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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Well that didn't take long: Fox News host calls Obama "Race-Baiter In Chief"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 1128
    More: Followup, Obama, Fox News, Todd Starnes  
•       •       •

3479 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2013 at 5:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-20 10:36:46 PM
I am waiting, and waiting, for the opportunity to use the line, "Zimmermanned in the Boobies!!!!"

That time WILL come, my friends, and it will be sooner than any of us expect it too. Do your utmost to make yourself right with the Lord, and do good works, for we are nigh, it is nigh, and Obama is our sheperd.

Good night, and good luck.
 
2013-07-20 10:43:47 PM

SkinnyHead: I think it's probably inappropriate for the President to imply that the jurors in this case were racists.


Up to snuff, my old compadre. No score for professional work, of course, but the Guild will have your check stamped by young Miss Gladys and mailed at Boobies. Expect a tidy little frisee, take the missus out, relax until you are next called, you know the drill. We're all counting on you.
 
2013-07-20 10:52:05 PM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: What's that smell?

Your bullshait.

Amos Quito: Again, cite that.

Like you'll read it.



Now where were we? Oh yes:

Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman was not following Neighborhood Watch 'rules'

3:24 p.m. EST, March 24, 2012|  By Susan Jacobson, Orlando Sentinel


Having had a chance to read the article in full, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the bullshiat.

I asked for specific info from Neighborhood Watch and CCW materials, and you linked to a tabloidish hit piece.

FAIL.

If you think there are specific points that are damning to Zimmerman, and should have led to his conviction, post those specifics.

Otherwise you may as well have linked to an Onion article.
 
2013-07-20 11:17:37 PM
Carth: I have no idea who started the fight. But it was said by the ME during cross the Travyon's injuries on his knuckles are consistent with punching someone.

First off, Zimmerman said Trayvon punched him 30 times. Yet only one of Trayon's knuckles showed any injury.

Nobody seriously disputes Trayvon punched Zimmerman. The issue is who started the fight, and whether or not Trayvon's knuckles were bruised or Zimmerman had injuries is minimally probative, at best.

If Zimmerman did, that changes our interpretation of the whole situation. Or it should. If Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon, then that means a Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor.

Trayon would then have every legal and moral right to bash Zimmerman's brains across the pavement, and to seek to disarm him. And no just law written by persons with morals would give the lethally armed aggressor any rights whatsoever.

I'd add, though, that there's no credible evidence Trayvon even bashed Zimmerman's head or sought to disarm him. Only Zimmerman said he did. No honest witness saw it happen.

The medical evidence showed only that Zimmerman's medically trivial injuries could have been caused by head bashing. Not that they were caused by it. They could just as easily have been caused by the extended mutual combat wrestling match witnesses described as by the implausibly one sided ambush, decking, and mounting Zimmerman described.

And nobody saw Trayvon seek to disarm Zimmerman, or threaten his life.

Also you could argue that the 911 dispatcher asking him to keep her advised of Martin's movements could be interpreted as follow him until she said otherwise.

There's a reason we never heard this argument before the trial: because it's the kind of idiotic thing a trial lawyer makes up to kick up dust and cloud the truth. Sanford PD's Neighborhood Watch coordinator testified very credibly that NW participants are instructed never to follow suspects. No reasonable person would have construed the dispatcher's words "let me know if he does anything else" as "please follow him around, and hopefully the situation will escalate."

But okay. Let's suppose Zimmerman somehow misremembered "we don't need you to follow him" as "please follow him." You still need to explain how:

1) this man who fixated on crime and self-defense, took concealed carry classes, took martial arts classes, carried a loaded gun with him to the grocery store, and patrolled his neighborhood for crime "forgot" he'd studied SYG and aced the materials in class in the recent past, AND

2) misremembered "have an officer call me, and I'll tell him where to meet me" as "have an officer meet me at the clubhouse."

Okay, individually you can make up excuses for all of them. But how many objectively false, material statements does a man have to make before you infer deceit? In any other context, we would say "three is plenty." But here we have more than three--those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

AND even if you decline to find deceit, Zimmerman's perception and memory are obviously so horrible as to mean nothing. And his words should be weighted zero anyway.

So no, that this man who made provably false statement after provably false statement in connection with a homicide investigation "might have" been cursed with the world's worst perception and memory does nothing to save him. Maybe he "misremembered" grappling Trayvon. Or "misperceived" himself saying "you gonna die tonight" as Trayvon saying it.
 
