It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Arrested For Facebook Post About George Zimmerman Verdict

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 



The difference (as if you're too mentally-short to have known this) is that when a black kills a black, the murderer isn't given a pat on the head, his gun back, and told to have a nice night. The reason given isn't that "he was college educated and clean cut so we believed his story".
I think you get to win the “race baiter” of the day award here on ATS….





Cool thing was I don't think he was trying to bait anyone.

But it's definitely good bait. Definitely a topic to avoid if you don't enjoy strong opinions.

If you like harsh feelings and strong debate that dips into insane rants and name calling, its a good topic.




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HeluvaStorm
 


I took it as meaning Bull Shi*

As another member pointed out, having a beef means having a contentious problem with someone.
For example if Bill said something bad about your sister, you would most likely have "beef" with Bill. You may or may not kick Bill's butt.

Because of linguistic felicity sometimes words or phrases can have multiple uses.
In this case our poetic author is saying that being angry with Zimmerman and whites in general, is not satisfactory.

So to paraphrase, "Forget being angry, I'm after revenge" or "Enough trash talk, let's kill caucasians"

edit on 26-7-2013 by tanda7 because: punctuation



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by nancyliedersdeaddog

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Sharingan
 


The person is an utter moron.

But arresting him is as wrong as wrong can be.

Look how easy it was for us to identify him as a moron, too! People should be free to say what they feel. That way we know who the ashclowns of the world are.

So you would be cool with people talking like Patrick Bateman to your sister, grandmother, or wife on social media? People need to realize that you can't make death threats and say other horrible things on social media without punishment by either law enforcement or civilians. I usually would agree with not arresting for speech crimes but you can't talk about killing a whole race of people and cop's and expect not get in some kind of trouble. It's a sad world when you have 11-18 year old's making death threats to whole a race of people without a care in the world and hopefully some of those people will read the article and think twice next time.


I think humanity needs to get over itself.

People use hyperbole all the time. A single, off handed comment. By some schmuck with random, everyday people as friends.

This guy doesn't have any kind of audience, nor enough credibility with others, to have his words create any meaningful action.

My wife/grandmother/mom....I doubt they would be frequenting his FB page. So I am unsure how they would see it. But if they did go there, then they chose to see it.

Question: why did you focus on female family members in your example? Do you believe women to be in need of protection?

I agree a lot of times people take things way to seriously but you threatening to kill people is crossing the line and usually against the law. How do you know he wouldn't hurt someone when he's been convicted for felony assault in the past granted we don't know the facts of the case? How do you know he hasn't made multiple threats against white people and cops to his friends and family? Can you please tell me how many people followed his social media account, how he has no credibility, and how you found out about his mental state? How many people would have to be in his audience for him to be a threat and how would you determine if he would really hurt someone?

So you wouldn't be mad at the cops or his family and friends if the guy really did end up hurting someone and they had prior knowledge of his threat? I will say I agree a lot of people make empty threats but think about all the times in the past when people who have end up doing horrible things have been dismissed because people said they would never do such a horrible act or they had no creditably.

I didn't focus on female family members for any particular reason my question would also apply to male family members. If some random person on social media made a threat to any of your family members would you tell that family members it's not a big deal since they have no creditably and it's probably an empty threat?



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
He seems pretty articulate. I wonder what he wrote his dissertation on.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
So...I guess that should qualify as a hate crime then...unless...how far does the double standard go exactly?



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sharingan
 


I don't understand why he was arrested. I don't condone it or support it either. He was exercising his right to freedom of speech. He did not name anyone specific in his ramblings. He did not state how he was going to execute his threats in his ramblings. Not to mention the fact that literally thousands upon thousands of people have voiced similar diatribes in the recent past calling for violence on unnamed, unspecified targets.

This could set a dangerous precedent for the little people of any skin color if this grammatically challenged individual is successfully prosecuted. His right to freedom of speech should be respected. His rant should be viewed with that right in mind considering he did not threaten anyone directly. If anyone should be arrested, hauled to jail and prosecuted it should be the people that placed an open bounty on Zimmerman.

Now that my personal opinion is out of the way.....let us all dispel the illusions. He was arrested for one reason. He threatened "authorities". They have no sense of humor when their overvalued persons are trifled with. They jump to action immediately to quash any danger to themselves. This little fact is probably the one primary difference between the threat of the arrested man and the multitude of threats by others of similar thought and speech.

