View Full Version : Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman
No discussion here about the recent Zimmerman decision in Florida?
Or comparison with the Alexander decision?
I'd be very interested in what Americans think about these verdicts, bearing in mind that the rest of the world appears to think they're both travesties of justice.
No discussion here about the recent Zimmerman decision in Florida?
Or comparison with the Alexander decision?
I'd be very interested in what Americans think about these verdicts, bearing in mind that the rest of the world appears to think they're both travesties of justice.I did not follow the case, but something does not seem right.
No discussion here about the recent Zimmerman decision in Florida?
Or comparison with the Alexander decision?
I'd be very interested in what Americans think about these verdicts, bearing in mind that the rest of the world appears to think they're both travesties of justice.Pretty much boiled down to the current "self defense" law in the states, which makes it very tough on prosecutors to get a conviction. Course, if Zimmerman woulda been black and the teen white...well...might have been a different outcome, self defense law or no self defense law.
Pretty much boiled down to the current "self defense" law in the states, which makes it very tough on prosecutors to get a conviction. Course, if Zimmerman woulda been black and the teen white...well...might have been a different outcome, self defense law or no self defense law.If it had been black on black or white on white we probably would have never heard about it. However, Zimmerman made the mistake of killing someone who was black. With a politically correct media, that was a costly mistake. It is bad enough when a white cop shoots a black perp, armed or unarmed, but when a white civilian, even if he is a cop wannabee neighborhood watchman, shoots a black, the media has a field day. Fortunately, the USA has a jury system where the jurors just consider the law (even if the law is flawed), not the politics. If Zimmerman is guilty of anything, it is stupidity, and you cannot cure stupid.
Tres3.
If Zimmerman is guilty of anything, it is stupidity, and you cannot cure stupid.
Tres3.It'd be a helluva lot easier to cure his stupidity if he was in the joint. Smartens ya up in a hurry.
Pretty much boiled down to the current "self defense" law in the states, which makes it very tough on prosecutors to get a conviction. Course, if Zimmerman woulda been black and the teen white...well...might have been a different outcome, self defense law or no self defense law.Well, this is why I also mentioned Alexander. She pleaded self-defense and only fired a shot into the air to scare off her husband. And got 20 years!
Obviously I don't know the exact details of either case beyond what has been all over the media of late, but there do seem to be some pretty odd disparities going on?
It'd be a helluva lot easier to cure his stupidity if he was in the joint. Smartens ya up in a hurry.I agree with you completely. Zimmerman is a young guy, and the other cons would have probably fucked the stupidity out of him. Fortunately for Zimmerman, and his young ass, the jury decided that he did not break the Stand Your Ground laws of Florida. I do not agree with the law as written, but I am a minority, and the majority rules (most of the time) in a democracy.
Tres3.
Greetings everyone,
You guys are so misinformed that you are embarrassing yourselves.
First, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law simply says that a threatened individual does not have a statutory requirement to "run away" from a threat, thus removing a common prosecutorial ploy against self defense claims, i.e. "the defendant's claim of self defense in shooting the aggressor who was breaking down his bedroom door should be denied because instead the defendant could have jumped out the window and run away".
The statute seems reasonable to me and apparently also to the legislators and governors of the 20 states that have enacted such statutes.
Second, and more relevant in this case, George Zimmerman's defense team DID NOT INVOKE any claims under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
Did I make that plain enough for you pinheads out there?
Perhaps I need to say it again: George Zimmerman's defense team DID NOT INVOKE any claims under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. They did not request a "Stand Your Ground" hearing, and they did not assert a "Stand Your Ground" defense during the trial.
Just as noteworthy, the fanatical state prosecutors, who tried every other trick in the book, never attempted to claim that GZ could have avoided shooting TM by instead running away during TM's attack.
The reason is simple: As the physical evidence, the audio evidence, and the eyewitness testimony showed, TM attacked GZ, punching him in the face, breaking his nose and subsequently knocking him to the ground, whereupon he jumped on GZ, repeatedly smashing his head against a concrete sidewalk and was subsequently wailing on him with his fists before GZ, while still on his back with TM on top of him, pulled out his legally licensed pistol and shot TM one time in the chest. In this scenario, with TM sitting on his chest, GZ clearly did not have an option to "run away".
This was a classic case of self defense, and that's it. If you want to argue against the principal of self defense or against the self defense laws that are on the books in EVERY ONE of the country's 50 states, then go right ahead, but this case had nothing to do with Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute.
Thanks,
Jackson
Meforu 2000
07-16-13, 17:18
Jackson thanks.
Self defence.
The law worked.
Member #4112
07-16-13, 18:16
Over the 4th of July holiday in Chicago over 40 "people of color" were murdered by other "people of color" but beyond a short blurp on Fox you did not hear a word from the Liberal News Media or Mr. Jealous of the NAACP, yet there has been no end to the outrage over George Zimmerman's acquittal. The NAACP's Mr. Jealous raging about Zimmerman taking Martin's most precious civil right, that of the right to life, and demanding federal action.
Am I to take from this little morality play in the eyes of the Liberal Media and the NAACP that there was no civil right to life for those of color if their assailants are also of color? Does this "right" only exist when the assailant is of a different race?
For our liberal brothers out there, Martin was 17 years old, 6 feet one inch, 180 pounds and from the coroners description very fit, while Zimmerman was older, 5 feet 10 inches, over 200 lbs and described as very unfit. If you are having difficulty understanding "self defense" in this matter perhaps I can assist you.
This is not a threat but a tongue in cheek spoof of our liberal brothers. Don't try this at home!
Drop by and I will happily demonstrate the situation to your satisfaction; to wit I will break your nose, thereby knocking you to the ground, then straddle your body, pinning you to the ground, while striking your head to the pavement and / or pummeling you about the head and shoulders with my fists. I am sure at some point you would come to appreciate Zimmerman's situation and that he just could have been in fear for his life.
But I am sure our liberal brothers will find themselves in a quandary regarding the value of a person of color's live vs that of a person not of color as they seem to have two standards.
TejanoLibre
07-16-13, 18:51
Jackson thanks.
Self defence.
The law worked.This is the way we do it back home!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/01/texas-man-cleared-shooting-suspected-burglars-next-door/
What a field day he could have in BA!
TL.
Member #4112
07-16-13, 19:35
Hey Jackson, you need to send a PM to AG Holder, while addressing an NAACP gathering he still thinks there is something wrong with "stand your ground" after the Zimmerman trial. Guess he did not get your memo "stand your ground" was not even part of the defense for Zimmerman.
Still no word from AG Holder about his starting a Federal investigation of the Chicago 4th of July murders.
Well, I never mentioned race myself and am trying not to let it cloud my take on the bigger picture. This is the first time I've heard the description of events from the defense as laid out by Jackson:
The reason is simple: As the physical evidence, the audio evidence, and the eyewitness testimony showed, TM attacked GZ, punching him in the face, breaking his nose and subsequently knocking him to the ground, whereupon he jumped on GZ, repeatedly smashing his head against a concrete sidewalk and was subsequently wailing on him with his fists before GZ, while still on his back with TM on top of him, pulled out his legally licensed pistol and shot TM one time in the chest. In this scenario, with TM sitting on his chest, GZ clearly did not have an option to "run away".
This was a classic case of self defense, and that's it.What I'd heard up to now is that Zimmerman left his house to follow the kid, taking his gun with him, and even after calling the police to report his suspicions and being told not to follow him, he persisted and ended up in a confrontation and shot him. All of which kind of makes what happened during the confrontation kind of moot if it's true! Why the hell did he even leave his house if the kid was just walking past? Sounds like the person defending himself from a perceived threat was the kid! That's why the rest of the world is up in arms.
Big Boss Man
07-16-13, 22:24
Well, I never mentioned race myself and am trying not to let it cloud my take on the bigger picture. This is the first time I've heard the description of events from the defense as laid out by Jackson:
What I'd heard up to now is that Zimmerman left his house to follow the kid, taking his gun with him, and even after calling the police to report his suspicions and being told not to follow him, he persisted and ended up in a confrontation and shot him. All of which kind of makes what happened during the confrontation kind of moot if it's true! Why the hell did he even leave his house if the kid was just walking past? Sounds like the person defending himself from a perceived threat was the kid! That's why the rest of the world is up in arms.I agree that Trayvon had a right to defend himself. I mean some weird guy following you around? Who's going to let that happen? Nowadays I would head to someplace safe quick but in my younger days I got into a few fights. I think we were all taught that the way to face a bully was to smack them in the mouth. Sometimes you have to stand your ground. Trayvon's mistake was that he brought his fists to a gun fight. If he had a gun and fired first, he would have been well within his rights as I understand them.
Jackson conveniently ignores the period before Zimmerman's arrest, indictment, and trial. Zimmerman repeatedly invoked Stand Your Ground before he got smart attorneys who shut him up. Why do you think that the police let him go and gave him his pistol back?? After the media and "professional" blacks became involved, Sanford had to find someone to throw to the wolves, and the police chief was it. It was self defense after Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator and kept following Trayvon. That was really stupid, and as I said before, you cannot cure stupid. The defense did not invoke "Stand Your Ground", BUT that did not stop the judge from quoting from the statute when he gave the jury instructions.
Tres3.
Punter 127
07-17-13, 02:04
I agree that Trayvon had a right to defend himself. I mean some weird guy following you around? Who's going to let that happen? Defend himself from what, how was he threatened?
Nowadays I would head to someplace safe quick but in my younger days I got into a few fights. I think we were all taught that the way to face a bully was to smack them in the mouth. Sometimes you have to stand your ground.I was taught to stand my ground and defend myself, but not to become the aggressor.
Trayvon's mistake was that he brought his fists to a gun fight. If he had a gun and fired first, he would have been well within his rights as I understand them.His mistake was elevating the situation to a physical level. On what grounds would Martin have had the right to "fire first"? Are you suggesting it's ok to turn around and attack or shoot someone because you think they're following you? Do you think Martin would have been justified to continue to slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete until he was dead?
If Martin thought he was in danger why didn't he use his cell phone to call the police? You have a God given right to defend yourself, but you do not have the right to attack someone because you think they are following you. In todays world if you physically attack someone you better be prepared to go to jail or possibly be killed.
It's rare that I agree with Obama but in this case I do, "We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken".
Punter 127
07-17-13, 02:32
No discussion here about the recent Zimmerman decision in Florida?
Or comparison with the Alexander decision?
I'd be very interested in what Americans think about these verdicts, bearing in mind that the rest of the world appears to think they're both travesties of justice.I don't know what makes you think the world sees both cases as "travesties of justice" but I think the jury got it right in both cases. Perhaps you could tell us what the world thinks about the 13 month old baby that was shot in the face and killed in Georgia, where's the outrage in that case?
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/03/28/teen-indicted-in-ga-baby-slaying-and-2nd-shooting/
What I'd heard up to now is that Zimmerman left his house to follow the kid, taking his gun with him, and even after calling the police to report his suspicions and being told not to follow him, he persisted and ended up in a confrontation and shot him. All of which kind of makes what happened during the confrontation kind of moot if it's true! Why the hell did he even leave his house if the kid was just walking past? Sounds like the person defending himself from a perceived threat was the kid! That's why the rest of the world is up in arms.DavieW,
You have perfectly illustrated my point about people having been misinformed.
First, GZ did not "leave his house to follow the kid", he was driving through his neighborhood on his way to the store when he observed TM suspiciously loitering at night in the pouring rain between two houses that GZ knew had been recently burglarized.
Second, GZ was not told "not to follow" Trayvon Martin. A civilian non-emergency telephone operator (not 911) advised GZ that they, the police department, did not "need you to do that". Exact words.
I think everybody should watch the video the Sanford Police made when they asked GZ to reinact the events of the night before. This video was made the day after the events and before GZ or anyone else anyone ever thought the country's race baters would make a national case out of what happened. It was also made before GZ or anyone else knew about the eyewitnesses and the cellphone recordings. GZ's accounting of the events later dovetailed perfectly into every piece of evidence that was subsequently developed, including GZ describing how he was yelling for help and his pleas for assistance to a neighbor who came out of his house during the altercation.
The video also explains why the police detectives initially determined that it was a case of self defense, why the then Sanford Police Chief agreed with their findings, and why the local State's Attorney made a decision not to prosecute.
http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1700798094001
Thanks,
Jackson.
Big Boss Man
07-17-13, 22:50
After watching video, I still think it is strange that a person would arm himself to go to the grocery store. It wouldn't be something I would think of doing. I'm glad I don't live in that neighborhood.
I can see Trayvon's point of view of being pissed off by having someone following him. Even if he wasn't following, I am sure the kid felt the presence. Remember when there was some guy watching Larrea 1072. It made a few mongers uneasy. Zimmerman going to make more money than he will ever make working so it is all to the good. I think the justice system worked.
Nobody was even talking about this case where I live. An African-American guy in the office said it reminded him of the sixties in LA when there were clear boundaries where he could go and not go.
Member #4112
07-18-13, 05:32
BBM, I have a concealed handgun license and my Sig goes with me everywhere except in the shower. Perhaps if you were a gun owner you might be able to relate to carrying your weapon with you.
The only thing Zimmerman did was eliminate many future victims of Trayvon Martin. Check your little angels phone pictures.
BBM, I have a concealed handgun license and my Sig goes with me everywhere except in the shower. Perhaps if you were a gun owner you might be able to relate to carrying your weapon with you.
The only thing Zimmerman did was eliminate many future victims of Trayvon Martin. Check your little angels phone pictures.So you love guns, I can understand and really, I don't have any problem with that. But could you relate to us how many times have you felt you really need a gun to protect yourself. And how many times have you use it in a public setting. Of course, you do not have to expose or incriminate yourself. And of course, the standard answer is "all it takes is that one time".
It is true that assaults are happening every second of the day. And precious lives are lost or injured. But now we have Zimmerman as the great guy, and Martin the hoodlum. So easy to tick the boxes, everything is so black & white.
Member #4112
07-18-13, 11:41
I was a boy scout as well and the motto is "Be Prepared". I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, not because my home has caught fire but because there is always a chance. I have a chain fire escape ladder on the second floor of my home, not because the first floor has caught fire trapping people upstairs but there is a remote change. I keep a tool kit, heavy jack, 12 volt compressor and tire repair equipment in my truck, now I have had flats and thrown a belt so it's just be prepared and self reliance. Same logic here with carrying the Sig.
Perhaps you don't view firearms the same way I do, they are a tool, just like a hammer, screw driver, computer ect. Tools are useful for the designed function but there is always the possibility of miss use, ie the FBI statistics where more people are killed by hammers than assault rifles. I have never had to resort to deadly force in quite a long time, but it is there should the need arise. Perhaps your opinion is there is no need to carry a firearm, that is well and good it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Mine is I would rather carry the extra weight and be safe than sorry or dead. If I'm right I probably survive such an encounter, if you are wrong you don't. Last time I checked being dead was a pretty permanent state of affairs.
I suppose you agree with Holder, no need for "stand your ground" laws. Liberals are breeding a race of sheep and as far as criminals are concerned if they are sheep they are made to be shorn and slaughtered.
Punter 127
07-18-13, 13:21
What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/what_the_media_choose_not_to_know_about_trayvon.html
I was a boy scout as well and the motto is "Be Prepared". I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, not because my home has caught fire but because there is always a chance. I have a chain fire escape ladder on the second floor of my home, not because the first floor has caught fire trapping people upstairs but there is a remote change. I keep a tool kit, heavy jack, 12 volt compressor and tire repair equipment in my truck, now I have had flats and thrown a belt so it's just be prepared and self reliance. Same logic here with carrying the Sig.
Perhaps you don't view firearms the same way I do, they are a tool, just like a hammer, screw driver, computer ect. Tools are useful for the designed function but there is always the possibility of miss use, ie the FBI statistics where more people are killed by hammers than assault rifles. I have never had to resort to deadly force in quite a long time, but it is there should the need arise. Perhaps your opinion is there is no need to carry a firearm, that is well and good it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Mine is I would rather carry the extra weight and be safe than sorry or dead. If I'm right I probably survive such an encounter, if you are wrong you don't. Last time I checked being dead was a pretty permanent state of affairs.
I suppose you agree with Holder, no need for "stand your ground" laws. Liberals are breeding a race of sheep and as far as criminals are concerned if they are sheep they are made to be shorn and slaughtered.As for "stand your ground", everything is relative to the situation and the options you have. Sometimes like in poker, you need to fold your hand, so you can survive and play another day. Even if you have 4 aces, you still can be beat. The last time I check, I am still alive and still kicking. Never been close to being shorn, let alone slaughter.
Member #4112
07-18-13, 14:03
Glad to hear it, hope it stays that way since the stats are on your side. But remember there is some body out there making up that one or two sigma's out on the curve.
You in town.
I think everybody should watch the video the Sanford Police made when they asked GZ to reinact the events of the night before.
http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1700798094001Thanks Jackson, very interesting.
I've exposed my liberal, leftie mates to this and really stirred up a debate! I've changed my opinion from "Zimmerman's a gun-toting psycho who should do time for manslaughter" to "there's two sides to this story and it's unclear as to whose is true, but a jury made a decision based on more detailed evidence than any of us have seen". And I'm taking a lot of stick!
It still seems that it's the law that's coming out of this as being 'wrong', more so than anything that either Martin or Zimmerman did.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to live anywhere where it's so easy to buy and carry a gun legally. A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only, kill. Anyone who chooses to carry one who isn't in law enforcement or the military can only be a psychopath! (IMHO)
Spirit Rider
07-19-13, 01:29
I sure as hell wouldn't want to live anywhere where it's so easy to buy and carry a gun legally. A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only, kill. Anyone who chooses to carry one who isn't in law enforcement or the military can only be a psychopath! (IMHO)Well, then you don't want to live anywhere in the USA Because in all fifty states you can legally buy a gun and legally carry one.
A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only, it is designed send a projectile in the direction in which it is aimed. It's use is another thing. It can be used for target shooting, hunting, criminal activity, and most importantly legal self-defense.
A criminal, a predator, seeks out prey who are weaker physically or in attitude. An individual who takes responsibility for their own protection, their family and that of their community is in fact is the most sane and responsible member of society.
Anyone who chooses to carry one who isn't in law enforcement or the military can only be a psychopath! (IMHO)Not all criminals are psychopaths. In fact, cops have virtually the same psychological profile as criminals. I agree with you about guns and killing, but since they were invented, the bad guys always managed to get a gun, regardless of the country or the laws.
Tres3.
I've changed my opinion from "Zimmerman's a gun-toting psycho who should do time for manslaughter" to "there's two sides to this story and it's unclear as to whose is true, but a jury made a decision based on more detailed evidence than any of us have seen". And I'm taking a lot of stick!WOW!
This may be the only time that something posted on this forum movitated another member to actually change their opinion.
What a breath of fresh air!
Thanks,
Jax.
Daddy Rulz
07-19-13, 21:26
This is a good show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaDXUYTFL4M.
Silver Star
07-20-13, 02:58
This is a good show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaDXUYTFL4M.Penn and Teller are Libertarians...they get it!
Big Boss Man
07-20-13, 18:26
Obama: "And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?
In a stand your ground state, Trayvon had an absolute right to kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a gun. He was following Trayvon but had not observed a crime. Zimmerman absolutely had no standing or reason to follow Trayvon.
The proof that Trayvon had a right to stand his ground is that he is dead.
