In the news today a town in northern Indiana is trying to make it unlawful to wear your pants 3" below the top of your undies. haha
Too bad its come to this. I want to know what keeps those pants up? Don't they fall down, when they walk?
Maybe glue or sticky tape or velcro is involved?
I think that most schools around here banned gang colors, clothing, shoes, hairstyle and even certain hip-hop dances a couple of decades ago or longer. They even banned wearing certain sports team jackets and logos because they are considered gang attire. Back when I was a Criminal Justice major a thousand years ago, I did a senior year report on LA street gangs - and specificly female gangs - and there are all kinds of crazy things associated with clothing, etc... As far as how they keep their pants up - they don't! If you watch them they are constantly trying to hold them up with their hands. Kind of a pain in the butt when you are trying to run from the police and your drawers keep falling down :-)!Originally Posted by CathyA
In the news today a town in northern Indiana is trying to make it unlawful to wear your pants 3" below the top of your undies. haha
Too bad its come to this. I want to know what keeps those pants up? Don't they fall down, when they walk?
Maybe glue or sticky tape or velcro is involved?
I am so sick of the media coverage of this incident. It is ridiculously hyped and is turning into another Caylee Anthony spectacle. I hate that all the so called news shows are giving so much time to this. News in this country has turned into nothing but tabloid trash.
LOL Spartana...........about the pants falling down when running from the police! Probably makes it a bit easier on the police.
Jennipurrr.........I find that NBC is the worst. The national news and the local news on that network is the most tabloid-ish.....even with the weather forecast. It is pretty ridiculous.
I have a hard time understanding this given the stakes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/..._blog.html%20#
...the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Here’s how the actual conversation went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.
Last edited by Yossarian; 4-1-12 at 5:55pm.
Where is Mary Mapes to take the fall when you need her?!!! Oh I know, that's another network--like that makes a difference in mainstream media.
Today when I heard this story I had to look twice at the news agency--it IS NBC, not MSNBC. What a joke they are.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-wo...man?source=rss
Well, whether you are sick of it or not, I'm guessing the family of that young man isn't 'sick' of trying to find the truth. It would appear that Zimmerman's account of the incident isn't exactly truthful. he loses credibility with every passing day. Now whether anyone thinks this guy should be arrested or not, we have to ask ourselves, if this were a black man vigilante, with a gun, self appointed to 'protect' his neighborhood, and he had shot and killed a young, unarmed white boy simply on his way home from the store to buy candy, do you think the black man would be walking free for a month?
Zimmerman had the gun, he was stalking this unarmed young man, who had every right to be in that neighborhood, he followed him, confronted him, and the young man is dead. Zimmerman had the gun, not the young man. Zimmerman. Zimmerman was looking for trouble, not the young man. Zimmerman. As bae said, the one with the gun can't really claim self defense without some very very close scrutiny. The close scrutiny part is what's missing in this.
That's not what I said.
I'm surprised so much of this thread has been devoted to the appearances of Zimmerman and Martin. How is that at all relevant to the fact that Martin was pursued by Zimmerman when the police told Zimmerman to back off and then Martin was shot dead by Zimmerman?
This discussion about Martin's weight, his clothing and the fact that he flipped the bird in photographs has nothing to do with whether or not he was such a threat to the man who was pursuing him that night that he needed to be shot dead to be stopped.
We do not know that Martin was attacking Zimmerman beyond what Zimmerman has said. Witnesses who have stated that they saw one on top of the other and beating going on couldn't tell who was on top of whom.
Additionally, I would guess that the vast majority of youth who wear their pants 3" below their boxer waistbands never have to pull them up when they're running from the police because they are never running from the police. And probably most suspects running from the police are wearing their pants at a height where they don't need to pull them up while they are trying to outrun the police.
There seems to be a lot of stereotyping going on in this thread. I don't get it. The reality is that a seventeen year old boy coming home from a convenience store got shot dead when a man who was told to back off pursued him. I think it's a tragedy and I can't understand why anyone would try to disparage the reputation of a dead boy regardless of whether or not they believed him to be murdered.
There seems to be a lot of assuming of facts not yet in evidence going on in this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote