The Trayton Martin shooter had a concealed weapons permit

[jpak]

Concealed weapons everywhere + racist vigilante "neighborhood watches" + stupid "stand your ground" laws = open season on minorities and get away with it.

yup

[baldguy]

1. But, but but.....

I thought CCW holders NEVER EVER EVER EVER broke the law!!???!!!? That's why it's OK to give them to everyone & his mother. IT'S SAFE!

[krispos42]

2. You must have also thought...

...that all hoodie-wearing teenagers are pacifists.

[jpak]

3. How many teenagers do not wear hoodies?

ugh

[Hoyt]

9. Exactly.

I have often wondered how gun-carrying culture identifies potential threats in public. Although, I kind of know how many do it. That is one reason I am opposed to people carrying guns in public. One can't be objective as judge, jury and executioner -- when packing a lethal weapon -- if they have such feelings.

[PavePusher]

24. Perhaps you should ask your former LEO relative what to look for.

I'm surprised you didn't soak that up in the comprehensive LE lore you repeatedly claim to have received.

[Hoyt]

27. Well, he's no longer alive. But, I bet he would have arrested Zimmerman -- unlike you guys

who not only can't walk out of your house without a gun, but also protect those who do even when they shoot an unarmed teenager.

[PavePusher]

35. I'd like you to cite to where anyone has defended Zimmerman.

I've seen a lot of defense of due process, and much questioning of the procedures the police are/may be using.

Almost everyone on the the pro-choice side has stated or implied that the incident seems very questionable, at best.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. "Social Cleansers" have different standards of truth- like Rick Santorum talking about contraception

There's verifiable fact (which anyone can see), and then there's 'higher truth' that only the true believers can see- like the nutters a few years back
that were absolutely convinced that President Obama was going to establish a caliphate...

[Starboard Tack]

87. The "pro-choice" side? LOL

Is that what you're calling yourselves now? I'm all for pro-choice regarding guns, not pro-lunacy, though. Pro-choice entails thinking first. That's how choices are made.

[PavePusher]

88. Your obvious insinuation is obvious.

Shoo.

[Starboard Tack]

92. OMG, my obvious is obvious?

Is my insinuation showing? Pro-choice, really. We all have a choice, my friend. You choose to carry a gun around, I choose not to.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

112. There are a few...

...preferring the third option. They are why we're having some of these discussions.

[Starboard Tack]

113. And what would the third option be?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. The third option...

...is that there are those who prefer that no one have the choice.

Have a good night.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. It's pretty easy to discriminate a 'bad guy' from the general populace.

The 'bad guy' is the one accosting you, threatening you, etc.

Everyone else is fine.

[krispos42]

50. A percentage greater than zero.

And since you insist in dealing with absolutes, anything greater than 0% = 100%.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Your post is just on the edge of overt racism.

And my post here will likely get hidden for pointing out the obvious.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. The OP is just on the edge of overt racism and my post here will likely get hidden for pointing out

the obvious.

and on and on and on it goes. where it stops no one knows

[ileus]

7. I assume his point is half-white people shouldn't be allowed 2A rights.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. My point was quite clear.

" You must have also thought...

...that all hoodie-wearing teenagers are pacifists. "

Is right on the edge of overt racism. I said nothing about the insanity of reducing the requirements for self defense use of lethal force, or about who should or should not be allowed to own guns.

[MADem]

18. Why would that be racist? All those black bloc little farts in the black hoodies

are white as the driven snow. Eminem (I almost wrote M and M, like an old fart, which I am) did that jazzy video around the election in the black hoodie that made all the "burbie" Caucasians want to run out and buy one.

Hell, in the assisted living facility down the road from me, where I go to take nice little ladies to the polls, and the doctor, and the supermart, a bunch of them wear pastel zip up hoodies--it's the new senior fashion statement. They are the jacket-du-jour from elementary school on up.

The "thug life" guys haven't "owned" the hoodie in years. They're the "go to" jacket that has decisively replaced the "windbreaker" or any other light-to-medium jacket worn by most people in a casual environment. They're not just for criminals or kids on sports teams, or people in sail boats.

