Germany

German Marijuana Activists Go All Johnny Appleseed With Pot

|

Reason 24/7
Reason

When I was in high school, we quietly taunted "just say no"-era narcs by planting marijuana seeds — lots of them — in the school's planters and all around the grounds. Marijuana being one of those plants that will grow almost anywhere, the fruits, or buds, of our efforts were soon apparent. Much hilarity ensued. Apparently, at least a few contemporary Germans have a similar sense of humor.

From Spiegel Online:

The university town of Göttingen is getting greener and greener. But not everyone is pleased: The new plants sprouting up in parks, planter boxes and gardens across the city aren't part of an official city-beautification project. They're part of a pro-marijuana protest.

In early June, a group calling itself "A Few Autonomous Flower Children" spread several kilograms of marijuana seeds throughout the city. Only now are the fruits of their labor beginning to emerge from the soil. "We can't set eyes on this useful and beautiful plant because it's absolutely forbidden in Germany to grow it," the group wrote in a letter claiming responsibility for the action. And they say that's not right.

Planting the seeds was a protest against Germany's "restrictive drug policies," the group said, arguing that it's incomprehensible "why cannabis, unlike alcohol, cannot be legally purchased." They called the absolute ban on the cultivation of marijuana plants—even ones with low levels of the psychoactive agent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—absurdly strict, and said their actions were a "sign against the demonization of cannabis." The group emphasizes that the strain of cannabis they planted across the city had low THC content.

Low THC? Why?

Anyway, the plants are, as you'd expect, growing all over the place, and the cops and parks workers of Göttingen are frantically tearing them out wherever found. The youth wing of the local Green Party dedicated part of its Website to photos of the plants sprouting hither and yon.

Feel free to take a little inspiration from the activists of Göttingen, and from my high school years.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Denver May Force Fitness Groups To Pay To Use Parks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I should let a couple of males live this year, one big female can produce tens of thousands of seeds.

    1. You’re talking about Germans?

      1. Of course. What else would he be talking about?

        1. Dachshunds!

      2. If he has spares, I will take them off his hands.

        Wait, we ARE talking about Germans, right?

        1. German dachshunds, yes.

          1. Does anything have a higher cuteness-to-brains ratio than mini-dachshund?

            1. Irish Setter?

              1. Hahaha, my first dog was an Irish Setter. Dumb and reckless.

  2. The new plants sprouting up in parks, planter boxes and gardens across the city aren’t part of an official city-beautification project.

    Gott in Himmel!

    1. Plants need living space, too.

    2. Plants need living space, too.

    3. “Gott in Himmel!”

      Yes, I am.

  3. Der Merijuanizingen?

  4. he cops and parks workers of G?ttingen are frantically tearing them out wherever found

    Ye gawd, we have spread our madness around the entire planet. All the problems facing civilization and we don’t have anything better to do than a war on a plant? We truly are still primitive monkeys.

    1. The cops and parks workers of G?ttingen are frantically tearing them out wherever found

      Well I would too! The MurderDrone will be in range any moment now!

      1. And I’ll bet you think the ‘workers’ aren’t sorta pocketing some of the stash, right?

  5. If my weed had any seeds I’d definitely do this myself.

    1. Leave a male off by himself and then pollinate a select few buds so that you can grow your next crop using your own seeds. Of course that won’t give you enough seeds to be the Johnny Appleseed of weed.

      1. Epi prefers to pollinate his plants personally, if you know what I mean. *wink wink*

        I mean he ejaculates on them.

        1. Ok, that’s it, I’m never sharing a joint with Epi, unless I brought it…

      2. Oh, I don’t grow my own weed, dude. I hate gardening in any shape or form, and I have whatever the opposite of a green thumb is, mostly because I can’t be bothered to do things like water plants and shit.

        However, if I did, I would definitely ejaculate on them. For once, Hugh is right about something.

        1. If I was in WA, I would grow some. I’ve pretty much of a green thumb growing anything, and enjoy it.

          1. But no ejaculating on my plants! I will have to build an Epi and Warty proof fence around them. I’ll put up Nancy Pelosi and Hillary scarecrows, I swear!

            1. There is no such thing as a Warty-proof fence. Luckily for you, he’s not a fan of weed because it makes him less violent and rapey. He prefers meth, alcohol, and poppers. And PCP. Especially PCP.

          2. The funny thing is that smoking and possessing weed is legal, but growing it for yourself or others at this point is not (the State Liquor Board still needs to finalize its rules on how weed will be sold), unlike CO, where you can grow a certain amount for your own consumption.