Gotta love how the "authorities" prioritize don't you think? Hundreds of thousands of random threats to random unnamed people. No reaction. One threat to random unnamed "authorities". Immediate reaction.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 


You can't call for people to murder police. It's not okay since he said to murder many of them and not one specifically by name.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
This idiot brought back memories of last year when Spike Lee and a bunch of other idiot's took part in tweeting the wrong Zimmerman's address. I still can't believe after Spike lee was forced to apologize that idiot Roseanne Barr tweeted the correct address of Zimmerman. If I'm not mistaken before she tweeted the address she said being a vigilante is what got Martin killed and wrong then decided to tweet the address (saying it's good to let people know they can't hide anymore) and then quickly went back to her original stance of being a vigilante is wrong. I guess Maybe she was cut out to be POTUS haha, ohh I forgot after this all happened Barr said she would retweet Zimmerman's address if he wasn't arrested or she would go to the house herself.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by Sharingan
 


I don't understand why he was arrested. I don't condone it or support it either. He was exercising his right to freedom of speech. He did not name anyone specific in his ramblings. He did not state how he was going to execute his threats in his ramblings. Not to mention the fact that literally thousands upon thousands of people have voiced similar diatribes in the recent past calling for violence on unnamed, unspecified targets.

This could set a dangerous precedent for the little people of any skin color if this grammatically challenged individual is successfully prosecuted. His right to freedom of speech should be respected. His rant should be viewed with that right in mind considering he did not threaten anyone directly. If anyone should be arrested, hauled to jail and prosecuted it should be the people that placed an open bounty on Zimmerman.

Now that my personal opinion is out of the way.....let us all dispel the illusions. He was arrested for one reason. He threatened "authorities". They have no sense of humor when their overvalued persons are trifled with. They jump to action immediately to quash any danger to themselves. This little fact is probably the one primary difference between the threat of the arrested man and the multitude of threats by others of similar thought and speech.

Gotta love how the "authorities" prioritize don't you think? Hundreds of thousands of random threats to random unnamed people. No reaction. One threat to random unnamed "authorities". Immediate reaction.

So if I said I'm going to kill school children I couldn't get arrested because I didn't name which children I was going to kill and how I would do it? I'm not trying to come off like a smart alec so please don't take it that way but I never knew you couldn't be prosecuted because you didn't name which people you would kill. I'm sure you know something I don't so any help would be great. You don't have to worry about this case being used as precedent since the case was dismissed earlier this morning. I feel horrible for all those people who have been sent to jail for claiming they are going to kill government officials when they never threaten anyone directly? I also didn't know that threatening a large group of people fell under the 1st amendment as long as you didn't specify who you're going to kill and how, thanks for the clarification. I think I need to start doing more research on the Bill of Rights and how court cases impact those rights.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by ThreeBears
 


Porn is not hate speech. Porn is filmed sex.

How the "actors" are acquired may be debatable. But to call porn "violence".....should I be expecting to go to jail for domestic violence this evening when my wife and I meet after hours?


It's "off topic" so to not spam this I won't get I to this Debate here,

But, there is MILLIONS and I do mean MILLIONS of examples We Could see in Porn that us FAR from just "sex", far far far from it. It's really an Oxymoron to even be baited into such a silly discourse but then that's it, MALES are not the ones being depicted as Willing TORTURE and RAPE victims now are they? Not usually though exceptions there Are those fetishes in porn yes, but by Overwhelmingly far, the depictions in porn are VIOLENT and PROMOTE VIOLENCE therefore they could be considered yes HATE SPEECH, especially since there is Speech being used. No amount of "spin" will work to diminish the content of Hate and Violence in porn.

Even the lighter porn, has many Violent cartoons of Torture and Rape and Murder, fact. to call it just sex is laughable, really laughable. Throwing in some erotica (huge Difference btw between Erotica and Violent degradation scenes that Glorify doing Violent acts to another Human Being) in no way Hides the Violent messages, aka Hate Speech in porn. hardly,

And just because many females collaborate with in the Stockholm syndrome way to create a fake insulation from hate speech and viole ce in no way diminishes the Reality of the Content and Motives behind the speech and images. IF there was whole Industries depicting images of Blacks being filled with objects, pissed on, whipped, crapped on, etc under some "fetish" even as a ha ha Joke cartoon there would be an OUTRAGE, Why? Because its Hate Speech. We wouldn't Dare call it-sex. We would call it by its proper title, hate imagery to debase, denigrate and humiliate an entire Race or Class of humans.