So now that we all are going to carry 24/7 what happens when you go to the beach. If I want to go body surfing do I risk leaving the gun by the chair? Usually I carry no valuables to the beach.
The proof that Trayvon had a right to stand his ground is that he is dead.
So now that we all are going to carry 24/7 what happens when you go to the beach. If I want to go body surfing do I risk leaving the gun by the chair? Usually I carry no valuables to the beach.I tend to agree with you that Trayvon had a right to stand his ground; however, you need to come up with a better analogy. In the first place, how are you going to conceal a gun when you are at the beach without clothes, and in the second place, are you going to the beach after dark?
Tres3
..that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?Once again the left is deliberately mixing analogies.
One cannot take lethal action and then claim self defense because they "felt threatened". A legitimate self defense response requires that you actually ARE threatened.
Ergo, if Trayvon Martin was "of age and armed" that night, he still could not have justified shooting Zimmerman merely because he "felt threatened" because he thought Zimmerman was following him (which in fact Zimmerman was NOT DOING).
On the other hand, Zimmeman was justified in shooting TM because Zimmerman was "actually threatened" because TM was smashing his head against the concrete sidewalk and otherwise actively beating Zimmermen with his fists as Zimmerman shot him.
Some people simply cannot get it through their head that TM assulted GZ, and GZ shot him as he was being attacked.
Get it?
Thanks,
Jackson.
Member #4112
07-21-13, 01:18
Jackson we both know the Left is not interested in facts unless they support their view of events. Anything which contradicts that view is denigrated and / or ignored.
Our president upon his election said his administration transcended race and would usher in a new era of race relations. All Obama has done since taking office is cause a greater polarization of those relations, as in his remarks relating to the Zimmerman case.
Treyvon Martin was a thug whose probable criminal career was cut short when he picked the wrong person to attack.
Know what they say in Poland about that? Tough Shitsky.
Big Boss Man
07-21-13, 12:45
I tend to agree with you that Trayvon had a right to stand his ground; however, you need to come up with a better analogy. In the first place, how are you going to conceal a gun when you are at the beach without clothes, and in the second place, are you going to the beach after dark?
Tres3I was just joking. Doppelganger is right. I do not own a handgun but do own rifles inherited from my father. My Dad had an impressive gun collection but I have shown no interest since he died. Most of the guns have been sold off and only the heirloom rifles kept. I will remain among the irresponsible and continue not to carry by personal choice.
It's a problem. There was a shooting at another local utility because someone did not get a promotion so now we have gun checks to get in our building everyday when I go to work. I was held up at gun point working for the Jack-in-the-Box back in the sixties. A high school acquaintance was one of those killed in the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre in 1984. A girl from my high school calculus class and leader of the drill team was shot by husband. So we all have been affected by this issue from time to time.
The beach is great at night. Walking on the beach in the moonlight is a romantic cliche. Nighttime scuba diving is a blast. That's when the lobsters come out to feed. I just would not do it in Copacabana.
TejanoLibre
07-21-13, 19:22
BBM, I have a concealed handgun license and my Sig goes with me everywhere except in the shower. Perhaps if you were a gun owner you might be able to relate to carrying your weapon with you.
The only thing Zimmerman did was eliminate many future victims of Trayvon Martin. Check your little angels phone pictures.How nice it would be to put on (3) diamond encrusted Rolexes, (2) massive gold necklaces dangling from my neck and walk around talking on my I-Phone and listening to my I-Pad while wearing a large Cowboy hat and asking for directions in Constitucion, Boca, Once, etc, etc. (fill in the blank) at 4 am.
Go Ahead Punk, Make My Day!
Just blasting these little fucks all over the place! The right to carry a weapon is there so you can protect yourself from the scum of the earth.
Or should I drive a P.O.S instead of a Ferrari to avoid getting kidnapped?
Dress like shit to avoid getting robbed?
Live in a shack to avoid getting burglarized?
Not get married or have children for fear of having to defend them from rapists?
Why bother having nice things if so many people are intent on taking them from you by force?
I know it depends a LOT on the country that you live in.
In the USA you just might survive but down here it's a lot different. It's like the Wild, Wild West!
TL.
...we both know the Left is not interested in facts...
Treyvon Martin was a thug whose probable criminal career was cut short...*shakes head*.
(in pity more than anything).
Rockin Bob
07-22-13, 00:14
OK everybody! I'm happy to report that every one of you has mastered Lesson 1 and are completely on board about the difference between black and white.
Let's move on to todays lesson, the color blue. First we're going to explore the Triart Color Chart which can be found in the Wikipedia article Color Chart. Please bring that up on your device.
Everyone got it? (Note: you can click on it and get a high resolution).
Now, either look out the window at the sky if it is a clear day or if not picture the color of the sky on a clear day in in your mind.
Now, compare the color of the sky you perceive or imagine to the colors shown on the chart.
OK. Show of hands. How many of you picked a color that is found in the coloumn labeled on top F-8 Luminous Blue or F-9 D (ark) Blue?
(Everyone throws up a hand) OK, is there anyone who picked a color from another column? No?
OK. Now let me ask you all a question. What color is the sky?
Rockin Bob: Blue
Jackson: Red. Bob, you are so misinformed you're embarrasing yourself. The Triart Color Chart.
Is just another example of liberal media elite propaganda. The sky is red, everybody knows that.
Doppleganger: Of course it's red. Liberals like Bob are not interested in facts unless they support their view of events. Anything which contradicts that view is denigrated and / or ignored.
Toymann: Red. Bob, you are so freakin stupid. LMAO. Monger on Dude.
Tejano Libre: Man, I can't tell what color it is. Is it day or night?
Zimmerman Trial Juror: Red. Says so in the Bible. Don't know where but the preacher says so.
Florida Cop: Red. Right here in the police report, sir.
Rachel Jenteal: I don't understand the question.
Member #4112
07-22-13, 01:13
Rockin, the sky is blue, your color chart is for marker colors, and dude could you send some of what your smoking to Esten so he will mellow out on his give thanks to Obama mantra?
Rockin Bob finally got me to post in this thread. I wonder if he was inspired by this video.
Obama:"If I Said The Sky Was Blue, They Would Say No".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQUh2XNsAQU
Hey Bob,
Just out of curiosity, exactly what color is the sky in your world?
The evidence and the testimony at the trial clearly showed that Trayvon Martin was casing the neighborhood when he initiated an unprovoked felonious assault on George Zimmerman by punching him in the nose, thus knocking him down and subsequently beating on his head and face until George Zimmerman pulled out his pistol and shot Trayvon Martin one time, thus stopping Trayvon Martin's attack.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or perhaps you have some other evidence to countermand what was presented in court?
And please, let's keep the discussion to the facts and not some generic objection to anything and everything said by those of us who have studied the evidence.
All this bullshit here from the left, and yet none of them bother to reference any actual facts in the case.
Thanks,
Jackson.
Peter Sideburn
07-22-13, 14:16
Dear Rockin Bob, I love healthy debate but I don't have time to read non-fact related dribble which disrespects others on the list while not adding anything to the argument at hand. I don't know the facts of the case and wasn't there, but I would say that I can walk anywhere I want at any time in a neighborhood's public area and if someone even presents a threat to cause bodily harm or take my life they will "Say Hello, to my little friend." In civilized society we don't solve things by throwing a punch. Those who associate with the culture of violence typically are its victims as well. This is why being associated with this culture of violence in some neighborhoods and being associated with the drug culture are two of the greatest risks of dying from a firearm. Live by sword, die by sword.
Pete.
OK everybody! I'm happy to report that every one of you has mastered Lesson 1 and are completely on board about the difference between black and white.
Let's move on to todays lesson, the color blue. First we're going to explore the Triart Color Chart which can be found in the Wikipedia article Color Chart. Please bring that up on your device.
Everyone got it? (Note: you can click on it and get a high resolution).
Now, either look out the window at the sky if it is a clear day or if not picture the color of the sky on a clear day in in your mind.
Now, compare the color of the sky you perceive or imagine to the colors shown on the chart.
OK. Show of hands. How many of you picked a color that is found in the coloumn labeled on top F-8 Luminous Blue or F-9 D (ark) Blue?
(Everyone throws up a hand) OK, is there anyone who picked a color from another column? No?
OK. Now let me ask you all a question. What color is the sky?
Rockin Bob: Blue
Jackson: Red. Bob, you are so misinformed you're embarrasing yourself. The Triart Color Chart.
Is just another example of liberal media elite propaganda. The sky is red, everybody knows that.
Doppleganger: Of course it's red. Liberals like Bob are not interested in facts unless they support their view of events. Anything which contradicts that view is denigrated and / or ignored.
Toymann: Red. Bob, you are so freakin stupid. LMAO. Monger on Dude.
Tejano Libre: Man, I can't tell what color it is. Is it day or night?
Zimmerman Trial Juror: Red. Says so in the Bible. Don't know where but the preacher says so.
Florida Cop: Red. Right here in the police report, sir.
Rachel Jenteal: I don't understand the question.
Rockin Bob
07-22-13, 20:59
OK!
Let's start from the beginning (excuse me but I don't know how to multiple quote so I'm just going to cut and paste from the discussion).
DavieW: "I'd be very interested in what Americans think about these verdicts, bearing in mind that the rest of the world appears to think they're both travesties of justice." (Zimmerman / Alexander verdicts).
We'll leave the Alexander case for another day.
So, lets discuss the Zimmerman case. First: what it is not about.
Jackson: "George Zimmerman's defense team DID NOT INVOKE any claims under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Did I make that plain enough for you pinheads out there?
Plain enough for this pinhead. Agreed. Think we're all on board here.
It is also not about possession of a firearm. There is a lot of discussion about that. This is not about your second amendment rights, gun violence, your right to protect yourself with a gun.
George Zimmerman was licensed to own a firearm. Fine, no problem.
OK. So what is this case about?
A kid leaves his house, goes to a Seven Eleven, buys something, and then heads back home.
We know this from surveillance tapes.
Jackson: "The evidence and the testimony at the trial clearly showed that Trayvon Martin was casing the neighborhood...What part of this do you not understand?
What evidence? Whose testimony? No witness saw anything at all until the there was a commotion outside their windows and they took a look to see what was happening. No one saw Martin until this point except Zimmerman. His claim that Martin was acting suspiciously given the fact that he's the one on trial here is suspect and is not backed up by any other evidence. No hard evidence, the statements of the defendant to police (not in a courtroom) does not "clearly" show anything.
The evidence we do have showed he went to the Seven Eleven and was returning to his house. Period.
OK, Martin is walking in the neighborhood where his family lives. He has every right to do this.
He is breaking no law.
Now Zimmerman, neighborhood watchman, sees him walking and thinks he is a suspicious character. For whatever reason, hard facts or just what happens in his own mind. What should he do? What does he do?
Well, there are neighborhood watch guidelines. Here's an article to enlighten us about them:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-beth-kassab-031512-20120314_1_orlando-police-block-captains-zimmerman
Let's suppose for the sake of argument Martin did in fact do "the type of suspicious activity that should be reported to police." OK, Zimmerman calls the police and alerts them.
This should be the end of the story as far as Zimmerman is concerned. The dispatcher (who according to trial testimony is not authorized to tell anyone what to do or not to do) implies he should not follow Martin. (We don't need you to do that).
To quote the article again, ""It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles," the manual states. "Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.""
What does Zimmerman do? He follows him. And he's carrying a firearm. Again: "If George Zimmerman didn't break every rule in the book when it comes to Neighborhood Watch programs, he came close."
So now look at the situation from Martin's point of view. Some crazy ass cracker is following him, the guy is not in any official vehicle, is not in uniform, he has to be getting a nervous. Zimmerman might no technically be confronting him, but things seem headed in that direction.
Who is out of line here? Zimmerman is. What really happens next nobody really knows. As for Zimmerman's statements, hey, he just killed a kid, he'll say anything! His statements alone are hardly credible evidence.
Jackson: "Some people simply cannot get it through their head that TM assulted Martin, and Martin shot him as he was being attacked. Get it?
No Jackson, I don't get it. All we know for sure there was an altercation. Nobody knows who attacked who. But based on what we know, I would put my money on Zimmerman being the attacker.
Doppleganger: "Treyvon Martin was a thug whose probable criminal career was cut short when he picked the wrong person to attack."
This is a fact? What, did the kid have any priors? Do jail time? And would it matter if he was the devil himself and coming straight from hell if he was just walking home minding his own business?
And again, how do you know who attacked whom?
It seems to me that Zimmerman is the thug.
HE MURDERED TRAYVON MARTIN! He's more than a thug, he's a murderer. And yet despite this obvious truth half of you guys are busy blaming the victim based on nothing but Zimmerman's account of events.
Self defense. What a crock.
And why do you think Zimmerman found Martin suspicious, took his gun and followed him, and killed him? Well, we all know the answer to that. Everyone of you passed the final exam for lesson one with flying colors.
As for the sky, it is blue, gentlemen, but I guess we can leave the discussion of Rayleigh scattering for another day.
Rockin Bob
07-22-13, 21:17
Remember the end of the movie Chinatown?
Lt Escobar: Go home, Jake. I'm doing you a favor!
Walsh: Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
I have to say that my 'assumption' of what PROBABLY happened pretty much follows what Rockin Bob says.
But, having seen the case put from the other side and read up a bit more on the evidence that was presented and the law as it stands, my final conclusion is that we'll probably never know the truth about what REALLY happened and that there's enough doubt and the law is so twisted, that the jury had no option but to acquit him.
The fact that my personal instinct makes me think that Zimmerman went after him and killed him is based on a purely prejudiced view that anyone who carries a gun whilst out getting groceries has to be a frikking psycho! Having said that, at least there's some evidence to base that view on. Eg:
I can walk anywhere I want at any time in a neighborhood's public area and if someone even presents a threat to cause bodily harm or take my life they will "Say Hello, to my little friend." In civilized society we don't solve things by throwing a punch.
Talking so coldly about taking someone's life in one sentence and then claiming that's the way it's done in a civilized society in the next? Doesn't get much more psycho than that. :-(
Peter Sideburn
07-23-13, 04:14
Possibly, you misunderstood. I value life a great deal. However, I value my life and that of my family and friends much more than I do that of someone who would be a predator and attack me as if I am the prey. In the US, thank God, I have a right in the pursuit of life. If someone is threatening that in an intentional way by attacking me, I have the right to effect whatever reasoned measure is necessary to protect myself, including killing the criminal predator. The predator is committing a felony and violating my civil and constitutional rights. I do not have to be hurt, beat up, cut, concussed, bleeding or dying to protect myself. Since I have seen many (hundreds) people be terribly injured or die from violent acts and have been in harm's way on more than a few occasions what I meant to relate is that under that circumstance, those who try to chat and convince the predator to let them go or show mercy: die or are seriously injured. Those who survive without significant injury react, react decisively, and do it great maximum speed and force. The FBI statistics back this as does the training and tactics of every special forces unit in the World. I am sorry if the realities of the World and a few billion years of predator vs. Prey behavior analysis doesn't match your World view or the lyrics of your favorite Barbara Streisand jingle, but if Martin had been civilized and discussed the issue with Zimmerman or just called the police on his cell phone to report someone appeared to be following him instead of assaulting Zimmerman, then he would be alive today. Zimmerman did not break the law or at least no evidence has been found suggesting he did. Since we have a presumption of innocence in the US (except for possible IRS violations), unless apparently, your guilt happens to fit the political agenda of our current chief law enforcement officer and the most reverent race pimps, but I digress, then Zimmerman was found not guilty, which means that before, during, and after the trial he has remained an innocent man. Neither I nor the FBI thinks this case had anything to do with race. Don't worry though, I am sure "the most transparent administration ever" still has time to have Zimmerman targeted by the IRS. Anyone who thinks this response to this case will have a positive influence on race relations is on crack. This type of P.S.eudo-racism witch hunt only drives a wedge between the races in many cases where no wedge existed before. For example, some of my good black friends have posted incredibly anti-white racist hate speech on their Facebook pages. If I reversed their posts and put the exact same thing out with the words representing whites and blacks reversed I would be on the national news as the biggest racist in the country; which for those who know me is not likely. This non-sense should stop and we should spend time trying to education people on civil society to avoid all violence.
Pete.
Daddy Rulz
07-23-13, 04:18
Can you believe this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23413111
Possibly, you misunderstood. I value life a great deal. However, I value my life and that of my family and friends much more than I do that of someone who would be a predator and attack me as if I am the prey. In the US, thank God, I have a right in the pursuit of life. If someone is threatening that in an intentional way by attacking me, I have the right to effect whatever reasoned measure is necessary to protect myself, including killing the criminal predator. The predator is committing a felony and violating my civil and constitutional rights. I do not have to be hurt, beat up, cut, concussed, bleeding or dying to protect myself. Since I have seen many (hundreds) people be terribly injured or die from violent acts and have been in harm's way on more than a few occasions what I meant to relate is that under that circumstance, those who try to chat and convince the predator to let them go or show mercy: die or are seriously injured. Those who survive without significant injury react, react decisively, and do it great maximum speed and force. The FBI statistics back this as does the training and tactics of every special forces unit in the World. I am sorry if the realities of the World and a few billion years of predator vs. Prey behavior analysis doesn't match your World view or the lyrics of your favorite Barbara Streisand jingle, but if Martin had been civilized and discussed the issue with Zimmerman or just called the police on his cell phone to report someone appeared to be following him instead of assaulting Zimmerman, then he would be alive today. Zimmerman did not break the law or at least no evidence has been found suggesting he did. Since we have a presumption of innocence in the US (except for possible IRS violations), unless apparently, your guilt happens to fit the political agenda of our current chief law enforcement officer and the most reverent race pimps, but I digress, then Zimmerman was found not guilty, which means that before, during, and after the trial he has remained an innocent man. Neither I nor the FBI thinks this case had anything to do with race. Don't worry though, I am sure "the most transparent administration ever" still has time to have Zimmerman targeted by the IRS. Anyone who thinks this response to this case will have a positive influence on race relations is on crack. This type of P.S.eudo-racism witch hunt only drives a wedge between the races in many cases where no wedge existed before. For example, some of my good black friends have posted incredibly anti-white racist hate speech on their Facebook pages. If I reversed their posts and put the exact same thing out with the words representing whites and blacks reversed I would be on the national news as the biggest racist in the country; which for those who know me is not likely. This non-sense should stop and we should spend time trying to education people on civil society to avoid all violence.
Pete.Peter you and many others conveniently ignore two important facts: (1) Zimmerman would not have been attacked if he had not been stupid and ignored the 911 operator; and, (2) Zimmerman would have not been attacked if he had not been stupid and gotten out of his car to follow Trayvon. The Police were coming, and one has to presume that they would do the job that they are paid to do. Because of Zimmerman's stupidity, and Trayvon's ignorance of the Florida concealed carry law, Trayvon created a situation where Zimmerman had to defend himself. Except in the movies, a gun almost always wins when the other party has only his fists. Someone is dead because Zimmerman was stupid, but there is no law in Florida against being stupid, and you cannot cure stupidity.
Tres3.
...In the US, thank God, I have a right in the pursuit of life...Pete, how I read the entire post:
"Blah, blah, blah...In the US, thank God, I have the right to kill people...blah, blah, blah."
