Schuylkill County: The most racist, backwards county in America? (Philadelphia: townhouse, neighborhood)

[Jiggs77]

Commish, don't send me a private message again, threatening to 'Tell moderators on me" So you will get me kicked off? Say so on here.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by Jiggs77

I remember you now, you had about 12 Myspace groups a few years ago, and was critical of: Everyone, except homosexuals.
You did not like big houses, or people who owned them You wanted Pittston to stay as it was, but you also wanted change. You are from Pittston, right?
You are sure on internet a lot, always being critical, blogging like a fiend
too.

I believe it is only reason you on on this thread, you see controversy, and want attention. Naturally, you took side of argument you feel will make you politically correct.

You keep throwing around a stereotype (Jocks) while condemming them everywhere else. 'They were jocks, they were White, therefore, they were wrong, and bad people."

I'm technically from Pittston Township (along with half of the people who tell others they're "from Pittston" because they are too lazy to add the township in at the end). You obviously misinterpreted my focus in those groups, along with my short-lived Pittston 2020 web site. My goal was to discourage the irresponsible suburban development that is now occurring in the areas adjacent to the city proper (i.e. Blueberry Hill Estates, Center Point, Pittston Crossings, etc., etc.) that are serving only to further erode the tax base of the city proper of Pittston, which is now only at one-third of its heyday population of 21,000. Pittston can't even pave its crumbling streets while traffic snarls are becoming more and more commonplace on Highway 315 in Pittston Twp. Greater Pittston isn't nearly large enough to adequately sustain all of the suburban growth that is coming to smack it in the face over the next 2-4 years, and the end result will be an even less-important and less-appealing city proper of Pittston surrounded by a suburban wasteland. $350,000 townhouses in posh communities here are selling like hot cakes while the same $65,000 homes in Pittston have been sitting and rotting forever. School taxes go up annually, flooding/water runoff gripes worsen each year, and I get more and more of a sense that many people are "fake" in the suburbs surrounding Pittston with each passing year.

Also, if you don't see that "jocks" in our area get preferential treatment, then obviously you need to open your eyes a bit more. Why do you think so many middle-aged childless people in Pittston go to the high school every Friday night in the Fall to see someone else's kids play? Think about it. What sort of motivation should those people have to go there to sit in the bleachers and watch a game whose outcome they have no tie to? Meanwhile my friends' drama club plays, jazz band concerts, etc. were always VERY sparsely-attended. What does that tell you about Pittston?

Originally Posted by Jiggs77

Commish, don't send me a private message again, threatening to 'Tell moderators on me" So you will get me kicked off? Say so on here.

Very mature to call someone out like this. What is it with the HUGE infestation of trolls lately on the NEPA forum?

[D'Annunzio]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Why do you think so many middle-aged childless people in Pittston go to the high school every Friday night in the Fall to see someone else's kids play? Think about it. What sort of motivation should those people have to go there to sit in the bleachers and watch a game whose outcome they have no tie to? Meanwhile my friends' drama club plays, jazz band concerts, etc. were always VERY sparsely-attended. What does that tell you about Pittston?

Ummm...it tells me that the people of Pittston might like sports. Oh, the horror!!!!!!!

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by The Commish

I don't think anyone's understanding of this was "self-defense."

It was a fight on both sides. That despite your copious notes and attendance at the trial (you claim, at least) you come to the conclusion that the two teenagers on trial were only exercising their right of self-defense casts doubt on how closely you must have been paying attention.

I agree. Why didn't they just run away? I don't get it?

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA

This whole debaucle is tragic;I was not aware of the trial until I read this thread,plus I live in Florida so I do not have enough information to form a verdict. However, this week in Tampa a young male threw a 3 month old baby out of a moving vehicle on an interstate highway. His reasoning went something like this: "life gets dirty".......he shows no remorse and actually has a cocky attitude....violence is running rampant.

I read about that too. It is horrifying.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by Jiggs77

I remember you now, you had about 12 Myspace groups a few years ago, and was critical of: Everyone, except homosexuals.
You did not like big houses, or people who owned them You wanted Pittston to stay as it was, but you also wanted change. You are from Pittston, right?
You are sure on internet a lot, always being critical, blogging like a fiend
too.

I believe it is only reason you on on this thread, you see controversy, and want attention. Naturally, you took side of argument you feel will make you politically correct.

You keep throwing around a stereotype (Jocks) while condemming them everywhere else. 'They were jocks, they were White, therefore, they were wrong, and bad people."

1. What does ScranBarre's internet activities have to do with what he said? Why can't you just debate his words here instead of going on a personal attack?

2. I'm a straight, married, white woman and I happen to agree with ScranBarre about this issue. I'm not trying to be PC. I happen to think that justice was not served in this case.

3. Jocks --- no they aren't all bad. I'm married to one. He's a good guy. He thinks that these boys were unfairly let off. He feels they should be in jail. But if you think that the fact that these football players in the heart of coal country were not let off because they ARE popular jocks, you either are in denial or really don't get how things work around here.

4. I don't care what these kids are or how they identify. They killed someone. And for that they should pay.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by Jiggs77

Commish, don't send me a private message again, threatening to 'Tell moderators on me" So you will get me kicked off? Say so on here.

I'll tell you on here. I reported your post. You were way out of line.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by D'Annunzio

Ummm...it tells me that the people of Pittston might like sports. Oh, the horror!!!!!!!

Which is totally fine. But when other activities can't get funding because people think jocks are more important then it's a huge problem.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

I agree. Why didn't they just run away? I don't get it?

Even if it was "self-defense," imperfect or disproportionate self-defense can easily constitute involuntary manslaughter. Pennsylvania doesn't have a "stand your ground" (aka "shoot first") law that allows people to use deadly force without first retreating. There's no evidence that the two teenagers on trial avoided the fight at all. This was a fight, something both the victim and the defendants embraced, where the force used by the two teenagers (and apparently their juvenile accomplices) was just too much.

If you get into a fight that both parties seem to want, then it only cuts off some civil damages (for both assuming the risk), it doesn't remove the underlying criminal assault charges. It's against the public policy of the state to assault anyone, regardless of whether they both willingly fought, and it's definitely against the public policy of the state to kill the other person during a fight. This stuff is criminal no matter the intentions of the parties.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by The Commish

Even if it was "self-defense," imperfect or disproportionate self-defense can easily constitute involuntary manslaughter. Pennsylvania doesn't have a "stand your ground" (aka "shoot first") law that allows people to use deadly force without first retreating. There's no evidence that the two teenagers on trial avoided the fight at all. This was a fight, something both the victim and the defendants embraced, where the force used by the two teenagers (and apparently their juvenile accomplices) was just too much.

If you get into a fight that both parties seem to want, then it only cuts off some civil damages (for both assuming the risk), it doesn't remove the underlying criminal assault charges. It's against the public policy of the state to assault anyone, regardless of whether they both willingly fought, and it's definitely against the public policy of the state to kill the other person during a fight. This stuff is criminal no matter the intentions of the parties.

You worded that perfectly.