If this guy who shot that kid in cold blood had an idea that hoodie=gangbanging thug, he's beyond stupid.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. that was not the intent of the post

yes other people wear hoodies. The intent of the post I referred to was to conjure up a specific image of gun toting hoody and low pants wearing ghetto dwelling urban yutes, it was a dog whistle. I think the intent was clear. I could be wrong of course, like all good dog whistles, it is easily deniable.

[MADem]

23. Maybe I'm "hoodie-inoculated."

When I think hoodie, I think about the ladies I took to the doctor last week in their "bedazzled" hoodies.

I thought hoodies were coming out of favor amongst the fashionable urban wearers, along with those stupid "show me your asscrack" trousers, being replaced by retro-hats of assorted iterations, and trousers worn with belts and quite fitted.

Then again, I'm no stylist, either, but I also haven't seen those bigass pants in a long time, except perhaps in rural locales, worn by white freckled lads in turned-backed caps with fake bling around their necks... where they're ten years behind the times. And even that last sighting was well over a year ago -- it was all I could do to not burst out laughing at the poor kid's desperate effort and abject failure. Had it been around Halloween, I would have taken the outfit to be a costume.

I just feel as though the whole "hoodie" image is as out of date as those "toughs" in duck-tailed haircuts, pointed shoes, cuffed jeans, white tee shirts, white sox, and leather jackets!

When you see granny in a hoodie, it just doesn't have the same drama, and likely never will again. It's been mainstreamed.

But maybe your point is there--some dogwhistles are very subtle, I will acknowledge that, having heard plenty of them myself over the years. Probably the Santorums think a black kid in a hoodie, even if it's blue and says YALE on the front of it, equals "crook." Ya can't fix stupid.

[pipoman]

96. Actually,

your accusation of racism is what is unconscionable.

As has been stated, hoodies, for the last 10-15 years are probably the #1 outerwear sold to every race, creed, color, and religion.

The post you are accusing of "on the edge of overt racism" is no such thing. Your ridiculous interpretation of what was said, OTOH, it may be a bit telling for one to even think anything racial from that post. I'm quite sure the poster owns a hoodie or has a child, spouse, or friends who have them. I'm sure he has seen a hoodie offered in virtually every brand based logo wear store he's ever been to. An accusation of racism would imply that the poster likely hangs with others of his own race. If so I am sure his friends and co-workers wear hoodies too. The point is so glaringly simple it is painful..pacifists wear hoodies, military wear hoodies, coaches, jocks, nerds, geeks, models, students, teachers, doctors, patients, and yes, criminals wear hoodies..

Please tell us by what mental process did you equate the post to anything resembling overt racism. If you can't or don't spell it out for us, you should apologize for your over the top accusation of another DU member and Dem of racism.

[PavePusher]

36. WTF?

Does only one "race" wear "hoodies"? If so, which one? And which one was he implying? Cite?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. A good dog whistle is always deniable.

[PavePusher]

39. So is a baseless accusation. Put that card back in the deck, you'll need it later. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

86. WTF is that supposed to mean?

Shoot first and find out later? Jeez! I thought you were one of the moderate gun "carriers".

[krispos42]

99. I'm noting the use of broad brushes to paint people.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. No, CCW holders HARDLY EVER break the law.

But, but but.....I thought CCW holders NEVER EVER EVER EVER broke the law!!???!!!? That's why it's OK to give them to everyone & his mother. IT'S SAFE!

No, CCW permit holders hardly ever break the law - any kind of law - let alone firearm-related law.

That is why it's safe.

But of course you knew this.

[spin]

17. The statement is true ...

However this might be one of those cases.

I believe a thorough investigation should determine if prosecution is warranted and if so, a jury should decide the shooter's fate.

[Scout]

67. technically, we don't know how often anyone BREAKS the law...

all we can know is how often they get caught.

[X_Digger]

68. So, what, they're supah-dupah ninjas at not getting caught?!?

indeed.

[Scout]

77. nope. try reading for comprehension. n/t

[X_Digger]

78. What leads you to believe that their breaking the law to getting caught ratio is any different?

If there *is* no difference, then it's a useless point to make.