            If they had also legalized growing for your own consumption I would be tempted to put a plant on the deck just for the hell of it. But then again…I hate gardening.

            1. Ok, I’m confused, I thought that you could grow a limited number of plants for your own consumption in WA?

              Total bummer. I would just open a growing biz, the licensing fee seems pretty low in WA.

              Can you make beer out of weed? That would be the most awesomest invention ever, if the brewing process didn’t kill all of the THC. You could all it ‘Budweiser’… ok, that is the worst joke ever.

              1. call it… still a bad joke. Where’s that fucking edit button that you promised us, H&R? Oh, yeah, that’s right, you didn’t promise it, you bastards.

            2. “I would be tempted to put a plant on the deck just for the hell of it”

              I tried this years ago and found that as a cobbler, I should stick to my last.
              You could smoke the stuff, but I don’t know why you would.

              1. Did it have mature buds, or are you impatient?

                1. Me?
                  I tried early, late, wet, dried out, etc.
                  There are those who know how to cultivate that stuff, and I’m not one of ’em.

                  1. Well, I’m pretty sure you can’t smoke it wet, (:

                    It’s not difficult, I could tell you exactly how to do it, not that I’ve ever did it before, but someone told me how.

          3. It is illegal to grow your own in Washington state. Unless you have some sort of expensive highly regulated commercial cultivators license (which is probably a bad idea for when the feds drop the hammer).

            1. If you have to give the gov’t info, it’s a BAD IDEA!

            2. From what I read, the license is very cheap, compared to CO. I can’t remember how much it was, but I didn’t think it was too much. In CO, it’s outrageous and you have to wait for some amount of time to give the current medical MJ shops time to get a big head start on you (way to go for the cronyism, CO).

  6. I remember in high school planting weed in front of the principal’s office and watching in glee as it shot up nearly a foot high. Alas, when I came back from spring break, it had fallen prey to the gardener’s weed whacker.

  7. wow jd is such a cutting edge revolutionary…lol…pathetic

      1. I didn’t get that either…

        1. Must have been posted somewhere else or he’s from facebook. That’s what I always think when some random person talks shit then leaves.

          1. Well, that really didn’t make any sense. Unless it’s a drug warrior troll.

          2. I’d say it was anonbot, but there’s no link.

            1. S thought here

              1. *Same

                Not sure how that happened

  8. Low THC? Why?

    Mostly for fiber.

    1. The Germans don’t want to smoke any weed, they just want to grow rope so they can tie each other up for their bizarre sex rituals. Strange bunch, those Alemaes are.

    2. Most of those plants are low to the ground.

    3. Also this way the cops have to do extra work. If they planted high THC weed it would probably be goon very soon.

      1. *gone

  9. Where does the idea come from that marijuana kills brain cells?

    1. Barack Obama?

  10. What an awesome act of civil disobedience.

    Can we do it here? How hard are seeds to obtain? What do they cost?

    We could plant enough pot throughout the country to make it a full time job for the cops to pull it. Just think, fewer beatings, fewer speeding tickets, fewer shot dogs…

    These Jerries are on to something.

    1. A few folks who were hippies back in the day have told me they’d scatter seeds all over the place back in the day. Apparently for a while you couldn’t drive down a rural road in Washington without seeing mj everywhere.

    2. Its just means more arrests – apparently, in this country, if you know that a plant can be used illegally then if you have that plant you can be charged with drug possession, even distribution (re – poppies).

    3. We could plant enough pot throughout the country to make it a full time job for the cops to pull it. Just think, fewer beatings, fewer speeding tickets, fewer shot dogs…

      It would be a fucking nightmare.

      If the po-po found weed growing on your property you may escape prosecution if you succeed in convincing them you didn’t know it was there, but you’d almost certainly lose your land to a civil forfeiture.

      It has happened to a couple people I know. In one case the sheriff knew unequivocally that the owners weren’t involved in the grow operation because his drug task force busted neighbor hillbillies going onto the hunt club’s land to a grow area near an intermittent stream in a seldom hunted area. He was apologetic about it (whoopty-fucking-do), but that didn’t stop him from ceasing their ten thousand acres and reselling it at auction to buy his deputies a bunch of nice new toys.

      1. They lost 10k acres?

        Jesus, that is fucking rough. That sheriff needs drug out into the streets and shot (after he’s allowed to burn alive for a few minutes). Fucking hell man, what a goddamn nightmare.

        What’d they do? Are they still fighting it?

