|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yeah, that sucks. Too bad nobody could have seen that happening.
I must not have been following the case, he went back to the car? I thought he was sitting in the car the entire time and he reached over into the glove box and got the gun. Florida doesn't require fleeing if you are in danger, the part about having time to flee is irrelevant.
If he was in the car the whole time, then it would sound more like a case where people are arguing and then one of them kills the other, something like a road rage case. Those usually aren't first degree cases, or so I thought.
I'm not sure if attempted murder is included in the lesser charges or not. I could easily see how it might not be, given that the victim is actually dead.
I am no law expert, but I think as long as you believe they are alive and attempt to murder them, you can still be convicted of attempted murder even if they were already dead (which I'm not sure the kid was at the time of the second volley).
e.g. You kick in an apartment door and see a man lying on a couch. You shoot him and grab the T.V. and run. Later the cops show up, after the autopsy they find that the man was already dead, having suffered a heart attack earlier. Since you didn't know he was dead and attempted to murder him, you can't be convicted of actual murder, but you can be convicted of attempting to murder.
Like I said, I'm not sure that is valid interpretation, or if it is, if it is valid everywhere.
Honestly, the Florida prosecution team that has been doing these cases just baffles me. I mean, first degree case for Dunn? Why not second degree, that seems more reasonable based on the situation? Also, didn't they include an attempted murder charge for the victim as well as a murder charge? And if not, why not? He stated he didn't know he had killed the kid. So when he fired the second time when the car was fleeing (this is the part he was convicted on), he should have been convicted on attempting murder on the victim. The fact that the victim was dead (actually might have still been alive at that point, I don't know) is irrelevant to the fact that he was attempting to commit murder.
It just seems as if they never want to put lesser charges, because they fear the jury will go with those instead, and always swings for the fences. Sometimes it works for them (but perhaps not for justice) other times it doesn't.
Well according to this story he faces "at least 60 years". Now maybe they don't know what they are talking about.
60 years minimum. Yup.
We actually have had liberal people elected to the White House. However their elections did not produce the spike on gun sales that Obama's did. Are you seriously going to argue that his skin color did not factor in that rise?
Whenever Obama talks about gun control, sales shoot up (no pun intended). When he holds beer summits on race, not so much. It is his attitude towards gun control (see after Sandy Hook for example) that drives this. Sure a lot of dumb whites with guns hate Obama because he is bi-racial, but the sales are driven by fears of gun control not fears of the *racial insult* in the White House.
I'd hazard a guess that when the Brady bill was being passed, there was probably a jump in sales then to. Now it is probably bigger due to (dis)information being able to pass quicker.
I would suggest that as a husband and father, you need to take that part of your life at least as focused as the work part. Your family needs you to take them on trips, to build memories so that when they are older they have something to remember this time by, not merely, dad went to work each day. Exhausting? Absolutely, many times you'd rather be at work? Sure. But who said taking that role would ever be easy. Don't use work to hide from responsibility to spend time with family and build memories for them.
What I'm saying is you might consider being Clark Griswald. Sure, work hard and try to get enough to put that new pool in for the family. But you still need to take time and take them to WallyWorld. See those "vacation" days as "Dad-Time Work Days".
From the first post:
But you haven't come anywhere near showing that the greatest discrimination is against Asian-Americans.
I'm not sure he ever has made such a claim. Seems more like he is claiming that in the case of Asian-Americans the discrimination is not even recognized, not that it is worse than the discrimination of African-Americans which at least recognized. Basically claiming people ignore the Asian-American discrimination because recognizing it isn't "in vogue" at the moment culturally.
We pretty much only know the sexuality of any Paizo NPCs if they're in a relationship.
Even that case you still have no idea. Being married doesn't necessarily mean the spouses are interested in each other sexually in anyway or that they are not interested in others that have a different gender and/or sex from their spouse.
Also, I find your premise that by helping one group we are necessarily doing so at the expense of another troubling. It goes off the assumption that everything is a zero-sum game, which isn't true. For somethings it is, but for most it isn't.
Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women.
We have a male problem developing in our culture. Acting like it only effects certain groups of males is silly and destructive. We should have programs try to get all males to achieve, not just assuming that certain groups are "fine" and others need help.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Considering almost every single human culture is living on stolen lands, I'm not exactly losing a lot of sleep over it. Especially when they are disowning their own.
Isn't that a bit like suggesting that an entire generation of people should just suck it up and not complain that they and others like themselves are systematically being oppressed.
I would think that is pretty indicative of a very serious "privilege" mindset. "I've got mine, why don't you shut it about yours."
I've seen a few people in this thread and others say that this topic is not appropriate for a gaming forum. Let me remind them that this is the Off Topic section. If you don't want to be part of the conversation then choose not to click on the thread.
Actually it is in the gamer talk section, not that is really critical, just mentioning it for clarity sake.
As others above said, I would suggest that it just be left open-ended and let the player decide how they wish to define the character.
One place can become an issue is with something like PF's random height and weight. If all characters are suppose to use the random generator to come up with the character's height or weight, there are only two options male or female for a given race.
Well you failed then. Cervini didn't lay a single hand on Scott and the prosecution claimed Cervini was shot in the back.
