Jump to content

Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen and others say they won't perform in Florida...


All Tell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Florida Stand Your Ground

 

Again, SYG was not the defense's defense in this case...but here is this. This is LAW...think about it the next time you want to ATTACK someone.

 

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Birdflu
If either of these jackwagons boycotted California because of the OJ verdict, I'd have more respect.

 

I couldn't agree more with this statement. OJ had far more evidence against him when he was acquitted than George Zimmerman did. How many protests were there then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hearing the list has grown and now includes current stars such as Justin Timberlake, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Mary J. Blige, Madonna, The Rolling Stones and many others.

 

Can anyone confirm?

If this is true, minus The Rolling Stones, I'd say that's great news for Florida! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one thinks you all are genuises. We like your music, so shut up and sing.

 

This is how I feel for all "stars". However it is they made their money, keep doing that and entertain. Don't open your mouth and show us just how ignorant you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one thinks you all are genuises. We like your music, so shut up and sing.

 

This is how I feel for all "stars". However it is they made their money, keep doing that and entertain. Don't open your mouth and show us just how ignorant you are.

Amen! If they want to protest something, do it in a song!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider a self-appointed watchman who keeps tabs on "suspicious" people in lieu of the police and needs a gun to protect himself in the course of his "duties" to be a form of vigilantism.

 

Self appointed? I thought he was part of an organized neighborhood watch. Regardless, what you call "vigilantism" I call a responsible homeowner and proactive/responsible neighbor. I only wish we could get a watch started in my neighborhood, I would be involved, and I am sure at least sometimes I would carry as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida Stand Your Ground

 

Again, SYG was not the defense's defense in this case...but here is this. This is LAW...think about it the next time you want to ATTACK someone.

 

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

REALLY?!?! That's the law? What in the world could anyone be upset about?

Seriously, what is wrong with that law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self appointed? I thought he was part of an organized neighborhood watch. Regardless, what you call "vigilantism" I call a responsible homeowner and proactive/responsible neighbor. I only wish we could get a watch started in my neighborhood, I would be involved, and I am sure at least sometimes I would carry as well.

 

I'm struggling to figure out what you (and others) consider vigilantism if it isn't what you all keep describing.

 

I'm certainly leery of people taking on the legitimate functions of law enforcement (without the requisite accountability). I don't think there is anything wrong with being vigilant over your home or property, but I believe that also entails allowing the police to handle dangerous situations if one is to arise.

 

Furthermore, I think there are legitimate concerns about the laws in question in that they seem to legitimate some types of reckless behavior. I don't have any problem with self-defense. I question the prudence of a law that could allow someone to be an instigator and then be immune from responsibility so long as they reasonably believe harm is imminent. That appears dangerously broad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hearing the list has grown and now includes current stars such as Justin Timberlake, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Mary J. Blige, Madonna, The Rolling Stones and many others.

 

Wouldn't go see of them even if given FREE front row seats & backstage passes.

 

 

Can anyone confirm?

 

Wouldn't go see of them even if given FREE front row seats & backstage passes.

 

Why would anyone care? If this is news, serious news...than I can start to report to the world every time I change my underwear (which is once a day, if anyone cared). The more we look up to these buffoons the more we dumb down our children. This is all about headlines, nothing more. And it makes me sick, using a dead 17 year old to make money...count me out of that one.

 

BINGO!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to figure out what you (and others) consider vigilantism if it isn't what you all keep describing.

 

I'm certainly leery of people taking on the legitimate functions of law enforcement (without the requisite accountability). I don't think there is anything wrong with being vigilant over your home or property, but I believe that also entails allowing the police to handle dangerous situations if one is to arise.

 

Furthermore, I think there are legitimate concerns about the laws in question in that they seem to legitimate some types of reckless behavior. I don't have any problem with self-defense. I question the prudence of a law that could allow someone to be an instigator and then be immune from responsibility so long as they reasonably believe harm is imminent. That appears dangerously broad.

 

The "legitimate functions of law enforcement" aren't to keep an eye on my property or those of my neighbors on a routine basis. Unfortunately, many/most law enforcement actions are "reactive"...something has happened and they respond. If I want to help ensure my home and my neighborhood are better watched after and help deter un wanted persons and or un wanted actions, then that's up to me and the neighborhood at large.

 

I say one is being vigilant (keenly alert to or heedful of trouble or danger, as while others are sleeping or unsuspicious) when doing this. Being vigilant and being a vigilante are two very separate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.