Laughing will get you killed................

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
Well this is just pathetic, really.

The shooter is an utter moron who should be eliminated the way Lestoil eliminates stink. The same for his gang.

The victim, as unfortunate as his death is- perhaps should have thought better of laughing at an animal that he couldn't control.

The sheeple (see bold below) are cowardly Eloi.

And the politicians who keep them disarmed and tasty treats for mad dogs are scum- they need to shut up, say nothing about good guys having a damed gun and get out of their way so they can use them.:fire:


http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/4824.htm

Everyone was too scared to say anything, she says.

PARADE'S DEADLY DISS

By ANDY GELLER, LARRY CELONA and HEIDI SINGER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



September 3, 2003 -- An aspiring teacher was shot to death at the West Indian Day Parade because he laughed at a Bloods gang member for making hand signs, a witness to the incomprehensible slaying says.
The witness, whose name is being withheld by The Post, was just a few feet away when Anthony Bartholomew, 21, was murdered Monday.

"He got killed because he dissed a Bloods gang member making hand signs," she says. "The area is Bloods territory. You can get killed for that."

The tragedy unfolded as Bartholomew and a friend were standing behind a police barricade on Eastern Parkway between Kingston and Brooklyn avenues, the witness says.

Three men in their 20s walked by, one of them making the hand signs of the Bloods gang, she says.

He had two middle fingers down and three up and he was moving his hand from side to side and up and down.

He didn't appear to be making the gestures to anyone in particular.



Bartholomew, who was studying to be a teacher at Kingsborough Community College, laughed at him, the witness says.

The man, who was wearing a brown sweatsuit and had a red bandana around his forehead, gestured as if to say, "What's your problem?"

But Bartholomew, the father of a month-old baby, just continued laughing.

"He just laughed," the witness says. "He knew what the gestures meant and he laughed."

The witness says the man with the red bandana and his two cohorts stopped by a tree and stared at Bartholomew and his pal, who ignored them.

A few moments later, Bartholomew and his buddy saw a float they liked and they jumped over the police barricade.

The three other men followed.

The witness says the man with the red bandana bumped Bartholomew and when the new father turned around, his stalker pulled out a gun and fired two shots, one striking Bartholomew on the right side of his forehead.

People scattered when the shots rang out, but for some reason, the man with the red bandana returned to the scene after the shooting, the witness says.

Everyone was too scared to say anything, she says.

She says the second of the three men wore a red shirt and black pants and the third wore oversized pants and sneakers.

Cops could not corroborate the witness' account.

They said the shooting involved two groups who may have bumped each other in the frenzied crowd. Someone in the shooter's group hit someone in Bartholomew's group before the bullets started flying, they said.

Witnesses reported seeing someone making gang signs after the shooting, they said.
 
I'm hoping...

Hello 2dogs,

I'm hoping that the general public will realize at some point that when a gang opnely displays their "sign" that they have definitively proven who and what they are. At that point the gang members need to understand that they have painted a big red bulls eye on themselves, not just for rival gangs but for John Q public as well. These people aren't in these gangs for the well being of others. They are in these gangs because there's safety in numbers for scumbags. Let the public start thinning those herds and I can guarantee there will be less gang violence as well as less gang participation (through fewer gang members).

I believe in fighting fire with fire. Unfortunately gangs fighting other gangs isn't a controled fire but rather a renegade fire. When gangs kill off other gang members no one really cares and it martyrs the dead "gangstuh" insiting more violence for retribution. If they don't know where it's going to come from or when and can't attribute it to a rival gang they'll start worrying about it. In my opinion, if they can be positively IDed they become a target and that's how it should be. That's also the only way to control these lowlifes.

Deadmen tell no tales as it were.

Take care,

DRC

Disclaimer:

These are my opinions only and do not necessarily represent the opinions of this board or any of it's members.
 
At the very least, if these guys want to have their own "turf" we should throw a wall up around it so that they can't go out and mix with human beings. Then let them have at each other until there's not a man (and I use the term loosely) left standing amongst them.
 
DRC, just to be clear, are you advocating shooting gang members on sight? If so, EXACTLY how do you define 'gang' (and 'member' for that matter)?
 
In principle, shooting gang members on sight would seem like a solution of sorts. How do you reliably identify who is in a gang, though? Clarify that, and the suggestion would seem less fanciful.
 
