129 posts
  • 3 / 13
  • 1
  • 3
  • 13
 by BobCarl
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   4282  
 Joined:  Mar 08 2017
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Superstar

/zn/ wrote:So far you haven't said anything that indicates his statement should be read any differently than I am reading it.


his statement should be read from several contexts

--- I think that is plausible that the way you read it is the way it was intended.

--- I think it is less plausible that he is calling himself a coward, but still plausible.

However ...

--- when there is a photo of a gun with the name of a high school on it ... then it should be read as a threat, even if it wasn't intended to be a threat.

--- when there is a photo of a gun along with the words "suicide" and "revenge" and references to people that bullied him ... then it should be read as a threat, even if it wasn't intended to be a threat.

---Does Jonathan have history of depression, bipolar, or delusions? His "intended" message might be the opposite of how he feels he is down deep inside.

I want to know more before I can make a conclusion about him and how to understand his message.

What is his mental health history? Has he threatened suicide or attempted suicide in the past? has he been accused domestic violence or other types of violence in the past? Is he a revengeful type person? What is his history of drug and alcohol use? Has he been reckless with weapons in the past. Does he have CTE?

 by /zn/
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   6758  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Hall of Fame

PhxRam wrote:I think all that really matters is how Incognito and Pouncey interpreted the message.


If left to just that, then, the police should have nothing to do with it either way.

And if RI and Pouncey didn't just agree with what Martin ACTUALLY said, then...fuck em. 8-)

 by BobCarl
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   4282  
 Joined:  Mar 08 2017
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Superstar

this lists some of the laws that may be applicable to holding Jonathan Martin in a mental health facility

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... awCode=WIC

 by dieterbrock
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   11512  
 Joined:  Mar 31 2015
United States of America   New Jersey
Hall of Fame

/zn/ wrote:I don't even think he made stupid remarks.

I think he made perfectly obvious acceptable remarks.

If you allowing bullying, put firearms in the mix and cowards who have been bullied resort to revenge or suicide.

Remember he's a bullying victim who did neither thing.
....

Here's the problem, and why you are terribly off base here.
Martin is the one doing "the bullying" here by including Pouncey and Incognito- He is the one bringing them in to it. The allegation he made was considered with foundation and they were "punished" for their actions, years ago now.
Martin's refusal to let it go and dragging their names in to this, is cyber bullying at its finest.
He clearly has mental issues, this behavior is not acceptable.
Glad rational people have taken that stance and are doing something about it

 by /zn/
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   6758  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Hall of Fame

dieterbrock wrote:Here's the problem, and why you are terribly off base here.
Martin is the one doing "the bullying" here by including Pouncey and Incognito- He is the one bringing them in to it. The allegation he made was considered with foundation and they were "punished" for their actions, years ago now.
Martin's refusal to let it go and dragging their names in to this, is cyber bullying at its finest.
He clearly has mental issues, this behavior is not acceptable.
Glad rational people have taken that stance and are doing something about it


How is mentioning someone when you make a perfectly rational, reasonable claim "bullying."

He says, bullying creates victims, but only the cowards among the victims of bullying are going to commit suicide or seek violent revenge.

How in the fuck would anyone feel threatened by that remark, whether they agreed with it or not.

Meaning, assuming they did not massively misunderstand the remark (and if they did that's on them.)

Heck the one lawman who has been quoted on this, Sgt. what's-hizz-name (quoted above) directly said that the people mentioned were not being threatened.

On top of it, so far, all the people here who are defending the presumably frail and oversensitive RI and Pouncey, are doing it on the basis of nothing. Those 2 haven't said anything. For all we know they are NOT making the mistake you're making and completely misreading that remark. For all we know they read it right and maybe even agreed with it. (Since in fact it's a pretty uncontroversial claim).

This is making a mountain range out of a thumbnail of a small pic of a distant baby molehill.

....

 by PhxRam
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   376  
 Joined:  Sep 07 2016
Mexico   LA Coliseum
Starter

/zn/ wrote:
He says, bullying creates victims, but only the cowards among the victims of bullying are going to commit suicide or seek violent revenge.

....


In all fairness, until we hear Martin explain himself, that is YOUR interpretation.

 by Rams the Legends live on
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   1987  
 Joined:  Aug 26 2015
United States of America   Colorado Springs
Pro Bowl

/zn/ wrote:How is mentioning someone when you make a perfectly rational, reasonable claim "bullying."

He says, bullying creates victims, but only the cowards among the victims of bullying are going to commit suicide or seek violent revenge.

How in the fuck would anyone feel threatened by that remark, whether they agreed with it or not.