Sorry, but that's how it comes across to a reasonably sane thinking person. How on earth can you stretch and twist the act of killing another person into the phrase "the pursuit of life"?!?! You state as FACT, that in a "civilized" country, those who don't kill their attackers end up dead. Well, if I had killed everyone that has threatened me and been in a position where they could have actually genuinely killed me, I'd have killed at least 30 people by now.....and yet, I'm still alive!
I've often been exposed to these things because I've traveled extensively over the last 40 years and sought out the night life, but a lot of those situations have been in far more mundane circumstances also (eg. Outside a supermarket in east London). Admittedly, I've never been threatened in the US, despite many visits. Maybe if I had been, and didn't have a gun on me, I wouldn't be here now? But that kind of (admittedly personal and anecdotal) evidence would suggest that the problem is US specific. And the difference between the US and other countries I've visited? Easy, the proliferation of guns and the nutters who think they have a god-given right to use them!
For some further background. I'm not a wimp when it comes to guns. I'm ex-military and an ex competition shooter. My favourite weapon was the SMG, on single shot. Won a few competitions with it. In fact, I recently bought some time at a shooting gallery via a Groupon offer here in Buenos Aires. So I'm not anti-gun per se, I'm anti wearing-a-gun-just-because-you-feel-like-it.
(1) Zimmerman would not have been attacked if he had not been stupid and ignored the 911 operator; and,
(2) Zimmerman would have not been attacked if he had not been stupid and gotten out of his car to follow Trayvon.(3) Zimmerman wouldn't even have gotten out of his car to pursue Trayvon if he didn't have a gun on him and been prepared (expecting?) to use it.
Tequila Tim
07-23-13, 20:57
Can you believe this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23413111Funny how this aspect of the case has been completely ignored by the US press. I guess it's inconsistent with the way they want the public to perceive the case.
Daddy Rulz
07-23-13, 23:06
Funny how this aspect of the case has been completely ignored by the US press. I guess it's inconsistent with the way they want the public to perceive the case.Well at least their web sites have stuff about it. I posted from BBC because I personally don't watch the US media anymore, I hate using absolutes but they all suck.
Peter Sideburn
07-24-13, 04:18
Why do you make excuses. Zimmerman doesn't need a reason why he did or did not decide to walk behind someone on a public street. It is his right to do so. It was not Travon's right to attack him for it. As soon as he attacked Zimmerman and presented a potential lethal threat to Zimmerman, then Zimmerman had every right to protect himself. As his head is getting smashed into the concrete he shot the guy. It is horrible and sad but the fault lies with the felonious act of physical assault, not Zimmerman's choice to get out of his car.
Pete.
Peter you and many others conveniently ignore two important facts: (1) Zimmerman would not have been attacked if he had not been stupid and ignored the 911 operator; and, (2) Zimmerman would have not been attacked if he had not been stupid and gotten out of his car to follow Trayvon. The Police were coming, and one has to presume that they would do the job that they are paid to do. Because of Zimmerman's stupidity, and Trayvon's ignorance of the Florida concealed carry law, Trayvon created a situation where Zimmerman had to defend himself. Except in the movies, a gun almost always wins when the other party has only his fists. Someone is dead because Zimmerman was stupid, but there is no law in Florida against being stupid, and you cannot cure stupidity.
Tres3.
Peter Sideburn
07-24-13, 04:37
Can you name one where a citizen or subject does not have a legal right to defend themselves? Don't you think such a law would be stupid?
We probably share some things in common from your post. Suffice it to say that I know what it is like to be hunted. Regarding the gun issue in the US, see prior posts, but the vast majority of gun related deaths have one of two things in common. Either they are a suicide or they are typically crime or crime culture related. The same groups who live by the gun for illegal pursuits or hang around with those that do are typically the ones who die from firearms. The numbers do not lie. You are more likely to survive an assault and to escape with less harm if you are armed. If you want to stop gun violence you need to put away criminals for good and treat mental health issues far better than we currently do. I am guilty of believing that we have the right and frankly the duty to defend ourselves against violent attack to and including killing the assailant. I would be much more at rest with this out come than the opposite. BTW I don't think a gun makes someone cool or tuff at all. It is a tool plain and simple. It allows may allow the prey to possess the force to overcome the predator in the same way a lever may allow the weak to overcome lifting a greater mass. He who uses the tool has great responsibility.
Pete.
Pete, how I read the entire post:
"Blah, blah, blah...In the US, thank God, I have the right to kill people...blah, blah, blah."
Sorry, but that's how it comes across to a reasonably sane thinking person. How on earth can you stretch and twist the act of killing another person into the phrase "the pursuit of life"?!?! You state as FACT, that in a "civilized" country, those who don't kill their attackers end up dead. Well, if I had killed everyone that has threatened me and been in a position where they could have actually genuinely killed me, I'd have killed at least 30 people by now.....and yet, I'm still alive!
I've often been exposed to these things because I've traveled extensively over the last 40 years and sought out the night life, but a lot of those situations have been in far more mundane circumstances also (eg. Outside a supermarket in east London). Admittedly, I've never been threatened in the US, despite many visits. Maybe if I had been, and didn't have a gun on me, I wouldn't be here now? But that kind of (admittedly personal and anecdotal) evidence would suggest that the problem is US specific. And the difference between the US and other countries I've visited? Easy, the proliferation of guns and the nutters who think they have a god-given right to use them!
For some further background. I'm not a wimp when it comes to guns. I'm ex-military and an ex competition shooter. My favourite weapon was the SMG, on single shot. Won a few competitions with it. In fact, I recently bought some time at a shooting gallery via a Groupon offer here in Buenos Aires. So I'm not anti-gun per se, I'm anti wearing-a-gun-just-because-you-feel-like-it.
Rockin Bob
07-24-13, 06:14
I went back to read the NYTimes piece where I first heard about Trayvon Martin.
This is from the comments to that piece.
Mark Hugh Miller Los Angeles.
I was once a sworn, part-time law enforcement officer in California. For several summers a deputy sheriff patrolling county lakes in a boat. I was unarmed, and yet was able, through polite respect for the public, and the symbols of authority, to enforce the law. I worked with some splendid fellows who went on to fine careers, one rising to chief of a large San Francisco Peninsula city, others rising from police officer to upper-level positions in their respective forces. One thing I learned during that time was to recognize flawed men like Zimmerman, who are drawn to policing (in his case, make-believe policing) for all the wrong reasons. They are invariably cowardly bullies whose petty resentments render them unable to achieve the cool-headed objectivity that distinguishes professional men and women in police work. Zimmerman's history of over-aggressive behavior as a self-appointed neighborhood guardian, his whining about the a-s who "always get away", and his preposterous affectation of carrying a handgun in this context, make him an archetypal example of the kind of person who should not ever be allowed to assume a role of authority. If the authorities involved in this case do not prosecute this man, then higher authorities should prosecute them along with Zimmerman. He shot an unarmed kid because he was afraid. He was afraid because, instead of a harmless boy, he saw a bogeyman conjured up by his cowardly and racist obsessions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all
One other thing:
WFTV found out Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for battery on a law enforcement officer.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/man-who-shot-killed-teen-sanford-neighborhood-has-/nLPgL/
And since self defense seems to be the issue, I quote from the original column:
"How is it self-defense when you are the one in pursuit?
Why do you make excuses. Zimmerman doesn't need a reason why he did or did not decide to walk behind someone on a public street. It is his right to do so. It was not Travon's right to attack him for it. As soon as he attacked Zimmerman and presented a potential lethal threat to Zimmerman, then Zimmerman had every right to protect himself. As his head is getting smashed into the concrete he shot the guy. It is horrible and sad but the fault lies with the felonious act of physical assault, not Zimmerman's choice to get out of his car.
Pete."To walk behind someone in a public street"?
OK Pete, you were putting your 'side ' quite well up until this point, but you just lost the entire argument! That is SO ridiculous that I don't even need to explain why. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows how ludicrous that is.
Also, let's address this "his head is getting smashed into the concrete" thing, which seems to be the pivotal point for the defense here. Did you watch the police video taken the day after the event? The one where Zimmerman has a couple of band-aids on the back of his head? They were covering the injuries which the medical examiner described as "insignificant". Doesn't look like there was much 'smashing' going on to me.
"the fault lies with the felonious act of physical assault" Agreed. But who assaulted who? That's a question we simply can't answer.
Now, put yourself in Trayvon's shoes, and assume that he'd just gone to the shop and was walking back home (there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that this isn't 100% fact, so go with it for now). He sees someone clearly following him in a car. The guy then gets out of his car and starts following him (don't even think about invoking your embarrassing "walking behind him in a public street" nonsense - you owe everyone here an apology for that one!). Now, in that position, once I've ducked into that dark pathway, personally I'd have legged it home as fast as I could. What Trayvon did was undoubtedly pretty stupid (although maybe I'd also have been that stupid when I was 17!) - he decided to actually confront Zimmerman. What happened after that we simply don't know and probably never will, and that's why Zimmerman was acquitted - reasonable doubt. BUT, under the bizarre laws of Florida, by standing his ground and not running off home when the chance presented itself, Trayvon did absolutely nothing wrong up until the point of actual confrontation. After that point all we have is the word of the guy who faces life in prison if he's convicted.
At the end of the day, Zimmerman's version of events could actually be 100% true. We're probably never going to know for sure. But the kid was walking home from the shop to where he was staying, and got killed by some guy who had gone out with a gun to look for bad guys. Even if EVERY assumption made by Zimmerman was true (that he was casing houses, that he was drugged up), the kid did not deserve to be put in a position where he felt as though he needed to stand his ground and confront someone who then killed him. That situation arose 100% because of Zimmerman's actions. The guy with the gun. The one who went out LOOKING FOR bad guys. If you can't see anything wrong with that, I give up and I thank my lucky stars that I don't live in your 'civilized' country and we'll have to agree to disagree (although you're wrong!).
Can you name one where a citizen or subject does not have a legal right to defend themselves? Don't you think such a law would be stupid?Yep, everyone has a right to defend themselves. Where has anyone said otherwise?
Don't you think someone has the right to turn around and challenge someone who has been following them in a car and then gets out and follows them on foot whilst they're walking home from buying some candy at the local store?
If YOU had just been to your local store and were walking home and someone was following you (and let's for argument's sake say you had your gun on you!), wouldn't you turn around and say "what the fcuk are you doing following me?" As someone has already said on this thread - the only thing Trayvon did wrong was to bring his fists to a gun-fight.
Don't you think someone has the right to turn around and challenge someone who has been following them in a car and then gets out and follows them on foot whilst they're walking home from buying some candy at the local store?Challenge? Yes!
Physically assault? No!
Do any of you pinheads understand the difference?
As someone has already said on this thread - the only thing Trayvon did wrong was to bring his fists to a gun-fight.What do you mean "bring his fists to a gun-fight"? There was no gunfight.
What Trayvon did wrong was to "bring his fists" to a non-fight, beating on George Zimmermen's head, whereupon Zimmerman pulled his legally licensed, legally concealed weapon and shot Trayvon in a classic case of self-defense.
Thanks,
Jax
the kid did not deserve to be put in a position where he felt as though he needed to stand his ground and confront someone who then killed him. Initiating a felonious physical assault is not "stand[ing] his ground".
That situation arose 100% because of Zimmerman's actions. The guy with the gun. The one who went out LOOKING FOR bad guys.You don't get it, do you? "LOOKING FOR bad guys" is EXACTLY what Neighborhood Watches are organized to do. Every day all across the country neighborhood watch volunteers are out in the streets of their neighborhoods "LOOKING FOR bad guys".
Challenge? Yes!
Physically assault? No!
Do any of you pinheads understand the difference?
What Trayvon did wrong was to "bring his fists" to a non-fight, beating on George Zimmermen's headPinheads? Really?
Where's the proof that Trayvon committed an assault? There's not even any proof that he beat on Zimmerman's head, whether he initiated the altercation or not! No marks on his face and "insignificant" head injuries! And who says that the fight wasn't started by Zimmerman? Oh yeah, Zimmerman!
I've changed my opinion and agree that with the given evidence the jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman, based on nothing being provable and thus the existence of reasonable doubt. How about you have a rethink and stop with the evidence-free accusations and stop calling people names for giving their _opinions_ on what _probably_ happened, based on a common sense reading of the known facts, rather than on the gung-ho "I know what the fcuk happened and you're all pinheads" approach you're currently following?
Where's the proof that Trayvon committed an assault? There's not even any proof that he beat on Zimmerman's head, whether he initiated the altercation or not! No marks on his face and "insignificant" head injuries! And who says that the fight wasn't started by Zimmerman? Oh yeah, Zimmerman!So what's your interpretation of the evidence?
That Zimmerman initiated an assault on Trayvon by first attempting to beat Trayvon with his face, and the he turned around and tried to attack Trayvon again using the back of his head?
Please, get a grip on reality.
Thanks,
Jax.
You don't get it, do you? "LOOKING FOR bad guys" is EXACTLY what Neighborhood Watches are organized to do. Every day all across the country neighborhood watch volunteers are out in the streets of their neighborhoods "LOOKING FOR bad guys".There's only one person going out of their way to 'not get it' here Jackson, and it's not me!
Context is EVERYTHING. Of course I know what neighbourhood watch schemes are for and how they work. Driving around your neighbourhood and reporting suspicious characters is one thing, following someone (against all neighbourhood watch guidelines), whilst armed (against all neighbourhood watch guidelines) is something else.
And up until now I haven't even mentioned Zimmerman's priors and history. Far, far scarier than Trayvon's! Although that proves nothing, obviously, but surely logic and human instinct would make you suspicious of his intentions? If not, then there's really no point in continuing the debate, because you're doing exactly what you were amazed about that never happens at the beginning of this thread by refusing to listen and consider the possibility that a different point of view may have merit.
So what's your interpretation of the evidence?
That Zimmerman initiated an assault on Trayvon by first attempting to beat Trayvon with his face, and the he turned around and tried to attack Trayvon again using the back of his head?
Please, get a grip on reality.
Thanks,
Jax.My interpretation of the EVIDENCE is that there was a fight and Zimmerman shot Trayvon to death. And that is ALL that can be proved.
My GUESS as to the possible sequence of events is that either; Trayvon jumped on Zimmerman and once he had him pinned down, Zimmerman shot him, OR; Zimmerman jumped on Trayvon, who then got the upper hand and pinned Zimmerman to the ground, then Zimmerman shot him, OR (most likely); Zimmerman challenged Trayvon or Trayvon challenged Zimmerman, a slanging match ensued, one of them (fcuk knows which) lost their rag and threw a punch, Trayvon got the upper hand and pinned Zimmerman on the ground, Zimmerman shot him.
My grip on reality is pretty firm I reckon. :-)
You going to check yours now?
My interpretation of the EVIDENCE is that there was a fight and Zimmerman shot Trayvon to death. And that is ALL that can be proved.
My GUESS as to the possible sequence of events is that either; Trayvon jumped on Zimmerman and once he had him pinned down, Zimmerman shot him, OR; Zimmerman jumped on Trayvon, who then got the upper hand and pinned Zimmerman to the ground, then Zimmerman shot him, OR (most likely); Zimmerman challenged Trayvon or Trayvon challenged Zimmerman, a slanging match ensued, one of them (fcuk knows which) lost their rag and threw a punch, Trayvon got the upper hand and pinned Zimmerman on the ground, Zimmerman shot him.
My grip on reality is pretty firm I reckon. :-)
You going to check yours now?No, no, no. That's copping out.
Please present your alternate theory of the events that matches all the evidence.
Neither the FBI nor the Florida State's Attorney's office could develop one, and I say you can't do it either.
Do you know why? Because there is only ONE theory of the sequence of events that matches all the evidence, and that is that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, punched him in the face, knocked him to the ground, and then bashed his head into the concrete sidewalk and otherwise beat Zimmerman with his fists until Zimmerman pulled out his legally owned, legally concealed pistol and shot Martin one time in the chest as Marin was astride him.
We're all waiting.
Thanks,
Jax.
Rockin Bob
07-24-13, 15:47
Hey Jackson! Ever see the movie Shane? Remember these scenes (as described in Wikipedia):
Shane goes into town with Starrett and the rest of the homesteaders to pick up supplies at a general store. Adjacent to the store, but separated from it by an inside door, is a bar. Shane enters the bar, where Ryker's men are, and orders soda pop. Chris Calloway (Ben Johnson), one of Ryker's men, taunts Shane and throws soda pop on him, but Shane backs down. On a later occasion, Calloway bullies Shane again. This time, Shane orders two shots of whiskey. He pours one on Calloway's shirt and throws the other in his face followed by a punch that knocks Calloway back into the general store. A bar room brawl ensues as Ryker's men gang up on Shane. However, Starrett enters the bar and with his help, Shane wins the fight, but the shopkeeper orders them out. Ryker declares that the next time Shane or Joe go to town the "air will be filled with gunsmoke.
As tensions mount, Ryker hires Jack Wilson (Jack Palance), an unscrupulous, P.S.ychopathic gunslinger, who laughs at the thought of murder. Wilson goads ex-Confederate Frank 'Stonewall' Torrey (Elisha Cook, Jr)., a hot-tempered Alabama homesteader, into a fight, and shoots him down in the street. Just before Stonewall is gunned down, he calls Wilson a "low-down, lying Yankee." Wilson responds "Prove it," before outdrawing the inexperienced homesteader.
Your argument that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman is just like saying Stonewall drew first, Stonewall attacked Wilson, so Wilson had every right to defend himself.
You focus on one isolated event without any regard to all the events leading up to it. Situation, context, the big picture, everything that happens before you pay no attention to.
You focus on one isolated event without any regard to all the events leading up to it. Situation, context, the big picture, everything that happens before you pay no attention to.Exactly this.
But it's already been pointed out on several occasions Bob, and ignored every time.
And it's not only the context that's ignored, or preceding events, but also the actual evidence.
Head, meet brick wall!
Peter Sideburn
07-24-13, 18:36
No! I would do no such thing because this would be stupid. Most the time when you think someone is following you, they are not. For sake of argument say they were. If someone is seriously following you and you believe they are there to do you harm then you should assume they are quite confident that they have the means to cause said harm to you. (Bunnies don't chase bears). Therefore, the smart thing to do is to not confront them but rather go about your business, gain distance from them, find a public place, tell your girlfriend where you are and ask her to call 911 then hang up and call 911. You don't confront unless you want to change a defensive position into an offensive one. If you are actually being threatened it is a bit different. If you know defense is not going to be effective then you rapidly try to stack the advantages on your side through cover, concealment, surprise, find a weapon, initiate a distraction, etc. Etc. So, no I would not have confronted someone following me. I would have been more likely to offer him some skittles and tried to strike up neutral conversation so as to mentally disarm the potential attacker and to try to find common ground that might make it harder for the pursuer to choose me as their victim while remaining vigilant to resort to defensive moves and only as last resort decisive, effective, repetitive, rapid offensive ones until the then actual threat had been neutralized.
BTW I can think your World view is bizarre and totally disagree with you, but still be glad to buy you a beer and hang out as I bet there is plenty we could agree on. Don't let healthy debate lead to bitterness. Life is too short.
Pete.
Yep, everyone has a right to defend themselves. Where has anyone said otherwise?
Don't you think someone has the right to turn around and challenge someone who has been following them in a car and then gets out and follows them on foot whilst they're walking home from buying some candy at the local store?
