Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

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

3489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2013 at 5:26 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-07-19 11:50:08 PM  

skullkrusher: no, I am not going to say that. However, since we have no reason to believe that he is lying, it takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to assume that he is


It takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to believe that a guy who has a history of violence and calls the guy he's following an asshole wouldn't possibly invite a confrontation.

But hey, only 17 year olds can be impulsive.
 
2013-07-19 11:51:07 PM  

See You Next Tuesday: skullkrusher:

"pussy nation". You know who says that? Pussies.

You really suck at this for someone who doesn't appear to have much of a life outside of Fark.  Notice how you have never heard of me? That's because I'm busy doing stuff IRL.  I had a few days off.  But you're ALWAYS on this thing. I'm torn between pity and disdain for you.


hehe yeah, no life but Fark. You're not doing shiat, IRL, aside from jacking yourself raw, brah. No one is fooled.

Oh, and check the threads over the past month or so. Nary a skullkrusher post to be found. Know why? Because I've been really farking busy.
 
2013-07-19 11:52:01 PM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: no, I am not going to say that. However, since we have no reason to believe that he is lying, it takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to assume that he is

It takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to believe that a guy who has a history of violence and calls the guy he's following an asshole wouldn't possibly invite a confrontation.

But hey, only 17 year olds can be impulsive.


again, baseless assumptions fueled by some bizarre fantasy. Be sure to crow about how the libbies are fond of logic and science in a future thread.
 
2013-07-19 11:53:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: If by "rolling" you mean "remaining rational and not making wild assumptions that are not based in evidence nor assuming that Zimmerman is lying just because" then yes, I am rolling like a motherfarker.

Since there is no evidence one way or the other who started the fight it isn't a "wild assumption" although if you read this thread Martin was a cross between Kimbo Splice and the Incredible Hulk and Zimmerman was Fred Rogers didn't have an angry bone in his body. But keep on rolling.


that's exactly what a baseless assumption is. Keep kicking your own ass though. We'll never know who started the fight
 
2013-07-19 11:53:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Oh, and do you think the Sidwell Friends school is NOT heavily secured by the SS?


Where did I say that?  The guy I was talking to said he should send his kids to public school.

skullkrusher: You know what the word "idiot" means, right?


Yes.  I'll bet you're called that alot.
 
2013-07-19 11:54:09 PM  

RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.

which is why the President never leaves the White House. The outside world is unsecure and there is no way to make it secure.

You don't even try anymore, man

How dare The President send his children to a private school. That's farking uppity. You better whitesplain it to him.


I didn't make the original comment. I just commented on how it is stupid to believe that a public school could not be secured so that the kids could go there.
 
2013-07-19 11:55:45 PM  

Fart_Machine: Where did I say that? The guy I was talking to said he should send his kids to public school.


so it IS possible to secure a school. Just not a public school. Because.


Fart_Machine: Yes. I'll bet you're called that alot.


yep. Pretty much exclusively by people on Fark who think assuming something without evidence is not a baseless assumption
 
2013-07-19 11:55:55 PM  

See You Next Tuesday: Amos Quito: who Trayvon STOOPIDLY assumed was unarmed and "soft".

A gun doesn't make you hard. Hell, VIAGRA probably can't help a guy like you.



You sound dangerous.

Maybe I'd better apologize for dissin' yo' badass gangsta self?
 
2013-07-19 11:56:41 PM  

RevMercutio: skullkrusher: RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, there's evidence beyond Zimmerman's story? Please, do share. The truth is, nobody can prove definitively who started the fight.

So no one who alleges a particular party did start it should demand evidence when the counter is proposed.

Either let it go, or don't make any unsupported assertions.

are you saying that following someone ,refusing to introduce yourself or your intentions, then when asked you make a sudden move for your pocket isn't something that would make one fear that their life was in danger?

again... Ouija Board?

You're welcome to prove him wrong.

/we know you won't.

you want me to prove that Zim did NOT make a sudden move for his pocket?
Are you being for real?

You're saying he's full of shiat. I'm asking you to prove it.


Actually, I am asking where he is getting that fact from. But, it is apparent that you are not being for real so meh
 
2013-07-19 11:56:44 PM  

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: no, I am not going to say that. However, since we have no reason to believe that he is lying, it takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to assume that he is

It takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to believe that a guy who has a history of violence and calls the guy he's following an asshole wouldn't possibly invite a confrontation.

But hey, only 17 year olds can be impulsive.

again, baseless assumptions fueled by some bizarre fantasy. Be sure to crow about how the libbies are fond of logic and science in a future thread.


That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
2013-07-19 11:57:08 PM  

skullkrusher: RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.

which is why the President never leaves the White House. The outside world is unsecure and there is no way to make it secure.

You don't even try anymore, man

How dare The President send his children to a private school. That's farking uppity. You better whitesplain it to him.

I didn't make the original comment. I just commented on how it is stupid to believe that a public school could not be secured so that the kids could go there.


In which case you'd biatch about the taxpayer expense.
 
2013-07-19 11:57:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Vectron: Why isn't Obama bringing the troops home to patrol the inner cities of America?

Oh, I'm sure Real America would love that!  I hear that "conservatives" main complaint with 0bammy is that he doesn't have enough soldiers occupying our cities.  They'd probably even be happy to pay more taxes to see it happen!


They'll greet our troops as liberators!

Meanwhile, in Bumblef*ck, Colorado.
 
2013-07-19 11:58:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SunsetLament: WizardofToast: SunsetLament: Dear Liberals,

Your response to this entire Travyon Martin / George Zimmerman matter is going to result in more young black males being shot and killed.  You are training them that unwarranted aggressive behavior is acceptable and that anti-social behavior is okay, it's just that the jury screwed up this time.  You're provoking the next aggressive out-of-control young black male into doing it again.  And whether it results in the shooting and killing (in self-defense) of this next kid, or the beating death (or significant bodily injury) of his victim ... the blood is going to be on your hands.  You are going to be partially responsible.

-SunsetLament

You sound concerned.

You don't.

Why do you consdescend to speak for black people? Are you, yourself, black?


Because the black "community" is pathetic and continues to be pathetic and is getting worse.  When the black "community" gets its shiat together, I will be happy to not "condescend" to it.  But right now?  I've got my shiat together, white middle-class america (the group I belong to) has it's shiat together and there's no other way to explain what the problem is without being condescending.
 
2013-07-19 11:58:31 PM  
See You Next Tuesday

Account created: 2013-06-26 17:34:43

I have been on Fark VERY little since your account creation date. Weird how you think I'm here all the time. Oh, lemme guess, you're one of those "long time lurkers who just created an account", right?
 
2013-07-19 11:59:43 PM  

RevMercutio: skullkrusher: RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.

which is why the President never leaves the White House. The outside world is unsecure and there is no way to make it secure.

You don't even try anymore, man

How dare The President send his children to a private school. That's farking uppity. You better whitesplain it to him.

I didn't make the original comment. I just commented on how it is stupid to believe that a public school could not be secured so that the kids could go there.

In which case you'd biatch about the taxpayer expense.


no, I am quite cool with the First Family receiving the utmost in protection. It's sort of important. Do you make foolish assumptions for a living?

Aren't you people supposed to be educated?
 
2013-07-20 12:01:09 AM  
Hey, I thought only us filthy toejam-picking bongo-smackin' weed-chewin' commie-librul hippiez were spozed to draw the vile and unspeakable race card.

Never in the world could I possibly imagine that an unimpeachably upright, righteous, Godly, noble, and truth loving conservative commentator on Fox Fluffy News would speak of such an unworthy concept.

www.samefacts.com

Jeeves, my fainting couch, pliz.
 
2013-07-20 12:01:50 AM  

s2s2s2: Maybe if George had worn one of these...
[www.nexternal.com image 530x400]


Might look a little geeky, but that actually wouldn't have been a bad idea. If he were easily identifiable as neighborhood watch, then there's no way Martin could've mistaken him for anything else. And perhaps the incident never would've escalated to the point that it did.

Instead of Guardian Angel berets though, I'd suggest something a little more fashion forward:

1.bp.blogspot.com


And for his car, maybe something like this:

esr-sq.pbworks.com

I read in one of these threads that Zimmerman was offered the chance to have a marked patrol vehicle, but he turned it down. I would've loved to hear his reason for doing that.
 
2013-07-20 12:02:09 AM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: no, I am not going to say that. However, since we have no reason to believe that he is lying, it takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to assume that he is

It takes a special sort of dishonest shiatbag to believe that a guy who has a history of violence and calls the guy he's following an asshole wouldn't possibly invite a confrontation.

But hey, only 17 year olds can be impulsive.

again, baseless assumptions fueled by some bizarre fantasy. Be sure to crow about how the libbies are fond of logic and science in a future thread.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.


He was belligerent with a cop when he was drunk once. That is not a "history of violence" nor does it mean that he was belligerent in his day to day life. We have an account which states that TM started the fight. That's it. Nothing more. To believe that GZ started the fight, despite the fact that TM had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and no witnesses or any other sort of evidence giving that indication is about as baseless as it gets. Keep on keeping on though.
 
2013-07-20 12:02:58 AM  
Vectron:
The point I am trying to make is:

The Kenyan thinks


And that's all that's necessary
 
2013-07-20 12:03:07 AM  

RevMercutio: WizardofToast: Vectron: RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.

which is why the President never leaves the White House. The outside world is unsecure and there is no way to make it secure.

You don't even try anymore, man

How dare The President send his children to a private school. That's farking uppity. You better whitesplain it to him.

The point I am trying to make is: Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

The Kenyan thinks kids are better today. How would he know?

The good thing is his daughters will always move in the world of the 1%. They will have no knowledge of any other reality.

Hoo boy.

Yup. That's the point where his opinion on anything ceased to be valid.


Humor. Lighten up.
 
2013-07-20 12:03:35 AM  

Sgt Otter: ferretman: Once again Obama decides to ignore the law. He has officially become pathetic and worse than Jimmy Carter.

He did?  Oh right:

[www.newyorker.com image 465x310]

Meanwhile, in the reality-based community:

"The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The jurors were properly instructed that in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works. "


Sums up my thoughts exactly.  We can't assume Zimmerman was guilty just because of public opinion.  We have courts for that.  And the courts said he's not guilty, so, regardless of what you believe, he's not guilty.

Sorry, but innocent until proven guilty is a key component of the justice system.  Maybe Zimmerman is guilty, but because we cannot convict him with the evidence we have, he goes free.  And this is important because it avoids ensuring that innocent people are not convicted of crimes they did not commit.
 
2013-07-20 12:07:10 AM  

Vectron: RevMercutio: WizardofToast: Vectron: RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.

which is why the President never leaves the White House. The outside world is unsecure and there is no way to make it secure.

You don't even try anymore, man

How dare The President send his children to a private school. That's farking uppity. You better whitesplain it to him.

The point I am trying to make is: Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

The Kenyan thinks kids are better today. How would he know?

The good thing is his daughters will always move in the world of the 1%. They will have no knowledge of any other reality.

Hoo boy.

Yup. That's the point where his opinion on anything ceased to be valid.

Humor. Lighten up.


Ah, yes. What a grand larf calling him "The Kenyan" is. How everybodye LOL'd. You're the next Richard Pryor.

Oh, wait. He's one of dem uppity negroes. Andrew "Dice" Clay, then? Dane Cook?
 
2013-07-20 12:08:33 AM  

skullkrusher: so it IS possible to secure a school. Just not a public school. Because.


Because Sidwell Friends has been used by Presidents and other high profile individuals whose kids would be targets for political kidnappings for decades now.  I'm gotta take a wild guess they'd have some experience in the matter rather than the average DC public school.  Are you being stupid on purpose?

skullkrusher: yep. Pretty much exclusively by people on Fark who think assuming something without evidence is not a baseless assumption


There is enough circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman could have started the fight just as there is to suggest that Martin was the initial aggressor.
 
2013-07-20 12:09:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: SunsetLament: I don't think you know what the word "baseless" means.

Oh, there's evidence beyond Zimmerman's story? Please, do share. The truth is, nobody can prove definitively who started the fight.


That doesn't make it "baseless" - that just means there's no first hand account.  There's plenty of evidence ... Zimmerman told the dispatcher it was dark, Zimmerman told the dispatcher he lost sight of Martin, Jenteal told Piers Morgan she believed Martin decided to do a little "Whoop Ass", Zimmerman never physically confronted any of the other people he Neighborhood-watched (and there were a ton), Martin had just been suspended from school for attacking an authority figure (the school bus driver), Martin had no problem violating other laws (theft), Martin idolized and emulated gang culture, and most importantly ...

Why would Zimmerman - who just called the freaking cops and knew they were coming - attack someone physically?  It makes no sense.  People don't call the cops right before they are about to commit a violent crime.  That's when you don't call the cops.
 
2013-07-20 12:13:48 AM  

Fart_Machine: Because Sidwell Friends has been used by Presidents and other high profile individuals whose kids would be targets for political kidnappings for decades now. I'm gotta take a wild guess they'd have some experience in the matter rather than the average DC public school. Are you being stupid on purpose?


Yeah, I am sure the SS leaves the details of securing the First Daughters up to the expertise of a school's security staff. Certainly, they are reliant on that crack team of square badges to protect the most powerful children in the world.

Fart_Machine: There is enough circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman could have started the fight just as there is to suggest that Martin was the initial aggressor.


well... no, the circumstantial evidence (Zim's injuries as compared to Tray's lack of bruising and cuts, etc) says that GZ did not start the fight but you really, really, really want Zimmerman to be guilty of murder so assume away
 
2013-07-20 12:17:40 AM  

skullkrusher: He was belligerent with a cop when he was drunk once. That is not a "history of violence" nor does it mean that he was belligerent in his day to day life. We have an account which states that TM started the fight. That's it. Nothing more. To believe that GZ started the fight, despite the fact that TM had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and no witnesses or any other sort of evidence giving that indication is about as baseless as it gets. Keep on keeping on though.


Um, we have more than that.The speeding thing is dumb but otherwise he did have a history.  We also have him calling Martin an asshole because he assumed he was a criminal who was getting away on a 911 Call.  Likewise we have accounts of Martin getting in some fights at school.  The only account we have of the actual incident is GZ and a dead guy.  Provoking a fight doesn't mean I get a few good punches on you before getting knocked to the ground.  You can still provoke a confrontation and get your ass kicked without laying a hand on the other guy.  Really.
 
2013-07-20 12:19:14 AM  

Fart_Machine: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: I don't know.  You think it involves the Jews again?

Actually, it was because the ghost of Oswald was found to have possessed that phone, and was pranking Trayvon with his wacky texts.

(the truth is not too far from that bit of silliness)



Actually you're right - for ONCE. Buy yourself a beer!

In fact, the Judge argued that "any seven-year-old" could have hacked Trayvon's phone and written those texts - and therefor it could not be PROVEN that it was actually TRAYVON who wrote about his love of fighting and violence, his shopping for a gun, his posting pics of pot plants - etc.

No, really, she said that "any seven-year-old" could have hacked TM's phone - even though the defense correctly pointed out that TM's phone was very well secured, and that it took police experts MONTHS of work to gain access to those texts.

And yet SOME asshats will claim that the trial was biased AGAINST the prosecution.

You aren't one of those asshats, are you Fart_Machine?

Anyway, the defense prevailed in spite of the judge's bias.

Great day for justice, that.
 
2013-07-20 12:19:51 AM  

Diogenes: The only people I'm feeling divided from are racist jackasses.

Luckily they conveniently label themselves with their words and actions.


Agreed. Like the people who turn non race-related things into issues of race. Like...Al Sharpton.
 
2013-07-20 12:23:21 AM  

skullkrusher: Yeah, I am sure the SS leaves the details of securing the First Daughters up to the expertise of a school's security staff. Certainly, they are reliant on that crack team of square badges to protect the most powerful children in the world.


No, I'm sure they coordinate things with the Secret Service as they have for over a decade which is more than you can say for the average DC public school.  Stop being stupid.  It's embarrassing.

skullkrusher: well... no, the circumstantial evidence (Zim's injuries as compared to Tray's lack of bruising and cuts, etc)


That's evidence that GZ was losing badly.  It doesn't indicate who started the fight.  I never said he was guilty of murder; most likely manslaughter since I don't believe he was out to kill the guy.
 
2013-07-20 12:24:04 AM  
At first he said if I had a son he'd look like Travyon. Now he's saying I was Travon Martin 35 years ago.

So he either has a severe Travyon fetish or is trying to bend reality and create a time paradox which would cause the destruction of the universe.
 