[Scout]

98. i didn't say that. and it's not a useless point.

the point is words have meanings ... so don't say x or y commits less/more crime, when you have no way of knowing that.

i think you just have a chip on your shoulder

words have meanings, say what you mean.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Hmm! Let's think about that

Well, they walk around with hidden guns on their person, which indicates a rather secretive, or sneaky disposition. The guns they carry might facilitate their not getting caught. Guns can be pretty intimidating, especially when pointed at someone. I've heard of panhandlers and tool coveters being assaulted by such "law abiding" citizens. Some here have even advocated using their guns to shoot would be thieves in the back and hold toilet paper toting teenage girls at gunpoint until the cavalry arrives.

[X_Digger]

110. *rather* *might* *heard of*.. so you got squat, that about the size of it? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

71. Of course. Anything else would be speculation.

technically, we don't know how often anyone BREAKS the law...all we can know is how often they get caught.

Well of course. Anything else would be speculation.

But when you look at the rate of conviction of CCW permit holders in places like Texas, which publish records for such convictions covering everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide, we can see that the rate of criminal conviction for CCW permit holders is much less than for the public at large.

[PavePusher]

26. Cite or retract the mendacious hyperbole, please. n/t

[aikoaiko]

28. Tht's perfect satire of a ridiculous strawman argument so many anti-CCWers make

What, wait. Oh nevermind.

[rl6214]

59. Good thing you put the sarcasm thingy cuz as usual

you don't know WTF you are talking about.

[baldguy]

61. It's a good thing SOME gunners understand what "sarcasm" means.

[oneshooter]

74. That doesn't mean that you know anything about what you're talking about.

[ileus]

4. Rude part Minority Racist Toter....only full minorities should own firearms.

This one was so important it needed japaked.

[shadowrider]

8. And your link to prove the OP is where, exactly?

[Hoyt]

10. You can look it up, rather than continuing to support the man who murdered an unarmed teenager.

[shadowrider]

31. Can you show me where I supported him?

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. It appears your factose intolerance is acting up again...

[jpak]

19. It was reported on NBC news last night

yup

[DrDan]

11. I am confident charges are coming

A similar story is developing in neighboring Flagler - and Second-Degree Murder charges have been filed.

There is one very major difference, however . . . .

http://flaglerlive.com/35712/mulhall-shooting-murder

[jpak]

22. Another case of a stupid guntoter hiding behind the stupid stand-your-ground-law

It enables murders.

yup

[rl6214]

60. Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human

Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination"


So of course you can prove any premeditation, right?

Of course you can't.

[JonLP24]

101. Second degree murder

by its definition is murder without premeditation. Murder is simply "Unlawful killing of another human being". Premeditation is first degree, the other kind is second degree.

[HockeyMom]

111. Zimmerman got OUT OF HIS CAR

That is enough for premeditation. Once he did, HE became the aggressor. It was no longer "stand your ground", as in IN MY PERSONAL VEHICLE.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Yes, when everyone has the right to defend themselves, some people will abuse that right.

I'll take the bad apples with the good ones, especially given how few bad apples there are.

[DrDan]

15. so a little collateral damage is acceptable . . . .

[gejohnston]

16. it sounds like you are

advocating that no one should be allowed to defend themselves. That idea comes out whenever we discuss obviously legitimate self defense. If that is the case, you willing to allow a lot more innocents being killed and maimed in exchange for your "collateral damage."
If you read the other thread on the subject, you will find that Zimmerman has no supporters from either side.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. there was no self defense

this jerk complained to the police "these assholes always get away", chased Trayvon down, attacked him and shot him. Trayvon did nothing to bring this down on him other than being black while walking.

That ain't self defense. An innocent person is dead.

[gejohnston]

48. not what I said at all

I did not say this was self defense. The post was "a little collateral damage is OK" implying that self defense in general is bad because of the possibility of "collateral damage". If that was not his point, then he wasted electrons because the post said nothing else. As I said, in cases where it was a clear cut case of self defense, he and other "antis" attacked the defender.

[DrDan]

30. self-defense? not shown in either case - and 2 innocents are dead

both unarmed, by the way

[gejohnston]

49. then what was your point about "collateral damage being acceptable?"