If YOU had just been to your local store and were walking home and someone was following you (and let's for argument's sake say you had your gun on you!), wouldn't you turn around and say "what the fcuk are you doing following me?" As someone has already said on this thread - the only thing Trayvon did wrong was to bring his fists to a gun-fight.
No! I would do no such thing because this would be stupid. Most the time when you think someone is following you, they are not. For sake of argument say they were. If someone is seriously following you and you believe they are there to do you harm then you should assume they are quite confident that they have the means to cause said harm to you. (Bunnies don't chase bears). Therefore, the smart thing to do is to not confront them but rather go about your business, gain distance from them, find a public place, tell your girlfriend where you are and ask her to call 911 then hang up and call 911. You don't confront unless you want to change a defensive position into an offensive one. If you are actually being threatened it is a bit different. If you know defense is not going to be effective then you rapidly try to stack the advantages on your side through cover, concealment, surprise, find a weapon, initiate a distraction, etc. Etc. So, no I would not have confronted someone following me. I would have been more likely to offer him some skittles and tried to strike up neutral conversation so as to mentally disarm the potential attacker and to try to find common ground that might make it harder for the pursuer to choose me as their victim while remaining vigilant to resort to defensive moves and only as last resort decisive, effective, repetitive, rapid offensive ones until the then actual threat had been neutralized.Some very good points made Pete. Although I'd say they're made from the perspective of an intelligent, educated person with extensive experience of how the world really works. Do you think a 17 year old kid who's had problems at school would have similar thought processes? I doubt it myself.
Having said that, I'm interested in how you say you may have reacted. "I would have been more likely to offer him some skittles and tried to strike up neutral conversation so as to mentally disarm the potential attacker and to try to find common ground that might make it harder for the pursuer to choose me as their victim while remaining vigilant to resort to defensive moves and only as last resort decisive, effective, repetitive, rapid offensive ones until the then actual threat had been neutralized." As it happens, and ridiculous though it might sound, there's no way of proving that this isn't exactly what actually took place, right up until the appearance of the gun!
The point I've been trying to make (repeatedly) is that none of the evidence conclusively proves what happened in that missing couple of minutes, except that Zimmerman shot the kid and killed him. I've already said that Zimmerman's / Jackson's version of the events could well be accurate, but taking all the events leading up to those 2 minutes into account as well as the history of both parties, IN MY OPINION (and in the opinion of every single person I've ever known or met, bar one, and most of the population of the world outside the US), it's quite possible that Zimmerman is a very disturbed individual with the blood of an innocent kid on his hands.
And before Jackson comes back (again) to call me a pinhead because "he punched him in the face and smashed his head on the ground", take another look at the police video taken the day after the event and tell me why Zimmerman has no cuts or bruises on his face and a couple of band aids on his head where the medical examiner said he had "insignificant" injuries? (Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I've asked the question a couple of times and it's been ignored. And again, it's not even relevant to the point I'm trying to make about there being no 'proof' of what happened, but it does contribute to the doubting of Zimmerman's version of what happened).
BTW I can think your World view is bizarre and totally disagree with you, but still be glad to buy you a beer and hang out as I bet there is plenty we could agree on. Don't let healthy debate lead to bitterness. Life is too short.
True! But I ain't meeting with you unless you promise you're not carrying a gun!
;-)
Here's another puzzle. If Trayvon actually was the aggressor and made a lunge for Zimmerman, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him right then? Or, if he got him with a quick punch and downed him, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him then? How did it get to the stage where he'd threatened, punched, mounted and was smashing Zimmerman's head before the gun came out?
And, if all this really took place before the gun came out and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, smashing his head into the concrete, how the heck did he still have enough wits about him, and freedom of movement, to reach for his gun, get it out, take the safety off, cock it and bring it up to shoot him in the chest?
Peter Sideburn
07-24-13, 22:25
I can't answer any of your questions with anything but conjecture. Certainly there are many plausible explanations at least as likely as the idea that Zimmerman is a lunatic looking to shoot someone. There is no evidence to suggest this is true and all the evidence presented did not show that the story given was false beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, he was found not guilty and remains innocent. Trust me I don't think Jurys get it right all the time. I have been on a few and was amazed at my "peers" inability to stay awake let alone actually consider the facts. OJ walked didn't he? From the evidence I have seen and heard, however, the story Zimmerman tells is more plausible than that which you suggest. If Zimmerman were some crazy with a gun wanting to kill Travon then why did he get close enough to have a scuffle at all? At the end of the day I think there is no evidence race played any role in this case and only Zimmerman and God really know exactly what happened, but we must follow our system's rules or the system has no value and should be discarded. This would lead to anarchy which is worse than the possibility of occasionally getting all this wrong as a society.
BTW I rarely ever carry and never carry if I am going to be drinking even one drop of alcohol. That would be like drinking and driving; just dumb.
Pete.
Here's another puzzle. If Trayvon actually was the aggressor and made a lunge for Zimmerman, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him right then? Or, if he got him with a quick punch and downed him, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him then? How did it get to the stage where he'd threatened, punched, mounted and was smashing Zimmerman's head before the gun came out?
And, if all this really took place before the gun came out and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, smashing his head into the concrete, how the heck did he still have enough wits about him, and freedom of movement, to reach for his gun, get it out, take the safety off, cock it and bring it up to shoot him in the chest?
Daddy Rulz
07-25-13, 00:40
Here's another puzzle. If Trayvon actually was the aggressor and made a lunge for Zimmerman, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him right then? Or, if he got him with a quick punch and downed him, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him then? How did it get to the stage where he'd threatened, punched, mounted and was smashing Zimmerman's head before the gun came out?
And, if all this really took place before the gun came out and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, smashing his head into the concrete, how the heck did he still have enough wits about him, and freedom of movement, to reach for his gun, get it out, take the safety off, cock it and bring it up to shoot him in the chest?I think most likely because he didn't want to kill him. I think he's one of those guys that carry because the weight of the gun made him feel safer but never really considered that it might mean using it. For me rule number one when I'm armed is to keep the other guy more than arms reach away, otherwise why have a gun?
TejanoLibre
07-25-13, 01:26
Here's another puzzle. If Trayvon actually was the aggressor and made a lunge for Zimmerman, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him right then? Or, if he got him with a quick punch and downed him, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him then? How did it get to the stage where he'd threatened, punched, mounted and was smashing Zimmerman's head before the gun came out?
And, if all this really took place before the gun came out and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, smashing his head into the concrete, how the heck did he still have enough wits about him, and freedom of movement, to reach for his gun, get it out, take the safety off, cock it and bring it up to shoot him in the chest?
I'm going to climb out on a limb here :
After meeting you I'm going to guess that Nobody has EVER sucker-punched you and I'm going to have to guess that Travon did NOT know that Zimmerman was armed when he hit him. (or Travon was a lot dumber than he looked.).
I have been sucker-punched by much bigger guys on numerous occasions by chicken-shit cocksuckers that were trying to gain the upper hand but I was still able to maintain my wits enough to be able to say "Hello Balls!" when I was lying on my back and they were mounted on top of me.
Let's assume that Zimmerman's pistol was cocked and it did not have the safety engaged or that it was a double-action pistol with a round in the chamber and a modern safety mechanism.
From the way it has been described it seems like a very natural movement on Zimmerman's behalf to reach for a side mounted pistol, draw it and fire upwards. A Common self-defense tactic.
Now I'm going to think about this in a different manner:
Zimmerman is bored, he hates his fucking wife and he's pissed off that he can't be a real cop. It's raining and he has to go to the store for his wife's tampons in the middle of the night.
He spots a dark shadow lurking in the neighborhood and he thinks to himself, "Oh good, it's a good for nothing, teenaged Punk! " "I think I'm going to blast him!
Draws his weapon, cocks it and follows the kid with his weapon held by his side. Looking for trouble!
Calls 911 to "cover his bases.
Uses the "N" word so he can be sure and get punched-out first.
Then it's BANG!
I don't think Zimm stalked Tray like Ted Bundy may have stalked a co-ed.
It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. For both of them.
TL.
Here's another puzzle. If Trayvon actually was the aggressor and made a lunge for Zimmerman, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him right then? Or, if he got him with a quick punch and downed him, why didn't he get his gun out and shoot him then? How did it get to the stage where he'd threatened, punched, mounted and was smashing Zimmerman's head before the gun came out?As Zimmerman explained, he saw Trayvon walking towards him, but he was not expecting Trayvon to walk right up and punch him. This makes sense: Who would be expecting a complete stranger in the street to walk up and punch you? That's why Zimmerman "didn't he get his gun out and shoot him then". It was entirely unexpected and it all happened too fast.
After that, everything else took only a few seconds. Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin immediately jumped on him, started smashing his head against the concrete sidewalk and punching him in the face.
And, if all this really took place before the gun came out and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, smashing his head into the concrete, how the heck did he still have enough wits about him, and freedom of movement, to reach for his gun, get it out, take the safety off, cock it and bring it up to shoot him in the chest?The answer: Instinct and training takes over after the initial surprise attack, and again, as Zimmerman explained, it was a short reach to grab his pistol at his side, put it from the holster and point it up at Trayvon.
Jeez, it's like some of you have never been in a physical altercation in your entire life or had any firearms training what-so-ever.
Anyway, let's continue to imagine fantasy scenarios wherein TM is the innocent lamb and Zimmerman is the aggressor, regardless of whether they fit the facts in evidence or human nature in general.
Thanks,
Jax
PS: I was watching PMSNBC this weekend wherein a panel of 4 black mothers, all professional reporters, were all repeating the mantra (actual quote) "Little Travey Martin was walking home from the candy store when George Zimmerman shot and killed him because he was black." as they went on to describe how they all had to address their children's fears that they might be shot and killed in the street because they were black just like TM.
All of this after the trial, and after all the evidence showing that TM was the aggressor, and after an all female jury determined that Zimmerman shot TM in self-defense.
Head, meet brick wall!
Again....and again....and again...
Again....and again....and again...Come on man, how exactly do you see yourself as the one who is "beating his head against the wall" and otherwise suffering aggravation while trying to stick to the proven facts in the midst of continuous emotional distortions?
I'm the one who's comfortable with accepting the only theory that fits all the evidence.
It's you, not me, who is ignoring the obvious and trying to contort the facts to fit some desired ideological outcome.
"Little Travey Martin was walking home from the candy store when George Zimmerman shot and killed him because he was black."
Yea, right.
Jax.
It's you, not me, who is ignoring the obvious and trying to contort the facts to fit some desired ideological outcome.
Yeah, OK, as you wish Jackson.
Rockin Bob
07-25-13, 19:52
"Little Travey Martin was walking home from the candy store when George Zimmerman shot and killed him because he was black." Yeah, that about basically sums it up. It's that simple.
But I am done arguing.
If many of you disagree with me, fine, disagreement is inevitable whenever you have more than one person in the room.
I ain't mad at cha!
But I will say one last thing.
Many of you seem to be incapable of accepting the simple fact that Trayvon Martin was walking home from the Seven Eleven minding his own business and ends up dead as a result entirely of the actions of George Zimmerman. BUT FOR Zimmerman, there is no doubt that Martin would have just walked home and watched the rest of the All Star game.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Why do you so zealously defend Zimmerman? Ever ask yourself that?
TejanoLibre
07-25-13, 19:53
And the worst thing about this entire episode is that "poor little Zimmy will NEVER be able to defend himself from an attacker for the REST of his life!"
Or use that word again. (just joking).
He is now relegated to punching 9 mm holes in a paper target at the gym. I mean at the range. Same thing.
Nobody is going to give him a job as a security guard although that was a "volunteer" gig.
A little thematic music to end this with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcsMMEMbfw
TL.
See I'm not a monster...... I'm just ahead of the curve .
Rockin Bob
07-25-13, 22:02
JB,
The video is all about blaming the victim.
First, as I said before, it doesn't matter if it's Trayvon Martin coming from the Seven Eleven or the Devil Himself coming straight from Hell.
He has a right to walk down the street.
Second, Zimmerman has no prior knowledge of anything pertaining to Trayvon Martin. He knows only what he observes.
Now, ok, Zimmerman claims Martin is acting suspiciously and makes a call to the police to advise them of a suspicious character in the neighborhood. Fine. He is acting in his capacity as neighborhood watch volunteer.
OK! This should be the end of the story. Zimmerman has done all he is authorized to do. He should just continue on to the grocery store.
However, he doesn't do this. He morphs from Neighborhood watch volunteer to neighborhood vigilante. He is tracking, following, stalking, menacing, threatening Trayvon Martin, call it what you will. He is initiating the whole sequence of events. He is acting on his own. This is now an entirely different situation.
This is what is relevant. Martin's character is not. Again, Zimmerman has no knowledge of the man. There is nothing but a completely imaginary scenario rolling through his mind. How much of his imaginings are in fact true or however justified, they are still imaginings, not based on any concrete facts pertaining to the current situation. The only person whose actions could certainly be called suspicious are those of Zimmerman, who as I have already pointed out is driving around in an unofficial vehicle, has no uniform, is acting under the color of no law or authority, and is following Martin around. For the millionth time, Zimmerman is the aggressor here. Millionth and one. Zimmerman is the aggressor here.
It doesn't matter if it's Mother Teresa pursuing Charles Manson. She's still the aggressor. Can you see that?
Zimmerman, who has no business following this kid, sets in motion a chain of events that ends up with Martin getting shot. Zimmerman: offense. Martin: defense. Can you see that?
You know what, I'm actually inclined to agree with the opinions here that Martin probably over-reacted and that his actions served to escalate the tension. I will grant you that. But re-act is the operative word here. On his own, regardless of whether or not he was a deranged lean head with violent tendencies, BUT FOR George Zimmerman he would from all facts of the case have continued on to his house and watched the All Star game. Martin's actions are not the legal equivalent of a pass interception or fumble recovery that now puts him on offense. He's still on defense.
That the whole thing ends up with Martin getting killed. Involuntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, it seems there's some sort of charge you can make here, and to claim self-defense in a situation that you initiate is total nonsense.
The video is the equivalent of an ad hominum attack in debate: rather than debate the substance of what someone says, you attack his character.
Now, I have posted that I think Zimmerman is the one with the bad character, you know the prior assault of a police officer, but I don't base my argument on that. What is relevant is: observable actions by the actors in the scene. The video makes its argument on the basis of Martin's character.
Rockin Bob
07-25-13, 22:06
I seem to have responded to a post with a link to a video that just ain't there!
Jimmy Boy 99, please repost!
I seem to have responded to a post with a link to a video that just ain't there!
Jimmy Boy 99, please repost!You said the video was all about blaming the victim but now you say you didn't see it.
Don B.
Jimmy Boy 99
07-25-13, 23:10
You said the video was all about blaming the victim but now you say you didn't see it.
Don B.My post was deleted for some reason. Will post it again.
http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2013/07/lynching_zimmerman_bill_whittle_on_trayvon_media_story.html
Nobody is going to give him a job as a security guard although that was a "volunteer" gig.
Some far right wing zealot will surely give Zimmerman a job.
Tres3.
JB,
The video is all about blaming the victim.
First, as I said before, it doesn't matter if it's Trayvon Martin coming from the Seven Eleven or the Devil Himself coming straight from Hell.
He has a right to walk down the street.
Second, Zimmerman has no prior knowledge of anything pertaining to Trayvon Martin. He knows only what he observes.
Now, ok, Zimmerman claims Martin is acting suspiciously and makes a call to the police to advise them of a suspicious character in the neighborhood. Fine. He is acting in his capacity as neighborhood watch volunteer.
OK! This should be the end of the story. Zimmerman has done all he is authorized to do. He should just continue on to the grocery store.
However, he doesn't do this. He morphs from Neighborhood watch volunteer to neighborhood vigilante. He is tracking, following, stalking, menacing, threatening Trayvon Martin, call it what you will. He is initiating the whole sequence of events. He is acting on his own. This is now an entirely different situation.
This is what is relevant. Martin's character is not. Again, Zimmerman has no knowledge of the man. There is nothing but a completely imaginary scenario rolling through his mind. How much of his imaginings are in fact true or however justified, they are still imaginings, not based on any concrete facts pertaining to the current situation. The only person whose actions could certainly be called suspicious are those of Zimmerman, who as I have already pointed out is driving around in an unofficial vehicle, has no uniform, is acting under the color of no law or authority, and is following Martin around. For the millionth time, Zimmerman is the aggressor here. Millionth and one. Zimmerman is the aggressor here.
It doesn't matter if it's Mother Teresa pursuing Charles Manson. She's still the aggressor. Can you see that?
Zimmerman, who has no business following this kid, sets in motion a chain of events that ends up with Martin getting shot. Zimmerman: offense. Martin: defense. Can you see that?
You know what, I'm actually inclined to agree with the opinions here that Martin probably over-reacted and that his actions served to escalate the tension. I will grant you that. But re-act is the operative word here. On his own, regardless of whether or not he was a deranged lean head with violent tendencies, BUT FOR George Zimmerman he would from all facts of the case have continued on to his house and watched the All Star game. Martin's actions are not the legal equivalent of a pass interception or fumble recovery that now puts him on offense. He's still on defense.
That the whole thing ends up with Martin getting killed. Involuntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, it seems there's some sort of charge you can make here, and to claim self-defense in a situation that you initiate is total nonsense.
The video is the equivalent of an ad hominum attack in debate: rather than debate the substance of what someone says, you attack his character.
Now, I have posted that I think Zimmerman is the one with the bad character, you know the prior assault of a police officer, but I don't base my argument on that. What is relevant is: observable actions by the actors in the scene. The video makes its argument on the basis of Martin's character.Unfortunately, their mutual stupidity created a situation where Zimmerman had to defend himself. 99% of the time, in real life, a gun will beat fists. The law of self defense is clear enough to create reasonable doubt, and a jury has spoken. The fact that the prosecution was out lawyered, made the defense's job easier. The law is the law, but there is no law in the State of Florida against stupidity.
Tres3.
Some far right wing zealot will surely give Zimmerman a job.
Fully expecting him to be serving at the carvery at the next AP house BBQ!
;-)
Many of you seem to be incapable of accepting the simple fact that Trayvon Martin was walking home from the Seven Eleven minding his own business and ends up dead as a result entirely of the actions of George Zimmerman. BUT FOR Zimmerman, there is no doubt that Martin would have just walked home and watched the rest of the All Star game.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Why do you so zealously defend Zimmerman? Ever ask yourself that?Trayvon Martin in NOT the victim. Trayvon Martin is the perpetrator.
Trayvon Martin is dead because he decided to perpetrate a felonious assault on an individual who was prepared to defend himself, period.
Trayvon Martin "ends up dead as a result entirely of the actions of" Trayvon Martin.
Trayvon Martin was not "walking home from the Seven Eleven minding his own business". There was 40 minutes between the time TM made his purchases at the 7-11 and the time he attacked George Zimmerman. During this 40 minute interval, Trayvon Martin was wandering around in the grassy areas behind and between the townhouses in George Zimmerman's neighborhood, at night, in the dark, in the pouring rain, said suspicious behavior leading to his being criminally profiled by George Zimmerman.
I "zealously defend Zimmerman" because he was the one who was attacked, because he was the actual victim, and most importantly because he was the one who was exercising his right, and all of our rights, to defend himself against a violent attacker.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?
Thanks,
Jackson
Rockin Bob
07-26-13, 17:55
Trayvon Martin in NOT the victim. Trayvon Martin is the perpetrator.