Main thing I'm thinking matches up with what 2dogs said in that it's high time we clear out all obstacles to lawful self-defense and ride out on rail anyone that stands in the way. Let it be open season on all criminal scum that dare threaten the lives and limbs of lawful citizens. A lot of those punk-a$$ gang members would be taken care in the process, I'm sure.
 
The witless victim in this ugly tale asked for trouble and he got it in spades. Doesn't justify the act, but the demonstrated level of judgement is on a par with a trout fisherman who taunts a grizzly. There are beasts out there, and it doesn't do to confront them on their terms unless you can accept the consequences.

That said, Bartholemew might have been in a more defensible position if he'd been armed, but maybe not. The judgement/SA thing and all...

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Hello Tearsofrage.

Intresting user name btw.

"DRC, just to be clear, are you advocating shooting gang members on sight? If so, EXACTLY how do you define 'gang' (and 'member' for that matter)?"

Hmmm. How do I define "gang"? I might be in the minority here but I, personally, define a gang by it's rap sheet and actions along with affiliation. Do I advocate shooting them on sight? For tohers I cannot speak but for myself I can say if you want to put an end to it, Yes.(do I do this? No, but I haven't had any call to either.) Should those put in those positions or that live in areas where these things are previlent do so? They make their own decisions but if I were there and put in that situation I would.

I look at it this way, if they're going to shoot at me, my family or even in my general direction, I'm going to shoot back. Also, cry not for the perpetrators as they have created the victim not the other way around. Believe what you will but there comes a point in time where things have to change. These gang members have no respect for you or I or anyone except themselves and their homeys. It always amazes me to hear gang members use the term "dis" which is derived from the word disrespect which gang members have no idea what the meaning of that word or its root is. They don't warrant respect nor should they receive it. They should only receive disdain and loathing IMO of course.

Golgo-13,

"In principle, shooting gang members on sight would seem like a solution of sorts. How do you reliably identify who is in a gang, though? Clarify that, and the suggestion would seem less fanciful."

First there is no "principle" to shooting another human being so please don't try to paint it in that light, but that's not to say it's not necessary on occasion.

As I said earlier in identifying a gang member look at their record, to identify one out in public however, is what I believe you're asking. After reading the article that started the thread would you or would you not have been able to identify the punk as a gang member (providing you knew what the signs meant)? If you lived in that area you would most likely know what the signs were for self preservation. People shouldn't live in fear, but then I don't classify gangs or their members as people.

I don't mean to come across as being harsh, but desperate times require desperate measures. When something like this happens people should (IMO) declare war on this scurge not run away from it. Most would say "Well, if you just keep your mouth shut and look the other way you can live another day." They killed a guy for laughing according to the article, perhaps he will kill another for looking the wrong way or for his own misperception of what someone else was doing. In any event it could be you or me next and for myself if it comes down to him living or me, I'm going to remain standing every time but you can do what your conscience will allow.

As I've stated before I speak for no one but myself and my suggestion is no more than my opinion on a correct course of action to take care of the problem. If you want the cold, hard truth these gangs are nothing more than urban terrorists and allowing them to remain sets a precidence for any other terrorist. Think about that.

Take care folks and please forgive me. I have no tolerance for these wastes of human skin called "gang members."

DRC
 
They killed a guy for laughing according to the article, perhaps he will kill another for looking the wrong way or for his own misperception of what someone else was doing.

So certain gestures are now a capital crime, not even deserving of a trial?
Please post a list of exactly which gestures you would shoot someone for making so that I won't accidently make them.

I have heard of people getting assaulted for accidentally wearing the wrong color shirt etc., but the people who hurt them were criminals and hopefully got caught, tried, and punished.






On a lighter note, does the ATF count as a gang? They do wear similar clothes, have hand signals, and a tendency to shoot at people.... :D
 
DRC,

I hope you don't off any of my deaf cousins by accident. The 'bloods' sign happens to be identical to the ASL sign for "I love you."

Heh. Got a great picture of my grandma saying "I love you" to one of her great grandkids. The guys at the photo shop were slightly astonished to see the picture of this saintly looking old lady in a nursing home flashing gang signs at a teenage kid.

pax
 
I ocassionally take photographs at events for work in Chicagoland. When taking photographs at events children (10+)attempt to flash hand signals when I take their pictures. I have always interpeted this as gang symbols and refrused to take the photograph or reframe it so the hands are cut off:evil: . This occurs in church choirs, upscale family members. work events etc....


pax,1)Have any of the ASL symbols "crossed over" to mainstream teen usage that yopu know of ? 2) I have heard of cases of people using ASL being shot because their signing was misinterpeted as gang symbols. Do you know if that is an urban legend or fact?

