Conquer Club

Symmetry. This one is for you. The video lays out a few Alinsky tactics.

Spike Lee (movie director) tweeted what he assumed was George Zimmerman’s home address. Many think the move reckless under any circumstances, however, matters were made far worse when it turned out the address Lee sent out to his entire list of 240,000+ Twitter followers was wrong, belonging not to Zimmerman but an elderly couple with no relation to the shooter.

Now that family has been forced to leave their home and may not be able to return soon if ever as they “fear for their life.”

Beck slammed Lee for his reckless decision and said he would be ultimately responsible if anything were to happen to the couple. He also said that Lee should foot the bill for the couple’s hotel, relocation, and even buy their house, as it will surely be difficult if not impossible to sell after his antics.

This was a rant for the record books. Watch below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-the- ... ly-couple/

If Zimmerman was murdered by someone who discovered his address via Spike Lee's tweet (assuming that the msg was actually Zimmerman's address), then could Spike Lee be tried as an accomplice of murder? What's people's moral stance on this situation?



EDIT: I guess it's his retweet, which is essentially the same thing. The information is being distributed by Spike Lee.

Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry. This one is for you. The video lays out a few Alinsky tactics.

Spike Lee (movie director) tweeted what he assumed was George Zimmerman’s home address. Many think the move reckless under any circumstances, however, matters were made far worse when it turned out the address Lee sent out to his entire list of 240,000+ Twitter followers was wrong, belonging not to Zimmerman but an elderly couple with no relation to the shooter.

Now that family has been forced to leave their home and may not be able to return soon if ever as they “fear for their life.”

Beck slammed Lee for his reckless decision and said he would be ultimately responsible if anything were to happen to the couple. He also said that Lee should foot the bill for the couple’s hotel, relocation, and even buy their house, as it will surely be difficult if not impossible to sell after his antics.

This was a rant for the record books. Watch below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-the- ... ly-couple/

Hmm, your words:

Phatscotty wrote:I guess Spike Lee's direct calls for violence and even going out of his way to aid and abet and would be vigilante gets a pass

Now given that you're admitting that he a) did not call for violence and b) is certainly not getting a pass (see, for example, the "rant for the record books" a poster above linked to), I'm not sure what you're getting at, apart from disproving your own statements, which I called BS on in the first place.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry. This one is for you. The video lays out a few Alinsky tactics.

Spike Lee (movie director) tweeted what he assumed was George Zimmerman’s home address. Many think the move reckless under any circumstances, however, matters were made far worse when it turned out the address Lee sent out to his entire list of 240,000+ Twitter followers was wrong, belonging not to Zimmerman but an elderly couple with no relation to the shooter.

Now that family has been forced to leave their home and may not be able to return soon if ever as they “fear for their life.”

Beck slammed Lee for his reckless decision and said he would be ultimately responsible if anything were to happen to the couple. He also said that Lee should foot the bill for the couple’s hotel, relocation, and even buy their house, as it will surely be difficult if not impossible to sell after his antics.

This was a rant for the record books. Watch below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-the- ... ly-couple/

Hmm, your words:

Phatscotty wrote:I guess Spike Lee's direct calls for violence and even going out of his way to aid and abet and would be vigilante gets a pass

Now given that you're admitting that he a) did not call for violence and b) is certainly not getting a pass (see, for example, the "rant for the record books" a poster above linked to), I'm not sure what you're getting at, apart from disproving your own statements, which I called BS on in the first place.

Dang it we were posting at the same time and mine got lost. Then I got a couple of phone calls at work sooo.. But I actually had asked because I don't use twitter: Did Spike Lee actually tweet the address? It looks like someone else did.

Also, BBS he could be tried, but then you would have the burden of proving that the murderer murdered directly because of the tweet posted. Or that he was pushed over the line. Something like that. Good luck with that because that is hard to prove.

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry. This one is for you. The video lays out a few Alinsky tactics.