I did not say these cases were self defense. Your post was "a little collateral damage is OK" implying that self defense in general is bad because of the possibility of "collateral damage". If that was not your point, then you wasted electrons because the post said nothing else. As I said, in cases where it was a clear cut case of self defense, you and other "antis" attacked the defender.
One more time, and please read closely:

That idea comes out whenever we discuss obviously legitimate self defense. If that is the case, you willing to allow a lot more innocents being killed and maimed in exchange for your "collateral damage."
If you read the other thread on the subject, you will find that Zimmerman has no supporters from either side.

I said nothing about this case.

[oneshooter]

42. How much "collateral damage" is acceptable in the practice of medicine?

How many have to die to further the cause of "medicine". How many are doctors allowed to kill "by accident" before it becomes too many.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[DrDan]

44. no idea - I can say there is not much

in my area - a branch of technology

[Hoyt]

46. Most docs carry insurance to cover damages -- howsabout the gun-carrying culture do same.

[oneshooter]

47. So what price do you put on a persons life?

"Most docs carry insurance to cover damages"

[DrDan]

52. not sure many in this culture consider their damage as "damage"

[Atypical Liberal]

64. I do, but it is insanely cheap because it is so rare.

In fact, I do carry an umbrella insurance policy, but they didn't even ask about firearms when I bought it. Likewise when I bought life insurance.

In fact the only time I ever had to bring up firearms with any insurance agent was when I wanted a rider for additional coverage to cover the value of my collection.

Otherwise, insurance companies just don't care if you own firearms.

You know why? People who are well-off enough to buy optional insurance policies like this are extremely unlikely to be involved in gun crime, and accidents with firearms are fairly rare. Firearms don't even make the top 10 nonfatal injuries in WISQARS. And while unintentional injury is the #5 cause of death in 2009, firearm-related deaths make up .5% of those deaths.

[Hoyt]

73. Wait until more and more yahoos carry, more police wannabees, more Zimmermans and Loughners, etc.

[Atypical Liberal]

76. Oh yes, I'll keep waiting.

We've had nearly 30 years of increased liberalization of concealed carry laws, and the sky still has not fallen. I'll keep waiting.

[krispos42]

51. We accept it with other rights.

Do we not?

[GreenStormCloud]

56. No matter what you do there will be innocents hurt.

You seem to want to completely outlaw armed self-defense. If you do that then you will have innocents killed by violent street criminals. So your way - no self-defense - also yields collateral damage. But since it fits your ideology then to you it is acceptable.

[DrDan]

58. let's be clear in the context of this thread - this was far from self-defense on Zimmerman's part

[GreenStormCloud]

62. But you seem to be wanting to do away with ALL armed self-defense.

You expanded the context beyond Zimmerman.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. NO one is claiming that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

It seems pretty clear at this point that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

There does seem to be some debate as to who was yelling on the 911 call, Zimmerman or the boy he shot, but I think it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

This has nothing to do with your statement that, "so a little collateral damage is acceptable . . . ." when I said, "Yes, when everyone has the right to defend themselves, some people will abuse that right. I'll take the bad apples with the good ones, especially given how few bad apples there are."

Zimmerman is clearly an example of one of the bad apples, and his victim is clearly part of the collateral damage we are going to see when there are bad people with CCW permits, or just bad people with guns in general.

This does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime, like the majority of firearm owners.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. Yes, a little collateral damage IS acceptable.

Over 95% of firearm owners are not involved in violent crime every year. They can't be - there aren't enough violent crimes to go around even if every single one of them were committed by a firearm owner.

It's not fair or right to infringe on the rights of the vast majority of firearm owners because of the actions of a tiny minority.

So yes, a little collateral damage is not only acceptable, it is inevitable.

[DrDan]

69. actions by a "tiny minority" lead to legislation frequently

[Atypical Liberal]

70. Which is why I am part of an organization that defends my rights.

actions by a "tiny minority" lead to legislation frequently

Which is why I belong to the NRA. I'm going to make sure that that legislation goes the way I want it to go.

[DrDan]

72. the NRA certainly has had success the past few years - much to the detriment of the rest of us

[Atypical Liberal]

75. In what way has it been a detriment?

much to the detriment of the rest of us

In what way has it been a detriment?

