"If Zimmerman get off, Ima go out & kill a white boy" WTH??

[BluesStringer]

I know what point you're trying to make, and this is somewhat of a deviation from it, but you're not going far enough back. Think when the cops who beat up Rodney King got acquitted. I was there, but a month later, I was here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, the Rodney King incident included white cops.

No need to correct you at all. I already said my reply somewhat deviated from your point.

I can tell you from experience though, that it won't matter a wit to you or anyone else what the race of the defendant or victim was if major riots break out in your neighborhood because of a court verdict. In LA after the cop verdicts were read, the cops ran and hid in their fortified precinct buildings. It was a full day of unrestrained riots before they came out of their hidey-holes at all, and there was no sustained push-back from them until late on Day 2. Maybe all those Tweets and/or FaceBook postings can serve a "relief valve" kind of purpose here, as in hopefully they'll blow off enough steam on the interwebs and not need to vent out in the streets if/when GZ gets acquitted.

I remember saying in one thread on this case that this should've been treated as a run-of-the-mill shooting. Whoever is responsible for injecting so much racial animus into it has done more harm to race relations before the fact, than any trial verdict ever could after the fact. If I'm not mistaken, my first post in this thread represents the totality of me mentioning race in relation to any aspect of this case. I am just simply not focused on it, and refuse to get pulled into scoring points on an internet forum based on the race of the people I'm criticizing, ridiculing, or being sarcastic about. If people riot over this verdict in my neck of the woods, all I will see are people that I may have to defend myself from. Some of them will be black with their pants hangin' around the bottom of their cheeks, and some will be comprised of a mixture of races wearing uniforms, badges and guns. Boston and LA during the Dorner manhunt proved that threats to the civil peace will not be treated the same way as they were 20+ years ago when hunkerin' down in your home was the wisest thing to do. It seems just as likely that someone beating down your door now could either be rioters or cops supposedly demanding entry to your home to search for those same rioters.

Like I said, I sincerely hope the interwebs have been enough a relief valve to avoid more riots over a court verdict. We'll see, because I seriously doubt at this point that the people blowin' off that steam are going to get the verdict they want.

Blues

 

[nogods]

If you've got any evidence of that, counselor, post it up or STFU.

The evidence just came in - someone posted a tweet stating "the threats are being made by white supremacists groups"

Now if you got evidence that tweet is false post it of STFU.

Too easy.

 

[jg1967]

Wow, they're all highly educated by the way they write.

If the shoot the way they write it won't be very dangerous.

 

[BluesStringer]

The evidence just came in - someone posted a tweet stating "the threats are being made by white supremacists groups"

Now if you got evidence that tweet is false post it of STFU.

Too easy.

The challenge wasn't about the "Tweets" you commented on, the challenge was about you. This makes two posts now that your only knee-jerk meme is to jump straight to race-baiting. The only obvious racial bias in this thread is you. Just because you're more biased against white people, against whom there is zero evidence that they fit within your narrative, doesn't make your bias less racial.

Too easy indeed.

Blues

 

[JCliff]

The evidence just came in - someone posted a tweet stating "the threats are being made by white supremacists groups"

Now if you got evidence that tweet is false post it of STFU.

Too easy.

.
Really? Evidence? Someone posts a tweet that says it's all white supremacists, and that's "evidence?" That wasn't you that posted said tweet was it?
.
Race was injected into this situation very early by an unscrupulous media and the panoply of usual professional race-baiters (Sharpton, Jackson, et al). The President's own statements, made before he could possibly have known anything material about the case, injected race into it. The situation was seen to fit the progressive narrative.

 

[Kramer1113]

With that kind of "Youthful Vigor" I sure am glad I'm about 70 Miles from there... That and this town is 99.7% Clorox Clean.

 

[Kramer1113]

Link Removed

Anyone have a list of other things Young Kareeeeeem will do for $20.00?