2013-07-20 12:24:30 AM  

Amos Quito: Actually you're right - for ONCE. Buy yourself a beer!


So it was the Jews again.  At least you're consistent.
 
2013-07-20 12:27:34 AM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: so it IS possible to secure a school. Just not a public school. Because.

Because Sidwell Friends has been used by Presidents and other high profile individuals whose kids would be targets for political kidnappings for decades now.  I'm gotta take a wild guess they'd have some experience in the matter rather than the average DC public school.  Are you being stupid on purpose?


Interesting how certain people have a kneejerk reaction whenever Sidwell Friends is mentioned.

I think you are a hundred percent correct. The DC 1% send their kids to Sidwell Friends because of the experience of the school's security forces in foiling kidnapping plots. They have their own private Ninjas. The secret service can pretty much take the day off.

Seriously, the POTUS could secure any public school if he wanted to. He wants his kids to have the advantage of a great education while interacting with the children of DC's best and brightest. The LAST thing he and Michele would ever want is for his kids to go to the same school as the people the Democrats love so much. truth.
 
2013-07-20 12:28:12 AM  
Seeing as he can say this and get away with it whilst maintaining such a position, does this make him a master baiter?
 
2013-07-20 12:28:15 AM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: He was belligerent with a cop when he was drunk once. That is not a "history of violence" nor does it mean that he was belligerent in his day to day life. We have an account which states that TM started the fight. That's it. Nothing more. To believe that GZ started the fight, despite the fact that TM had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and no witnesses or any other sort of evidence giving that indication is about as baseless as it gets. Keep on keeping on though.

Um, we have more than that.The speeding thing is dumb but otherwise he did have a history.  We also have him calling Martin an asshole because he assumed he was a criminal who was getting away on a 911 Call.  Likewise we have accounts of Martin getting in some fights at school.  The only account we have of the actual incident is GZ and a dead guy.  Provoking a fight doesn't mean I get a few good punches on you before getting knocked to the ground.  You can still provoke a confrontation and get your ass kicked without laying a hand on the other guy.  Really.


so one drunken tussle with a cop and a restraining order filed alleging domestic violence but no actual charges of battery which Zim contested and filed a counter order in response to and a speeding ticket. Truly this man has been a menace to society.

ahh... so now he might have "provoked" the fight. By what... asking TM what he was up to? Sure, I don't think any one believes that he didn't say some to that effect. That's hardly "starting" a fight, legally or logically.

The ONLY evidence we have seems to point to the fact that the physical confrontation was started by TM. I suppose you can ignore that and assume stuff but you're only doing that because you WANT it to be true. Not because you actually have a reason to believe it is true

And he said "these assholes" always get away.
 
2013-07-20 12:28:38 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Amos Quito: That is not why the judge excluded this powerful evidence.

Oh my God! It's so powerful!


Yeah it is, isn't it?

Earlier Droxy was whining that the whole case was tainted because the defense had the NERVE to show the jury a photo of what TM actually looked like by showing them a fairly current photo:

www.trbimg.com

The above pic clearly destroyed the image of Trayvon that the media and race-baiters had worked so long and so hard to impress on our minds:

2.bp.blogspot.com

Farking racist defense attorneys and their farking racist reality.
 
2013-07-20 12:32:11 AM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Yeah, I am sure the SS leaves the details of securing the First Daughters up to the expertise of a school's security staff. Certainly, they are reliant on that crack team of square badges to protect the most powerful children in the world.

No, I'm sure they coordinate things with the Secret Service as they have for over a decade which is more than you can say for the average DC public school.  Stop being stupid.  It's embarrassing.



You know he's right and it hurts. Doesn't it?
 
2013-07-20 12:32:45 AM  
Vectron:truth.

BS
 
2013-07-20 12:33:07 AM  

Vectron: I think you are a hundred percent correct. The DC 1% send their kids to Sidwell Friends because of the experience of the school's security forces in foiling kidnapping plots. They have their own private Ninjas. The secret service can pretty much take the day off.


There must be something in the water.  I never said that either.  Go away troll.
 
2013-07-20 12:33:43 AM  

Vectron: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Yeah, I am sure the SS leaves the details of securing the First Daughters up to the expertise of a school's security staff. Certainly, they are reliant on that crack team of square badges to protect the most powerful children in the world.

No, I'm sure they coordinate things with the Secret Service as they have for over a decade which is more than you can say for the average DC public school.  Stop being stupid.  It's embarrassing.


You know he's right and it hurts. Doesn't it?


Because the stupid burns?
 
2013-07-20 12:34:00 AM  

Sir Not Sure The Unscannable: Seeing as he can say this and get away with it whilst maintaining such a position, does this make him a master baiter?


l3.yimg.com
 
2013-07-20 12:35:45 AM  

Fart_Machine: No, I'm sure they coordinate things with the Secret Service as they have for over a decade which is more than you can say for the average DC public school. Stop being stupid. It's embarrassing.


Good Lord dude... you have been beating the piss out of yourself this entire thread and you're embarrassed for ME? The First Daughters go to Sidwell because it is an elite school. It is not because of some relative difficulty protecting the kids at another school. Those kids are protected every day every where they go. Protecting them inside a farking building with limited entrances is not something the SS needs help with. Cut it the fark out

Fart_Machine: That's evidence that GZ was losing badly. It doesn't indicate who started the fight. I never said he was guilty of murder; most likely manslaughter since I don't believe he was out to kill the guy.


so we're back to the baseless assumption again. He's guilty of manslaughter because you assume he started the fight despite the fact that you have no logical reason to make this assumption. Awesome. Pretty sure this has run its course
 
2013-07-20 12:38:47 AM  

Fart_Machine: Vectron: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Yeah, I am sure the SS leaves the details of securing the First Daughters up to the expertise of a school's security staff. Certainly, they are reliant on that crack team of square badges to protect the most powerful children in the world.

No, I'm sure they coordinate things with the Secret Service as they have for over a decade which is more than you can say for the average DC public school.  Stop being stupid.  It's embarrassing.


You know he's right and it hurts. Doesn't it?

Because the stupid burns?


I know when I am interested in a crack security team to protect my kids, my first thought is to call the Quaker's. Those Quakers have been known throughout history for their martial prowess.
 
2013-07-20 12:39:30 AM  

Hobodeluxe: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, there's evidence beyond Zimmerman's story? Please, do share. The truth is, nobody can prove definitively who started the fight.

So no one who alleges a particular party did start it should demand evidence when the counter is proposed.

Either let it go, or don't make any unsupported assertions.

are you saying that following someone ,refusing to introduce yourself or your intentions, then when asked you make a sudden move for your pocket isn't something that would make one fear that their life was in danger?



You realize that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of the bolded portion of your above statement, right Hobodeluxe?

Funny thing about this case: I find myself in agreement with many people that normally hate me, and openly say so, and disagreeing with guys like you, who in most cases I find to be rational, level-headed and unbiased.

/Twilight Zone
 
2013-07-20 12:41:34 AM  

skullkrusher: so one drunken tussle with a cop and a restraining order filed alleging domestic violence but no actual charges of battery which Zim contested and filed a counter order in response to and a speeding ticket. Truly this man has been a menace to society.


Much like a 17 year old kid who made some bravado YouTube videos and smoked weed is an out-of-control MMA fighter looking for blood.  It indicates they weren't exactly Ghandi and MLK sitting down for a pow-wow...

skullkrusher: ahh... so now he might have "provoked" the fight. By what... asking TM what he was up to? Sure, I don't think any one believes that he didn't say some to that effect. That's hardly "starting" a fight, legally or logically.


Since nobody the beginning of the actual confrontation we don't know if it progressed beyond simply asking him what he was up to.

skullkrusher: The ONLY evidence we have seems to point to the fact that the physical confrontation was started by TM. I suppose you can ignore that and assume stuff but you're only doing that because you WANT it to be true. Not because you actually have a reason to believe it is true


Would you like me to explain the same thing slower in case you missed it the first time?  I've already answered this.

skullkrusher: And he said "these assholes" always get away.


"These assholes" being the guy he was pursing - Martin.
 
2013-07-20 12:43:58 AM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: so one drunken tussle with a cop and a restraining order filed alleging domestic violence but no actual charges of battery which Zim contested and filed a counter order in response to and a speeding ticket. Truly this man has been a menace to society.

Much like a 17 year old kid who made some bravado YouTube videos and smoked weed is an out-of-control MMA fighter looking for blood.  It indicates they weren't exactly Ghandi and MLK sitting down for a pow-wow...

skullkrusher: ahh... so now he might have "provoked" the fight. By what... asking TM what he was up to? Sure, I don't think any one believes that he didn't say some to that effect. That's hardly "starting" a fight, legally or logically.

Since nobody the beginning of the actual confrontation we don't know if it progressed beyond simply asking him what he was up to.

skullkrusher: The ONLY evidence we have seems to point to the fact that the physical confrontation was started by TM. I suppose you can ignore that and assume stuff but you're only doing that because you WANT it to be true. Not because you actually have a reason to believe it is true

Would you like me to explain the same thing slower in case you missed it the first time?  I've already answered this.

skullkrusher: And he said "these assholes" always get away.

"These assholes" being the guy he was pursing - Martin.


nobody saw the start of the fight but your gut just tells ya that Zim started it despite the fact that 6 people who heard all the facts of the case thought otherwise. By ya know, basing their opinion on the facts available. Great.
 
2013-07-20 12:48:15 AM  
HERE IS A BLOCKBUSTER STORY THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING.

A few of us in this thread have been citing the black on black violence that Obama ignores. I confess I had been duped by the racist websites that printed these stories. OK here is the truth, Obama's sons have not been killing each other like we believed. I am a dirty racist for believing these racist fantasies. Oh the pain, I am feeling.


HERE IS THE TRUTH:
State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) was interviewed about Chicago crime Tuesday on WCHB-AM in Detroit.
"I'm going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they're not sure that black people are shooting all of these children," Davis said.
"There's some suspicion - and I don't want to spread this, but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing - they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids."

I hope the city doesn't tip over.
 
2013-07-20 12:49:09 AM  

Vectron: Sir Not Sure The Unscannable: Seeing as he can say this and get away with it whilst maintaining such a position, does this make him a master baiter?

[l3.yimg.com image 360x234]


www.wearemoviegeeks.com
 
2013-07-20 12:49:44 AM  

I Browse: Instead of Guardian Angel berets though, I'd suggest something a little more fashion forward:


Needs a logo

www.feistees.com
 
2013-07-20 12:50:09 AM  

Lando Lincoln: skullkrusher: so?
We have Zimmerman's account. Some evidence supports parts of the account. Other parts of the account remains unsupported. There is not evidence which materially refutes any part of his account. Let's assume he's lying. Good idea.

Only two people know what happened, and one of them is dead. How fortunate for George.



texasgopvote.com

Yeah, "Fortunate George".

He was beaten to a pulp, had to resort to deadly force to save his life, faced a trial brought to bear NOT by evidence, but by race-baiting politicians, prevailed, and now he is AGAIN being assailed by the US Attorney General, the POTUS, has a "bounty" on his head, and will be hunted by every wannabe badass for the rest of his life.

He's one fortunate SOB, that George Zimmerman.

Bet you wish you were him, huh?
 
2013-07-20 12:50:33 AM  

Vectron: HERE IS A BLOCKBUSTER STORY THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING.

A few of us in this thread have been citing the black on black violence that Obama ignores


No he doesn't
 
2013-07-20 12:52:32 AM  

skullkrusher: Good Lord dude... you have been beating the piss out of yourself this entire thread and you're embarrassed for ME? The First Daughters go to Sidwell because it is an elite school. It is not because of some relative difficulty protecting the kids at another school. Those kids are protected every day every where they go. Protecting them inside a farking building with limited entrances is not something the SS needs help with. Cut it the fark out


You're right. It's all a coincidence that high profile politicians and other executives have their kids go there and nothing whatsoever to do with security.

skullkrusher: I know when I am interested in a crack security team to protect my kids, my first thought is to call the Quaker's. Those Quakers have been known throughout history for their martial prowess.


I wasn't aware their security were all Quakers.  Fascinating.

skullkrusher: so we're back to the baseless assumption again. He's guilty of manslaughter because you assume he started the fight despite the fact that you have no logical reason to make this assumption. Awesome. Pretty sure this has run its course


Just like you assume that Martin did.  Nobody really knows for sure and hence the acquittal.  Awesome.
 
2013-07-20 12:54:55 AM  

skullkrusher: nobody saw the start of the fight but your gut just tells ya that Zim started it despite the fact that 6 people who heard all the facts of the case thought otherwise. By ya know, basing their opinion on the facts available. Great.


Six people couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty and so he was acquitted.  I don't know one way or the other.  I just made the suggestion that things aren't as absolute as you make them out to be and then you went all "you think Zimmerman's a racist wharrgarbl" on me.
 
2013-07-20 12:55:39 AM  

DVOM: Vectron: HERE IS A BLOCKBUSTER STORY THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING.

A few of us in this thread have been citing the black on black violence that Obama ignores

No he doesn't



You're pretty good at conserving pixels.
 
2013-07-20 12:55:59 AM  

Amos Quito: He was beaten to a pulp


So the only fights you have been in involve six buttons and a joystick.
 
2013-07-20 12:59:13 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Amos Quito: Evidence of what, exactly? That Trayvon was a black teen, and the leading cause of death among black teens in America is being shot by other blacks?

Clarified that for ya.

How does that make it more clear, exactly?



It refutes your obvious attempt at implying that most black teens are killed by "racist whiteys".

The sad truth is that blacks make up nearly half of all murder victims annually in the US, and that most of them are killed by OTHER BLACKS.

But this case is about INTERRACIAL murder, and unfortunately, blacks kill TWICE as many whites every year as whites kill blacks.

But no one talks about THAT inconvenient truth, do they?
 
2013-07-20 01:00:38 AM  

Vectron: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.


Should you be out screwing somebody out of something.



What makes you think he isn't?
 
2013-07-20 01:01:40 AM  

Fart_Machine: You're right. It's all a coincidence that high profile politicians and other executives have their kids go there and nothing whatsoever to do with security.


No, it really has very little to do with the unarmed security guards they have. High profile kids go there because it is an elite school. As a result, they have built a security staff to protect those kids. Chicken egg. No one is sending their kids to Sidwell because some retired cops are walking the grounds.

Fart_Machine: I wasn't aware their security were all Quakers. Fascinating.


jeez it was a farking joke - they don't even carry weapons. Unlike the SS who are the people who actually protect M&S
 
2013-07-20 01:02:58 AM  

Fart_Machine: Just like you assume that Martin did. Nobody really knows for sure and hence the acquittal. Awesome.


Um... nope.  You're assuming Zimmerman is guilty so, therefore, you must assume he also started the confrontation. Making the facts fit the outcome and pretending as if it is logical. You're right, I should stop embarrassing myself.
 
2013-07-20 01:04:04 AM  
Amos QuitoHe was beaten to a pulp

A bloody nose is "beaten to a pulp"?..

will be hunted by every wannabe badass for the rest of his life.

A wannabe badass will be hunted by other wannabe badass's? Color me shocked!
 
2013-07-20 01:07:47 AM  

skullkrusher: No, it really has very little to do with the unarmed security guards they have. High profile kids go there because it is an elite school. As a result, they have built a security staff to protect those kids. Chicken egg. No one is sending their kids to Sidwell because some retired cops are walking the grounds.


Actually they do since it's not the only high-end private school in DC.  The only recent President who did send his kid to public school was Jimmy Carter and according to Amy she was miserable because she could never go outside until classes were over.  So not having your kids spend their childhood imprisoned on the school grounds is a pretty good reason why they don't go to the local public school.
 
2013-07-20 01:10:42 AM  

skullkrusher: Um... nope. You're assuming Zimmerman is guilty so, therefore, you must assume he also started the confrontation.


Fart_Machine: Six people couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty and so he was acquitted. I don't know one way or the other. I just made the suggestion that things aren't as absolute as you make them out to be and then you went all "you think Zimmerman's a racist wharrgarbl" on me.


Yeah, that's what I said.  And before the b-b-but I would have gone for manslaughter if I was the prosecution.  I never claimed to have seen who started the fight.
 
2013-07-20 01:10:52 AM  

Jesus Christ, this thread is a train wreck.


