If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PJ Media)   The U.S. Department of Justice helped organize Trayvon Martin protests, which is a totally unbiased and proper activity for the federal government   (pjmedia.com) divider line 247
    More: Unlikely, U.S. Department of Justice, Judicial Watch, PJM, media blackout, technical assistance, Attorney General Eric Holder, neighborhood watch, Seminole County  
•       •       •

2099 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2013 at 4:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-10 04:04:30 PM
which is a totally unbiased and proper activity for the federal government

Uh, yeah. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The CRS was doing its job.
 
2013-07-10 04:11:21 PM
t2.gstatic.com

Look at the Feds, organizing marches!
 
2013-07-10 04:11:42 PM
PJ Media...I wonder if one should click.

-ellipsis-

Why yes, yes one should.  If only to read the comment section.
 
2013-07-10 04:11:54 PM
It's good to know that the DOJ has a riot prevention arm that doesn't involve a swat team.
 
2013-07-10 04:15:30 PM
The article is filled with conjecture and opinion from the Judicial Watch. Sounds legit

As well:

Bryan PrestonBryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.
 
2013-07-10 04:20:22 PM
so what is the original purpose of this little know unit?  Is it's job to help minority groups or something?  Does it help coordinate any protest?
 
2013-07-10 04:21:19 PM
Great. Now the 45 alts in the daily GZ threads will come traipsing in.
 
2013-07-10 04:21:35 PM
Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.
 
2013-07-10 04:22:51 PM

bromah: so what is the original purpose of this little know unit?  Is it's job to help minority groups or something?  Does it help coordinate any protest?


For more than 45 years, CRS has been asked to provide its experienced mediators to help local communities resolve conflicts and disturbances relating to race, color, or national origin. Each year CRS' highly skilled conciliators bring hundreds of community-wide conflicts to peaceful closure across America and its territories.

CRS lends its services when requested or accepted by the parties. The Service uses impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures to help local leaders resolve problems and restore stability. CRS has no law enforcement authority and does not impose solutions, investigate, prosecute, or assign blame and fault. All CRS mediators are required by law to conduct their activities in confidence, without publicity, and are prohibited from disclosing confidential information. Link
 
2013-07-10 04:22:54 PM
http://www.justice.gov/crs/

Wow...looks like they were doing their job they were founded to do.
Hmm, feign some more outrage. I wanted to post this on the blogs comments but his thing seems to make you jump through hoops to post anything at all.
 
2013-07-10 04:24:02 PM

bromah: so what is the original purpose of this little know unit?  Is it's job to help minority groups or something?  Does it help coordinate any protest?


It wasn't helping coordinate any protests.  They are there to help keep things calm and act as go between for protesters and local government.  You can read all about this super secret organization and what they do on their website:
http://www.justice.gov/crs/
 
2013-07-10 04:24:49 PM

bromah: so what is the original purpose of this little know unit?  Is it's job to help minority groups or something?  Does it help coordinate any protest?


I'm pretty sure they were sent to Trayvon Martin's area to keep black people from rioting.
 
2013-07-10 04:26:23 PM
Wow, for $5320.88 the Federal Government organized a national protest?

And these guys are always telling us how incompetent and inefficient they are.
 
2013-07-10 04:26:48 PM
At least Fark isn't hiding the PJM derp behind the "(Some Guy)" label anymore.
 
2013-07-10 04:27:32 PM
Judicial Watch announced...

And done.
 
2013-07-10 04:27:35 PM
boy i tell ya, if Conservatives aren't upset about this then nobody is.
 
2013-07-10 04:28:10 PM
I don't trust PJMedia or whatever this link is to, but taken from the outside sources:

"The peacekeepers have a specific mandate outlined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to go into conflict zones within American communities that perceive discrimination or feel wronged because of their particular race, color or national origin.
"We are unique in that we don't investigate or prosecute but foster communication between communities," said acting Community Relations Service director Becky Monroe. "The real goal is to build local capacity to deal with these issues."
They negotiate, ameliorate and communicate "under strict confidentiality," Monroe said.
City officials said when battle lines were drawn and dialogue broke down, they called in the conciliators.
"They work behind the scenes and in the trenches to make contact with the various organizations that are represented," Sanford's Community Development coordinator Andrew Thomas said. "They make the connections others in the community can't."


Which is a bit different than the characterization that "the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman"

More like "The Community Relations Service division of the DOJ played a major role behind the scenes in making sure existing protests didn't get out of hand and everyone stayed calm."
 
2013-07-10 04:31:37 PM

ShawnDoc: bromah: so what is the original purpose of this little know unit?  Is it's job to help minority groups or something?  Does it help coordinate any protest?

It wasn't helping coordinate any protests.  They are there to help keep things calm and act as go between for protesters and local government.  You can read all about this super secret organization and what they do on their website:
http://www.justice.gov/crs/


So basically they would call police making sure things didn't go bad at a protest "Organizing the protest".
 
2013-07-10 04:31:57 PM
Why does anyone have a hard on for some loser who shot and killed an unarmed kid who's only suspicious action was walking down a public street? Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this? Are they just desperate to prove their racist narrative?
 
2013-07-10 04:33:21 PM
Wait..the government organization responsible for preventing race riots got involved in the Trayvon Martin case and prevented race riots?

I am..outraged?
 
2013-07-10 04:33:28 PM
It looks like the CRS was doing a little bit to keep it a protest and not a riot.
 
2013-07-10 04:34:56 PM
What the DOJ "peacekeepers" look like

cdn.breitbart.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-10 04:35:23 PM

lockers: Why does anyone have a hard on for some loser who shot and killed an unarmed kid who's only suspicious action was walking down a public street? Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this? Are they just desperate to prove their racist narrative?


you take the gun out of the equation & the whole story would disappear.
Kid kills hobo with bare hands - the headlines would read.

IMO
 
2013-07-10 04:35:42 PM
It's almost as if someone WANTED there to be a race riot.
 
2013-07-10 04:36:21 PM
Brave blogger patriot and fark "poster" Pajamas Media continues to lie about objective observable reality.
 
2013-07-10 04:37:43 PM

what_now: Wait..the government organization responsible for preventing race riots got involved in the Trayvon Martin case and prevented race riots?

I am..outraged?


The nerve!
 
2013-07-10 04:39:34 PM
This can't be real, joke, right?
 
2013-07-10 04:40:27 PM

cig-mkr: This can't be real, joke, right?


It was submitted 4 times today. Someone REALLY wants there to be a race riot.
 
2013-07-10 04:41:34 PM
I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

And who the fark attacks someone while still trying to talk to on his cell phone? That makes no sense.
 
2013-07-10 04:42:22 PM

cig-mkr: This can't be real, joke, right?


Today you learned where the phrase "your blog sucks" originated.

TMYK
===*
 
2013-07-10 04:42:34 PM

what_now: cig-mkr: This can't be real, joke, right?

It was submitted 4 times today. Someone REALLY wants there to be a race riot.


It must be the blacks, because according to Republicans, they are the real racists.
 
2013-07-10 04:43:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: "The peacekeepers have a specific mandate outlined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to go into conflict zones within American communities that perceive discrimination or feel wronged because of their particular race, color or national origin.
"We are unique in that we don't investigate or prosecute but foster communication between communities," said acting Community Relations Service director Becky Monroe. "The real goal is to build local capacity to deal with these issues."
They negotiate, ameliorate and communicate "under strict confidentiality," Monroe said.
City officials said when battle lines were drawn and dialogue broke down, they called in the conciliators.
"They work behind the scenes and in the trenches to make contact with the various organizations that are represented," Sanford's Community Development coordinator Andrew Thomas said. "They make the connections others in the community can't."


Is anyone else thinking they could make this group into a TV drama show similar to criminal minds?
 
2013-07-10 04:44:48 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: At least Fark isn't hiding the PJM derp behind the "(Some Guy)" label anymore.


Just wait til it gets closer to rent day
 
2013-07-10 04:46:43 PM

Peter von Nostrand: The article is filled with conjecture and opinion from the Judicial Watch. Sounds legit

As well:

Bryan PrestonBryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.


Anyone who uses that term in a non-facetious manner should be flensed.
 
2013-07-10 04:47:09 PM
Remember the Jena 6?

The CRS was pretty active in Jena during that time.

One of the things they did is mediate between the city and a white nationalist group that was planning on having an armed march on MLK day.  They managed to negotiate an agreement to have the march without weapons.

Can you imagine the PJ Media headline if Obama and Holder had been around then???

Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice's Role in Preventing Group from Exercising it's 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights
 
2013-07-10 04:48:18 PM
This is what happens when we let black people have jobs in government. With Obama in power the whole US government is made to act in favor of blacks and against whites.

(we know this must be true because when whites were in power they naturally governed in favor of whites)
 
2013-07-10 04:50:28 PM
what is it about the word "community" that causes conservatives to shiat and piss in their pants, then take off their pants and roll around in the shiat and piss
 
2013-07-10 04:53:28 PM

vernonFL: What the DOJ "peacekeepers" look like

[cdn.breitbart.com image 475x356]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 275x183]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 266x190]


images4.wikia.nocookie.net
Thinks they're weaklings
 
2013-07-10 04:53:44 PM

vernonFL: [t2.gstatic.com image 286x176]

Look at the Feds, organizing marches!


A classic painting.  I wonder if it would be censored today because of the graphitti on the wall behind the little girl.

Normal Rockwell did some very disturbing sketches and watercolors of the civil rights struggle; I would like to see a timeline someday of what he was painting privately vs. what he was publishing.  Did he decide at one point that he was now willing to take the risk of going "all political"?
 
2013-07-10 04:55:11 PM

UNC_Samurai: flensed


my word of the day.
 
2013-07-10 04:55:13 PM

Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.


It's not self-defense when you hit first.

And who the fark attacks someone while still trying to talk to on his cell phone? That makes no sense.

Does anything about this case make any sense?
 
2013-07-10 04:56:06 PM
So the department of justice spent just over $2 billion organizing the new black panthers to hold reverse racism marches?
 
2013-07-10 04:56:29 PM

Jackson Herring: what is it about the word "community" that causes conservatives to shiat and piss in their pants, then take off their pants and roll around in the shiat and piss


LULZ. And then make them eat the shiat they shiat out that we made them eat?
 
2013-07-10 04:59:37 PM

ps69: So the department of justice spent just over $2 billion organizing the new black panthers to hold reverse racism marches?


PER DAY!
 
2013-07-10 05:00:47 PM

Jackson Herring: what is it about the word "community" that causes conservatives to shiat and piss in their pants, then take off their pants and roll around in the shiat and piss


You're deflecting.
 
2013-07-10 05:02:13 PM

Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.


"It's little wonder Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

You never did well in school didya?
 
2013-07-10 05:02:43 PM
There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.
 
2013-07-10 05:03:39 PM

Mrbogey: Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

"It's little wonder Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

You never did well in school didya?


You really want that shiathead released, don't you?
 
2013-07-10 05:03:43 PM

jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.


are you a wizard?
 
2013-07-10 05:03:53 PM

flondrix: vernonFL: [t2.gstatic.com image 286x176]

Look at the Feds, organizing marches!

A classic painting.  I wonder if it would be censored today because of the graphitti on the wall behind the little girl.

Normal Rockwell did some very disturbing sketches and watercolors of the civil rights struggle; I would like to see a timeline someday of what he was painting privately vs. what he was publishing.  Did he decide at one point that he was now willing to take the risk of going "all political"?


That painting currently hangs in the waiting area outside the Oval Office.

images.politico.com

Some conservatives were upset when Obama had it placed there because they felt it was divisive, and unfairly stigmatized whites by reminding people of recent history.
 
