Are you happy that Shad Gaspard is in jail?

[Father Uncle Oscar]

Just saw the video. It amazes me how any of you guys can still think he did anything wrong. The only reason he "resisted" was so he could look at the officer he was talking to. Shad did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Uh, just go back a couple pages. Someone posted it in this thread.

 

[Slyfox696]

After seeing the video, there's no doubt in my mind Shad didn't do anything. All of those people watching said the same thing.

Also, those were unarmed traffic cops. There's no way Shad couldn't have destroyed each of them if he was actually resisting anything.

Just saw the video. It amazes me how any of you guys can still think he did anything wrong. The only reason he "resisted" was so he could look at the officer he was talking to. Shad did absolutely nothing wrong.

While I'm not disputing either version of the tale, I will say the video really doesn't help either side. Since the video starts after Shad's already on the ground, there's no VIDEO proof if he was obeying the officers or not.

That being said, when a whole crowd of witnesses are swearing on camera that nothing happened...that's going to be tough for a prosecutor to overcome. Especially since, as Shad said, he was the ONLY one taken down for something apparently several people were doing.

 

[Buffalo Dave]

As TMZ previously reported, Gaspard was popped by Columbus PD for allegedly jaywalking and the video of his arrest shows three officers pinning him down while he, and several onlookers, tried to tell them he did nothing wrong.

Sgt. Rich Weiner, a rep for the Columbus PD, tells TMZ the police report says Gaspard was observed by an officer walking in the roadway and obstructing traffic. He says Gaspard ignored an officer's request to get out of the street and refused to provide the officer with ID when asked several times.

Sgt. Weiner says, according to the report, the officer then tried to arrest Gaspard, but he "broke free from the officers as they attempted to take him into custody."

The video we posted begins sometime after that, which Weiner says "does not show the events which led to Mr. Gaspard being put on the ground and being placed in handcuffs."

.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

There's so many larger issues here.

My take is this:

Joking around about racism, isn't funny. Joking or not, I don't agree with it. However, I'll allow people to have their opinions since the first amendment affords them that right. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

From a legal standpoint, I find this a bit absurd. The criminal justice system isn't meant to put every single criminal behind bars. Laws, in general, are to act as deterrents to crime.

Tax-payers dollars could more readily be spent on much larger issues than someone jay-walking. Serial rapists, child predators, Megan's Law, adjusting the coke vs. crack laws, etc...

These are real issues in this country. Jay-walking, much like wearing your seatbelt, is more of a personal safety law than an actual "criminal" offense. If someone wants to risk their lives running across the street, let 'em. 9 out 10 times, the person in a vehicle is going to win that battle. Motorcycles and mopeds being the few exceptions that I can think of.

They're really risking their own safety.

 

[Final Form Snyper.]

What a bitch, didn't even attempt a Running STO.

 

[Morrison_Fanboy]

Alright so since this is pretty much the most unimforative thread ever created

This was not meant to be an educational experience for me.

anyone want to tell me why Shad is in or was in jail?, adn why I should be happy about it

This thread is not entitled, "Shad Gaspard is in Jail. You should be happy about it."

It is, however, entitled: "Are you happy that Shad Gaspard is in jail?"

Believe it or not, I'm giving you the option to be happy.

I've been told I'm charitable.

Why fill up the jail cell with a black dude crossing the street when you a John Morrison fanboy running around. Not a fan. A fanboy.

Because of the two of us, he prefers to entertain for a living.

He being arrested makes for more entertainment than he did parading around a WWE arena acting as though he had an extra chromosome.

So whether he went to jail or got hit by a bus, as a selfish and ill-humored person, I get to laugh either way.

And if I'm laughing, I'm happy; if I'm happy, I do my work more well. If I do my work more well, I do more good for the world.

Whereas if Shad is happy, he would smile, but it's an ugly smile, so he'd bring everyone else who could do good for the world down.

Make sense?

Great way to take one side of the story without hearing the rest of it. Jeez, the exaggeration is astounding.

The fact that you cant suspend disbelief between wrestling and reality amazes me.

Fuck off

I dont care if he is innocent or not, but do you understand the stupidity that is going on here? He is saying he deserves to be in prison because he is a shit wrestler, like how good he is determines how much civil freedom he gets or is entitled to.

It is a fucking joke, the whole thread is pretty awful and he had to be called out for his opinion on it.

Ah, the old dumbo rears his head again. Let's get one thing straight, my simpleton little 27-year-old:

The key-word in the part you highlighted is "might".

Using "might" is a way to suggest this little concept called doubt, which in turn means I did not imply it was an absolute truth.

You went on to attack a misrepresentation of what I had said, which constitutes a fallacy known as the straw-man.

You might want to try wiping the urine out of your eyes, too. Not once did I say he deserves it. I only ever said I'm glad that he is.

Oh, and tremendous job beating around the bush, ignoring everything else I said. About what I expected.

Secondly, Anybody that is happy that the man is jailed is a dick, ESPECIALLY if they want him there even if he did nothing to warrant it. It's sad that he (allegedly) did something to warrant being arrested.

Being happy and wanting him there are not interchangeable clauses. Please define if it's one or the other (or both) that renders someone a dick.