Neither of those match up to the Zimmerman/Martin case. In that case Martin left wounds on Zimmerman and only after that did Zimmerman shoot Martin and that was point-blank facing each other, with witness supported testimony, Zimmerman claiming Martin was on top of him hitting him.
That case is nothing like the Scott-Cervini case.
Did the kid call the cops? Then it was not what I wished for.
Why couldn't Martin call the cops on Zimmerman? As you say, some creep old guy is following you, why shouldn't the cops investigate? If this was a kid who grew up in the "white culture" (regardless of their actual racial description), that would have seemed a reasonable option.
As for expecting more from a 30 year old. Keep in mind, there is no evidence that Zimmerman every struck Martin. The only injuries Martin received prior to the gun wound was Zimmerman's face beating on Martin's hands. Maybe Zimmerman was trained in the Wimp Lo fighting style.
One thing I think that we could get out of the Martin-Zimmerman situation and the discussion of police is that if Martin had felt like he could have trusted the police, he could have called them instead of talking to his girlfriend about some creepy a**-*****er following him. I can't say if it is the police's fault for not being trustworthy or the people's fault who influenced Martin. I would ask that if you have contact with underage folk, whether your own kids or ones you know, you don't instill in them a sense of fear from the police so that when they are in danger they don't feel like they can seek help from them.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Good thing I didn't use race in that discussion and I wasn't denigrate anything.
When you say "anonymous procedures" what does this mean? The name redacted? How about the schools, considering some schools have significant populations of a specific racial group, not to mention academies that are single sexed.
Who redacts these? Personal? What if someone there is biased and thus filters applicants before sending them off to various departments?
Would employers be allowed to face-to-face interviews? How would you maintain anonymity in those cases?
I think it is silly to assume that people are going to stop classifying groups of people based on perceived characteristics shared within the group.
That is exactly how we as humans understand the world. When a child is learning about animals, they have to learn that both their housecat and the lion at the zoo are cats. They have to see the characteristics they share and notice that some other animals do not share these characteristics. They then need to understand that lions are not the same as housecats even though they are both cats. And they have to recognize those differences.
What is a chair and what is a table? Is a stool a chair or a table? Why is it a stool and not a chair?
The way we understand these things is to classify them. It is not an issue of low self esteem, but a natural part of how we as humans understand the world. We will never understand how to combat these prejudices as long as we act as if classifying groups of things based on perceived characteristics is inherently wrong, because we are just denying our natural method of understanding the world.
Jewish status is passed down through the mother, not the father. Assuming that mother and father are equally important in all aspects is an enlightened attitude, but not one shared by everyone.
Besides I'm just pulling your chain. My original comment was just a reason why African-Americans could see it that way. The Obama comment was just based on the fact that you didn't do a good comparison, if you had chosen a "black" person who had a white father, it would have been a better counter example. I just thought it was funny you picked Obama who's father is black and since he is also considered "black" it actually reinforced the idea of "if your father is X, then you are X." Instead of debunking it.
GM: So your Cha 7 character is good looking?
Night hags (Cha 17) are the hotness!
Claiming it only works on minorities is not correct 90% of the time, it is correct 0% of the time as the stats I provided earlier prove. You are in error. You can admit to being in error, we all make mistakes after all. Not doing so when shown specific evidence isn't being clever, it is being foolish.
The court gave you an inch and you snagged the entire mile: but it only works against disenfranchised minorities.
10% of the people stopped and frisked were white. Please stop saying that it only effects minorities. Are you suggesting those whites that were SaF were not victims of overzealous police action, like the non-whites were?
Freehold DM wrote:
According to the conservative group New York Civil Liberties Union, about 10% of those stopped and frisked were white. Clearly not proportional to their respective population in the city, but they are stopped on occasion. Doesn't mean that the initiative isn't racist, but merely that just because someone never saw a white person being stopped shouldn't be used as evidence that it never happens. Anecdotal has some value but only to a point.
Well within the limited context of my marriage the power doesn't rest with me. Not even remotely.
Can't be racist if the group doesn't have the "power" in society.
For example, my wife was watching a video where a non-english but commonly used word in english (e.g. hors d'oeuvre) was shown. A guy "tried" to say the word and got it wrong each time. Then a woman said the word correctly. I ask her, "So the message here is that guys are stupid?" She smiled slightly, "No not really." I followed up with the observation, "You can't really discriminate against men in favor of women, because at the end of the day the men have the power. If a woman is shown being stupid that is an example of the oppression of women. If a man is shown being stupid that is just making a joke."
If someone with Cha as a dump stat pumps up their Diplomacy skill, they can make sure they don't fail every diplomacy.
If "intelligence" is a measure of the ability to learn new things, then a Ranger with an Int 8 [5 skill points per level] is more "intelligent" than a Cleric with an Int 14 [4 skill points per level].
Don't hate the player, hate the system.
All poor minorities have cameras put in their houses by the authorities? No wonder these budgets are out of control.
Wait, I see now. Morgan Freeman gave Obama that Bat-Man thing that could tap into all wireless phones. And wireless phones have been getting cheaper, so now even poor people have them. Clever O-Man, quite clever.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
I imagine the descriptive text is copyrighted, but the stats are most likely open content being based off of open content material.