2013-07-10 05:04:38 PM

Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

And who the fark attacks someone while still trying to talk to on his cell phone? That makes no sense.


I know, I'm shocked - shocked - that Trayvon was able to get in so many hits after being shot.
 
2013-07-10 05:06:11 PM

whidbey: You really want that shiathead released, don't you?


Why do you want to see an innocent man be imprisoned? What makes a man who shoots someone in self-defense a shiathead?

I'm guessing you're one of those Americans that are proud of their ignorance.
 
2013-07-10 05:06:52 PM

jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.


Well, when one group of people believes that the justice system is stacked against them. When people feel, rightly or wrongly, that the system is unjust, it can cause anger, despair, and rage that need to be vented.

I'm not excusing it, I'm explaining why it happens.
 
2013-07-10 05:07:23 PM

lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?


1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.
 
2013-07-10 05:09:31 PM

Mrbogey: whidbey: You really want that shiathead released, don't you?

Why do you want to see an innocent man be imprisoned? What makes a man who shoots someone in self-defense a shiathead?

I'm guessing you're one of those Americans that are proud of their ignorance.


No, I'm one of "those Americans" who knows this is an open and shut case, that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, and he ignored the warning.

He killed him. Get the fark over it.
 
2013-07-10 05:11:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?

1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.


I heard Trayvon was gay and heading towards an abortion palace, right after picking up his government check with his fellow Muslims.
 
2013-07-10 05:12:11 PM
If ones point of view is "government is bad" then when the government does it's job that is also bad.
 
2013-07-10 05:15:35 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it?


BlackGuyzi
 
2013-07-10 05:16:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?

1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.


Only if Trayvon was on his way to an abortion clinic.
 
2013-07-10 05:17:24 PM

whidbey: No, I'm one of "those Americans" who knows this is an open and shut case, that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, and he ignored the warning.

He killed him. Get the fark over it.


You had to prove how dumb you are right away. I appreciate you doing my work for me.

Everyone who watched the trial or read the facts of the case are laughing at you.
 
2013-07-10 05:18:04 PM

Mrbogey: whidbey: No, I'm one of "those Americans" who knows this is an open and shut case, that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, and he ignored the warning.

He killed him. Get the fark over it.

You had to prove how dumb you are right away. I appreciate you doing my work for me.

Everyone who watched the trial or read the facts of the case are laughing at you.


Bullshiat. And attacking me personally only shows you have nothing to show for yourself.
 
2013-07-10 05:18:10 PM

whidbey: Mrbogey: whidbey: You really want that shiathead released, don't you?

Why do you want to see an innocent man be imprisoned? What makes a man who shoots someone in self-defense a shiathead?

I'm guessing you're one of those Americans that are proud of their ignorance.

No, I'm one of "those Americans" who knows this is an open and shut case, that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, and he ignored the warning.

He killed him. Get the fark over it.


Point of fact: Zimmerman was asked by dispatch, while following Martin, "are you following him?" Zimmerman answers "yes." Dispatch then said, "we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman says ok then starts walking back to his truck.

It is incorrect to say "Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin" because that is not what happened. Therefore, Mr. Widbey, you have zero credibility and anything you write from this point on is just gibbering gibberish.
 
2013-07-10 05:19:01 PM

jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.



If he's found not guilty, and there are no riots, do I have your personal permission to quote you on this in every future thread on the subject?
 
2013-07-10 05:19:24 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?

1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.


I get that, but why are all GOP "Hero's" of the anti variety. The guy they are defending was a shiftless unemployed mess who fantasized about being a cop. Their is nothing heroic about him. Defending him is one thing, but to make him out to be anything more than a libelous social parasite is silly.
 
2013-07-10 05:21:24 PM

MJMaloney187: Point of fact: Zimmerman was asked by dispatch, while following Martin, "are you following him?" Zimmerman answers "yes." Dispatch then said, "we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman says ok then starts walking back to his truck.

It is incorrect to say "Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin" because that is not what happened. Therefore, Mr. Widbey, you have zero credibility and anything you write from this point on is just gibbering gibberish.


Actually, it's whidbey, and you get the same response:

Bullshiat.
 
2013-07-10 05:22:15 PM

lockers: Dusk-You-n-Me: lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?

1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.

I get that, but why are all GOP "Hero's" of the anti variety. The guy they are defending was a shiftless unemployed mess who fantasized about being a cop. Their is nothing heroic about him. Defending him is one thing, but to make him out to be anything more than a libelous social parasite is silly.


Because the Republican Party is by and large racist. You really had to ask?
 
2013-07-10 05:23:22 PM
i229.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-10 05:23:42 PM

lockers: Dusk-You-n-Me: lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?

1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.

I get that, but why are all GOP "Hero's" of the anti variety. The guy they are defending was a shiftless unemployed mess who fantasized about being a cop. Their is nothing heroic about him. Defending him is one thing, but to make him out to be anything more than a libelous social parasite is silly.


Because they're shiftless unemployed messes with fantasies of being the brave gun-wielding defender of justice.
 
2013-07-10 05:24:22 PM
Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.
 
2013-07-10 05:24:23 PM

flondrix: Normal Rockwell did some very disturbing sketches and watercolors of the civil rights struggle; I would like to see a timeline someday of what he was painting privately vs. what he was publishing. Did he decide at one point that he was now willing to take the risk of going "all political"?


Generally speaking, he was paid to produce them by various publications. Being the master that he was, there were every bit as iconic as those he was paid to produce that were more "standard".

That they seem more "political' is probably more a result of the changing mindset in the country, particularly the publishers of the day than a specific decision on his part to "change direction" per se. He continued to paint great Americana all the way through. Although, as I recall, he did support civil rights.
 
2013-07-10 05:25:19 PM

whidbey: Bullshiat. And attacking me personally only shows you have nothing to show for yourself.


I'm making fun of you because you said something dumb. I'm not making fun of you to discredit what you said. That it's in direct conflict with the established facts of the case is enough to discredit you.
 
2013-07-10 05:25:42 PM

MJMaloney187: Therefore, Mr. Widbey, you have zero credibility and anything you write from this point on is just gibbering gibberish.


You know how I know that you have never talked to Whidbey before?
 
2013-07-10 05:26:02 PM
This blog is the suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck.
 
2013-07-10 05:26:05 PM

danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.


Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.
 
2013-07-10 05:26:14 PM

lockers: The guy they are defending was a shiftless unemployed mess who fantasized about being a cop.


LEAVE ANDY ALONE!

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-10 05:26:27 PM

danwinkler: state worshippers.


derp
 
2013-07-10 05:27:21 PM

Mrbogey: whidbey: Bullshiat. And attacking me personally only shows you have nothing to show for yourself.

I'm making fun of you because you said something dumb. I'm not making fun of you to discredit what you said. That it's in direct conflict with the established facts of the case is enough to discredit you.


Except nothing's "dumb" about it, and Zimmerman isn't going to get off.
 
2013-07-10 05:28:14 PM

whidbey: and Zimmerman isn't going to get off.


Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. The prosecution is not doing a terribly great job. Link
 
2013-07-10 05:28:23 PM

Mrbogey: Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

"It's little wonder Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

You never did well in school didya?


SO you are saying Martin punched Zimmerman after he was shot? Serious what are you talking about?

Zimmerman was forcing an altercation, Martin MAYBE punched him because of it (if you believe someone still talks on their phone when they hide in bushes to punch someone and punches them still holding the phone). This is what the DEFENSE is saying.
 
2013-07-10 05:29:08 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: flondrix: vernonFL: [t2.gstatic.com image 286x176]

Look at the Feds, organizing marches!

A classic painting.  I wonder if it would be censored today because of the graphitti on the wall behind the little girl.

Normal Rockwell did some very disturbing sketches and watercolors of the civil rights struggle; I would like to see a timeline someday of what he was painting privately vs. what he was publishing.  Did he decide at one point that he was now willing to take the risk of going "all political"?

That painting currently hangs in the waiting area outside the Oval Office.

[images.politico.com image 605x328]

Some conservatives were upset when Obama had it placed there because they felt it was divisive, and unfairly stigmatized whites by reminding people of recent history.


I do believe that there was a Fark thread about it, and there was a lot of buthurt in that thread if I remember correctly. Or it may have been on another site.
 
2013-07-10 05:30:16 PM

halB: Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

And who the fark attacks someone while still trying to talk to on his cell phone? That makes no sense.

I know, I'm shocked - shocked - that Trayvon was able to get in so many hits after being shot.


What the hell are you talking about. I never said that. Wow you people are amazing.

I forget he hid in the bushes planning to jump him WHILE THE ENTIRE TIME STILL TALKING ON HIS PHONE. Because I know when I plan to fight someone I STAY ON THE PHONE TALKING AS I DO IT.
 
2013-07-10 05:32:38 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: whidbey: and Zimmerman isn't going to get off.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. The prosecution is not doing a terribly great job. Link


I wouldn't be surprised.

Many will see this as an unsatisfying outcome; many will think it shouldn't be this easy to kill someone, concoct an uncontradictable excuse, and get away with it

Pretty much my take on it.
 
2013-07-10 05:34:50 PM

whidbey: Pretty much my take on it.


Another take:

Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant's presumed innocence and a dead man's presumed guilt. Link
 
2013-07-10 05:35:48 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: That painting currently hangs in the waiting area outside the Oval Office.


Not anymore; the White House borrowed it from the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, MA for a while, and returned it some time in 2011.

I also got a sort of answer to my own question:  In 1963, Rockwell ended his contract with the Saturday Evening Post and took up with Look magazine specifically so he could do work like this.  (The Problem We All Must Live With was painted, or at least completed, in 1964.)
 
2013-07-10 05:35:52 PM

ongbok: Philip Francis Queeg: flondrix: vernonFL: [t2.gstatic.com image 286x176]

Look at the Feds, organizing marches!

A classic painting.  I wonder if it would be censored today because of the graphitti on the wall behind the little girl.

Normal Rockwell did some very disturbing sketches and watercolors of the civil rights struggle; I would like to see a timeline someday of what he was painting privately vs. what he was publishing.  Did he decide at one point that he was now willing to take the risk of going "all political"?

That painting currently hangs in the waiting area outside the Oval Office.

[images.politico.com image 605x328]

Some conservatives were upset when Obama had it placed there because they felt it was divisive, and unfairly stigmatized whites by reminding people of recent history.

I do believe that there was a Fark thread about it, and there was a lot of buthurt in that thread if I remember correctly. Or it may have been on another site.


Nope, it was here.
 
2013-07-10 05:36:19 PM
Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.
 
2013-07-10 05:36:55 PM

Corvus: Mrbogey: Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

"It's little wonder Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

You never did well in school didya?

SO you are saying Martin punched Zimmerman after he was shot? Serious what are you talking about?

Zimmerman was forcing an altercation, Martin MAYBE punched him because of it (if you believe someone still talks on their phone when they hide in bushes to punch someone and punches them still holding the phone). This is what the DEFENSE is saying.


I'll just put you in my gibbering gibberish column.

Point of fact: Travon Martin was using a blue toof device.

Do you really think Martin "maybe" punched Zimmerman?
 
2013-07-10 05:42:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: flondrix: vernonFL: [t2.gstatic.com image 286x176]

Look at the Feds, organizing marches!

A classic painting.  I wonder if it would be censored today because of the graphitti on the wall behind the little girl.

Normal Rockwell did some very disturbing sketches and watercolors of the civil rights struggle; I would like to see a timeline someday of what he was painting privately vs. what he was publishing.  Did he decide at one point that he was now willing to take the risk of going "all political"?