Skullcrusher, regardless of how you feel about TM and GZ, why the FARK are you arguing over why Obama sends his kids to private school? He is the god damned president. If ANY kids should go to private school, it should be the kids of our president. Seriously, dude, give it a farking rest. You're just arguing to be contrary and it is farking obnoxious. I can handle trolls. You're just being a douche. Now knock it off!

 
2013-07-20 01:14:29 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Jesus Christ, this thread is a train wreck.
Skullcrusher, regardless of how you feel about TM and GZ, why the FARK are you arguing over why Obama sends his kids to private school? He is the god damned president. If ANY kids should go to private school, it should be the kids of our president. Seriously, dude, give it a farking rest. You're just arguing to be contrary and it is farking obnoxious. I can handle trolls. You're just being a douche. Now knock it off!


You missed the point entirely, not surprisingly. Why the fark would I care that the President's kids go to private school? If you paid attention, you'd see that I don't buy the reason that FM posited - the security. The President sends his kids to private school because it's an elite farking school, not because the SS can't protect the kids at a public school.

Sorry you hate people taking contrary positions to stupid assertions troubling.
 
2013-07-20 01:16:02 AM  

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Um... nope. You're assuming Zimmerman is guilty so, therefore, you must assume he also started the confrontation.

Fart_Machine: Six people couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty and so he was acquitted. I don't know one way or the other. I just made the suggestion that things aren't as absolute as you make them out to be and then you went all "you think Zimmerman's a racist wharrgarbl" on me.

Yeah, that's what I said.  And before the b-b-but I would have gone for manslaughter if I was the prosecution.  I never claimed to have seen who started the fight.


yet you obviously disagree with the verdict. OK, great. As I've said numerous times now. Awesome. The prosecution should have called you to sit on the jury.
 
2013-07-20 01:16:44 AM  

skullkrusher: Mike Chewbacca: Jesus Christ, this thread is a train wreck.
Skullcrusher, regardless of how you feel about TM and GZ, why the FARK are you arguing over why Obama sends his kids to private school? He is the god damned president. If ANY kids should go to private school, it should be the kids of our president. Seriously, dude, give it a farking rest. You're just arguing to be contrary and it is farking obnoxious. I can handle trolls. You're just being a douche. Now knock it off!

You missed the point entirely, not surprisingly. Why the fark would I care that the President's kids go to private school? If you paid attention, you'd see that I don't buy the reason that FM posited - the security. The President sends his kids to private school because it's an elite farking school, not because the SS can't protect the kids at a public school.

Sorry you hate people taking contrary positions to stupid assertions troubling.


that should have been find... not "hate". Freudian slip you d-bags!!!!

kidding.

now sleeping.

nitey nite
 
2013-07-20 01:17:07 AM  
Some goodies from CNN's comment section. Running about 85% anti Obama's Statement.


Dave • a minute ago

The more I read this article, the more appalled I am. It is mind boggling that a president would stoop to this level of bias and voice his bias in such a self righteous fashion publicly. Wow. I'm more and more stunned by the minute.

naotachanell • 5 minutes ago

The era of the "gangsta", is coming to an end.
Black people! - If you don't want to get shot . . . keep your hands to yourself.

1angryblkman • 6 minutes ago

White People Read This :
;
White people,I want to offer a prayer for you and your hateful ways.Please, Father cleanse the crac ker and make him a human again instead of a sub human.Father teach the crac ker how not to lie and steal and rebuke the evil spirits of paedophelia,same gender sex,serial killings and mass killings from him along with a lot more demons.Oh Father,remove that stink from crac kers azzss when you go into a room full of them.Father,teach the crac ker that he is not important and every racial type and sub type,on earth,is trying to bite a chunk out of his azzss.Father guide the crac ker Ho , and teach her to stop swallowing billions of baby crac kers before they get to utter their first N word.Also ,teach the cra cker Ho to stop leaving baby crac ker in Dr Krakers's office in a specimen jar.Father ,guide the stupid crac ker into understanding that if he stays on the same course the blackman will bite a chunk out of his azzss and unleash the Dragon on him.Father ,I ask that you return that Booty rear end back to the cr ac ker and exchange it for that unsightly flat booty you gave him,,,and father return my Rib back ,the Rib you used to create the crac ker Ho.Father please give all cra cker men a suitable sausage ,you gave them all small nubbins which they cant use so their Hoes leave them for blackmen.Father,teach the crac ker that thou shall not love same genderanus................................the word has been spoken and written ,let those in agreement say AMEN.....LET THE CHURCH SAY AMEN


ScottCA • 6 minutes ago

Obama was all about assaulting neighborhood watch leaders in his youth? This is rather shocking news.


Darrell2 • 7 minutes ago

No, Mr. President, however terrible Trayvon may have been, he'd probably never spy on American citizens, order their detention and execution without trial and then try to sweep it under the rug by having his attorney general start a race conflict.

Sam Brown • 9 minutes ago
WE need more neighborhood watch volunteers in Chicago...........
Armed to the Teeth, God Bless Zimmerman


UIC Tyson Gilmore • 11 minutes ago

where's the story about the 2 black teenagers accused in the fatal
shooting of a 13-month-old white baby in the face who was in a stroller
being pushed by his mother on March 23, 2013?

blaccprez • 17 minutes ago 100% of incestuous relationships occur in white house holds.
 
2013-07-20 01:18:44 AM  

skullkrusher: yet you obviously disagree with the verdict. OK, great. As I've said numerous times now. Awesome. The prosecution should have called you to sit on the jury.


I doubt either one of us would be allowed to sit on the jury and I never argued that I should.  Put away that straw before you poke an eye out.
 
2013-07-20 01:20:09 AM  

vernonFL: JerseyTim: "I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels."

That monster.

He is an imperial President!

He's got more Czars than the USSR!

All Hail Emperor Obama!


the USSR didn't have Czars, they over threw them.  Czars are an adaption of the word "caesar" it's really the chief in charge of a department kinda position in the US.  You see when you run a large organization you can't humanly be running and knowing everything, so you higer minions to handle that stuff for you.  So please stop commenting and bringing down the perceptions of our state.
 
2013-07-20 01:21:12 AM  

I Browse: s2s2s2: Maybe if George had worn one of these...
[www.nexternal.com image 530x400]

Might look a little geeky, but that actually wouldn't have been a bad idea. If he were easily identifiable as neighborhood watch, then there's no way Martin could've mistaken him for anything else. And perhaps the incident never would've escalated to the point that it did.

Instead of Guardian Angel berets though, I'd suggest something a little more fashion forward:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x298]


And for his car, maybe something like this:

[esr-sq.pbworks.com image 474x305]

I read in one of these threads that Zimmerman was offered the chance to have a marked patrol vehicle, but he turned it down. I would've loved to hear his reason for doing that.


I have to be honest, my first thought when I heard that was, "Prolly comes with a 'leave your gun at home!' rule." One that is a little more enforceable. I don't think the HOA NW program had many rules. Probably why they had to settle with Trayvon's parents.
 
2013-07-20 01:21:53 AM  

RevMercutio: WizardofToast: Vectron: RevMercutio: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Vectron: Interesting that his daughters don't go to a DC public school. Where do they go? Sidwell Friends? That is a great cross section of America there, alright. Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

Yes, why not send the President's kids to an unsecured public school.  You must be a troll.  Nobody could be this stupid.

which is why the President never leaves the White House. The outside world is unsecure and there is no way to make it secure.

You don't even try anymore, man

How dare The President send his children to a private school. That's farking uppity. You better whitesplain it to him.

The point I am trying to make is: Amazing how bright the future looks when your kids hang out with the 1%.

The Kenyan thinks kids are better today. How would he know?

The good thing is his daughters will always move in the world of the 1%. They will have no knowledge of any other reality.

Hoo boy.

Yup. That's the point where his opinion on anything ceased to be valid.



YUP YUP!!!

The President is no more "Kenyan" than George Zimmerman is "Peruvian".

In fact, "the Kenyan" and "the Peruvian BOTH are EQUALLY "white", aren't they?


www.witnessesuntome.com   +  upload.wikimedia.org

=
malabarinews.com


i.huffpost.com  +  cache.daylife.com

=

www2.pictures.zimbio.com




If Zimmerman is "white", so is the Race-Baiter in Chief

So why is Obama working SO HARD to create racial division and strife in the nation that he pretends to preside over?

Go figure.
 
2013-07-20 01:23:21 AM  

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

 
2013-07-20 01:23:59 AM  

balthan: Ned Stark: 1 Zimmerman didn't claim stand your ground

Zimmerman didn't have to claim stand your ground. SYG modified self defense laws in Florida. It was in the instructions given to the jury and B37 mentioned it specifically as a reason they didn't convict.


THIS. You can't say SYG didn't play into it when it was the applicable law. It's like saying I can live without air because I never asked to breathe.
 
2013-07-20 01:24:29 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Jesus Christ, this thread is a train wreck.
Skullcrusher, regardless of how you feel about TM and GZ, why the FARK are you arguing over why Obama sends his kids to private school? He is the god damned president. If ANY kids should go to private school, it should be the kids of our president.


What is he a king? A God? I mean fark, this is supposed to be America. Respect the office if you must but don't deify the office holder.
 
2013-07-20 01:26:09 AM  

BuckTurgidson: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 753x600]


You're right. Sweet dreams to everyone.
 
2013-07-20 01:29:10 AM  

Kittypie070: Hey, I thought only us filthy toejam-picking bongo-smackin' weed-chewin' commie-librul hippiez were spozed to draw the vile and unspeakable race card.

Never in the world could I possibly imagine that an unimpeachably upright, righteous, Godly, noble, and truth loving conservative commentator on Fox Fluffy News would speak of such an unworthy concept.

[www.samefacts.com image 550x306]

Jeeves, my fainting couch, pliz.


Hi Kittypie070!

How's things?


/Feel free to ignore me - It's all cool
//Cats
///It's what they do
 
2013-07-20 01:29:45 AM  
Somebody on Fox tells the truth, liberals whine, news at 11.
 
2013-07-20 01:31:39 AM  

s2s2s2: I Browse: s2s2s2: Maybe if George had worn one of these...
[www.nexternal.com image 530x400]

Might look a little geeky, but that actually wouldn't have been a bad idea. If he were easily identifiable as neighborhood watch, then there's no way Martin could've mistaken him for anything else. And perhaps the incident never would've escalated to the point that it did.

Instead of Guardian Angel berets though, I'd suggest something a little more fashion forward:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x298]


And for his car, maybe something like this:

[esr-sq.pbworks.com image 474x305]

I read in one of these threads that Zimmerman was offered the chance to have a marked patrol vehicle, but he turned it down. I would've loved to hear his reason for doing that.

I have to be honest, my first thought when I heard that was, "Prolly comes with a 'leave your gun at home!' rule." One that is a little more enforceable. I don't think the HOA NW program had many rules. Probably why they had to settle with Trayvon's parents.


They probably settled because they didn't know all the facts at the time and were shamed into it by the mob and the threat of legal action. Now they have egg on their face because all of Mr. Martin's delinquent behavior has come to light. They should try to get that settlement back, if they can. The Martin's are the last people on earth who should be getting paid after their neglected son ruined a law-abiding, stand-up citizen's life.
 
2013-07-20 01:34:20 AM  
Vectron:What is he a king? A God? I mean fark, this is supposed to be America. Respect the office if you must but don't deify the office holder.

LOL...
 
2013-07-20 01:34:54 AM  

Kittypie070: Hey, I thought only us filthy toejam-picking bongo-smackin' weed-chewin' commie-librul hippiez were spozed to draw the vile and unspeakable race card.

Never in the world could I possibly imagine that an unimpeachably upright, righteous, Godly, noble, and truth loving conservative commentator on Fox Fluffy News would speak of such an unworthy concept.

[www.samefacts.com image 550x306]

Jeeves, my fainting couch, pliz.


Occasionally people on FOX pull the race card, but they're the liberals. Ya see, FOX gives both sides of the story.

Fair and Balanced.
 
2013-07-20 01:36:55 AM  
creepy ass-cracka:a law-abiding, stand-up citizen's life.

A wife beater?
 
2013-07-20 01:38:16 AM  

DVOM: creepy ass-cracka:a law-abiding, stand-up citizen's life.

A wife beater?


Pardon?
 
2013-07-20 01:40:35 AM  
creepy azz-cracka
Fark account number: 865913
Account created: 2013-07-02 22:08:23


Your surprisingly novel, challenging, and clearly sincere and candid and refreshing perspectives intrigue and captivate me. Pray sir, unburden yourself of your long-withheld but most heartfelt convictions.

My duties require me to be in the other room for some time but I'll check back in a while or perhaps tomorrow.
 
2013-07-20 01:40:46 AM  
Let's face it.

The Zimmerman TRIAL was never about race. The Zimmerman VERDICT had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with badly worded laws and poorly understood circumstances which required the jury to make a decision about a split-second in time divorced from all context as to how the two participants got there and which forced the prosecution to focus its case on whether Zimmerman was truly in fear of his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Thus, the jury could only return a verdict on whether at that instant Zimmerman "murdered" Martin or fired a shot in fear of his life. And at that moment, race issues had exactly zero to do with it.

The Zimmerman/Martin ISSUE had, of course, a great deal to do with race; but that is not what was being decided in the courtroom. It might have been, had Zimmerman pleaded "not guilty" to the charge of murder; but by pleading "self defense" he essentially admitted to the killing, and the only real issue for the jury then became that moment of whether he was fearful for his life. Had he pleaded "not guilty" and ONLY "not guilty" then the larger issues of whether he targeted Martin deliberately, went out that night looking for someone to kill, etc., might have carried more weight. But they did not.

Had this case been tried in California, where we have an "imperfect self defense" verdict, or New York, where since the Bernie Goetz case juries are allowed to give more objective consideration to the "fear of one's life" standard in a self-defense case, things might have been different. But it was not. It was in Florida. And since the jury was required to find Zimmerman guilty of either 2d-degree murder (unlawful killing with malice aforethought) or voluntary manslaughter (murder with mitigating circumstances such as adequate provocation), the prosecution simply failed to show anything that would overcome the self-defense element. And you cannot lay that off on any racial element. Unless the argument is that the prosecutors were subconsciously racists who didn't care if Zimmerman got convicted; and I've not seen that one presented yet.
 
2013-07-20 01:46:16 AM  
acknowledging racism = race baiting
 
2013-07-20 01:48:23 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Unless the argument is that the prosecutors were subconsciously racists who didn't care if Zimmerman got convicted; and I've not seen that one presented yet.


Well, they clearly didn't want to prosecute until an outraged public forced them to do so.
 
2013-07-20 01:49:26 AM  

Vectron: Mike Chewbacca: Jesus Christ, this thread is a train wreck.
Skullcrusher, regardless of how you feel about TM and GZ, why the FARK are you arguing over why Obama sends his kids to private school? He is the god damned president. If ANY kids should go to private school, it should be the kids of our president.

What is he a king? A God? I mean fark, this is supposed to be America. Respect the office if you must but don't deify the office holder.


The idea that a black president would send his kids to private school -like every president, ever- is "deifying" him? MAAAAANNNN.....

Chewbacca's point was that someone holding the social position of the US President is very likely going to be sending their kids to private schools, and arguing about it is a pretty silly waste of time. I sincerely hope you misunderstood it as a claim that the Prez shouldn't be questioned because otherwise, damn, you just wrote one of the better examples of why racism is still a thing in the US that I can think of.
 
2013-07-20 01:51:25 AM  
I've worked with a lot of kids over the past few years and those texts from Martin aren't much different than some of the stories that the kids themselves have told me.  Teenagers have astonishingly poor judgement and bunches of them get in trouble.  I didn't see much in those texts to make Trayvon out to be any kind of monster, rather he was a troubled teenager.  Sadly, we'll never know if he would have shaped up.

The other thing that sticks with me is the whole "neighborhood watch" thing.  Years ago (when I was a teenager), the folks on my street put together a neighborhood watch group that sort of fell by the wayside when the organizer divorced and moved away.  The neighborhood watch sign is still posted front of the house I lived in (my brother lives there now).  In our neighborhood, the group was more of a social thing where everyone got to know their neighbors a little bit and the police would come out and give crime prevention tips and stuff at the meetings, which makes sense.  Knowing your neighbors is important.  I'm awful with that stuff, but it does give you an idea of who belongs in the neighborhood and it makes personal connections like "Ooh, it looks someone is farking with Jane's house, I better call the cops".

