Stevie Wonder To Boycott 'Stand Your Ground' States

[AuH20]

Commence blindness jokes.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/showbiz/stevie-wonder-florida-boycott/index.html?iref=allsearch

I think this song is highly relevant:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpnxd_parodie-eddie-murphy-joe-piscopo_fun

[Acala]

Stevie will only play in states that allow him to beat people up with impunity. Cuz thats how he rolls.

[sluggo]

Then don't tell him.

[BuddyRey]

Very sad. I like Stevie Wonder a lot...but if this is how he feels, I guess I have to "boycott" him in return.

[brushfire]

So much for higher ground...

[ghengis86]

SYG wasn't even used as a defense!!

SMMFH....

[Matthew5]

No reason to be superstitious about these states.

[AuH20]

Very sad. I like Stevie Wonder a lot...but if this is how he feels, I guess I have to "boycott" him in return.

Stevie's handlers probably told him that an extremely angry George Zimmerman essentially poached a high school honor student, who was simply returning from the local convenience store with a sugary beverage and a pack of Skittles. It's not like Stevie can actively locate other sources of information on the account that he's blind as a bat.

[HOLLYWOOD]

SNL: Eddie Murphy & Joe Piscopo 'Ebony & Ivory'

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpnxd_parodie-eddie-murphy-joe-piscopo_fun



http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpnxd_parodie-eddie-murphy-joe-piscopo_fun



<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="270" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xpnxd"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpnxd_parodie-eddie-murphy-joe-piscopo_fun" target="_blank">Parodie Eddie Murphy & Joe Piscopo</a> <i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/PeteRock" target="_blank">PeteRock</a></i>

[Matthew5]

Guess Stevie really ain't gonna stand for it.

[jkob]

yea yea yea

How many of those celebrities that were 'boycotting' Arizona before actually went thru with it?

[Carson]

I suppose if I was slashing my way around with a cane I wouldn't want to be in a stand your ground zone either. I'd want people moving.

[Dr.3D]

His decision won't take any money out of my pocket. He probably has enough money that it won't bother him either.

[puppetmaster]

Who cares

[paulbot24]

His decision won't take any money out of my pocket. He probably has enough money that it won't bother him either.

So a blind man that travels around to different states singing for money is going to start boycotting certain states for political reasons? Hell, whatever. Add it to the list.

[RickyJ]

I am going to boycott Stevie Wonder. That isn't that hard to do since I never bought any thing he ever put out before.

[KEEF]

HA HA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azaJ0DCxDY0

[BlackTerrel]

yea yea yea

How many of those celebrities that were 'boycotting' Arizona before actually went thru with it?

It's just a feeling of trying to "do something" for a gross miscarriage of justice. It won't actually have an impact obviously and the attempts are misguided.

[oyarde]

Well , I would be impressed if he can name stand your ground states , list his sales there , say what it is he did not like about a juries decisision that was presented with no evidence and what it was he liked about a state bringing a trial with no evidence . I am good , I have Ray Charles on and he is dead and a beer.Next subject , or should we check with fucking Lady Gaga , lol, what a dumbass.

[Acala]

It's just a feeling of trying to "do something" for a gross miscarriage of justice. It won't actually have an impact obviously and the attempts are misguided.


I am always amazed at how willing people are to second guess a jury when they didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the witnesses testify first hand, didn't hear the jury instructions, and have no direct knowledge of the facts. ALL they know is what the news media has told them and that is perhaps the single LEAST reliable source of information in the modern world.

But more importantly, people lack an understanding of what a criminal trial is even about. A criminal trial is not about determining whether or not an individual committed a crime. It is about measuring the government's proof. A jury may think the defendant committed a crime and still properly acquit if the government fell short of proof. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone thought they knew the evidence and could concluded that "OJ did it". Of course they DIDN'T know the evidence because they were not in the courtroom, but more importantly they didn't understand the burden of proof. There were jurors in the OJ trial who said afterwards that they thought he did it but that there was a reasonable doubt remaining and that is all it takes. That means they did their job exactly correctly. Properly understood, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is very high. It is supposed to be hard to convict. That is one of the few remaining constraints on government power.

Juries are not perfect. They have biases. They misunderstand evidence and instructions. But they are closer to the truth than anyone else and there is NOBODY in a position to second-guess them. Not legally and not factually.

For anyone to say that this was a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is absurd.

[Philhelm]

I'm sure he couldn't even find "Stand Your Ground" states on a map. Hmph!

[jtap]

what a huge loss for those states!

[Don Lapre]

You mean Stevie Wonder is not dead?

Oh.

[BlackTerrel]

I am always amazed at how willing people are to second guess a jury when they didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the witnesses testify first hand, didn't hear the jury instructions, and have no direct knowledge of the facts. ALL they know is what the news media has told them and that is perhaps the single LEAST reliable source of information in the modern world.

