S08.E12: Stand Your Ground Laws

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Main topic:  Stand your ground laws   

Also:  Bill Deblasio eats a burger to encourage getting Covid vaccines; Israel/Palestine conflict; Ari Melber, rap genius, will just not fucking stop

Original air date 2021.05.16

[Annber03]

"At the end of the day, I would hope that a real friend would tell me when I'm being an asshole, and especially when I'm committing a fucking war crime." 

Well put, John. 

Excellent segment on the "Stand Your Ground" laws. They are total bullshit in the way they're constructed, and we've got a crapton of stories on various true crime shows to prove it (I swear at least 90% of the stories on the show "Fear Thy Neighbor" alone run on this concept). Yeah, it's always amazing to me how the person who felt "afraid" was the one with the gun, and is the one who's alive at the end of the confrontation, while the person they were supposedly so scared of is dead and, more often than not, unarmed. 

To say nothing of the fact that apparently nobody seems to think there's any possible other ways to defend themselves anymore. Only guns can protect you, it seems, and nothing else. It's not like there aren't plenty of stories of people managing to take down intruders or shooters or rapists or so forth without using a gun to do so, after all. Hell, we've seen stories of elderly women who knock out intruders with martial arts moves. If they can figure out a method to fight back that doesn't involve a gun, surely guys like Joe Horn, who looks like he could hold his own in a fistfight, can manage to do the same. 

Oh, but wait, then those guys wouldn't be able to use their guns to overcompensate. Never mind. 

(And speaking of Horn, of fucking course Fox News was cheering him on. Gee. I am just so totally surprised by that.)

And yes, even if we don't get rid of these laws entirely (which we should), at the very least, we should have a provision that if you call the dispatcher, and they explicitly tell you to not go outside and confront the "suspicious" people lurking around, and you do it anyway, then you do not get to use the "Stand Your Ground" defense. You were safe in your home. You had no reason to go out there and follow these people. They were not posing any immediate threat. Let the professionals handle it and stay indoors*. Wasn't that an issue in the George Zimmerman case, too? He was told by the 911 dispatcher not to follow Trayvon Martin, and yet he did so anyway? So where's the supposed "defense"? 

*Seriously, for all the talk in this country from some quarters about how great and important and necessary cops are, it's amazing how a lot of the same people saying that also seem to be the sort who think they can go all vigilante and take down supposed threats on their own. If they trust the police so much, why aren't they letting them do their jobs? 

The fact there's actual defense groups profiting off of these laws with cards ready made for these occasions is both not at all surprising and deeply disturbing and sick. Good lord. 

[ahisma]

23 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

 

"At the end of the day, I would hope that a real friend would tell me when I'm being an asshole, and especially when I'm committing a fucking war crime." 

Well put, John.

Co-sign. The US carries the horrible stain of stealing the land from the people living there and forcing them into increasingly smaller and less desirable tracts, engaging in occasional battles over it. We know it’s a horrible, unethical thing to do and we should be telling our friend at every opportunity that they’re going down a horrific path. 

Speaking of horrific paths, of course my state has a stand your ground law. We just need to flip the state house blue...

[Annber03]

15 minutes ago, ahisma said:

Speaking of horrific paths, of course my state has a stand your ground law. We just need to flip the state house blue...

Mine has them, too. In my case, our entire state government would need to go blue in order to fix this. 

[swanpride]

I am currently just p... at the Israeli government. Especially since I am sure that the whole thing is mostly about distracting from corruption affairs in order to stay in power even longer. They courted this conflict for their own gain. And now we have to deal with explaining people "protesting before the Israeli Ambassi = okay, bothering a random synagogue = not okay". Because that is what we actually need, anti-semites being able to hide behind the whole matter, as if Jews living elsewhere are in any way responsible for what is currently happening in Israel. 

And yes, the US (and a couple of other countries) have to stop defending this, no matter what. What is happening in Palestine is simply not right. And while none of the US presidents have been in any way helpful regarding that matter, the whole Jerusalem as capital thing Trump supported is part of the reason why it has escalated so badly now. Good Job showing that while Trump was especially bad dealing with the situation, the other presidents were happily sidestepping the confrontation about that particular matter, too. 

 

Stand Your Ground is BS. It is just an excuse to literally get away with murder. Even if you feel threatened by someone, it is no reason to just shot that person, the force of defence has to be equal with the force of the attack. 

 

 

 

 

 

[peeayebee]

11 hours ago, Annber03 said:

*Seriously, for all the talk in this country from some quarters about how great and important and necessary cops are, it's amazing how a lot of the same people saying that also seem to be the sort who think they can go all vigilante and take down supposed threats on their own. If they trust the police so much, why aren't they letting them do their jobs? 

Excellent observation.

This whole ep was anger-inducing. First the Israel bombardment of Gaza. I'm positive there won't be a solution to this conflict in my lifetime. 

Then the Stand Your Ground laws. Everything about it was maddening. That Horn guy. My. God. He didn't need to go outside to shoot someone at someone else's property. He was told to stay inside. He was safe inside. The police were coming. He just wanted to play hero. Then he was feted as a hero. 

The woman (Marion something?) who hates scrub jays. First off, I started wondering if she made the story up. I could be wrong. Tell me if I am. Second, I know this is true: Bitch got a gun.

I can't imagine white people are blind to the fact that many are going to be more afraid of black people than white people, and therefore many white people are going to shoot black people because they're afraid and can then stand behind Stand Your Ground laws. So if these white people are aware of this, as that eloquent black Representative explained, it seems clear that they just don't care. There's no self-examination. They don't delve into "Why am I automatically fearful of black people?" or "Since I'm automatically fearful of black people, and I carry a gun, will I kill one who isn't actually a threat?" 