 

[whodat2710]

Link Removed

Anyone have a list of other things Young Kareeeeeem will do for $20.00?

Mow my lawn you Wannabe thug. Get a job. (not you, the twit-erer)

 

[Rhino]

I would just like to point out to those suggesting NSA step in; the point about the whole NSA thing going on is THEY MAY NOT, BY LAW, RUN SURVEILLANCE ON US CITIZENS.

Actually, it says "US persons", because it includes more than just citizens. But it isn't technically a law unless it's changed in the last several years. It is legally binding though. However, it isn't prohibited in all circumstances, and much of what they've been doing isn't really surveillance in the sense that they didn't monitor actual conversations. I flew intelligence and surveillance missions in the Air Force and I was subject to those restrictions. The exceptions were incredibly stringent and the oversight extremely heavy when exceptions were granted. The issue here is whether or not the current administration abused the modified restrictions put in place after 9/11. It doesn't look good.

 

[Rhino]

The evidence just came in - someone posted a tweet stating "the threats are being made by white supremacists groups"

Now if you got evidence that tweet is false post it of STFU.

Too easy.

.
Really? Evidence? Someone posts a tweet that says it's all white supremacists, and that's "evidence?" That wasn't you that posted said tweet was it?

I am seriously doubting his claim about being an attorney. I can't see where any reputable attorney would ever try to pass a tweet off as evidence.

 

[tricolordad]

I am seriously doubting his claim about being an attorney. I can't see where any reputable attorney would ever try to pass a tweet off as evidence.

I'm doubting that it's even a he. Or a gun owner.

 

[whodat2710]

I am thinking that all the tweets came from a mosque, since the NSA doesn't spy on them...

 

[BC1]

Link Removed

Anyone have a list of other things Young Kareeeeeem will do for $20.00?

Apparently he won't spend it on a book.

 

[BC1]

I can't see where any reputable attorney would ever try to pass a tweet off as evidence.

A tweet can be tracked. Social media posts are regularly used as supporting evidence.

 

[Dunewolf]

Every single one of those messages should be culled from the NSA's dragnet captures, and investigated to determine if each individual messenger has the ability and/or intent to follow through with those expressions of their thuggish "culture," and if so, should suffer whatever legal consequences the law provides for in relation to making terroristic threats.

Blues

Uhm seriously? on the one hand we are here for 2nd amendment rights.. and which we are all for.. We use our 1st amendment rights here to expose violations of our 2nd and yet the 1st amendment rights are to be denied for others just because its against someone you like? I actually have no problem with idiots saying crap like that, because all it does is validate the need for 2nd amendment.

Those NSA / etc type crap are not against people who say things that are anti individual, they are to fight anti establishment folks like us and those who believe the government is wrong.

While I do not agree with what any idiot like those, has said online.. I would be more concerned with actions of said person. What they say can be used maybe as a "watch them" type situation - but until they actually do something - they shouldn't be bothered otherwise. At most for anyone underage, I would direct parents attention to such posts/etc without involving cops, and if parents didn't do anything then I would keep the kids on a watch list and add parents too. lol

Hell im sure im already on a watch list just for posting here

 

[bobqdevon]

Hell im sure im already on a watch list just for posting here

Aren't we all?

Sent from my phone (which explains all the typos), using the USACARRY app.

 

[whodat2710]

Hell im sure im already on a watch list just for posting here

I am Caucasian, Straight, Conservative, Gun-owning, Military, Frequent communicator with my Elected representatives, etc. I am sure this forum is the least of my worries

 

[BluesStringer]

Every single one of those messages should be culled from the NSA's dragnet captures, and investigated to determine if each individual messenger has the ability and/or intent to follow through with those expressions of their thuggish "culture," and if so, should suffer whatever legal consequences the law provides for in relation to making terroristic threats.

Uhm seriously?

Not that I think you really understood what I wrote, but yeah, serious as a heart attack.

