Boycott Stevie Wonder or Florida AND Las Vegas?
Poll
 | 12 votes (37.5%) | ||
| | 4 votes (12.5%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 23 votes (71.87%) |
32 members have voted
.jpeg "Bohemian"){kind=small}
Quote: Stevie Wonder“Until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again. Wherever I find that law exists, I will not perform in that state or in that part of the world.”
Quote: Washington PostMore than 20 states have Stand Your Ground laws or expansive self-defense statutes; overturning those would take years.
So the question is how Wonder literally adheres to his boycott. Does he avoid just states (and nations) that explicitly mention “stand your ground”? Or all states that have similar provisions? If the latter, that would rule out shows in Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Detroit and Las Vegas. Does the ban include corporate gigs ($100K and up), or just public concerts?
“I don’t see this as having a big impact on Stevie or the state of Florida,” said Gary Bongiovanni, editor of Pollstar, which tracks the international concert business.
Wonder hasn’t done a multi-city public tour for a while, said Bongiovanni. In 2012, he played just eight public performances; this year, there are only three on his calendar. In the past 18 months, two concerts — in Nevada and Alabama — would have been affected by his boycott.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/07/16/what-does-stevie-wonders-boycott-of-florida-really-mean/
Also, he keeps using that phrase. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI'm sick and tired of the whiny crybabies that have to riot and pull the rediculous race card when things don't go their way. I swear I want to spit on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They sure as hell don't complain when their kind murders whites.
It would take some research to find out, but my guess is the same crybabies who will not accept the verdict are the same ones who said we should have accepted the OJ verdict back in the day.
As to Stevie, there is a line full of older musicians on the tail end of their career to replace him in any lounge or small room he would play, so who cares."
Oh yeah, write-in vote "I'm a bigot"
Quote: Face
Also, he keeps using that phrase. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
nice! Can I interest you in a peanut, sir?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt would take some research to find out, but my guess is the same crybabies who will not accept the verdict are the same ones who said we should have accepted the OJ verdict back in the day.
So if this really is a racial issue, with blacks disagreeing and whites agreeing with the Zimmerman verdict and previously whites disagreeing and blacks agreeing with the Simpson verdict, then please refresh my memory: were there large numbers of white folk marching in the streets to protest the Simpson verdict, demanding that the federal government investigate the situation? If I'm not just forgetful and it didn't really happen back then, is it racist to point out such a difference in group behavior?
Just trying to understand what is required in order to be PC these days.
Quote: DocJust trying to understand what is required in order to be PC these days.
A touch screen :P
Seriously, there are limits to what can be accomplished by lawful means in matters of moral responsibility. But it's a very bad idea to change or twist the law to accomplish them now. The system is designed with built-in advantages for the defense in any criminal matter. Just as an example, if the prosecution finds exculpatory evidence, it has to turn it over to the defense. If the defense finds evidence implicating its client, it has no obligation to turn it over to the prosecution. Therefore in some amrginal cases a defendant who bears moral responsibility for a decidedly bad outcome, will nevertheless escape any legal responsibility.
But this also means innocent people don't ever get to face trial, much less get convicted. And that is a decidedly good outcome.
Deal with it.
Fleastiff will not sing, dance, recite poetry nor play musical instruments in public during this time.
And majorities don't protest in the same way that minorities do. In a minority opinion, you protest to have your voice heard -- no need to do that if you're in the majority of opinion anyway.
The "stand your ground" law in Florida will piss off gun control advocates. The fact is that just because Zimmerman wasn't racially motivated doesn't mean that other similar cases won't be. The law in Florida, as it stands, allows someone to provoke a confrontation and then use deadly force, claim self-defense and get away with it. That's manslaughter (but not in Florida). And given the continuing racial tension that still exists in the USA (especially in the south), making that jump is not unreasonable.
For myself, I have a little bit of trepidation in travelling to FL be it for work or pleasure. I can't ban the state because I have customers there -- I'll likely be there for a day or two in the coming month. When I travel, I use the appropriate level of caution based on where I am, and in FL, that level of caution is a bit higher now because of that law.
Stevie is trying to put the "stand your ground" law at issue, and I don't have a problem with that.
Quote: NareedStevie Wonder is still alive??
Depends on how you define alive
Quote: DocSo if this really is a racial issue, with blacks disagreeing and whites agreeing with the Zimmerman verdict and previously whites disagreeing and blacks agreeing with the Simpson verdict, then please refresh my memory: were there large numbers of white folk marching in the streets to protest the Simpson verdict, demanding that the federal government investigate the situation? If I'm not just forgetful and it didn't really happen back then, is it racist to point out such a difference in group behavior?
Just trying to understand what is required in order to be PC these days.
I think the riots and demonstrations are silly. But, I do think there's one critical distinction from the OJ case, at least in the eyes of some. These people seem to think that Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black. Nobody thinks that OJ killed his wife because she was white.
Quote: rdw4potusBut, I do think there's one critical distinction from the OJ case, at least in the eyes of some. These people seem to think that Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black.
I don't see that at all. I think Zimmerman acted with an extreme degree of stupidity, from what I've heard and read about the case, but no discernible malice. It bears saying the young Mr. Martin also seems to have displayed an extreme lack of widsom, but that's harder to say since he cannot tell his version of events.
What I find more troubling is the inherent racism of viewing all events in terms of race. As well as the implicit separation of "races" into warring pressure groups.
Quote: rdw4potusnice! Can I interest you in a peanut, sir?