Thank you

NukemJim
 
I'll write slowly so that you can follow along.

With all due respect to those responding to my heavy handed suggestion and opinion (which I stand by btw), let me first say stop trying to protect the criminals and blame the victims. Second I'm not an unintelligent or irrational individual either. I do my research.

"I have heard of people getting assaulted for accidentally wearing the wrong color shirt etc., but the people who hurt them were criminals and hopefully got caught, tried, and punished."

Let's emphasize the words "hopefully got caught" because in the article the killer, murderer, criminal, perpetrator not only got away with his criminal act but returned to the scene of the crime and still he walked. Will he do it again? Sure! Why? Because he got away with it once and that increases his odds of getting away with it a second time. Lets also include that he got away with it because people are scared and there is no reason to be scared of people like this. The sad fact is that you know doing anything against them will insight retaliation from these gangs so you might as well go in shooting since that's what's coming your way.

Another thing you might have heard is that gang members that get shot in a gang shooting but aren't killed sometimes end up getting shot again while receiving medical treatment in an emergency room. The shooters from the rival gangs aren't even concerned about hitting innocent bystanders, doctors, nurses, men, women or children while in the act of their emergency room shooting sprees. They shouldn't get a fair trial or due process they should be given a full autopsy while they're still alive without benefit of anesthetic (IMO of course)

Most people that live in these boroughs know what gangs are in the area and who the gang members are so there isn't as much guess work to it as you're wrongly eluding to.

I liked this from Leatherneck:

"The witless victim in this ugly tale asked for trouble and he got it in spades. Doesn't justify the act, but the demonstrated level of judgement is on a par with a trout fisherman who taunts a grizzly. There are beasts out there, and it doesn't do to confront them on their terms unless you can accept the consequences."

So the victim is at fault? After all he asked for it didn't he??? That is insanity! The victim was laughing, so then laughing justifies the deadly use of a firearm??? Sos not to confuse the easily confused around here "But DRC you're saying that you're justified in shooting someone for simply showing gang signs!" John Q public laughing is quite a bit different than a gang member running around flashing gang signs. Laughing is something we all do but gang signs are typically reserved for gang members and member wannabes just so that you know because I realize how confusing that can get ;) And if one is in a gang one objective is not to build playgrounds and plant flowers. Are you with me so far? Good.

"On a lighter note, does the ATF count as a gang? They do wear similar clothes, have hand signals, and a tendency to shoot at people...."

Gosh Tears, I didn't realize you and perhaps some others couldn't tell the difference between the ATF and a common street thug, so here's some help for you, the big white ATF across their shirts or jackets is a dead give-away :) Seriously though you're reading my post as saying I want to kill them without knowing definitively whether or not they are gang members, just because they may flash a gang sign. I've already said it before but I will reiterate. The people in these areas KNOW what gangs are in the area and who most of the gang members are so for them they already have positive ID on these criminals, but instead of fighting back they cower in fear of retaliation. Well here's an example of "It doesn't matter what you do. You could be next." My favorite movie line was from "An Innocent Man" said by Butcher Hicks "You don't have to stand tall, but sometimes you've got to stand up." Peaceful sollutions aren't within these gangs abilities and people need not try to negotiate peace with criminal scum on US soil. They are urban terrorists and should be treated as such. If the law doesn't get them someone else will.

Pax

"DRC,

I hope you don't off any of my deaf cousins by accident. The 'bloods' sign happens to be identical to the ASL sign for "I love you."

Although coming from you this is demented and sad, but also humorous to an extent hopefully your not suggesting that I'm unable to discern sign language from gang signs? It's my opinion that some of the folks in this string are trying to place me as a perpetrator to ease any tensions that my post might have caused and that's fine but it still completely assinine. I'm not advocating shooting the innocent, but gangs and their members aren't innocent.

