It was an abomination. Speaking of I was visiting a relative in another city, and there were black males walking around with their pants low exposing their underwear. This was a gangsta thing to have pants without belts, as in first arrested and in prison, your belt is one of the items taken away. When I returned home, I had asked a local cop about this, he said they consider this as "indecent exposure" or something like that under legal, and such person will get detained in our area Nowadays to think of anyone doing something as a abomination, goes against the political correct liberalism. In other words, "accept people for who they are" comes back into play
I could accept somebody walking down the street naked easier than I can the description I gave earlier. Making your body twist and contort in weird and unnatural ways with any kind of clothing or device unnerves me. Sagging certainly doesn't bother me much. It actually makes me feel more confident self-defense wise because all you have to do is 'pants' them to be safe. Sort of like not having to worried about being kicked as much by people who are wearing hipster jeans
Dang, I missed it But we're getting into personal tastes now. I don't mind fat people squashed into skimpy clothes. I don't mind baggy trousers and exposed pants. I do think men in flip-flops look so ridiculous, I almost sympathise with Idi Amin for making people eat them under threat of firing squad. Add a pair of 3/4 length shorts and I find myself in complete agreement with him. Baggy trousers around the knees in "gangsta" fashion = ok Skinny jeans around the knees in emo fashion = a crime against humanity BUT See the difference? PASmith saying topless guys look stupid, Ero talking of a human abomination, me saying flip-flops should be eaten by their owners at gun point, none of these statements actually involve action being taken to inhibit the freedom of fellow human beings. This makes the above statements quantifiably different from the kind of bigotry that actually leads to people being discriminated against, so much so that they earn less money, cannot expect a fair trial, get assaulted for their appearance, are viewed with automatic suspicion, and all the other inhuman behaviours that the discriminated find themselves on the recieving end of.
I can't believe people are actually still talking about this case... it's over, the guy was deemed not guilty... let it go lol.
Prior to your post, the previous post was 6 days ago!!!! So it's ONLY YOU who is still talking about it! Strange but true.
Trying to call everyone to strap their steel toe boots on while conditioning their abs with med. ball slams and assembling a tightly knit phalanx while sleep deprived are you?
New York's stop-and-frisk policy was mentioned earlier in this thread. It should be noted that that policy was is currently under examination in the federal courts. A federal judge just ruled that the NYPD has used the policy both as a method of racial profiling and for stopping people without any sort of reasonable suspicion and searching without probable cause (many times, the bulge of a wallet was the basis for the stop-and-frisk). The judge stopped short of ruling that the law itself is inherently unconstitutional, but did find that the way in which the NYPD was implementing it was unconstitutional. Summary of the opinion: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/n...ed-rights-judge-rules.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 The complete 195-page opinion: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/12/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-decision.html This is not relevant to Zimmerman, but is relevant to questions of race in the USA which surfaced later in the thread.
+1. SiB, if you had just not replied, we wouldn't be posting here right now. This thread was done and over with until YOU started it again.
I'm an advocate of those chest cameras. I wonder how many of their recordings will be refused to attorneys though, just like the way PDs currently refuse to turn over their dash cams to attorneys, or occasionally "lose" their recorded data.