Spike Lee (movie director) tweeted what he assumed was George Zimmerman’s home address. Many think the move reckless under any circumstances, however, matters were made far worse when it turned out the address Lee sent out to his entire list of 240,000+ Twitter followers was wrong, belonging not to Zimmerman but an elderly couple with no relation to the shooter.

Now that family has been forced to leave their home and may not be able to return soon if ever as they “fear for their life.”

Beck slammed Lee for his reckless decision and said he would be ultimately responsible if anything were to happen to the couple. He also said that Lee should foot the bill for the couple’s hotel, relocation, and even buy their house, as it will surely be difficult if not impossible to sell after his antics.

This was a rant for the record books. Watch below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-the- ... ly-couple/

Hmm, your words:

Phatscotty wrote:I guess Spike Lee's direct calls for violence and even going out of his way to aid and abet and would be vigilante gets a pass

Now given that you're admitting that he a) did not call for violence and b) is certainly not getting a pass (see, for example, the "rant for the record books" a poster above linked to), I'm not sure what you're getting at, apart from disproving your own statements, which I called BS on in the first place.

Dang it we were posting at the same time and mine got lost. Then I got a couple of phone calls at work sooo.. But I actually had asked because I don't use twitter: Did Spike Lee actually tweet the address? It looks like someone else did.

Also, BBS he could be tried, but then you would have the burden of proving that the murderer murdered directly because of the tweet posted. Or that he was pushed over the line. Something like that. Good luck with that because that is hard to prove.

Scotty would have you believe that Lee published it, but it would be more accurate to say he retweeted the false info, which interestingly enough, is something that Scotty did with regard to the false photo. Scotty, of course, feels no need to apologise, while demanding that Spike Lee should.

Civility, it seems, is a little subjective.

Symmetry wrote:
Scotty would have you believe that Lee published it, but it would be more accurate to say he retweeted the false info, which interestingly enough, is something that Scotty did with regard to the false photo. Scotty, of course, feels no need to apologise, while demanding that Spike Lee should.

Civility, it seems, is a little subjective.

If it was retweeted, should everyone who tweeted it be held responsible if something happened to one of the incorrect Zimmerman's or their house? At least somewhat responsible?

Because I think at this point you would be able to prove that something happened because of the tweet regardless of who sent it. Being that this wasn't even the correct Zimmerman's address it happened in relation to the tweet.

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Scotty would have you believe that Lee published it, but it would be more accurate to say he retweeted the false info, which interestingly enough, is something that Scotty did with regard to the false photo. Scotty, of course, feels no need to apologise, while demanding that Spike Lee should.

Civility, it seems, is a little subjective.

If it was retweeted, should everyone who tweeted it be held responsible if something happened to one of the incorrect Zimmerman's or their house? At least somewhat responsible?

Because I think at this point you would be able to prove that something happened because of the tweet regardless of who sent it. Being that this wasn't even the correct Zimmerman's address it happened in relation to the tweet.

As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, here's the article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/28/justice/florida-teen-spike-lee/

She told CNN Orlando affiliate WKMG that her youngest son has the last name of Zimmerman and the middle name George.
The couple told the station they received a letter addressed to George Zimmerman on Monday. On the back was a reference to Skittles.

Yup, that's the extent of it. Kind of less dramatic once you hear the reality.

kentington wrote:
Dang it we were posting at the same time and mine got lost. Then I got a couple of phone calls at work sooo.. But I actually had asked because I don't use twitter: Did Spike Lee actually tweet the address? It looks like someone else did.

Also, BBS he could be tried, but then you would have the burden of proving that the murderer murdered directly because of the tweet posted. Or that he was pushed over the line. Something like that. Good luck with that because that is hard to prove.

For the sake of argument, he admits that he discovered Zimmerman's address through a message retweeted by Spike Lee.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

kentington wrote:
Dang it we were posting at the same time and mine got lost. Then I got a couple of phone calls at work sooo.. But I actually had asked because I don't use twitter: Did Spike Lee actually tweet the address? It looks like someone else did.