Rape is about Violence and CONTROL, not about Sex. And since Porn is eighty percent about depicting RAPE, then yes, that is about Violence and CONTROL.

It's Normalized because under patriarchy females are not even Human, they are F**K toilets and thing is Everyone knows this, they just do not care. Thats why Hate Crimes against women Because they are Women are still to this day not considered Hate Crimes. And probably NEVER WILL BE. That's just FACT.

The Only GOOD thing I'll say about PORN, is that it's TRUTH. It reveals the TRUTH about how Men REALLY feel about FEMALES and Children. FACT. It's TOO bad that WOMEN don't take a long hard Look at Porn and see for themselves, that Yes Virginia, that's how NIGEL sees you,

A hated sub animal Fck Toilet and Cum Dump.

I have no problem with the TRUTH, in fact, maybe they SHOULD plaster PORN all over the place, Stop HIDING the images and Plaster then all over, the pissing scenes, the Gang rape if an Asian GIRL by 200 men until she's a walking bloody corpse, Yea,

I think they should Plaster it all over Media for

ALL THE LITTLE GIRLS TO SEE.

What Daddy Nigel REALLY thinks and desires for His little Princess.

THAT would clear up a lot about WHAT IS HATE SPEECH and IMAGERY and what is SEX.

Damn straight it would. Hmmmmm, maybe we Onto something, then Maybe then,

We could Finally get Rid of the BULLKAKI if the harmless fun, good girl bad girl dichotomy and the whole bs line spin of Misandry,

Just Strip the veil from Misogyny and Show it all over in all it's GLORY. End ALL doubts once and for all!

Since its Not Hate Speech, then WHY not Plaster it EVERYWHERE, on street corners, churches, grocery stores, 24hours of nothing but good healthy sex. We can let Nigel explain to four year Susy why females are being pissed on, slapped, gang raped, called bi**atches and hos and the whole shebang. Because its Empowering right?

LOL



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeBears
 


My wife and I watch porn from time to time as part of the prelude to a meeting with each other. I cannot say that I ever recall seeing what you are talking about with torture and rape.

I CAN say that I am aware that there is something out there for any proclivity you might have. And some folks seek out that which you are talking about.

I am sure you have all sorts of examples. But there are more examples showing that what you seem to think is an "always" kind of thing just isn't true.

RE: Hate crimes....if you think that there should be a designation as "hate crime", i don't think we need to talk any further. I think calling something a "hate crime" and giving higher sentencing is as discriminatory as it gets. So a white man murdering me is not as bad as a black man doing it while yelling "CRACKER"? That might be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, outside of Spain taxing sunlight.
edit on 26-7-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nancyliedersdeaddog

I agree a lot of times people take things way to seriously but you threatening to kill people is crossing the line and usually against the law. How do you know he wouldn't hurt someone when he's been convicted for felony assault in the past granted we don't know the facts of the case? How do you know he hasn't made multiple threats against white people and cops to his friends and family? Can you please tell me how many people followed his social media account, how he has no credibility, and how you found out about his mental state? How many people would have to be in his audience for him to be a threat and how would you determine if he would really hurt someone?



I determine if someone would hurt someone by them actually doing it.

When you act on speech, you are essentially creating thought crimes. FB is a place where people rant. It is just the way it is. I was just 5 minutes ago out smoking a cigarette. 3 kids with skateboards came by. One of them told the other, "I'm gonna kill you". Do I beleive he was going to kill someone? Absolutely not....its hyperbole.

See, you ask valid questions. But they are only valid in a police state. In a free society, people are allowed to speak freely. They also are allowed to suffer the consequences of that speech (like people determining that they are ignorant A-holes, and not hiring them). I don't need to know his mental state, nor his audience, nor if he would really hurt someone. Because the facts of the matter, and the only facts that are relevant is: Did he DO anything? Or just talk?



So you wouldn't be mad at the cops or his family and friends if the guy really did end up hurting someone and they had prior knowledge of his threat? I will say I agree a lot of people make empty threats but think about all the times in the past when people who have end up doing horrible things have been dismissed because people said they would never do such a horrible act or they had no creditably.


I don't dial 911.

I would be mad at family and friends that didn't counsel their loved one who was coming unhinged. However, that is nothing even close to the police arresting him. Seizing his freedom. For not actually doing anything, other than typing a rant on FB.