That painting currently hangs in the waiting area outside the Oval Office.

[images.politico.com image 605x328]

Some conservatives were upset when Obama had it placed there because they felt it was divisive, and unfairly stigmatized whites by reminding people of recent history.


This guy gets where they're coming from:

media.salon.com
 
2013-07-10 05:43:17 PM

Whiskey Pete: Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.


If he does walk, I gotta wonder if someone's going to try and take him out.
 
2013-07-10 05:43:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Generally speaking, he was paid to produce them by various publications. Being the master that he was, there were every bit as iconic as those he was paid to produce that were more "standard".

That they seem more "political' is probably more a result of the changing mindset in the country, particularly the publishers of the day than a specific decision on his part to "change direction" per se. He continued to paint great Americana all the way through. Although, as I recall, he did support civil rights.


According to Wikipedia, he quit The Saturday Evening Post because of the restrictions they placed on subject matter, and went over to Look specifically so he could paint subjects like this.
 
2013-07-10 05:50:16 PM
Pojama people. Pojama people, people. Sure do make you sleepy with the things that they say. Pojama people. Pojama people, people. Mother, Mary and Joseph! Wish they'd all go away.
 
2013-07-10 05:51:17 PM
Corvus:
Zimmerman was forcing an altercation, Martin MAYBE punched him because of it (if you believe someone still talks on their phone when they hide in bushes to punch someone and punches them still holding the phone). This is what the DEFENSE is saying.

Yes, but he was forcing an altercation with a black male, and they don't have any right to stand their ground and defend themselves against creepy weirdos who stalk them as they walk home from the store, certainly no right to defend themselves against some creepy weirdo who GETS OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASES THEM, because minorities are all on double-secret probation.    But don't you dare call people who think this way "racist", or you're the real racist.

This case is conserviot jack-off fodder because they all fantasize about getting to shoot them some attractive and successful african americans.  If Martin had been a white teenager, the current members of the Zimmerman fan club would all be howling for Zimmerman's blood and demanding that he be "sent back to Mexico in a bag".  (Yes, I know he's not from Mexico)
 
2013-07-10 05:52:49 PM

whidbey: Whiskey Pete: Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.

If he does walk, I gotta wonder if someone's going to try and take him out.


heh. I read that as If he does walk, is he going to get some take out?
 
2013-07-10 05:53:34 PM

ivan: Pojama people.


God I can't believe I had to actually Google that one. :\

That album kind of went over my head compared to others. Still, apparently.
 
2013-07-10 05:55:22 PM

shanrick: whidbey: Whiskey Pete: Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.

If he does walk, I gotta wonder if someone's going to try and take him out.

heh. I read that as If he does walk, is he going to get some take out?


He's going to wind up in tomorrow's fried rice.
 
2013-07-10 05:55:44 PM

MJMaloney187: Corvus: Mrbogey: Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

"It's little wonder Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

You never did well in school didya?

SO you are saying Martin punched Zimmerman after he was shot? Serious what are you talking about?

Zimmerman was forcing an altercation, Martin MAYBE punched him because of it (if you believe someone still talks on their phone when they hide in bushes to punch someone and punches them still holding the phone). This is what the DEFENSE is saying.

I'll just put you in my gibbering gibberish column.

Point of fact: Travon Martin was using a blue toof device.

Do you really think Martin "maybe" punched Zimmerman?

I don't know and I don't care.

Do you think if a 17 year old throws a punch at you you should be allowed to shoot them dead?
 
2013-07-10 05:56:35 PM

whidbey: Whiskey Pete: Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.

If he does walk, I gotta wonder if someone's going to try and take him out.


When  they do, I hope they invoke "Stand Your Ground".  Shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate that they were in fear for their lives - Zimmerman's killed once already.
 
2013-07-10 05:56:37 PM

flondrix: According to Wikipedia, he quit The Saturday Evening Post because of the restrictions they placed on subject matter, and went over to Look specifically so he could paint subjects like this.


Far be it for me to argue with Wikipedia :)

I suppose that is quite possible. I own and have read a handful of books on Rockwell, who, (along with N.C. Wyeth) are personal favorites. I don't recall it being characterized as a politically motivated move, but who knows. I know he did work for a variety of publishers, and painted what they needed and that he was happy to paint Americana that reflected the America of the time.

My observation was that it was less that he became "radicalized" and more that he was reflecting the shifting times in America. And being Rockwell, he reflected with some striking and powerful imagery.
 
2013-07-10 05:57:28 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.


i.imgur.com

O'RLY?

What if Zimmerman was using a Gay Panic defense that Trayvon was trying to seduce him?

Oh yeah. This could get redder. Thankfully its not.
 
2013-07-10 05:57:50 PM
Corvus: Do you think if a 17 year old throws a punch at you you should be allowed to shoot them dead?

Doesn't everyone?
 
2013-07-10 05:58:07 PM
If Zimmerman felt Martin would put his life in danger with his bare hands, why the fark would he follow him to try to cause a confrontation?
 
2013-07-10 05:59:38 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Corvus: Do you think if a 17 year old throws a punch at you you should be allowed to shoot them dead?

Doesn't everyone?


Umm no. Most people I know I don't think think we should shoot kids if they swing at you.

If you have a 17yo kid can I confront him until he throws a punch then shoot him dead?
 
2013-07-10 05:59:42 PM

Somacandra: Dusk-You-n-Me: 1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.

[i.imgur.com image 568x346]

O'RLY?

What if Zimmerman was using a Gay Panic defense that Trayvon was trying to seduce him?

Oh yeah. This could get redder. Thankfully its not.


The defense did try and float  "Martin was addicted to reefer!"
 
2013-07-10 06:01:23 PM

Corvus: If Zimmerman felt Martin would put his life in danger with his bare hands, why the fark would he follow him to try to cause a confrontation?

 
Because he had a gun.  Same reason every asshat who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun does the douche-bag things they do.  This is why the bar should be raised for concealed carry to exclude cop-wannabes and other public nuisances.
 
2013-07-10 06:01:35 PM

whidbey: ivan: Pojama people.

God I can't believe I had to actually Google that one. :\

That album kind of went over my head compared to others. Still, apparently.


I thought it was his most accessible, at least at that time. Maybe you're too discerning.

Anyway, every time I see that damn logo I get this earworm, so I thought I'd share.
 
2013-07-10 06:08:26 PM

SixOfDLoC: Corvus:
Zimmerman was forcing an altercation, Martin MAYBE punched him because of it (if you believe someone still talks on their phone when they hide in bushes to punch someone and punches them still holding the phone). This is what the DEFENSE is saying.

Yes, but he was forcing an altercation with a black male, and they don't have any right to stand their ground and defend themselves against creepy weirdos who stalk them as they walk home from the store, certainly no right to defend themselves against some creepy weirdo who GETS OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASES THEM, because minorities are all on double-secret probation.    But don't you dare call people who think this way "racist", or you're the real racist.

This case is conserviot jack-off fodder because they all fantasize about getting to shoot them some attractive and successful african americans.  If Martin had been a white teenager, the current members of the Zimmerman fan club would all be howling for Zimmerman's blood and demanding that he be "sent back to Mexico in a bag".  (Yes, I know he's not from Mexico)


Another poor soul burned by the farking censors.

This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.

If Martin had been a white teenager, as you premise, then the evidence presented thus far would lead a reasonable jury to believe that Martin was probably an a*shole. Zimmerman would walk and the white community would yawn.
 
2013-07-10 06:09:38 PM

MJMaloney187: This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.


Wow dude you sure can talk some shiat. I got a dang headache.
 
2013-07-10 06:12:17 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.


Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.
 
2013-07-10 06:13:51 PM

danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.

Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.


What exactly do you believe the Department of Justice did wrong in this instance?
 
2013-07-10 06:13:52 PM

Corvus: If Zimmerman felt Martin would put his life in danger with his bare hands, why the fark would he follow him to try to cause a confrontation?


Is there a different State v Zimmerman trial going on somewhere?
 
2013-07-10 06:14:27 PM

whidbey: Whiskey Pete: Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.

If he does walk, I gotta wonder if someone's going to try and take him out.


My guess is the Colonel will get him before anyone else does.
 
2013-07-10 06:23:01 PM

MJMaloney187: If Martin had been a white teenager, as you premise, then the evidence presented thus far would lead a reasonable jury to believe that Martin was probably an a*shole. Zimmerman would walk and the white community would yawn.


Oh, please. If Martin had been a white kid, Zimmerman never would have followed him in the first place.
 
2013-07-10 06:24:02 PM

Mike Chewbacca: MJMaloney187: If Martin had been a white teenager, as you premise, then the evidence presented thus far would lead a reasonable jury to believe that Martin was probably an a*shole. Zimmerman would walk and the white community would yawn.

Oh, please. If Martin had been a white kid, Zimmerman never would have followed him in the first place.


CAREFUL you are about to be accused to posting "gibberish" (derp) there....
 
2013-07-10 06:24:09 PM
Do you suppose the author possesses the self awareness to know what a liar he is?
 
2013-07-10 06:26:13 PM

The Larch: Do you suppose the author possesses the self awareness to know what a liar he is?


No. Look at his bio at the bottom of the page.
 
2013-07-10 06:28:57 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.

Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.

What exactly do you believe the Department of Justice did wrong in this instance?


Really? Is that a serious question? First of all, this nonsense program shouldn't even exist. But thats not obamas fault. However, the DoJ used taxpayer dollars, and used it to fund justice for trayvon rallies... you dont think the DoJ should remain neutral? Especially in such a racially charged case? Instead, they added fuel to the fire. Lets pretend a white man was killed by a black man in self defense. There would be no marches. Nobody would care. I would say dude got what he deserved. Lets play pretend though. Lets say george w bush's DoJ went there, gave a bunch of taxpayer dollars to groups who exist solely to advance white people, and got a bunch of "justice for billy-bob" rallies going. Are you going to sit there and tell me that would fly?
 
2013-07-10 06:32:05 PM

Isitoveryet: jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.

are you a wizard?


www.i-mockery.com
 
2013-07-10 06:33:22 PM

SixOfDLoC: whidbey: Whiskey Pete: Zimmerman will die from clogged arteries before the verdict is read by the looks of him.

If he does walk, I gotta wonder if someone's going to try and take him out.

When  they do, I hope they invoke "Stand Your Ground".  Shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate that they were in fear for their lives - Zimmerman's killed once already.


Don't worry, people will be coming from all around for a chance to "stand their ground" against Zimmerman, and others will be coming to Florida hoping to get a chance to "stand their ground" against the people standing their ground against Zimmerman, etc., until no one is left standing.
 
2013-07-10 06:34:17 PM

danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.

Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.

What exactly do you believe the Department of Justice did wrong in this instance?

Really? Is that a serious question? First of all, this nonsense program shouldn't even exist. But thats not obamas fault. However, the DoJ used taxpayer dollars, and used it to fund justice for trayvon rallies... you dont think the DoJ should remain neutral? Especially in such a racially charged case? Instead, they added fuel to the fire. Lets pretend a white man was killed by a black man in self defense. There would be no marches. Nobody would care. I would say dude got what he deserved. Lets play pretend though. Lets say george w bush's DoJ went there, gave a bunch of taxpayer dollars to groups who exist solely to advance white people, and got a bunch of "justice for billy-bob" rallies going. Are you going to sit there and tell me that would fly?


You are an idiot. They didn't fund any rallies and they exist to act as intermediaries in hot button situations.
 
2013-07-10 06:36:48 PM

danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.

Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.

What exactly do you believe the Department of Justice did wrong in this instance?