It seems to me some people are confusing a neighborhood watch with a "citizen's patrol" type of thing.  In the city I grew up in, they have a group of folks that drive around the city (in marked vehicles) who communicate with an officer if they see anything wrong.  These folks are trained by the sheriff's department and it is much different than a neighborhood watch type of thing.  They also assist with traffic control when a major incident happens in the city.  Zimmerman seems like he wasn't in this type of group, but more of an informal neighborhood watch put together by a group of folks in his HOA.

Lastly, my FIL and my brother's FIL are both retired cops.  They've both made it pretty clear that when you see something that is suspicious, call the cops and don't interject yourself into the situation.  (csb time) So last Halloween, we took the kids to the train museum to ride the Halloween Train.  As we were leaving, there was a group in front of us with a small toddler that they weren't exactly paying attention to.  Next thing I know, I hear screaming.  One of the neighborhood kids was riding his bike through the parking lot and crashed into the little toddler.  Best I could tell is that she darted out and the kid couldn't stop in time.  The family was just laying into the kid on the bike.  The kid was scared shiatless and trying to explain what happened, being super apologetic.  Meanwhile, the poor little girl is bleeding and the family is more worried about the kid on the bike.  I seriously thought the Dad was going to beat up the little boy.  I'm not a small guy (6'3 and about 240 at the time) and the Dad outweighed me by quite a bit.  I decided that if the Dad was going to hit anyone, it may as well be me so I got in between him and the boy on the bike.  Once the dad started focusing his attention on me, I told the boy to go home and not come back anytime soon.  I was probably a few seconds away from getting pummeled until my wife got her phone out and started yelling about calling the police and such.  Oh, and the little girl was still bleeding and no one had done anything to take care of her yet.  Once they actually started focusing on the little girl, my wife and I got the hell out and called the police.

I told the story to my FIL, and his first words to me were "What the hell were you thinking?"  Even in a situation like that (I felt like I didn't have a choice), most police will tell you to stay the hell out.  I doubt anyone would have told Zim to follow Martin.
 
2013-07-20 01:55:45 AM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Actually you're right - for ONCE. Buy yourself a beer!

So it was the Jews again.  At least you're consistent.



Let's put that little comment into context, shall we?


Fart_Machine: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: I don't know.You think it involves the Jews again?


Actually, it was because the ghost of Oswald was found to have possessed that phone, and was pranking Trayvon with his wacky texts.


(the truth is not too far from that bit of silliness)



Amos Quito: Actually you're right - for ONCE. Buy yourself a beer!


In fact, the Judge argued that "any seven-year-old" could have hacked Trayvon's phone and written those texts - and therefor it could not be PROVEN that it was actually TRAYVON who wrote about his love of fighting and violence, his shopping for a gun, his posting pics of pot plants - etc.

No, really, she said that "any seven-year-old" could have hacked TM's phone - even though the defense correctly pointed out that TM's phone was very well secured, and that it took police experts MONTHS of work to gain access to those texts.

And yet SOME asshats will claim that the trial was biased AGAINST the prosecution.

You aren't one of those asshats, are you Fart_Machine?

Anyway, the defense prevailed in spite of the judge's bias.

Great day for justice, that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

END QUOTE


And now for your little comment:


Fart_Machine:
 So it was the Jews again.  At least you're consistent.


Jews? WTF???

Now, do you look silly and desperate, or what???

Say, you wouldn't be trying to work up the courage to call me an anti-Semite in an attempt to draw attention from your flaccid, impotent and ridiculous "arguments", would you?

Please say it ain't so!

Because frankly, I just don't know whether I could handle some pathetic putz calling me some overused, worn-out, worthless and inappropriately applied pejorative.

For the love of all that is holy, say it ain't so, Fart_Machine.


/Thanks in advance
 
2013-07-20 02:01:27 AM  

derpy: Gyrfalcon: Unless the argument is that the prosecutors were subconsciously racists who didn't care if Zimmerman got convicted; and I've not seen that one presented yet.

Well, they clearly didn't want to prosecute until an outraged public forced them to do so.


Race? Whatever.

In my gun-friendly, shall-issue, castle-doctrine make-my-day home state of Colorado:
- I can shoot you dead if you enter my house illegally and you make me think you'll hurt me.
- If you threaten my life in public, I do not have to retreat to the wall before ruining your day.

But as I understand it (not being a lawyer), these are points my lawyer might raise in court.

I don't get to just tell the cops, "Oh. Yeah, I had to shoot that one." and then go home.
 
2013-07-20 02:01:32 AM  

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Just like you assume that Martin did. Nobody really knows for sure and hence the acquittal. Awesome.

Um... nope.  You're assuming Zimmerman is guilty so, therefore, you must assume he also started the confrontation. Making the facts fit the outcome and pretending as if it is logical. You're right, I should stop embarrassing myself.


He walked up to a kid at night with a gun openly displayed and challenged his right to be there. None of that's in dispute. That's why people think he started the confrontation; because he did.
 
2013-07-20 02:06:22 AM  

DVOM: creepy ass-cracka:a law-abiding, stand-up citizen's life.

A wife beater?


His account is 3 weeks old and his handle is "creepy ass-cracka" and he's posting in a thread about Trayvon Martin, who called Zimmerman a creepy-ass cracker. Do you believe in troll threads? You're posting in one!
 
2013-07-20 02:18:51 AM  

Amos Quito: I

Anyway, the defense prevailed in spite of the judge's bias.

Great day for justice, that.


Actually, anyone with half a brain knows the prosecution dropped the ball, dude.

Yeah, I know you want to believe that a verdict that supports the killing of a black teenager is "justice."

and I can already hear your tiny fists pounding now that the Feds are considering picking up this case up and try it right. You want the world to lean towards your Trash Can Man Wild West Fantasyworld, but it must really be a biatch when you find out that you're just a lone dude waving a screwball flag.
 
2013-07-20 02:22:46 AM  

Heron: He walked up to a kid at night with a gun openly displayed and challenged his right to be there. None of that's in dispute. That's why people think he started the confrontation; because he did.


Is there proof? Not really.
Nor is there proof that Martin just starting beating Zimmerman to death in response to the question of what he was doing in a place he had every right to be.
Yet everyone who comes to the defense of Zimmerman seems to silently assume that's true.
 
2013-07-20 02:25:38 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: I

Anyway, the defense prevailed in spite of the judge's bias.

Great day for justice, that.

Actually, anyone with half a brain knows the prosecution dropped the ball, dude.

Yeah, I know you want to believe that a verdict that supports the killing of a black teenager is "justice."

and I can already hear your tiny fists pounding now that the Feds are considering picking up this case up and try it right. You want the world to lean towards your Trash Can Man Wild West Fantasyworld, but it must really be a biatch when you find out that you're just a lone dude waving a screwball flag.


Tell me.... what more could the prosecution have done, save lying to court?

No. The fact is, the prosecution had to work with what they had, and, it just so happened, the only evidence supported Zimmerman's story and thus, he was found innocent of everything.
 
2013-07-20 02:30:35 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Heron: He walked up to a kid at night with a gun openly displayed and challenged his right to be there. None of that's in dispute. That's why people think he started the confrontation; because he did.

Is there proof? Not really.
Nor is there proof that Martin just starting beating Zimmerman to death in response to the question of what he was doing in a place he had every right to be.
Yet everyone who comes to the defense of Zimmerman seems to silently assume that's true.


You're right. Zimmerman or Martin could have had a nice chat about the b-ball game before Martin starting beating Zimmerman to death. We will never know.

What we most certainly do know, however, is that Zimmerman was the only one who received blows. Zimmerman was the only one with a broken nose, and Zimmerman was the only one who had his head bashed into the concrete.

Martin, on the other hand, didn't have a scratch on him except for his hands (since he'd been pummeling Zimmerman) and the gun-shot wound inflicted by Zimmerman which finally put an end to the aggressive assault.
 
2013-07-20 02:32:20 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: No. The fact is


The fact is you're an obvious troll that no one is taking seriously here.

Thanks for playing. I don't want to hear from you again unless you're going to have a meltdown. Which would be mildly entertaining.
 
2013-07-20 02:35:12 AM  

whidbey: creepy ass-cracka: No. The fact is

The fact is you're an obvious troll that no one is taking seriously here.

Thanks for playing. I don't want to hear from you again unless you're going to have a meltdown. Which would be mildly entertaining.


My good sir, that's not an healthy response. We modern men, we Liberals need to keep an open mind and listen to all the arguments. After all, Liberalism is founded in the ideals of the Enlightenment, Humanism, and such.
 
2013-07-20 02:39:57 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: ood sir, that's not an healthy response.



Come on. I want to hear you start screaming until comments get deleted.
 
2013-07-20 02:44:32 AM  

Amos Quito: He was beaten to a pulp


You are dumb.
 
2013-07-20 02:45:36 AM  

whidbey: creepy ass-cracka: ood sir, that's not an healthy response.


Come on. I want to hear you start screaming until comments get deleted.


But sir, or madame, what do I have to scream about? Certainly not the outcome of the Trayvon Martin Trial, for justice prevailed over the tyranny of the mob. As for the ignoramus-in-chief, he's been in office for a while now and, frankly, while his statements are irresponsible and quite possibly dangerous (let alone beside the point and misinformed), this is par for the course for Barack.
 
2013-07-20 02:46:31 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: You're right. Zimmerman or Martin could have had a nice chat about the b-ball game before Martin starting beating Zimmerman to death. We will never know.

What we most certainly do know, however, is that Zimmerman was the only one who received blows. Zimmerman was the only one with a broken nose, and Zimmerman was the only one who had his head bashed into the concrete.

Martin, on the other hand, didn't have a scratch on him except for his hands (since he'd been pummeling Zimmerman) and the gun-shot wound inflicted by Zimmerman which finally put an end to the aggressive assault.


I am right. You really didn't do anything but reinforce my point. What could have provoked such a violent reaction from Martin? The unspoken accusation underlying the arguments of every Zimmerman supporter seems to be that Martin did it for no reason whatsoever or because he was a violent thug.

Zimmerman got off on a self defense charge even though evidence and his own frickin' testimony show he was actively following Martin. Martin seems to be branded as guilty of violent assault, no thought given to self defense from the man who was stalking him.
 
2013-07-20 02:47:57 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: whidbey: creepy ass-cracka: No. The fact is

The fact is you're an obvious troll that no one is taking seriously here.

Thanks for playing. I don't want to hear from you again unless you're going to have a meltdown. Which would be mildly entertaining.

My good sir, that's not an healthy response. We modern men, we Liberals need to keep an open mind and listen to all the arguments. After all, Liberalism is founded in the ideals of the Enlightenment, Humanism, and such.


Getting that username gave you such potential for great entertainment in these threads, such a shame that you wasted it.
 
2013-07-20 02:50:07 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: creepy ass-cracka: You're right. Zimmerman or Martin could have had a nice chat about the b-ball game before Martin starting beating Zimmerman to death. We will never know.

What we most certainly do know, however, is that Zimmerman was the only one who received blows. Zimmerman was the only one with a broken nose, and Zimmerman was the only one who had his head bashed into the concrete.

Martin, on the other hand, didn't have a scratch on him except for his hands (since he'd been pummeling Zimmerman) and the gun-shot wound inflicted by Zimmerman which finally put an end to the aggressive assault.

I am right. You really didn't do anything but reinforce my point. What could have provoked such a violent reaction from Martin? The unspoken accusation underlying the arguments of every Zimmerman supporter seems to be that Martin did it for no reason whatsoever or because he was a violent thug.

Zimmerman got off on a self defense charge even though evidence and his own frickin' testimony show he was actively following Martin. Martin seems to be branded as guilty of violent assault, no thought given to self defense from the man who was stalking him.


According to the last person to speak with Martin (save Zimmerman), namely Rachel Jeantal, he went back to bash Zimmerman because he (Martin) thought that he (Zimmerman) was a gay (nttawwt) rapist. However, again according to Ms. Jeantal, Zimmerman didn't know that Martin merely wanted to bash him because of his sexual orientation.
 
2013-07-20 02:57:42 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: According to the last person to speak with Martin (save Zimmerman), namely Rachel Jeantal, he went back to bash Zimmerman because he (Martin) thought that he (Zimmerman) was a gay (nttawwt) rapist. However, again according to Ms. Jeantal, Zimmerman didn't know that Martin merely wanted to bash him because of his sexual orientation.


So it's okay if Zimmerman goes after Martin, but not vice versa? Need to stop so flagrantly showing your bias.
Martin's opinion of Zimmerman isn't exactly exemplary, but he's still reacting to a stalker hounding him in a place he has every right to be. Nor does it change that Zimmerman was the once who was looking for a confrontation.
 
2013-07-20 03:07:11 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: creepy ass-cracka: According to the last person to speak with Martin (save Zimmerman), namely Rachel Jeantal, he went back to bash Zimmerman because he (Martin) thought that he (Zimmerman) was a gay (nttawwt) rapist. However, again according to Ms. Jeantal, Zimmerman didn't know that Martin merely wanted to bash him because of his sexual orientation.

So it's okay if Zimmerman goes after Martin, but not vice versa? Need to stop so flagrantly showing your bias.
Martin's opinion of Zimmerman isn't exactly exemplary, but he's still reacting to a stalker hounding him in a place he has every right to be. Nor does it change that Zimmerman was the once who was looking for a confrontation.


George Zimmerman was SFC of the NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. He didn't "stalk" he observed and reported. Hence the phone call to the non-emergency police. Zimmerman was not looking for a confrontation, on the contrary, he was jumped and savagely beaten by Mr. Martin.
 
2013-07-20 03:20:18 AM  
oh look...a new alt....

*yawn*
 
2013-07-20 03:38:25 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Sagus: 20yrs is a little steep, but you don't go and get a weapon and then come back in. Again no common sense

it was her house and her kids were still in there.
she got the gun and try to make him leave. when he didn't she fired it to make him leave.


No it was HIS house she was there against a restraining order
 
2013-07-20 03:39:09 AM  

log_jammin: oh look...a new alt....

*yawn*


And there's another earlier in the thread named Neighborhood Watch. Account created 7/18. Soooooooo obvious.
 
2013-07-20 03:41:58 AM  

Sagus: Hobodeluxe: Sagus: 20yrs is a little steep, but you don't go and get a weapon and then come back in. Again no common sense

it was her house and her kids were still in there.
she got the gun and try to make him leave. when he didn't she fired it to make him leave.

No it was HIS house she was there against a restraining order


She used to live there, and she was unable to leave through the garage because the door didn't work. Even her ex says she was in the right, and he's the dude she shot "at." It's a bullshiat prosecution and and an especially bullshiat sentence. I could see a couple years, but 20 is bullshiat.
 
2013-07-20 03:47:13 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: And there's another earlier in the thread named Neighborhood Watch. Account created 7/18. Soooooooo obvious.


talk about phoning it in.
 
2013-07-20 03:52:37 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: She used to live there


irrelivant when there is a restraining order.

Mike Chewbacca: and she was unable to leave through the garage because the door didn't work.


I can't remember the exact details but IIRC the "could get out the garage door" story was BS because she left the house, gut her gun and came back in. she made up the garage door thing later.

Mike Chewbacca: Even her ex says she was in the right, and he's the dude she shot "at."


doesn't mean much. spouses stick up for their abusive SOs all the time. The way I see it he doesn't want his ex to go to jail for 20 years, even if she is psycho.

Mike Chewbacca: I could see a couple years, but 20 is bullshiat.


she was offered a plea deal for a couple of years and she turned it down.
 
2013-07-20 03:54:16 AM  

bborchar: What he said was true.  The only thing Travon Martin did wrong was walk through a neighborhood at night while being black and wearing a hoodie.


Your comment made me fire two warning shots into the wall. Lets make sure this doesn't go any farther.
 
2013-07-20 04:02:38 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: or justice prevailed over the tyranny of the mob
the ignoramus-in-chief


Bye troll. Sorry you couldn't get your stupid thinly veiled racist points across.

*favorited!*
 
2013-07-20 04:06:18 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: Hence the phone call to the non-emergency police. Zimmerman was not looking for a confrontation, on the contrary,


Who told him not to follow, and yet he did anyway. I don't know what other definition of "looking for a confrontation" there is.
 
2013-07-20 04:09:25 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Sagus: Hobodeluxe: Sagus: 20yrs is a little steep, but you don't go and get a weapon and then come back in. Again no common sense

it was her house and her kids were still in there.
she got the gun and try to make him leave. when he didn't she fired it to make him leave.