        1. What’d they do? Are they still fighting it?

          Civil forfeitures are really hard to fight.

          This happened almost 20 years ago when I was still in high school. The fight was short, maybe 6 months, year tops. The land was auctioned. I have no idea who the new owners are or what they didn’t with the property. The scuttlebutt had it that the sheriff had some relationship with the people who won the auction (I have no idea if there is any evidence to support that mind you). The auction itself was hinky, sealed instead of public. How the whole thing didn’t arouse any suspicion at the Commonwealth level is beyond me.

          The club was pretty popular locally because it had really awesome facilities and the ranges were open to the public (for a fee). If it’s still operated as a club it’s kept on the QT.

          Sadly, the sheriff is retired (with all of the FYTW privileges that entails) and still has a lot of clout in the area.

          1. Goddamn, that’s all I can say, Goddamn. Maybe the sheriff’ll be hit by a drunk driver and lose the use of his arms and legs. He really deserves it.

      2. I was thinking more public venues, like courthouse flower pots, outside police headquarters…

        1. ^^^this 1000x^^^

          Seize city hall. Seize the precincts.

  11. This is making nostalgic for the Arghandab (Afghanistan) marijuana forests.

    1. Sounds more like a Southern Rock/Bluegrass hybrid, than country.

    2. Love that song!

    3. Knew what that was going to be before I clicked on the link. Good song.

  12. OT: Has anyone here played Call of Jaurez Gunslinger? I had to buy it on Steam tonight since it was on sale for $12, which is I think, very cheap for a new game, so that one of my gamer friends, who is a big fan boy of it, would leave me alone about playing it.

    1. 1. Don’t ever buy anything from Ubisoft as long as they require UPlay and an always on (as in it instantly disconnects if you lose your) internet connection.

      2. If its truly a *new* game then $12 means no-one is buying it.

      3. Metacritic is hovering around 79 meaning it should be kinda decent.

      And we need a Skyrim style western for the PC so somebody better get on that.

      1. All around, the reviews are pretty good, for as much as I pay attention to reviews. It’s getting 8.1 user reviews at Gamespot.

        And like I said, reviews are not to be so much relied on. Depends on what type of gamer you are also. Being a PC gamer, favoring action RPGs, Two Worlds 2 only getting an average of 7 around the webosphere is a travesty, it’s one of the best games ever made.

        1. Oh, and BTW, Call of Juarez Gunslinger was released in May 2013, so yeah, it’s truly a new game.

          I just played a few minutes of it, and I am much less than impressed, but that’s no indicator. You really have to play any game for 10 hrs. at least to make a judgement.

          The graphics are decent, it seems to be trying to go for a western style borderlands effect, but I don’t see it coming anywhere close. I can’t make a judgement yet, needz moar play time.

      2. 2. If its truly a *new* game then $12 means no-one is buying it.

        I mean if its less than a month old then yes, but the Steam Summer and Winter sales put pretty much everything on a big sale at some point during the sale period.

  13. Those guys are not making a lot of sense over there.

    http://www.Privacy-Web.com

    1. Sheesh, AnonBot, what a buzzkill.

      1. Unless, of course, you’re jsut referring to “over there” at Kos.

  14. He provoked that teenager. What George Zimmerman did after disobeying that dispatcher and getting out of his truck set the entire set of circumstances into motion

    http://www.clickorlando.com/ne…..index.html

    Because Martin apparently had no control of his own actions. It is like they are talking about some kind of animal rather than a human being.

    1. Is there a law that you have to obey a dispatcher and you can’t adjust your actions to the situation at hand?

      What if the dispatcher tells you to stand right where you are, which happens to be in the middle of the road, and a tractor trailer comes around the bend? You supposed to stand there?

      1. No there is no such law. And the idea that Zimmerman could do anything that would justifiably provoke Martin attacking him is both insulting to black teenagers and white people. It makes black teenagers look like animals and tells whites that they need to steer clear of them and show due respect or else the teenager might go full Trayvon on their ass and they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is like a real life example of the bad joke about not looking retarded kids in the eye or letting them think you have cake.

        1. Well, a reasonable response if you think someone is following you, would be to turn around and ask them, are you following me?

          Or, if you think you are in a dangerous situation, better to get the fuck out of it as soon as possible.

          Probably the dumbest and most dangerous action would be to hide in the bushes and pounce on your suspected follower, not knowing if they are armed, or not.

          Teenagers are not known for making the smartest decision, but this one was extra fucking dumb.