Really? Is that a serious question? First of all, this nonsense program shouldn't even exist. But thats not obamas fault. However, the DoJ used taxpayer dollars, and used it to fund justice for trayvon rallies... you dont think the DoJ should remain neutral? Especially in such a racially charged case? Instead, they added fuel to the fire. Lets pretend a white man was killed by a black man in self defense. There would be no marches. Nobody would care. I would say dude got what he deserved. Lets play pretend though. Lets say george w bush's DoJ went there, gave a bunch of taxpayer dollars to groups who exist solely to advance white people, and got a bunch of "justice for billy-bob" rallies going. Are you going to sit there and tell me that would fly?


Ahh so you don't actually understand what the program was or what it did.  They did not fund rallies and they remained neutral. Far from adding fuel to the fire, their entire purpose is to help defuse tense confrontations.

I am sure a rational, level headed individual like yourself will be relieved to find out that nothing improper was actually done.
 
2013-07-10 06:37:59 PM

ongbok: You are an idiot. They didn't fund any rallies and they exist to act as intermediaries in hot button situations.


It's already canon throughout the derpasphere that Obama's DOJ funded 'Justice For Trayvon' rallies. It is forever wingnut fact now.
 
2013-07-10 06:39:35 PM

vernonFL: What the DOJ "peacekeepers" look like

[cdn.breitbart.com image 475x356]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 275x183]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 266x190]


We get it, they're black. Skeery skeery.
 
2013-07-10 06:43:11 PM

Corvus: halB: Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

And who the fark attacks someone while still trying to talk to on his cell phone? That makes no sense.

I know, I'm shocked - shocked - that Trayvon was able to get in so many hits after being shot.

What the hell are you talking about. I never said that. Wow you people are amazing.

I forget he hid in the bushes planning to jump him WHILE THE ENTIRE TIME STILL TALKING ON HIS PHONE. Because I know when I plan to fight someone I STAY ON THE PHONE TALKING AS I DO IT.


Um...HELLOOOOO....SPEAKERPHONE! That's how I do it anyway.
 
2013-07-10 06:43:35 PM

jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.


zamolxismd.org

There should be riots when a kid is shot and killed and it's not proven that he did anything to deserve it.
 
2013-07-10 06:46:04 PM

Mike Chewbacca: MJMaloney187: If Martin had been a white teenager, as you premise, then the evidence presented thus far would lead a reasonable jury to believe that Martin was probably an a*shole. Zimmerman would walk and the white community would yawn.

Oh, please. If Martin had been a white kid, Zimmerman never would have followed him in the first place.


Well, let's just say Zimmerman wouldn't have been as compelled to follow a white kid. The trial evidence suggests otherwise, so we can reasonably assume Zimmerman would follow a white kid if no other facts are changed.
 
2013-07-10 06:58:33 PM

MJMaloney187: The trial evidence suggests otherwise, so we can reasonably assume Zimmerman would follow a white kid if no other facts are changed.


Bullshiat. Pretty much all your other posts.

Yeah I went there.
 
2013-07-10 07:05:16 PM
they should be swarming all over chicago and choosing sides.  there's murders there by the hundreds.
 
2013-07-10 07:11:22 PM
Is it possible that PJ Media is some sort of false-front operation, run by lefties, with the intent of convincing folks that conservatives are complete retards who haven't a f*cking clue how their own government works? Honestly, I can't think of another reason for this article's existence.
 
2013-07-10 07:14:31 PM

El_Swino: Is it possible that PJ Media is some sort of false-front operation, run by lefties, with the intent of convincing folks that conservatives are complete retards who haven't a f*cking clue how their own government works? Honestly, I can't think of another reason for this article's existence.


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-10 07:27:37 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant's presumed innocence and a dead man's presumed guilt. Link


This is why "presumed innocence" really doesn't seem like it should fit with this case.
Usually, "presumed innocence" means you presume someone didn't do something until you know they did. We know GZ shot TM, he admits it.
To carry presumption of innocence over to a self-defense plea, means you have to presume a dead person is guilty of attempted murder...

To treat it this way is to write blaming-the-victim into law.
 
2013-07-10 07:35:37 PM

Whiskey Pete: ongbok: You are an idiot. They didn't fund any rallies and they exist to act as intermediaries in hot button situations.

It's already canon throughout the derpasphere that Obama's DOJ funded 'Justice For Trayvon' rallies. It is forever wingnut fact now.


Yup.  It has already been inscribed in the Book of Rush:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/10/obama_regime_organized_ tr ayvon_protests
 
2013-07-10 07:46:10 PM

Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.

And who the fark attacks someone while still trying to talk to on his cell phone? That makes no sense.


Those Bluetooth headsets can be useful when you need both hands free.

/i keed...
 
2013-07-10 07:50:04 PM

Car_Ramrod: Dusk-You-n-Me: lockers: Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this?

1. Guns
2. Race

You couldn't grow that GOP meat any redder.

I heard Trayvon was gay and heading towards an abortion palace, right after picking up his government check with his fellow Muslims.


He was on the Devil Weed, too.
 
2013-07-10 07:50:46 PM

Garble: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant's presumed innocence and a dead man's presumed guilt. Link

This is why "presumed innocence" really doesn't seem like it should fit with this case.
Usually, "presumed innocence" means you presume someone didn't do something until you know they did. We know GZ shot TM, he admits it.
To carry presumption of innocence over to a self-defense plea, means you have to presume a dead person is guilty of attempted murder...

To treat it this way is to write blaming-the-victim into law.


Luckily the legal system disagrees with you and has hundreds of years of common law behind it.
 
2013-07-10 07:53:20 PM

danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.

Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.

What exactly do you believe the Department of Justice did wrong in this instance?

Really? Is that a serious question? First of all, this nonsense program shouldn't even exist. But thats not obamas fault. However, the DoJ used taxpayer dollars, and used it to fund justice for trayvon rallies... you dont think the DoJ should remain neutral? Especially in such a racially charged case? Instead, they added fuel to the fire. Lets pretend a white man was killed by a black man in self defense. There would be no marches. Nobody would care. I would say dude got what he deserved. Lets play pretend though. Lets say george w bush's DoJ went there, gave a bunch of taxpayer dollars to groups who exist solely to advance white people, and got a bunch of "justice for billy-bob" rallies going. Are you going to sit there and tell me that would fly?


So the Justice Department shouldn't have a program to stop violence before it happens?
Where in the article can you show me that the DOJ funded Justice for Trayvon Rallies?
 
2013-07-10 08:00:10 PM

spongeboob: danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Philip Francis Queeg: danwinkler: Came to see partisan shills defending their puppetmaster against anything. I am not disappointed. However, i expected something like a quarter of you to have some intellectual honesty and some sort of a conscience. You let me down there, state worshippers.

Pleas explain exactly what you think Obama did wrong in this instance.

Its his justice department. When the bush DoJ did messed up shiat, you guys held Bush accountable, and rightfully so. For obama, its like only things he plans, pays for out of pocket, and executes with his own two hands can ever be his fault. Just hold him to the same standards as presidents past. You know, when the buck stopped at the top.

What exactly do you believe the Department of Justice did wrong in this instance?

Really? Is that a serious question? First of all, this nonsense program shouldn't even exist. But thats not obamas fault. However, the DoJ used taxpayer dollars, and used it to fund justice for trayvon rallies... you dont think the DoJ should remain neutral? Especially in such a racially charged case? Instead, they added fuel to the fire. Lets pretend a white man was killed by a black man in self defense. There would be no marches. Nobody would care. I would say dude got what he deserved. Lets play pretend though. Lets say george w bush's DoJ went there, gave a bunch of taxpayer dollars to groups who exist solely to advance white people, and got a bunch of "justice for billy-bob" rallies going. Are you going to sit there and tell me that would fly?

So the Justice Department shouldn't have a program to stop violence before it happens?
Where in the article can you show me that the DOJ funded Justice for Trayvon Rallies?


They never came out and said it because the documents they acquired through the FOIA don't say that, they just insinuated that they did because DOJ employees went to areas where there were rallies happening and spent money. So the mouth breathers will see that DOJ employees, who's job it is is to prevent violence sprouting up in hotspots, went to an area where there was a rally and spent money, and jump to the conclusion that they spent that money funding the rally.
 
2013-07-10 08:24:15 PM

ongbok: They never came out and said it because the documents they acquired through the FOIA don't say that, they just insinuated that they did because DOJ employees went to areas where there were rallies happening and spent money. So the mouth breathers will see that DOJ employees, who's job it is is to prevent violence sprouting up in hotspots, went to an area where there was a rally and spent money, and jump to the conclusion that they spent that money funding the rally.


Not only jump to that conclusion it will be accepted as fact and if you don't agree with it you are of course a blind liberal or a lying liberal.

/probably being a liberal means you are both blind and willful a liar.
 
2013-07-10 08:25:49 PM
It is so nice seeing the Federal Government being run by a Chicago ward boss. I imagine the IRS will now be auditing Zimmerman, totally at random.
 
2013-07-10 08:41:51 PM
Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.
 
2013-07-10 08:56:25 PM

Mrbogey: Garble: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant's presumed innocence and a dead man's presumed guilt. Link
This is why "presumed innocence" really doesn't seem like it should fit with this case.
Usually, "presumed innocence" means you presume someone didn't do something until you know they did. We know GZ shot TM, he admits it.
To carry presumption of innocence over to a self-defense plea, means you have to presume a dead person is guilty of attempted murder...
To treat it this way is to write blaming-the-victim into law.

Luckily the legal system disagrees with you and has hundreds of years of common law behind it.


Okay. Non-specified, call-to-authority aside, could you explain why I'm wrong in saying that in order to presume GZ's innocence in this case, you have to presume TM's guilt?
Are the dead intrinsically less entitled to presumption of innocence?
 
2013-07-10 08:56:55 PM

Mrbogey: whidbey: Bullshiat. And attacking me personally only shows you have nothing to show for yourself.

I'm making fun of you because you said something dumb. I'm not making fun of you to discredit what you said. That it's in direct conflict with the established facts of the case is enough to discredit you.


Yeah, give it up whidbey, Mrbodey is purely an insult machine. You're not going to get anything out of him that is not an insult to someone or some thing.
 
2013-07-10 08:57:35 PM

spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.


Got any links from the last 80 years?
 
2013-07-10 09:01:57 PM

Garble: Mrbogey: Garble: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant's presumed innocence and a dead man's presumed guilt. Link
This is why "presumed innocence" really doesn't seem like it should fit with this case.
Usually, "presumed innocence" means you presume someone didn't do something until you know they did. We know GZ shot TM, he admits it.
To carry presumption of innocence over to a self-defense plea, means you have to presume a dead person is guilty of attempted murder...
To treat it this way is to write blaming-the-victim into law.

Luckily the legal system disagrees with you and has hundreds of years of common law behind it.

Okay. Non-specified, call-to-authority aside, could you explain why I'm wrong in saying that in order to presume GZ's innocence in this case, you have to presume TM's guilt?
Are the dead intrinsically less entitled to presumption of innocence?


From the actual zimmerman thread:
The only thing that disproves self defense under Florida law is actual or circumstantial evidence sufficient to say that it could not possibly have happened as Zimmerman has stated.

The prosecution would just have to have any evidence that zimmerman's account of events couldn't have happened. Unfortunately for the state there are eye witnesses,  expert testimony and physical evidence that corroborate parts of Zimmerman's story making his explanation of what happened reasonable.
 
2013-07-10 09:06:20 PM
You've gotta admit Jame O'Keefe's makeup guys are getting better and better. Even the costumes look more authentic.

t0.gstatic.com encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-10 09:17:03 PM

Carth: spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.