I may seem a bit passionate about this subject but it is because I have a friend that was involved in a gang initiation and not as a willing participant. Fortunately he's still alive but did not get out unscathed. The initiation was as stupid as this articles subject matter. Two gang pledges were instructed to kill a white man, not my friend in particular just any white man but he happened to be the unlucky one. He got cut up pretty bad with some good puncture wounds and a deep laseration to his throat. The two criminals did get caught but one got 8 years and the other 15 years WITH eligibility for parol. There intent was to kill so is this justice? Not in my opinion.

Sorry to be so long winded but it just amazes me how some in this thread want to defend the criminals and blame the victim when it should be the other way around. A dead criminal is not a "victim" and is in fact a "dead criminal." An innocent person that gets killed is a "victim." (just as a matter of reference for you folks.)

Take care,

DRC
 
I liked this from Leatherneck:
Obviously not. Read what I said
Doesn't justify the act, but

Innocently laughing? At a private joke maybe? If so, I'll retract my position that Bart's personal stupidity and bravado in the face of a subhuman caused his death---predictably. But something tells me that there was an element of direct challenge of a banger by an unarmed dimwit at play here.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Leatherneck

"Doesn't justify the act, but..."

You forgot the rest of it.

"...the demonstrated level of judgement is on a par with a trout fisherman who taunts a grizzly."

But there in lies the problem, you don't know that and neither do I. Your assumption is that there must have been something more to it and the victim should have known better. While I tend to agree that there are pieces of the story missing, the truth that we have available is that an unarmed man was shot to death in cold blood by a gang member (regardless of circumstances) If someone laughs at me or calls me names regardless of how offended or disrespected I feel I do not have the right to shoot them for it regardless of whether that person should have known better. That's the problem; these criminal minds think that (by virtue of their rather warped definition) if someone is disrespectful to them that gives them the right to take care of matters in whatever manner they see fit. That is why I'm all for the general public taking matters into their own hands where gangs and gang members are concerned. There is not enough law enforcement to go around for them to be all places at all times, AND when you know what the oposition (e.g. the gangs) are going to you or someone else, to me it is an immediate threat to me or my family and friends and it isn't an idle threat either.

In all honesty I did like what you said, and as I said, do not completely disagree with you on it, but too many people are too quick to blame the victim over the criminal because the victim "...just should have known better." What if the guy just thought that the hand gestures were funny looking but didn't know what they meant (highly unlikely but...) Would you still give the victim 50% of the blame? If a person is a gang member they're scum as far as I'm concerned and I have no use for them. If a gang member kills another gang member thats one less we have to deal with, but the shooter is still a murderer and should get the death penalty regardless of how it's carried out and by whom. If a gang member threatens an innocent person whatever action the innocent person takes should be automatically deemed self defense IMO. Why? Because the gangs will retaliate guaranteed. Do this and gangs will be much less visible and a lot quieter about their affiliation and their actions in said gang because they will then be the ones that are scared.

I also agree that had the victim been armed things might have been different but the eliment of surprise would have prevailed even then I'm afraid. The only good scumbag is a dead scumbag.

Take care,

DRC
 
So the good people of these neighborhoods need to just rise up and righteously smite the evil gangbangers? A solution of Hollywoodian simplicity. See, part of what you are ignoring here is that the gangbangers do not spontaneously generate from organic debris. Neither are they parachuted from alien skyships. Nor do they exist in a vacuum, interacting with the good people only to kill them from time to time. The gangbangers are the friends, neighbors, classmates, relatives, and children of the good people of the neighborhood. Gangbangers are part of the neighborhood, in fact. What you are saying is that the good people of the neighborhood need to kill their own kith and kin. That is as unrealistic as anything I have ever heard. If you propose to go in there and do it for them (whether they want it or not), we are back to the question of "how do you know who is a gangbanger and who isn't?" To too many folks, every black kid in baggy clothes, every white kid with a shaved head and a black tee-shirt, every asian kid with tatoos and flashy clothes, are all automatically gangbangers. They know this, you see, because teevee and movies have taught them that this is so.
There is a solution to gang violence, but I suspect it isn't through wholesale murder. There were previous peaks of gang violence in the history of the US. Although individual criminals were killed, usually by lawmen, the problem was never solved by killing everyone who was thought to be involved.
It is emotionally satisfying to vent that they all need killing. It isn't practical. It isn't workable. It isn't going to happen. If you had any other goal than venting, perhaps you might want to put your energies to devising a realistic solution.
 
Read "Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America*", especially the chapter "Urban Street Gangs".