No it was HIS house she was there against a restraining order

She used to live there, and she was unable to leave through the garage because the door didn't work. Even her ex says she was in the right, and he's the dude she shot "at." It's a bullshiat prosecution and and an especially bullshiat sentence. I could see a couple years, but 20 is bullshiat.


it's mighty hard to argue self defense when you go get a gun from another room and then come back to shoot someone. and you will have to take my word for it when I say this, but even for white people. there's a principle of proportionality and also immediate or contemporaneous threat, usually.

that's the reason why you can't remove yourself from the danger then reenter to kill the dude that stopped being the threat when you left. and once again I find you people essentially, in so many words, arguing for an expanded reading of the self defense laws you hate and want circumscribed - simply because of one of the actors dark skin tone.

is it too much to ask you nutjobs to pick a case that is on point instead of blindly regurgitating what you read on huffpo or god knows where? seriously, there has to be one. because there truly are racists out there. sometimes I wish you people had some brains so we could have a logical discussion. no actually, no that would be truly terrifying.
 
2013-07-20 04:10:23 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: I

Anyway, the defense prevailed in spite of the judge's bias.

Great day for justice, that.

Actually, anyone with half a brain knows the prosecution dropped the ball, dude.

Yeah, I know you want to believe that a verdict that supports the killing of a black teenager is "justice."



No, you and I both know that any whitey that finds himself being beaten by a black gentleman should not resist, but simply lie back and enjoy - knowing deep in his heart that he OWES that young gent all of the blood that he has to bleed AND MORE - because "racism".

Any white man with an inkling of valor should consider it a duty - nay - an HONOR to sacrifice his life's energy to the multi-generational rage that courses through the veins of the poor, downtrodden and perpetually oppressed black man.

Amen, brother whidbey. Amen.

Now, why don't you do YOUR duty as a filthy oppressive whitey, and find yourself a melanin-rich gent to whom you can offer up your precious bodily fluids.

It's for the best, whidbey.

Godspeed.


Swing low, sweet chariot
Comin' for to carry me home
Oh swing low, sweet chariot
Comin' for to carry me home!
 
2013-07-20 04:14:27 AM  

relcec: that's the reason why you can't remove yourself from the danger then reenter to kill the dude that stopped being the threat when you left.


So... what George Zimmerman was doing? Except Treyvon Martin wasn't a threat to begin with?
 
2013-07-20 04:18:08 AM  

SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: I think it's probably inappropriate for the President to imply that the jurors in this case were racists.

well when you get elected president, you can put that in the rule book.  until then, the President gets to comment on whatever he damn well wants to comment about and/or on.  it's one of the perks of the job.

Of course he can say whatever he wants, but I just think it is irresponsible for a President to suggest that the jury verdict in this case was the result of racism, and that the verdict might have been different had there been a white teen involved.  The President should be calming people, not firing them up.


Did you read or listen to what he said?

I just did and he didn't suggest that the jury was racist at all.

As far as calming people, here are a couple of quotes:

"You know, I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. "

"And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we're becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union. "

I don't particularly like Obama all that much, but I couldn't find anything in what he said Friday to complain about.
 
2013-07-20 04:18:20 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: log_jammin: oh look...a new alt....

*yawn*

And there's another earlier in the thread named Neighborhood Watch. Account created 7/18. Soooooooo obvious.


I think the two of them had an awkward McCainDemocrat/danlpoon-type exchange earlier in the thread...
 
2013-07-20 04:22:06 AM  

Amos Quito: No, you and I both know that any whitey that finds himself being beaten by a black gentleman should not resist, but simply lie back and enjoy - knowing deep in his heart that he OWES that young gent all of the blood that he has to bleed AND MORE - because "racism".


Actually, no, the only thing we know is an unarmed black teenager was killed, and that you champion the person who got away with it. You think killing some unarmed kid is "justice."

Now, why don't you do YOUR duty as a filthy oppressive whitey, and find yourself a melanin-rich gent to whom you can offer up your precious bodily fluids.

Actually, I'm not the one who has a problem with either what the President said or what he was referring to.

In your Candy Colored Clown Wild West Fantasyland, you don't believe racism exists and why don't those black people just get a job and be more like us--then they'd stop being criminals.

This is why you cheer for a total farce like the Zimmerman verdict, and cringe in fear if the government decides to do the right thing and charge Zimmerman with Federal crimes. You don't like the idea that if you do manage to cheat justice the first time, that, thanks to the CRA and the 14th Amendment, minorities you loathe actually have leverage over your Wild West Fantasies.
 
2013-07-20 04:22:19 AM  

legion_of_doo: Jimmy Carter agreed with the jury in the case.

/Reality has a well-known racist bias, you stupid farkers who think GZ should have been convicted of murder.


What Jimmy Carter agreed with was that the prosecution wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman's culpability/guilt. He did not say that he thought what that murdering bastard did was right, and neither did the jury.
"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". Not guilty means "at this time the prosecution could not prove to this jury beyond a reasonable doubt and to their satisfaction that the defendant was guilty under current law". That's what "not guilty" means in the context of the law.

Assholes like you want to make this whole seedy, sordid saga of stupidity on Zimmerman's part some sort of justification of your inner desire/fetish to see young black men killed as often and with as much violence as humanly possible. Here's a clue, Zippy - it wasn't.
 
2013-07-20 04:28:43 AM  

rewind2846: Assholes like you want to make this whole seedy, sordid saga of stupidity on Zimmerman's part some sort of justification of your inner desire/fetish to see young black men killed as often and with as much violence as humanly possible


Somewhere I can hear a pair of tiny fists pounding against the 30 or so coats of lacquer.
 
2013-07-20 04:30:36 AM  

rewind2846: legion_of_doo: Jimmy Carter agreed with the jury in the case.

/Reality has a well-known racist bias, you stupid farkers who think GZ should have been convicted of murder.

What Jimmy Carter agreed with was that the prosecution wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman's culpability/guilt. He did not say that he thought what that murdering bastard did was right, and neither did the jury.
"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". Not guilty means "at this time the prosecution could not prove to this jury beyond a reasonable doubt and to their satisfaction that the defendant was guilty under current law". That's what "not guilty" means in the context of the law.

Assholes like you want to make this whole seedy, sordid saga of stupidity on Zimmerman's part some sort of justification of your inner desire/fetish to see young black men killed as often and with as much violence as humanly possible. Here's a clue, Zippy - it wasn't.


Smarted (and already favorited).
 
2013-07-20 04:32:50 AM  

LasersHurt: BravadoGT: It's pretty inflammatory for the President to inject himself into the controversy, much less take sides.  And since the side he chose does happen to be chanting "RACISM"

I like that a black man can't even talk about this from the "other" side without it being considered "chanting RACISM."


He picked the side that is damn near rioting.  Attacks have been happening.  Death threats have been flying.  Instead of doing what the leader of the country should do and make a statement that would encourage reason and calm, he did the exact opposite.  And, as others have pointed out, he should not have injected his opinion into this from the very start.
 
2013-07-20 04:36:44 AM  

OgreMagi: Instead of doing what the leader of the country should do and make a statement that would encourage reason and calm, he did the exact opposite.


Um, he actually did provide reason here. You just wanted him to brush the whole thing aside because YOU don't believe racism exists.

I swear I can read you people like a book. Predictable responses to everything.
 
2013-07-20 04:37:57 AM  

OgreMagi: LasersHurt: BravadoGT: It's pretty inflammatory for the President to inject himself into the controversy, much less take sides.  And since the side he chose does happen to be chanting "RACISM"

I like that a black man can't even talk about this from the "other" side without it being considered "chanting RACISM."

He picked the side that is damn near rioting.  Attacks have been happening.  Death threats have been flying.  Instead of doing what the leader of the country should do and make a statement that would encourage reason and calm, he did the exact opposite.  And, as others have pointed out, he should not have injected his opinion into this from the very start.


The president is not allowed to voce his opinion because it's different from yours? Cry more.
 
2013-07-20 04:38:46 AM  

OgreMagi: He picked the side that is damn near rioting.  Attacks have been happening.  Death threats have been flying.


you just described a tea party rally.

OgreMagi: Instead of doing what the leader of the country should do and make a statement that would encourage reason and calm, he did the exact opposite.


please give the exact quote from the president that does the opposite of encouraging reason and calm.
 
2013-07-20 04:49:49 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: No, you and I both know that any whitey that finds himself being beaten by a black gentleman should not resist, but simply lie back and enjoy - knowing deep in his heart that he OWES that young gent all of the blood that he has to bleed AND MORE - because "racism".

Actually, no, the only thing we know is an unarmed black teenager was killed, and that you champion the person who got away with it. You think killing some unarmed kid is "justice."

Now, why don't you do YOUR duty as a filthy oppressive whitey, and find yourself a melanin-rich gent to whom you can offer up your precious bodily fluids.



You seem to believe that justice was not served in that Florida courtroom, whidbey.

Perhaps you'd care to take a stab at telling us where "it all went wrong"?

Was there missing evidence? Did Larry, Curly and Moe botch the prosecution? Was the judge a KKK member disguised in black robes? Did the jurors secretly conspire to take revenge for the victims of OJ Simpson?

Be specific!

Time to get down and dirty, whidbey. Send that lonely, wandering neuron of yours in search of its illusive partner - rub them together, and see if you can actually articulate a cogent thought.

www.eonline.com

Good luck, whidbey. We're all counting on you.
 
2013-07-20 04:57:17 AM  

Amos Quito: Was there missing evidence? Did Larry, Curly and Moe botch the prosecution? Was the judge a KKK member disguised in black robes? Did the jurors secretly conspire to take revenge for the victims of OJ Simpson?

Be specific!


The glove didn't fit.
 
2013-07-20 04:59:10 AM  

Amos Quito: Was there missing evidence?


Yep, such as actual evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. Absent that, it was really hard to prove murder 2.

I thought you had been paying attention to the case?
 
2013-07-20 05:06:27 AM  
ITT: People who were angry OJ got away with murder and think trying terrorists in the courts will allow them to get off due to technicalities, now think the justice system is full proof.
 
2013-07-20 05:31:35 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: relcec: that's the reason why you can't remove yourself from the danger then reenter to kill the dude that stopped being the threat when you left.

So... what George Zimmerman was doing? Except Treyvon Martin wasn't a threat to begin with?

 Are people really suggesting that the jury should have "found him guilty of something" anyway in the name of what they think justice ought to be because of what they think they "know"? Because Zimmerman is obviously an asshole and the system didn't work the way it should have in other cases, Zimmerman gets to be the sacrificial goat? The laws are what's broken here: The laws that allow jury instructions to be written in such impenetrable legalese nobody but a Klingon could parse them; the laws that allow the victim to be tried and presented as somehow deserving of his fate; the laws that shield the media while they try the case in the court of public opinion months before a single witness is given an oath to tell the truth. And the bizarre self-defense laws that focus only on the moment of shooting or stabbing, and don't look at the larger context of the incident.


It was those self-defense laws that let Bernie Goetz get away with nearly killing five kids on a subway including shooting one helpless victim in the back with the comment 'You don't look so bad, here's another [bullet]," as he walked away; and yet claim "self-defense," successfully at his trial. New York has since revised their self-defense requirements and let juries consider a defendant's past patterns of behavior.

If people really want to fix things, they should stop focusing on the alleged racism here, and start looking at the laws that let Zimmerman start a situation he could only finish by killing his victim; and that let his defense team imply Martin was a wannabe gangster thug who needed killin'; and that didn't examine Zimmerman's culpability in the circumstances of the shooting more closely. Things would have been very different then.
 
2013-07-20 05:39:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: It was those self-defense laws that let Bernie Goetz get away with nearly killing five kids on a subway including shooting one helpless victim in the back with the comment 'You don't look so bad, here's another [bullet]," as he walked away


you sure it was actually him?

i131.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-20 05:40:46 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Are people really suggesting that the jury should have "found him guilty of something" anyway in the name of what they think justice ought to be because of what they think they "know"?


Here's the thing, it could very easily be argued Martin was standing his ground given the actions of Zimmerman. Yet lots of people want to act like Martin had no right to defend himself if he perceived he was threatened.
 
2013-07-20 05:41:48 AM  

log_jammin: ITT: People who were angry OJ got away with murder and think trying terrorists in the courts will allow them to get off due to technicalities, now think the justice system is full proof.


Nope, just that it worked this time.  The man did not commit a crime and he was not convicted of a crime.

On the other hand, OJ murdered two people, the evidence was as airtight as could be without a direct eye witness (wife's blood in his Bronco) and ... and he was found not guilty and they had to trump up some kind of BS breaking and entering charges in Las Vegas several years later to get him on something.
 
2013-07-20 05:47:17 AM  

SunsetLament: The man did not commit a crime and he was not convicted of a crime.


right. like I said, some people think OJ got away with murder but the man did not commit a crime and he was not convicted of a crime.

but zimmerman on the other hand  murdered that kid, the evidence was as airtight as could be without a direct eye witness and ... he was found not guilty and they had to trump up some kind of DOJ investigation.
 
2013-07-20 05:51:58 AM  
Why should I care what a pedophile says on the radio?
 
2013-07-20 05:57:50 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Gyrfalcon: Are people really suggesting that the jury should have "found him guilty of something" anyway in the name of what they think justice ought to be because of what they think they "know"?

Here's the thing, it could very easily be argued Martin was standing his ground given the actions of Zimmerman. Yet lots of people want to act like Martin had no right to defend himself if he perceived he was threatened.


Can you make a case?  Sure.  Would a jury find it "reasonable" behavior?  Not likely.  And unfortunately for you (and liberal race baiters everywhere) the Stand Your Ground law needs the person to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury.

In order for Martin to have a valid Stand Your Ground defense, you'd need to prove all of this ...

1.  That Zimmerman never lost sight of Martin (as he told the dispatcher),
2.  That Martin didn't approach Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car (as Zimmerman stated),
3.  That the simple fact that Zimmerman was walking behind Martin made Martin reasonably believe he was about the killed,
4.  That it is more likely than not that the guy who just called the police (and was waiting for them to show up) and who was carrying a handgun started the physical altercation, as opposed to the teenager who was suspended from school a week earlier for punching a teacher (his words in his own text messages, I've seen it elsewhere that it was a school bus driver), participated in an amateur fight club after school, used drugs and stole jewelry.

Good luck making the "it is reasonable to believe any stranger walking behind you in your neighborhood at night is reasonably likely to murder you" argument.

/Knows everything he just typed will be summarily ignored and the same nonsense point will be made over and over again.
 
2013-07-20 06:00:40 AM  

log_jammin: SunsetLament: The man did not commit a crime and he was not convicted of a crime.

right. like I said, some people think OJ got away with murder but the man did not commit a crime and he was not convicted of a crime.

but zimmerman on the other hand  murdered that kid, the evidence was as airtight as could be without a direct eye witness and ... he was found not guilty and they had to trump up some kind of DOJ investigation.


No, OJ committed a crime.  You're not allowed to cut the heads off of your wife and her boyfriend in the State of California (even if he is driving around in your Ferrari).  On the other hand, there was an eyewitness in the Zimmerman case and he testified in court that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the shiat out of him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

I'm sorry that the testimony in court interferes with your ludicrously crafted (but oh so powerful) nonsense argument.
 
2013-07-20 06:01:28 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Gyrfalcon: Are people really suggesting that the jury should have "found him guilty of something" anyway in the name of what they think justice ought to be because of what they think they "know"?

Here's the thing, it could very easily be argued Martin was standing his ground given the actions of Zimmerman. Yet lots of people want to act like Martin had no right to defend himself if he perceived he was threatened.


Oh I love how this has become the "talking point" of the day. That Martin was standing his ground. It's been funny to watch this evolve from 'racist white man shoots poor innocent black child in cold blood' to 'white hispanic man shoots poor innocent black child after confrontation' until we eventually get to the truth 'wannabe cop does something foolish so it's an absolute free pass for the wanna be gang banger to beat him up because liberals have emotional needs and a political agenda'

No, it can't be argued that Martin was standing his ground. Zimmerman might have done something foolish, but it was not illegal. What Martin did would have landed him in prison if Zimmerman hadn't shot him regardless. You cannot argue that the guy on top pummeling while the guy on the bottom yells for help was "defending" himself. Quit running your big mouth to your girlfriend and call the cops if you think somebody is after you or even call ahead to the people at home and have them start walking your direction, or at the very least make straight for them and have them watching out the door for you carefully. Stand your ground is absolutely not a free pass to immediately jump to violence over ever perceived threat.

And all of this absolute horse shiat about if the races had been reversed? The Al Sharpton's of the world would be hailing Zimmerman for defending himself from a racist bully and that's only if it ever got the amount of publicity this case has. Most amusing of all is that the reason stand your ground laws even exist in the first place is precisely because of situations like this: Overzealous prosecutors and/or cops trying to railroad people based on agendas that have nothing to do with the law.
 