No more rhyming now I mean it!
Quote: FleaStiffFleastiff will not perform in Florida either during the Stevie Wonder Boycott.
Fleastiff will not sing, dance, recite poetry nor play musical instruments in public during this time.
How are the other Chippendales taking it? :-)
Quote: 1BBHow are the other Chippendales taking it? :-)
Oh hell. I just lost the lead for funniest joke in thread XD
Quote: boymimbo
The "stand your ground" law in Florida will piss off gun control advocates. The fact is that just because Zimmerman wasn't racially motivated doesn't mean that other similar cases won't be. The law in Florida, as it stands, allows someone to provoke a confrontation and then use deadly force, claim self-defense and get away with it. That's manslaughter (but not in Florida). And given the continuing racial tension that still exists in the USA (especially in the south), making that jump is not unreasonable.
I am not a lawyer, and admittedly less familiar with SYG than I am Castle Doctrine since NYS has no SYG, but...
We can't say Zimmerman started a fight and then used a gun when it went bad for him. Sure, there's conjecture and opinion, but we cannot say it as true fact.
I'd find it very hard to believe (which admittedly isn't saying much when I'm involved) that someone could do just that. Provoke a person, get them to fight, then cap them without facing punishment. That is surely a gross misinterpretation if not a sarcastic interpretation of what SYG is and means.
From a reasonable and rational standpoint (ie mine) SYG allows you to take action in a proper situation where imminent and dire threat of life or safety is currently in progress or reasonably suspected to happen. A gunman in a mall, for instance. In NY with no SYG, I have to run unless the direct target is me. In Florida with SYG, I can plunk him even if he doesn't see me, as long as he's after somebody.
GZ/TM conjecture aside, are there examples or proof that SYG was used in a proking manner as has been suggested in this thread?
Quote: Face
GZ/TM conjecture aside, are there examples or proof that SYG was used in a proking manner as has been suggested in this thread?
I would like to add that cases where people clearly provoked a fight, claimed SYG, and were convicted do not count. I believe that FACE is asking for any real cases where someone clearly started a fight, and then when they started to lose, used deadly force and were exonerated due to a SYG law.
Quote: timberjimI would like to add that cases where people clearly provoked a fight, claimed SYG, and were convicted do not count. I believe that FACE is asking for any real cases where someone clearly started a fight, and then when they started to lose, used deadly force and were exonerated due to a SYG law.
Indeed. That seems to be the nagging complaint of most of the SYG opponents. From my standpoint, I'm totally PRO SYG (I know, shocking =p) but I of course am not aware if SYG was used for ill, as in the example I and timberjim provided. Surely, if SYG can be used in that manner, it should be reexamined.
Just trying to get the facts straight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/14/us-usa-florida-shooting-future-idUSBRE96D0DT20130714
Let's say a woman is in a rather secluded, crowded place, like a laundry room or a basement. A man whom she knows walks in and tries to rape her. She fights back. The man gets pissed off and beats her up, shouting insults and death threats while doing so. The woman has been screaming for help, too, but no help comes.
The man then throws her hard on the floor and says "This isn't over yet. Just you wait." He turns around and starts to leave. The woman, lying on the floor, weakened, bleeding, bruised, with a broken arm and cracked ribs, manages to take a length of pipe lying around and strikes the man in the ankle.
Why does she do this? There is another exit, but maybe she won't be able to leave before he comes back (he did say this isn't over, remember?). So she figures maybe she can hurt him enough to delay him.
Alas, all she does is trip him up. But, crucially, there was this long piece of rebarb sticking out from the floor (common in low-rent areas with poor maintenance), and his chest just so happens to impale itself on it, piercing a piece of his heart and killing him in a few seconds.
Consider what the police will find: a very badly beaten woman, and a corpse with a few scratches and maybe a bruise or two, lying in a pool of its own blood.
This is an entirely hypothetical situation. But it illustrates the principle that one does not have a duty to retreat.
And I say the woman acted 100% in reasonable self defense.
George Zimmerman's defense was self defense. The same law that is available in every State in the Country. The question was did he feel his life was in danger when he used deadly force. The jury decided yes. It was not a stand your ground case.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Why is Stevie even using the term stand your ground in his boycott? He's not boycotting because of stand your ground. Stand your ground was not even a factor in the case. The defense chose to not use stand your ground as their defense. They waived the stand your ground hearing that could have dismissed the case completely.
George Zimmerman's defense was self defense. The same law that is available in every State in the Country. The question was did he feel his life was in danger when he used deadly force. The jury decided yes. It was not a stand your ground case.
Not exactly. "Stand Your Ground" absolutely came into play as it is the basis for the self-defense affirmative defense.
If the law said self-defense did not extend to firearms then Zimmerman could not have used it as a defense. If self-defense didn't even extend to raising your hands against the other person, then Zimmerman would have been guilty.
SYG states that youy can claim self-defense if you use deadly force when attacked instead of having to flee. What Zimmerman did by waiving the SYG hearing was to let himself keep it as a defense. Had a judge threw out the SYG on the hearing then the prosecution could have denied it as an affirmative defense.
Given the pressure to rail-road Zimmerman his attorneys clearly decided to keep it instead of losing the hearing.
Quote: BuzzardWas the woman provocatively dressed, the lawyer suing her for a wrongful death wants to know ?
Why? Does he want pictures? if he likes photos of women bruised and bleeding, he has a bigger problem than merely being a lawyer ;)