          1. Yeah that would be the dumbest response. And Martin was not bright. The sad fact is that looking at Martin’s life as a whole, had this not happened, chances are he would have ended up dead or in prison after he jumped the wrong guy. People who jump strange people have a death wish.

      2. Is there a law that you have to obey a dispatcher and you can’t adjust your actions to the situation at hand?

        Absolutely not. Can you imagine the liability issues for cities and counties if you had an obligation to follow their suggestions?

        1. That is a very good point.

      3. Look at the wording of the dispatcher’s statement:

        “we don’t need you to do that.”

        Even if the dispatcher is a police officer (which she isn’t), no command was issued. The dispatcher simply told Zimmerman that the police did not need him to follow Martin. The dispatcher did not order him to remain in his vehicle. The dispatcher did not order Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

    2. And it was something like 5 minutes from Zimmerman’s 9-1-1 call and the gunshot 9-1-1 call. TM only was 100 yards from his house for the first call, AIUI. What was he doing in the meantime on a rainy night?

    3. “disobeying that dispatcher and getting out of his truck … combined with his mindset, his profiling, him wanting to be the cop, him wanting to apprehend Trayvon, that’s what was all against the law,” Corey said.

      Emphasis added. How the hell is this woman even a lawyer, much less a “Special Prosecutor”?

      1. Good question. And if that was against the law, why didn’t they charge him with that? She is either a complete moron who doesn’t know the law or just admitted she let Zimmerman off.

      2. How the hell is this woman even a lawyer, much less a “Special Prosecutor”?

        Maybe the “Special” in “Special Prosecutor” is being used in the same sense as “Special Education”.

        No, but seriously, if you are willing to bring any charge the state desires and you can make any legal justification for it at all, no matter how incoherent, you can be a “special prosecutor”. It means “governor’s lapdog”.

    4. He provoked that teenager. What George Zimmerman did after disobeying that dispatcher and getting out of his truck set the entire set of circumstances into motion

      is the precise equivalent of:

      She provoked him by wearing a short skirt and disobeying her mother by going out late at night.

      See, it’s her fault she got raped!

      Note that Rachel Jeantel is claiming that Martin thought Zimmerman was a rapist, so I think Martin’s attack could be considered a gay-bashing. Let the progs chew on that.

      1. I make this same argument with my girlfriend every time she tries to tell me that my completely legal behavior might lead to an altercation with some random Philly psychopath. Sorry honey, I’m not going base my decisions in life on what some random asshole might do if I walk to close to his car.

  15. It seems like Cassette Store Day comes sooner every year.

    1. That’s just ridiculous. I can understand the record nostalgia thing, technically there’s a lot of music (like a century and a half’s worth) recorded in this format before it became obsolete. Cassette tapes have what, 20 years?

      1. And cassette tapes have horrible audio quality. Records do have a different and some say better sound than digital. But cassettes just suck.

        1. Those people are wrong, though. But yes, cassettes are even worse.

          1. They may or may not be wrong. But at least they have a reason.

      2. Records are more than just nostalgia. The sound fidelity is richer than any digital medium because its an actual copy of the recording rather than a digital representation of it.

        Cassettes suck in sound quality and were never anything but a pain in the ass. The only ones nostalgic for cassettes are people who never had to use cassettes because its all you had. It’s hipster bullshit.

        1. Only a real retard poser would want to bring back cassettes.

          1. Actually there was an experiment done several years ago that showed younger people tended to prefer the sound of songs as distorted by 128k mp3 compression. While older people preferred the fuller sound of uncompressed CD.

            I’d imagine that whatever you grew up with there’s something comforting and familiar about that medium even if cassettes (and 128k mp3s) suck balls.

        2. Except – by your definition of ‘copy’, cassette tapes are just as much a copy as a record. Keep in mind that *digital* tape recording was a short-lived thing killed in its infancy by DRM and MP3’s.

          And you’re wrong about sound *fidelity* being higher.

          Its possible that it *sounds better* because of the extraneous artifacts the recording and playback process introduce (just as we tend to like the ‘warm’ lighting from incandescents more than lighting designed for proper color matching), but a digital recording at CD standard has a far higher degree of similarity to the original sound than any of the analog methods.

          1. THIS

            Not to mention that most digital recordings these days are made at 96 and 192 khz. Which is more or less like watching video at 1,000 fps – it’s beyond your human sensory capability to even detect. Legit vinyl hipsters are chasing the sound of analog equipment muddying and coloring what was actually recorded. Most vinyl hipsters are just hanger-ons who listen to 99% of their music at 128kbps on their iPod and can’t even tell the fucking difference.