I didn't focus on female family members for any particular reason my question would also apply to male family members. If some random person on social media made a threat to any of your family members would you tell that family members it's not a big deal since they have no creditably and it's probably an empty threat?


Outside of GZ, did this person threaten any specific people? I didn't see names being named, unless someone you know is named "Beef" or something?

So consider: based on what you said, this person DID threaten my mom. She is a white woman. Yet I feel incredibly unthreatened for some reason.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
:::hunter watches man one and two argueing:::

"White season"...Man 1.
"Black season"....Man 2
"White season"....1
"Black season".....2
"Black season"...1
"white season"....2
"black season"----1
..."I say its white season! FIRE!"--Man 2

::::Hunter shoots beak off of Man 2::::

"You're despicable"----Man 2

::::laughing:::- the world.



Edit to add- Its sad how a good majority of Black Americans are intent on living life without knowledge that can actually save them a lifes worth of pain and frustrations,and are instead intent on living life full of the very hate they worked so hard to get rid of, making them their own worst enemy.
edit on 26-7-2013 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sharingan
There have always been laws on the books against inciting a riot and making threats, (terroristic threat) nothing "police state" about it.


Who said there was something "police state" about it anyway, Did you even read what I posted? How about we just use a little logic instead of fabricating arguments that I never even made.



Cops and DA's just pick and choose when to enforce it and if it comes from a minority group like the black panthers, they usually ignore it


I 100% agree. Next time though my friend, don't make reckless assumptions. ~$heopleNations



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mrno1
 





He is writing in code if you didn't know

Yeah we know, but doesn't change the fact that it makes him look like a complete moron.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by mrno1
 





He is writing in code if you didn't know

Yeah we know, but doesn't change the fact that it makes him look like a complete moron.


True, but they were watching.......da innanet fo wuudz lyk dis and i am wondering, "what the hell is going on?" "Why do we give them power over the internet while they make it seem we have the best privacy?".

Bottom line: just because he posted this message on the almighty internet does not mean he would do it.

With 100% of 98% correct grammar 83% of the tyme



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 





Who said there was something "police state" about it anyway, Did you even read what I posted? How about we just use a little logic instead of fabricating arguments that I never even made.


I think I was reading what the poster above you said, which was something about a police state but I replied to your post instead



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




You can't call for people to murder police. It's not okay since he said to murder many of them and not one specifically by name.


I didn't say it was OK. I asked people to take note of the difference in reaction time when "authorities" are threatened compared to regular people. Startling difference. For weeks people have been calling for violence against random regular people. No arrests. This guy happens to include cops in his threats and they respond with alacrity. Perhaps you condone this. I don't. Cops have their priorities backwards. Cops come before regular people in almost all circumstances.

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 


It's good to know he was released.

If you had read the first sentence of my third paragraph(perhaps you missed it) you would have noticed this:

"Now that my personal opinion is out of the way....."

Now I'll address your points:

It's not assault. It's not battery. It's not any kind of violent crime. Why? He was completely unspecific. There is no intended victim. If he had named a specific organization I could see a cause for an arrest. For example, a threat against a specific police station, a specific government body, a specific citizen organization, a specific activity club, a specific school and so on. He could be arrested then. He would have singled out his target, even though he did not name a specific individual, and created possible victims.

In my opinion he was simply blowing off steam or talking tough to feel better about himself. Hence no targets for his violence laced rant. Why was this man singled out? Why was he arrested and not the thousands upon thousands of others that have been calling for violence these last few weeks? I am trying to look at this from a certain point of view. A point of view that wonders why he was arrested at this time. Why no action was taken against those calling for violence in the recent past. Why he was arrested for exercising his right to free speech while posing no danger or causing harm to anyone.

Now, please remember that all this is my opinion. In my original post and this one I never claimed that I was backing my statements up with fact. I actually said it was all opinion. So, no, I don't see your post as some sort of smart alec response. I'm glad you asked those questions and provided examples. I want you to know that my statements had no backing in fact in any way. I still think that this case is nothing more than a man getting arrested for having the gall to include cops in his violent filled rant. But hey, it's just my opinion



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sharingan
I think I was reading what the poster above you said, which was something about a police state but I replied to your post instead


No big deal my friend. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Patriot Act passed. Typical ATS poster: "Nooo, this impacts freedom of speech! Evil NWO! Stop taking my gunz and my FREEDUM!"

Patriot Act used to prosecute silly black guy. Typical ATS poster: "Excellent, he had it coming."




new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join