Also, BBS he could be tried, but then you would have the burden of proving that the murderer murdered directly because of the tweet posted. Or that he was pushed over the line. Something like that. Good luck with that because that is hard to prove.

For the sake of argument, he admits that he discovered Zimmerman's address through a message retweeted by Spike Lee.

For the sake of sheer bloody mindedness, let's say that he saw your post and learned that Zimmerman's address could be found on Spike Lee's twitter feed. Would you be liable?

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

Seems like the American way, lawyer up and see what you can get. Who can argue with the American dream? I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

I removed the dumb parts of your post. I know you like to antagonize people, but hey, it's a failing of yours. It's okay, Sym; no hard feelings.

What did the letter say? Do you even know?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

I removed the dumb parts of your post. I know you like to antagonize people, but hey, it's a failing of yours. It's okay, Sym; no hard feelings.

What did the letter say? Do you even know?

Yeah dude, I read it in full. It completely destroyed your points, but I'm unable to say how, or provide any evidence. It did suggest that I ask you some unrelated questions and point out that you've totally ignored Derrida's arguments on meaning and differance:

Différance. Différance can be understood as signifying both inequality and distinction, as well as identity and non-identity. At the same time, it is neither word nor concept, thought nor image, active nor passive. Différance prefers to play in the middle. According to Derrida,it indicates the middle voice, “It precedes and sets up the opposition between passivity and activity” (Derrida, 1973, p.130). Différance always implies a playful movement. (It is never stagnant). It is through playthat it produces (that which it produces). Through its play, différance produces what we understand as differences between phenomena. “It isthe nonfull, nonsimple ‘origin;’ it is the structured and differing origin of differences” (Derrida, 1973, p.131). It is because of différance that meaning is possible.

I will now ask you some unrelated questions, and fail to back up my quote with any kind of attempt to link it to the original point, while mentioning you by name several times, at least once in a slightly passive aggressive way.

I'm not sure if anyone is buying into this kind of bizarre fantasy world people (such as BigBallinStalin) are trying to sell, but it seems like prurient speculation with demands that anyone who objects prove that speculation wrong.

BBS- What do you think Derrida meant? Do you even know what knowing is?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

Seems like the American way, lawyer up and see what you can get. Who can argue with the American dream? I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

Unfortunately, this happens in a lot of cases where someone wants to shirk responsibility for their actions.
If something more detrimental happened to the house or they were constantly harassed do you think he should be sued? At which point would it be acceptable to your or not at all? I could think of a few points where I would accept a lawsuit.
1.arson
2.assault
3.constant harassment
Basically anything that made it extremely difficult to live in said house. It would be up to the courts to decide the severity.

If I was Spike Lee and I had the money I would apologize and buy their house from them at a decent price. That is reasonable (if something more happened).
I think there is enough publicity now to show that it is the wrong address and I don't think anything further will happen.

Symmetry wrote:

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry. This one is for you. The video lays out a few Alinsky tactics.

Spike Lee (movie director) tweeted what he assumed was George Zimmerman’s home address. Many think the move reckless under any circumstances, however, matters were made far worse when it turned out the address Lee sent out to his entire list of 240,000+ Twitter followers was wrong, belonging not to Zimmerman but an elderly couple with no relation to the shooter.

Now that family has been forced to leave their home and may not be able to return soon if ever as they “fear for their life.”

Beck slammed Lee for his reckless decision and said he would be ultimately responsible if anything were to happen to the couple. He also said that Lee should foot the bill for the couple’s hotel, relocation, and even buy their house, as it will surely be difficult if not impossible to sell after his antics.

This was a rant for the record books. Watch below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-the- ... ly-couple/

Hmm, your words:

Phatscotty wrote:I guess Spike Lee's direct calls for violence and even going out of his way to aid and abet and would be vigilante gets a pass

Now given that you're admitting that he a) did not call for violence and b) is certainly not getting a pass (see, for example, the "rant for the record books" a poster above linked to), I'm not sure what you're getting at, apart from disproving your own statements, which I called BS on in the first place.

Dang it we were posting at the same time and mine got lost. Then I got a couple of phone calls at work sooo.. But I actually had asked because I don't use twitter: Did Spike Lee actually tweet the address? It looks like someone else did.

Also, BBS he could be tried, but then you would have the burden of proving that the murderer murdered directly because of the tweet posted. Or that he was pushed over the line. Something like that. Good luck with that because that is hard to prove.

Scotty would have you believe that Lee published it, but it would be more accurate to say he retweeted the false info, which interestingly enough, is something that Scotty did with regard to the false photo. Scotty, of course, feels no need to apologise, while demanding that Spike Lee should.

Civility, it seems, is a little subjective.

Spike Lee just apologized for it.....

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

I removed the dumb parts of your post. I know you like to antagonize people, but hey, it's a failing of yours. It's okay, Sym; no hard feelings.

What did the letter say? Do you even know?

Yeah dude, I read it in full. It completely destroyed your points, but I'm unable to say how, or provide any evidence.

What were my points? All I asked was:

"If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?" (Symmetery dodged question; his answer hinged on the alleged content of letter).

"What did the letter say? Do you even know?" (Symmetry doesn't provide link to the letter, and goes on an irrelevant tangent).


I agree that you failed to provide any evidence. There's no link to the letter! Based on the lack of evidence, we'll have to conclude that you really don't know what you're talking about. It seems that you're inventing facts in order to fit your conclusions. That's a bad habit, Sym!

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

Seems like the American way, lawyer up and see what you can get. Who can argue with the American dream? I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

Unfortunately, this happens in a lot of cases where someone wants to shirk responsibility for their actions.
If something more detrimental happened to the house or they were constantly harassed do you think he should be sued? At which point would it be acceptable to your or not at all? I could think of a few points where I would accept a lawsuit.
1.arson
2.assault
3.constant harassment
Basically anything that made it extremely difficult to live in said house. It would be up to the courts to decide the severity.

If I was Spike Lee and I had the money I would apologize and buy their house from them at a decent price. That is reasonable (if something more happened).
I think there is enough publicity now to show that it is the wrong address and I don't think anything further will happen.

I think I'll ask the same question I did of BBS in response. If someone on this forum read your post and found out that the address could be ascertained via some astute googling, and, of course, that it could be traced back to one of your posts where he or she got the info that it was Spike Lee's twitter feed, or one of the many other retweets among the twitterati, would you feel responsible for sharing that info if it was acted on in some illegal way?

Say someone read your post, found out how to get the address from what you wrote, and did something abominable?

What if some denizen of the CC forums became so outraged that Spike Lee was responsible for something based on your posts? Would you accept responsibility for your actions blaming him for this hypothetical?

I don't think you'd buy them a house. Also, he did apologise. You can find it in the link I posted above. So it's pretty much down to how much you think the rich dude should pay them for receiving a message that mentioned skittles.

As always, I'm open to other sources, but so far this seems like a slightly racist storm in a tea-cup.

Phatscotty wrote:Spike Lee just apologized for it.....

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad, but you seem to have completely ignored my link above, containing said apology. Ah well, Scotty, maybe you'll be quicker off the mark next time. Perhaps, you might even follow his example. and admit that you've made a fair few mistakes of your own, without the usual equivocation.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Spike Lee just apologized for it.....

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad, but you seem to have completely ignored my link above, containing said apology. Ah well, Scotty, maybe you'll be quicker off the mark next time. Perhaps, you might even follow his example. and admit that you've made a fair few mistakes of your own, without the usual equivocation.

It would be funny if you provided the link to the letter which you claimed to have read. Haha!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Spike Lee just apologized for it.....