  16. There’s a lot of hate out tonight for “JurorB37”

    1. She had the nerve to say she thought Obama’s son threw the first punch. The jury seems to have concluded exactly what a lot of people have thought all alone. Martin was a punk who got pissed that Zimmerman followed him and doubled back and attacked him.

    2. She had the nerve to say she thought Obama’s son threw the first punch. The jury seems to have concluded exactly what a lot of people have thought all alone. Martin was a punk who got pissed that Zimmerman followed him and doubled back and attacked him.

      1. I bet she had the nerve to say it TWICE, too.

    3. Tom Head, Ph.D. @_tomhead

      Juror B37 basically admitted that they found Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, but decided to acquit him anyway because they liked the guy.

      Dear Mr. Head,

      To convict a defendant of a crime, the jury must be unanimous in finding guilt. Two of six doesn’t get it.

      Sincerely,

      Fuck You

      1. That idiot also retweeted this:

        DC Debbie ?@DCdebbie 2h
        When you assemble a jury based on ignorance–do not read, follow news, nor keep track of current events–you get Juror b37

        Isn’t that the entire point of a jury?

    4. Over at FluffPo, they are asking for the address of all the jurors so that they can post them online and hopefully have the jurors murdered.

      Why the fuck would anyone have any respect for the left in this country? I sure as hell do not.

      1. Zimmerman’s parents are in hiding. They want to murder them too. These people are just animals.

      2. That is just insane. How were these people raised so that not getting they’re way means someone should have to fucking die?

        1. Have you seen our education system?

        2. Within the circle jerks and groupthink factories that these people inhabit, there are no voices of sanity because that deviates from the groupthink. Oftentimes, such voices of sanity are even shouted down as being too “reasonable” or for siding with the other TEAM. Groupthink and echo chambers literally breed extremism and a lack of morality.

          1. shouted down as being too “reasonable” or for siding with the other TEAM.

            Eerily reminiscent of “acting white”. 8-(

            1. On the bright side, liberals are always miserable. They pretty much destroy their own personal lives by allowing politics to intrude on the personal sphere, and they’re doomed to misery because their policy preferences actively cause economic degradation, murder, and human sadness.

              When you think of it that way, they’re more worthy of pity than hatred. If things get too bad here, I’ll just go to Canada or something, whereas leftists will remain in the filth of their own making, forever drifting further and further into the depths of misery.

              1. I’ll just go to Canada or something

                if those miserable liberals will let you.

              2. They are always pissed off. Even in 09 when they owned the whole government they were still pissed off. All they know is bitterness and hate. It is sad.

                1. Hardcore fascists are always miserable. Every high ranking member of the Nazi Party was a pathetic loser.

                  Although I’m not arguing that American left = Nazis, the point remains that people gravitate to religion and state worship for the same reason – to fill a hole in their own pathetic lives.

                  Go to any left-wing forum. The number of people there who talk about their crippling depression, anxiety issues, or how miserable they are is absolutely staggering.

                  It really does seem to attract a disproportionately high percentage of really depressed people, the mentally ill, and those with anger issues.

              3. and they’re doomed to misery because their policy preferences actively cause economic degradation, murder, and human sadness.

                Reap it progs. They deserve EVERY ounce of misery they have caused. I cannot pity them.

                1. When you think of it that way, they’re more worthy of pity than hatred.

                  NOPE. They keep trying to drag me along for the ride, so FUCK THEM.

        3. The party of peace.

          The mask is completely off. Truly vile.

        4. Because justice.

      3. Do you have a link for this. Because I could use one.

      4. I am right, and if you disagree with me you must die.

        Tolerance.

      5. CNN broadcast Zimmerman’s unredacted social security number, birthdate and home address. Spike Lee tweeted the address of the Zimmerman family hoping someone would kill them. He later apologized… for giving out the wrong address (apparently there’s more than 1 “Zimmerman” in Florida. Go figure). The New Black Panther Party has a $10,000 bounty out for Zimmerman’s head. What the fuck else would you expect?

    1. No way in hell I’m watching that.

      1. So we *are* a nation of cowards!

        /Eric Holder

        1. Yes, anonymous ones.

    2. When Morgan asked if she’d been bullied for her condition, she simply responded, “Look at me,” to laughter from the studio audience.

      Emphasis added. Talk about insensitivity!

      1. bullied

        Congrats assholes, this term no longer has any meaning.