Trayvon Martin is dead because he decided to perpetrate a felonious assault on an individual who was prepared to defend himself, period.
Trayvon Martin "ends up dead as a result entirely of the actions of" Trayvon Martin.
Trayvon Martin was not "walking home from the Seven Eleven minding his own business". There was 40 minutes between the time TM made his purchases at the 7-11 and the time he attacked George Zimmerman. During this 40 minute interval, Trayvon Martin was wandering around in the grassy areas behind and between the townhouses in George Zimmerman's neighborhood, at night, in the dark, in the pouring rain, said suspicious behavior leading to his being criminally profiled by George Zimmerman.
I "zealously defend Zimmerman" because he was the one who was attacked, because he was the actual victim, and most importantly because he was the one who was exercising his right, and all of our rights, to defend himself against a violent attacker.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?
Thanks,
JacksonThis is why I find it so difficult to accept:
First of all, you base your assertions on speculation. No one witnessed anything at all prior to the actual physical altercation. What Trayvon Martin was doing was not captured on any surveillance camera. He was seen by no one except George Zimmerman. But George Zimmerman's statement carries no weight at all because he has every motive to lie to save his ass. And it was a statement: not under oath in a court of law, not subject to cross examination.
One fact we do know is TM went to the Seven Eleven. We know that from surveillance camera footage.
He was talking with Rachel Jenteal on his cell phone when Zimmerman starts pursuing him. Phone records evidence, testimony of RJ.
He is staying with someone who lives in the neighborhood. A fact.
I would be more inclined to believe the Zimmerman version of the facts if none of these three things were true. If he had no friends or family in the neighborhood and was wandering around, sure, the question is what was he doing there and the reasonable conclusion would be, up to no good.
If he was casing out houses to rob, would he be chatting on the cell phone with RJ? I believe her when she claims TM was alarmed that some crazy ass cracker was following him. She appears to be incapable of lying even is she wanted to. She has a hard enough time understanding and answering the questions.
If he was walking in amongst the townhouses, maybe he was just lost or thinking he was taking a short cut. He's not familiar with the neighborhood and the townhouses all look alike. Or maybe he just wanted to get away from Zimmerman and tried to get away from the road so Zimmerman wouldn't follow him in his vehicle.
TM had never been accused or convicted of any crimes of the nature of breaking and entering.
And again, suppose he was a career criminal casing out his next target. Zimmerman was authorized to report suspicious activity to the police and nothing more. If an armed person is going to investigate, it is the job of a policeman, who is trained in this kind of work, is not going let a situation escalate into violence, and is not going to let the heat of the moment sway his judgment about whether or not he needs to use his weapon. Zimmerman turned into a vigilante and his actions were best ill advised, at worst the crazed actions of a nutcase determined not to let the "a...hole" get away.Zimmerman: policeman, judge, jury, executioner.
This is why I find it so difficult to accept:
First of all, you base your assertions on speculation. No one witnessed anything at all prior to the actual physical altercation. What Trayvon Martin was doing was not captured on any surveillance camera. He was seen by no one except George Zimmerman. But George Zimmerman's statement carries no weight at all because he has every motive to lie to save his ass. And it was a statement: not under oath in a court of law, not subject to cross examination.
One fact we do know is TM went to the Seven Eleven. We know that from surveillance camera footage.
He was talking with Rachel Jenteal on his cell phone when Zimmerman starts pursuing him. Phone records evidence, testimony of RJ.
He is staying with someone who lives in the neighborhood. A fact.
I would be more inclined to believe the Zimmerman version of the facts if none of these three things were true. If he had no friends or family in the neighborhood and was wandering around, sure, the question is what was he doing there and the reasonable conclusion would be, up to no good.
If he was casing out houses to rob, would he be chatting on the cell phone with RJ? I believe her when she claims TM was alarmed that some crazy ass cracker was following him. She appears to be incapable of lying even is she wanted to. She has a hard enough time understanding and answering the questions.
If he was walking in amongst the townhouses, maybe he was just lost or thinking he was taking a short cut. He's not familiar with the neighborhood and the townhouses all look alike. Or maybe he just wanted to get away from Zimmerman and tried to get away from the road so Zimmerman wouldn't follow him in his vehicle.
TM had never been accused or convicted of any crimes of the nature of breaking and entering.
And again, suppose he was a career criminal casing out his next target. Zimmerman was authorized to report suspicious activity to the police and nothing more. If an armed person is going to investigate, it is the job of a policeman, who is trained in this kind of work, is not going let a situation escalate into violence, and is not going to let the heat of the moment sway his judgment about whether or not he needs to use his weapon. Zimmerman turned into a vigilante and his actions were best ill advised, at worst the crazed actions of a nutcase determined not to let the "a...hole" get away.Zimmerman: policeman, judge, jury, executioner.TM with a bag of Skittles and Zimmerman with a gun and a cop wanna be vigilante. What am I missing here?
Member #4112
07-26-13, 22:48
Jackson, stop wasting your breath with these two. They have bought into the victimization of poor 6'1" 175 lb Trevyon Martin. Evidence, witnesses, injuries, and prior criminal conduct be damned. They "know" what they "know". If the roles were reversed you would not hear a peep out of these guys. Where were they when the white two reporters, one female and one male, were assaulted by blacks. No where to be seen. It only counts if the victim is black and the alleged perp is any other race. Black on Black crime does not count.
Since Trayvon did nothing I guess that bag of Skittles must have jumped Zimmerman.
Jimmy Boy 99
07-27-13, 01:00
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/trained-monkey-collaborators-of-death
(scroll down the article to trained-monkey-collaborators-of-death section).
Not my words (or even my belief!), the words of one of the jurors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23459963
Jimmy Boy 99
07-27-13, 12:08
Not my words (or even my belief!), the words of one of the jurors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23459963She was the non-white juror. She was probably also the juror who said "we need to convict Zimmerman of something". To her credit, despite wanting to find him guilty, she did follow the law and acquitted him, no matter how reluctantly.
TM with a bag of Skittles and Zimmerman with a gun and a cop wanna be vigilante. What am I missing here?Wow. That's like looking at 2 pixels of a 5 meg photo.
Let me add a few more pixels for your consideration.
The evidence and the testimony at the trial clearly showed that Trayvon Martin was casing the neighborhood when he initiated an unprovoked felonious assault on George Zimmerman by punching him in the nose, thus knocking him down and subsequently beating him on his head and face until George Zimmerman pulled out his pistol and shot Trayvon Martin one time, thus stopping Trayvon Martin's attack.
Just out of curiosity, please tell us what you would have done if you were walking around your own neighborhood and a 6'-1" man had attacked you, knocked you to the ground, beat your head against the concrete sidewalk and was beating you about the head with his fists.
a) Grovel on the ground pleading for your life?
b) Beg the assailant to stop?
c) Offer the assailant some candy?
d) Call Al Sharpton?
e) Pull your legally purchased, legally concealed pistol and defend yourself?
Thanks,
Jax
She was the non-white juror.She's latino ffs, as is Zimmerman!
Why the f**k are you bringing 'race' into it? She was one of the jurors, who saw ALL the evidence. Why is her opinion any less relevant because she's 'not white'?
...an all female jury determined that Zimmerman shot TM in self-defense.
No they f**king didn't! The jury determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove he intentionally murdered him. That's a long f**king stretch from determining it was in self-defense!
It's you, not me, who is ignoring the obvious and trying to contort the facts to fit some desired ideological outcome.
And that's the reason for my "head banging on brick wall" frustration, because that's EXACTLY what YOU'RE doing.
Read every contribution I've made to this thread. I'm not claiming ANY ideological outcome (unlike you). I'm claiming it's impossible to prove one way or the other and that what PROBABLY happened is somewhere between both of the (UNPROVABLE) extremes. I said right near the beginning, after your initial argument, that I'd changed my mind from my initial gut reaction, and that the jury had no choice but to acquit. I've been prepared to listen and adjust my opinion based on the facts. You're claiming you KNOW exactly what happened. Pretty f**king amazing seeing as nobody else does! Or are you claiming to be god now?
Given the ACTUAL facts it's possible to come up with all kinds of interpretations of what MAY have happened, all OPINIONS. I've conceded that your opinion (and that's exactly what it is, not a statement of fact as you've continuously claimed) could actually be right, and that's why there was an acquittal. I'm banging my head against a brick wall though, because you think you're the all-seeing, almighty and can't concede that my opinion (which is actually a f**king long way from "poor little Trayvon, etc...) MAY also be true.
The evidence and the testimony at the trial clearly showed that Trayvon Martin was casing the neighborhood when he initiated an unprovoked felonious assault on George Zimmerman by punching him in the nose, thus knocking him down and subsequently beating him on his head and face until George Zimmerman pulled out his pistol and shot Trayvon Martin one time, thus stopping Trayvon Martin's attack.Maybe you'd like to answer the question I've already asked you 3 times, but you've chosen to ignore? Go on then, let's try one more time. And this is completely divorced from any question of guilt or blame. It's just a matter of physics and biology. And let's ignore the nonsense about being able to prove that someone is "casing the neighbourhood" unless you can retrospectively read the mind of a dead person, or to be able to prove who "initiated" the assault, or whether it was "unprovoked", unless you've seen some CCTV footage of the "lost" 2 minutes that NOBODY ELSE has seen?
Let's just address the "punching him in the nose, thus knocking him down and subsequently beating him on his head and face" (AGAIN!). There's a link to a police video, taken the day after the event, which clearly shows Zimmerman with no cuts or bruises on his face and with 2 band-aids on the back of his head (band-aids, not stitches), on injuries described by the medical examiner as "insignificant". So, how do you explain that the 6' 1", 175 lb attacker was unable to scratch or bruise the face of poor little defenseless Georgie Porgie by continuously punching him? And hardly even drew blood by SMASHING his head into the concrete? I am completely open to whatever explanation you can suggest and absolutely open to changing my mind if it's plausible.
Jimmy Boy 99
07-27-13, 13:38
She's latino ffs, as is Zimmerman!
Why the f**k are you bringing 'race' into it?
So stating who someone is is "bringing "race" into it"? The whole case was based on race, with Zimmerman being the wrong race, I.e., white (even though he was Hispanic and part black), and thus guilty because he survived an encounter with a black guy. Martin, if not already one, was a wannabe thug in training who almost certainly initiated the altercation with Zimmerman. Do you really think pudgy Zimmerman, who has a gun, is going to initiate a fist-fight with someone who is 3 inches taller and much fitter? As a previous poster has said, the point of having a gun is to keep someone from getting close enough to you do do you harm. If Zimmerman really intended to kill Martin when he was following him, do you think he would waited until Martin was banging his head into the ground to do so (of course some blacks and liberals will probably say it was a deliberate ploy by Zimmerman so he could claim self-defense)? However it started, when Martin was on top of Zimmerman banging his head into the concrete, he lost his status as victim and became the aggressor, with Zimmerman now having the right to defend himself from deadly harm.
The "race problem" is this country is due to the fact that it cannot be talked about honestly. Blacks and the liberal media perpetuate the myth that blacks are oppressed and victims of the "white man" and need to live in fear of him, when in actuality black males are now the predator class of whom whites live in fear of and, with good reason, racially profile.
Wow. That's like looking at 2 pixels of a 5 meg photo.
Let me add a few more pixels for your consideration.
The evidence and the testimony at the trial clearly showed that Trayvon Martin was casing the neighborhood when he initiated an unprovoked felonious assault on George Zimmerman by punching him in the nose, thus knocking him down and subsequently beating him on his head and face until George Zimmerman pulled out his pistol and shot Trayvon Martin one time, thus stopping Trayvon Martin's attack.
Just out of curiosity, please tell us what you would have done if you were walking around your own neighborhood and a 6'-1" man had attacked you, knocked you to the ground, beat your head against the concrete sidewalk and was beating you about the head with his fists.
a) Grovel on the ground pleading for your life?
b) Beg the assailant to stop?
c) Offer the assailant some candy?
d) Call Al Sharpton?
e) Pull your legally purchased, legally concealed pistol and defend yourself?
Thanks,
JaxJust to satisfy your curiosity, I would have not been stupid. I would not have been walking in my neighborhood in the rain. I would have stayed in my car. I would have called 911, let the police handle matters (if TM was really casing the properties, the police would have probably taken TM into custody or taken him home), stayed dry, and avoided a beating that required self defense to stop.
Tres3.
So stating who someone is is "bringing "race" into it"? The whole case was based on race, with Zimmerman being the wrong race, I.e., white (even though he was Hispanic and part black), and thus guilty because he survived an encounter with a black guy. Martin, if not already one, was a wannabe thug in training who almost certainly initiated the altercation with Zimmerman. Do you really think pudgy Zimmerman, who has a gun, is going to initiate a fist-fight with someone who is 3 inches taller and much fitter? As a previous poster has said, the point of having a gun is to keep someone from getting close enough to you do do you harm. If Zimmerman really intended to kill Martin when he was following him, do you think he would waited until Martin was banging his head into the ground to do so (of course some blacks and liberals will probably say it was a deliberate ploy by Zimmerman so he could claim self-defense)? However it started, when Martin was on top of Zimmerman banging his head into the concrete, he lost his status as victim and became the aggressor, with Zimmerman now having the right to defend himself from deadly harm.
The "race problem" is this country is due to the fact that it cannot be talked about honestly. Blacks and the liberal media perpetuate the myth that blacks are oppressed and victims of the "white man" and need to live in fear of him, when in actuality black males are now the predator class of whom whites live in fear of and, with good reason, racially profile.
Wow. Just WOW! You let too many of your own secrets out of the bag there Jimmy Boy!
1. Stupid. I didn't bring race into this, YOU did by pointing out that the juror quoted as saying that Zimmerman got away with murder was the only "non-white" juror. I have made it a point throughout this entire debate to make it clear that I DON'T believe anything in this entire tragedy was racially motivated. (Go on, check the entire thread!)
2. Delusional. "Martin, if not already one, was a wannabe thug in training". What? Nobody, not even Zimmerman's defense, has been idiotic enough to claim that! In fact, Zimmerman's history shows a shit-load more evidence of being a wannabe thug than that of Martin's FFS!
3. Racist. "Blacks" really? And let's not even try and unravel that final paragraph!
4. Selectively blind. I'm STILL waiting for someone to provide any kind of explanation of Zimmerman's lack of injuries from all this "punching in the face" and "head smashing into concrete."
5. More stupid / blind. Since hearing both sides of the story, at no point have I said that Zimmerman is guilty. At no point have a I claimed that Martin didn't initiate the fist-fight. I have an open mind about what happened, although I have an OPINION on what MAY have happened, based on the actual evidence and the known history of both protagonists.
There are 3 camps here:
A. The total frikkin nut-jobs who are claiming that it's been proved that Zimmerman's a damned hero for killing a 'black' and thus saving all his future victims;.
B. The total frikkin nut-jobs who are claiming it's clear that Zimmerman is a gun-toting, racist, vigilante who went out with the sole intention of murdering Martin;
C. The rational people who recognize that this is actually a frikkin tragedy, that it's impossible to apportion blame with any kind of certainty (thus the necessary acquittal), but that there's something very wrong with the laws and legal system that allows anyone not involved with law enforcement to carry a concealed weapon and follow someone they think is 'suspicious' and kill them without ANY kind of consequence.
To me, those in camp A and camp B are as bad as each other!
Juan Williams, a black commentator, wrote an interesting article recently entitled Race and the Gun Debate. (Wall St. Journal, Mar 27,2013).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578366882484600710.html
Tres3.
2. Delusional. "Martin, if not already one, was a wannabe thug in training". What? Nobody, not even Zimmerman's defense, has been idiotic enough to claim that!That was only because any evidence regarding TM's past was inadmissible in the criminal trial.
Personally, I'm hoping that TM's family files a civil suit against GZ in which all the info about TM's past will be admissible.
I'm also hoping that TM's family files a civil suit against GZ so that GZ can quietly make a counterclaim against TM's estate (i.e. all the money that TM's family is making from having quickly trademarked TM's name and image to enforce payment of their licensing fees) for having been savagely attacked and beaten by TM.
In fact, Zimmerman's history shows a shit-load more evidence of being a wannabe thug than that of Martin's FFS!Really? What history?
Oh, you mean the arrest (not conviction) for battery (not assault) on a police officer.
First, battery is not assault, although the liberal leftist press continues to deliberately mix the two.
Second, battery is almost any contact. If I touch you lightly with the tip of my finger, legally I've committed battery.
Third, with all due respect to our former LE members here, I know of a case in Florida where a man was convicted of battery against a police officer for having pulled his driver's license from the officer's clipboard without permission.
Fourth, what other history are you referring to? That Zimmerman attended criminal justice classes at a university? That Zimmerman went on "Ride Alongs" with local police officers? That he volunteered to participate in his own neighborhood's watch program? Yea, those are all sure to make him look badly in the eyes of a civil jury.
I am so salivating for that civil suit. Bring it on!
Thanks,
Jax
savagely attacked and beaten by TM......without leaving any marks.
'Head', say Hello, to 'brick wall'.
Jimmy Boy 99
07-27-13, 18:59
Wow. Just WOW! You let too many of your own secrets out of the bag there Jimmy Boy!
1. Stupid. I didn't bring race into this, YOU did by pointing out that the juror quoted as saying that Zimmerman got away with murder was the only "non-white" juror. I have made it a point throughout this entire debate to make it clear that I DON'T believe anything in this entire tragedy was racially motivated. (Go on, check the entire thread!)
2. Delusional. "Martin, if not already one, was a wannabe thug in training". What? Nobody, not even Zimmerman's defense, has been idiotic enough to claim that! In fact, Zimmerman's history shows a shit-load more evidence of being a wannabe thug than that of Martin's FFS!
3. Racist. "Blacks" really? And let's not even try and unravel that final paragraph!
4. Selectively blind. I'm STILL waiting for someone to provide any kind of explanation of Zimmerman's lack of injuries from all this "punching in the face" and "head smashing into concrete."
5. More stupid / blind. Since hearing both sides of the story, at no point have I said that Zimmerman is guilty. At no point have a I claimed that Martin didn't initiate the fist-fight. I have an open mind about what happened, although I have an OPINION on what MAY have happened, based on the actual evidence and the known history of both protagonists.Of course it's racist to point out that blacks (do you prefer African-Americans, since apparently saying "blacks" is racist while calling Caucasians whites (or crackers) is not? With only 12% of the population, are responsible for 50% of the murders in the country and a white (Caucasian?) is 9 times more likely to be killed by a black (African-American?) person than a black person is to be killed by a white person. Blacks are the new untouchable class (along with the Muslims), about which nothing negative can be said (at least by a white person), even if true.
I believe there is a Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times." Perhaps there should be a new one "May you meet your own Trayvon Martin at night, alone, and without a gun." While I don't wish it on you, perhaps it will happen at some point. Hopefully, you will survive it and you can tell us all about how you held hands and sang Kumbayah.
"May you meet your own Trayvon Martin at night, alone, and without a gun."May I meet someone on his way home from the 7-11 at night, alone and without a gun?
Hopefully, you will survive it...I fancy my chances.
On the other hand, if I see someone on his way home from the 7-11 at night, follow him in my car, get out of my car to follow him on foot and piss him off to the point of him turning on me, maybe I won't survive? Or maybe he'll just punch me repeatedly in the face (but not hard enough to leave a mark) and SMASH my head on the pavement until I need a band aid?