On a lighter note, I laughed at John's reaction to the pic of Tilda Swinton.

[Victor the Crab]

That was a bummer of an episode, with the subjects Ollie was talking about.

I'm in agreement with @swanpride over the questionable motives surrounding the attacks in Gaza. I just wish Ollie and others, like Trevor Noah, had found a way to point that little detail out!

Call the "Stand Your Ground" laws for what they truly are. A get out of prison card for shooting and killing African Americans, just like that new and insane and constitutionally illegal law where you can run over a crowd of (mostly black BLM) protesters with your vehicle. It's infuriating to see a white man hailed as a hero for doing what he was told NOT to do, while a black woman who was well within her rights to defend herself with an UNLOADED gun went to prison for it and gave birth there while in chains. I don't know how the United States can continue to exist with its racism eating away at everything they claim to hold dear.

The only thing that was considered amusing was the mid break segment of Ari Melber continually reciting rap lyrics like the clueless white dork he is, and that was considered cringe worthy at best.

[movingtargetgal]

9 minutes ago, Victor the Crab said:

The only thing that was considered amusing was the mid break segment of Ari Melber continually reciting rap lyrics like the clueless white dork he is, and that was considered cringe worthy at best.

Ari Melber makes me cringe when he starts quoting rap lyrics.  Dude you are a middle aged white man and you can't pull it off especially when you are delivering the news.  Keep the singing and rapping for the shower, in your car and on random karaoke nights....like the rest of us nerds.  

[purist]

My favourite John - Righteously Angry John - was fully present in the Israel v Palestine segment. He was so incandescently angry I though he was going to leap out of his chair. Great segment.

[Enigma X]

1 hour ago, movingtargetgal said:

Ari Melber makes me cringe when he starts quoting rap lyrics.  

As a middle-aged black woman whose favorite band is Led Zeppelin (and I listen to mainly rock music), I feel some kind of way when people say this about Ari. I would be more comfortable (and I know no one cares about what would make me comfortable) if people would feel the same if Don Lemon or Craig Melvin interspersed rap/hip hop references while reporting the news but not sure they would.

[swanpride]

Honestly, I just dislike people throwing in random quotes in general, no matter the source. But that was especially cringy. 

[Slovenly Muse]

Excellent episode, with great points all around. I only wish John had taken the extra step of drawing the clear line between Stand Your Ground laws, and the knee-jerk defense of "Israel has a right to defend itself." Because this mentality, that "I have a right to shoot at and indiscriminately kill anyone I feel threatened by, regardless of their actual ability to do me harm" is baked into the American understanding of violence, and what is and isn't considered "morally acceptable," which is just as much present in foreign policy as it is domestically. We don't often stop to examine the issues of violence as it is enacted on American streets, and violence as it is enacted through American involvement in international warfare, and acknowledge how this violence is fundamentally the same. An America that sells weapons to Israel to "defend itself" against its relatively-powerless Muslim "adversary" is operating on the same moral principles as an America that passes Stand Your Ground laws and selectively enforces them along racial lines. The folks in power who support these narratives WANT us to see them as two different, unrelated issues, that we will have to fight as two separate and costly battles, so that we will be forced to prioritize and divide our efforts unnecessarily, when in reality they are the same issue, with the same root cause, which can be addressed through the same shift in thinking and policy. I do wish John had been able to make that explicit, that both of his main stories were essentially the same story. I think it's an important thing to acknowledge!

[Annber03]

Oh, wow, that's a really great point. Excellent post, @Slovenly Muse. 

[Kromm]

14 hours ago, swanpride said:

I am currently just p... at the Israeli government. Especially since I am sure that the whole thing is mostly about distracting from corruption affairs in order to stay in power even longer.

 

7 hours ago, peeayebee said:

This whole ep was anger-inducing. First the Israel bombardment of Gaza. I'm positive there won't be a solution to this conflict in my lifetime. 

Netanyahu is human garbage, but I'm always wary of how this story is covered. It goes both ways. People are terrified to criticize the Israeli government, but on the other hand that distinction (that it's THE GOVERNMENT) also seems to get easily lost. I've seen the phrase "Zionist" casually tossed around more in the past few days than in the past few years, and more in the past few years than in decades before that. The truth is pressure needs to be applied that helps get Netanyahu tossed out of office.  But it's a dangerous tightrope to navigate, because increasingly people commenting on it inevitably seem to be leaning towards oversimplifying the situation to Netanyahu bad. Israel bad. Zionists. Jews bad. Like there aren't shades in between. Of course, for decades it's been the equally unfair Terrorists bad. Middle East bad. Muslims bad. Palestinians bad. If you talk to people who actually live in Israel, the non hardliners I mean, they don't all feel that way. Certainly I know a lot of American Jews who don't, but a slimeball halfway across the world like Netanyahu rides roughshod over things and creates a scenario where they increasingly have to consider calling out a nation loosely associated with them inherently. 

[Kromm]

7 hours ago, movingtargetgal said:

Ari Melber makes me cringe when he starts quoting rap lyrics.  Dude you are a middle aged white man and you can't pull it off especially when you are delivering the news.  Keep the singing and rapping for the shower, in your car and on random karaoke nights....like the rest of us nerds.  

Melber is sharp in a lot of ways, and he can love what he loves, but does indeed come off like a total moron returning to the well constantly of quoting hip hop and rap. 