    3. That’s retarded, John.

  17. OT (and George Zimmerman related):

    http://t.co/uV9ZQuOIX0 Okay, first off. Can somebody read this Onion piece and confirm my suspicions that it’s actually an anti-“prove beyond reasonable doubt” take on the criminal justice system. I don’t want to pass to quick a judgment on the Onion is there satire can display some wicked verisimilitude for the actual article. But I have a strong suspicion that this particular piece in making a very awful argument.

    1. But thanks to these dumb-as-dog-shit laws, while the defense had to introduce some evidence that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, they didn’t actually have to completely convince us of it. All they had to do, according to the undoubtedly moronic but explicitly written Florida statutes, was create a “reasonable doubt” as to whether he acted in self-defense.

      I’m not sure if they’re mocking the people who wanted Zimmerman to hang despite all that reasonable doubt, or if they’re seriously arguing that we should remove the burden of proof.

      I can’t imagine the Onion would go that crazy.

      1. I mean, for the people who are angry at us, you do realize that we can’t just use our own personal ethical guidelines as a basis to determine a defendant’s innocence or guilt, right? That’s not how it works. And if you think that’s how it works, you’re idiots. In many ways, making a judgment based purely on our own moral compass would have been way, way easier to do. This guy pursued an unarmed kid who was doing absolutely nothing wrong and shot him to death. Seems pretty clear-cut to me that the guy should be punished in some way, shape, or form.

        I’m not so sure they are mocking the people who believe that. I think they might be endorsing that view of things.

        1. It would be one thing for the Onion to show disappointment for the outcome of the case. They’d be wrong, but it’s not like we should expect the Onion to be right all the time.

          The scariest thing about this piece is the utter contempt of the traditions of American jurisprudence and the rights of the defendant.

          1. It should be noted that the Onion is a satirical site.

            1. And I see now that you were already aware of this.

      2. “I can’t imagine the Onion would go that crazy.”

        I can.

    2. Yikes, sorry about the typos (it’s getting kinda late).

      But is that Onion article making the actual case that the tradition of placing the burden of “proving beyond a reasonable doubt” on the prosecution is, to coin a phrase, “F-d up”? Or am I mistaking the actual tone of the article?

      1. Well the Onion is always satirical, but I’m not sure what sort of satire this is.

        1. I think everybody know the Onion is a satirical site. But we are wondering what the Onion is trying to satirize. Reading the piece several times, it’s seems like satirizing the need to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s an utterly ridiculous stance to take; it’s almost worth of satire itself.

          Have your read the article; what is your take?

          1. I think everybody know the Onion is a satirical site.

            Oh, you poor naive fool, you.

            Have your read the article; what is your take?

            Stuff like this can be interpreted in different ways, so it’s hard to know what the author’s intent was, but I’m betting on the “satirizing probable cause” interpretation.

            You don’t write the jurors as competent yet apologetic for having to follow the law unless you’re satirizing the law.

            Either way though, this piece just wasn’t funny.

    3. They are making fun of the the idiot Martin supporters. They are arguing that Florida has this strange dumb as dog shit law that says the government has to prove the defendant guilty.

      It is a satire of the Martin defenders.

      1. I disagree. I think they’re literally arguing that we should eliminate the burden of proof. Read this.

        This guy pursued an unarmed kid who was doing absolutely nothing wrong and shot him to death. Seems pretty clear-cut to me that the guy should be punished in some way, shape, or form.

        This is not a satire. They are arguing for lynch mobs and are hiding behind ‘satire’ to obfuscate how fascist their views are.

      2. Since it’s the Onion, that would have been my default take on the piece. But there’s no indication from the article that the target is on the supporters of the prosecution.

        Remember, this is written from the perspective of the juror. Since we know it’s the Onion, we can assume a tone of mockery, but it has to be a mockery of the jurors (who sided with the defense), not of the prosecution.

        1. It’s not mockery of the jurors either. It’s mockery of the justice system. The argument is essentially that it’s not the jurors fault because the concept of reasonable doubt is wrong and Zimmerman should therefore have been convicted.

          It’s an argument against the entire foundation of the criminal justice system. They’re arguing in favor of the elimination of the burden of proof.

          1. Every time TEAM BLUE doesn’t get what they want, the system is utterly flawed, dude. Remember after Bush won in 2000? Get rid of the electoral college, they screamed! The GOP was filibustering something? Filibustering is ridiculous! Get rid of it! Need a supermajority for Obamacare? That’s absurd that just a few senators can hold an entire bill up! Abolish it!

