicle

c) hell, imagine the outrage if that shooter wasn't held in custody until a full investigation was completed.

that my friends is the real reason many people are angry. We all know how different it would have been from the first arrival of the Sanford cops.


full disclosure

Zimmerman was questioned for 5 hours and released. The police did not test his blood. Did not impound his vehicle. Did not canvas the area for witnesses.


Why do some want to continue prosecuting George Zimmerman as though he were a white man that enjoys hunting and killing young boys because they're black? There was absolutely no evidence that he did so. Furthermore, most of the evidence supported and corroborated Zimmerman's claims.

What is wrong with you hateful race-baiters?


You are making it about Zimmerman. Some are making it about justice. How can you not see that just by itself, testing the dead kids blood for drugs and alcohol and not the shooter says a ton. It would have been different.


Continuing to persecute a man that was acquitted by a jury of his peers is not justice -- it's mob rule.

Testing for drugs and alcohol in the deceased is routine. Testing for drugs or alcohol in the living occurs when there is evidence they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Your persistent second-guessing of police work while failing to consider evidence that absolves Zimmerman will not achieve justice. It is more likely to further stoke the flames of racial tension.

Maybe that's what you want.


what stokes the flames of racial tension is the continued denial of inequality by the likes of folks like you HoneyBadger. There are very few people who believe the police would have reacted the same if Zimmerman lay dead and Martin held the gun. There are far too many stories to be told where race has impacted the way investigations are conducted and, in this instance, there are important questions that remain, and will continue to remain unanswered. Continuing to claim that race was and is not a factor in this and sooo many other criminal cases is not just naive, it is the exact behavior, exact ignorance, that is at the heart of racial problems in our nation.

Have a great day.


“that my friends is the real reason many people are angry.”

If that is so, they are keeping the source of their anger secret. Most of the anger that I have seen expressed was said to be based on the belief that a black kid was murdered by a white man – and we know that isn’t true. A fair trial proved it.

I agree that if Zimmerman’s blood was not tested for drugs or alcohol that was wrong, Although, he was questioned at the scene and shortly after and appeared to be straight. I don’t know how much difference it would have made if the blood had been tested. In any event, sloppy police work is not what has people demonstrating. Is it your belief, Frank, that Zimmerman was under the influence when the shooting occurred?

That there have been many cases of inequality does not mean that the Zimmerman case was such a case. To borrow a Phrase, “That is not logical.”

Perhaps you should look into the shooting of Antonio West and his mom.


people are mad about the investigation. people know that had Zimmerman lay dead and Martin stood there with the gun the investigation would have been different. Nobody knows what really happened that night except Zimmerman. I agree with the verdict but that does NOT mean justice was served. Was Zimmerman on drugs? Prescription meds? Never asked, never tested. I don't believe Trayvon Martin was a saint. Zimmerman as an armed Community Watch guy, driving around following a kid on his way home. Getting out of his car after being told not to by the cops. Saying this case would have been handled the same if the victim was Zimmerman....sorry I, and clearly many others, disagree.


Breaking News: George Zimmerman Rescues Family Trapped in Overturned SUV

= Web Link =

George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue a family who was trapped in an overturned vehicle, police said today.

Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of a family of four -- two parents and two children -- trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla. at approximately 5:45 p.m. Thursday, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.

The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route Route 46, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where Zimmerman shot Martin.

see the link for the rest of the story


Superhero!!!!!


Maybe a little better than the "Travon supporters" rioting and looting stores.


I haven't seen anyone condone rioting and looting. I understand people's anger though.


Why can't you appreciate that George helped a family with kids out of an overturned vehicle? It could even have been people who protested against him. Good for him.

You can guarantee that if it were George's car overturned, some of those protesters are so crazed they would have just left him in it... and looted his wallet for good measure.


^^^ [if] Zimmerman lay dead and Martin stood there with the gun the investigation would have been different. ^^^

You don't know that, but recognize that such speculation is needed to rationalize your anger.


man oh man. Keep your head in the sand HoneyB.


I thought this was a good Economist article about crime and how and why it's been trending downward dramatically since the 1980's in 1st world countries.

Web Link


Note this AM's interview with another juror - she essentially stated that she let a murderer off on a technicality.

Web Link


She's just feeling the heat, that's all. Making excuses after the fact.


Sure, sure, nothing to see here - move along.


Coasters, you have not taken into account that the Juror is question is one of those types of people that has earned the burden of being Profiled by those who do that kind of thing based on a person's race, creed, and nationality.

Because of this, everything she says should be subjected to enhanced suspicion. I mean look at her. Can't you tell? Come on. The lady looks like an Arab.


Here's a column sure to get HimSelf's panties in a bunch. Excerpt:

"It must be hard for young black males to always be viewed as criminals by people who notice crime statistics. We've jawboned that sad story for 40 years. Last week, President Obama ran it around the block again in another speech about himself in reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict.

"Let's give that beloved chestnut a rest for a day and consider another way blacks have it harder than whites.

"Only black people are expected to never speak against their community. ...This one is never discussed at all."

[rest of the story here]: Web Link


Perfect story JS from one of Conservatism's most articulate and persuasive advocates, Ann Coulter.

That lady nails the Profile we should all be worried about, Black People. In fact, a Black guy drove the bus home last night. I decided to take the risk because it was late. I am thinking of working super late tonight just so I can hopefully get luck and get a driver whose Profile is has earned more trust.

This from Ann Coulter discussing a group whose Profile includes the murder of God's only begotten son: -- Web Link

Yep. Ann Coulter. Good call JS.


Except:

"Only black people are expected to never speak against their community. ...This one is never discussed at all."

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that Italians, Irish, Cops, Mennonites, Hispanics, Cubans, Muslims, Jews, Gays, Scientologists, Catholics and others don't feel pressured by their communities to protect their own?

I take back what I said about Ann Coulter. She is one of the most despicable advocates for any cause. Why anybody who thinks like her would be proud to admit is beyond me.


Lol... panties definitely in a bunch. That was too easy.


Not a bad comeback considering that with less than a sentence the stupidity of:

"Only black people are expected to never speak against their community. ...This one is never discussed at all."

Not a bad comeback at all. I assume you stand by the quote you meant to prove something with. Good for you JS!

Maybe you could pull up some old Willie Horton Ads and prove just how much the Black Man has earned the profile that such as Coulter and you assign to them.

Do you really think the quotes you cited are accurate? Do you really believe that only Blacks are expected to protect their own? Do you not see how ignorant and bigoted such a statement is?

What if I said only Whites are expected to protect their own? Or only Russians? Or only Chinese? Would those assertions about any ethnic group not be ignorant and bigoted?

What if I said that all of every group had hateful characteristics or expectations of them?

Would that be bigotry or does it depend on the Profile the group the assertion is made about?


Hey BM, calm down, you're going to blow a blood vessel. I never said Coulter represents me. I only said that you would do what you're doing, and you're doing it beyond my wildest expectation. Heeheehee...

BTW, are you Christian??


Christian Philosophically, sort of. I was subjected to tales of unending torture and gnashing teeth from the age of 3 to 12 by my Sunday School Teacher at Woodside Baptist Church.

The parts about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth, let he without sin cast the first stone, and a bunch of pseudo liberal notions, stuck. The parts where I am supposed to believe that Nature's God cares more about what I believe than what I do never made sense to me.

So you posted ignorant crap that you don't believe in order to see my panites get bunched?

Dang! Of all days, this is the one I choose to go commando.


Can't someone post something without it being assumed you agree with everything? Does Coulter 100% represent you on Christian beliefs? I could hammer you with it (myself not being "Christian") and that wouldn't be fair either.

Here's a statement I do believe: I think poor urban blacks do put pressure on each other to think and vote a certain way, same as other tight-knit communities do. When you get a case like this one there's a lot of pressure and I think she's feeling it. She said she did what the law required, and really, what's wrong with that.


The depth of ignorance on display here is amazing-well kind of-not really. Good work making your point Just Sayin. You are a true American.


OK. You got me. Just because you posted ignorant crap that appears to be an attempt to justify your position does not mean you really buy into the ignorant crap that you are posting. Sort of like Sarcasm, right?

My bad.

I think poor urban blacks do put pressure on each other to think and vote a certain way, same as other tight-knit communities do.

Do you suppose that affluent country club members don't do the same thing to each other? Do you suppose that some Evangelical Churches don't pressure their members to think and vote a certain way?

Does Coulter 100% represent you on Christian beliefs?

According to Pastor Poorman at Woodside Baptist, my beliefs pertaining to Christianity are cherry picked and have condemned my immortal soul to an eternity of torture and sorrow.


Let's see if a lefty can make a logical argument.

Pick one thing I said, quoting me directly, not someone else's story, and tell me specifically what you disagree with.

Try it.


