Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Sorry, it's true. I've talked to other people who agreed he may have been having an off night. I respect your right to disagree, but I just left disappointed. I was wrong about him being the MOST underwhelming headliner I've seen though, that award goes to Bruce. At least I watched the entire Stevie set, I had to leave Bruce early it was so awful.
Where were you sitting?
I have talked to many, many people about that set and didn't hear anything like what you're saying.
I was on the VIP hill. The thing I remember the most is him trying to get people to sing, and maybe 20% of the crowd would do it? The crowd in general played a big part in it for me, they brought the enthusiasm level waaaay down.
I have talked to many, many people about that set and didn't hear anything like what you're saying.
I was on the VIP hill. The thing I remember the most is him trying to get people to sing, and maybe 20% of the crowd would do it? The crowd in general played a big part in it for me, they brought the enthusiasm level waaaay down.
That's what you get for sitting over there by those old fogies. My section of the crowd was brimming with energy, so I guess I didn't get that same low-key vibe.
I agree. Adding, and then crossing out, you're a moron, is chicken shiz, I'd expect someone representing the position of a civilized society to at least have civilized discourse. I've said since my first post that my position has nothing to do with the specifics of the Zimmerman case and in fact his choices were poor and he is in fact an idiot in my estimation.
Here's what I don't understand, you clearly state you support Stand Your Ground laws, but you haven't come up with a single hypothetical that would require a claim of self-defense based on the law, all your hypotheticals have just been cut and dry self defense.
Lets say you're cutting through a dark alley between two busy streets and someone approaches you with a bat. They haven't hit you with it yet, and are still a step or two out of range. Would yell for help? Turn and run back to the busy street (I assume you are a reasonably capable person physically)? Or just draw your gun? Do you think it's ok to fire at this person before they actually strike you with a bat?
Stevie's knee jerk reaction to a sensationalized media shiz storm.
He didn't say "I'm doing this for Trayvon Martin," or because "the Zimmerman case," or "racism." If he was doing it based on sensationalized media nonsense, those would be his reasons. He's doing it because too many states in this country have a horrible law that leads to poor decisions and lost lives.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 14:38:57 GMT -5
These laws have been around for a long time, if he cared about the laws he would have boycotted Tennessee and other states long before Roo 2010. He did it as a result of this trial, don't fool yourselves.
Edit: pardon my ignorance, I'm assuming this has something to do with that security guard killing a guy thing. My bad, I don't really follow American news.
Throwing it out there, Stevie is pretty limited in his touring.
Edit: Used for the graphic of states with laws not for any of the commentary on the laws.
Dave what's unclear here is the degree to which Stand Your Ground is Stand Your Ground. Some states it only applies in your home, where other states are much broader.
These laws have been around for a long time, if he cared about the laws he would have boycotted Tennessee and other states long before Roo 2010. He did it as a result of this trial, don't fool yourselves.
EDIT- Spelling
I thought it was a result on an unfortunate death that went unpunished because of the law. I don't see why the outcome of this trial should be divorced from the law that lead to that outcome.
Dave what's unclear here is the degree to which Stand Your Ground is Stand Your Ground. Some states it only applies in your home, where other states are much broader.
I was assuming from the graphic which mentions how the laws in question are those that extend outside of the home that all these states had laws that were similar enough to fall under the blanket of what Stevie is talking about.
Dave what's unclear here is the degree to which Stand Your Ground is Stand Your Ground. Some states it only applies in your home, where other states are much broader.
I was assuming from the graphic which mentions how the laws in question are those that extend outside of the home that all these states had laws that were similar enough to fall under the blanket of what Stevie is talking about.
Ah, maybe you're right, I didn't look closely. I was having trouble finding a comprehensive list earlier since there is so much variation.
These laws have been around for a long time, if he cared about the laws he would have boycotted Tennessee and other states long before Roo 2010. He did it as a result of this trial, don't fool yourselves.
EDIT- Spelling
I thought it was a result on an unfortunate death that went unpunished because of the law. I don't see why the outcome of this trial should be divorced from the law that lead to that outcome.
That's been my perception as well. Did we all see this in the same state, with the same state prosecutor that sentenced a woman to 20 years in prison for warning shots?