Interesting.





*Some have called the author a racist- I really don't know much about him other than the bio on the book jacket- I did not find anything I considered racist in the book. He does talk about civil war possibly developing on racial/ethnic lines, but other than a war of left/right that seems like a reasonable guess. And he certainly does not advocate civil war.


Read it...................maybe I'm wrong.
 
I think the line about how the gang members are part of the community was interesting. Of course KKK members were part of the community. Heck, any group is made up of parts of the community. The german brown shirts, the SS, and even the jews that were rounded up. Somehow I don't see gangs being compared to boy scout groups doing projects that benefit their community.

Just because they are people you know does not mean they can do the things they do and get away without repercussions.

And I did not take any post to be along the lines of walking around and acting as judge and jury on everyone you lay eyes on. I took it as being slamming someone into their rightful place when they step out of the normal bounds that a civilization is trying to live by.

I feel the public at large needs to realize that police can not be everywhere and even when they are there they don't have to risk life and limb to protect you. A search about court cases will turn up old threads with proof of this.

My current problem with my elected nuts is they limit how I can protect myself if I wish to obey the letter of the law.

I do not go out of my way to tell people how I think they should behave. I do not want my post to be taken that way. I will usually let things go and ignore things so I don't stir up a hornet's nest.

My problem with the above article is that the public should have been armed and when they saw someone shoot someone else in public they should have done something.

Of course I am still laughing about the idea that a blood or whatever was walking down the street and making the sign for "I love you" to everyone he passed, and then got mad when someone saw how silly some gang signs can be. Gangs often don't research what symbols mean, and in many cases even common ones like the "ok" sign most everyone uses in the USA can mean other things in other countries. So we have a teacher laughing because some kid was ignorant of what all he may be saying to people.
 
After the young ethic urban gangs, what next? Would you shoot a bunch of bad-??? looking bikers (complete with skull and iron cross do-dads) who wear a club patch on their backs and use hand signals to communicate? After all we all know they are all Nazi meth dealing thieves, right?


Then you just killed a LEO. One of the clubs in the area when I used to ride was the Blue Knights, who are all LEOs. Another was the Knights of Life, who are paramedics and firemen. You can't judge a book by its cover.
 
Well said biere.

I was merely being more blunt, but you've made the point better than I did. Thank you.

Tears,

Quit trying to protect the bad guys.

"Would you shoot a bunch of bad-??? looking bikers (complete with skull and iron cross do-dads) who wear a club patch on their backs and use hand signals to communicate?"

I'll play your silly game and answer your question with a question. Are the "bad-??? looking bikers" shooting at me, someone else or threatening to do so???

"After all we all know they are all Nazi meth dealing thieves, right?"

They are??? That's a new one on me. When did this happen?

"Then you just killed a LEO. One of the clubs in the area when I used to ride was the Blue Knights, who are all LEOs. Another was the Knights of Life, who are paramedics and firemen. You can't judge a book by its cover."

And to finish my point to you, did the Blue Knights or Knights of Life ever shoot at you, someone else or threaten to do so with a rap sheet and history to prove they would follow through with their threat? I think not. You're trying to coddle the wrong people and use law abiding good guys as an example to defend criminal scum. Sorry, but that's why these problems exist because people try to justify inaction as well as illegal action. Why do you think these problems exist? I'll tell you. Because no one is doing anything about it and the law (due to so many new regulations, restrictions and protections for criminals and the criminals know this) can't do anything in many cases.

Golgo-13,

"So the good people of these neighborhoods need to just rise up and righteously smite the evil gangbangers?"

Only if they want to end the problem otherwise they can stick to the status quo and get shot in a drive by while watching TV in their own living room. But that's for them to decide. You did hit the nail on the head though; gangbangers are "evil" and should be dealt with accordingly.

"See, part of what you are ignoring here is that the gangbangers do not spontaneously generate from organic debris. Neither are they parachuted from alien skyships. Nor do they exist in a vacuum,..."

You don't say?

"The gangbangers are the friends, neighbors, classmates, relatives, and children of the good people of the neighborhood."