[Takerholicx5]

Hi long time lurker here.

Now I will admit that I used to think Last Week Tonight was overrated. Everyone kept saying "oh you should watch Last Week Tonight! It's so good!" but since I didn't give a shit about politics, I never did. One day when I was bored, I watched the 2016 DNC episode and left thoroughly unimpressed. I thought John was annoying as hell and the entire tone felt very disingenuous. Basically what I got from it was "here's a rich white Brit bitching about a country he doesn't even live in (I didn't know John was an immigrant at the time) while being in the 1%. No thanks!" 

That was in 2016, before the election of he who shall remain shameless, to borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert. 4 years later, it's quarantine and I finally decide to give Last Week Tonight another chance and this time my mind was more open. I clicked the Police piece and I loved it! Then I rewatched the DNC piece again and liked it so much more. I had quickly fallen down the LWT rabbit hole.

This episode was the best since the Police piece. While I will agree with some folks who say John's foreign pieces are hit and miss (France being a hit, Venezuela being a massive miss IMO), the Israel vs Palestine piece was vicious. The SYG piece was great as well. 

[ahisma]

11 hours ago, peeayebee said:

On a lighter note, I laughed at John's reaction to the pic of Tilda Swinton.

I’m not sure why John’s reaction to Tilda wasn’t the same as his usual reaction to things that are powerful and terrifying—becoming disturbingly aroused. (What? My decades-long attraction to Tilda has nothing to do with this question. *cough*)

[swanpride]

Quote

Netanyahu bad. Israel bad. Zionists. Jews bad. Like there aren't shades in between. 

Sure, but just because criticism of Israel is often used as a cover for anti-semitism, it doesn't mean that we should stop criticising Israel altogether. And Netanyahu...HE is the one who keeps pushing for resettlements, ignoring human rights in the process, he is the one who insisted on turning Jerusalem into the capital of Israel, he is the one who supports nonsense like the Jerusalem day, he is the one who ordered the various strikes against civilian targets with the standard excuse of "terrorists hide there", and he is the one who is currently implemented in various corruption affairs. I don't think that there are much "shades" when it comes to criticising Netanyahu. 

[JustHereForFood]

Well, as a non-American, I have to admit that I actually thought until now that the Stand your groud rule only applies to shooting people ON YOUR PROPERTY. And I thought that was bad enough. I never imagined that it applies (if you're white) even outside. 

In that case when the man was repeatedly told not to go out, shouldn't he be charged with ignoring the instructions of an officer? There are many ways how he could have made the situation even worse and endanger other people, if there were for example other neigbours around.

"They're redundant solutions to a made-up problem and they are actively doing harm" seems to sum up these laws well (and many other, sadly).

Edited May 18, 2021 by JustHereForFood

[vibeology]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

In that case when the man was repeatedly told not to go out, shouldn't he be charged with ignoring the instructions of an officer? There are many ways how he could have made the situation even worse and endanger other people, if there were for example other neigbours around.

Zimmerman was also told multiple times not to follow Trayvon Martin and we all know how that turned out. Stand Your Ground laws need to go.

[lasu]

Y'all, I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but the crazy NRA lady who was accosted by a carful of men?  Did she say she was told IF she has called the police, she would have been arrested?  IF??  And John repeated it later in the segment, "if."  Is that "if" implying she did NOT call the police?  So her story is she was in a parking deck, a car full of men tried to abduct her, she pulled her gun in the beam of her headlights, one screamed THE BITCH HAS A GUN...and then what?  She just went on about her day after warding off a death-defying experience?  And she didn't call the police?  She just let a random group of men drive away to abduct a different woman who is dumb enough not to carry a firearm?

I mean, let's be clear - even if she filed a police report at the time, I would still side eye this story if there isn't corroborating evidence.  But if she didn't file a report...did this even happen?  I mean, what are the chances that this happens to the (former at that point?) NRA president?  And is picture perfect to start the stampeded of Stand Your Ground laws?  Has a third of our nation issued white people get out jail free cards to kill black people based on a completely lie?  Not that these laws are ok even if this story is 100% true, but IS IT??  Am I missing something?

I took a firearms class and then got my concealed carry a few years ago.  I no longer own a gun because...well, a lot of reasons.  But I briefly dated my gun instructor and in our concealed carry class, there was an older man who was so clearly there to see how he could get away with murdering someone.  It was extremely disturbing. My instructor was actually a good enough guy, and he taught that it was a gun owner's responsibility to ALWAYS retreat when possible and that using lethal force should only be done as an absolute last resort.  He advocated for well lit properties, alarm systems, etc to help deter would-be criminals.  But this dude was having none of it.  It was a lot of "ok, but what does the LAW say?"  I asked the instructor about it, and he told me there was at least one in every class, and that there wasn't anything he could do if they passed the requirements for the permit. I don't blame every person who has ever used a gun in self defense, even though for myself I realized I was less safe because I don't think that when push comes to shove, I could shoot someone even to defend myself.  But there is a huge, huge difference between someone who is legitimately in a life-or-death situation and these insane people who are dying (unfortunately not literally) to kill another human being.  

I get so sick of all of this.

 

[lasu]

30 minutes ago, Notwisconsin said:

a mere two days prior to Netanyahu's leaving office was scheduled,

That article just says they were trying, not that it was going to happen or was scheduled.  From the article linked:

The “change bloc” coalition-building efforts hang by a thread, however, as opposition from further MKs could potentially scupper them: without Chikli the prospective change bloc, including Yamina, has 57 seats in parliament compared to 53 (including Chikli) for the parties backing Netanyahu.