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad, but you seem to have completely ignored my link above, containing said apology. Ah well, Scotty, maybe you'll be quicker off the mark next time. Perhaps, you might even follow his example. and admit that you've made a fair few mistakes of your own, without the usual equivocation.

It would be funny if you provided the link to the letter which you claimed to have read. Haha!

I read it accompanied by the Republican governor of Hawaii in the long form. I'll provide the short form below:

Skittles

I think we can all appreciate the menace involved.

Symmetry wrote:I think I'll ask the same question I did of BBS in response. If someone on this forum read your post and found out that the address could be ascertained via some astute googling, and, of course, that it could be traced back to one of your posts where he or she got the info that it was Spike Lee's twitter feed, or one of the many other retweets among the twitterati, would you feel responsible for sharing that info if it was acted on in some illegal way?

Say someone read your post, found out how to get the address from what you wrote, and did something abominable?

What if some denizen of the CC forums became so outraged that Spike Lee was responsible for something based on your posts? Would you accept responsibility for your actions blaming him for this hypothetical?

I don't think you'd buy them a house. Also, he did apologise. You can find it in the link I posted above. So it's pretty much down to how much you think the rich dude should pay them for receiving a message that mentioned skittles.

As always, I'm open to other sources, but so far this seems like a slightly racist storm in a tea-cup.

Frustrating, I already responded but BBS responded at the same time and my post keeps disappearing.

I think you misunderstand the tone of my posts. I am not trying to trap you or make you look bad. I am not even trying to convince you or show that I am right. My only intent is to see you view point and see you look at things. I feel that seeing the way other people view things helps me think through things differently.

Regarding the house: If I had the money Spike Lee does and something bad happened to the house or the people who lived there, then I would purchase "that" house.

Regarding Responsibility: With great power comes great responsibility. You can't expect to be famous and not have repercussions to your actions. He has many followers and many fans and many viewers. He knows this which is why he retweeted the address. What other intention could he have for retweeting this? I don't have powers or viewers or fans, therefore I shouldn't expect anyone to make a decision based on what I say. My influence is level zero.

BigBallinStalin wrote:"If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?"

No, it's not wrong of them to do so. That's what the courts were created for, to solve disputes between people.

Now, will they win or not? Who knows, they'll have to take it to court and find out. Or the two parties could settle the matter out of court.

I don't quite understand why people disparage so much about lawsuits and such. Frivolous or not it doesn't matter much at all. Consider the alternative where individuals have no redress at all. In order to have a system set up to solve the invariable conflicts people have with each other in society, that system must deal with it all. What's frivolous to one person is important to another.

So, more power to the people who want to sue Spike Lee. He's got plenty of money and if he didn't do anything wrong then he'll have no worries. If he did do something wrong, he'll still have no worries. Maybe him writing a check will encourage him to be a bit more responsible.

Oh, and it appears that the whole thing has been settled out of court between the two parties. Lee apologized and gave the couple monetary compensation over the incident.

Case closed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 3902.story

BigBallinStalin wrote:If Zimmerman was murdered by someone who discovered his address via Spike Lee's tweet (assuming that the msg was actually Zimmerman's address), then could Spike Lee be tried as an accomplice of murder? What's people's moral stance on this situation?



EDIT: I guess it's his retweet, which is essentially the same thing. The information is being distributed by Spike Lee.

What if Zimmerman was murdered by a CC player, inspired by you having drawn attention to his address being posted on twitter?

Hmmm

Chances are:

(a) Zimmerman wont get murdered.

(b) If someone murders Zimmerman they will possibly kill themselves afterwards, leaving insufficient evidence as to whether Spike Lee or BigBallStalin are to blame.

patches70 wrote:Oh, and it appears that the whole thing has been settled out of court between the two parties. Lee apologized and gave the couple monetary compensation over the incident.

Case closed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 3902.story

Best solution possible. I am glad they were able to resolve it. The peaceable words will go far in keeping people from harassing the couple and keeping people from holding it against Spike Lee for too long.