I was assuming from the graphic which mentions how the laws in question are those that extend outside of the home that all these states had laws that were similar enough to fall under the blanket of what Stevie is talking about.
Ah, maybe you're right, I didn't look closely. I was having trouble finding a comprehensive list earlier since there is so much variation.
Yeah, there might be some on there that wouldn't pass muster if you looked at them closely.
Stevie's knee jerk reaction to a sensationalized media shiz storm.
Knee jerk or a culmination of factors?
I don't think you could understand this from the perspective of a black American artist. I understand you don't think this is at all racially related, but it is. The justice system is not equal.
Allow him to have a stance and not just play wherever is told is profitable. It's not the only measure of a man or an artist to just perform wherever demanded.
Edit: pardon my ignorance, I'm assuming this has something to do with that security guard killing a guy thing. My bad, I don't really follow American news.
You are not missing that much. If it will make you feel better, before we know it there will be a new trial with tragic circumstances we can beat our collective chests over. Plus, royal baby due any minute. That is news.
Last Edit: Jul 16, 2013 15:29:13 GMT -5 by jfg108: spelling - Back to Top
"When I hear music, I fear no danger. I am invulnerable. I see no foe. I am related to the earliest times, and to the latest.” -Thoreau
I agree. Adding, and then crossing out, you're a moron, is chicken shiz, I'd expect someone representing the position of a civilized society to at least have civilized discourse. I've said since my first post that my position has nothing to do with the specifics of the Zimmerman case and in fact his choices were poor and he is in fact an idiot in my estimation.
Here's what I don't understand, you clearly state you support Stand Your Ground laws, but you haven't come up with a single hypothetical that would require a claim of self-defense based on the law, all your hypotheticals have just been cut and dry self defense.
Lets say you're cutting through a dark alley between two busy streets and someone approaches you with a bat. They haven't hit you with it yet, and are still a step or two out of range. Would yell for help? Turn and run back to the busy street (I assume you are a reasonably capable person physically)? Or just draw your gun? Do you think it's ok to fire at this person before they actually strike you with a bat?
I'm not particularly fearful of other people, nor baseball bats. A guy in an alley walking along and minding his business is just a guy on the way home from a softball game in my mind. When he makes an agressive move towards me, threatens physical harm or actually assaults me then I would do whatever I thought gave me the best chance of preserving my health and property. That might be running, that might be calling 911 and hiding or it might be meeting that force with force. Yes, I can imagine scenarios where I would fire a weapon before I was actually struck.
Here's what I don't understand, you clearly state you support Stand Your Ground laws, but you haven't come up with a single hypothetical that would require a claim of self-defense based on the law, all your hypotheticals have just been cut and dry self defense.
Lets say you're cutting through a dark alley between two busy streets and someone approaches you with a bat. They haven't hit you with it yet, and are still a step or two out of range. Would yell for help? Turn and run back to the busy street (I assume you are a reasonably capable person physically)? Or just draw your gun? Do you think it's ok to fire at this person before they actually strike you with a bat?
I'm not particularly fearful of other people, nor baseball bats. A guy in an alley walking along and minding his business is just a guy on the way home from a softball game in my mind. When he makes an agressive move towards me, threatens physical harm or actually assaults me then I would do whatever I thought gave me the best chance of preserving my health and property. That might be running, that might be calling 911 and hiding or it might be meeting that force with force. Yes, I can imagine scenarios where I would fire a weapon before I was actually struck.
It sounds like what your saying is that you wouldn't use force unless you had no alternative to protect yourself?
I haven't read the entire thread so this may have been mentioned already but look at mexico. It is illegal to possess a firearm in mexico. now look at the death toll in the recent war on the cartels. strict firearms laws do not result in a reduction of violent gun crimes. it results in criminals being the only ones with guns.
Edit: pardon my ignorance, I'm assuming this has something to do with that security guard killing a guy thing. My bad, I don't really follow American news.
Nah, it's partly my fault. I mistakenly assumed the original post made a mention of the trial but it doesn't. I figured that all the discussion that included Zimmerman would have tipped you off but sometimes I forget there are non-American's on here.
I haven't read the entire thread so this may have been mentioned already but look at mexico. It is illegal to possess a firearm in mexico. now look at the death toll in the recent war on the cartels. strict firearms laws do not result in a reduction of violent gun crimes. it results in criminals being the only ones with guns.