2013-07-20 06:02:41 AM  

red5ish: Why should I care what a pedophile says on the radio?


That's a strong opener.

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-20 06:11:46 AM  

SunsetLament: No, OJ committed a crime.


He was found innocent....just like Zimmerman.

Your belief that he really did commit a crime is no different than the beliefs of those who think Zimmerman really did commit a crime. one is not more valid that the other. I'm sorry that you don't have the ability to self reflect and see that.
 
2013-07-20 06:14:17 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-07-20 06:14:25 AM  
This has been great for my ignore list.
 
2013-07-20 06:20:06 AM  

pnkgtr: This has been great for my ignore list.


It's certainly turning gray now.  Time for a new thread.. or bring back that Texas thread they pulled.
 
2013-07-20 06:23:38 AM  

pnkgtr: This has been great for my ignore list.


I don't put people on ignore. I favorite them and color code them. It's like a rainbow of hate.
 
2013-07-20 06:29:59 AM  

log_jammin: SunsetLament: No, OJ committed a crime.

He was found innocent....just like Zimmerman.

Your belief that he really did commit a crime is no different than the beliefs of those who think Zimmerman really did commit a crime. one is not more valid that the other. I'm sorry that you don't have the ability to self reflect and see that.


Yes, but my belief that OJ committed a crime is based on applying the facts to the law (OJ had a bunch of Ron Goldman's blood in his car, OJ had no alibi, and OJ had a gigantic cut on his finger).  And my believe that Zimmerman did not commit a crime is based on applying the facts to the law (Eyewitness says Zimmerman was pinned on his back getting the shiat beat out of him while he screamed for help).

While ... your asinine point is based on completely ignoring what the law is and what the facts presented are and just saying "Well, I don't like that law so he's guilty."  There's an intrinsic difference in our approaches.
 
2013-07-20 06:36:05 AM  

SunsetLament: Yes, but my belief that OJ committed a crime is based on applying the facts to the law (OJ had a bunch of Ron Goldman's blood in his car, OJ had no alibi, and OJ had a gigantic cut on his finger).  And my believe that Zimmerman did not commit a crime is based on applying the facts to the law (Eyewitness says Zimmerman was pinned on his back getting the shiat beat out of him while he screamed for help). 

your beliefs are based on the you know that's been filtered through the media. just like everyone elses. your frame of reference isn't in anyway more special than anyone elses.


SunsetLament: While ... your asinine point is based on completely ignoring what the law is and what the facts presented are and just saying "Well, I don't like that law so he's guilty."  There's an intrinsic difference in our approaches.


cute. you think you know what my opinion is on the verdict.
 
2013-07-20 06:39:16 AM  

SunsetLament: the Stand Your Ground law needs the person to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury.


What if Zimmerman was following Martin with his gun drawn?
 
2013-07-20 06:41:02 AM  

log_jammin: SunsetLament: Yes, but my belief that OJ committed a crime is based on applying the facts to the law (OJ had a bunch of Ron Goldman's blood in his car, OJ had no alibi, and OJ had a gigantic cut on his finger).  And my believe that Zimmerman did not commit a crime is based on applying the facts to the law (Eyewitness says Zimmerman was pinned on his back getting the shiat beat out of him while he screamed for help). 

your beliefs are based on the you know that's been filtered through the media. just like everyone elses. your frame of reference isn't in anyway more special than anyone elses.


SunsetLament: While ... your asinine point is based on completely ignoring what the law is and what the facts presented are and just saying "Well, I don't like that law so he's guilty."  There's an intrinsic difference in our approaches.

cute. you think you know what my opinion is on the verdict.


Actually, I really don't care what your opinion on the verdict is.  What I said (correctly) is that your asinine point (that opinions on criminal court verdicts are relative and that OJ could be innocent and Zimmerman guilty) is that based on completely ignoring what the law is what facts (evidence) have been prevented.
 
2013-07-20 06:41:08 AM  

SunsetLament: (Eyewitness says Zimmerman was pinned on his back getting the shiat beat out of him while he screamed for help).


By someone a lot smaller than him who he should've been able to just push off him. Of course if he hadn't ignored what the dispatcher told him, it would all be moot since it wouldn't have happened. Interestingly there are places where Zimmerman would be at fault once he ignored what the dispatcher said.
 
2013-07-20 06:42:27 AM  

SunsetLament: is that based on completely ignoring what the law is what facts (evidence) have been prevented.


You just want to jump around with glee that a black kid got killed, that's really what it's about.
 
2013-07-20 06:42:27 AM  

WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: the Stand Your Ground law needs the person to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury.

What if Zimmerman was following Martin with his gun drawn?


Do you have any evidence to support that?  No.

/What if he was following him shouting "I'm going to kill you when I catch you!!!111!!" ?
 
2013-07-20 06:43:07 AM  

SunsetLament: Do you have any evidence to support that? No.


Do you have any evidence to prove he wasn't? And actually I can make a case to support it.
 
2013-07-20 06:50:36 AM  

WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: is that based on completely ignoring what the law is what facts (evidence) have been prevented.

You just want to jump around with glee that a black kid got killed, that's really what it's about.


I'll say this ... I have very little sympathy.  Everything we know about this kid is that he was completely out of control and I believe (like the jury) that he started the physical confrontation and was not in fear for his life when he did it.  I believe (like Rachel Jenteal) that he decided to teach the "creepy ass cracka" a lesson and "whoop ass".  He decided to and proceeded to violently beat a man because he could and he wanted to.  And he learned a very, very valuable lesson - sometimes you start a fight and you lose ... and it costs you your life.

The only sympathy I have for Martin is that he so clearly was failed by just about everyone around him.  His parents failed him by allowing him to become this way and not raising him properly.  His friends and community failed him by encouraging the violence, the drug use and idolization of gang culture.  And the popular culture failed him by glorifying this anti-social behavior and not impressing upon him that sometimes the person who behaves anti-socially gets killed because of it.

But am I upset?  No, not really.  This kid was already a burden on society and in 18 months he was going to be on his own, completely removed from whatever little control his parents had over him.  No, I don't feel bad for him.
 
2013-07-20 06:54:18 AM  

SunsetLament: Everything we know about this kid is that he was completely out of control


No we don't know that. Funny enough Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a cop in the past. Didn't get much of a punishment for it, one suspects because his dad was a judge.
 
2013-07-20 06:58:34 AM  

WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: Do you have any evidence to support that? No.

Do you have any evidence to prove he wasn't? And actually I can make a case to support it.


Sure.  Zimmerman said it was in his holster and nothing else Zimmerman said to the police (with one possible caveat*) was found to be inconsistent with any of the evidence that was collected or with any of the witness statements.  Further, it is not reasonable to believe that a kid being followed in the dark by stranger with a gun in his hand would make the decision to attack him, rather than run in the opposite direction (like every other person on the planet).

* The one caveat is that Zimmerman said his head was slammed twenty times into the concrete sidewalk and I think it was highly unlikely that it was any more than three or four times.  I consider this to likely be either  (a) hyperbole, or (b) the inability to keep track as a resulting effects of the initial head trauma.  Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, one smash into the concrete was enough to make the decision to pull his gun and fire ... so I don't really care.
 
2013-07-20 07:00:14 AM  

WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: Everything we know about this kid is that he was completely out of control

No we don't know that. Funny enough Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a cop in the past. Didn't get much of a punishment for it, one suspects because his dad was a judge.


Yes, because cops in Orlando really give a shiat about what a retired judge from Atlanta thinks.  I used to be a cop - trust me, the cops in Orlando don't even like the judges in Orlando (or care what they think).  They certainly couldn't care less who Zimmerman's father was.
 
2013-07-20 07:02:03 AM  

SunsetLament: . Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, one smash into the concrete was enough to make the decision to pull his gun and fire ... so I don't really care.


It's rather difficult to reach your hip and pull something located on your hip when you have someone sitting on you.
 
2013-07-20 07:02:35 AM  

SunsetLament: Actually, I really don't care what your opinion on the verdict is.


why would you care what it is when you can just make one up?

SunsetLament: What I said (correctly) is that your asinine point (that opinions on criminal court verdicts are relative and that OJ could be innocent and Zimmerman guilty)


that's not my point at all. I never once said that OJ could be as innocent as zimmerman, or vice versa  for that matter. nothing even close to that.

SunsetLament: is that based on completely ignoring what the law is what facts (evidence) have been prevented.


I have not stated anything on the law. I'm not basing anything on the law.

I'm talking about perception and opinions. you seem to have a hard time understanding that. I believe it's because you think your perceptions and opinions are reality/facts.
 
2013-07-20 07:06:06 AM  

SunsetLament: Yes, because cops in Orlando really give a shiat about what a retired judge from Atlanta thinks.  I used to be a cop - trust me, the cops in Orlando don't even like the judges in Orlando (or care what they think).  They certainly couldn't care less who Zimmerman's father was.


If you were a cop you would know that the cops don't determine what the subject gets prosecuted for or what the punishment is. you would also know that judges, retired or otherwise, don't ned to worry about the opinions of, or what the cops think of them. They can pull strings well above the pay grade of any cop.

you were not a cop.
 
2013-07-20 07:10:41 AM  

WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: . Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, one smash into the concrete was enough to make the decision to pull his gun and fire ... so I don't really care.

It's rather difficult to reach your hip and pull something located on your hip when you have someone sitting on you.


Not really.  In the police academy, they put us in this exact same situation (cop on his back, person in full mount on top of him) to practice drawing your gun from this position.  What you do is called "shrimping" to gain a small amount of space and to twist your gun hip slightly off the ground.  There's really nothing to it.  And to me, the most relevant/interesting part is that it's a completely natural motion - it's not something you have train weeks to be able to do.  It's what your body does naturally and it's very easy (unless the guy outweighs you by a lot).

Shrimping Technique
 
2013-07-20 07:17:35 AM  

Altitude5280: Just #Obama over at Twitter and see the insanity our troller in chief has produced.

img.photobucket.com

The Republican who's party produced a VP candidate that wasn't vetted, has no right to complain about someone being properly vetted by the media.
 
2013-07-20 07:22:49 AM  
randomjsa:

No, it can't be argued that Martin was standing his ground. Zimmerman might have done something foolish, but it was not illegal. What Martin did would have landed him in prison if Zimmerman hadn't shot him regardless. You cannot argue that the guy on top pummeling while the guy on the bottom yells for help was "defending" himself. Quit running your big mouth to your girlfriend and call the cops if you think somebody is after you or even call ahead to the people at home and have them start walking your direction, or at the very least make straight for them and have them watching out the door for you carefully. Stand your ground is absolutely not a free pass to immediately jump to violence over ever perceived threat.

Welp, I'll respond to our resident terrible troll and even terrible thinker.  It depends on who started the fight.  If Zimmerman so much as touched Trayvon bfirst it would never have had to get to the point of him being on top of him, Zimmerman would have been guilty of assault.   He could have reasonably said that he was in fear for his life because this guy had been chasing him down and then attacked him.  Once that happens he could just pull out a gun and shoot him, because he had no duty to retreat.  Since no one knows how the fight started Trayvon could have said he jumped/grabbed me.  It never would have had to get tot he stage of Trayvon beating Zimmerman up.  Since now Trayvon was the only person alive the court would have the burden of proving Tayvon did not act in self defense.

It is totally a pass to immediately jump to violence over a perceived threat because it says you do not have a duty to retreat.  That's the problem.

Of course the subtext is that if you do this the person you are "defending" yourself against better be black, because if he is white you are statistically much less likely to successfully use a self defense claim.  That's the other other part of the problem.
 
2013-07-20 07:27:32 AM  
amiable:

Welp, I'll respond to our resident terrible troll and even terrible thinker.  It depends on who started the fight.  If Zimmerman so much as touched Trayvon bfirst it would never have had to get to the point of him being on top of him, Zimmerman would have been guilty of assault.   He could have reasonably said that he was in fear for his life because this guy had been chasing him down and then attacked him.  Once that happens he could just pull out a gun and shoot him, because he had no duty to retreat.  Since no one knows how the fight started Trayvon could have said he jumped/grabbed me.  It never would have had to get tot he stage of Trayvon beating Zimmerman up.  Since now Trayvon was the only person alive the court would have the burden of proving Tayvon did not act in self defense.

FTFY
 
2013-07-20 07:33:07 AM  
Politically, this move by Obama was brilliant, for a few reasons:

1.  He has been on defense for the past few months due to the aggressive non-scandals that the derpers kept pushing (Benghazi, IRS, Umbrellagate, etx...)  This puts a lot of those guys on the defensive.
2.  It's guaranteed to drive a certain large portion of the Republican White base absolutely batshiat and it will make them look like total tools.  Instead of engaging the president they will call him names claim he is "the real racist" and basically spend all their time looking like fools.  It helps when they say outright racist stuff (like Limbaugh).
3. The continued poo-flinging by the right is guaranteed to drive up minority participation in the mid-term election.

The smart thing would be the Chris Wallace approach and try to thoughtfully engage.  Of course the current Conservative movement isn't in any way smart, so its time to sit back and pop some popcorn.
 
2013-07-20 07:36:05 AM  

SunsetLament: amiable:


FTFY


WRONG!!!!  If he so much as touched Trayvon first it would have been assault (and battery).  He wouldn't even have to touch Trayvon to be guilty of assault all he would have to do is show a "threat of harm accomanied by a present ability to carry out that threat."  (Although that is often difficult to prove without physical contact).
 
2013-07-20 07:51:37 AM  
Funny, shoot a black kid and suddenly the spic becomes a white dude.
 
2013-07-20 08:03:54 AM  

amiable: SunsetLament: amiable:


FTFY

WRONG!!!!  If he so much as touched Trayvon first it would have been assault (and battery).  He wouldn't even have to touch Trayvon to be guilty of assault all he would have to do is show a "threat of harm accomanied by a present ability to carry out that threat."  (Although that is often difficult to prove without physical contact).


You need to re-read what you wrote.  You wouldn't have to prove he "touched" Martin, you'd have to prove he "threated to harm" Martin.  Both you and I touch other people all the time (even strangers) and we're not committing assault.  When you pat somebody on the back and say "great job", you're not assaulting them.  When you take someone's hand and shake it, you're not assaulting them.  They have to have to reasonably believe that physical harm was imminent.

If you throw a punch at someone and miss ... that's assault.  If you hit them, that's assault and battery.  If you put your hand on their shoulder while you talk to them, that's not assault.  If you grab them by the wrist (or try to and miss), that may or may not be battery (or assault) depending upon what a reasonable person in the grabee's position would feel about the likelihood of threat of harm.

And all this is a preamble to what's important to this particular instance ... the stand your ground law does not allow you to use deadly force unless you reasonably believe you are facing imminent death or significant bodily injury.  In other words, you can't smash someone's head into the concrete (or mount them MMA style and rain punches down on them) because they touched you (or put their hand on your shoulder or even grabbed your wrist) ... you also have to have a reasonable fear of death.  It's a high bar.

"I was on my back, pinned down, nose broke, and my head was rammed into concrete" equals a reasonable fear of death or significant bodily injury

"He touched my arm so I beat the shiat out of him" does not equal a reasonable fear of death or significant bodily injury
 
2013-07-20 08:20:39 AM  
i219.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-20 08:24:33 AM  
Obama (and others) did ask an important question that so many around here seem eager to ignore, though...

If Martin had been of age and legally carrying, would he have been afforded the same presumptions of innocence by the Police and Justice System had he shot and killed Zimmerman claiming he feared for his life?

If we're being honest with ourselves, I think we know the most likely answer to that question.
 
2013-07-20 08:24:41 AM  
Inciting a riot.
 
2013-07-20 08:25:01 AM  

randomjsa: WhyteRaven74: Gyrfalcon: Are people really suggesting that the jury should have "found him guilty of something" anyway in the name of what they think justice ought to be because of what they think they "know"?

Here's the thing, it could very easily be argued Martin was standing his ground given the actions of Zimmerman. Yet lots of people want to act like Martin had no right to defend himself if he perceived he was threatened.