[RealHousewife]

22 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

Excellent episode, with great points all around. I only wish John had taken the extra step of drawing the clear line between Stand Your Ground laws, and the knee-jerk defense of "Israel has a right to defend itself." Because this mentality, that "I have a right to shoot at and indiscriminately kill anyone I feel threatened by, regardless of their actual ability to do me harm" is baked into the American understanding of violence, and what is and isn't considered "morally acceptable," which is just as much present in foreign policy as it is domestically. We don't often stop to examine the issues of violence as it is enacted on American streets, and violence as it is enacted through American involvement in international warfare, and acknowledge how this violence is fundamentally the same. An America that sells weapons to Israel to "defend itself" against its relatively-powerless Muslim "adversary" is operating on the same moral principles as an America that passes Stand Your Ground laws and selectively enforces them along racial lines. The folks in power who support these narratives WANT us to see them as two different, unrelated issues, that we will have to fight as two separate and costly battles, so that we will be forced to prioritize and divide our efforts unnecessarily, when in reality they are the same issue, with the same root cause, which can be addressed through the same shift in thinking and policy. I do wish John had been able to make that explicit, that both of his main stories were essentially the same story. I think it's an important thing to acknowledge!

Excellent post! Seriously, chef's kiss. 

[kirkola]

2 hours ago, lasu said:

Y'all, I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but the crazy NRA lady who was accosted by a carful of men?  Did she say she was told IF she has called the police, she would have been arrested?  IF??  And John repeated it later in the segment, "if."  Is that "if" implying she did NOT call the police?  So her story is she was in a parking deck, a car full of men tried to abduct her, she pulled her gun in the beam of her headlights, one screamed THE BITCH HAS A GUN...and then what?  She just went on about her day after warding off a death-defying experience?  And she didn't call the police?  She just let a random group of men drive away to abduct a different woman who is dumb enough not to carry a firearm?

I mean, let's be clear - even if she filed a police report at the time, I would still side eye this story if there isn't corroborating evidence.  But if she didn't file a report...did this even happen?  I mean, what are the chances that this happens to the (former at that point?) NRA president?  And is picture perfect to start the stampeded of Stand Your Ground laws?  Has a third of our nation issued white people get out jail free cards to kill black people based on a completely lie?  Not that these laws are ok even if this story is 100% true, but IS IT??  Am I missing something?

I took a firearms class and then got my concealed carry a few years ago.  I no longer own a gun because...well, a lot of reasons.  But I briefly dated my gun instructor and in our concealed carry class, there was an older man who was so clearly there to see how he could get away with murdering someone.  It was extremely disturbing. My instructor was actually a good enough guy, and he taught that it was a gun owner's responsibility to ALWAYS retreat when possible and that using lethal force should only be done as an absolute last resort.  He advocated for well lit properties, alarm systems, etc to help deter would-be criminals.  But this dude was having none of it.  It was a lot of "ok, but what does the LAW say?"  I asked the instructor about it, and he told me there was at least one in every class, and that there wasn't anything he could do if they passed the requirements for the permit. I don't blame every person who has ever used a gun in self defense, even though for myself I realized I was less safe because I don't think that when push comes to shove, I could shoot someone even to defend myself.  But there is a huge, huge difference between someone who is legitimately in a life-or-death situation and these insane people who are dying (unfortunately not literally) to kill another human being.  

I get so sick of all of this.

 

This.  Exactly!  What you describe in your Conceal Carry Class is what I've heard others say too.  I've not done it because I have no interest in owning or shooting guns.  But I do associate with people who do...and it's difficult to not associate with them in America...they are everywhere.  And the problem I see is that the average human gets a CC Permit, and goes home with their gun and puts it away.  They are good people and they believe that every other gun owner is like them.  And groups like the NRA & your local gun club will support this idea.  Even though it is total bs.

The problem is what I call cowboy-wannabes.  The ones you describe as the "older man who was so clearly there to see how he could get away with murdering someone".  They should never have been allowed to own a gun in the first place.  For example, two anecdotal cowboy-wannabes I've met:

1) My family and I were eating in a restaurant and about a table or so away from us sat a lovely elderly couple, easily in their 80s-90s.  The husband (I assume they were married) had a tremor in his hand, but he reached over and patted his napkin on the table and says to us "this is my gun...if anyone tries to rob the place, I'm ready to protect you."  The wife smiles indulgently and says "he likes people" as if this is somehow an acceptable reason for telling random strangers that you are packing.  Frankly we were more worried that someone within ear shot would just take the gun from him.  Or that he would mistake someone for a robber and start shooting blindly.  We did the only thing we considered safe...we asked to have the rest of our meals packed up and we left. 

2) I work with a number of older co-workers (think 60+).  The oldest one died a few years back.  He was 94 and somehow both sweet and incredibly racist (obviously not at the same time).  At 92, he lost his gun.  And I don't mean he surrendered it, I mean, he went out into the most redneck part of the county were I live, left his truck unlocked & the windows down.  His gun resting on the seat.  Two weeks later, he remembered he had a gun, and went looking for it.  And it wasn't in his truck.  So he went back to the gun store and bought another one.  Because he couldn't be without a gun. 

These two individuals terrify me more than the supposed violent criminal coming for me.  Because they were both white and did not have a felony, they were free to have guns and would get away with shooting an armed person using "Stand Your Ground" to defend their actions.  And considering that same co-worker walked up to one of my hispanic co-workers and asked for her papers (she's a US Citizen) and he thought the solution to crime was to murder all black people, I really hope he never actually shot anyone.