^^^ The depth of ignorance on display here is amazing-well kind of-not really. Good work making your point Just Sayin. You are a true American. ^^^

Was that was in reference to to the comment about blacks not being able to criticize their community? If so the ignorance is on your part.

If I read Coulter correctly, that was leveled at liberals that punish blacks for "straying from the plantation," not blacks themselves.

And some blacks are quite critical of their communities, particularly when it comes to tolerating those that represent them: Web Link

It's pretty sad what their corrupt and incompetent leaders have done to a once thriving city:

Web Link


That was for Frank J.

And for Bring Me, What exactly do you think I posted to justify what exact position you think I said? In your rantings I'm losing track of the invented beliefs you've pushed on to me.

I did say, blacks get pressure "same as other tight-knit communities do." Just like your pastor pressured you. It happens to everyone. So why didn't that statement automatically include white people in your book? Where you make that leap? It's a pretty important indicator of your thinking.

Coulter has a way of infuriating people. No one is safe and she's insulted me too. You were easy pickings and it's gone to your head.


Thanks HB. And you're dead right.


anyone seen these clowns reference "poor urban whites?" Anyone seen these clowns reference "whites?". The lines of HB and JS with their self righteous labeling of class and race on this site.....ignorance. Dangerous ignorance.

Rise up!!!! Rise up!!!!! Yes HB there are black folk in HMB. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Gee Frank, maybe because I said poor urban blacks it wasn't the poor urban whites putting pressure on the poor urban blacks. It was the poor urban blacks putting pressure on the poor urban blacks. Do you have any reading comprehension at all? Why are YOU so racist? I think you're the most racist person here.


And Frank J, I'm still waiting for you to do a little thinking here:

>Let's see if a lefty can make a logical argument.

>Pick one thing I said, quoting me directly, not someone else's story, and tell me specifically what you disagree with.

>Try it.

I'm waiting.


Yes I am the racist. And you are the ego maniac who is certain every post references you.


I was at a City Council meeting recently. I felt threatened. So many white folk surrounding me. A whole bunch of white male anger. I feel safer at Mac Dutra Park.


^^^ I was at a City Council meeting recently. I felt threatened. So many white folk surrounding me. A whole bunch of white male anger. I feel safer at Mac Dutra Park. ^^^

I'd worry less about the color of your skin and more about its thickness if I were you.


Just posting on TA you will need a thick skin...Honeybee.

My guess is a new Capitalistic Market has opened up......called - Stand Your Ground Classes.......

As for Detroit, what do expect from all the free trade policies implemented by? Fill in the blank.


"Profiled by those who do that kind of thing based on a person's race, creed, and nationality." - - - - - Or religion???


I always thought that creed and religion are sort of the same.


Still waiting, Frank. If you can't find anything to disagree with me about then what's your problem? You have today to start being logical. Put up or shut up.

>And Frank J, I'm still waiting for you to do a little thinking here:

>>Let's see if a lefty can make a logical argument.

>>Pick one thing I said, quoting me directly, not someone else's story, and tell me specifically what you disagree with.

>>Try it.

>I'm waiting.


What I believe Just Sayin' is you have a deep suspicion of all blacks based on your experience years ago in a gas station. You strike me, similar to say George Zimmerman, as someone that would feel uncomfortable with a hoodie wearing black kid walking the streets of your neighborhood. Are you the guy who thinks young Middle Eastern men should be subjected to full body searches at airports? Be honest, a tad nervous flying seated next to the woman in the burka? It is disturbing that so many of you TA folk really believe the justice system serves blacks and whites equally. How much evidence would you require to see that is not true. Florida alone is a hotbed of inequality.

And being so certain this perspective makes me a lefty or Dem? You don't know crap about my voting record. You and HB this troll tracking nut all laughable.

In any case.....have a great Saturday. Get outside breath in the salt air.


^^^ As for Detroit, what do expect from all the free trade policies implemented by? Fill in the blank. ^^^

Free trade policies helped Michigan (black beans) and Detroit in particular (vastly increased trade traffic over the Windsor-Detroit corridor).

If you want to argue that Detroit is a well-run city and that 51 years of unrestrained liberal policies haven't taken their toll, then make your case without asking others to "fill in the blank."

The City Council needs to reconsider Mayor Bing's suggestion to disincorporate the outer regions and shrink the City to a smaller area that can be better served by available resources. They need to encourage more "urban farming" in those outer regions. And they need to lower wage and property taxes to encourage people to move back into the City and begin restoring property values. And they need to do a much better job of developing their waterfront to make it much more people friendly. No more Joe Louis Arena's (to play hockey!) without windows along the waterfront!


