How he gonna get his money?

[Derec]

What's this two and three hundred dollar nonsense?

An example of a popular yet overpriced sneaker.

Anything above $50 is way too much money for a college kid to be spending on shoes.

I agree.

 

[Derec]

Nobody is asking you (AFAIK) to accept that a person experiencing "intense poverty" should be allowed to steal your shoes or whatever. But is it beyond the pale for you to indulge in a little empathy, and understand that while intense poverty may not be a valid excuse, it IS a real reason? It can and and does drive people to acts they would otherwise not commit. I suppose you'd have to experience "intense poverty" to understand how it can drive people...

All the evidence does not support the claim that Trevon was experiencing "intense poverty".

Decent clothes, ball cap, even bling (including gold grills!) The outfit he is wearing cost more than mine, especially since I don't accessorize.

Nautica Harris, the cousin. Decent clothes, makeup, hair extensions.

Intense poverty looks different.

 

[Derec]

Once again, pure racism grossly distorting what was objectively stated. Growing up in the hood is not a reference to a need for expensive sneakers. That is your assumption-laded interpretation. It is more likely a reference to the intense poverty that pervades "the hood".

Neither Trevon nor Nautica look like people experiencing "intense poverty". Her point is about wants, not needs.

BTW, most first-world people tend to feel that a kid's life is worth more than a TV, even if he's shallow enough to want a flashy luxury sneaker to help mask the shame and self-doubt he feels of being dirt poor with little reason to think he's likely to be anything but that.

I agree a person should not be shot for a TV. But when somebody enters your house illegally, they may not just be after the TV. Conversely when you enter somebody's house in a burglary, you take a risk that you might get shot by the homeowner. That is in addition to being caught by police and facing a felony charge.

If he was in the act of breaking in when she shot him out of fear he might be there to harm her, then that is a whole different story. But your reaction was based in assuming that even if he was unarmed, leaving, and of no physical threat to her that she should not have hesitated to kill a kid who tried to take her TV.

Whether the particular shooting was justified or not we do not know yet.
What we can say, is that the burglary definitely wasn't justified. No matter how many excuses about supposed "intense poverty" somebody with jewelry and gold grills is suffering from.

 

[Derec]

You're inserting your racist assumptions into what she said. So, then your baffled by your own racist statement, not anything she said.
Without your added assumptions, all she said was that a kid trying to get money to buy clothes he needs to attend school shouldn't be needlessly shot just because the property owner wants their TV back. That is what she said, and it baffled you.

She definitely sounded like she was justifying the crime. Even if he wasn't shot he'd be guilty of a felony. And her excuse that he needed clothes does not bear out - there are plenty of low-cost, decent quality clothing options and he seemed well stocked on clothes anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it did not "take me a month". I was reminded of the case/thread when I saw the moronic tweet.

It's been almost a month. You're not fooling anyone.

[
As to "excluded middle" we already had the discussion - there is plenty of decent, inexpensive clothes in the US such that nobody is forced to burgle houses just to put clothes on their back. Trendy, brand-name clothes, quite a different matter.

And yet you assume that the motive for the burglary was to buy expensive clothes. You are not fooling anyone with your bigoted and idiotic assumptions.You are not fooling anyone with your bigoted and idiotic assumptions.

You are not fooling anyone with you repeating the same sentence over and over again.

 

[Derec]

She did not say his actions were justified.

Her words certainly seem to justify the crime.
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood. You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

She said they were motivated by desperation and not evil.

What desperation?

Yes, she (and all decent human beings) think that it is wrong to kill a child just so you don't lose your TV. That is why in nearly every place not ruled by authoritarian medieval religion or fascist dictators (i.e., Republican controlled states, Islamic states, and communist countries), it is illegal to deliberately take a person's life who is fleeing just to recover your property.

And we have not established that he was fleeing when he was shot.

That said, even if he was fleeing and the homeowner is charged, Trevon still should not have burgled that home.

 

[Kusa]

If a person breaks into someone else's home to perform any criminal activity, that person deserves to be shot in the head. No exceptions.

Disagree. Burglary doesn't warrant the death penalty.

However, if a homeowner feels threatened and shoots so be it.

I will feel threatened 100% of the time. They do not belong in my home and I will not assume they aren't violent.

 

[Kusa]

I would disagree about that. It's not about deserving, it's about foreseeable consequences.

Word it how you want but if they are in the home uninvited and up to nefarious deeds then they should be dealt with by deadly force.

If a cop was there to arrest them on the spot and incarcerate them then I wouldn't have to worry about shooting them in the head. However, I don't think a cop will be there so the house will look like the Marvin scene on pulp fiction. Hopefully the insurance will pay for the cleanup.

Now for all you liberal bleeding hearts, I have no desire for this to happen. It would be a nasty unforgettable occurrence. Hopefully nobody invades my home and threatens me or my family.

 

[laughing dog]

You are not fooling anyone with you repeating the same sentence over and over again.

I am not trying to fool anyone.

 

[DBT]

Yes, she (and all decent human beings) think that it is wrong to kill a child just so you don't lose your TV

While it is wrong to kill someone for a break and entry (unless under an immediate threat of death), the issue of having your home invaded by an intruder and your sense of security and peace of mind in your own home probably destroyed is far, far greater than the remark 'lose your TV' suggests.