[lasu]

19 minutes ago, kirkola said:

At 92, he lost his gun.  And I don't mean he surrendered it, I mean, he went out into the most redneck part of the county were I live, left his truck unlocked & the windows down.  His gun resting on the seat.  Two weeks later, he remembered he had a gun, and went looking for it.  And it wasn't in his truck.  So he went back to the gun store and bought another one.  Because he couldn't be without a gun. 

Ugh, yes!  One of my friends who did the concealed carry with me (my book club did this.  It's hard to explain how a book club ends up in a gun class, but it was the least of the weird things we did), her (now ex) husband was a gun nut.  He kept a gun in his SUV, in the console.  He apparently left it unlocked, and someone stole it and then used it in a crime (not a violent one, but truly I can't quite remember exactly what it was).  The police returned it to him.  Um, what?  Honestly, I think if you don't properly secure your gun and it is stolen because of your carelessness and then used in a crime, you should also be charged with that crime.  Or at least A crime.  Or at the very least the police shouldn't return the damn gun!

This same guy, I was talking about how I leave my porch light on as a deterrent, and he was like, why would you do that? you have a gun!  Um, I dunno because I would like to avoid a potentially violent situation??  I'm not pressed to think that using my gun would have profoundly changed me, no matter how "justified" it was.

ETA: Honestly?  Shooting guns is a lot of fun. I would go skeet shooting at the drop of the hat.  I just don't buy into the madness surrounding guns.  I also like playing bocci, but if bocci balls were used in widespread violence, I would sour on those as well.  

Edited May 18, 2021 by lasu

[Kromm]

14 hours ago, swanpride said:

Sure, but just because criticism of Israel is often used as a cover for anti-semitism, it doesn't mean that we should stop criticising Israel altogether. And Netanyahu...HE is the one who keeps pushing for resettlements, ignoring human rights in the process, he is the one who insisted on turning Jerusalem into the capital of Israel, he is the one who supports nonsense like the Jerusalem day, he is the one who ordered the various strikes against civilian targets with the standard excuse of "terrorists hide there", and he is the one who is currently implemented in various corruption affairs. I don't think that there are much "shades" when it comes to criticising Netanyahu. 

I won't disagree on Netanyahu.  The man belongs in front of a firing squad. 

Again, I'm wary because of how I'm seeing "Zionist" tossed around.  It's become a "no compromise, no peace" kind of declaration. Call Netanyahu and his supporters what they are instead: criminals and lunatics. It's an important distinction if someone actually wants peace in a post-Netanyahu Israel. 

5 hours ago, vibeology said:

Zimmerman was also told multiple times not to follow Trayvon Martin and we all know how that turned out. Stand Your Ground laws need to go.

Immediately. 

But they won't. 

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, ahisma said:

It’s the fault of Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority is worse than useless. But it’s not the fault of the everyday men, women, and children living in Gaza who are getting killed. They have no control over what Hamas does but they’re the fish in the barrel when the rockets come.

Yeah, it's the same kind of damaging vast oversimplification as screaming "Zionists!". There are reasonable people in that community, they just have no control. Part of that is the Israeli's fault, and part that Hamas flushes any good faith efforts of the community as a whole right down the toilet each time. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Kromm

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Folks, We have strayed too far from the Israel/Palestine conflict as it was discussed on the show into personal politics.  Posts were hidden either for crossing this line or for quoting posts that cross this line.  We have allowed some that quote portions of posts that were not in violation of the policy.  We appreciate that the conversation has remained civil.  

If you have any questions regarding the decision, please PM @PrincessPurrsALot directly. We do not discuss moderator actions in the forums. 

[peeayebee]

On 5/18/2021 at 7:25 AM, JustHereForFood said:

In that case when the man was repeatedly told not to go out, shouldn't he be charged with ignoring the instructions of an officer?

I believe it was a 911 operator, not an officer. Still, yes, he should have followed those directions.

 

21 hours ago, lasu said:

Y'all, I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but the crazy NRA lady who was accosted by a carful of men?  Did she say she was told IF she has called the police, she would have been arrested?  IF??  And John repeated it later in the segment, "if."  Is that "if" implying she did NOT call the police?  So her story is she was in a parking deck, a car full of men tried to abduct her, she pulled her gun in the beam of her headlights, one screamed THE BITCH HAS A GUN...and then what?  She just went on about her day after warding off a death-defying experience?  And she didn't call the police?  She just let a random group of men drive away to abduct a different woman who is dumb enough not to carry a firearm?

IIRC, she said the police officer she reported it to said that she could be charged with whatever the crime would be at that time, like pointing a gun in a public place. But the cop didn't charge her. 

Quote

I mean, let's be clear - even if she filed a police report at the time, I would still side eye this story if there isn't corroborating evidence.  But if she didn't file a report...did this even happen?  I mean, what are the chances that this happens to the (former at that point?) NRA president?  And is picture perfect to start the stampeded of Stand Your Ground laws?  Has a third of our nation issued white people get out jail free cards to kill black people based on a completely lie?  Not that these laws are ok even if this story is 100% true, but IS IT??  Am I missing something?

I too am wondering how truthful her story is. 

 

18 hours ago, lasu said:

This same guy, I was talking about how I leave my porch light on as a deterrent, and he was like, why would you do that? you have a gun!  Um, I dunno because I would like to avoid a potentially violent situation??  