2013-07-20 11:21:45 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: What's that smell?

Your bullshait.

Amos Quito: Again, cite that.

Like you'll read it.


Now where were we? Oh yes:

Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman was not following Neighborhood Watch 'rules'

3:24 p.m. EST, March 24, 2012|  By Susan Jacobson, Orlando Sentinel


Having had a chance to read the article in full, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the bullshiat.

I asked for specific info from Neighborhood Watch and CCW materials, and you linked to a tabloidish hit piece.

FAIL.

If you think there are specific points that are damning to Zimmerman, and should have led to his conviction, post those specifics.

Otherwise you may as well have linked to an Onion article.


Sanford PD's NW coordinator who worked with Zimmerman testified that program participants are instructed not to follow suspicious persons.

You can look up the Youtube video of her testimony if you seriously dispute it.
 
2013-07-20 11:25:56 PM

SunsetLament: youncasqua: SunsetLament: Why would anyone possibly argue that a law that says "Sure, you were found, by a jury of your peers to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury and therefore killed the person who was presenting the reasonable threat justifiably

The jury found no such thing. The jury found only that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which could have been for any number of reasons. No special verdict was rendered on the question of justification.

To be clear, the jury could well have believed the preponderance of the credible evidence showed Zimmerman guilty of murder, and not having acted in self-defense. Even then, they would still have to acquit.

Zimmerman's acquittal does not mean he's actually innocent, or that the jury found any such thing.

You believe the jury was uncertain on whether or not Zimmerman fired the bullet?  Really?  That's what you're going with?


No, but nice clown shoes, troll. The jury did not find Zimmerman was justified in shooting the boy. They found only that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't.

Not guilty does not now and never has meant "actually innocent," and acquitted defendants often experience collateral consequences because of it.
 
2013-07-20 11:42:09 PM
SunsetLament:No.

Remember that then the next time someone pisses you off and you decide to swing, then.

I'd hate for them to "fear for their life".
 
2013-07-21 12:38:59 AM

Amos Quito: Having had a chance to read the article in full, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the bullshiat.


In other words you've got nothing.  Well thank you for coming back twice to say that.
 
2013-07-21 12:52:57 AM

youncasqua: SunsetLament: youncasqua: SunsetLament: Why would anyone possibly argue that a law that says "Sure, you were found, by a jury of your peers to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury and therefore killed the person who was presenting the reasonable threat justifiably

The jury found no such thing. The jury found only that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which could have been for any number of reasons. No special verdict was rendered on the question of justification.

To be clear, the jury could well have believed the preponderance of the credible evidence showed Zimmerman guilty of murder, and not having acted in self-defense. Even then, they would still have to acquit.

Zimmerman's acquittal does not mean he's actually innocent, or that the jury found any such thing.

You believe the jury was uncertain on whether or not Zimmerman fired the bullet?  Really?  That's what you're going with?

No, but nice clown shoes, troll. The jury did not find Zimmerman was justified in shooting the boy. They found only that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't.

Not guilty does not now and never has meant "actually innocent," and acquitted defendants often experience collateral consequences because of it.


You realize what an "affirmative defense" means, right?*

*Rhetorical question - I know you have no idea what an affirmative defense means or how it's applied in a criminal court case, or you wouldn't have wrote what you did.
 
2013-07-21 12:57:57 AM

hardinparamedic: SunsetLament:No.

Remember that then the next time someone pisses you off and you decide to swing, then.

I'd hate for them to "fear for their life".


No need for you to worry.  I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic).  This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.
 
2013-07-21 01:42:44 AM
SunsetLament:I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic).  This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.

Ya know, overall you've got a well thought out idea of the facts of this case. But I think you're personally unduly tilted against TM. The reason I say that is because both these people were imperfect people. And the only person's imperfections that you're concerned with are Trayvon's.  GZ also has a history of "physical altercations" or violence against other people.

GZ was charged with assaulting a police officer and had a restraining order from his ex-fiancee against him due to violence. As far as violence goes that's just as "out of control" as TM.

I'd like to know why GZ's history of unnecessary violence doesn't play into your line of thinking.
 
2013-07-21 02:00:01 AM

SunsetLament: No need for you to worry. I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic). This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.


Oh, so we're back to theorizing Martin was a thug and automatically worse than the Zimmerman with an actual arrest record?
 