Got any links from the last 80 years?


How long ago was 1986 1982 or 1989
 
2013-07-10 09:29:25 PM

spongeboob: Carth: spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.

Got any links from the last 80 years?

How long ago was 1986 1982 or 1989


Much better examples thank you. I think they would better be described as lynch mobs or hate crimes than race riots  but they are better examples than things that happened a few decades before anyone  posting here was alive.
 
2013-07-10 09:33:47 PM
Troll much subby?
 
2013-07-10 09:38:58 PM

Carth: spongeboob: Carth: spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.

Got any links from the last 80 years?

How long ago was 1986 1982 or 1989

Much better examples thank you. I think they would better be described as lynch mobs or hate crimes than race riots  but they are better examples than things that happened a few decades before anyone  posting here was alive.


Those are very good examples of hate crimes (maybe). So let me ask you this: What do you think would be justice for the whites who committed these savage hate-motivated crimes?
 
2013-07-10 09:52:15 PM

MJMaloney187: Carth: spongeboob: Carth: spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.

Got any links from the last 80 years?

How long ago was 1986 1982 or 1989

Much better examples thank you. I think they would better be described as lynch mobs or hate crimes than race riots  but they are better examples than things that happened a few decades before anyone  posting here was alive.

Those are very good examples of hate crimes (maybe). So let me ask you this: What do you think would be justice for the whites who committed these savage hate-motivated crimes?


Uh, what you just posted wasn't a hate related crime. The investigators that handled the case all said that everything pointed to it being non hate related and a random act of violence.

They didn't carjack and mutilate these people because they were out to kill white people, they did it because they wanted to steal a car and they were some sick farks. this is what the investigation found. That isn't a race related crime. But of course you believe that everybody is lying and covering up the truth, don't you?

The crowd in Bensonhurst beat and killed Yusef Hawkins because he was black and they thought he was dating a white girl in the neighborhood. That is a race related crime.
 
2013-07-10 10:17:44 PM
Now it looks like the whole DOJ site is down.
 
2013-07-10 10:25:17 PM

ongbok: MJMaloney187: Carth: spongeboob: Carth: spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.

Got any links from the last 80 years?

How long ago was 1986 1982 or 1989

Much better examples thank you. I think they would better be described as lynch mobs or hate crimes than race riots  but they are better examples than things that happened a few decades before anyone  posting here was alive.

Those are very good examples of hate crimes (maybe). So let me ask you this: What do you think would be justice for the whites who committed these savage hate-motivated crimes?

Uh, what you just posted wasn't a hate related crime. The investigators that handled the case all said that everything pointed to it being non hate related and a random act of violence.

They didn't carjack and mutilate these people because they were out to kill white people, they did it because they wanted to steal a car and they were some sick farks. this is what the investigation found. That isn't a race related crime. But of course you believe that everybody is lying and covering up the truth, don't you?

The crowd in Bensonhurst beat and killed Yusef Hawkins because he was black and they thought he was dating a white girl in the neighborhood. That is a race related crime.


If a man hates his ex-wife and kills her, is he charged with a hate crime? Probably not.

If white people twittered threats against Cobbins, organized mobs to draw and quarter Thomas or actually killed-by-mob-action Davidson, then I believe you would consider these race related crimes.

I believe that certain groups in the United States are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law.
 
2013-07-10 10:46:21 PM

MJMaloney187: ongbok: MJMaloney187: Carth: spongeboob: Carth: spongeboob: Of course if Zimmerman was black and was acquitted there is no way that white people would riot, not sure why rioting before the trial is better though.

Got any links from the last 80 years?

How long ago was 1986 1982 or 1989

Much better examples thank you. I think they would better be described as lynch mobs or hate crimes than race riots  but they are better examples than things that happened a few decades before anyone  posting here was alive.

Those are very good examples of hate crimes (maybe). So let me ask you this: What do you think would be justice for the whites who committed these savage hate-motivated crimes?

Uh, what you just posted wasn't a hate related crime. The investigators that handled the case all said that everything pointed to it being non hate related and a random act of violence.

They didn't carjack and mutilate these people because they were out to kill white people, they did it because they wanted to steal a car and they were some sick farks. this is what the investigation found. That isn't a race related crime. But of course you believe that everybody is lying and covering up the truth, don't you?

The crowd in Bensonhurst beat and killed Yusef Hawkins because he was black and they thought he was dating a white girl in the neighborhood. That is a race related crime.

If a man hates his ex-wife and kills her, is he charged with a hate crime? Probably not.

If white people twittered threats against Cobbins, organized mobs to draw and quarter Thomas or actually killed-by-mob-action Davidson, then I believe you would consider these race related crimes.

I believe that certain groups in the United States are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law.


Here is the definition of a hate crime

Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

In order to get that enhancement there has to be proof that the crime was motivated by one of those factors. And usually in these cases the proof of one of those factors being involved comes from either one of the assailants admitting that it was a reason or something they said during or before the crime and was witnessed by a third party.

The only one of those that you linked that may have been a hate crime is the saxophone playing girl, but unfortunately it seems nobody was there to corroborate what was said. In the other ones it doesn't seem the the victim or a witness ever mentioned hearing anything racial being said, nor did the perpetrators ever claim that any of the factors to get a hate crime were a motivating factor.
 
2013-07-10 11:09:56 PM

El_Swino: Is it possible that PJ Media is some sort of false-front operation, run by lefties, with the intent of convincing folks that conservatives are complete retards who haven't a f*cking clue how their own government works? Honestly, I can't think of another reason for this article's existence.


Sure, because it's highly improbable there would be a large group of conservatives who are complete retards without a f*cking clue how their own government works. It's much more likely that impression only exists because of "noise in the machine" introduced by false-flag lefties.

Sure.
 
2013-07-11 12:00:01 AM
Because fark you racist junior-crime-fighter assholes like Zimmerman, that's why.
 
2013-07-11 12:00:52 AM
There is nothing that says "Dumbass" more than a White Guilt Liberal whining "Justice for Trayvon".

Obviously the kid tried to play Polar Bear Hunt on Zimmerman...and lost

If Trayvon Martin was white there would have been no charges
 
2013-07-11 12:13:48 AM
They want me to believe that Trayvon sought out Zimmerman to beat the fark out of him while talking on the phone with mommy? Is this real?
 
2013-07-11 12:55:07 AM

FloridaFarkTag: There is nothing that says "Dumbass" more than a White Guilt Liberal whining "Justice for Trayvon".

Obviously the kid tried to play Polar Bear Hunt on Zimmerman...and lost

If Trayvon Martin was white there would have been no charges


Pardon me as I point at you and laugh. Every word you've written here is wrong, including "a," "and," and "the."
 
2013-07-11 12:59:04 AM

lockers: Why does anyone have a hard on for some loser who shot and killed an unarmed kid who's only suspicious action was walking down a public street? Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this? Are they just desperate to prove their racist narrative?


You skipped a few steps there idiot.  I don't really know Zimmerman or Martin's state of mind in the few minutes before the shooting, and I am curious how things really happend on a few details.  It could have been that Martin backtracked a bit, confronted Zimmerman and initiated the physical altercation.  If that is true, I don't have a problem with the shooting.

Zimmerman may have been a loser, but there are good people in this world that truly care about crime in their community.  The police may care, but they have more immediate concerns than solving break ins.
 
2013-07-11 01:21:49 AM

hasty ambush: Chicago


DRINK!

hasty ambush: IRS


DRINK!!!
 
2013-07-11 01:30:50 AM

knbwhite: Zimmerman may have been a loser, but there are good people in this world that truly care about crime in their community.


Except they don't go out and play vigilante.
 
2013-07-11 01:45:57 AM

Peter von Nostrand: The article is filled with conjecture and opinion from the Judicial Watch. Sounds legit

As well:

Bryan PrestonBryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.


aka Gigantic Republican Asshole
 
2013-07-11 01:47:25 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: bromah: so what is the original purpose of this little know unit?  Is it's job to help minority groups or something?  Does it help coordinate any protest?

For more than 45 years, CRS has been asked to provide its experienced mediators to help local communities resolve conflicts and disturbances relating to race, color, or national origin. Each year CRS' highly skilled conciliators bring hundreds of community-wide conflicts to peaceful closure across America and its territories.

CRS lends its services when requested or accepted by the parties. The Service uses impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures to help local leaders resolve problems and restore stability. CRS has no law enforcement authority and does not impose solutions, investigate, prosecute, or assign blame and fault. All CRS mediators are required by law to conduct their activities in confidence, without publicity, and are prohibited from disclosing confidential information. Link


What kinda commie shiat is that?
 
2013-07-11 01:51:43 AM

Corvus: I don't get why people think Zimmerman gets to defend himself, by shooting someone but Martin isn't allowed to defend himself by punching someone.


Did you not get the part that Martin is black, and Zimmerman is not-black? QED. I thought that was pretty clear.
 
2013-07-11 01:57:35 AM

knbwhite: lockers: Why does anyone have a hard on for some loser who shot and killed an unarmed kid who's only suspicious action was walking down a public street? Seriously, why are the wing nuts so worked up about this? Are they just desperate to prove their racist narrative?

You skipped a few steps there idiot.  I don't really know Zimmerman or Martin's state of mind in the few minutes before the shooting, and I am curious how things really happend on a few details.  It could have been that Martin backtracked a bit, confronted Zimmerman and initiated the physical altercation.  If that is true, I don't have a problem with the shooting.

Zimmerman may have been a loser, but there are good people in this world that truly care about crime in their community.  The police may care, but they have more immediate concerns than solving break ins.


The problem is that Zimmerman escalated the situation by chasing Trayvon down, creating a situation where both men felt their lives were in danger.  Had he simply followed the advice of the 911 operator, Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would still be a free man.  Instead, Zimmerman tried to be a hero and quickly found himself outmatched, and here we are.
 
2013-07-11 01:58:42 AM
SO ANOTHER LIE RIGHT THERE IN THE POLITICS TAB. PROUD, DREW?
 
2013-07-11 02:44:24 AM

I_Am_Weasel: PJ Media...I wonder if one should click.

-ellipsis-

Why yes, yes one should.  If only to read the comment section.


F--k no, I'm smarter than that.

I read an article today that said, paraphrasing:

Even if it doesn't matter in the verdict, isn't it f--ked up that Zimmerman never even considered that Martin was someone who belonged (temporarily or otherwise) to the community he protected?  That he just assumed this kid was one of the thugs who always got away, never even considering this "thug" might be threatened by the same folks Zimmerman was worried about?

Then it went into "do (especially young) black men ever have the right to defend themselves" which was roundly depressing.
 
2013-07-11 02:45:25 AM

zerkalo: SO ANOTHER LIE RIGHT THERE IN THE POLITICS TAB. PROUD, DREW?


You clicked and commented.

So probably yes.
 
2013-07-11 02:50:13 AM

knbwhite: It could have been that Martin backtracked a bit, confronted Zimmerman and initiated the physical altercation.  If that is true, I don't have a problem with the shooting.


Really?

I can see you believing Zimmerman was justified, under the circumstances.  I don't agree with it, but I can see it.

But HONESTLY, other than dead men tell no tales, HOW was Martin not "standing his ground" at that point?  Where he was doing nothing wrong but had someone trailing him through dark lit areas?  You really don't have even the slightest bit of problem that an unarmed kid was shot and killed while walking through a neighborhood?  F--k you, then.  I can buy people who argue that in the heat of the confused moment, it was justified.  I don't agree, but I can understand the argument.  I don't understand on any level those who have no problem with the shooting whatsoever.
 
