Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 But the biggest problem to me is the dumb ass suburban paranoia and the uselessness of neighborhood watch which has no impact on crime rates and promotes this type of vigilante stuff from want to be cop types. The only positive of the program is improving relationships between police and the community, but there are other programs that can do the same without involving the community in police like activities since citizens often end up "patrolling" etc. even though they're not supposed to as part of the official Neighborhood Watch program.

Well I cant deny the entire concept of the neighborhood watch gets thrown out the window when there are multiple 911 calls and none of the callers have the balls enough to go outside or to even look out the ing window. But again larger beyond the smaller particular instance. If Zimmerman was really interested in preventing crime in his own neighborhood certainly , there are several other more effective options. He definitely went the "easy" route of 'patrolling' the community rather than 'building' a community

I think something i wrote a few days ago is deleted now....

Originally Posted by caltab The neighborhood wasn't some idealic gated suburb from my understanding. It had quite a few instances of crime. It wasn't just paranoia- there was real crime taking place in that specific neighborhood. Also, neighborhood watches arent limited to suburbia, in fact I believe there are tons of them right were you live in ATL.

Of course. But crime in those types of areas is still relatively rare and there are better ways to stay safe than neighbor patrols. Research simply finds neighborhood watch, and community policing initiatives in general, simply don't prevent crime. They make people feel safer (despite not having an impact on crime) and can improve police-community relationships, but that's about it.

The biggest problem with them is they're the easiest to implement in lower crime areas--not just the idealistic suburbs, but also just areas of a city that have some crime, but not enough for people to be freaking out about.

The true crime hot spots are plagued by concentrated disadvantage, rampant distrust of the police etc. so it's very difficult to effectively implement neighborhood watch or any type of police-community partnerships as there simply isn't much community there. Any work that gets done tends to get done by neighborhood churches and non-profit organizations.

But in general, people just freak out too much about crime. It happens quite abit around my neighborhood--though not nearly as much as in the bad areas of the city. It's just not worth worrying about. Just use common sense. Live in a secure building/community if you can afford it, don't have parties where you have friends of friends etc. show up (lots of burglaries are committed by people who've been in your home), don't walk around alone at night, be aware and looking around when walking around at anytime, rather than distracting ing around on your phone etc. Simple stuff like that will go much further in reducing your victimization risk than silly shit like neighborhood watch and constantly being paranoid of crime and suspicious of anyone you don't know.

Originally Posted by GBAstar Edit: Not trying to stir the pot here because I don't think it necessarily aides either side but I read in an article that the FBI deemed but the used of a racial slur and the screaming as inconclusive; meaning that they couldn't decide if Zimmerman said coons or not or if the screaming was Zimmerman's or Martin's. Anyone else read that?

I find it even more interesting that they're looking into charging him with a hate crime despite it. Federal cases aren't built just for the hell of it.

Originally Posted by caltab heres the actual 911 call, I would say its not the way you describe: 911 dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21] Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25 This part of the call would not contradict his statement he was looking for an address. He generally knew where he was, but didn't have an actual address, which was requested by the dispatcher. I am pretty sure he never was able to give the dispatcher the name of the street he was on. I don't find it unbelievable he wouldn't know the name of the street. I live in a small neighborhood and couldn't tell you all the names of the few streets. I am sure thats not unique.

There's a lot more to the conversation and 2 lines don't make your case. Neither does you not knowing the streets around your neighborhood when you don't go patrolling it like the neighborhood wannabe cop and that's what makes Zimmerman unique.

Also, I know the stress test cannot be used in court- but that doesn't mean it had absolutely no value in trying to discover the truth. Investigators use it for a reason.

Sure, but straight up lying to suspects about known facts is also just as effective. I'm not saying that it has no value, just not as much as you seem to give it credit for as most people's perceptions of it are based on pure bullshit. Maury Povich makes millions off it people's misconceptions of it.

Originally Posted by caltab The neighborhood wasn't some idealic gated suburb from my understanding. It had quite a few instances of crime. It wasn't just paranoia- there was real crime taking place in that specific neighborhood. Also, neighborhood watches arent limited to suburbia, in fact I believe there are tons of them right were you live in ATL.

Well let's be more specific here. There were a few burglaries that were perpetrated by a couple of black males. One of which was caught if I remember correctly. Which leads us to why Zimmerman decided to follow Martin to begin with. Unknown black male is not a reason to be suspicious. It's dumb and racist to think that all unknown black males are possible suspects if they happen to be walking down a certain street.

I don't think the stress test itself has that much value, but I think it could give some indication of how believable he will be when he testifies. If his statements are consistent (which we haven't really seen them all yet) and he is a believable witness on the stand that can only help him at trial. This case could largely turn on whether or not a jury believes his story.

Dazzled at the linguistic gymnastics both sides are using to deflect facts that support or hurt their opinions of what happened. The Dershowitz article was quite interesting as he seems to view it from a legal perspective, while criticizing the prosecution, which he feels is doing a poor job. He's got some history in law and the prosecution doing a poor job.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 They are LOOKING at it as a possibility or investigating it (hate crime by the fed) because of all the hoopla that was stirred up and that is all. That doesn't mean they will make a charge of hate crime or that there is evidence that it is. They bowed to pressure from certain special interest groups. I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens.

You and doh should bet. It would be fun to see what you two could come up with as payment on the bet.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 I never said anything defending alcohol (NEVER) or denying its effects much less "handwaving" deaths caused by it NEVER!!

Actually you handwaved it by saying it's legal and to write my representative if I don't like it. This is after you gave your criteria for the reason why weed is a Bad Thing and that your hobbies are free from murders, deaths, kidnappings, rape, and corruption, which is just plain ignorance. If other hobbies are directly responsible for the above, then your labels of bad and illegal are meaningless in relation to innocence when many forms of recreation are also directly responsible for those things while being legal.

But thanks for responding to my post without truly responding to the actual content and question of my post (just like the other responses to me). It shows what most everyone here knows you are no man and childish as hell. I knew you couldn't man up. Typical. Go ahead and play your games.

I'm sorry if my answers are too complicated for you.

Thanks also for alluding to, by all of your responses to me, that because there are other bads then the bad of illegal drugs/use and it's problems are then somehow magically made okay or doesn't exist. Since you don't want to MAN UP and answer the topic and questions directly we are left with that. Adult sane responses by you to the topic. NOT!!

I know you think you're pwning me on this one, but didn't I JUST say in a couple of posts above this one that weed and alcohol directly cause all of the same bad things you describe?

Want to try again? Is it possible for you to MAN UP?

I don't think you know what "manning up" looks like.

edit: Focus DohDough I have hope for you.. not really buts let's try anyway...FOCUS. You even quoted me above in my first post on the topic "OFF topic but since when is using an illegal drug that is directly responsible for thousands of murders and deaths considered an acceptable recreational activity? FOCUS dohdough it is illegal drugs/use and its direct ties with horrific costs to life and humanity. Here was the last question I posted so try to focus "So you are okay with illegal drugs and use and deny that it causes everything I said?" You can break it down to 1. So are you okay with ILLEGAL DRUG use? 2. Do you deny it (illegal drugs/use) is directly responsible for everything I said it is? (kidnapping rape and murder by the thousands as the top three) Show us all that big brain of yours and give it that good old college try (if you truly went to college) and don't give the same playground and or mental ward rhetoric unless that is all you are capable of.. edit: I know it's not illegal EVERYWHERE I was talking about where it is illegal and its ILLEGAL use and the enormous problems and god awful crimes that accompany it. Nor am I was I talking about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal. Illegal use is directly responsible for horrific crimes. I personally can't condone or be a part of illegal use because of what is behind it. Also as I said I will gladly discuss other BAD things, activities, recreations, products etc etc with you and offer my opinions (which i have not yet) legal or illegal when you man up to this topic and my questions.

Your argument of saying that something is bad because it is illegal and causes xyz falls apart when something legal causes 2(xyz). You can't base your argument on the illegality of something without examining why it's illegal and other things aren't especially if they are directly responsible for the same damn things.

I also find it hilarious that over the course of 6 hours, you've edited this post at least 6 times while not adding anything substantive. "Manning up" would also imply taking responsibility for what they say and not editing stuff that distorts their original argument. There's a reason why I quote posts.

Originally Posted by berzirk You and doh should bet. It would be fun to see what you two could come up with as payment on the bet.

Nice troll attempt, but I'm not convinced that it will result in a charge. But LOLZ@ "special interest groups."

Originally Posted by dohdough Nice troll attempt, but I'm not convinced that it will result in a charge. But LOLZ@ "special interest groups."

Hunh? How was I trolling? Should I have been talking about onramps in and around Atlanta instead? I just thought it would be funny if you guys bet, considering Pliskin said "I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens" and you had mentioned that the Feds were investigating it and the charge was a possibility.

If anything, I figured it would be taken as an attack on Pli for making a rather bold statement with nothing but a guess to base it on.

Was the lolz @ special interest groups directed my way or someone else? I don't recall saying anything about them. I'm confused.

Whew, this thread has waaay too much sand in way too many vaginas. Peace ya'll.

Originally Posted by berzirk Hunh? How was I trolling? Should I have been talking about onramps in and around Atlanta instead? I just thought it would be funny if you guys bet, considering Pliskin said "I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens" and you had mentioned that the Feds were investigating it and the charge was a possibility. If anything, I figured it would be taken as an attack on Pli for making a rather bold statement with nothing but a guess to base it on.

I meant that you were egging him on, albeit sarcastically. I don't think he needs the encouragement.

Was the lolz @ special interest groups directed my way or someone else? I don't recall saying anything about them. I'm confused. Whew, this thread has waaay too much sand in way too many vaginas. Peace ya'll.

A little of both. I'm just curious to see if anyone had any comments about it.

I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points.
You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use.
There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping.
There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities.
The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances.

If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something

Originally Posted by EdRyder I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points. You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use. There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping. There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities. The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances. If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something

You sir, are my new favorite poster. Brilliantly stated. Well played!

Originally Posted by EdRyder I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points. You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use. There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping. There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities. The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances. If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something

Hi there.

It's nice to see a summary of the points we used in our arguments, but you're mistaking my points for the argument itself. My initial argument was that with the newly released information about the presence of trace amounts of THC in Martin's system, people are more concerned about the ridiculous notion that he was somehow high as a ing kite and how THC gives the user hulk-like strength and spastic movements. While at the same time, Zimmerman probably had a higher concentration of 3 strong prescription drugs to help with his anxiety, aggressive tendencies, and insomnia, yet no one really gives a flying as evidenced by several other posters as you yourself had seen.

Then Pliskin decided to grace us with the superficial argument that the devil weed, aka PCP to some, is a Bad Thing that causes other Bad Things, but most of all, illegal. He's more concerned with claiming moral superiority by saying that his choices of recreational activities are somehow immune from similar types of harm. It's a ridiculous premise that shouldn't need to be explained. You might've missed that part because he edited it out of his post. Fortunately, I still have an unedited version of it in one of my own posts.

It's right here if you want to refresh your memory:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/...&postcount=933

I'm not disputing that there are negative effects, but arguing that the entire way he's composing his arguments as simply dumb. It's just one giant mess of dissonance. I don't expect people to be 100% logically consistent; that's impossible, but I do expect people not to make outlandish claims to make themselves look like the have the moral highground.

Where is Yendel?

Not all marijuana comes from Mexico....

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 I can move on now and be very happy that my recreational substance use enjoyed within the confines of my home with one glass with my wife is nowhere near the same thing. It does not contribute to anything like illegal drug use does to the photo above and my point. So yes I can comfortably take the higher ground especially since Dohdough really wants to push that and ignore the rest ... I figured why not because it is the "higher" (lol) ground.

Actually, yeah, if this were the 20s/30s you'd be contributing to gang violence according to your thoughts on marijuana.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 I can't tell if you are serious or not...anyway Is it the 20's ot 30's? NO. I am totally safe in my assessment of my use as I already said. BTW not my thoughts on marijuana it is... some of my thoughts, backed up by fact, on illegal marijuana use and activity. Not even all my thoughts on illegal marijuana or marijuana as a whole. As summed up by EdRyder ""There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."

And? There's no mention of the source of the cartel's power in that assessment - a monopoly enforced by the State, not only in various arms of the government (including military) defending and then trafficking substances into the country, but legislatively, by criminalizing the growth, possession, and sale of substances by the ruled class.

Strip the State-enforced monopoly and the cartel's power is gone, and with it, murder, rape, and kidnapping. To argue otherwise is to deny the effects of prohibition of alcohol.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 I can't tell if you are serious or not...anyway Is it the 20's ot 30's? NO. I am totally safe in my assessment of my use as I already said. BTW not my thoughts on marijuana it is... some of my thoughts, backed up by fact, on illegal marijuana use and activity. Not even all my thoughts on illegal marijuana or marijuana as a whole. As summed up by EdRyder ""There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."

Make marijuana legal, drug cartels go away. End of story. There were also murders and gangs when prohibition was around, so this is nothing new. I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make here.

Damn, me and Abscess are basically saying the same thing. JINX!!!

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 Listen I know where you were going and this whole simple point I was making can turn into dozens of pages on if pot should be legal if it shouldn't, health issues, economic issues, illegal immigration issues, terrorism issues, petty crime issues, prison issues and on and on and on. I made a simple point that is fact and a moron couldn't admit that simple thing. I am not here to be the goto person for debate on MARIJUANA and everything associated with it. If people want to get into all the aspects of this then maybe they should start a thread. I made my point and it is FACT. Again I will not be here as the goat for a long and drawn out debate on the overall subject of marijuana with hundreds of facets and mini topics associated with it. Have a good day.

Well, you're basically trying to say marijuana is responsible for people murdering and raping people, when you could easily say that religion is responsible for murdering and raping people. I'm just saying that the association that you created is wrong.