 

[Will Wiley]

"There was a confrontation". In other words, she didn't just shoot him while he was climbing out the window. If I had to guess I would say she attempted to detain him (legal) and he attacked.

What evidence do you base you "guess" on?

 

[Frikki]

Where one has lost life, all liberty and all pursuit of happiness when someone kills you.

He should have thought about that risk before he decided that breaking into houses was a good way to make money.

This is coming from a habitual criminal like your self? Pot, kettle, "thug".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Her words certainly seem to justify the crime.
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood. You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

She said they were motivated by desperation and not evil.

What desperation?

Yes, she (and all decent human beings) think that it is wrong to kill a child just so you don't lose your TV. That is why in nearly every place not ruled by authoritarian medieval religion or fascist dictators (i.e., Republican controlled states, Islamic states, and communist countries), it is illegal to deliberately take a person's life who is fleeing just to recover your property.

And we have not established that he was fleeing when he was shot.

That said, even if he was fleeing and the homeowner is charged, Trevon still should not have burgled that home.

The duty of the court is to determine whether the perceived threat was enough for the woman to react in the way that she did. Of course he should not have burgled the home.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Whether the particular shooting was justified or not we do not know yet.
What we can say, is that the burglary definitely wasn't justified. No matter how many excuses about supposed "intense poverty" somebody with jewelry and gold grills is suffering from.

When is burglary ever justified?

 

[Malintent]

Do folks really think this lowly of the poor? That they are nothing but stupid monkeys being bounced around helplessly from one external stimulus after another? A product purely of the world around them with no ability to use reason and compassion to distinguish the right from the wrong and then act accordingly?

This is a good description of the Millenials in general... not just the poor ones.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Yes, she (and all decent human beings) think that it is wrong to kill a child just so you don't lose your TV

While it is wrong to kill someone for a break and entry (unless under an immediate threat of death), the issue of having your home invaded by an intruder and your sense of security and peace of mind in your own home probably destroyed is far, far greater than the remark 'lose your TV' suggests.

It is.

When my home was burglarized it was frightening. My daughter wanted to stay home from school that day because she was still a little sick. But she'd missed 3 days already. But as I was standing in the kitchen making breakfast I thought that if she asked me to stay home one more time, I'd let her. But she didn't, and so I drove her to school.

When the burglars broke in, they smashed through her bedroom window to gain entry. The thought still unsettles me.

So now I have a new fence ($4500), an alarm system ($40 a month and counting), a Rottweiler ($900 and counting), and a tactical shotgun ($800). The several thousand dollars in stuff they stole is small in comparison to my peace of mind and the long term costs of security.

 

[Malintent]

Part of the tragedy of the young man’s death is it’s possible for young people to learn from their wrongs. But what it takes is family and friends to say “What you did is wrong”.

The excuses for Trevon like those from his cousin are not just stupid, they’re harmful to their own communities. If they justify burglary by saying he’s gotta “get his money” then it’s a crap message to send out to relatives and neighbors. It doesn’t take erudite philosophy, just some bit of thinking in place of impulsing.

The difference between a young man that turned his life around and the ones that don't are the support in their communities: the former was castigated for burgling, people were on his case about it. He stopped burgling not because he was given “his money” but because he made a choice not to burgle anymore. Trevon wasn’t likely to make that change because, had he lived, he didn’t have that kind of support; instead he had people justifying his need to “get his money”.

What did Trayvon burgle again?

another human being's ability to feel safe in their own home. A capital offense, if caught in the act.

 

[Derec]

How is a homeowner to differentiate between a burglar who just wants to steal the TV (as bad as that is, people have no right to steal other people's stuff) or some crazy motherfucker like this guy?
Georgia to execute man who killed woman during burglary

Prosecutors have said Fults killed Bounds during a weeklong crime spree that started when he stole two guns during burglaries. After trying unsuccessfully to kill his former girlfriend's new boyfriend with one of the stolen guns, Fults broke into the trailer next to his, where Bounds lived with her boyfriend.

Bounds, who was home alone, pleaded for her life and offered him the rings on her fingers, but Fults forced her into the bedroom, wrapped electrical tape around her head, put her face-down on the bed, put a pillow over her head and shot her five times in the back of the head, prosecutors said.

 

[fromderinside]

When is burglary ever justified?

When recovering stuff stolen from me when I know there are no possibilities of anyone being inconvenienced in any way like when I have a key. OJ was such a dumbshow. If no gun he'd be free and clear.

 

[RavenSky]

Talk about assuming facts not in evidence. What makes you think this homicide victim was going to buy expensive anything, let alone expensive sneakers?

It's a reasonable assumption. We are not talking Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread here.

How do you know?

 

[bilby]

Do folks really think this lowly of the poor? That they are nothing but stupid monkeys being bounced around helplessly from one external stimulus after another? A product purely of the world around them with no ability to use reason and compassion to distinguish the right from the wrong and then act accordingly?

This is a good description of the Millenials humans in general... not just the poor ones.

FTFY.