2013-07-11 03:00:39 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: zerkalo: SO ANOTHER LIE RIGHT THERE IN THE POLITICS TAB. PROUD, DREW?

You clicked and commented.

So probably yes.


Well. Commented in the thread. I left the bullshiat jizz-crusty pajamas media link unclicked, as is the custom.
 
2013-07-11 06:10:13 AM

zerkalo: StreetlightInTheGhetto: zerkalo: SO ANOTHER LIE RIGHT THERE IN THE POLITICS TAB. PROUD, DREW?

You clicked and commented.

So probably yes.

Well. Commented in the thread. I left the bullshiat jizz-crusty pajamas media link unclicked, as is the custom.


Do you shake your tiny fist at all the trolling ads our Fark Gods keep on hand for great lulz as well? Dude, don't even pretend to deny that Drew has been trolling the fark out of this place, and his minions, for well over a decade now.
 
2013-07-11 06:42:55 AM
Zimmerman strikes me as a fat, little loser, who got picked on when he was a kid... So he buys a gun, tries and fails to become a cop, and ends up a "neighborhood watchman". Little man with a gun in his hand...
 
2013-07-11 06:45:57 AM

keylock71: Zimmerman strikes me as a fat, little loser, who got picked on when he was a kid... So he buys a gun, tries and fails to become a cop, and ends up a "neighborhood watchman". Little man with a gun in his hand...


So much this. And following a young black guy around when you have no business doing so is inviting an ass-beating. This pathetic little queef needs to rot in prison.
 
2013-07-11 07:35:23 AM
"Hey who wrote Ni*ger on this painting ?"

images.politico.com
 
2013-07-11 07:40:59 AM

keylock71: Zimmerman strikes me as a fat, little loser, who got picked on when he was a kid... So he buys a gun, tries and fails to become a cop, and ends up a "neighborhood watchman". Little man with a gun in his hand...


Little man with a blog and a lying fark headline in his hand
 
2013-07-11 07:45:43 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: "Hey who wrote Ni*ger on this painting ?"

[images.politico.com image 605x328]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA H AHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*GASP*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*OMG !!*HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Retardlican "humor".
 
2013-07-11 08:06:51 AM

Isitoveryet: jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.

are you a wizard?


No, he's just taking some people at their word.  Whether they actually follow through or not remains to be seen.

Well, I guess we'll know in a few days either way though, won't we?  Would you like me to bookmark this in case there are actually some riots, so that I can point out how your snark was wrong?
 
2013-07-11 08:09:10 AM
Mentat:
The problem is that Zimmerman escalated the situation by chasing Trayvon down, creating a situation where both men felt their lives were in danger.  Had he simply followed the advice of the 911 operator, Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would still be a free man.  Instead, Zimmerman tried to be a hero and quickly found himself outmatched, and here we are.

This. What kind of idiot gets out of his safe vehicle and follows what he assumes to be a dangerous criminal while having no backup, no training, and poor visibility? I really wish they managed to kill each other that night. Gets rid of short tempers and bad judgement all around.
 
2013-07-11 08:29:28 AM

dittybopper: Isitoveryet: jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.

are you a wizard?

No, he's just taking some people at their word.  Whether they actually follow through or not remains to be seen.

Well, I guess we'll know in a few days either way though, won't we?  Would you like me to bookmark this in case there are actually some riots, so that I can point out how your snark was wrong?


If we had a riot every time a kid was shot then maybe the authorities would actually care about inner city crime rates ...but that would also task them with explaining why their anti-gun and anti-drug policies are failing so miserably.

The only reason there's even a chance of a riot is because politicians were race baiting the situation for political gain.   Anyone who's watched a moment of the trial should have figured there's enough reasonable doubt for the court to rule either way. They'd know this wasn't a race based verdict.

Someone who goes so far as to throw a bottle after that is either ignorant of the facts or not doing so on account of Travon's death.

/There is still a great deal of racial tension in the US.
/Some folks will use any incident as a justification for unreasonable behavior.
 
2013-07-11 08:45:36 AM

dittybopper: Isitoveryet: jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.

are you a wizard?

No, he's just taking some people at their word.  Whether they actually follow through or not remains to be seen.

Well, I guess we'll know in a few days either way though, won't we?  Would you like me to bookmark this in case there are actually some riots, so that I can point out how your snark was wrong?


Yeah, like you,  I'm also worried that the radical gun lovers aren't going to take it will if Zimmerman is convicted. They seem very emotionally invested in this case.
 
2013-07-11 08:49:42 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: Isitoveryet: jehovahs witness protection: There WILL be riots when GZ is found not guilty. Mark my words.

are you a wizard?

No, he's just taking some people at their word.  Whether they actually follow through or not remains to be seen.

Well, I guess we'll know in a few days either way though, won't we?  Would you like me to bookmark this in case there are actually some riots, so that I can point out how your snark was wrong?

Yeah, like you,  I'm also worried that the radical gun lovers aren't going to take it will if Zimmerman is convicted. They seem very emotionally invested in this case.


"Well" not "will".
 
2013-07-11 09:24:23 AM

keylock71: Zimmerman strikes me as a fat, little loser, who got picked on when he was a kid... So he buys a gun, tries and fails to become a cop, and ends up a "neighborhood watchman". Little man with a gun in his hand...


Yes -- why do you think so many batshiat crazy right-wingers on Fark sympathize with him?
 
2013-07-11 09:29:22 AM

Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.


If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.
 
2013-07-11 09:32:56 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.


Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?
 
2013-07-11 10:05:08 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.


Except that's not the case. The CRS acts as moderators, they themselves demanded nothing, The "mob" wanted charges, the CRS served as an intermediary in an attempt to prevent violence. They've done this for years, have been involved in thousands of cases since the 60's. Look up some of their cases, they do a lot of good work without getting credit.
 
2013-07-11 10:05:28 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.

Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?




Its a common response when a community feels threatened and isn't getting relief from the authorities.
There were crimes happening and the residents were trying to help prevent them by patrolling area.

Neighborhood watch doesn't mean offering yourself up as a punching bag to any passer by.
 
2013-07-11 10:08:14 AM

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.

Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?

Its a common response when a community feels threatened and isn't getting relief from the authorities.
There were crimes happening and the residents were trying to help prevent them by patrolling area.

Neighborhood watch doesn't mean offering yourself up as a punching bag to any passer by.


Neighborhood WATCH also doesn't mean armed vigilantes.
 
2013-07-11 10:17:04 AM

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.

Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?

Its a common response when a community feels threatened and isn't getting relief from the authorities.
There were crimes happening and the residents were trying to help prevent them by patrolling area.

Neighborhood watch doesn't mean offering yourself up as a punching bag to any passer by.


But if you run around the neighborhood playing vigilante and then shoot to death a 17-year-old who isn't a criminal, you assume this risk of going to prsion for at least voluntary manslaughter unless you can prove that the innocent person you killed was actually the aggressor and you reasonably feared for your life. The affirmative defense of self defense puts the burden of proof on the defendant. You don't get to initiate a violent confrontation, then pull out your gun when you start to lose, and call it self defense.
 
2013-07-11 10:22:08 AM

MagicianNamedGob: You don't get to initiate a violent confrontation, then pull out your gun when you start to lose, and call it self defense.


And this is exactly what happened.
 
2013-07-11 10:24:58 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.

Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?

Its a common response when a community feels threatened and isn't getting relief from the authorities.
There were crimes happening and the residents were trying to help prevent them by patrolling area.

Neighborhood watch doesn't mean offering yourself up as a punching bag to any passer by.

Neighborhood WATCH also doesn't mean armed vigilantes.




Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.
 
2013-07-11 10:31:40 AM
What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.
Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

And NO ONE, including you, knows that this was the case.
 
2013-07-11 10:33:55 AM

Whiskey Pete: The evidence shows


ahh ahhahahahahhhahahahahahhhh
 
2013-07-11 10:35:27 AM

Jackson Herring: Whiskey Pete: The evidence shows

ahh ahhahahahahhhahahahahahhhh


I was quoting what's his face up there, BTW.
 
2013-07-11 10:42:56 AM

way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.


No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened.  It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon.  Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon?  Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?
 
2013-07-11 10:50:10 AM

Mentat: Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon? Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?


Because shooting a scary black kid is an NRAtards wet, sticky dream. That's why.
 
2013-07-11 10:54:11 AM

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.

Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?

Its a common response when a community feels threatened and isn't getting relief from the authorities.
There were crimes happening and the residents were trying to help prevent them by patrolling area.

Neighborhood watch doesn't mean offering yourself up as a punching bag to any passer by.

Neighborhood WATCH also doesn't mean armed vigilantes.

Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.


You know what else is legal? Walking to the store to buy skittles and an iced tea.
 
2013-07-11 11:02:16 AM

MJMaloney187: SixOfDLoC: Corvus:
Zimmerman was forcing an altercation, Martin MAYBE punched him because of it (if you believe someone still talks on their phone when they hide in bushes to punch someone and punches them still holding the phone). This is what the DEFENSE is saying.

Yes, but he was forcing an altercation with a black male, and they don't have any right to stand their ground and defend themselves against creepy weirdos who stalk them as they walk home from the store, certainly no right to defend themselves against some creepy weirdo who GETS OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASES THEM, because minorities are all on double-secret probation.    But don't you dare call people who think this way "racist", or you're the real racist.

This case is conserviot jack-off fodder because they all fantasize about getting to shoot them some attractive and successful african americans.  If Martin had been a white teenager, the current members of the Zimmerman fan club would all be howling for Zimmerman's blood and demanding that he be "sent back to Mexico in a bag".  (Yes, I know he's not from Mexico)

Another poor soul burned by the farking censors.

Burned by the censors?  No.  I used that phrase because everyone here already knows what it's a substitute for.

This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.
Sure it is.  And your response demonstrates exactly why.  It gives you your chance to perpetuate some horseshiat about how white people are the real victims of racism, all the while celebrating the murder of some unarmed 17 year old kid by one of your fellow authoritarian cosplayers.
 
2013-07-11 11:15:39 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.


Shouldn't you be back on Stormfront posting about how dangerous black people are?
 
2013-07-11 11:15:59 AM

Mentat: way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened.  It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon.  Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon?  Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?




If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.
 
2013-07-11 11:17:59 AM

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike Chewbacca: Is this the next Benghazi? This is the next Benghazi, isn't it? Gods, these people are grasping at straws. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for. Trying to keep the peace and prevent race riots isn't one of them.

If by "trying to keep the peace", you mean offering up an innocent person who was forced to defend himself to an angry mob, despite the fact that local officials saw no wrongdoing, then yeah, that's totally keeping the peace.

Who forced Zimmerman to run around his neighborhood looking for teenagers to harass?



Its a common response when a community feels threatened and isn't getting relief from the authorities.
There were crimes happening and the residents were trying to help prevent them by patrolling area.

Neighborhood watch doesn't mean offering yourself up as a punching bag to any passer by.


If by residents you mean one guy who volunteered because he had dreams of being a cop yet couldn't even hack it as security then that's correct.
 
2013-07-11 11:20:00 AM

way south: Mentat: way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened.  It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon.  Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon?  Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?

If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.


If Zimmerman felt so threatened by the sight of this teenager walking through the neighborhood that he felt compelled to call 911, why didn't he run rather than follow him and confront him?
 
2013-07-11 11:26:43 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Mentat: way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened.  It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon.  Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon?  Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?

If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.

If Zimmerman felt so threatened by the sight of this teenager walking through the neighborhood that he felt compelled to call 911, why didn't he run rather than follow him and confront him?


Or just stayed in his truck and waited for the cops to come as he was advised to do.
 
2013-07-11 11:40:06 AM
SixOfDLoC:

This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.