Rockin Bob
07-27-13, 21:21
As I said before, you got more than one person in the room you got disagreements.
Rockin Bob
07-28-13, 00:26
As has been stated below:
Blacks... With only 12% of the population, are responsible for 50% of the murders in the country and a white (Caucasian?) is 9 times more likely to be killed by a black (African-American?) person than a black person is to be killed by a white person.
Blacks and the liberal media perpetuate the myth that blacks are oppressed and victims of the "white man" and need to live in fear of him, when in actuality black males are now the predator class of whom whites live in fear of...
So,
1. Blacks males are a predator class.
2. Trayvon Martin is a black male.
3. Therefore, Trayvon Martin is a predator.
It's simple logic which the left wing elite media and Obama supporters just refuse to grasp.
As someone else stated, facts and logic are what the liberals have no use for.
Blacks are oppressed? Give me a break! LOTFLMAO!
Spirit Rider
07-28-13, 00:39
C. The rational people who recognize that this is actually a frikkin tragedy, that it's impossible to apportion blame with any kind of certainty (thus the necessary acquittal), but that there's something very wrong with the laws and legal system that allows anyone not involved with law enforcement to carry a concealed weapon and follow someone they think is 'suspicious' and kill them without ANY kind of consequence.AH, the couching of the intellectually dishonest in morally superior terms to justify their ideological justifications.
Your positions are not based on facts, but rather pure emotions of an ideological agenda. Your ranting has nothing to do with the specific facts of this case but based purely on your ideology.
there's something very wrong with the laws and legal system that allows anyone not involved with law enforcement to carry a concealed weapon and follow someone they think is 'suspicious' and kill them without ANY kind of consequence.
Your use of the term "rational" is a pejorative term just like the use of "sane" and "sensible" to describe the push for laws that attempt to disarm American people. You know that someone has lost the argument when they try to show they are morally superior, after all, who could disagree with rational thought, sane, and sensible solutions. Of course, the irrational, the insane, and the unreasonable. It is a passive aggressive mechanism in an attempt to demean the opposite side. What you have done instead is shown the bankruptcy of your arguments.
You have exposed your true nature in that you don't believe that anyone except for law enforcement has the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. We all know that the young thugs and gangsters are just misunderstood children oppressed and deprived by the evil socioeconomic forces of capitalism. Trayvon Martin was just giving George Zimmerman love taps to the nose and ringing his bell with the pavement to make him see the truth.
Unlike Florida which has only had a CCW law for 25 years, my state has had a license to carry for almost a hundred years. We can carry openly without any restriction at all. This is because we believe that true oppression is the predator who is trying to cause you grievous bodily harm and / or death.
Your ranting has nothing to do with the specific facts of this caseI'm the ONLY person on this thread that's talked about the specific facts of this case! Anyone saying either "Martin jumped Zimmerman, etc" or "Zimmerman jumped Martin, etc" is basing their argument on pure conjecture.
You have exposed your true nature in that you don't believe that anyone except for law enforcement has the right to carry a concealed firearmThat's hardly a big 'exposure' is it. I made it clear at the start that that was my stance. And it's hardly controversial is it? The huge majority of the world's population would agree with me. Where I'm from, not even law enforcement officers carry arms, and guess what? A damn sight less people get shot.
Your use of the term "rational" is a pejorative term just like the use of "sane" and "sensible" to describe the push for laws that attempt to disarm American people.You're damned right it's pejorative. Guns exist for only one purpose. To kill. Us rational, sane and sensible people aren't big fans of killing.
You know that someone has lost the argument when they try to show they are morally superiorThe only people who resort to that kind of totally illogical retort are those that recognize they're morally inferior. Like those who claim that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Only claimed by those who don't have a sense of humour!
It is a passive aggressive mechanism in an attempt to demean the opposite side. What you have done instead is shown the bankruptcy of your arguments.What, like this?
We all know that the young thugs and gangsters are just misunderstood children oppressed and deprived by the evil socioeconomic forces of capitalism. Trayvon Martin was just giving George Zimmerman love taps to the nose and ringing his bell with the pavement to make him see the truth.Oh, I see that still nobody's explained the absence of any cuts or bruises on the punched and smashed face of poor little George?
Tell me Spirit Rider. In your ideal world, does EVERYONE carry a gun?
TejanoLibre
07-28-13, 05:12
What is this really about?
Racism, PC Journalism, Ratings , Advertising, Government Pressure , J.Jackson , A.Sharpton, Obama
Stand Your Ground, Self Defense , The Right to Bear Arms , Gun Control
The Prosecutor , the Judge's Pressure , the Jury's Pressure , the Police Chief
All of the above?
TL.
Capital Punishment without a Trial?
Jimmy Boy 99
07-28-13, 10:55
Oh, I see that still nobody's explained the absence of any cuts or bruises on the punched and smashed face of poor little George?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/george-zimmerman-bloody-face-photo_n_2234551.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/04/george-zimmerman-picture-bloody-head-trayon-martin-shooting.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/justice/george-zimmerman-photo
http://www.wtsp.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=255685
Of course, to the "Zimmerman is guilty" crowd, these are doctored, or at best, prove nothing about Martin beating Zimmerman.
Oh, I see that still nobody's explained the absence of any cuts or bruises on the punched and smashed face of poor little George?
Or maybe he'll just punch me repeatedly in the face (but not hard enough to leave a mark) and SMASH my head on the pavement until I need a band aid?
...without leaving any marks.
I'm STILL waiting for someone to provide any kind of explanation of Zimmerman's lack of injuries from all this "punching in the face" and "head smashing into concrete."
So, how do you explain that the 6' 1", 175 lb attacker was unable to scratch or bruise the face of poor little defenseless Georgie Porgie by continuously punching him?DW,
So now who is it that's not seeing reality?
Thanks,
Jax.
Member #4112
07-28-13, 13:15
Davie W would it be too much trouble for you to add at least two or three other adjectives to your vocabulary beyond the F word. Your sounding much like an uneducated, classless, moron ranting about the "poor black man" and unable to utter a single sentence without the use of the F word, perhaps you have watched too many rap videos?
I'm with Jackson, let them bring the civil action and then watch all the back ground information about poor sweet little Trayvon come out which could not be presented in trail due to the judge's ruling regarding that material. If there was ever a rigged trial for the prosecution it was the Zimmerman trial and they still lost.
There was an old joke which came out years ago contrasting the response to a criminal assault by a Liberal / Democrat and a Conservative / Republican.
Scenario 1 Liberal Democrat.
A family comprised of a man, wife, daughter and son are walking down a deserted street when they are approached by a person in a hoodie who crossed the street to their side and produces a knife.
The Liberal / Democrat man wonders why this is happening, did the person come from a disenfranchised group or lower social economic group or was he abused as a child or was he deprived of respect or..
The person walks up to the man who is still trying to figure out the reason for this person's actions, kills the man and the son, rapes and kills the wife and daughter. Then walks away.
Scenario 2 Conservative / Republican.
A family comprised of a man, wife, daughter and son are walking down a deserted street when they are approached by a person in a hoodie who crossed the street to their side and produces a knife.
Once the person's intentions are clear the Conservative / Republican man draws his Less Baer Model 1911 semi-auto pistol for which he has a license, shoots and kills the approaching person. The wife says, good shooting dear, the son says nice group Dad, the daughter asks are those the new silver tips?
While doubtful this specific scenario would occur it does demonstrate the group think of liberals vs conservatives.
Definition of a New Conservative: A liberal who was just mugged.
DW,
So now who is it that's not seeing reality?
Thanks,
Jax.Firstly, WTF is wrong with you? Are you 11 years old?
I've been ASKING all this time for the evidence, doubting that it exists (having seen the video of Zimmerman the day after), but wanting to know if it exists. I've also demonstrated that I'm at least capable of changing my opinion when presented with evidence (unlike anybody else on this forum). So why are you trying to score points like a child? It's frankly rather pathetic!
I'm interested in knowing what actually happened. I'm willing to listen to what anyone has to say. I don't claim to KNOW what's actually impossible to prove. I've never said there wasn't a fist fight. I've never even denied that Martin probably initiated it by landing the first blow. I'd expect Zimmerman to have some injuries. What I've been questioning has been the emotive language suggesting the violence of the attack / fight. So, thanks for the picture (FINALLY), and evidence that Martin did get one decent punch in (conceded). Of course, the one photo with a little bit of blood is hardly very convincing of the supposed violence of the attack. I've had worse from an accidental clash of heads with my 2 year old son. A photo taken 5 minutes later:
28826
And, AGAIN, as I've said several times, this has no bearing whatsoever on any opinion regards guilt or apportioning blame. I only brought it up because of the continued repeatings of "he punched him repeatedly in the face and SMASHED his head into the concrete" in juxtaposition with the video showing very superficial injuries the next day (backed up by the description of those injuries by the medical examiner). I'm certainly now more convinced that Martin probably did start the altercation, helped by the photos of Zimmerman's hands showing that he probably didn't land a head blow, although a photo of Martin's face would be needed to actually prove that.
I'm listening, you're posturing.
Davie W would it be too much trouble for you to add at least two or three other adjectives to your vocabulary beyond the F word. Your sounding much like an uneducated, classless, moron ranting about the "poor black man" and unable to utter a single sentence without the use of the F word, perhaps you have watched too many rap videos?Yes, it would be too much trouble! What world do you live in where "the F word" isn't a part of everyday conversation? I've been to dinners and parties at the AP house. I doubt I've ever heard a sentence spoken that didn't include "the F word". It's used in normal conversation for simple emphasis, let alone an emotional debate where people are talking about things that they believe are important. Get over it.
So I'm the "uneducated classless moron"? Well, if you're now resorting to plain name-calling, I'll be honest and say I don't know how to respond, but I believe there's a saying about that being the point where you lose the argument? (I'll also bet my mortgage that I'm more 'educated' than you!)
And and I'm "ranting" about the "poor black man"? You need to read the thread again. I've very clearly and deliberately avoided bringing race into this.
Oh, and I detest rap / hip-hop. I do an occasional radio show and I'm well known for that particular dislike. I'm also a life-long Conservative (UK) voter, having actively campaigned for them back in the Thatcher era, and also, as already stated, ex-military and comfortable with handling weapons. What I'm less keen on is that any gung-ho wannabe cop / vigilante should be allowed to carry a lethal weapon, which is actually the only properly controversial opinion deserving to be debated that I've posted on this thread! Everything else has been predominantly with an inquisitive bent, with conclusions drawn (generally not with any conviction of finality) based on the merit of the evidence I've seen.
Yes, it would be too much trouble! What world do you live in where "the F word" isn't a part of everyday conversation? I've been to dinners and parties at the AP house. I doubt I've ever heard a sentence spoken that didn't include "the F word". It's used in normal conversation for simple emphasis, let alone an emotional debate where people are talking about things that they believe are important. Get over it.Strange as it may seem to you I live in that world. About the only time I hear "the F word" is on TV. You are British so you should know that English has, AFIK, more words than any other language so there are other alternatives for emphasis.
Just last week a newsletter that I subscribe to had an article on this subject.
An excerpt from that newsletter:
Back in the 1930s, Cole Porter observed: "Good authors, too, who once knew better words/ Now only use four-letter words writing prose." He was talking about highbrow literary writers, but the phenomenon has filtered down relentlessly into popular culture. I see words now used casually in mainstream publications that would have been a firing offense just a few decades ago.Do you get the "effing" point?
Don B
Just last week a newsletter that I subscribe to had an article on this subject.
An excerpt from that newsletter:
"Back in the 1930s, Cole Porter observed: "Good authors, too, who once knew better words/ Now only use four-letter words writing prose." He was talking about highbrow literary writers, but the phenomenon has filtered down relentlessly into popular culture. I see words now used casually in mainstream publications that would have been a firing offense just a few decades ago."
Do you get the "effing" point?
Don B
Yes Don, I get the point. You're quoting a newsletter that backs up exactly what I was saying. That four-letter words are part of everyday popular culture and are even used in mainstream publications with no repercussions. So you're agreeing with me, yes?
If not, then I've got no fucking idea what the fuck you're on about!
;-)
Member #4112
07-28-13, 17:37
Davie, I just asked you to use a bit of restraint in your posting. The F word becomes tiresome after the first 100 times or so. I've been to the AP house and the Mansion before that on many occasions, to the best of my recollection the conversation did not normally include the F word in every sentence nor even every other sentence. I guess I missed the night's you graced us with your presence.
Regarding your educational level, I can only judge by the manner in which you present yourself on AP which would lead one to believe a high school education. If you possess a higher educational level, try demonstrating it.
You don't seem to be really interested in facts only in defending Trayvon and denigrating Zimmerman. While the prosecutions medical examiner testified Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant", any competent physician will tell you while a broken nose is not life threatening neither is it "insignificant", nor would the injuries to the back of the head be considered "insignificant". My earlier offer stands regarding how you might feel under similar circumstances.
If you are from the UK and you like your country's firearms policy, good for you. I'm from a country which kicked your country out in 1778 and again in 1812 by force of arms, perhaps that's one of the foundations which resulted in why we allow our citizens to be armed, defense. By the way I've had the privilege to meet both British and Australian servicemen and was greatly impressed by their professionalism, but in your case I guess there are exceptions.
By the way Davie, Don was demonstrating the downward spiral of communications in our culture, I don't think he nor do I consider it a good thing nor a mark of intelligence.
Tell me Davie, would I be out of place to tell you to "bugger off".
Yes Don, I get the point. You're quoting a newsletter that backs up exactly what I was saying. That four-letter words are part of everyday popular culture and are even used in mainstream publications with no repercussions. So you're agreeing with me, yes?
If not, then I've got no fucking idea what the fuck you're on about!
;-)This is another waste of time.
That was an excerpt from the newsletter.
It is one I cannot post a link to and I am not going to bother copy and pasting it in its' entirety.
The gist was that popular culture has lost all decorum.
I admit that as a teenager I used a lot of profanity but I outgrew it, now the world is populated by perpetual adolescents.
Don B.
Regarding your educational level, I can only judge by the manner in which you present yourself on AP which would lead one to believe a high school education.Hmm, yeah, sure.
You don't seem to be really interested in facts only in defending Trayvon and denigrating Zimmerman.I can only judge by the manner in which you present the so-called facts that you struggled to finish primary school.
Tell me Davie, would I be out of place to tell you to "bugger off".Not at all! In fact it would be entirely in-keeping with your demonstrated level of education.
Member #4112
07-28-13, 18:50
See Davie, I'm having a positive influence on you already, three lines of text without a single expletive let alone the F word. Good boy.
Jackson and others have articulated the facts as they are known, I only visited the "insignificant" injury portion of the discussion. You seem either unable or unwilling to accept the known facts and continue to trundle off in unsupported supposition.
Have a nice day Davie out there in conspiracy land
Jackson and others have articulated the facts as they are known....
You seem either unable or unwilling to accept the known facts and continue to trundle off in unsupported supposition.
Ha! You funny Doppelganger! Have you read ANY of the thread? You couldn't possibly have that any more arse-about-face unless you were deliberately trying to be funny! Just in the unlikely case that you believe you're being serious, could you give me an example or two where I'm unwilling to accept the known facts? For each (genuine) one you find, I'll find you at least two occasions where "Jackson and others have (supposedly) articulated the facts as they are known" but have actually "trundle(d) off in unsupported supposition."
I'll tell you what's interesting. Previously I've never understood why such a huge majority of the world's population has such a low opinion of the US - I'd always thought Americans were pretty fair-minded and intelligent - but it's beginning to make some sense now! See, I'm changing my opinion due to the overwhelming weight of evidence, AGAIN! Another victory for you, well done! ;-)
Member #4112
07-28-13, 23:05
Davie, why post it all again when you have replied with excuses for each one already. Exercise in futility.
This thread is split between those like yourself who seem to not under stand our firearms policy or disagree with it, think there is something wrong with weapons in the hands of civilians and believe Martin is a victim; the majority of us see Martin as the assailant in this little tragedy who had the misfortune to jump the wrong guy. Still wondering why you have voiced no concern over the black on black homicide rate.
As far as your comment about folks not liking Americans, well everyone hates the big kid on the block.
Reminds me of an argument I had with a Brazilian while sitting around the pool at the Copacabana Palace in Rio. The Brazilian was going on and on about Bush and how bad America was. This was just a few days after the tsunami went through the far east. Well I pointed at the news feed by the pool and asked him if Americans are so bad why are we always the first there with aid and providing all the logistics? I pointed to the US Navy hospital ship in the harbor and the US Navy helicopter carrier with multiple rotary wing aircraft launching continual SAR sorties. I asked him where was the Brazilian response? I told him the only thing their Navy ever did was try to sail into Copacabana during one of their many revolutions and the only shot the Krupp guns at Ft. Copacabana ever fired in anger was against their own navy during that same revolution.
I really don't care if you agree or not, its your opinion and your story so you tell it any way you wish. Ignoring the facts neither changes what happened nor the outcome.
By the way I proud of you, you managed to get through that entire post without using an expletive of the F work. See your learning to express your ideas without the verbal trash.
could you give me an example or two where I'm unwilling to accept the known facts?
why post it all againSo that'll be a 'no' then? Which I already knew, obviously, because there aren't any.
Still wondering why you have voiced no concern over the black on black homicide rate.Because I have never claimed that this case has anything to do with race.
If you're just trying to get a rise out of me by being deliberately obtuse, it's not going to work! If you're being serious, you're scarily dumb!
This thread is split between those like yourself who seem to not under stand our firearms policy or disagree with it, think there is something wrong with weapons in the hands of civilians...Finally, you've said something that has some basis in the truth! Yes, this is where we differ and where the debate should be. All your accusations about my reading of the Martin / Zimmerman case are complete frikkin fantasy. Worse, all the things you accuse me of (ignoring the facts and making suppositions) are EXACTLY what Jackson et al are doing. It's bloody comical. I've said on numerous occasions that Zimmerman was correctly acquitted, numerous occasions that the case has nothing to do with race, numerous occasions that I'm willing to listen to whatever evidence and base my opinion on any facts you can show me. In fact, the ONLY controversial thing I'm claiming is regarding the right to bear arms, but this thread appears to be full of complete dumb-asses who are having a go at me for a bunch of other reasons that are completely made-up!
And here, dumb-asses, I'll do what you should have been doing all along and present some evidence that actually gives more weight to YOUR suppositions. This has some, sometimes badly worded because of the obvious bias, but nonetheless very interesting further information not previously mentioned on this thread. http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/.
Davie W would it be too much trouble for you to add at least two or three other adjectives to your vocabulary beyond the F word. Your sounding much like an uneducated, classless, moron ranting about the "poor black man" and unable to utter a single sentence without the use of the F word
Davie, I just asked you to use a bit of restraint in your posting. The F word becomes tiresome after the first 100 times or so.
See Davie, I'm having a positive influence on you already, three lines of text without a single expletive let alone the F word.Hey, you want some more proof of what a dumb-ass you are?
I just re-read the entire thread (just as a sanity check, to make sure I still have the moral high-ground (I do)) and whadyaknow.....up until your random accusation above, I'd used the F word in exactly ONE post (#95). As I've been particularly verbose on this thread I'm going to hazard a guess that I may have used more than "two or three other adjectives" and a lot more than "a single sentence without the use of the F word". You've inspired me to use it more though, so thanks for that!