But more importantly, people lack an understanding of what a criminal trial is even about. A criminal trial is not about determining whether or not an individual committed a crime. It is about measuring the government's proof. A jury may think the defendant committed a crime and still properly acquit if the government fell short of proof. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone thought they knew the evidence and could concluded that "OJ did it". Of course they DIDN'T know the evidence because they were not in the courtroom, but more importantly they didn't understand the burden of proof. There were jurors in the OJ trial who said afterwards that they thought he did it but that there was a reasonable doubt remaining and that is all it takes. That means they did their job exactly correctly. Properly understood, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is very high. It is supposed to be hard to convict. That is one of the few remaining constraints on government power.

Juries are not perfect. They have biases. They misunderstand evidence and instructions. But they are closer to the truth than anyone else and there is NOBODY in a position to second-guess them. Not legally and not factually.

For anyone to say that this was a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is absurd.

Wait what? Juries should never be second guessed by anyone?

Haven't seen any evidence that these six women are some epitome of intelligence.

[Ender]

I am always amazed at how willing people are to second guess a jury when they didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the witnesses testify first hand, didn't hear the jury instructions, and have no direct knowledge of the facts. ALL they know is what the news media has told them and that is perhaps the single LEAST reliable source of information in the modern world.

But more importantly, people lack an understanding of what a criminal trial is even about. A criminal trial is not about determining whether or not an individual committed a crime. It is about measuring the government's proof. A jury may think the defendant committed a crime and still properly acquit if the government fell short of proof. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone thought they knew the evidence and could concluded that "OJ did it". Of course they DIDN'T know the evidence because they were not in the courtroom, but more importantly they didn't understand the burden of proof. There were jurors in the OJ trial who said afterwards that they thought he did it but that there was a reasonable doubt remaining and that is all it takes. That means they did their job exactly correctly. Properly understood, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is very high. It is supposed to be hard to convict. That is one of the few remaining constraints on government power.

Juries are not perfect. They have biases. They misunderstand evidence and instructions. But they are closer to the truth than anyone else and there is NOBODY in a position to second-guess them. Not legally and not factually.

For anyone to say that this was a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is absurd.

And, for anyone to say that this was NOT a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is also absurd.

[Don Lapre]

Wait what? Juries should never be second guessed by anyone?

Haven't seen any evidence that these six women are some epitome of intelligence.

Based on what you know of the trial, do you believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder?

If yes, what is the evidence you see which is compelling enough to move you off of reasonable doubt about it.


I'm interested to know.

[BlackTerrel]

Based on what you know of the trial, do you believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder?

If yes, what is the evidence you see which is compelling enough to move you off of reasonable doubt about it.


I'm interested to know.

Yes. He provoked a fight with an unarmed kid and when he started losing he shot the guy. Murder.

[Don Lapre]

What is the evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that Z provoked the fight?

[oyarde]

What is the evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that Z provoked the fight?

There is none , which is why the case should not have been brought in the first place.

[oyarde]

Also, I take objection by calling him a kid , when I was that age , I was an unassigned Airborne Fire Support Specialist ( forward Observor ) , Non Commisioned Officer who had been paying taxes for two years, I was not a " kid" and that "kid" was probably a bigger guy than I was. Had I jumped on some guy, a stranger and started beating him senseless ( which I have not done), I fully would have expected hm to use any weapon he had. End of story.

[Kodaddy]

Sad that Stevie wants to indict and convict an entire state of law abiding citizens for the actions of one man...
Gee...that sounds strangely familiar...

[WhistlinDave]

SYG wasn't even used as a defense!!

SMMFH....

True, Stand Your Ground wasn't even part of the defense because Zimmerman said he was on the ground having his head bashed against the pavement, with Trayvon Martin on top of him, and he had no option to flee. Therefore "standing his ground" wasn't a choice because running away wasn't a choice. The law was completely irrelevant to the case.

Someone I know made a really good observation the other day and I just have to share it here:

If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman had reached for his gun, but had a few moments of trouble unholstering it or whatever, and that delay in getting the weapon out gave Trayvon the opportunity to flee before getting shot, but instead of fleeing when he had the chance Trayvon decided to continue pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and then he slammed his head so hard that it killed him (either right then and there or later on the way to the hospital or whatever)--so Zimmerman was killed instead of Martin--then TRAYVON MARTIN COULD USE "STAND YOUR GROUND" AS A DEFENSE AND BE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.

[paulbot24]

If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman had reached for his gun, but had a few moments of trouble unholstering it or whatever, and that delay in getting the weapon out gave Trayvon the opportunity to flee before getting shot, but instead of fleeing when he had the chance Trayvon decided to continue pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and then he slammed his head so hard that it killed him (either right then and there or later on the way to the hospital or whatever)--so Zimmerman was killed instead of Martin--then TRAYVON MARTIN COULD USE "STAND YOUR GROUND" AS A DEFENSE AND BE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.

I caught myself whistling out loud after reading that the first time.

[Tor_Hershman]

Ohhhhhhh, I have stood my ground & do like some of SW's songs.
I hope I never have to stand my ground while a Wonder song is on my Mp3 player.

[fisharmor]

At least it's not Tom Petty. I think if he did it my head would explode in a loop of illogic.

[Matthew5]

At least it's not Tom Petty. I think if he did it my head would explode in a loop of illogic.

:cool:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnVHA2Y1IA4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m576G3UWUCU