2013-07-21 02:01:31 AM

youncasqua: Because Zimmerman said he did:

Zimmerman also said the dispatcher asked him to follow Trayvon

:


Really? When? What exactly did Zimmerman say, and when? Citation, please.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

911 dispatcher: Let me know if he does anything, OK?
Zimmerman: OK.
911 dispatcher: We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: OK.

Is it possible that the above statements could be construed as a request for GZ to continue watching the suspicious character? I suppose that GZ could have gone back home - or went on to the store - or simply sat in his truck as the suspicious character walked (or ran) out of sight, but then he wouldn't have been able to do as the dispatcher asked: "Just let me know if this guy does anything else", would he? No, if the suspicious character was on the move, GZ pretty much would have HAD to "follow" him in order to comply with that request, wouldn't he?

 

youncasqua: that he'd never heard of SYG,


Citation needed - and you'll have to provide proof that he was in fact familiar SYG.


youncasqua: and that he asked for an officer to meet him at the clubhouse. All three objectively and provably false statements.



The clubhouse was mentioned no less than SEVEN TIMES during the short call with the dispatcher - and was unquestionably the primary landmark used to guide officers to the correct location. You'll need to prove:

1) that the dispatcher's request to "Just let me know if this guy does anything else" could not be reasonably construed as a request to keep an eye on the moving suspicious character - which would mean FOLLOWING him;
2) That GZ said he "never heard of SYG
3) That GZ was indeed familiar with SYG

As to the "meet him at the clubhouse" claim - don't bother. Your assertion that it was a "lie" is laughable on its face.

youncasqua: Zimmerman's words constitute the only direct evidence Trayvon started the fight--and Zimmerman has bias, motive to lie, and a history of materially false statements in connection with the case at hand.


[...]

youncasqua: Because Trayvon got home and then came back, or lingered in the area, never going home at all:

We can posit reasonable motives for either of Trayvon's courses of action. If he made it home, and then came back, it may have been to observe the suspicious character stalking him through his own neighborhood. If he never went home at all, it could have been for the same reason. Or to prevent leading a potentially dangerous stalker back to his home.



And of course it would be totally unreasonable to entertain the notion that this 17 Y/O - who we now know had a violent history, had a penchant for fighting for fun and "street cred" - AND who was high on a cocktail of adrenalin and testosterone - might have been so offended and indignant at the idea that some "creepy-ass cracka" might be eyeballing him as a suspicious character, decided to lie in wait and (as the lovely, talented and articulate Rachel Jeantel put it) "whoop ass" on him. Right?

From the link:

JEANTEL: Yes. I had a feeling it was going to be not guilty so.
MORGAN: Because of the make-up of the jury? Do you think it was just wrong that you had no black people on the jury at all?
JEANTEL: No, not that. They don't understand, they understand -- he was just bashed or he was killed. When somebody bashes like blood people, trust me, the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called whoop ass. You do that (INAUDIBLE). That's what it is.

So apparently this was all just a "cultural misunderstanding": In the area where Ms Jeantel live (and Trayvon, previously), "whoop ass" is apparently just a friendly greeting: In the same way that you or I might smile, wave, or nod one's head in greeting a neighbor, the "blood people" greet one another with "whoop ass". Unfortunately, Zimmerman (being ignorant and unfamiliar with this quaint cultural custom) was under the impression that TM was attempting to either kill or inflict serious bodily harm on his person, and responded by attempting to stop this "friendly greeting" with the only means at his disposal.

Poor Trayvon - he must have been SO bewildered during his final moments!


youncasqua: It's hard to fathom Zimmerman partisans advancing this argument. Have they even the vaguest sense of irony? Zimmerman followed the boy around for no good reason with a loaded gun for several blocks

...

First, Zimmerman did NOT follow TM for "several blocks", but only a few hundred feet. Here, look at this handy map.

Second, Trayvon clearly figured that it was a safe bet that the "creepy-ass cracka" was unarmed - otherwise he certainly would not have hung around the area - let alone greeting the stranger with a friendly dose of cultural "whoop ass".


youncasqua: and chambered a round while he was on the phone with police--giving an equally valid inference that he started the fight.



That's just patent bullshiat right there, chum. PATENT BULLSHIAT.

Tell you what, why don't you toddle off and back that statement up with a cite? Okay, pal?


youncasqua: Trayvon's presence in the area means very little--certainly no more than Zimmerman's own presence in the area.