Ugh. That guy's mindset is so disturbing, and not uncommon, right? Literally trigger-happy.

[lasu]

54 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

IIRC, she said the police officer she reported it to said that she could be charged with whatever the crime would be at that time, like pointing a gun in a public place. But the cop didn't charge her. 

No, I watched it over because I was shocked by it...she says AFTER SHE WENT PUBLIC WITH HER STORY, a "police chief" told her "in that situation, if you called the police, we would have arrested you since you were the only one who employed a lethal weapon."  There is nothing in what is presented on LWT that indicates there is any corroborating evidence to this story.

Here's how it was described in this NY Times article:  (eta: I can't seem to fix the formatting in this quote - my comments start with "Y'all, this story isn't true" in case you couldn't figure that out, lol)

Quote

But it was an incident in a parking deck 10 years ago that convinced her forever of the importance of a person's right to own and carry a gun. One night, after working late in Tallahassee, she was walking to her car in the parking deck when a car carrying six men started to follow her.

The men, who were either drunk or on drugs, screamed obscenities at her, she recalled. "They made it very clear what they intended to do," she said. "I felt sure I was going to die, or be left in a condition where I would have wished I had died."

Instead of running, she reached into her handbag for her six-shot .38-caliber revolver and stepped up to the car, between the headlights. The driver slammed the car in reverse and careened wildly backward through the parking deck and into the street.

Y'all, this story isn't true.  I know that's not really the point because even if it was, it doesn't justify these laws.  But this story seriously isn't true. I'm supposed to believe that this car full of criminals backed wildly through a parking deck?  I have trouble getting around those corners going forward.  Also, if someone was pointing a gun at you, it's actually far more logical to hit that person with your car than back up, since she says she was standing directly between the headlights.  And then, even more illogically, she just let these SIX men (I suppose they were going to put her in the trunk?) go on criminal activities?  She just tucked her gun back in purse and went on with her day?  No police involved?  Didn't even mention the story again until she "went public" with it?  Fucking hell.  I only can't believe I can't find anything where she says all six men were non-white.  How many people have died directly because of this woman's self-serving lies?

Edited May 19, 2021 by lasu

[swanpride]

Yeah, the part where she "stepped between the headlights" is the most unbelievable thing about it. For one: It would be a very stupid thing to do in the first place. And two: Even if a bunch of apparently already keyed up criminals were inclined to stop for her, they most likely wouldn't manage to do so before hitting her, if they were really as fast and rowdy as she claimed. 

But even if the story were true: The fact is that she wasn't charged, and that some random police officers claimed that she would be just on the account of what she described, is really not comforting. 

But honestly: She should have been charged if the story were true. Because if you tell it differently, than what happened is that she felt threatened by a bunch of guys who happened to drive through a parking garage while being rowdy and decided to pull a gun on them in response. That she thinks that the "planned something" has little bearing when those guys didn't even bother to leave their car. What exactly where they planning to do which apparently didn't involve leaving their car or running her over (which they could have done easily)? She is lucky that no one in their right mind believes this BS story or is inclined to follow up on it. 

[lasu]

5 hours ago, swanpride said:

That she thinks that the "planned something" has little bearing when those guys didn't even bother to leave their car. What exactly where they planning to do which apparently didn't involve leaving their car or running her over (which they could have done easily)? She is lucky that no one in their right mind believes this BS story or is inclined to follow up on it. 

FWIW, I read another story where she said one of the men described what he was going to do to her with the neck of a bottle.  Not that that is true, but that's another claim she made.  It really bugs me that no one has discredited her about all this.  I know it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, but I still wish it would happen.

[peeayebee]

On 5/19/2021 at 8:52 AM, lasu said:

No, I watched it over because I was shocked by it...she says AFTER SHE WENT PUBLIC WITH HER STORY, a "police chief" told her "in that situation, if you called the police, we would have arrested you since you were the only one who employed a lethal weapon."  There is nothing in what is presented on LWT that indicates there is any corroborating evidence to this story.

Oops. I misremembered. Thanks for the correction. 

 

Quote

FWIW, I read another story where she said one of the men described what he was going to do to her with the neck of a bottle.  Not that that is true, but that's another claim she made. 

Yeah, from that NYT article you linked to earlier, she sounds like a person who enjoys using hyperbole. Or lying. 

[izabella]

On 5/17/2021 at 3:40 PM, Slovenly Muse said:

Excellent episode, with great points all around. I only wish John had taken the extra step of drawing the clear line between Stand Your Ground laws, and the knee-jerk defense of "Israel has a right to defend itself." Because this mentality, that "I have a right to shoot at and indiscriminately kill anyone I feel threatened by, regardless of their actual ability to do me harm" is baked into the American understanding of violence, and what is and isn't considered "morally acceptable," which is just as much present in foreign policy as it is domestically. We don't often stop to examine the issues of violence as it is enacted on American streets, and violence as it is enacted through American involvement in international warfare, and acknowledge how this violence is fundamentally the same. An America that sells weapons to Israel to "defend itself" against its relatively-powerless Muslim "adversary" is operating on the same moral principles as an America that passes Stand Your Ground laws and selectively enforces them along racial lines. The folks in power who support these narratives WANT us to see them as two different, unrelated issues, that we will have to fight as two separate and costly battles, so that we will be forced to prioritize and divide our efforts unnecessarily, when in reality they are the same issue, with the same root cause, which can be addressed through the same shift in thinking and policy. I do wish John had been able to make that explicit, that both of his main stories were essentially the same story. I think it's an important thing to acknowledge!