Thirdly, Numbers and The Natural are correct on all counts here. This thread is fucking pathetic, as is anyone who seriously said that Shad deserves to be in jail for his wrestling ability.

I'm not sure you know the meaning of your own set of words. Being "correct on all counts" means every point they've made, yet you only gave merit to the common opinion that it is "fucking pathetic".

It might be willful blindness on your part or something, but I've shown the other points brought up and why they're so far off base.

If you are still of the opinion that they're right all-around, I welcome you to tell me why.

Your posts in this thread are a crazy attempt to justify it. Im not going to go into every single point you make because it's pathetic.

ScreaminNormanSmiley, feel free to laugh that one off.

As you can see in his feeble-minded attempts toward me, even when he does address a point, it's entirely unfounded.

You really have lost the point of this thread haven't you. Read the first page, do you really agree with Fanboy's point about being in jail because he was a shit wrestler!?

Whereas you never grasped the point. Again: not once did I say that.

Here:

http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/marketing/sfesl/practicereading.html

Start at "Grade 1"; I'm not linking you to it because I want to see if you are capable of finding it all on your own, like a grown-up 27-year-old.

My take is this:

Joking around about racism, isn't funny.

"Funny" is characterized by the ability to make someone laugh. People laugh at racially oriented jokes. It certainly can be funny, albeit maybe not to you.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

"Funny" is characterized by the ability to make someone laugh. People laugh racially oriented jokes. It certainly can be funny, albeit maybe not to you.

Inherent in that characteristic is the ability to tell that one IS, in fact, joking. People like Dave Chappelle, Eddie Griffin, George Carlin, and Lisa Lampanelli have a proven track record for establishing that their using racially motivated commentary for their humor.

Some random spouting off racially charged statements on the internet where voice inflection, facial expressions, and body characteristics are missing might not be perceived as "joking."

The internet allows people to say whatever they feel like without, general, fear of reprisal. Also, I fail to believe that there's not an individual who reads/posts on these threads that doesn't harbor racial disdain for at least one minority. Reading statements like this, joking or otherwise, without someone explicitly stating "it's a joke," might just serve as a mechanism to reinforce their beliefs and that there's others out there who share in their hate.

Either way, I did state, which you conveniently left out, that the first amendment supports citizens rights to say what they want. While I don't agree with it, I recognize it as a right and something that people can do whether or not I agree that it is funny.

Humor is subjective. It's not generalizable nor is it applicable to everyone. That's the key component.

Remove race from this entire conversation and imagine a comic that you think is absolutely stupid. One that you hate. For me, it's Dane Cook, now imagine someone trying to convince you that the comedian/enne you hate, is funny. They're probably not going to have much success. It's just not funny to you or that type of humor just isn't for you.

That's the gist of what I'm getting it.

 

[Morrison_Fanboy]

Inherent in that characteristic is the ability to tell that one IS, in fact, joking. People like Dave Chappelle, Eddie Griffin, George Carlin, and Lisa Lampanelli have a proven track record for establishing that their using racially motivated commentary for their humor.

Some random spouting off racially charged statements on the internet where voice inflection, facial expressions, and body characteristics are missing might not be perceived as "joking."

The internet allows people to say whatever they feel like without, general, fear of reprisal. Also, I fail to believe that there's not an individual who reads/posts on these threads that doesn't harbor racial disdain for at least one minority. Reading statements like this, joking or otherwise, without someone explicitly stating "it's a joke," might just serve as a mechanism to reinforce their beliefs and that there's others out there who share in their hate.

Either way, I did state, which you conveniently left out, that the first amendment supports citizens rights to say what they want. While I don't agree with it, I recognize it as a right and something that people can do whether or not I agree that it is funny.

Humor is subjective. It's not generalizable nor is it applicable to everyone. That's the key component.

Remove race from this entire conversation and imagine a comic that you think is absolutely stupid. One that you hate. For me, it's Dane Cook, now imagine someone trying to convince you that the comedian/enne you hate, is funny. They're probably not going to have much success. It's just not funny to you or that type of humor just isn't for you.

That's the gist of what I'm getting it.

All I had said is why joking around about racism can be funny. I actually agree with a lot of what you have said. I left out your ability to recognize the amendment because it is simply not relevant. It was never my contention that you don't support something you may not find funny. I understood that and I can respect it. Yes, humor is subjective (again I agree). I did not mean that just because it can make someone laugh, it's characterized as funny. I meant when it does, it can be perceived as such, and an approving member of the audience can call it so. I fully expect room to be left open for the opposite -- believe me.

In short, we are on the same tangent, more or less, as far as the principles go.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

All I had said is why joking around about racism can be funny. I actually agree with a lot of what you have said. I left out your ability to recognize the amendment because it is simply not relevant. It was never my contention that you don't support something you may not find funny. I understood that and I can respect it. Yes, humor is subjective (again I agree). I did not mean that just because it can make someone laugh, it's characterized as funny. I meant when it does, it can be perceived as such, and an approving member of the audience can call it so. I fully expect room to be left open for the opposite -- believe me.

In short, we are on the same tangent, more or less, as far as the principles go.

Gotcha. I wasn't expecting the room to be shut down. In fact, I'm against it. I won't beat a dead horse here by fully explaining why I am against it, so I'll simply say "first amendment."