....on the one hand we are here for 2nd amendment rights.. and which we are all for.. We use our 1st amendment rights here to expose violations of our 2nd and yet the 1st amendment rights are to be denied for others just because its against someone you like?

So you think threatening to kill somebody falls within 1st Amendment protections? I'm here to tell you that, whether or not "I" like the person being threatened (and BTW, I don't like George Zimmerman), every one of those threats is against the law, and not protected by the 1st Amendment. I specifically said though, that they should be investigated, and if the messenger has the requisite ability and intent to prosecute under the auspices of those relevant statutes, whatever consequences the law provides for should befall them.

I actually have no problem with idiots saying crap like that, because all it does is validate the need for 2nd amendment.

I see. So not only do you not understand what the 1st Amendment protects, but you likewise don't understand that the only way anyone's actions would or could "validate" the need for the 2A is to take up arms against a tyrannical government. From the Framers' perspective, the 2A has little, maybe even nothing, to do with simply defending yourself against another individual. If you think it's about self-defense rather than Constitution-defense, then find a single paragraph in the Federalist Papers or any other writings by the Framers relating to that as a foundational "need" for its creation. Best of luck with that.

Fact is, anything other than defending against tyrannical government, such as self-defense, hunting, sport shooting or whatever, is simply an ancillary benefit of the 2A.

Those NSA / etc type crap are not against people who say things that are anti individual, they are to fight anti establishment folks like us and those who believe the government is wrong.

The "proper" use of that information would go against terrorists, and masses of violence-prone people making death threats against specific individuals is actually called "terroristic threats" in many jurisdictions. You have it exactly backwards.

While I do not agree with what any idiot like those, has said online.. I would be more concerned with actions of said person.

Which is why I said that the ability and intent would have to be present before any of them could or should be prosecuted for making terroristic threats. Did you read any of my post beyond just seeing "NSA" and knee-jerking your way through a post that shows how little of it you actually understood?

What they say can be used maybe as a "watch them" type situation - but until they actually do something - they shouldn't be bothered otherwise.

Threatening to kill someone is "doing something." Especially if the person making the threat can be shown to have the ability and intent to follow through with it. That takes more than "watching them," it takes an investigation, with the public threat being the probable cause to launch such an investigation.

At most for anyone underage, I would direct parents attention to such posts/etc without involving cops

You would direct their parents to the posts? How would you go about doing that? Just ask Twitter for their contact information? And how would you know who's a minor and who isn't to begin with? You really didn't think this through at all, did you?

And I would not involve cops myself either. I say that probable cause to investigate a crime has been committed in about the most public way it could be. They shouldn't need me or you or anyone else to "get" them to squelch these incitements to violence, they should just do their freakin' jobs and hunt the hateful cretins down like the animals they portray themselves to be.

and if parents didn't do anything then I would keep the kids on a watch list and add parents too. lol

Yeah, this is all funny stuff, ain't it though?

Hell im sure im already on a watch list just for posting here

Well, I know for a fact Link Removed, but unjustifiable and unconstitutional surveillance of Patriots has absolutely nothing to do with investigating the crime of making terroristic threats.

Seriously.

Blues

 

[Dunewolf]

Ok.. FYI - NSA dragnets/etc are supposed to be used against foreign operatives and not on US citizens.
As for words online? made on Twitter/facebook/etc.. Ive been threatened numerous times - infact Ive had someone sending threatening voice messages over xbox.. Most of which I ignored as stupid bull crap idiots say. The verbal threats over xbox I did report to Microsoft, only because I knew they would ban the guy. not because I cared he would do what he said or anything.

I dont want to see the government coming down on everyone who posts stupid stuff online.. Even if it is deadly threat.. More often then not, government cracks the whip, instead of a simple interview.

When government gets involved things go downhill faster then they need..
Case in point is post I made about teenager making a joke to his friend, stupid sure, actual threat no - yet cops arrested him, locked him up and held him in jail without really investigating or questioning things.