Oh I love how this has become the "talking point" of the day. That Martin was standing his ground. It's been funny to watch this evolve from 'racist white man shoots poor innocent black child in cold blood' to 'white hispanic man shoots poor innocent black child after confrontation' until we eventually get to the truth 'wannabe cop does something foolish so it's an absolute free pass for the wanna be gang banger to beat him up because liberals have emotional needs and a political agenda'

No, it can't be argued that Martin was standing his ground. Zimmerman might have done something foolish, but it was not illegal. What Martin did would have landed him in prison if Zimmerman hadn't shot him regardless. You cannot argue that the guy on top pummeling while the guy on the bottom yells for help was "defending" himself. Quit running your big mouth to your girlfriend and call the cops if you think somebody is after you or even call ahead to the people at home and have them start walking your direction, or at the very least make straight for them and have them watching out the door for you carefully. Stand your ground is absolutely not a free pass to immediately jump to violence over ever perceived threat.

And all of this absolute horse shiat about if the races had been reversed? The Al Sharpton's of the world would be hailing Zimmerman for defending himself from a racist bully and that's only if it ever got the amount of publicity this case has. Most amusing of all is that the reason stand your ground laws even exist in the first place is precise ...


I totally disagree that you cannot argue that Trayvon Martin was "standing his ground".  Just because Trayvon was on top is irrelevant, unless you can argue that the second a person who feels threatened gets the upper hand then the other guy has the right to kill him.  As far as Trayvon Martin was concerned, George Zimmerman could have been another "John Wayne Gacey".  What George Zimmerman did was not illegal but was of bad judgment, and was just as bad of judgment as any bad decisions that people want to attribute to Trayvon Martin.  Well accept one was a grown man, the other a teenager, and the teenager's decisions were directly the result of bad decisions made by the adult.

Quit running your big mouth to your girlfriend and call the cops if you think somebody is after you or even call ahead to the people at home and have them start walking your direction, or at the very least make straight for them and have them watching out the door for you carefully.

Why couldn't George Zimmerman stay in his car and let the cops he called deal with it?  Wait for a police car to show up and make a presence.  Or is he was so concerned do something similar as far as calling a few people, alerting neighbors since he was the community watch, have some other neighborhood people walk to his area to let the "potential criminal" know the neighborhood was aware of his presence.  Did George Zimmerman mean well and have good in his heart?  Of course he did, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

To me it seems like those who defend George Zimmerman have a double standard.  I don't think it is due to race; I think it has to do with the fact that George Zimmerman used a gun and it goes against their pro gun narrative.  It seems like a person with a gun has more rights than an unarmed person to them; at least from my perspective.  I am all for gun ownership and a person defending themselves.  But if a law is so ambiguous that it lets you bait someone into a confrontation and kill them if they start kicking your ass by claiming self defense, there is something wrong with it.  Maybe not repeal it, but set out some clear examples of what "counts" and what "doesn't count" instead of just being scared at that moment.  The events that led up to the "moment" should have something to do with it.
 
2013-07-20 08:26:46 AM  

SunsetLament: amiable: SunsetLament: amiable:


FTFY

WRONG!!!!  If he so much as touched Trayvon first it would have been assault (and battery).  He wouldn't even have to touch Trayvon to be guilty of assault all he would have to do is show a "threat of harm accomanied by a present ability to carry out that threat."  (Although that is often difficult to prove without physical contact).

You need to re-read what you wrote.  You wouldn't have to prove he "touched" Martin, you'd have to prove he "threated to harm" Martin.  Both you and I touch other people all the time (even strangers) and we're not committing assault.  When you pat somebody on the back and say "great job", you're not assaulting them.  When you take someone's hand and shake it, you're not assaulting them.  They have to have to reasonably believe that physical harm was imminent.

If you throw a punch at someone and miss ... that's assault.  If you hit them, that's assault and battery.  If you put your hand on their shoulder while you talk to them, that's not assault.  If you grab them by the wrist (or try to and miss), that may or may not be battery (or assault) depending upon what a reasonable person in the grabee's position would feel about the likelihood of threat of harm.

And all this is a preamble to what's important to this particular instance ... the stand your ground law does not allow you to use deadly force unless you reasonably believe you are facing imminent death or significant bodily injury.  In other words, you can't smash someone's head into the concrete (or mount them MMA style and rain punches down on them) because they touched you (or put their hand on your shoulder or even grabbed your wrist) ... you also have to have a reasonable fear of death.  It's a high bar.

"I was on my back, pinned down, nose broke, and my head was rammed into concrete" equals a reasonable fear of death or significant bodily injury

"He touched my arm so I beat the shiat out of him" does not equal a reasonable fear of de ...


Actually, you are totally wrong and have a poor understanding of the legal definition of assault and battery.  Battery can be any non-consensual touching that is harmful or offensive, such as grabbing someones arm or even tapping them on the shoulder.  Arguing that would merit a violent response would be difficult but it would be technically battery.  For assault all Martin would have to feel is that he was threatened and the person threatening him reasonably had the ability to harm him.  If Zimmerman started the altercation in ANY WAY he would have been unable to use the self-defense claim (because you can't claim self-defense in the commission of a crime).  That's why what happened just prior to Trayvon beating up Martin is so important and why Zimmerman insisted that Trayvon attacked him first, if Zimmerman so much as put a hand on Trayvon's shoulder his self defense claim would have gone out the window.

Also, you do not have to prove that Zimmerman "threatened to harm Martin" all you have to prove is that it was reasonable for Trayvon to feel that he was threatened, which would be very easy considering this guy was following him at 2 am and had a gun.  That's why these stand your ground laws are so stupid, when you eliminate the duty to retreat the person who survives the incident automatically has the presumption of innocence.
 
2013-07-20 08:29:03 AM  

skullkrusher: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skullkrusher: Oh, and the POTUS should STFU on this

So the GOP can complain about the "lack of leadership" some more?

not sure what "leadership" is needed on this matter. There has been no widespread violence or civil unrest. There is no need for a call for calm and if black leaders want to talk about why black people assumed this was a racially motivated murder, that's their prerogative. However, BO isn't a black leader. He's OUR leader who happens to be black.


This is were you went into pure partisan hack in this thread. Could have more people listen to you..but nope. Please tell us how he is "OUR" leader.
 
2013-07-20 08:43:22 AM  

keylock71: Obama (and others) did ask an important question that so many around here seem eager to ignore, though...

If Martin had been of age and legally carrying, would he have been afforded the same presumptions of innocence by the Police and Justice System had he shot and killed Zimmerman claiming he feared for his life?

If we're being honest with ourselves, I think we know the most likely answer to that question.


If Martin had cuts all over the back of his head and a broken nose ... and there was an eye witness that said he saw Zimmerman on top of Martin in a full mount throwing punches at him right before the gunshot went off ... and everything Martin told the police was completely consistent with all of the evidence and witness testimony subsequently collected ... and Zimmerman was a 17 year old currently suspended from school (for the third time) for throwing a punch at a teacher ...

then yes, of course he would have been treated the same (by the cops and the justice system).

One question, however:  In this new scenario, is Zimmerman (the assailant) hispanic?  Or are we pretending he's still caucasian?
 
2013-07-20 08:53:09 AM  

amiable: That's why these stand your ground laws are so stupid, when you eliminate the duty to retreat the person who survives the incident automatically has the presumption of innocence.


It also doesn't help when the police do a piss poor job of securing the scene and collecting evidence because of the assumption the shooter was "justified" in committing murder. Hell, if no one had said anything about this, the police and justice system would have been more than happy to have just left it at that, it seems.

But, yeah, these laws are basically an invitation to people with a Napoleon Complex or "Little Man's Disease" to go out and look for trouble, much like Zimmerman was doing that night.
 
2013-07-20 09:02:51 AM  

amiable: Actually, you are totally wrong and have a poor understanding of the legal definition of assault and battery.


My criminal defense practice suggests otherwise, but go on.

Battery can be any non-consensual touching that is harmful or offensive, such as grabbing someones arm or even tapping them on the shoulder. Arguing that would merit a violent response would be difficult but it would be technically battery.

In Florida the "non-consensual touching" has to be "intentionally harmful" to a reasonable person.

784.03Battery; felony battery.-
(1)(a)The offense of battery occurs when a person:1.Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or2.Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
Good luck proving to a jury that because Zimmerman tapped Martin on the shoulder (an act, I might add, that there is absolutely no evidence of whatsoever, but for the sake of argument we will accept) that Martin reasonably believed Zimmerman was going to imminently intentionally cause bodily harm to him.  According to your new standard, when some guy at TGI Friday's at the next table taps you on the shoulder and asks to borrow your salt, you can ground and pound him and then ram his head into the floor.  Sorry, no.

For assault all Martin would have to feel is that he was threatened and the person threatening him reasonably had the ability to harm him. If Zimmerman started the altercation in ANY WAY he would have been unable to use the self-defense claim (because you can't claim self-defense in the commission of a crime). That's why what happened just prior to Trayvon beating up Martin is so important and why Zimmerman insisted that Trayvon attacked him first, if Zimmerman so much as put a hand on Trayvon's shoulder his self defense claim would have gone out the window.

Nope, see above.  Putting your hand on a person's shoulder is not assault or battery unless there's a reasonable belief of imminent intentional harm.

Also, you do not have to prove that Zimmerman "threatened to harm Martin" all you have to prove is that it was reasonable for Trayvon to feel that he was threatened, which would be very easy considering this guy was following him at 2 am and had a gun.

You'd have to have evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman brandished the gun (there is none).  Ownership and lawful carrying of a gun in a holster is not and never will be enough to constitute a reasonable threat of imminent harm absent any other factors.  People have a constitutional right to carry a gun.

That's why these stand your ground laws are so stupid, when you eliminate the duty to retreat the person who survives the incident automatically has the presumption of innocence.

Actually, they are pretty great.  It forces to the person standing their ground to prove they were acting reasonably at all times.  Your problem is that Zimmerman did and the jury of his peers believed him.
 
2013-07-20 09:05:15 AM  

keylock71: amiable: That's why these stand your ground laws are so stupid, when you eliminate the duty to retreat the person who survives the incident automatically has the presumption of innocence.

It also doesn't help when the police do a piss poor job of securing the scene and collecting evidence because of the assumption the shooter was "justified" in committing murder. Hell, if no one had said anything about this, the police and justice system would have been more than happy to have just left it at that, it seems.

But, yeah, these laws are basically an invitation to people with a Napoleon Complex or "Little Man's Disease" to go out and look for trouble, much like Zimmerman was doing that night.


i1234.photobucket.com

What evidence did they miss?  What witness did they fail to speak with?
 
2013-07-20 09:07:56 AM  
Obama sucks..always has always will, he's just trying to get the focus off of NSA, IRS, and 0bamadontcare...
..and you don't even know what my race is but you've already labeled me a racists because i don't like him, it's not his color it's him.
 
2013-07-20 09:09:30 AM  

patthedog: Obama sucks..always has always will, he's just trying to get the focus off of NSA, IRS, and 0bamadontcare...
..and you don't even know what my race is but you've already labeled me a racists because i don't like him, it's not his color it's him.


That's usually where people, when pressed further for what's actually wrong with President Obama, will list a bunch of fictional offenses.
 
2013-07-20 09:51:45 AM  

SunsetLament: One question, however: In this new scenario, is Zimmerman (the assailant) hispanic? Or are we pretending he's still caucasian?


If Martin had been white (or even Hispanic for that matter), Zimmerman would have been Hispanic.  If Martin had been a woman, Zimmerman would have been Hispanic.  If Zimmerman had been black, nobody would have ever heard of this.

This is why I deplore the current face of television news.
 
2013-07-20 09:53:44 AM  

patthedog: Obama sucks..always has always will, he's just trying to get the focus off of NSA, IRS, and 0bamadontcare...
..and you don't even know what my race is but you've already labeled me a racists because i don't like him, it's not his color it's him.


Your grammar, spelling, and content would appear to put you down as a poor, southern white male.
 
2013-07-20 09:56:31 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-20 10:09:05 AM  
Whatever. If some guy started following me at night I would be freaked out and do ready to mace, attack, whatever. Same as Travon. I get freaked out by stuff like this in the day even. Late at night alone? Completely freaked out. Even if he said he was neighborhood watch I'm not going to just believe that. If you don't want to get maced .. don't stalk me. I'm not a good runner.
 
2013-07-20 10:09:58 AM  
if he were serious about the race issue, he would get to the bottom of why a young black kid got so angry at the notion that someone asked him what he was doing out in the rain that night (assuming you don't wish to believe he just ambushed Zimmerman for no reason).

We keep hearing about how awful it is that these young kids get followed around in department stores, have women clutch purses in elevators, etc.  The PROBLEM is that this is the sort of thing that happens to almost ALL kids today, black, white, latino, etc.  Yet, the professional race-baiters keep trying to convince their community that it is profiling based on their skin color and that only black kids are treated this way.  I'd be upset if I thought I were being treated unfairly and singled out too.  When you are taught to assume the worst instead of keeping an open mind about why someone might be treating you that way, the anger is just going to build.

This case is a perfect example in that everyone ASSUMES that charges weren't filed because the victim was black and the suspect was white.  In reality, almost every other case just like it that is handled the same way regardless of the race of those involved.
 
2013-07-20 10:15:08 AM  

Cataholic: if he were serious about the race issue, he would get to the bottom of why a young black kid got so angry at the notion that someone asked him what he was doing out in the rain that night (assuming you don't wish to believe he just ambushed Zimmerman for no reason).


It's like you didn't even read anything the President said.
 
2013-07-20 10:23:59 AM  

amiable: SunsetLament: amiable: SunsetLament: amiable:


FTFY

WRONG!!!!  If he so much as touched Trayvon first it would have been assault (and battery).  He wouldn't even have to touch Trayvon to be guilty of assault all he would have to do is show a "threat of harm accomanied by a present ability to carry out that threat."  (Although that is often difficult to prove without physical contact).

You need to re-read what you wrote.  You wouldn't have to prove he "touched" Martin, you'd have to prove he "threated to harm" Martin.  Both you and I touch other people all the time (even strangers) and we're not committing assault.  When you pat somebody on the back and say "great job", you're not assaulting them.  When you take someone's hand and shake it, you're not assaulting them.  They have to have to reasonably believe that physical harm was imminent.

If you throw a punch at someone and miss ... that's assault.  If you hit them, that's assault and battery.  If you put your hand on their shoulder while you talk to them, that's not assault.  If you grab them by the wrist (or try to and miss), that may or may not be battery (or assault) depending upon what a reasonable person in the grabee's position would feel about the likelihood of threat of harm.

And all this is a preamble to what's important to this particular instance ... the stand your ground law does not allow you to use deadly force unless you reasonably believe you are facing imminent death or significant bodily injury.  In other words, you can't smash someone's head into the concrete (or mount them MMA style and rain punches down on them) because they touched you (or put their hand on your shoulder or even grabbed your wrist) ... you also have to have a reasonable fear of death.  It's a high bar.

"I was on my back, pinned down, nose broke, and my head was rammed into concrete" equals a reasonable fear of death or significant bodily injury

"He touched my arm so I beat the shiat out of him" does not equal a reasona ...


In Florida, you only lose a justification defense if you are committing a forcible felony (not simple battery) or if you provoke the use of force you are defending against.  However, you can regain the justification defense after having provoked someone if you withdraw from the conflict and communicate you no longer wish to fight, or you are defending against force which will cause death or great bodily harm and you have no reasonable means of escape.
 
2013-07-20 10:27:15 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: No, what Martin did wrong was go back, and beat up Zimmerman to the point where Zimmerman's head was being smashed against the ground

There is no evidence that this happened, beyond Zimmerman's story. The fact that there was no evidence that Zimmerman conclusively started the fight was a big reason he was acquitted.


Well, the marks on Zimmernman's body and the gunshot wound were consistent with his story certainly helped, too.
 
2013-07-20 10:33:08 AM  

FlashHarry: well, when he personally beheadded george zimmerman with saladin's scimitar, i'd say he probably went a bit too far.


Proof, that he's a muslin socialite!
 
2013-07-20 10:44:27 AM  

WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: the Stand Your Ground law needs the person to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury.

What if Zimmerman was following Martin with his gun drawn?


This little hypothetical gets thrown around alot, maybe not here on Fark, but irl. Seeing as how Zimmerman was all bloodied up, I believe if he just wanted to hunt down and kill a black boy with his gun drawn then he wouldn't have suffered so many affronts to his person.
 
2013-07-20 10:46:29 AM  

SurelyShirley: FlashHarry: well, when he personally beheadded george zimmerman with saladin's scimitar, i'd say he probably went a bit too far.

Proof, that he's a muslin socialite!


...And a black radical christian and a communist, socialist nazi atheist.