John could have even drawn a bright line between "right to defend," "Stand Your Ground,"and "provoking someone so you can "defend" yourself."

[swanpride]

Technically you don't even have to provoke someone. You can just shoot someone and then claim that you were afraid - see Trevon Martin. As long as your victim has the right skin colour and/or social status, nobody will question you. 

[lucindabelle]

I am Jewish, and like many Jews and Israelis, really hate Bibi. That’s important to know. Israel has a parliamentary system so someone can be in power with a plurality not a majority.

 

I also thought the reality of who Hamas is was glossed over a bit.

personally while I enjoy John Oliver anger up to a point I also watch it to laugh; I have news and other commentary for outrage.  
I realize these things don’t lend themselves to comedy. Just for me the evening as a whole is not why I tune in.

stand your ground was interesting in terms of history but other than that, as someone who watches news, showed me nothing I didn’t know already, not presented in a particularly compelling way. An even bigger issue I’d say is the loophole that allows police to get off the hook for shooting if they are in fear for their lives...

wnyway I realize I’m in the minority and most of you liked this episode. But for me if it carries on being sort of “commentary on rachel Maddow” I’ll tune out.

 

 

[Lantern7]

There's not much else that I can add, save for South Park skewering SYG in "World War Zimmerman." Basically, it was 22 minutes of Eric Cartman being an asshole, with satire and World War Z  references mixed in. And yeah, SYG gives people a license for people to kill other people.

Still waiting for the episode where John screams into a pillow for thirty straight minutes. Only a matter of time, right?

[BrownBear2012]

On 5/17/2021 at 12:14 PM, purist said:

My favourite John - Righteously Angry John - was fully present in the Israel v Palestine segment. He was so incandescently angry I though he was going to leap out of his chair. Great segment.

He gave a very slanted view of the conflict...Hamas is a terrorist organization being funded financially and given weapons by Iran. The fact that they have a stronghold on the inhabitants of Gaza is always going to be a threat to the safety of Israel and Israel will always defend its borders and people...having said that, Netanyahu will continue to use this situation to win another election and delay his day in court. He's under indictment and uses the danger of weak security of Israel as a means to a political end...just as Hamas uses their attacks as a means to a political end. We can support Israel and its people but have criticism and disagreements with Netanyahu...just as we can support Palestinian people but criticize a terrorist organization that seems to have a control of their communities. I wish John had made this point.

[BrownBear2012]

On 5/21/2021 at 12:08 AM, lucindabelle said:

I am Jewish, and like many Jews and Israelis, really hate Bibi. That’s important to know. Israel has a parliamentary system so someone can be in power with a plurality not a majority.

 

I also thought the reality of who Hamas is was glossed over a bit.

personally while I enjoy John Oliver anger up to a point I also watch it to laugh; I have news and other commentary for outrage.  
I realize these things don’t lend themselves to comedy. Just for me the evening as a whole is not why I tune in.

stand your ground was interesting in terms of history but other than that, as someone who watches news, showed me nothing I didn’t know already, not presented in a particularly compelling way. An even bigger issue I’d say is the loophole that allows police to get off the hook for shooting if they are in fear for their lives...

wnyway I realize I’m in the minority and most of you liked this episode. But for me if it carries on being sort of “commentary on rachel Maddow” I’ll tune out.

 

 

I agree...with everything you said. I used to really enjoy his show but I think this last season has not been very good. Too much whining and angry F bomb laden diatribes. The pandemic has kept him indoors and without his usual bits from other locales...and interviews with people that are always excellent. He really didn't do his homework on the Hamas situation in Gaza and was actually quite sloppy in his presentation. He needs to get out of his white, blank void and get back to the studio and produce some shows that are clever, well researched and funny as hell. 

[purist]

6 hours ago, BrownBear2012 said:

We can support Israel and its people but have criticism and disagreements with Netanyahu...just as we can support Palestinian people but criticize a terrorist organization that seems to have a control of their communities. I wish John had made this point.

I thought that's exactly what he did. He said that the killing wasn't being done by all Israelis or by all Palestinians.

[BrownBear2012]

19 hours ago, purist said:

I thought that's exactly what he did. He said that the killing wasn't being done by all Israelis or by all Palestinians.

Hmmm…I heard different. I thought he said  the Israeli response was disproportionate to what Hamas had done. Hamas started the bombing attacks and Israel responded appropriately in defense of their country. He did not mention that the goal of Hamas is to destroy Israel and is being supported with weapons and money by Iran…another country that supports terrorism and the destruction of Israel. It’s more what I did not hear from him about this conflict that was disturbing. 
 

[lucindabelle]

no, John didn’t do this complex situation justice.
 

The only reason Israelis haven’t died en masse is iron dome. I feel like hamas just gets a free pass because their murder attempts don’t work. Hamas not only wouldn’t cry over civilian deaths they actively seek them, rejoice over Jewish deaths and seek the destruction of israel: literally in their charter.

 

yes Palestinian civilian death is awful and there may be war crimes committed , John really did not do this complex situation justice at all.

and as I said I felt the stand your ground also didn’t work. Though here I agree wirh him.

 

thw bear John is a persuasive because also funny John, like his piece exposing charter school fraud.

I don’t think angry John is the best. I am beginning to dread watching.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by lucindabelle

[BrownBear2012]

22 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

no, John didn’t do this complex situation justice.
 