Sure it is.  And your response demonstrates exactly why.  It gives you your chance to perpetuate some horseshiat about how white people are the real victims of racism, all the while celebrating the murder of some unarmed 17 year old kid by one of your fellow authoritarian cosplayers.


I don't perpetuate anything. And I wouldn't (and don't) celebrate the murder of kids (or anyone).
 
2013-07-11 11:58:20 AM

MJMaloney187: SixOfDLoC:

This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.

Sure it is.  And your response demonstrates exactly why.  It gives you your chance to perpetuate some horseshiat about how white people are the real victims of racism, all the while celebrating the murder of some unarmed 17 year old kid by one of your fellow authoritarian cosplayers.

I don't perpetuate anything. And I wouldn't (and don't) celebrate the murder of kids (or anyone).


You are citing a random loon's youtube rantings as justification for your tiny-weened DERP? Yeah, get bent.
 
2013-07-11 12:16:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Mentat: way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.
The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened.  It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon.  Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon?  Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?

If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.

If Zimmerman felt so threatened by the sight of this teenager walking through the neighborhood that he felt compelled to call 911, why didn't he run rather than follow him and confront him?




Its likely George didn't feel "threatened" until he was hit, or he would have approached with his gun drawn (like any trigger happy wannabe cop would).
This is opposed to Trayvon, who felt so "threatened" he had to throw punches, mount his aggressor, and throw more punches.

Shouting questions at strangers will usually get you insulted by them.
Punching strangers is an act likely to get you killed.

The evidence shows Trayvon actions were the more unreasonable ones. The ones more likely to result in violence. Zimmerman had no reason to expect an assault from talking to someone walking through his watch area. He had the right to protect himself from injury.

Talking to people in your zone is part of what the watch is supposed to do. Getting punched, in response, isn't.
 
2013-07-11 12:23:09 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I'm pretty sure they were sent to Trayvon Martin's area to keep black people from rioting.


These people want blacks to riot. They are praying for it.


They want to do exactly what Zimmerman did and kill them some black people without remorse.
 
2013-07-11 12:25:52 PM

way south: Its likely George didn't feel "threatened" until he was hit, or he would have approached with his gun drawn (like any trigger happy wannabe cop would).
This is opposed to Trayvon, who felt so "threatened" he had to throw punches, mount his aggressor, and throw more punches.

Shouting questions at strangers will usually get you insulted by them.
Punching strangers is an act likely to get you killed.

The evidence shows Trayvon actions were the more unreasonable ones. The ones more likely to result in violence. Zimmerman had no reason to expect an assault from talking to someone walking through his watch area. He had the right to protect himself from injury.

Talking to people in your zone is part of what the watch is supposed to do. Getting punched, in response, isn't.


Wow, that's a whole heap of speculation on your part.

Since you claim this is all proven by "evidence":

What precise words did Zimmerman say to Martin?

Where exactly on Zimmerman's body did Martin throw the first punch?

Was it a left or a right?

Where were Zimmerman's hands when Martin attacked him?

Had Zimmerman made any physical contact with Martin prior to the claimed first punch?
 
2013-07-11 12:30:31 PM

Mrbogey: Why do you want to see an innocent man be imprisoned?


I thought we were talking about George Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-11 12:37:07 PM

way south: If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.


Trayvon felt threatened.  He ran.  Zimmerman chased him down.  What was Trayvon supposed to do then?  What if he saw the gun and thought his life was in danger?  And why is it that Trayvon no longer gets to claim self-defense since he got the upper hand?  Was he supposed to let Zimmerman throw the first punch?  He confronted Zimmerman twice and Zimmerman kept chasing him down.  At what point is Trayvon justified in defending himself?

And I'm implying nothing.  I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.
 
2013-07-11 12:40:33 PM

Mentat: And I'm implying nothing. I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.


Didn't you read his post? It was officer Pudgy's sworn duty as a "neighborhood watch" um..whatever to question strangers on their business. If he didn't get the answer he wanted he was allowed to go all Rambo on them! Yeesh, man. Keep up.
 
2013-07-11 12:43:11 PM

Mentat: way south: If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.

Trayvon felt threatened.  He ran.  Zimmerman chased him down.  What was Trayvon supposed to do then?  What if he saw the gun and thought his life was in danger?  And why is it that Trayvon no longer gets to claim self-defense since he got the upper hand?  Was he supposed to let Zimmerman throw the first punch?  He confronted Zimmerman twice and Zimmerman kept chasing him down.  At what point is Trayvon justified in defending himself?

And I'm implying nothing.  I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.


That's an interesting contention ... one that is widely shared in 3rd world countries.
 
2013-07-11 12:47:11 PM

Mentat: way south: If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.
The law doesn't see it that way.

Trayvon felt threatened.  He ran.  Zimmerman chased him down.  What was Trayvon supposed to do then?  What if he saw the gun and thought his life was in danger?  And why is it that Trayvon no longer gets to claim self-defense since he got the upper hand?  Was he supposed to let Zimmerman throw the first punch?  He confronted Zimmerman twice and Zimmerman kept chasing him down.  At what point is Trayvon justified in defending himself?

And I'm implying nothing.  I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.



Martin had 3-4 minutes to walk 350 feet to his father's house. he is either the slowest runner in the world or he doubled back to ask why Zimmerman was following him.

You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

The police told the local neighborhood watch, and testified during trial, that following suspicious people and reporting their activity is what they should do. In fact the exact processes apprehended a bugler in the neighborhood in the past.
 
2013-07-11 12:47:45 PM

MJMaloney187: That's an interesting contention ... one that is widely shared in 3rd world countries.


They stay in their cars like they were told to in third world countries?
 
2013-07-11 12:49:51 PM

way south: Its likely George didn't feel "threatened" until he was hit, or he would have approached with his gun drawn (like any trigger happy wannabe cop would).
This is opposed to Trayvon, who felt so "threatened" he had to throw punches, mount his aggressor, and throw more punches.

Shouting questions at strangers will usually get you insulted by them.
Punching strangers is an act likely to get you killed.

The evidence shows Trayvon actions were the more unreasonable ones. The ones more likely to result in violence. Zimmerman had no reason to expect an assault from talking to someone walking through his watch area. He had the right to protect himself from injury.

Talking to people in your zone is part of what the watch is supposed to do. Getting punched, in response, isn't.


The scenario you've created has no basis in reality.  You act like Zimmerman yelled "Hey you!" and Trayon started beating him.  That's not what happened.

Trayvon was minding his own business.  He noticed a strange guy in a car following him.  He confronted Zimmerman and Zimmerman refused to identify himself, so Trayvon ran.  Zimmerman, ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, followed Trayvon.  Trayvon confronted him again and again ZImmerman refused to identify himself.  Trayvon started throwing punches, Zimmerman got scared and killed Trayvon.  It was Zimmerman who provoked the fight by escalating the situation.
 
2013-07-11 12:53:17 PM

Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.


Really?  So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away?  How does that work?
 
2013-07-11 01:18:54 PM

Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really?  So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away?  How does that work?


If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.
 
2013-07-11 01:25:14 PM

Carth: If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to ma

Carth: Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really?  So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away?  How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.


You're a moran.
 
2013-07-11 01:27:48 PM
Responding to threat with punch: BAD!
Responding to threat with gun: 'MURICA!
 
2013-07-11 01:29:56 PM

Whiskey Pete: Carth: If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to maCarth: Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really?  So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away?  How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.

You're a moran.


If I missed important evidence from the trial all you had to do was say what instead of resorting to insults.
 
2013-07-11 01:47:57 PM

Carth: If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.


You realize that the entire point of "stand your ground" laws is that you don't have any obligation to retreat, call the police, etc.?
 
2013-07-11 01:52:20 PM

HeartBurnKid: Carth: If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

You realize that the entire point of "stand your ground" laws is that you don't have any obligation to retreat, call the police, etc.?


You realize Zimmerman waived his right to be tried under Stand Your Ground laws right?

But just for fun lets look at the SYG law in FL:

Even following that law unless the person following you is breaking some other law (trespassing,  you can't assault them. You are allowed to "meet force with force" without duty to retreat.
 
2013-07-11 02:06:31 PM

Carth: Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really?  So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away?  How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.


There's undisputed evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range. There's also undisputed evidence that he followed Martin even after being told not to by the police, and that he voluntarily left his vehicle to confront Martin. So he started a confrontation and ended it with his gun. What happened in between is in dispute. But you can't imagine the best possible scenario for Zimmerman and say it's the truth unless the state proves otherwise. The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is on the defendant. Zimmerman has to offer evidence that he was not only struck by Martin, but that Martin was the initial aggressor (because under Florida law and virtually every other state, self-defense is not available to the aggressor). Where is that evidence???

Martin hit Zimmerman. Yes, for sure. Granted. But where is the evidence that Martin made the first physical contact, or agressive move? Why would you assume that the man walking back from a snack run who has never killed or severly injured anyone is going to attempt to beat someone to death just for following him, and without somehow being hit, grabbed, or otherwise assaulted by Zimmerman? And more to the point, what evidence has Zimmerman given of that?
 
2013-07-11 02:08:13 PM

way south: If you feel threatened, you run.
You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.


So if Trayvon felt threatened he should have run, and of course if had run and Zimmerman had chased him this wouldn't have been a sign or used as a sign that he was up to no good.  Zimmerman wouldn't have chased the kid he was already following if Trayvon had just started to run.
 
2013-07-11 02:13:01 PM

MagicianNamedGob: Carth: Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really?  So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away?  How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.

There's undisputed evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range. There's also undisputed evidence that he followed Martin even after being told not to by the police, and that he voluntarily left his vehicle to confront Martin. So he started a confrontation and ended it with his gun. What happened in between is in dispute. But you can't imagine the best possible scenario for Zimmerman and say it's the truth unless the state proves otherwise. The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is on the defendant. Zimmerman has to offer evidence that he was not only struck by Martin, but that Martin was the initial aggressor (because under Florida law and virtually every other state, self-defense is not available to the aggressor). Where is that evidence???

Martin hit Zimmerman. Yes, for sure. Granted. But where is the evidence that Martin made the first physical contact, or agressive move? Why would you assume that the man walking back from a snack run who has never killed or severly injured anyone is going to attempt to beat someone to death just for following him, and without somehow being hit, grabbed, or otherwise assaulted by Zimmerman? And more to the point, what evidence has Zimmerman given of that?


That is completely false. The 911 operator, not the police, said "We don't need you to do that". Neither the police nor the 911 operator told him not to do anything. The police detective testified that following someone and reporting on their actions is  what they oftenrecommend people do for suspicious activity.  Zimmerman had a legal right to leave his vehicle and follow martin on public property. Self defense is an affirmative defense in FL you're correct. But what that means in FL is the burden is on the state to submit evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that events did not occur as Zimmerman stated.

The state has no evidence that Zimmerman was lying when he says he was assaulted and Martin reached for his gun. We have witness testimony that Martin was beating Zimmerman  immediately before the shooting. If Zimmerman assaulted martin first we'd expect him to have some bruising on him, like a broken nose, other than a gunshot wound.
 
2013-07-11 02:20:04 PM

Carth: If I missed important evidence from the trial all you had to do was say what instead of resorting to insults.


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-11 02:21:34 PM

Carth: If Zimmerman assaulted martin first we'd expect him to have some bruising on him, like a broken nose, other than a gunshot wound.