I also noted that this entire discussion was actually quite civilized until the following post:
The only thing Zimmerman did was eliminate many future victims of Trayvon Martin.
No supposition or conjecture at all there, eh? Based entirely on factual evidence?
You're in your own fantasy world. Maybe you need to swap back with the other Doppelganger - the one that belongs here on planet Earth?
Member #4112
07-29-13, 13:37
If you were to check the record regarding little Trayvon you would realize he already had a few victims.
Wow, "moral high ground", coming from you that is an oxymoron.
As far as my avatar - it came from a little flourish on an F4D, so you just don't know what your talking about as usual but you did have presence of mind to Google it or know a bit of German.
Rave on Davie, Rave on.
Fully expecting him to be serving at the carvery at the next AP house BBQ!
;-)What! No way I'm ever going to let that gun-crazed want-to-be cop in my house with a deadly weapon.
Hell, we've got Skittles and ice tea by the gallon over there. There's no telling what might set that nut case off.
Okay, I was just kidding.
One thing for sure though: Nobody has ever tried to sucker-punch me while I was wielding that carving knife.
Jax.
As far as my avatar - it came from a little flourish on an F4D, so you just don't know what your talking about as usual but you did have presence of mind to Google it or know a bit of German.
You're even going to have a go at me and make accusations and try and score points because I know what a doppelganger is?
Seriously man, you need help!
(You also don't know the meaning of the words 'avatar' or 'oxymoron', but I'm not going to beat you up over that. It's admirable that you tried, given your failed primary school education. ;-) )
Okay, I was just kidding.So you WILL let him in the house?
Look, make sure he reads this thread before I come over, so he can see the truth (that I believe he was rightly acquitted) rather than the bollocks being written by the nutters! ;-)
This whole case is proof that history is always written by the victor.
Pure conjecture, but imagine if everything had unfolded exactly as it did up until the point that Zimmerman drew his weapon, but that Martin then got it off him and killed him with it. What do you think would have been the outcome of a trial?
I reckon there's a very good chance that Martin would have walked, with a self-defense plea. In fact I'd say that's pretty much a certainty, no?
No matter what happened in that 2 minutes, Martin claims that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he managed to wrestle the gun off him and shoot him. Plenty enough circumstantial evidence to provide reasonable doubt. It works both ways.
So you WILL let him in the house?
Look, make sure he reads this thread before I come over, so he can see the truth (that I believe he was rightly acquitted) rather than the bollocks being written by the nutters! ;-)Don't worry, I doubt he'll have an opportunity to shoot you, largely because he'll have to wait in line behind about 6 other guys.
ROTFLMAO!
Jax.
Member #4112
07-29-13, 18:28
Jackson, the line would be MUCH longer than just 6 people. I know at least three who live in BA full time not including you who would be in that line.
But Davie should not be shot but kept around for comic relief, but there is always a blanket party.
And there you have it. The people who love their guns eventually threaten to kill me, and being the fantasists that they are, also claim that everyone else wants to kill me. Now, I appreciate the humour in Jackson's post, but Doppelganger, having proved over and over again that he's got about half the smarts of my cat, is far more sinister.
So, I'm interested Doppelganger, why exactly would these 3 residents of BA want to kill me? (And let's assume 3. You've got absolutely no right whatsoever to include Jackson in with your pathetic mates, he's got a brain). Is it because I have a different opinion to them? Because I don't like US gun laws? What is it that makes me deserve to die? You know I'm Caucasian, right? And believe in predominantly right wing politics? And ex-military? Is it because I use profane language? Or that I'm a single father? Oh, is it because anybody who reads this thread and has more than a handful of brain cells will see that I've made you look like a bit of a twat? That would actually be very unfair. You've pretty much done that all by yourself!
there is always a blanket party.Spoken like a true Aggie.
Tres3.
Jittery cops shot a man (black) who was reaching for cigarettes in his mother's car at the unfortunate time of around 2:30 am. When ask to retreat with his hands up: he,
(1) spin back too fast, and
(2) he had some kind of key chain that had a flashing light in his hands.
So the cops did not shoot to kill, or they were lousy marksmen, but the victim survived with shattered legs. But under American legal system, he will probably get a healthy compensation & damages package, be eligible for disability for life, and his mother will get a new car.
And the American dream gets fulfilled.
Peter Sideburn
07-30-13, 00:53
DavieW,
I have not really followed this thread too much lately as it got boring very fast. That said, please don't lump, "all who love their guns" into one pot and consider that most of us don't "love" our guns, but rather our Freedom and our Constitutional Right and Obligation to protect that Freedom against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I take you at your word that you are former military. If this is US military, then you took an oath to do the same. I think history teaches that it is impossible for people to be more than a speed bump to an oppressive totalitarian government, be they right or left, unless they have the right to and a critical mass that do bare arms. Personally, I will never be my or any other country's subject and will remain a citizen until the day I am buried, period. Some of us have spent our hard-earned dollars to ensure that we will not be speed bumps if the US is ever invaded by enemies from foreign lands or heaven forbid, its basic government / legal structure is threatened by domestic terrorists or others who wish to take away one group of citizen's rights in order to give them to another. I have no animosity at all toward you and would never wish you harm for your exercise of your first amendment rights in discussing the second with or without explicatives. I don't know most the others on the thread, but I suspect they are joking with you and seriously doubt you have anything to worry about. I am pretty sure no one goes to the parties to talk about politics.
Pete.
And there you have it. The people who love their guns eventually threaten to kill me, and being the fantasists that they are, also claim that everyone else wants to kill me. Now, I appreciate the humour in Jackson's post, but Doppelganger, having proved over and over again that he's got about half the smarts of my cat, is far more sinister.
So, I'm interested Doppelganger, why exactly would these 3 residents of BA want to kill me? (And let's assume 3. You've got absolutely no right whatsoever to include Jackson in with your pathetic mates, he's got a brain). Is it because I have a different opinion to them? Because I don't like US gun laws? What is it that makes me deserve to die? You know I'm Caucasian, right? And believe in predominantly right wing politics? And ex-military? Is it because I use profane language? Or that I'm a single father? Oh, is it because anybody who reads this thread and has more than a handful of brain cells will see that I've made you look like a bit of a twat? That would actually be very unfair. You've pretty much done that all by yourself!
Daddy Rulz
07-30-13, 02:28
your exercise of your first amendment rights in discussing the second with or without explicatives.As a subject of the Crown DavieW has neither First Amendment, nor Second Amendment rights but rather privileges. They have some bizarre rules for freedom of expression over there according to the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom
Is all that stuff true? That's more complicated than the US Tax Code.
Resume arguing.
Member #4112
07-30-13, 10:31
Yes Davie is the perfect liberal, no sense of humor and resorts to name calling and denigrating his opponents when he is losing the argument.
Davie, the "more than 6 people" was a joke just as Jackson's comment the line would be 6 people long was a joke.
I never heard of anyone at A&M dying from blanket party, but some enlisted folks did get carried away in the service though I never saw it myself.
Perhaps you just need a saber lick?
Your out of your element here Davie boy. Lighten up.
Yes Davie is the perfect liberalCan you even read?
when he is losing the argumentQuote me an example of an argument I lost. (Clue. There are actually a couple, but I admitted to losing those. You won't find them though!)
Davie, the "more than 6 people" was a jokePlease could you explain the humour in this: "Jackson, the line would be MUCH longer than just 6 people. I know at least three who live in BA full time not including you who would be in that line." (Clue. There isn't any. If you'd stopped after the first sentence and terminated it with an exclamation mark, I'd concede the humour. When you start going into detail it stops being humorous and just sounds sinister.).
And could you explain what's humorous about a blanket party? I've witnessed one, and was also called as a witness to the subsequent court martial. Neither the victim nor the assailants found it very funny.
As a subject of the Crown DavieW has neither First Amendment, nor Second Amendment rights but rather privileges. They have some bizarre rules for freedom of expression over there according to the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom
Is all that stuff true? That's more complicated than the US Tax Code.Wow! That really is pretty difficult to decipher isn't it? Although this part rang some bells - "prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors" - that'll explain why it felt so wrong to see the post-trial interviews with the jurors in this case.
...please don't lump, "all who love their guns" into one potSorry Pete, that wasn't my intention! It was supposed to be directed just at the 2 specific people who were suggesting that there were those lining up to use them on me, albeit one of them humorously.
If you hadn't gotten bored and stopped reading you might have seen that I quite like guns myself (in certain contexts). ;-)
Daddy Rulz
07-30-13, 11:55
Wow! That really is pretty difficult to decipher isn't it? Although this part rang some bells - "prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors" - that'll explain why it felt so wrong to see the post-trial interviews with the jurors in this case.Yeah I read it as;
You can say anything you want except "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals), sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature), incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including compassing or imagining the death of the monarch or advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted), sedition, obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges, time, manner, and place restrictions, harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising."
What the hell is (are) murmuring judges?
This whole case is proof that history is always written by the victor.
Pure conjecture, but imagine if everything had unfolded exactly as it did up until the point that Zimmerman drew his weapon, but that Martin then got it off him and killed him with it. What do you think would have been the outcome of a trial?
I reckon there's a very good chance that Martin would have walked, with a self-defense plea. In fact I'd say that's pretty much a certainty, no?
No matter what happened in that 2 minutes, Martin claims that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he managed to wrestle the gun off him and shoot him. Plenty enough circumstantial evidence to provide reasonable doubt. It works both ways.Still interested to know what everyone else thinks about this...
What the hell is (are) murmuring judges?Fcuknose!
This is quite amusing though. "advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted)".
So in actual fact, you can advocate the abolition of the monarchy, because they can't do you for it!
Member #4112
07-30-13, 14:06
Davie, I'll bet you are the center of attention at any party with your rapier wit, eloquent command of the language, the ability to win friends and to influence others. How luckly we are to be graced by your presence on the board!
Big Boss Man
08-08-13, 23:51
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_23817889/gun-rights-supporter-charles-nichols-drops-lawsuit-against
WorldTravel69
08-11-13, 04:36
It is the same as the Old West (not that so "Old" West). Everyone carried a Gun. If Someone came up to You and said that he did not like what you looked like, what would you do?
May be he just bumped into you and said that it was your fault, but you did not bump into him, but he wan't to call you out. Stand Your Ground!
Shoot First, So Wrong in Our Time.
Your Politicians do not study History. They Are The Ones that support Gun Control Policies. The NRA is Only 5% of the Country!
WorldTravel69
08-11-13, 05:05
DavieW. Doppelganger is Only Smart In is Own Mind! Which he makes everyone think about? Let's have a Pole. Does he know what our county's needs are?
Davie, I'll bet you are the center of attention at any party with your rapier wit, eloquent command of the language, the ability to win friends and to influence others. How luckly we are to be graced by your presence on the board!
Punter 127
08-11-13, 13:49
Your Politicians do not study History. They Are The Ones that support Gun Control Policies. The NRA is Only 5% of the Country!What History would that be? What leftwing shit are you reading watching?
Not everyone who supports the Second Amendment is a member of the NRA, as a matter of fact many Democrats support it. Likewise not everyone who is calling for more gun control is an American citizen, those folks need to butt out, IMHO.
It is the same as the Old West (not that so "Old" West). Everyone carried a Gun. If Someone came up to You and said that he did not like what you looked like, what would you do?
May be he just bumped into you and said that it was your fault, but you did not bump into him, but he wan't to call you out. Stand Your Ground!
Shoot First, So Wrong in Our Time.
Your Politicians do not study History. They Are The Ones that support Gun Control Policies. The NRA is Only 5% of the Country!WT, your scenario about SYG is incredibly inaccurate, thus belying your deliberate ignorance on the subject.
Yes, if someone was to deliberately bump into you on the street with the specific intent of starting an altercation, then (because of SYG laws) you would not have a statutory obligation to run away.
Of course, if you wish to grovel on the floor and beg the assailant for forgiveness and otherwise live your life as a pussy, then you are welcome to do so. However, if you do not wish to subjugate yourself to the aggressor, and you instead choose to stand up to his aggression face-to-face, and in an ensuing physical confrontation you successfully thwarted his attack by injuring him, then no chicken-shit prosecutor can subsequently claim that you could have avoided injuring him by instead groveling on the floor and begging for forgiveness.
Get it?
However, as you've portrayed in your scenario, if "Someone came up to You and said that he did not like what you looked like" you would not have the right to physically attack him because at that point he has not actually threatened you with violence.
Here's the difference: You cannot physically attack someone merely because you "feel threatened", you can only respond with violence if you actually are threatened with violence.
For example, you cannot physically attack a "creepy ass cracker" because you think he is watching you. However, you can justifiably respond with violence against any individual who has punched you in the face, knocked you to the ground, slammed your head against a concrete sidewalk, and who is in the process of raining blows down upon your head.
Get it?
Of course, the liberal press has deliberately fogged the entire argument by refusing to clearly enunciate the difference between "feeling threatened" and actually being threatened, choosing instead to pretend that they are one and the same.
Hopefully, after some reflection, you will no longer continue to be confused by this distinction.
Thanks,
Jax.
Member #4112
08-11-13, 22:56
DavieW. Doppelganger is Only Smart In is Own Mind! Which he makes everyone think about? Let's have a Pole. Does he know what our county's needs are?
WT, coming from a died in the wool liberal such as yourself, I would consider that a left handed compliment.
By the way, didn't I see a post with another political cartoon about abortion from you over in the Obama thread?
If so I would nominate you to be the poster child.
What does the country need, less liberals and less government, but since your a liberal and love government I would surmise that is the wrong answer from your point of view.
TodoJetLag
08-15-13, 03:39
I have not read the entire string but I would like to add an opinion from someone who lives near the area. I know that I will never change the minds of people who have different views but there are things that have been left out of this case.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the gun control debate and I am not sure of my own views. I grew up owning guns and hunting but I sometimes wonder if we need semiautomatic weapons. I also understand the argument of the slippery slope.
This case is not one of them. Zimmerman had a legally attained carry permit.
Stand your ground was not used in this case! It was not used at all! His lawyers thought they could win without it.
They were right. If you outlaw guns you do not need stand your ground.
Personally I think there are either no guns or stand your ground. Stand your ground is a good law! Before, you had to make every attempt to get away from your problem before you shot. Lets look at what the jury saw that let him go. Travon had one wound. Bullet from below. George had multiple wounds to the head from being hit on concrete.
One thing that was not reported nationally but locally was is that Travon assaulted a bus driver the day before for not letting him ride for free.
Travon was a thug. We see it every day. What amazes me is that this case is such a big deal. It is based on race but for the wrong reason.
White on black crime: "Holy Shit we have to make national news".
Every other combination "fuck it".
What do most black males die from? Black males.
When crime is based on black on white crime it is not reported.
When it is any race on black it is over reported. I saw it back in the early 90's in Miami. They burned down the city because the victim was black and the defendant was anything else and not convicted. This is all race bating and has nothing to do with guns.
I learned gun safety when I was 10. I got my first gun when I was 12. The quickest way to piss me off is point a gun at me. You might say it is empty but I do not care. I was taught gun safety in grade school. I do not play with them and I will not teach my daughter to play with them.
George did not play with his gun. He defended himself with it. There was a case of stand your ground in Florida within 1 week of this case but the defendant was black. Has anyone heard of it? Probably not they were both black.
Greetings Everyone,
On Friday afternoon in the town of Duncan in Oklahoma, 22 year old Christopher Lane, a white college student from Australia, was gunned down by 3 teenagers while he was jogging.
"They saw Christopher go by, and one of them said: ‘There’s our target,’" Police Chief Danny Ford said.
They saw Christopher jog by the house they were at, they chose him to be the target, they got in the car, drove up behind him and shot him in the back because they "didn't have anything to do".
Two of the accused teens' parents insist they were not involved in the killing.
"That's my baby boy," said the mother of the 16-year-old accused of firing the single bullet from a handgun into the back of Mr Lane. "My son is not that way. My son is a good kid.".
She doesn't believe her son was involved in the shooting, saying today he was not a member of a gang and definitely not the one who pulled the trigger.
The father of the 15-year-old accused of being in the car admitted his son had been in some previous "kid stuff" trouble with the law, but described him as a good boy who also was not part of a gang.
"I don't think so," the father replied when asked if his son could have been part of the murder. "Because he's not the type of person. He likes to wrestle. He's into sports."
===========================================================
Anyway, given that the race and photo of the victim was so prominently displayed in every news story, I was curious as to the race of the perpetrators. However, it seem that this detail was omitted by every single USA newspaper and media website. I had to go to the Australian newspaper websites to learn that the perpetrators were in fact black.
Can you hear the sound from the black leaders of this country? Listen closely and you will hear the sound of... crickets.
Where is Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson calling for a protest? Where's the press conferences?
Where's Eric Holder on this? Where's Obama on this?
Where is MLK III calling for a boycott of something.
And the NAACP, and the Democrat Party News media (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc).
The silence of the race card players is deafening.
Let's hear some outrage from all of these folks.
The hypocrisy of the black leadership in this country is reprehensible. They are the great dividers!
I guess we'll have to wait until they try these murderers and find them guilty. Then, all the professional racists and media agitators will come out from under the rocks they hide behind and start their protest marches.
But I say let's not jump to any conclusions here. First, were any of the little tykes carrying skittles?
Possibly what happened here is that the three little boys, taking time off from their studies, yet terrified of another potential, racist Zimmerman-style murder, were practicing their shooting skills when this unfortunate cracker inadvertently ran into one of their bullets.
Yea, right.
Rc Collins
08-21-13, 01:13
The hypocrisy of the black leadership in this country is reprehensible. They are the great dividers!It's a wonderful thing when we paint an entire group with the same brush. Are black conservatives and republicans reprehensible dividers too? I mean the white leadership is exactly the opposite right? They are always trying to unite the country with people like Darrell Issa, Cheney, Trump, Limbaugh, Rand Paul and others. Your board, your rules, but your POV on this topic is totally skewed.
Don't lump Obama and Holder in with Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The latter are colorful characters on the left, but not representative of Democrats in general. Just like folks like Palin and Bachmann are colorful but not representative of Republicans in general.
The Oklahoma shooting is yet another tragic reminder of the huge gun problem we have in this country. Where were the gun-carrying NRA members when we needed them to take out the shooter before he could kill ? Oklahoma is a right-to-carry state after all (in fact, open-carry).
We simply have way too many guns in the wrong hands. The people in Australia get it. Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, is telling people to stay away from America:
"Tourists thinking of going to the USA should think twice," Fischer said Monday, according to the News.com site. He continued: "This is the bitter harvest and legacy of the policies of the NRA that even blocked background checks for people buying guns at gunshows. People should take this into account before going to the United States. I am deeply angry about this because of the callous attitude of the three teenagers [but] it's a sign of the proliferation of guns on the ground in the USA. There is a gun for almost every American."
AllIWantIsLove
08-21-13, 02:47
...
One thing that was not reported nationally but locally was is that Travon assaulted a bus driver the day before for not letting him ride for free.
Interesting post. Thanks. But re the above quoted part of your post ... Can you reference any local media's web site which reported this? My Google searches got some hits but not for any local media web sites.
Also I'd think that the defense would have wanted to bring that up in court. But they must not have because it would certainly have made national news. (I hope!) Did local media report any attempt by the defense to introduce the assault? Has the bus driver's name appeared anywhere?