Zimmerman's presence in the area means that he was doing as the dispatcher asked -  "Just let me know if this guy does anything else", until the dispatcher realized that GZ was following the suspicious character ON FOOT, and CLARIFIED his earlier statement by saying "We don't need you to do that."  In BOTH cases, Zimmerman did as the dispatcher suggested - but by the time the second suggestion was given, he was already in the area where the suspicious character had disappeared - between the buildings. (see the handy map).

OTOH, Trayvon's presence in the area means something entirely different: He had a HUGE lead on Zimmerman, and the athletic football player could easily have made it all the way to his father's GF's house by the time GZ got out of his truck and rounded the corner of the buildings. And if he had been "scared" as the race-baiters would have us believe, HE WOULD HAVE DONE JUST THAT.

But he didn't. No, in the cultural of the "blood people" (as the lovely, talented and articulate Rachel Jeantel put it), that would have been terribly impolite, so Trayvon, being the genteel lad that he was, hid out, waited for GZ to show up (and finish his phone call), and then cordially "introduced himself" with the time-honored traditional "whoop-ass" greeting so cherished by his urbanite culture.

Trayvon was "present in the area" for ONE reason: He wanted to show the curious stranger some authentic "blood people" hospitality. Sadly, Zimmerman, being the cultural klutz that he is, misinterpreted Trayvon's friendly, traditional urbanite gestures of face-punching, head-bashing, and incessant pummeling as hostility, and Zimmerman, being the culturally insensitive buffoon that he is, responded with deadly force.

So essentially, Trayvon Martin is dead for the same reason that Rachel Jeantel is a laughing stock: "White people" are uneducated as to the finer points of the admirable (and in many ways, superior) culture of the "blood people".

Fortunately, we "creepy-ass cracka's" have mentors like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder to help us correct out savage ways, and learn to speak and behave properly. God forbid that we should fail to heed their words of wisdom.


youncasqua: Insistence that Trayvon started the fight reveals the unconscious racial prejudice involved in this case.


Well, I'm glad we agree on that point.

In fact, I am considering proposing legislation that would mandate life-long education for the culturally inept masses who fail to understand the inherent superiority of the "blood people", so that we might all adopt their ways, their habits, their customs, and above all, their "family values".

I have a vision for a better (and dare I say "brighter"?) tomorrow for America, and for the world.

Won't you join me?
 
2013-07-21 02:06:00 AM

SunsetLament: I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic).  This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.


img96.imageshack.us

Out of control teenagers are the only ones who get involved with fights? What a naive, pants-pissing world you live in.

You didn't start the fight. He did. Yet he'd still be legally justifiable in killing you for doing that. All he would have to say is he made an attempt at retreating from the fight and you pressed it.

But, don't worry. Your family won't be able to sue. The system works!

Also, illegal drug? He smoked Marijuana. The idea that marijuana makes people irrational and violent is blatant DARE propaganda, unless you have proof he was either schizophrenic OR taking an MAOI which caused him to have a psychotic break. In that case, you're a monster for letting Zimmerman set there and suffer so much without going to the police with your insider information.

The fact you seem to think smoking pot makes you a violent predator paints you as either an idiot, or someone who knows nothing about what he's talking about.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:26 AM

DVOM: I'd like to know why GZ's history of unnecessary violence doesn't play into your line of thinking.


Sure.  The arrest in the bar was eight years ago, but still relevant.  It shows a lack of judgment, while intoxicated, but in light of the fact that the prosecutor dropped the charges, I am dubious as to the level of "violence" that took place against the police officer.  In other words, there's a difference between (a) putting a cop (who is arresting your friend) in a bear hug and trying to wrestle him to the ground and (b) putting your hand on a cops shoulder and saying "Hey, he didn't do anything wrong.  Don't arrest him."  Both will get you arrested.  Both will get you charged with battery.  Both are tremendously bad ideas.  But there's a huge difference between the two scenarios and absent further evidence (other than that the charges were dropped), I find it more likely than not that it was closer to Scenario A, than Scenario B and that the prosecutor decided it wasn't worth their time pursuing the matter.

On the otherhand, I complete disregard the restraining order.  His girlfriend got a restraining order on him.  He got a restraining order on the girlfriend.  This is the type of BS that goes on constantly in the courts and is ultimately a he/said she said where either one of them (or both, or neither) could be telling the truth.  Again, there's zero further evidence that actual violence occurred and no arrests were made and he was never charged with anything.  This was also eight years ago.