I don't think that's relevant to the discussion of Stand Your Ground laws, which is mainly what this thread is about. I also don't think your point is accurate, but that's beside the point.
I'm not particularly fearful of other people, nor baseball bats. A guy in an alley walking along and minding his business is just a guy on the way home from a softball game in my mind. When he makes an agressive move towards me, threatens physical harm or actually assaults me then I would do whatever I thought gave me the best chance of preserving my health and property. That might be running, that might be calling 911 and hiding or it might be meeting that force with force. Yes, I can imagine scenarios where I would fire a weapon before I was actually struck.
It sounds like what your saying is that you wouldn't use force unless you had no alternative to protect yourself?
Absolutely. With the caveat that turning my back on an assailant and trying to retreat may not be the safest alternative. Extending the Castle Doctrine outside the home just makes logical sense to me, it simply gives me the right to defend myself without the requirement to retreat. Not to be a violent, racist asshole.
It sounds like what your saying is that you wouldn't use force unless you had no alternative to protect yourself?
Absolutely. With the caveat that turning my back on an assailant and trying to retreat may not be the safest alternative. Extending the Castle Doctrine outside the home just makes logical sense to me, it simply gives me the right to defend myself without the requirement to retreat. Not to be a violent, racist jerkstore.
See, you're mis-understanding the "castle doctrine."
States that don't have a Stand Your Ground law require people to do exactly what you said you support, take all reasonable alternatives to protect themselves before using force. They do not require you to attempt to run away. The requirement to retreat means you have to remove yourself from the situation if you can reasonably do so. Stand Your Ground basically says that if you have a reasonable fear, you can use force even if there are reasonable non-violent options available to you.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 16:16:43 GMT -5
I'm not misunderstanding it. I am choosing, personally, to do those other things first but not because they are legally required, because they aren't and in my opinion shouldn't be legal requirements. You guys have fun, oddly enough I've got to go spend an hour or so with the lawyers.
I'm not misunderstanding it. I am choosing, personally, to do those other things first but not because they are legally required, because they aren't and in my opinion shouldn't be legal requirements.
Our laws should not encourage non-violence. Got it.
Post by memphis1979 on Jul 16, 2013 16:55:05 GMT -5
Feelings are running high right now. I just moved here from Florida last year, and I have to say the ignorance by almost everyone I have heard talking about the Zimmerman trial is staggering. He didn't usestand your ground as a defense. The only thing stand yiur ground had to do with this at all, is that clothes law allows police to make crime scene decisions, which they did here, so they didn't collect evidence or testimony until 6 weeks after the incident.
I understand Mr. Wonders concern on this issue, as the father of a 9 year old who is as big as most 14 year olds, I worry about people mistaking him for an older boy. But if someone asked him what he was doing, he wouldn't start pounding their head into a side walk. If a gun is pulled on me, I'm going to throw my hands up, and slowly back away while screaming bloody murder.
Both the defendant and the victim made mistakes, I wish people would learn the details before going off half cocked.
Your burning flags, and protesting, and not going to states for whatever reason I support as your first amendment right.
I'm not misunderstanding it. I am choosing, personally, to do those other things first but not because they are legally required, because they aren't and in my opinion shouldn't be legal requirements.
Our laws should not encourage non-violence. Got it.
Laws are not recommendations or encouraging snippets, they are requirements. I get it you don't like the law.
The only thing stand yiur ground had to do with this at all, is that clothes law allows police to make crime scene decisions, which they did here, so they didn't collect evidence or testimony until 6 weeks after the incident.
This is not some insignificant caveat. But I think most of the discussion here has been about the reasonableness of the law in general, not the specifics of the case.
The only thing stand yiur ground had to do with this at all, is that clothes law allows police to make crime scene decisions, which they did here, so they didn't collect evidence or testimony until 6 weeks after the incident.
This is not some insignificant caveat. But I think most of the discussion here has been about the reasonableness of the law in general, not the specifics of the case.
Yes, but the general consensus is that stand your ground was tried in court and got Zimmerman off. In reality, all they claimed was self defense, and with little evidence to show why Martin fought Zimmerman, either gun first or not, there was a reasonable doubt.
Really it seems most people are upset at the reasonable doubt part, which has always been a part of trials in this country.