Thanks, Bob.
Don't lump Obama and Holder in with Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The latter are colorful characters on the left, but not representative of Democrats in general. Just like folks like Palin and Bachmann are colorful but not representative of Republicans in general.
It's a wonderful thing when we paint an entire group with the same brush. Are black conservatives and republicans reprehensible dividers too?You're both right, and thus I'll modify my rant to request a response from only the same race grievance industry agitators and news media presstitutes that were so involved in stoking the flames of emotion in the the Zimmerman case.
Jax.
Punter 127
08-21-13, 06:28
Oklahoma Shooting Suspects Too Young to Possess Guns Legally
28843
We simply have way too many guns in the wrong hands. The people in Australia get it. Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, is telling people to stay away from America:
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Tim Fisher has to say, Australia has already disarmed their citizens.
While Australian politician Tim Fischer reacts to the murder of baseball player Chris Lane by blasting the NRA for fighting expanded background checks, he overlooks that the alleged shooters were in breach of state law by possessing guns in the first place and were not capable of passing national background checks already on the books.
Thus, what good would more laws barring these individual from possessing guns have accomplished?
Oklahoma law states that an individual "must be 18 years of age to possess any weapon, except rifles or shotguns used in education, hunting, or sport." Yet the two teens charged with first degree murder in Lane's death were only 15 and 16 years old.
The Daily Mail reports that James Edwards, the 15-year old, ran into trouble with the law in the past, according to his father.
A third teen allegedly involved in the murder was "charged with the use of a vehicle while a weapon was discharged and [for] accessory after the fact of first degree murder." The third teen was only 17.
In addition to violating Oklahoma's law on possession of a firearm, individuals 15, 16, or 17 could never pass the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in place now. The NICS system has been in place since Bill Clinton's presidency.
Yet none of these laws deterred the individuals allegedly involved in this crime. And the lesson for us is that laws do not deter those intent on committing crime.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/20/Oklahoma-Teens-Who-Allegedly-Shot-Baseball-Player-Were-Too-Young-To-Legally-Possess-Guns
Which of your proposed new gun laws would have prevented this shooting?
[b]
28843
Which of your proposed new gun laws would have prevented this shooting?Enforcement, not laws deters crime with guns. The USA, and other countries, should take a lesson from Singapore where laws are enforced.
Tres3.
Daddy Rulz
08-21-13, 14:03
race grievance industry agitators and news media presstitutes Did you make these up, I just want to know who I'm stealing the second one from when I use it.
We need more enforcement AND more gun laws. The current loopholes allowing criminals and the mentally unstable to legally purchase guns without a background check are an abomination. We don't need to enforce these loopholes, we need to close them.
Listen to the latest ploy from the NRA apologists and their right wing propaganda websites: "Oklahoma Shooting Suspects Too Young to Possess Guns Legally". Oh OK I guess the argument stops there! There's simply nothing that can be done. Right! Unless their answer is more guns. Yes, that's it, more guns! LMAO!! As are the gun manufacturer execs who are laughing all the way to the bank.
Oklahoma is in fact deficient in many laws that help curb gun trafficking. Go to www.tracetheguns.org and click on Oklahoma. It looks like getting a gun is probably as easy as buying bubblegum in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma has 0 of 10 laws:
- Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
- Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
- Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
- Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
- Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
- Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
- Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
- Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
- Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
- Allows Inspections of Gun Dealers
Punter 127
08-22-13, 10:44
Enforcement, not laws deters crime with guns.
Tres3.I agree enforcement is the key. Many people (mostly leftwing progressives) are hell bent for leather when it comes to passing new laws, but when it comes to enforcement they're mostly talk. It's ludicrous to think new laws would help when we don't enforce the laws we have now, as Tres3 points out laws alone are not a deterrent.
Oklahoma has 0 of 10 laws:Many of the 10 suggested laws for Oklahoma are already covered by federal law and many of the other are a ridicules waste of time and money. A call for states to pass laws duplicating federal laws or ridicules unneeded laws demonstrates wacky, imbecilic progressivism in action.
But again I will ask which of these proposed laws would have prevented this shooting?
Member #4112
08-22-13, 16:16
Oklahoma has 0 of 10 laws:
- Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
- Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
- Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
- Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
- Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
- Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
- Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
- Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
- Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
- Allows Inspections of Gun DealersEsten, of your list of 10 items you allege Oklahoma does not have items 1 through 4 and 10 are covered by your beloved Federal Government. As for the rest of your wish list, it's only going to happen in your dreams.
It is a fact the kids in Oklahoma did not purchase their guns from any licensed dealer nor at a gun show. This only makes the point that when you criminalize gun ownership only criminals will have guns.
I did notice you omitted any mention of the 71 year old home owner who shot and killed an escape convict who had invaded his home and took he and his 65 year old wife hostage. I would suppose that couple should have been sacrificed on your alter of no guns. By the way the escape convict had a pistol. Think he got it at a gun show?
Possibly what happened here is that the three little boys, taking time off from their studies, yet terrified of another potential, racist Zimmerman-style murder, were practicing their shooting skills when this unfortunate cracker inadvertently ran into one of their bullets.Jackson as usual is ahead of the pack. After his post it came out that James Edwards, one of the three boys, was indeed trying to reduce the potential for another racist Zimmerman-style murder, by reducing the number of white people:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-most-shocking-tweets-and-facebook-posts-from-oklahoma-teen-who-allegedly-shot-chris-lane/#4
For those of you who are not street wise or hip, "wood" in the link above is a derogatory name for a white person. So Edwards says he "knocced out 5 [white people] since Zimmerman Court!:)"
If there's still any doubt in your mind that Edwards hates white people:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-most-shocking-tweets-and-facebook-posts-from-oklahoma-teen-who-allegedly-shot-chris-lane/#7
"90% of white ppl are nasty. [I] HATE THEM"
Jackson as usual is ahead of the pack. After his post it came out that James Edwards, one of the three boys, was indeed trying to reduce the potential for another racist Zimmerman-style murder, by reducing the number of white people:
[URL]
"90% of white ppl are nasty. [I] HATE THEM"
Where are Revs. Sharpton and Jackson when we need them?
Tres3
Where are Revs. Sharpton and Jackson when we need them?
Tres3
"THE POVERTY PIMPS' POEM.
Let us celebrate the poor.
Let us hawk them door to door.
There's a market for their pain.
Votes and glory and money to gain.
Let us celebrate the poor.
Their ills, their sins, their faulty diction.
Flavor our songs and spice our fiction.
Their hopes and struggles and agonies.
Get us grants and consulting fees.
Celebrate thugs and clowns.
Give their ignorance all renown.
Celebrate what holds them down.
In our academic gowns.
Let us celebrate the poor."
They give pimps a bad name.
Don B
Esten, of your list of 10 items you allege Oklahoma does not have items 1 through 4 and 10 are covered by your beloved Federal Government. Ten Key State Laws That Curb Illegal Gun Trafficking
(ref. www.tracetheguns.org)
Oklahoma has 0 of 10 laws
New York has 10 of 10 laws
If New York can have these laws, so can Oklahoma.
This only makes the point that when you criminalize gun ownership only criminals will have guns.These laws don't criminalize guns, and that's not what's being discussed.
T
If New York can have these laws, so can Oklahoma.
Why does not New York enforce the laws on the books? New laws only distract from the fact that we do no enforce existing laws. Oklahoma has less gun crime per capita, and fewer homicides per capita than New York. But I forgot-most of the New York homicides are black on black, so we do not read about them in the rest of the USA.
Tres3.
"90% of white ppl are nasty. [I] HATE THEM"
Judging by the majority of the posters on this thread, he's right, and has every reason to!
Never seen so much nasty, horrible, racist drivel in my entire life. Now I understand why nobody ever says anything when TL spouts his hate-filled tirades about 'indians'...this place is populated almost entirely by racist bigots and it took this thread for them all to crawl out of the woodwork and show their true colours!
Punter 127
08-23-13, 13:16
Out of every 100 cries of "Racism" you hear, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics. IMHO.
Out of every 100 cries of "Racism" you hear, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics. IMHO.I agree, but now, according to DavieW, if you don't suffer from white guilt, and if you don't see racial motives behind everything, and if you're simply tired of the professional race pimps, then you're a racist.
Judging by the majority of the posters on this thread, he's right, and has every reason to!
Never seen so much nasty, horrible, racist drivel in my entire life. Now I understand why nobody ever says anything when TL spouts his hate-filled tirades about 'indians'...this place is populated almost entirely by racist bigots and it took this thread for them all to crawl out of the woodwork and show their true colours!Then do I understand that you agree that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights?
Or on the other hand are you with those in this forum that are in favor of violating individual rights in order to further their socialist agenda?
Don B.
I agree, but now, according to DavieW, if you don't suffer from white guilt, and if you don't see racial motives behind everything, and if you're simply tired of the professional race pimps, then you're a racist.Where on earth are you getting that from? You're just making stuff up now!
And I had you down as one of the more intelligent players in this debate. Doh!
Then do I understand that you agree that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights?
Yeah, that's right, sure, whatever you say, makes a lot of sense. The ONLY legitimate function.*
Or on the other hand are you with those in this forum that are in favor of violating individual rights in order to further their socialist agenda?
And this is why it's totally pointless talking politics on this forum! If you're not a gun-toting, god-fearing Republican you must be a looney-bin, commie-loving Democrat. The hilarious thing is that you appear to have about as much individuality as a molecule of water!* I've mentioned my general political persuasion on this very thread - I've been a Conservative voter all my life - but because I don't agree with arming civilians, rather than take part in an interesting discussion about it, you've got to trot out the party line and tell me I'm a "socialist in favour of violating individual rights"? You couldn't be any more wrong!
There's just no polite way of saying this - but you just don't seem to be very bright. I'm really sorry if you have some kind of learning disability - I don't want to come across as condescending, but I'm not so stupid as to paint the world as only red or blue and to assume that that's the way everyone thinks. I don't have any agenda, other than to try and enjoy my life without screwing up anyone elses and to try and treat others as I'd like to be treated. And that's bloody tough enough! At times I'm fcuking rubbish at it. I'm a self-confessed xenophobe - living in Saudi Arabia and Argentina will do that to anyone I reckon! I don't like myself for it, but at least I can present an argument as to why I'm like it that has some logic to it. Whereas I'm yet to hear any kind of logical argument as to why you should discriminate against anyone because of the colour of their skin.
I like a political debate and I've got good friends at both extremes of the spectrum, although more who fit in several places somewhere along the spectrum, but it appears that nobody's interested in a debate here, just jingoistic, political mud-slinging. Frankly I find it rather pathetic.
Read this thread from the beginning. I wanted to talk about the case. I asked a number of questions. They were rarely ever answered. I was just bombarded with increasingly abusive political rhetoric. Even when they were answered, it was never done just factually - one side had to add in an accusation of 'socialist' with the other side playing the 'race' card. If nobody could think of an answer which they could add a barb to, the question just got ignored. I had several PMs telling me I was wasting my time, but I persevered - and waddya know, I was wasting my time!
You should try setting aside YOUR political agenda once in a while and actually have a discussion about something using only logic and facts. You might find it interesting......
.....ha, ha, ha, ha! Sorry! Only joking!*
*See, it's bloody difficult to not be condescending when faced with such intractable stupidity! Sorry about that.
Yeah, that's right, sure, whatever you say, makes a lot of sense. The ONLY legitimate function.*
And this is why it's totally pointless talking politics on this forum! If you're not a gun-toting, god-fearing Republican you must be a looney-bin, commie-loving Democrat. The hilarious thing is that you appear to have about as much individuality as a molecule of water!* I've mentioned my general political persuasion on this very thread - I've been a Conservative voter all my life - but because I don't agree with arming civilians, rather than take part in an interesting discussion about it, you've got to trot out the party line and tell me I'm a "socialist in favour of violating individual rights"? You couldn't be any more wrong!
There's just no polite way of saying this - but you just don't seem to be very bright. I'm really sorry if you have some kind of learning disability - I don't want to come across as condescending, but I'm not so stupid as to paint the world as only red or blue and to assume that that's the way everyone thinks. I don't have any agenda, other than to try and enjoy my life without screwing up anyone elses and to try and treat others as I'd like to be treated. And that's bloody tough enough! At times I'm fcuking rubbish at it. I'm a self-confessed xenophobe - living in Saudi Arabia and Argentina will do that to anyone I reckon! I don't like myself for it, but at least I can present an argument as to why I'm like it that has some logic to it. Whereas I'm yet to hear any kind of logical argument as to why you should discriminate against anyone because of the colour of their skin.
I like a political debate and I've got good friends at both extremes of the spectrum, although more who fit in several places somewhere along the spectrum, but it appears that nobody's interested in a debate here, just jingoistic, political mud-slinging. Frankly I find it rather pathetic.
Read this thread from the beginning. I wanted to talk about the case. I asked a number of questions. They were rarely ever answered. I was just bombarded with increasingly abusive political rhetoric. Even when they were answered, it was never done just factually - one side had to add in an accusation of 'socialist' with the other side playing the 'race' card. If nobody could think of an answer which they could add a barb to, the question just got ignored. I had several PMs telling me I was wasting my time, but I persevered - and waddya know, I was wasting my time!
You should try setting aside YOUR political agenda once in a while and actually have a discussion about something using only logic and facts. You might find it interesting......
.....ha, ha, ha, ha! Sorry! Only joking!*
*See, it's bloody difficult to not be condescending when faced with such intractable stupidity! Sorry about that.You seem to have overlooked a point I made some time ago, this forum argues about particulars and not ideas, concepts or causes. This entire thread has focused on the actions of the two involved when what should have been questioned was why this case made national headlines. Certainly you are bright enough to see the poverty pimps in action using it to push their agenda.
For the record, sonny, I have been around a hell of a lot longer than you or anybody else in this forum and have observed first hand the loss of first one right then another. As far as my political affiliations I first voted in the 1952 Republican primary, my candidate, Robert A. Taft, lost and the Republicans have been disappointing me ever since. I continue to vote for them as a rule because the alternate is worse. Philosophically I am neither a progressive (liberal) or a conservative but an Objectivist. "See, it's bloody difficult to not be condescending when faced with such intractable stupidity! Sorry about that" Yes it is but I tried not to be.
Don B.
Why does not New York enforce the laws on the books? Surely you didn't just make this up. No doubt there is some degree of non-enforcement, but show us what data you have on this, so we can understand the extent of the problem.
Meanwhile here's an article you might be interested in:
NYPD announces 250 illegal firearms seized, 19 arrested in gun ring that stretched into South
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/largest-seizure-illegal-guns-announced-article-1.1430629
28848
Some words to the wise. Shooting Advice from various Concealed Carry Instructors. If you own a gun, you will appreciate this.
A; Guns have only two enemies Rust and Politicians.
B; Its always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
C; Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
D; Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.
E; Never say "I've got a gun." If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
F; The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, and the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
G; The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win. Cheat if necessary.
H; Make your attacker advances through a wall of bullets. You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, because it will be empty.
I; If you're in a gun fight:
1/ If you're not shooting, you should be loading;.
2/ If you're not loading, you should be moving;.
3/ If you're not moving, you're dead.
J; In a life and death situation, do something. It may be wrong, but do something!
K; If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
L; You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language.
M; You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
Tres3.
Big Boss Man
08-24-13, 14:59
Maybe because of recent events, Folsum Prison Blues has been stuck in my head all week.
"When I was just a baby my mama told me. Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns.
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry."
These young guys are really screwing up their lives.
Spirit Rider
08-31-13, 00:45
Some words to the wise. Shooting Advice from various Concealed Carry Instructors. If you own a gun, you will appreciate this.
D; Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.
I have to disagree with this one. Replace with "Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside 7 yards without reacting.
Reference Tueller drill. Which shows that an average assailant with a knife can close 21 feet in less than 1.5 seconds.
Even a balding, fat, out of shape, old fart I might be familiar with was able to close the distance in 1.3 seconds. Luckily after a one week I was able to draw and hit center of mass is less than one second.
Lesson, don't let someone in a threating manner get closet than 20 feet before drawing your weapon and less than 10 feet before stopping the threatening activity.
Yeah, that's right, sure, whatever you say, makes a lot of sense. The ONLY legitimate function.*
And this is why it's totally pointless talking politics on this forum! If you're not a gun-toting, god-fearing Republican you must be a looney-bin, commie-loving Democrat. The hilarious thing is that you appear to have about as much individuality as a molecule of water!* I've mentioned my general political persuasion on this very thread - I've been a Conservative voter all my life - but because I don't agree with arming civilians, rather than take part in an interesting discussion about it, you've got to trot out the party line and tell me I'm a "socialist in favour of violating individual rights"? You couldn't be any more wrong!
There's just no polite way of saying this -blah blahYou libertines always have a plan to change a mans real instincts. Now if you can uninvent the gun and assure me that all criminals have turned in their guns I will agree with you. Not really...because a knife deserves to be confronted with a gun too. BTW.....youtube homemade guns....they are easy to make and work the same.
My gun saved me from a Peruvian on my balcony at 11:00 at night in Fredericksburg VA. HE is dead...he had a gun.
"American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter
*awaits typical "all those statistics are made up by pinko commies" riposte*.
*yawn*.
"American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter
*awaits typical "all those statistics are made up by pinko commies" riposte*.
*yawn*.I will be the first to vote to drop this thread. Who cares about the little fatboy and his history? I thought this forum has to do about pussy.
I will be the first to vote to drop this thread. Who cares about the little fatboy and his history? I thought this forum has to do about pussy.Ha, ha, ha! Beautiful!
Thank you SO much Boston. You just made my day! Funny that you should mention pussy, because this reply marks you out as the biggest pussy on the forum. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! People overuse the acronym LOL, but I am properly, genuinely Laughing Out Loud!
1. This thread is under Other Topics / Chit Chat.
2. My last post had nothing to do with "the little fatboy", as you so charmingly put it. Although it does relate to the bigger debate. Did you even read any of the linked-to article?
3. Are you really that insecure in your beliefs that you're not capable of debating them?
4. LOFL!
P.S. If your answer to 3 is 'no' or your answer to 4 is 'yes', why the hell did you waste your (and my) time in posting your pussy reply?
Ha, ha, ha! Beautiful!
Thank you SO much Boston. You just made my day! Funny that you should mention pussy, because this reply marks you out as the biggest pussy on the forum. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! People overuse the acronym LOL, but I am properly, genuinely Laughing Out Loud!
1. This thread is under Other Topics / Chit Chat.
2. My last post had nothing to do with "the little fatboy", as you so charmingly put it. Although it does relate to the bigger debate. Did you even read any of the linked-to article?
3. Are you really that insecure in your beliefs that you're not capable of debating them?
4. LOFL!
P.S. If your answer to 3 is 'no' or your answer to 4 is 'yes', why the hell did you waste your (and my) time in posting your pussy reply?Thank you for talking to me davie w. Oops. Caps not working.
George Zimmerman is back in the news. This time he was arrested for an alleged assault on his new girlfriend who he got pregnant. One would think after getting away with his life by defending himself that Zimmerman would be thankful that he was alive or not permanently injured, find a job, and keep a low profile. This is not his first brush with the law since his trial ended.
You cannot cure stupid!
Meanwhile Trayvon's mother is on the handout, I mean lecture, circuit speaking against "Stand Your Ground", even though Zimmerman's attorneys did not use that as a defense. Go figure!
Tres3.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.