Freedom is increasing, violent crime is decreasing.

[DrDan]

79. so gun laws are causing a decrease in violent crime - link please

[Atypical Liberal]

81. I did not say gun laws are CAUSING a decreasing in violent crime.

Please read carefully. I said, "Freedom is increasing, violent crime is decreasing."

I did not say that the increase in freedom is causing the decrease in violent crime.

You claimed that NRA success (presumably in increasing firearm freedom) has happened "much to the detriment of the rest of us."

I'm pointing out that freedom is increasing and violent crime is decreasing, so I'm wondering in what way the NRA success can be viewed as a detriment?

It has resulted in increased freedom - surely not a detriment.

Violent crime continues its decades-long decline, so surely that is not the detriment you speak of.

So what is?

[DrDan]

84. of course you were implying that

[PavePusher]

89. Right. Like you clearly implied that conditions were getting worse....

then dodged the question when pressed for evidence.

Well played.

[Atypical Liberal]

90. No, as I have said many times...

No, as I have said many times, we cannot say that because firearm ownership is increasing it is causing crime to decrease.

But we can say that increased numbers of firearms in circulation do not cause crime to increase.

I was simply crossing two "detriments" off the list from the get-go.

So again, what detriments do you see?

[DrDan]

91. no way you can make that conclusion

yes - violent crime is decreasing

how do you know it would not be decreasing to an even greater extent if it were not for increased firearms

your conclusion is entirely bogus

[Atypical Liberal]

95. LOL, it's not a "conclusion", it is a plain old fact.

There's nothing to "conclude". There are currently record numbers of firearms in circulation. This trend has only picked up steam since the 2008 election. Yet violent crime has been declining for decades and is now at the lows of the 1960s.

So we know for a fact that despite all the chicken littles' predictions, we currently have more guns, more liberal firearm laws, and yet less violent crime - over decades.

So you can't say that more guns = more crime because we have had more guns and we are having less crime.

Sure, less guns may mean even less crime, that that's beside the point.

[DrDan]

97. bull

fact: guns are on the increase.
fact: violent crime is on the decrease.

That DOES NOT lead to any conclusion that an increase in guns WILL NOT cause an increase in crime as you stated.

Take this example:

I take in more calories on a daily basis.
I continue to lose weight.

Hence I conclude that an increase in calories DOES NOT lead to a weight gain.

Other factors are not being considered - like exercise increasing to a greater extent that caloric intake.

I have heard over and over and over again in the gunner forum that lame conclusion that an increase in guns does not lead to an increase in crime. It it simply BOGUS.

All that can be said is:

Guns are increasing.
Violent crime is decreasing.

Period. Finis. Nothing more.

Repetition does not make it true.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Ah, but that's *not* what he said

That DOES NOT lead to any conclusion that an increase in guns WILL NOT cause an increase in crime as you stated.

He said it HASN'T caused an increase in crime- which is quite true. He made no prediction about the future. He pointed out (correctly) that your
side (if not you personally) often claimed that "more guns = more crime" and that hasn't been borne out by events.

I realize this fact causes no small amount of anhedonia amongst you lot, but you really should avoid employing one of these fellows



in an attempt to deny it...

[DrDan]

106. it is exactly what he said

"But we can say that increased numbers of firearms in circulation do not cause crime to increase."

[gejohnston]

107. but he did not say

the increased numbers of guns caused crime to go down.

[DrDan]

108. and I never said he did

[Atypical Liberal]

114. You are correct.

Guns are increasing.
Violent crime is decreasing.

You are correct.

[DrDan]

80. as to the "detriment to the rest of us" - I wonder what Trayvon Martin's family

would say about Florida's justifiable use statutes as supported by the NRA.

[Atypical Liberal]

82. The people now have a right to stand up to violence without a duty to retreat.

I wonder what Trayvon Martin's family would say about Florida's justifiable use statutes as supported by the NRA.

Hopefully they would say that in spite of Zimmerman's apparent misuse of force, citizens in Florida now have the right to stand up to violent criminals without a duty to retreat.

I'd say that is a good thing, in spite of people like Zimmerman. Wouldn't you?