            Same thing here. These people are so limited in their attention spans that whatever outrage is RIGHT NOW is the greatest outrage in the history of mankind and all kinds of systems put into place to protect people over hundreds of years should be abolished this instant because…they didn’t get their juice box.

            They really are this stupid.

            1. Yes they are. Their entire sense of self worth comes from their politics. This requires them to constantly demonize and inflate their enemies. If George Bush is just another President, what are they? But if Bush is the next Hitler and they are fighting to save America from fascism, then they are really important.

              The whole world is one big morality play they construct to make themselves feel good. It is fucking nuts.

            2. “These people are so limited in their attention spans that whatever outrage is RIGHT NOW is the greatest outrage in the history of mankind and all kinds of systems put into place to protect people over hundreds of years should be abolished this instant because…they didn’t get their juice box.”

              I doubt it’s attention span. It is simply the infantile presumption that what they want is due them.
              No further justification is required.

            3. Its not just TEAM BLUE – TEAM RED screams just as loud in similar circumstances, witness they’re yelling about ‘judicial activism’ when it suits them.

              Its not a team thing, its a stupid human being thing. A thing done by people who can’t accept that the system is not perfect and sometimes you have to accept sub-optimal results even though the average is pretty good.

        2. So it is the juror saying “sure the guy should have been convicted but our hands were tied by this retarded thing called beyond a reasonable doubt”. Yeah, that makes sense. The Onion, as great as it can be, is written by leftists. And this case seems to have driven many of them insane who were not before. Sad.

      3. I think they are clearly inviting the reader to come away disgusted by the ‘technicalities’ of the justice system, including the burden of proof being on the prosecution and the concept of self-defense.

    4. Yes, unless they are satirizing an actual interview, that seems like a very angry and stupid argument against reasonable doubt and self defense and for legal punishment based on feelings.

      1. There was definitely some sexism with regards to people’s assumption that an all-female jury would be more emotionally persuaded to convict George Zimmerman.

        This Onion piece might even be construed as a sexist “satire” of a fictional Jury 6 who really wanted to convict but was ultimately forced not to, despite her “feminine” inclination.

        Any bets on whether this Onion piece was written by a liberal man?

  18. Anyone who is harmed because of this trial, should have the right to sue the living shit out of the Obama administration, the so called ‘liberal’ MSM, and Hollywood, for inciting riots and/or racial violence.

    We are getting past the point of no return that we can no longer put up with the hatefulness of the left in this country.

    1. I saw that it’s Van Jones and refuse to click the link.

      You can’t make me.

      1. Martin Luther King Jr. in a hoodie.

        Van forgot to photoshop in a fist with scraped knuckles from pummelling some “creepy ass cracka.”

        1. Goddammit. They basically piss on the graves of their own icons.

          Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man and does not deserve to be associated with Van Jones.

    2. Cheer up, ASM. This one has “lawsuit” written all over it.

        1. I’m pretty sure, based on prior precedent, that Aaron McGruder would completely endorse the image Jones posted. If he objected it would be only because he wasn’t the one to think of it first.

          Aaron McGruder can go eat a giant bag of dicks.

    3. That is truely disgusting. MLK would have kicked Trayvon Martin’s black ass and told him to straighten up. Martin is exactly the kind of person MLK didn’t want the black community to become.

      1. You don’t remember the time MLK got caught with women’s jewelry in a backpack and couldn’t explain where it came from?

        1. He could have said he was a crossdresser, then sued the school for publicly humiliating and othering him/her.

      2. King did what all great leaders do: he told them the truth.

        “I won’t get there with you. I’m going to Canada.”

        1. That is fucking awesome.

          1. Despite its mostly progressive bent the Boondocks can have some pretty insightful episodes.

            1. I love the Boondocks. It can be brutally honest for a lefty show.

              It’s pretty funny too. The Smokin’ With Cigarettes episode was really good.

              That episode is based on a real kid. Terrifying.

  19. OT:
    So much for that job!
    “Official: Intern no longer at NTSB after name flap”
    “A summer intern who confirmed erroneous and racially offensive names for the pilots of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is no longer an intern with the National Transportation Safety Board,”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..667084.php
    But he or she has a story to tell that makes me jealous!

    1. KTVU: Can you confirm the following names…

      Intern: *choking back tears* Yeah man, that’s them.

      1. “Let’s see here. We have Mike Rotch, Harry Ball, and Seymour Butz. Is that correct?”