You can get punched in the face without being hit in the nose, you can be hit in the nose hard enough to bloody your nose and cause your eyes to water without having your nose being broken.  Not sure how you can tell if someone was punched a few minutes before they were shot in the head.  How could you tell if the blood was from the punch or the gunshot wound.  How the hell can there be bruising if the heart stops beating before the whole coagulation cascade even gets started?  Bruises don't appear immediately watch a faucking boxing match sometime and tell that as soon as the first punch is landed bruising starts.
 
2013-07-11 02:40:37 PM
Martin has a right to go on a snack run without being accosted.

Zimmerman does not necessarily have a legal right to "follow someone on public property" as you so diplomatically put it. That depends on the manner and cirmustances. Chasing someone down at night and putting him in fear of bodily harm is illegal. It's called assault. And Zimmerman doesn't have to break Martin's nose to be the aggressor. He just has to grab him, or even just chase him.

The state only has to disprove an affirmative defense after the defendant has met his burden of showing suffiicient evidence. In this case, Zimmerman must show some evidence that Martin attacked him without provocation. There is no witness evidence about how the fight started. In fact, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Martin was sufficiently provoked by Zimmerman following him for an extended period of time and then exiting his vehicle to confront Martin.

There is very good evidence that Zimmerman was acting in a threatening way towards Martin, and that's the fact that there was fight. Either Zimmerman attacked first, and he's the agressor. Or Martin threw the first punch because he felt assaulted somehow.  The only other option, and the one the defense wants us to believe, is that even though Martin wasn't grabbed, assaulted, or threatened in any way, he spontaneously decided for the first time in his life to try to beat a stranger to death on the sidewalk. I find that an unreasonable supposition, and an unreasonable doubt.
 
2013-07-11 02:47:40 PM

spongeboob: Carth: If Zimmerman assaulted martin first we'd expect him to have some bruising on him, like a broken nose, other than a gunshot wound.

You can get punched in the face without being hit in the nose, you can be hit in the nose hard enough to bloody your nose and cause your eyes to water without having your nose being broken.  Not sure how you can tell if someone was punched a few minutes before they were shot in the head.  How could you tell if the blood was from the punch or the gunshot wound.  How the hell can there be bruising if the heart stops beating before the whole coagulation cascade even gets started?  Bruises don't appear immediately watch a faucking boxing match sometime and tell that as soon as the first punch is landed bruising starts.


I couldn't tell if someone was injured before being shot. I can say the medical examiner said during testimony that Martin didn't appear to have any injuries except the gunshot wound while Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and head lacerations consistent with his head being hit against concrete.
 
2013-07-11 02:58:03 PM

MagicianNamedGob: Martin has a right to go on a snack run without being accosted.

Zimmerman does not necessarily have a legal right to "follow someone on public property" as you so diplomatically put it. That depends on the manner and cirmustances. Chasing someone down at night and putting him in fear of bodily harm is illegal. It's called assault. And Zimmerman doesn't have to break Martin's nose to be the aggressor. He just has to grab him, or even just chase him.

The state only has to disprove an affirmative defense after the defendant has met his burden of showing suffiicient evidence. In this case, Zimmerman must show some evidence that Martin attacked him without provocation. There is no witness evidence about how the fight started. In fact, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Martin was sufficiently provoked by Zimmerman following him for an extended period of time and then exiting his vehicle to confront Martin.

There is very good evidence that Zimmerman was acting in a threatening way towards Martin, and that's the fact that there was fight. Either Zimmerman attacked first, and he's the agressor. Or Martin threw the first punch because he felt assaulted somehow.  The only other option, and the one the defense wants us to believe, is that even though Martin wasn't grabbed, assaulted, or threatened in any way, he spontaneously decided for the first time in his life to try to beat a stranger to death on the sidewalk. I find that an unreasonable supposition, and an unreasonable doubt.


Are you watching the trial? A couple of your points were discussed as recently as this morning with jury instruction. Yes, you do have the right to follow someone in FL on public property. If you can find a law that says you can't you should forward it to the prosecution because they'd love to be able to cite it and change the instructions.

Following someone is not assault, hitting someone is. If there is any evidence that Zimmerman struck martin first he would be guilty of murder but there isn't any.

If you have very good evidence of any of those things definitely contact the state since they didn't enter any of it as evidence in trial.
 
2013-07-11 03:07:10 PM

Peter von Nostrand: The article is filled with conjecture and opinion from the Judicial Watch.


And this is why I love Fark. Thanks for taking the bullet and sparing me the article's derp.
 
2013-07-11 03:58:12 PM

Carth: HeartBurnKid: Carth: If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

You realize that the entire point of "stand your ground" laws is that you don't have any obligation to retreat, call the police, etc.?

You realize Zimmerman waived his right to be tried under Stand Your Ground laws right?

But just for fun lets look at the SYG law in FL:

Even following that law unless the person following you is breaking some other law (trespassing,  you can't assault them. You are allowed to "meet force with force" without duty to retreat.


Doesn't Florida have laws against aggravated stalking?  Because I'm pretty sure Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in that activity at the time of the incident.
 
2013-07-11 04:19:27 PM

HeartBurnKid: Doesn't Florida have laws against aggravated stalking? Because I'm pretty sure Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in that activity at the time of the incident


Have you forgotten that Martin was black or something, pal?
 
2013-07-11 05:17:06 PM

HeartBurnKid: Carth: HeartBurnKid: Carth: If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

You realize that the entire point of "stand your ground" laws is that you don't have any obligation to retreat, call the police, etc.?

You realize Zimmerman waived his right to be tried under Stand Your Ground laws right?

But just for fun lets look at the SYG law in FL:

Even following that law unless the person following you is breaking some other law (trespassing,  you can't assault them. You are allowed to "meet force with force" without duty to retreat.

Doesn't Florida have laws against aggravated stalking?  Because I'm pretty sure Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in that activity at the time of the incident.


Yes they do have laws against stalking but in FL the stalking law requires repeated following . Since Zimmerman only followed martin on that one occation it doesn't fit.
 
2013-07-11 05:22:41 PM

Whiskey Pete: HeartBurnKid: Doesn't Florida have laws against aggravated stalking? Because I'm pretty sure Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in that activity at the time of the incident

Have you forgotten that Martin was black or something, pal?


Florida does have laws that criminalize stalking. But Zimmerman stopped following Martin when dispatch told him to. Zimmerman was walking back to his truck to meet the police. It was during this time period, after Zimmerman stopped following Martin and before he reached his truck, that the altercation happened. The real issue is this: Are we to believe that a black kid would randomly punch (or target a punch) a non-black person?
 
2013-07-11 06:17:03 PM

MJMaloney187: The real issue is this: Are we to believe that a black kid would randomly punch (or target a punch) a non-black person?


Your wingnut blog with racial overtones is very convincing.
 
2013-07-11 06:23:21 PM
Some of you armchair lawyers are hilarious.

Zimm walks.  Book it.  Done.

Your butthurt and derp are astounding.  Go cry moar.
 
2013-07-11 06:50:24 PM

propasaurus: hasty ambush: Chicago

DRINK!

hasty ambush: IRS

DRINK!!!


That was a very professional troll...
 
2013-07-11 06:52:05 PM

Fart_Machine: MJMaloney187: The real issue is this: Are we to believe that a black kid would randomly punch (or target a punch) a non-black person?

Your wingnut blog with racial overtones is very convincing.


Fair enough.
 
2013-07-11 06:55:23 PM

MJMaloney187: Fart_Machine: MJMaloney187: The real issue is this: Are we to believe that a black kid would randomly punch (or target a punch) a non-black person?

Your wingnut blog with racial overtones is very convincing.

Fair enough.


What does that have to do with this case again?
 
2013-07-11 07:31:49 PM
It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked (viciously); that a certain segment of the US population, who are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law by, are prone to horrific violence and general lawlessness and that Martin was a member of that segment.
 
2013-07-11 09:56:22 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: knbwhite: It could have been that Martin backtracked a bit, confronted Zimmerman and initiated the physical altercation.  If that is true, I don't have a problem with the shooting.

Really?

I can see you believing Zimmerman was justified, under the circumstances.  I don't agree with it, but I can see it.

But HONESTLY, other than dead men tell no tales, HOW was Martin not "standing his ground" at that point?  Where he was doing nothing wrong but had someone trailing him through dark lit areas?  You really don't have even the slightest bit of problem that an unarmed kid was shot and killed while walking through a neighborhood?  F--k you, then.  I can buy people who argue that in the heat of the confused moment, it was justified.  I don't agree, but I can understand the argument.  I don't understand on any level those who have no problem with the shooting whatsoever.



Well, there is a big if.  No one can justify shooting a teen just walking through a neighborhood, but that's not the whole story is it?

The only way I don't have a problem with the shooting is IF Martin broke off his route home to backtrack to Zimmerman and IF Martin was the first one to get physical.  It has not been proven positively that is what happened, but I also don't think second degree murder has been proven either.

If that was the situation, does Zimmerman have to wait until Martin escalates further?  Martin pulls an knife, then and only then Z gets to pull a knife or gun out?  It seem to me that Martin was on top of Z, so how did we get to that situation?  If Martin was the one yelling for help on the 911 call, what could Zimmerman have been doing to prompt that?

I don't understand all the minute points of the stand your ground law.  If Martin was justified in approaching Zimmerman and justified in throwing a punch, then the law should be clarified.
 
2013-07-11 10:14:25 PM

MJMaloney187: It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked (viciously); that a certain segment of the US population, who are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law by, are prone to horrific violence and general lawlessness and that Martin was a member of that segment.


White people really have proven to be so non-violent and peaceful, especially to minorities. American history is one long story of the peaceful, pacifist whites being cruelly victimized by the lesser races.
 
2013-07-11 10:30:56 PM

MJMaloney187: It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked


by a kid that just turned 17 and who he outweighed.

Whatever the results of the trial, I think we can all agree that Zimmerman is a pussy.
 
2013-07-11 10:35:43 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: MJMaloney187: It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked (viciously); that a certain segment of the US population, who are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law by, are prone to horrific violence and general lawlessness and that Martin was a member of that segment.

White people really have proven to be so non-violent and peaceful, especially to minorities. American history is one long story of the peaceful, pacifist whites being cruelly victimized by the lesser races.


Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you Mr. Queeg. Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was angry about historical injustices and sought revenge. It's more common than most people know.

""I was trying to prove a point that Europeans had colonized the world, and as a result of that, we see a lot of evil today," he said. "In terms of slavery, it was something that needed to be answered for. I was trying to spread the message of making white people mend."

And this cat was one of the "smart" ones. Another "random loon", eh? How many random loons does it take to constitute a culture of violence and aggression?

If we were to judge Martin by the company he kept, then I'm glad Martin was probably more than half an idiot.
 
2013-07-11 10:39:39 PM

Without Fail: MJMaloney187: It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked

by a kid that just turned 17 and who he outweighed.

Whatever the results of the trial, I think we can all agree that Zimmerman is a pussy.


Zimmerman is definitely a pussy. That's about the only thing the State proved.
 
2013-07-11 10:57:10 PM

MJMaloney187: If we were to judge Martin by the company he kept, then I'm glad Martin was probably more than half an idiot.


He just turned 17. Of course he was an idiot. I was at that age.
 
2013-07-11 11:06:27 PM
I got sucker punched by a wrestler, then he slammed my head into a table. It didn't occur to me that I might could have shot him. I was getting ready to push his eyeballs into his brain when some classmates broke it up. I wouldn't have shot Martin either, but chics and pussies get to do girl push-ups. It's street physics.
 
2013-07-11 11:30:48 PM

James!: It's almost as if someone WANTED there to be a race riot.


you mean all of the viewership of fox news and the dittoheads?

they have been masturbating until they bleed for a race war for at least the last decade?
 
Displayed 247 of 247 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report