And as I said the "good people of the neighborhood" should be stopping this and not allowing it to spawn otherwise they are just as guilty of it's continuence. Just because one is only 'enabling the behavior' does not mean ones hands are clean. Also, hypothetically, if my brother (who has a lot of friends and has a mother and father; the same ones I have btw) were to start shooting at me or someone else I'd drop him in a heartbeat. I don't hate or even dislike my brother but if he were to do something like that he ceases to be my brother and he becomes a criminal bent on destruction and I'm going to prevent him from killing or causing injury to another. What would you do? Let him because he was your brother? Look the other way because he was your brother? Help him cover it up because he was your brother? This is what's happening and therein lies the problem, nothing is being done both out of fear and misplaced loyalty.

"What you are saying is that the good people of the neighborhood need to kill their own kith and kin. That is as unrealistic as anything I have ever heard."

So then gangbangers killing their own friends, family members, classmates or innocent bystanders in their own or other peoples neighborhoods (intentionally or accidentally) would be realistic as anything you've ever heard??? Because it's happening you know. There's an article in this thread talking about just such a thing.

"To too many folks, every black kid in baggy clothes, every white kid with a shaved head and a black tee-shirt, every asian kid with tatoos and flashy clothes,..."

As I said to Tears; are they shooting at you, someone else or threatening to do so and have a rap sheet with a gang and a history showing that they will follow through with their threats??? Most people that live in these areas know how to put two and two together and know who is and who isn't you're trying to assume that I'm advocating sending in mercs with directives to shoot on sight anyone who "looks like a gang member" which is wrong. I'm saying the law abiding citizen in these neighborhoods that know what's out of the ordinary, know where and when the gangs are about and know who some of these gangbangers are should be taking care of the problem. The gangs would never see it coming and wouldn't know who to go after which would force them underground (where they belong) and they could live in fear as it should be.

"There is a solution to gang violence, but I suspect it isn't through wholesale murder. There were previous peaks of gang violence in the history of the US. Although individual criminals were killed, usually by lawmen, the problem was never solved by killing everyone who was thought to be involved."

Wholesale murder seems to have worked for the gangs in giving them a ticket to do whatever to whomever whenever. The problem was never solved by killing everyone who was thought to be involved because it hasn't ever been done so to say it didn't work or solve the problem is basing the whole idea on nothing. If something is never done you can't say it never worked.

"It is emotionally satisfying to vent that they all need killing. It isn't practical. It isn't workable. It isn't going to happen. If you had any other goal than venting, perhaps you might want to put your energies to devising a realistic solution."

You have no basis for this claim sadly enough and I did devise a realistic solution, you just don't get it.

Take care folks. I'm done.

DRC
 
I don't know who tears of rage is asking, if it's me go read my first post.

This is not about being in a big group, dressing in a similar manner, using hand signals, or belching loudly.

The action that requires the community to deal with the gang member is murder. I don't care if a non-gang member did the same thing, the community should have stoned the guy to death.

In my area we could have gangs like the crips and the bloods. But I am a member of the biggest and most powerful gang. It is called the locals and it is simply a neighborhood who realizes police can not be everywhere at once. We are all different, the only thing we have in common is that we care for the area we live in and will not let it become something that we don't want.

We stick to community norms and expect others to respect laws written by the state and federal governments. Do a drive by on my road, you will get return fire as well as a blocked road when you find out it is a dead end. Sell drugs on the corner, expect someone to call the cops immediately and not be real worried about your vocal threats. The reason a shooter at a parade would be stoned is because the ohio elected nut heads won't allow law abiding folks to carry firearms. But I suspect someone could have easily hit the boy with a brick or 20 and then waited for the cops to come explain community accepted actions with the help of a judge.

I am not going to respond to another post trying to lure me into saying "kill em all and let God sort em out."

I will happily continue a discussion about how a community should assert itself to let unwelcome elements know they are not wanted and will find trouble if they continue their illegal actions. I do not tell others how to do things, until they break the law. And at that point I hope to just be able to call a cop and let him deal with it. But if I have to, I am willing to stand up for what I think is right. And I will deal with the consequences of doing so.
 
...the community should have stoned the guy to death.
That's ridiculous. "The community" saw one young man shoot another. We apparently have one witness that says there were gang signs involved. We have a report but no proof that the victim was a good guy. "The community" didn't necessarily have either. No one there knew what the altercation was about. That's why we have the constitutional right to a trial before a jury of our peers. (Jeez, I shouldn't have to explain that to this group.)

"Just shoot them" might sound like a simple solution, but it's just a simple-minded solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top