The only reason Israelis haven’t died en masse is iron dome. I feel like hamas just gets a free pass because their murder attempts don’t work. Hamas not only wouldn’t cry over civilian deaths they actively seek them, rejoice over Jewish deaths and seek the destruction of israel: literally in their charter.

 

yes Palestinian civilian death is awful and there may be war crimes committed , John really did not do this complex situation justice at all.

and as I said I felt the stand your ground also didn’t work. Though here I agree wirh him.

 

thw bear John is a persuasive because also funny John, like his piece exposing charter school fraud.

I don’t think angry John is the best. I am beginning to dread watching.

 

 

YES! To everything you said. Angry John isn't funny. Sunday night is kind of my time to relax and laugh a little especially after watching "Mare of Easttown"...From the start his take on the news of the week was witty and clever. Even tough, serious subjects were given a snarky touch that was thought provoking yet had a comedic bent that was still respectful of the seriousness of the topic being discussed. Now it's all anger, F bomb after F bomb...I don't need my blood pressure being raised after 11 PM on Sunday nights and John's show was a great way to end the weekend with great bits and droll humor. That's changed in the last year. I'm wondering if some of writers are no longer there and he's writing alot of his own material now. The Israel/Palestine piece was shoddily writen and factually inaccurate and poorly presented. Not up to his usual standards and a subject that deserves more in depth discussion and could have used more nuance. I, too, dread watching this show now and am now the only one in my home that still watches it...the other two members of my family that still live here quit watching it several episodes ago. I might be joining them.

[purist]

8 hours ago, BrownBear2012 said:

Now it's all anger, F bomb after F bomb

I totally disagree about the anger. The show is still a fantastic mix of humour and seriousness for me. We don't see Righteously Angry John very often, which is why he's my favourite. He only appears when John is really pissed off about something. And as the things that piss off John also piss me off, his bits as Righteously Angry John are a great catharsis and comfort to me.

[Annber03]

Plus, given there's been a LOT of things to get quite angry about in recent times, I think it's hard, if not outright impossible, to keep it out of these segments much of the time at this point. There's not much going on in the news that's all that funny and lighthearted. 

[purist]

I wish I could love your post harder than with a single 'heart', @Annber03!

[BrownBear2012]

14 hours ago, purist said:

I totally disagree about the anger. The show is still a fantastic mix of humour and seriousness for me. We don't see Righteously Angry John very often, which is why he's my favourite. He only appears when John is really pissed off about something. And as the things that piss off John also piss me off, his bits as Righteously Angry John are a great catharsis and comfort to me.

We'll just have to agree to disagree...I think it's not nearly as witty, creative and well, funny, as it was just two seasons ago. Granted being put in a white closet to do the show has been a challenge and his show was a mix of seated in studio banter and field taped material and in person interviews...both of which he has been unable to do for over a year. For me, all the pent up anger and over use of the F word just don't work. 

[lucindabelle]

16 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Plus, given there's been a LOT of things to get quite angry about in recent times, I think it's hard, if not outright impossible, to keep it out of these segments much of the time at this point. There's not much going on in the news that's all that funny and lighthearted. 

 Are you kidding???

 

there’s been enough to be angry about for five years! Maybe you don’t agree but I find the mass shootings, the Muslim ban. The government corruption to be PLENTY of rage making. And yet John used to be more- gasp- entertaining.

 

obxioualt mileage varies but I’m  ot wntertained. This is t rats having sex, etc. it’s just not fun.

israel aside, I didn’t think the piece on gun laws was entertaining either and if I want straight expose I have msnbc and 60 minutes.

withour the comedy it’s just hopping mad English person, with a snark now and then. And as a Jew I really don’t appreciate the knee jerk israel bad Palestine good approach so popular on extreme left and Un which just OMITS the part where other Arab nations wot  take on Palestinian refugees and the Hamas charter. And I’m not excusing israel at all. I’m just saying the situation as presented really was an example of slanted media and as such neither informative nor funny.

[Annber03]

10 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

 Are you kidding???

 

there’s been enough to be angry about for five years! Maybe you don’t agree but I find the mass shootings, the Muslim ban. The government corruption to be PLENTY of rage making. 

Oh, no, I do agree-I actually was referring to the last few years in general when I said that. 

Quote

And yet John used to be more- gasp- entertaining.

Yes, but he also got to do a show in an actual studio, and had an actual audience, and got to do big fun things like that "Eat Shit, Bob" musical number and so forth, for much of that time. As noted up above by another poster, the fact he hasn't been able to do things like that for the past year, almost year and a half now, very much contributes to and explains the shift in the show's tone. Maybe once he's able to get back into his regular studio and get an audience again and things of that sort, we may see the show's tone get a little brighter again. Since some other hosts have returned or are returning to their studios, I'm guessing it shouldn't be too long before he gets to do the same. 

[lucindabelle]

42 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Oh, no, I do agree-I actually was referring to the last few years in general when I said that. 

Yes, but he also got to do a show in an actual studio, and had an actual audience, and got to do big fun things like that "Eat Shit, Bob" musical number and so forth, for much of that time. As noted up above by another poster, the fact he hasn't been able to do things like that for the past year, almost year and a half now, very much contributes to and explains the shift in the show's tone. Maybe once he's able to get back into his regular studio and get an audience again and things of that sort, we may see the show's tone get a little brighter again. Since some other hosts have returned or are returning to their studios, I'm guessing it shouldn't be too long before he gets to do the same. 

I totally agree. The “white void” thing is a tired joke by now.

 

im also kind of over the endless making fun of local news folks- it’s just old now. 
 

here’s hoping.