Now, the difference with Martin is that we know he was engaging in illegal (at worst) and anti-social (at best) behavior right up until the day he was killed.  He died with marijuana in his system.  He was suspended from school for throwing a punch at a teacher.  He told people (via text) that the cops in town had finally had enough of him and told his mother that she had to get him out of town for awhile.  There are videos of him refereeing the the after-school fight club he organized.  There held text message conversations the week of his death explaining how he was all into fighting now and was a badass.  The remainder of his text messages are attempts to acquire drugs and a handgun (with a few to his mother telling her how everyone was lying about him and that he really wasn't doing anything wrong).  His good friend Rachel Jenteal told Piers Morgan that she believed Martin just decided to "whoop ass" because he didn't like being followed and that it's everybody else in the world's fault that Zimmerman didn't realize that Martin was just doing "whoop ass" when he was ramming his head into the concrete and not actually trying to kill him - she didn't say this in court, but she let it slip on television; she knew what went on that night and lied about it (even if by omission) in court.

You also have a ton of character witnesses that came in and testified about what a great guy Zimmerman was in the community.  I discount the family members, but the non-family - the head of the Neighborhood Watch, the woman who he helped with the locks on her door, etc - I found to be very credible.  Finally, we have an EYE WITNESS who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches while Zimmerman screamed mere moments before the gunshot.  If you are going to murder someone, you do not call the police and request they come out urgently, then take a beating (broken nose, head wounds) while screaming like a girl ... and then pull your gun and shoot them.  Instead, you shoot them and then run away (and "forget" to call the cops).

Where were the Trayvon Martin character-witnesses?  There weren't any.  You know why there weren't any?  Because the instant someone testified to his character, it was open season (in court) for the defense on all of what I outlined above.  The drugs.  The suspensions.  The fight club.  The text messages.
 
2013-07-21 02:28:37 AM

hardinparamedic: SunsetLament: I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic).  This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.

[img96.imageshack.us image 800x437]

Out of control teenagers are the only ones who get involved with fights? What a naive, pants-pissing world you live in.

You didn't start the fight. He did. Yet he'd still be legally justifiable in killing you for doing that. All he would have to say is he made an attempt at retreating from the fight and you pressed it.

But, don't worry. Your family won't be able to sue. The system works!

Also, illegal drug? He smoked Marijuana. The idea that marijuana makes people irrational and violent is blatant DARE propaganda, unless you have proof he was either schizophrenic OR taking an MAOI which caused him to have a psychotic break. In that case, you're a monster for letting Zimmerman set there and suffer so much without going to the police with your insider information.

The fact you seem to think smoking pot makes you a violent predator paints you as either an idiot, or someone who knows nothing about what he's talking about.


Yup, paranoia is definitely not an effect of marijuana ingestion.  And whether you like it or not, marijuana is illegal according to federal law.
 
2013-07-21 02:32:28 AM

DVOM: SunsetLament:I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic).  This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.

Ya know, overall you've got a well thought out idea of the facts of this case. But I think you're personally unduly tilted against TM. The reason I say that is because both these people were imperfect people. And the only person's imperfections that you're concerned with are Trayvon's.  GZ also has a history of "physical altercations" or violence against other people.

GZ was charged with assaulting a police officer and had a restraining order from his ex-fiancee against him due to violence. As far as violence goes that's just as "out of control" as TM.

I'd like to know why GZ's history of unnecessary violence doesn't play into your line of thinking.


Obviously because the judge, prosecution, DA and defense all colluded to get a white man acquitted while at the same time appeasing the unruly mob.
 
2013-07-21 02:35:57 AM

Aristocles: Obviously because the judge, prosecution, DA and defense all colluded to get a white man acquitted while at the same time appeasing the unruly mob.


Is this more "he was found innocent" crap? He was found not guilty. Not the same as being declared innocent.
 
2013-07-21 02:37:52 AM

Aristocles: DVOM: SunsetLament:I don't start physical altercations with people because they are walking near me (even if they are white or hispanic).  This would be understandable if you knew me better; I'm not an out of control teenager infatuated with fist fighting, I don't use drugs illegally, I don't steal jewelry, I've never been suspended from school or a job and I don't idolize gang culture.

