- Oct 31, 2012
- 10,817
- 2,575
That would't work.
R.I.P Trayvon
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by shoefreakbaby,
- Start date
- Feb 22, 2007
- 20,236
- 4,229
I don't think you can change the law because there's too many technicalities that you would run into with that
I dont see the need for thousand new laws but the laws that exist should be enforced fairly and without prejudices
Last edited:
- Jul 18, 2012
- 32,800
- 19,699
what does that have to do with anything about anything?
as for changing the law to include what cguy610 wrote - perhaps the route you're approaching it from a point that could initiate some discussion, but it's still gonna take tweaking it before people don't feel like that sorta thing doesn't infringe on their rights. there's laws in place to protect children in those kinds of situations, but until someone actually commits a crime involved with following someone, i'm not sure that much can be done
- Jun 15, 2013
- 26,184
- 23,122
A law that prohibit anyone from their constitutional rights is a law that I'm against!
This my friend is a law that doesnt make sense, and even if this law was even applied you will have to prove the person was following the minor for some type of negative intent. This will result in thousands if not millions in tax payers money.
You don't need a law to call the cops and state that someone suspicious is following you.
I have thought many times that I was been follow but at the end of the day it was just one person that happen to be heading the same direction.
Last edited:
- Oct 14, 2007
- 6,346
- 1,111
Why do you need to have the right to follow random kids around? Not all kids have cell phones to call the cops.
And yes, you would have to prove that the person was following the child so it would only apply in very obvious situations like Zimmerman following children around.
Last edited:
- Jun 15, 2013
- 26,184
- 23,122
What's obvious to you might not be obvious to someone else.
How do you judge who is a kid and who isn't? If this was obvious there would be no checking of ID's at stores/clubs/etc.
Lastly, I'm saying that what kid might see as being followed, to another might not be. Now you are putting those people that are innocently walking the same direction at risk and/or in a financial burden because the kid was being paranoid.
- Jul 18, 2012
- 32,800
- 19,699
well it's not about having the right to follow someone. it's about being able to live normally and walk wherever you please without it becoming an issue. it's a basic freedom. consequently having someone else accuse you of following them when you're really not becomes a problem. it's sort of like screaming fire in a crowded theatre. now you're locked up hiring lawyers and all that noise to prove that you weren't following anyone, but just talking a walk instead. see? it can be a slippery slope and really infringes more on society's basic rights than the rights of the individual who thinks he/she is being followed
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
isnt profiling the real problem here?
- Jul 18, 2012
- 32,800
- 19,699
well yeah, but profiling is a part of the bigger problem, which is racism.
getting people to stop feeding into stereotypes and looking at other groups of people in a viciously negative manner just because they're not the same race or ethnic background as you is a problem which i fear we'll never be completely cleansed of in this country.
and while laws can be set to curb racism and make it illegal for others to infringe on your rights as a citizen of this country, you also can't legislate people to "like" or not be in fear of certain other groups of people, no matter how ridiculously illogical or immoral that that fear or hate is
haters gonna hate and there's not much that can be done about that. hopefully the old guard just dies off as quick as possible, because younger generations get it a whole lot more than our collective parents or grandparents who've held onto those racist notions for way too long
getting people to stop feeding into stereotypes and looking at other groups of people in a viciously negative manner just because they're not the same race or ethnic background as you is a problem which i fear we'll never be completely cleansed of in this country.
and while laws can be set to curb racism and make it illegal for others to infringe on your rights as a citizen of this country, you also can't legislate people to "like" or not be in fear of certain other groups of people, no matter how ridiculously illogical or immoral that that fear or hate is
haters gonna hate and there's not much that can be done about that. hopefully the old guard just dies off as quick as possible, because younger generations get it a whole lot more than our collective parents or grandparents who've held onto those racist notions for way too long
Last edited:
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
i agree haters gonna hate but we see now how the issue is that hate will manifest itself into action, if it was all just thoughts thats one thing but they cant let it stop w that
i dont agree w the younger generations bit tho because as this thread has shown there are still prejudiced young people too
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
is that all? you are one of those hiding
- Mar 28, 2009
- 18,488
- 6,333
why is everyone posting on backup SNs 
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
u talking to me bruh?
celticsfan9783
Banned
- Oct 12, 2010
- 5,318
- 665
Hence the "trial" thread.
Last edited:
- Nov 4, 2003
- 29,630
- 1,863
Florida isn't good at changing laws unless it's involving voter suppression. You guys are crazy thinking they will change anything.
I think the "funniest" part of the media describing the jury was they kept implying that the jury were deciding the case with such intense scrutiny of the legal aspects of the law. Like you had 6 law school graduates debating and scrutinizing the evidence in depth. (which is very possible with murder 2. I thought manslaughter was beyond obvious)
Now we truly see behind the veil.
I think the "funniest" part of the media describing the jury was they kept implying that the jury were deciding the case with such intense scrutiny of the legal aspects of the law. Like you had 6 law school graduates debating and scrutinizing the evidence in depth. (which is very possible with murder 2. I thought manslaughter was beyond obvious)
Now we truly see behind the veil.
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
sit yo *** down
"interpreting case law"
answer me honestly if your child was profiled and killed would you be "interpreting case law"?
- Oct 14, 2007
- 6,346
- 1,111
Hiding what?
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
u quoted my post
you are hiding behind the law
you are hiding behind the law
gllahone84
Banned
- Jul 10, 2011
- 11,727
- 1,912
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
they are all scared at the end of the day their fear is driving their irrationality
celticsfan9783
Banned
- Oct 12, 2010
- 5,318
- 665
No.
Rule #1: If you want to think objectively, check your emotions @ the door. I have no emotional attachment to the case, so I'm able to apply the law to the facts and understand the verdict (as flawed as I think it is). Why is that upsetting you?
Last edited:
- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,770
im not upset at you i wouldnt waste the time
what im upset at is the apathy shown toward black lives and the utter disregard for humanity
EDIT: my emotional attachment stems from the loss of a life unnecessarily. If it has no effect on you then i can only question what kind of person you are on a real personal level
Last edited:
- Oct 31, 2012
- 10,817
- 2,575
I feel bad for GZ
- Oct 14, 2007
- 6,346
- 1,111
Explain how someone is either A. hiding behind the law, or B. fighting for social justice.
Last edited:
Similar threads