  20. Jogger beaten in retaliation for Zimmerman verdict.

    Good thing that racist jogger didn’t have a gun or he may have killed one of Obama’s sons as they kicked him in the head.

    1. Well, they seem like reasonable guys. I wonder if they sent out the word that everyone is even now so people can stop protesting and being upset.

  21. Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

    A Swedish sociology professor has nominated Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the NSA whistleblower could help “save the prize from the disrepute incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision” to give the 2009 award to Barack Obama.

    In his letter addressed to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Stefan Svallfors praised Snowden for his “heroic effort at great personal cost.” He stated that by revealing the existence and the scale of the US surveillance programs, Snowden showed “individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms.”

    But he’s totally done irreparable harm to the US! But the irreparable harm is classified so we can’t say what it is!

    Come on home, Ed.

    1. He’ll never win. Do you know how many people you have to kill to become a man of peace worthy of the prize?

      As for the lisping predator, aww fucking hell… Why won’t she just fucking go away already, the stinky bag of festering cunts that she is?

      What a bunch of goddamn bullshit.

  22. Group of black men attack and beat a poor Hispanic immigrant who doesn’t even speak English while screaming ‘This is for Trayvon.’

    He described all of the males as between 16 and 18 and told police a 6-foot suspect with a black “stretchy” shirt and mohawk told him, “What’s up, [expletive].” When the victim raised his phone to call 911, the suspect raised his shirt and flashed a silver handgun in his waistband.

    I’m sure these racist gun nuts will be a major media story.

    1. My niece got her dream job in Baltimore last year. She left three months later.

    2. With General Butt Naked’s incident above and this one, how many constitute a riot in the Sloopy vs. John bet?

      1. This shit happens every summer. They don’t constitute a riot, or even an increase in violence.

      2. A small group of men attacking one person is not a riot.

    1. Dang, just finished watching that and came here to post it.

      Here he responds to some trolls in the comments for the above video.

    2. tl;dw

      1. listening now …

        1. tl; dw

  23. I was just flipping through the channels and A Black Guy on Hannity’s show said “We need to find out why 60 Trayvons were shot on [some night] and 20 died. We need to find out why Trayvon Martin was profiled.”

    If Trayvon was in fact profiled, ummm…. maybe the first sentence answers the second?

    1. The “reality-based” community is sure not looking good about this case. I can’t believe the crap I’ve read in defense of poor innocent Martin. Sometimes it’s incredibly simple-minded: “He was doing nothing wrong and got shot!” Sometimes it’s bizarrely conspiratorial: “Zimmerman wounded himself to cover up the murder!” Sometimes it’s so crazy I barely know what to say: a Facebook friend, a 60+ white woman, says she is now afraid to go out because someone like Zimmerman might just shoot her and get away with it….

      1. This comment, though more hyperbolic and racial than I’m comfortable with, is the best distillation of this case that I’ve seen.

        This dispute is fundamentally about “common sense” as the prosecution put it. Leftist cultural Marxist “common sense” is that USA is a nation where angry racist white men hunt down innocent black men every single day and twice on Sundays (this happens a lot in hollywood movies and on tv shows, and it’s taught in schools and especially universities). Conservative “common sense” is that 17 year old black males commit random unprovoked brutal violent acts all the time (this happens to also be backed up by statistical evidence and depressing unglamorous nightly news crime stories). That’s the “common sense” that is filling in the gap of what we can’t know for sure, which is who started the fight. Leftists think it’s obvious that Zimmerman started the fight, because in their minds that’s what angry white men do to innocent black children all the time. Conservatives think that TrayVon probably attacked Zimmerman because 17 year old black males are basically the most dangerous animal in the western hemisphere. That’s ultimately what this controversy is about.

        1. Conservatives think that TrayVon probably attacked Zimmerman because 17 year old black males are basically the most dangerous animal (!!!) in the western hemisphere.

          This is why I hate conservatives. His point about the left is essentially correct, but he decided to make it impossible for the vast majority of people to understand his argument by putting such atrocious racism in there.

          This case has nothing to do with racism, and both conservatives and liberals decided to force racism into a case where it was irrelevant. It’s disgusting.

          1. That guy is probably (don’t usually read the comments there) a self-described reactionary. There’s no reason to credit his comment to mainstream conservatives.

            1. In fact, I self-identify as a liberal reactionary (on the rare occasion I can’t avoid identifying myself) and there’s no reason to credit his comment to reactionaries either. It’s just some guy making a good point with a ridiculously hyperbolic 2nd to last sentence.

          2. Um, most conservatives are not going to say anything like that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.