Ya know, overall you've got a well thought out idea of the facts of this case. But I think you're personally unduly tilted against TM. The reason I say that is because both these people were imperfect people. And the only person's imperfections that you're concerned with are Trayvon's.  GZ also has a history of "physical altercations" or violence against other people.

GZ was charged with assaulting a police officer and had a restraining order from his ex-fiancee against him due to violence. As far as violence goes that's just as "out of control" as TM.

I'd like to know why GZ's history of unnecessary violence doesn't play into your line of thinking.

Obviously because the judge, prosecution, DA and defense all colluded to get a white man acquitted while at the same time appeasing the unruly mob.


Or because the only other eyewitness had been shot through the chest and killed and thus was incapable of providing testimony.
 
2013-07-21 02:38:47 AM

SunsetLament: Yup, paranoia is definitely not an effect of marijuana ingestion.


Please quote to me the statistics on the inducement of paranoia sufficient to incite violence by actual marijuana? You know, in people  who are notschizophrenic. Because that's the only population that has ever been recognized by the psychiatric community to have violent paranoid episodes after using marijuana. And that has to do with their pathology and alteration of cannabinoid receptors in the brain, not the marijuana itsself.

SunsetLament: And whether you like it or not, marijuana is illegal according to federal law.


Which, hilariously enough, is a law based on racism and not anywhere near reality. So please, tell me more about the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.
 
2013-07-21 02:40:32 AM
Holy shiat. I've stepped into a sixth grade DARE class, and I'm being lied to again by them.
 
2013-07-21 02:45:47 AM
Aristocles:a white man

GZ is not a white man.
 
2013-07-21 02:57:16 AM
SunsetLament:Now, the difference with Martin is that we know he was engaging in illegal (at worst) and anti-social (at best) behavior right up until the day he was killed.

OK, you've discussed the previous legal charges against GZ and how they were handled, what were the previous legal charges against TM and how were they handled?
 
2013-07-21 03:27:19 AM

DVOM: SunsetLament:Now, the difference with Martin is that we know he was engaging in illegal (at worst) and anti-social (at best) behavior right up until the day he was killed.

OK, you've discussed the previous legal charges against GZ and how they were handled, what were the previous legal charges against TM and how were they handled?


You're talking to someone who seems to think Marijuana makes people violent, paranoid killers. That is all you need to know.
 
2013-07-21 03:30:44 AM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Having had a chance to read the article in full, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the bullshiat.

In other words you've got nothing.  Well thank you for coming back twice to say that.



I "have nothing", you say? You prodigious progenitor of pungent poots?

You impudently implied that Mr. Zimmerman defied the directives and dogma demanded of those who would dare don potentially deadly devices for their own self defense - I asked that you demonstrate the accuracy of your assertions by providing digitally accessible documentation...

You further implied that Mr. Zimmerman contemptuously circumvented both civilized custom and courteous convention by recklessly rejecting the rules, regulations and restrictions required of those who register with the Neighborhood Watch program - and again I asked that you authenticate your assertions with authorized and accredited sources...

Did you deliver? NO!

Instead you surreptitiously sought to substitute a sleazy, slipshod story scribbled by a self-hating Semite quoting a quirky quack of questionable qualifications who bombastically belched the blatant bullshiat which the media used to brazenly bombard and beguile the befuddled bourgeois.

What have you to say for yourself?
 
2013-07-21 03:31:42 AM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Having had a chance to read the article in full, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the bullshiat.

In other words you've got nothing.  Well thank you for coming back twice to say that.


I "have nothing", you say? You prodigious progenitor of pungent poots?

You impudently implied that Mr. Zimmerman defied the directives and dogma demanded of those who would dare don potentially deadly devices for their own self defense - I asked that you demonstrate the accuracy of your assertions by providing digitally accessible documentation...

You further implied that Mr. Zimmerman contemptuously circumvented both civilized custom and courteous convention by recklessly rejecting the rules, regulations and restrictions required of those who register with the Neighborhood Watch program - and again I asked that you authenticate your assertions with authorized and accredited sources...

Did you deliver? NO!

Instead you surreptitiously sought to substitute a sleazy, slipshod story scribbled by a self-hating Semite quoting a quirky quack of questionable qualifications who bombastically belched the blatant bullshiat which the media used to brazenly bombard and beguile the befuddled bourgeois.

What have you to say for yourself?


Your mother was a whore, and your father stank of elderberries. Take that.
 
2013-07-21 04:28:05 AM

Amos Quito: Really? When? What exactly did Zimmerman say, and when? Citation, please.


Recall as you read this that my thesis is that you can't acquit Zimmerman and convict Trayvon at the same time. You may acquit Zimmerman, but if you do, any intellectually honest person must acquit Trayvon, because the evidence he started the fight is almost non-existent. Your argument provided a lot of emotion based on a... "cultural..." theory of what happened. It just doesn't back it up with any real evidence.

It is apparent from your post that you're not even aware of the most basic case facts inculpating Zimmerman. You really shouldn't form a strong opinion when you don't really understand even the basics of an issue.

The relevant portion begins around 2:40. Zimmerman states the dispatcher asked him which way Trayvon went. Zimmerman says he can't see him. Zimmerman states "The dispatcher said get in a place where you can see him." The dispatcher never said this.

Is it possible that the above statements could be construed as a request for GZ to continue watching the suspicious character?

An odd interpretation, given that Zimmerman was looking directly at Zimmerman when the dispatcher said that. But okay. I'll play anyway.

Yes--to watch, not follow. What's more, Zimmerman knew Sanford Police's preferred protocol specifically instructed NW volunteers not to follow suspicious characters. We know this because the Sanford PD's NW liason said so. That's why Zimmerman later used wholly different, made up language to describe what the dispatcher said.

I suppose that GZ could have gone back home - or went on to the store - or simply sat in his truck as

He could have sat in his truck and continued to observe the environment in case Trayvon returned, as indicated by the NW protocol he personally knew.

the suspicious character walked (or ran) out of sight,

There is no credible evidence Trayvon ever acted like a suspicious character. Only Zimmerman said he did. Zimmerman who made numerous materially false statements in connect with this case, of which you are clearly unaware.

walked (or ran) out of sight

Or skipped. Don't forget skipped. Because remember when Zimmerman was on the phone with police, he told the dispatcher Trayvon "ran" from him. That was when he wanted to paint Trayvon as a suspicious character.

By the time he appeared on Hannity, Zimmerman had spoken to lawyers. He knew that because Trayvon had no contraband on his person, and was connected to no unlawful activity, he had no reason to run. Which gave rise to the inference Trayvon ran because Zimmerman menaced him, suggesting Zimmerman was agitating for a fight.

That's why Zimmerman changed his story. On Hannity, Zimmerman said Trayvon didn't run, that it was "more like he skipped" away, and indicated that "he wasn't afraid." So maybe Zimmerman misremembered on Hannity. Or maybe his misperceived what he saw on the night of the killing when he described it to police. Either way, it's clear even his statements on the 911 tapes have no probative value.

We've no credible reason to believe Trayvon conducted himself suspiciously.

but then he wouldn't have been able to do as the dispatcher asked: "Just let me know if this guy does anything else", would he? No, if the suspicious character was on the move, GZ pretty much would have HAD to "follow" him in order to comply with that request, wouldn't he?

No. He could have followed the police NW protocol which specifically instructed against following suspicious characters. And the made up words he used the next day prove he did not interpret "let me know if he does anything else" as "please follow him." If he had, he would have used the words the dispatcher actually said.

Citation needed - and you'll have to provide proof that he was in fact familiar SYG.

You're truly unaware of even the most basic case facts. You're a man with a strong opinion and no knowledge. It's embarrassing.

On Hannity's show, Zimmerman said he'd "never heard" of SYG.

Zimmerman's criminal law professor testified he had covered SYG as part of a unit on self-defense. That Zimmerman was present. And that he made an A in the class. Zimmerman had heard of SYG, and given his fixation on crime and self-defense, it just isn't plausible he forgot the materials he'd aced in class.
 had a violent hisotry and had a penchant for fighting for fun


You haven't even the vaguest sense of irony. Zimmerman had a history of both domestic and felony violence. And Zimmerman's history was documented in credible venues--unlike the claims of Trayvon's violence, which were excluded from court specifically because of their unreliability.

and "street cred" - AND who was high on a cocktail of adrenalin and testosterone

There you go with the irony again. Zimmerman was high on adrenalin and testosterone. Yet this factors into your assessment not at all.

 - might have been so offended and indignant at the idea that some "creepy-ass cracka" might be eyeballing him as a suspicious character, decided to lie in wait and

It is a possibility. It's just that there's no credible evidence that's how it went down. And when a grown man is stalking you through your own neighborhood, it's perfectly reasonable to be afraid.

(as the lovely, talented and articulate Rachel Jeantel put it) whoop ass on him

Rachel Jeantel also perjured herself. Her testimony carries the same weight as Zimmerman's.

But if we believe Jeantel's testimony, then we have proof the fight didn't start the way Zimmerman said it did. So your reliance on Jeantel's testimony here is misguided and self-defeating.


Zimmerman's presence in the area means that he was doing as the dispatcher asked -  "Just let me know if this guy does anything else",

No, it doesn't. Because "let me know" doesn't mean "follow him around," especially given Zimmerman's acquaintance with Sanford PD's NW protocol.

until the dispatcher realized that GZ was following the suspicious character ON FOOT, and CLARIFIED his earlier statement by saying "We don't need you to do that."

No need to yell, friend. I understand you're emotionally invested in this. But we can be civil.

In BOTH cases, Zimmerman did as the dispatcher suggested - but by the time the second suggestion was given, he was already in the area where the suspicious character had disappeared - between the buildings.

There is no credible evidence Trayvon exhibited any suspicious behavior. If we're going to be objective about this, you should stop saying things with no credible foundation.

Zimmerman described Trayvon attacking mere seconds after hanging up on the phone with police. Yet phone records indicate a nearly two minute gap between the time Zimmerman hung up, and the time Jeantel's call disconnected. If Zimmerman "did what the dispatcher suggested," he did it incredibly slowly--the reality is that Zimmerman either continued to hunt Trayvon, or lingered in the area himself.

OTOH, Trayvon's presence in the area means something entirely different: He had a HUGE lead on Zimmerman, and the athletic football player could easily have made it all the way to his father's GF's house by the time GZ got out of his truck and rounded the corner of the buildings. And if he had been "scared" as the race-baiters would have us believe, HE WOULD HAVE DONE JUST THAT.

Or it means he didn't want to lead a dangerous stalker to his home and family. Or it means he wanted to avoid the only character we know from credible evidence behaved suspiciously that night--George Zimmerman, in following a teenage boy around for no good reason.

But since Trayvon clearly wasn't "scared" in your view, that means Zimmerman told the truth when he said Trayvon gailey "skipped" away, evincing no concern whatever for Zimmerman's stalking. Which makes the claim he started the fight more puzzling still.

So apparently this was all just a "cultural misunderstanding": In the area where Ms Jeantel live (and Trayvon, previously), "whoop ass" is apparently just a friendly greeting: In the same way that you or I might smile, wave, or nod one's head in greeting a neighbor, the "blood people" greet one another with "whoop ass". Unfortunately, Zimmerman (being ignorant and unfamiliar with this quaint cultural custom) was under the impression that TM was attempting to either kill or inflict serious bodily harm on his person, and responded by attempting to stop this "friendly greeting" with the only means at his disposal.

Poor Trayvon - he must have been SO bewildered during his final moments!


I mean, all of this is possible. Again, the problem is, you can no more prove any of it went down this way beyond a reasonable doubt than the state could it went down the other way. That's the issue here. Your certain acceptance of Zimmerman's implausible narrative of events on only the barest of evidence.

Second, Trayvon clearly figured that it was a safe bet that the "creepy-ass cracka" was unarmed -

No evidence whatsoever for this. None.

otherwise he certainly would not have hung around the area

Unless he wanted to avoid endangering his family by leading the stalker to his house.

- let alone greeting the stranger with a friendly dose of cultural "whoop ass".

Your whole case here relies on the statements of Zimmerman and Jeantel. Astonishing.

***

Oh yeah. Zimmerman operates his firearm at 2:42. It jams, he says "sh*t," and then he tries to unjam it by tapping it.
 
2013-07-21 05:03:55 AM

youncasqua: Amos Quito:



Bubsy, it's late, and I'm tired.

If they haven't closed the thread, I'll get back with you tomorrow.

Otherwise, know that your response is every bit as poignant as hardinparamedic;s "elderberry" comment above,

But thanks for the attempt at rational discourse.

As for my ALL CAPS and bold text, it is intended to convey emphasis - and often sarcasm.

Two idiots went out on a rainy Florida evening.

One died, the other had his life taken from him.

One will live to regret (at least for a while), the other won't.

The jury's verdict was just, and so far, the race-baiters have failed to achieve their goal of social anarchy and the crushing rebuke of the Almighty State,

Pleasant dreams. Better tomorrow.
 
Displayed 28 of 1128 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report