Skip to main content

"Guns don't kill people, Skittles do!" - according to Doug Burns on Fox News

Apparently, on Fox News' live video stream, host Jamie Colby engaged in the following back-and-forth with former federal prosecutor Doug Burns:

Colby: "I know that George Zimmerman's attorney will prove that he has no criminal background, he's not an aggressive guy. That he's a gentle kind caring soul who was minding the neighborhood, the police didn't get there quick enough and he had reason to pursue, even though he was told not to. He was just doing his Good Samaritan job."

Burns: "If I'm getting beaten up in an ordinary fist fight that's going to leave me - here's the counterargument - with a broken nose and some cuts and certainly no life-threatening injuries. Broken nose, we'll assume just hypothetically is not a life-threatening injury. Then so runs the argument, you can't turn around and kill the person. The counterargument is, 'Well, wait a minute, you can die in a fistfight. There's certainly a very good argument to be made that the force used was out of proportion to what was going on, and the kid was unarmed. We didn't even discuss that. Totally different case, let's say the kid had a gun."

Colby: "Which he didn't know. All that Trayvon - we learned later - was armed with a bag of Skittles and an iced tea."

Burns: "I know everybody keeps sarcastically saying about the Skittles. You could probably kill somebody with Skittles..."

First off, the way Ms. Colby speaks about Zimmerman initially makes me seriously wonder if she has a poster of him above her bed which she stares at all night before having some quality alone time and going to sleep.

Secondly, Mr. Burns may want to lay off the Jolt-Cola (do they even make that stuff anymore?), especially before being interviewed on live television or a video stream.

Lastly, I wonder what Mr. Burns envisioned in that ole noggin of his as he was uttering the words, "You could probably kill somebody with Skittles." 

Here are a list of the images Mr. Burns was possibly envisioning when making the unsubstantiated claim about killer Skittles:

- Loading an assault rifle with cherry Skittles and taking fire upon George Zimmerman (tagline - "Feel the Rainbow...of Death!")

- Forming the circular Skittles into triangles, where all three points would be as sharp as the most vicious blades in the history of the world (ad - "And you thought machetes were badas*!Well, machetes ain't got nothing on these bad boys! Introducing Maskittles - when some purple, green, orange, yellow, and red leaves you a whole lotta dead!" - yes, this would be a Wal-Mart commercial)

- Shoving the bag of Skittles down Zimmerman's throat and hoping he's diabetic

Yeah, according to Fox News, guns aren't deadly weapons. However, it's perfectly acceptable to shoot and kill a person in self-defense when they're holding a bag of Skittles, because they apparently are.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/fox-news-guest-suggests-trayvon-was-armed-you-could-kill-somebody-with-iced-tea/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"