"I always thought that creed and religion are sort of the same."

Yeah? Well maybe. I suppose that you could see it that way.

Oh shucks. Maybe it is possible that I didn't get it right.

Anything's possible.


Oh shucks. Maybe it is possible that I didn't get it right.

That happened to me once. Maybe twice.


Frank J: Did you once acknowledge that the people in the gas station were racists for physically starting to attack me for my color?

No, but you call _me_ that after escaping in a peaceful manner.

Way to go.

.

PS- I'll still go to an all-black anything so go make up some other weird stories.


Just keep posting JS. You shove your foot deeper and deeper.


The only thing being shoved deeper is your head up your ***.


You haven't responded once with a logical argument. Admit you're out of ammo.

Or rather, never had any in the first place.


"I'll go to an all black anything"

Classic defense to your non-racist perspective.

Who really has his head up his ***?


^^^ Classic defense to your non-racist perspective. ^^^

Considering the source, that's a mighty snappy rejoinder!


Shut Up HoneyBadger

Sound familiar?

Tee Hee


I see why HB tells you to shut up, Frank.

You can't argue a point logically.

You bring nothing to the table.

You are at best the gnat at the picnic.


You two have a very interesting definition of logic.

Carry on boys


>You two have a very interesting definition of logic.

Sure, if Webster's definition is "interesting"-

Definition of LOGIC

a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable


Logic like yours JS regarding profiling does not "logically" cover say Timothy McVeigh does it? See you're a racist pal. Your TSA example-flawed. Your blacks in "hoodlum clothes" should expect to be profiled (get used to it) flawed-we got a ton of white homeless meth addicts in front of Safeway bud.

Folks like you have no logic just hate filled emotion


Yawn....


the expected "logical" response.

I think everyone in Oklahoma City should be keeping an eye out for young white men. And, yep let the TSA target all Muslims for full body searches. And, if you wear a hoodie to Costco be prepared to have your receipt scrutinized extra close. (guess Just Sayin' will define "hoodlum clothes" for us all) And, keep a close eye on the Hispanic men at Mac Dutra Park. And, lets get some armed citizens patrolling Ocean Colony at night...just in case some black kids show up.

The "Logic" According To Just Sayin'


ZZzzz........


Truth hurts most when you try to sleep through it,


Web Link

the flawed reality of racial profiling and the ugly truth of who we are. "Hoodlum clothes"

if the "profile" of an American tax cheat is:single white male-45 and under-would you be okay with single white men 45 and under having a 75% higher likelihood of audit?

what proof do you have that teens are more likely to shoplift? White or black teens? In HMB are hispanic kids more likely to shoplift or white folks 25-35? Data support?

Your arguments are all flawed. Your insistence that racial profiling is proper and valuable is the heartbreaking truth of who we are. Yes some bad folks chased you at a gas station years ago. Think white folks ever chased black folks from gas stations? Where do you draw the line? Agree with the Arizona "drive brown" show us your papers law?

this goes to the heart of my disgust with fat white men, on their 4th marriage, screaming about the horror of gay marriage. Using your logic, agreeing that the white male dominated government is a failure, we should both hope for a Palin/Bachman VS. Clinton/Warren election in 2016.


Watch out for young White Males as they do most of the serial killing and mass murdering in America. Enhance your suspicion when you see a White Male.

White Christian Males, and White Jewish Males seem to run most of the huge scams in the World so enhance your suspicion when dealing with White Christian and Jewish Male Banksters.

Catholic Priests have earned a Profile. Can't imagine anybody trusting one of them with a child.

But the real threat are the Chinese. There are a billion of them and a bunch work in Silicon Valley. As we all know, China hacks our networks. All Chinese should be viewed with enhanced suspicion. I wouldn't hire one because let us face it, like Black folks, they have earned the Profile.


Amen

Folks in HMB need to profile those scary Portoguese beef sandwich dudes. Stuff will give you a heart attack.


^^^ this goes to the heart of my disgust with fat white men, on their 4th marriage, screaming about the horror of gay marriage. Using your logic, agreeing that the white male dominated government is a failure, we should both hope for a Palin/Bachman VS. Clinton/Warren election in 2016. ^^^

Nothing like rationalizing your own prejudices and racial hatred!


shut up Boo Boo

Yes I am hateful of homophobic white men. I admit it. I am also hateful of white folk that are so narrow minded they still think justice is served equally to whites and blacks. I am also filled with hatred for people that abuse puppies.


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium