Jump to content

When will the media learn?


Recommended Posts

Everytime the media talks about the Michael Brown case they always say "unarmed teen was shot and killed."

 

Did the rules change in the U.S. as to what classifies as a legal adult anymore? The last time I checked it was 18 years old.

 

Furthermore it makes me sick to my stomach when you have so many people who do not understand rule of law and that they feel they have the right to loot and riot because they may not like the grand jury decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't speak for Copper. What I think Carrie is getting at here, correct me if I'm wrong, can be summed up as follows: It isn't necessarily bad to be an "ally" or stand in "solidarity" with this oppr

RM is a hypocrite and should rightfully be pointed out as so, but your argument is equally disingenuous and full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. What does it exactly mean that the "rule of law has no re

Thanks (I guess?)   I'm severe because I feel strongly about this. I think the biggest problem, and challenge, facing modern leftism is its tendency towards vicarious victimhood. I think this subjuca

It would be interesting to see how often "teen" vs. "man" is used for 18-19 year olds depending on the circumstance. i.e. would "man" be used more often when describing somebody who robs a convenience store; would "teen" be used more often to describe the employee who was working behind the counter when the crime was perpetrated?

 

idk

 

Regardless, on this particular issue, I'm sure Krawlie is correct and RM incorrect. Would still be interesting to find out if there is any difference in the general usage of words, tho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore it makes me sick to my stomach when you have so many people who do not understand rule of law and that they feel they have the right to loot and riot because they may not like the grand jury decision.

 

I honestly used to feel this way about lots and lots of things but have since come to wonder why everyone isn't outside doing this stuff 24/7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore it makes me sick to my stomach when you have so many people who do not understand rule of law and that they feel they have the right to loot and riot because they may not like the grand jury decision.

Merits of this case aside, I think it's a little funny that despite your criticism, whenever there's a highly sensationalized criminal trial (whether it be this one, Casey Anthony, etc), sure as sh-t, you're always like the first person on here bitching about something. You ever stop and think that as much as you supposedly despise the rabble rousers, you're really a bit of a gadfly yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Furthermore it makes me sick to my stomach when you have so many people who do not understand rule of law and that they feel they have the right to loot and riot because they may not like the grand jury decision.

I honestly used to feel this way about lots and lots of things but have since come to wonder why everyone isn't outside doing this stuff 24/7.

 

Let me guess, you're out there with a molotov cocktail yourself then... O master of the armchair activists?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At 17 years old can you legally vote in a election?

 

The point I am making is the media disregards the basic fact that he was not a teenager but a legal adult.

 

Driver you are right it has no bearing on the case at hand, but those who want to riot scream "he was a kid!" He was not a kid. He was a fully grown man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrie those must be some good drugs.

 

Unless you want to discuss the topic move on.

Again, stop trying to weasel your way out of this. It makes you look like you don't have an answer.

 

 

I am discussing the topic. I'm pointing out that anyone in this thread should take you very skeptically and that you are not worth wasting time on. The reason is because you constantly bellyache about the very behavior that you frequently engage in. For example, despite you claiming to somehow have some respect for the rule of law, in the Casey Anthony case, it was pretty evident that you were completely ready to sh-t on a fundamental legal principle that dates back to courts in the English middle ages... and why? Because you didn't like the outcome based on a preconceived bias that wasn't based on legal principles at all.

 

And now, you all come in here pretending like people need to respect the rule of law, and the grand jury's decision, and so on. And again.. why? Because now you have an opposite bias. Let's cut the sh-t here, shall we? You don't actually have any knowledge of what the rule of law even is, so stop pretending. This has nothing to do about the rule of law, it has to do with what cases annoy your personal feelings, and which don't.

 

In other words, you're completely full of it on this topic, and it's completely reasonable for me to point this out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Furthermore it makes me sick to my stomach when you have so many people who do not understand rule of law and that they feel they have the right to loot and riot because they may not like the grand jury decision.

I honestly used to feel this way about lots and lots of things but have since come to wonder why everyone isn't outside doing this stuff 24/7.

 

Let me guess, you're out there with a molotov cocktail yourself then... O master of the armchair activists?

 

If you could tell me why I shouldn't be that'd be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually my #1 complaint on the Casey Anthony case was it was a case being tried in the media rather than the court of law.

 

The things the media did was build up in everyones mind was that she was guilty and ignored how some wvidence is allowed in and when it isnt. What we knew by watching the b news isnt what the jury got sometimes.

 

I still think she was guilty personally but her lawyers created reasonable doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually my #1 complaint on the Casey Anthony case was it was a case being tried in the media rather than the court of law.

 

The things the media did was build up in everyones mind was that she was guilty and ignored how some wvidence is allowed in and when it isnt. What we knew by watching the b news isnt what the jury got sometimes.

 

I still think she was guilty personally but her lawyers created reasonable doubt.

OK well that post is not all that unreasonable, and if that's what you had said, I wouldn't be bringing this up. But that's not what you said. You called the whole thing a mockery of justice, and that the concept of "reasonable doubt" was "bs," you were even advocating for a boycott, and so on. I mean, it's all here if you forgot: http://nightly.net/topic/69696-casey-anthony/page-4

 

So, again, you're basically engaging in the same behavior. Maybe you're not being violent, and there's definitely something to be said for that, but you have the same mentality and you don't even realize it. This isn't about the rule of law for you, this is whether criminal suspects are personally sympathetic to you, and if they aren't, you think they should be guilty. That's not the rule of law, that's the rule of your own emotional opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...