[DrDan]

85. not when it results in loss of innocent lives . . . but then again, guns are not my priority

[gejohnston]

94. duty to retreat results in more innocent lives

who are put in greater danger by retreating or not resisting. Even if they do defend themselves, they are financially ruined by the legal system and the robber's/rapest's family looking for a payday with false cries of "injustice."
This is not a typical case at all. The thing is, your side is contradicting yourselves. First you claim it is a "way to get away with murder" and now it is being charged with murder. Which is it? The one in Flagler County is being charged with murder, so the system is working.
You know who is missing? The one that claims that the Florida law disallows any investigation, and the Florida law would allow someone to blow away a sleeping 12 year old kid who fell asleep in the wrong house. She even provided blog links by lawyers claiming that. Guess what? We now know that is total bullshit.

[jpak]

20. Yes, a few dead black kids is small price to pay to pack heat and use it

yup

[DrDan]

33. he was in danger of getting away . . . according to the 911 tapes

can't let those hoodie-wearing "criminals" escape . . . even if they haven't done anything - gotta answer to the toters

[Hoyt]

43. Toters like Zimmerman have spent too much time preparing for an opportunity to shoot some kid.

They aren't going to pass it up, especially after studying the NRA an gun culture interpretation of the "stand your ground" law recently imposed upon society in Florida.

[DrDan]

45. I agree with that completely! This guy was waiting for this "opportunity"

then when the kid takes off running, he sees it slipping away

[Atypical Liberal]

66. Race is irrelevant. People have the right to self-defense.

Yes, a few people will abuse that right.

Good people will die whether they have the ability to defend themselves or not. I'll keep the right to defend myself.

[aikoaiko]

29. The Martin shooting is deeply troubling based on initial press, but I'm waiting ...

...for more facts to be revealed before making judgments.

On the other hand, perhaps you wish to exploit his death some more before thost facts become known just in case this isn't what you think it is.

[shadowrider]

32. Agreed

Until the facts are in, I ain't makin up my mind on nothin.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. thread winner.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit.

Defense against a fruit. Only in this case it was defense against skittles.
By all means hold back judgement until "all the facts are in" or it's blown over, whichever comes first.

[shadowrider]

53. So he's guilty based on newspaper reports

Forget the investigation, forget his right to a trial (if it comes to that), forget everything. Someone or something says he's guilty, so he is.

Wait for more facts.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. In my opinion he should have been arrested and charged with murder.

And a court should decide on the self defense aspect. Instead, no charges, no arrest, nothing. If it were Zimmerman on the ground dead and Martin claiming self defense Martin would be in jail right now.

We will never have "all the facts". We do have enough information at this point that a reasonable person can see that there is something very wrong about the police conduct here.

[shadowrider]

55. I'm not denying police conduct is suspect

But I don't believe he should be convicted in the court of public opinion without as many facts as can be gathered.

I for one would like to hear Zimmermans version before I make up my mind.

[eqfan592]

93. Agreed.

I think there is something seriously wrong with some people when "waiting to hear the facts" is something to be frowned upon in favor of jumping to snap judgments.

[JonLP24]

103. His version is likely to be bullshit

2:21

#!

[shadowrider]

104. "Likely" to be bullshit

Great. Let's charge, indict, convict and execute because his story is "likely" to be bullshit.

He may or may not be guilty.

I prefer to hear the entire story, not just a 911 call.

Like the witness who said the guy screaming "help" was zimmerman, not martin. That little morsel is downplayed but could be the difference between life and death or life in prison.

When a life is on the line, if I'm on that jury, he gets a fair trial, not a conviction according to media reports.

[JonLP24]

105. I'm not advocating for what you say in your first sentence

Just pointing out what I feel his version will be. One person's story we won't get to hear is Martin's because Zimmerman without any facts assumed he was up to no good or on drugs without any facts.

[shadowrider]

109. We won't hear Martins side

but hope a thorough investigation and an impartial jury (if required) can sort through the facts and get to a fair verdict (if it comes to that).

[GreenStormCloud]

57. On the basis of what one person does you want...

...to find all ten million of us guilty.

[montanto]

83. Hmm. Where to start on this hyperbolic composition fallacy?