Link Removed

I also have to mention how the police seem to love to raid a place with swat gear / tactics based on wrong information from online sources. Such as posting from open wifi / hacked wifi / or just someone else's house. seriously crazy how they act over just something as simple as file sharing.. wonder what they do to "death threats".. Go in guns blazing and hose down the criminal miscreants?

Hence why I dont care what people say online..

However, had same crap been said in person.. then its a different story..

as for getting contact information from twitter or facebook / etc.. well its very easy to get lots of information now a days.. Most of those same idiots who post on twitter/facebook etc have all that information posted for their friends to see or world to see if the settings are wrong. More then likely a simple google search can find most of them.

I personally like the post from the guy who said if zimmermen gets off, he will kill himself! -- So do you actually think he will? and if he does, does it matter to the world at large? Most of those idiots posted crap to get just this kind of attention.

AS for your being on a watch list, the anti defamation league and a government agency's watch list are two separate things. though being here might have included you in the latter.

 

[Kasper]

Ok.. FYI - NSA dragnets/etc are supposed to be used against foreign operatives and not on US citizens.
As for words online? made on Twitter/facebook/etc.. Ive been threatened numerous times - infact Ive had someone sending threatening voice messages over xbox.. Most of which I ignored as stupid bull crap idiots say. The verbal threats over xbox I did report to Microsoft, only because I knew they would ban the guy. not because I cared he would do what he said or anything.

I dont want to see the government coming down on everyone who posts stupid stuff online.. Even if it is deadly threat.. More often then not, government cracks the whip, instead of a simple interview.

When government gets involved things go downhill faster then they need..
Case in point is post I made about teenager making a joke to his friend, stupid sure, actual threat no - yet cops arrested him, locked him up and held him in jail without really investigating or questioning things.

Link Removed

I also have to mention how the police seem to love to raid a place with swat gear / tactics based on wrong information from online sources. Such as posting from open wifi / hacked wifi / or just someone else's house. seriously crazy how they act over just something as simple as file sharing.. wonder what they do to "death threats".. Go in guns blazing and hose down the criminal miscreants?

Hence why I dont care what people say online..

However, had same crap been said in person.. then its a different story..

as for getting contact information from twitter or facebook / etc.. well its very easy to get lots of information now a days.. Most of those same idiots who post on twitter/facebook etc have all that information posted for their friends to see or world to see if the settings are wrong. More then likely a simple google search can find most of them.

I personally like the post from the guy who said if zimmermen gets off, he will kill himself! -- So do you actually think he will? and if he does, does it matter to the world at large? Most of those idiots posted crap to get just this kind of attention.

AS for your being on a watch list, the anti defamation league and a government agency's watch list are two separate things. though being here might have included you in the latter.

I can not follow your logic it is invalid. What that teen in Texas posted was a bad joke as he now knows from the reaction he has gotten. The people on twitter posting threats about killing a white boy or cracker are not protected by the first amendment due to it being a threat. If you think that the first amendment will help you next time at the airport near the security screening station start saying the words "Bomb, explosion, Gunpowder" and see if they do not take you in for special screening to see if you have the means to be a threat. As most of us have heard you can not yell fire in a movie theater and be protected by the first amendment. Don't take my word below you will find the url link to the wikipedia page where I quoted from. Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

So any speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic is not protected by the first amendment. So making death threat on twitter and facebook is not protected by the first amendment and is against the law.

Now don't get me wrong, If the Ku Klux Klan or Westboro Baptist Church what to hold a rally they are free to do so and I will support their right to do so even though I do not agree with their message. They have the right to free speech and can continue their rally as long as they are not breaking the law. As I have the option of leaving if I do not want to hear their speech.

So I hope you now understand why those of us here are wanting the police and government to enforce the laws we all have to follow. We are not trying to hamper their first amendment rights in any way we are just holding them to the laws that say you can not threaten someone.

If you see an error in my logic Dunewolf please point it out to me, just as I did for you.