Meaning, assuming they did not massively misunderstand the remark (and if they did that's on them.)

Heck the one lawman who has been quoted on this, Sgt. what's-hizz-name (quoted above) directly said that the people mentioned were not being threatened.

On top of it, so far, all the people here who are defending the presumably frail and oversensitive RI and Pouncey, are doing it on the basis of nothing. Those 2 haven't said anything. For all we know they are NOT making the mistake you're making and completely misreading that remark. For all we know they read it right and maybe even agreed with it. (Since in fact it's a pretty uncontroversial claim).

This is making a mountain range out of a thumbnail of a small pic of a distant baby molehill.

....


Could be as you say. However those remarks are and would be stand alone remarks. When he injected the mental scenery of a shotgun with 18 shells. Then what becomes the stand alone remark here the words or the imagery? Or if both coincide then we have possible insidiousness and calamity in the making here.

In light of the recent shooting where it has come out that the shooter had posted remarks on social media as well as authorities had been notified. Nothing earnest was done and now dirt covers the lost lives of many.

He could have made his comment alone as a stand alone comment but he added additional scenery that now means we have to question his intent.

Recent absence to do so has resulted in death.

Common sense would tell most of us that in light of what just happened to do as he did might not be a good idea. He somehow did not find it problematic. So having him mentally evaluated is the right and fair thing to do at this juncture.

 by dieterbrock
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   11512  
 Joined:  Mar 31 2015
United States of America   New Jersey
Hall of Fame

/zn/ wrote:How is mentioning someone when you make a perfectly rational, reasonable claim "bullying."

He says, bullying creates victims, but only the cowards among the victims of bullying are going to commit suicide or seek violent revenge.

How in the fuck would anyone feel threatened by that remark, whether they agreed with it or not.

Meaning, assuming they did not massively misunderstand the remark (and if they did that's on them.)

Heck the one lawman who has been quoted on this, Sgt. what's-hizz-name (quoted above) directly said that the people mentioned were not being threatened.

On top of it, so far, all the people here who are defending the presumably frail and oversensitive RI and Pouncey, are doing it on the basis of nothing. Those 2 haven't said anything. For all we know they are NOT making the mistake you're making and completely misreading that remark. For all we know they read it right and maybe even agreed with it. (Since in fact it's a pretty uncontroversial claim).

This is making a mountain range out of a thumbnail of a small pic of a distant baby molehill.

....

You can’t be serious.
He’s posting people’s names on a rifle 1 week after another school massacre.
It’s been 5 years since the bullying allegation was settled.
And he’s associating them with that??
It’s sickening.

 by /zn/
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   6758  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Hall of Fame

Rams the Legends live on wrote:Could be as you say. However those remarks are and would be stand alone remarks. When he injected the mental scenery of a shotgun with 18 shells.


When he did that he did not change English grammar or syntax, or simple logic.

According to the grammar of that sentence, only cowards react to bullying with gun violence (suicide or revenge).

There is no other way to read that sentence (though I do notice that some of the news reports earlier in this thread distort that sentence by taking pieces of it out of context, and leaving pieces out. IMO that makes many people in this discussion victims of straightforward media distortion.)

So. Read in its own right, as an actual sentence, nothing in that statement, even with the pic, makes it a threat. At all. In the least.

It criticizes cowards for reacting to bullying with gun violence. That's the only possible way to read that sentence as it is written.

And the police came openly came right out and said he did not threaten anyone. They openly mention both the school and the 2 players who are named. They said there is no threat.

You can dramatize your statement about ONLY COWARDS using gun violence because of bullying by showing a gun pic. That does not turn it into a threat.

See, watch this. This pic does not make my post a threat.

Image

 by Rams the Legends live on
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   1987  
 Joined:  Aug 26 2015
United States of America   Colorado Springs
Pro Bowl

/zn/ wrote:When he did that he did not change English grammar.

According to the grammar of that sentence, only cowards react to bullying with gun violence (suicide or revenge).

There is no other way to read that sentence (though I do notice that some of the news reports earlier in this thread distort that sentence by taking pieces of it out of context, and leaving pieces out. IMO that makes many people in this discussion victims of straightforward media distortion.)

So. Read in its own right, as an actual sentence, mothing in statement, even with the pic, makes it a threat. At all. In the least.

And the police came openly came right out and said he did not threaten anyone. They openly mention both the school and the 2 players who are named. They said there is no threat.


Yet they took him to be evaluated. It's like I said they need to find out what is going on inside his head and they made the right call to do so. Do you deny this is the right call for them to do?

  • 3 / 13
  • 1
  • 3
  • 13
129 posts Mar 28 2024