But certainly not because he has darker skin... That would be ridiculous. : )
 
2013-07-20 10:46:31 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Sagus: Hobodeluxe: Sagus: 20yrs is a little steep, but you don't go and get a weapon and then come back in. Again no common sense

it was her house and her kids were still in there.
she got the gun and try to make him leave. when he didn't she fired it to make him leave.

No it was HIS house she was there against a restraining order

She used to live there, and she was unable to leave through the garage because the door didn't work. Even her ex says she was in the right, and he's the dude she shot "at." It's a bullshiat prosecution and and an especially bullshiat sentence. I could see a couple years, but 20 is bullshiat.


You know she was offere time served and probation, right?
She rolled the dice knowing 20 years was a possibility. She lost.

Besides, she went there the night before, after living away for two months. How is it the garage door worked the night before, but not the next morning?
 
2013-07-20 10:51:07 AM  

keylock71: amiable: That's why these stand your ground laws are so stupid, when you eliminate the duty to retreat the person who survives the incident automatically has the presumption of innocence.

It also doesn't help when the police do a piss poor job of securing the scene and collecting evidence because of the assumption the shooter was "justified" in committing murder. Hell, if no one had said anything about this, the police and justice system would have been more than happy to have just left it at that, it seems.

But, yeah, these laws are basically an invitation to people with a Napoleon Complex or "Little Man's Disease" to go out and look for trouble, much like Zimmerman was doing that night.


So you thing better preserving Martin's hands, and Martin's clothes would have helped the State's case?
 
2013-07-20 10:55:03 AM  

keylock71: Obama (and others) did ask an important question that so many around here seem eager to ignore, though...

If Martin had been of age and legally carrying, would he have been afforded the same presumptions of innocence by the Police and Justice System had he shot and killed Zimmerman claiming he feared for his life?

If we're being honest with ourselves, I think we know the most likely answer to that question.


Depends. Do we also reverse the injuries? If we do, and the trial was for Trayvon's self defense case, yes. I'd be cheering Martin. Not only that, I'd be able to do it louder, and without fear of being called a racist.
 
2013-07-20 10:55:20 AM  

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Actually you're right - for ONCE. Buy yourself a beer!

So it was the Jews again.  At least you're consistent.


Let's put that little comment into context, shall we?


Fart_Machine: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: I don't know.You think it involves the Jews again?


Actually, it was because the ghost of Oswald was found to have possessed that phone, and was pranking Trayvon with his wacky texts.


(the truth is not too far from that bit of silliness)


Amos Quito: Actually you're right - for ONCE. Buy yourself a beer!


In fact, the Judge argued that "any seven-year-old" could have hacked Trayvon's phone and written those texts - and therefor it could not be PROVEN that it was actually TRAYVON who wrote about his love of fighting and violence, his shopping for a gun, his posting pics of pot plants - etc.

No, really, she said that "any seven-year-old" could have hacked TM's phone - even though the defense correctly pointed out that TM's phone was very well secured, and that it took police experts MONTHS of work to gain access to those texts.

And yet SOME asshats will claim that the trial was biased AGAINST the prosecution.

You aren't one of those asshats, are you Fart_Machine?

Anyway, the defense prevailed in spite of the judge's bias.

Great day for justice, that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

END QUOTE


And now for your little comment:


Fart_Machine: So it was the Jews again.  At least you're consistent.


Jews? WTF???

Now, do you look silly and desperate, or what???

Say, you wouldn't be trying to work up the courage to call me an anti-Semite in an attempt to draw attention from your flaccid, impotent and ridiculous "arguments", would you?

Please say it ain't so!

Because frankly, I just don't know whether I could handle some pathetic putz calling me some overused, worn-out, worthless and inappropriately applied pejorative.

For the love of all that is holy, say it ain't so, Fart_Machine.


/Thanks in advance


Is there a reason conspiracy nuts like yourself use bold font for no reason whatsoever?
 
2013-07-20 10:59:38 AM  

amiable: Politically, this move by Obama was brilliant, for a few reasons...


You forgot that it was the right goddamn thing to do, and as the first black president and a biracial man himself, who for that is in a unique position to address race and privilege in America, should have been more vocal and forceful about this all along.  Thirty-five years ago he could have been Trayvon Martin? Hell, as a 52-year-old man he was born before the end of Jim Crow, lest we forget.
 
2013-07-20 11:04:49 AM  

thamike: SunsetLament: One question, however: In this new scenario, is Zimmerman (the assailant) hispanic? Or are we pretending he's still caucasian?

If Martin had been white (or even Hispanic for that matter), Zimmerman would have been Hispanic.  If Martin had been a woman, Zimmerman would have been Hispanic.  If Zimmerman had been black, nobody would have ever heard of this.

This is why I deplore the current face of television news.


Nobody would have heard of this because he would have been arrested, convicted, and then executed.

Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager, the police show up, take his statement, and then he walked with no prosecution - the thing that STARTED all this. Then I'll believe you. In the meantime, false equivalency is usually reserved for Noam Chomsky liberals.
 
2013-07-20 11:04:55 AM  

that bosnian sniper: amiable: Politically, this move by Obama was brilliant, for a few reasons...

You forgot that it was the right goddamn thing to do, and as the first black president and a biracial man himself, who for that is in a unique position to address race and privilege in America, should have been more vocal and forceful about this all along.  Thirty-five years ago he could have been Trayvon Martin? Hell, as a 52-year-old man he was born before the end of Jim Crow, lest we forget.


Right, because that always works out so well for him. This is a teaching moment, Skittles and Watermelon Drink Summit!
 
2013-07-20 11:11:14 AM  
White people are followed too.
White people are denied jobs they are qualified for.
White people don't blame race, unless race is the reason.

It isn't only blacks who are followed around.
But as our lame president pointed out, there's more crime from blacks, so there is good reason to follow them.

Yes, he said it himself, during his speech which was intended to incite riots.
 
2013-07-20 11:15:16 AM  

that bosnian sniper: amiable: Politically, this move by Obama was brilliant, for a few reasons...

You forgot that it was the right goddamn thing to do, and as the first black president and a biracial man himself, who for that is in a unique position to address race and privilege in America, should have been more vocal and forceful about this all along.  Thirty-five years ago he could have been Trayvon Martin? Hell, as a 52-year-old man he was born before the end of Jim Crow, lest we forget.


It's the same reason he always has to respond in even, measured tones and avoid any appearance of anger or emotion regardless of the the subject matter... There are still people in this country who want to be able to point to the "angry black man" to validate their farked up, regressive beliefs regarding race in this country. And I'm not just talking about some common as muck loud mouths from South Boston or Alabama, I'm talking about senators and representatives at both the federal and state levels.
 
2013-07-20 11:17:32 AM  

from my blood: White people are followed too.
White people are denied jobs they are qualified for.
White people don't blame race, unless race is the reason.

It isn't only blacks who are followed around.
But as our lame president pointed out, there's more crime from blacks, so there is good reason to follow them.

Yes, he said it himself, during his speech which was intended to incite riots.


You sound like a poor oppressed white person.
 
2013-07-20 11:20:35 AM  

Fart_Machine: from my blood: White people are followed too.
White people are denied jobs they are qualified for.
White people don't blame race, unless race is the reason.

It isn't only blacks who are followed around.
But as our lame president pointed out, there's more crime from blacks, so there is good reason to follow them.

Yes, he said it himself, during his speech which was intended to incite riots.

You sound like a poor oppressed white person.


You sound like a fart.

If there was any racism involved here, it was Trayvon "Cracker" Martin.  This case is about Trayvon attempting murder by pounding a mans head into the pavement leading to his rightful death.  *This* is what the smart, not-racist man will say.   It has become clear that our president is racist and wants riots.
 
2013-07-20 11:23:38 AM  

Fart_Machine: You sound like a poor oppressed white person.


Heh... Seems to be a lot of that in this thread.

What's also amusing is how the same folks, who continually pontificate about a "broken system", and the "Growing police state and creeping government oppression" are, in this case (for some strange reason), confident that the system worked and justice was served.
 
2013-07-20 11:23:57 AM  

vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager


There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*
 
2013-07-20 11:29:09 AM  

from my blood: Fart_Machine: from my blood: White people are followed too.
White people are denied jobs they are qualified for.
White people don't blame race, unless race is the reason.

It isn't only blacks who are followed around.
But as our lame president pointed out, there's more crime from blacks, so there is good reason to follow them.

Yes, he said it himself, during his speech which was intended to incite riots.

You sound like a poor oppressed white person.

You sound like a fart.

If there was any racism involved here, it was Trayvon "Cracker" Martin.  This case is about Trayvon attempting murder by pounding a mans head into the pavement leading to his rightful death.  *This* is what the smart, not-racist man will say.   It has become clear that our president is racist and wants riots.


Goodbye troll..  Ploink.
 
2013-07-20 11:29:32 AM  

from my blood: You sound like a fart.

If there was any racism involved here, it was Trayvon "Cracker" Martin.  This case is about Trayvon attempting murder by pounding a mans head into the pavement leading to his rightful death.  *This* is what the smart, not-racist man will say.   It has become clear that our president is racist and wants riots.


You poor, delicate little cracker. Tell us how the mean old black man made you set in the back of the bus.
 
2013-07-20 11:42:29 AM  

from my blood: *This* is what the smart, not-racist man will say.


No, what the smart, non-racist man will say is there is no conclusive evidence as to who started the fight in the first place, and regardless of who  started the fight Zimmerman  still found himself in a position in which he reasonably feared for his life, and from that springs reasonable doubt that would acquit Zimmerman for both voluntary manslaughter (since there's reasonable doubt he acted negligently or recklessly) and murder (since there's reasonable doubt he had active malice).

What racists do is draw from negative ethnic stereotypes to validate Zimmerman's story and conclude that, despite a dearth of evidence, Martin could only have been the aggressor. Alternatively, what racists do is flat-out deny Martin could  only have been engaged in criminal activity by walking around at night, again drawing from negative ethnic stereotypes. Or, that Martin perceived and understood he was being followed by a person with unknown intent, and  just might have had a reasonable fear of imminent attack themselves -- which, mind you, from which under Florida state law (if we're being Totally Not Racist and applying the law equally in the first place) Martin  also had no duty to retreat.
 
2013-07-20 11:48:49 AM  

Aristocles: WhyteRaven74: SunsetLament: the Stand Your Ground law needs the person to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily injury.

What if Zimmerman was following Martin with his gun drawn?

This little hypothetical gets thrown around alot, maybe not here on Fark, but irl. Seeing as how Zimmerman was all bloodied up, I believe if he just wanted to hunt down and kill a black boy with his gun drawn then he wouldn't have suffered so many affronts to his person.


... or called the cops and requested they come out immediately ... or screamed for help long enough for someone to run outside, see him getting his ass kicked, and then run inside again.
 
2013-07-20 11:49:45 AM  

Fart_Machine: from my blood: Fart_Machine: from my blood: White people are followed too.
White people are denied jobs they are qualified for.
White people don't blame race, unless race is the reason.

It isn't only blacks who are followed around.
But as our lame president pointed out, there's more crime from blacks, so there is good reason to follow them.

Yes, he said it himself, during his speech which was intended to incite riots.

You sound like a poor oppressed white person.

You sound like a fart.

If there was any racism involved here, it was Trayvon "Cracker" Martin.  This case is about Trayvon attempting murder by pounding a mans head into the pavement leading to his rightful death.  *This* is what the smart, not-racist man will say.   It has become clear that our president is racist and wants riots.

Goodbye troll..  Ploink.


Did you read his profile? Holy shiatballs! *favorited!* with "racist idiot" next to his name.
 
2013-07-20 11:53:04 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Did you read his profile? Holy shiatballs! *favorited!* with "racist idiot" next to his name.


I never got that far.  These guys are praying for riots because it satisfies their Turner Diaries wank fantasies. The lack of any real violent response has turned into impotent rage for them.
 
2013-07-20 11:54:08 AM  
A lot of Fark's legal experts seem to think Travon Martin was found guilty of assault and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
 
2013-07-20 11:54:53 AM  

that bosnian sniper: from my blood: *This* is what the smart, not-racist man will say.

No, what the smart, non-racist man will say is there is no conclusive evidence as to who started the fight in the first place, and regardless of who  started the fight Zimmerman  still found himself in a position in which he reasonably feared for his life, and from that springs reasonable doubt that would acquit Zimmerman for both voluntary manslaughter (since there's reasonable doubt he acted negligently or recklessly) and murder (since there's reasonable doubt he had active malice).

What racists do is draw from negative ethnic stereotypes to validate Zimmerman's story and conclude that, despite a dearth of evidence, Martin could only have been the aggressor. Alternatively, what racists do is flat-out deny Martin could  only have been engaged in criminal activity by walking around at night, again drawing from negative ethnic stereotypes. Or, that Martin perceived and understood he was being followed by a person with unknown intent, and  just might have had a reasonable fear of imminent attack themselves -- which, mind you, from which under Florida state law (if we're being Totally Not Racist and applying the law equally in the first place) Martin  also had no duty to retreat.


I think we're agree'd then.
 
2013-07-20 12:00:44 PM  

s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*


Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.
 
2013-07-20 12:13:48 PM  
keylock71: ...There are still people in this country who want to be able to point to the "angry black man" to validate their farked up, regressive beliefs regarding race in this country...

If the last five years have informed us of anything, it's that these people will complain and criticize no matter what Obama says or does. If Obama doesn't say something that directly offends their ever-so-delicate sensibilities, they'll twist something he says or does into an offensive overtone, or worse make something completely up. These, after all, are the same people who will intentionally break crap for the purpose of blaming Obama for it being broken, obstruct any attempt to fix it while blaming Obama for not fixing it immediately, then sabotage what measure is  finally undertaken to fix it while blaming Obama for having fixed it in the wrong way. Worse is the fact his own party distanced himself from them, all in the attempt to placate people who never, ever would vote Democrat in the first place. It's utter foolishness.

In my opinion, Obama's position should have been "to hell with them" from 12:01pm, January 20th, 2009, and been speaking truth to power  and using the bully pulpit the entire time. Let them talk, blow dog whistles, and openly race bait -- if nothing else, any time Obama opens his mouth to say something that includes so much as an iota of truth, the response of that 23-26% whoare the United State's  real problem paints them for  exactly who and what they are, and all the greater for the louder and more repeatedly they say it.
 
2013-07-20 12:14:44 PM  

vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.


Not so. He grilled by the cops that night, the day after and for several weeks. All the salvagable evidence was examined by forensic examiners for the state and then again by defense examiners.

The state had over a year to put together all of their evidence, the problem is, all of the evidence showed that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Never even should have gone to trial.
 
2013-07-20 12:15:17 PM  

vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.


The cops were right in the first place.

Almost everything brought up in this trial was nonsense.  It doesn't matter if either one was racist, although Trayvon was and Zimmerman was not.   It doesn't matter who started the fight.   It doesn't matter if he was wearing a hoodie.   It doesn't matter who said what on the phone.  It doesn't matter if his mama thinks he was a nice boy.   This is all irrelevant.

The ONLY relevant point is that Zimmerman feared for his life, so he did what he had to do to defend himself.  End of story.    Obama can shut the hell up and step down from office, and these protesters can be rounded up and imprisoned for disturbing the peace and such.
 
2013-07-20 12:15:51 PM  

Aristocles: vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.

Not so. He grilled by the cops that night, the day after and for several weeks. All the salvagable evidence was examined by forensic examiners for the state and then again by defense examiners.

The state had over a year to put together all of their evidence, the problem is, all of the evidence showed that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Never even should have gone to trial.


The state had over a year AFTER THE INITIAL PROTESTS THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.
 
2013-07-20 12:16:39 PM  

from my blood: The cops were right in the first place.


Not the point.
 
2013-07-20 12:16:52 PM  

vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.


QFT
 
2013-07-20 12:19:34 PM  

vygramul: Aristocles: vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.

Not so. He grilled by the cops that night, the day after and for several weeks. All the salvagable evidence was examined by forensic examiners for the state and then again by defense examiners.

The state had over a year to put together all of their evidence, the problem is, all of the evidence showed that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Never even should have gone to trial.

The state had over a year AFTER THE INITIAL PROTESTS THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.


No, there was an initial 3 week investigation in which nothing was found to indicate that Zimmerman had broken any laws. Just because Zimmerman was not charged, doesn't mean there was no investigation.
 
2013-07-20 12:25:22 PM  

that bosnian sniper: In my opinion, Obama's position should have been "to hell with them" from 12:01pm, January 20th, 2009, and been speaking truth to power  and using the bully pulpit the entire time. Let them talk, blow dog whistles, and openly race bait -- if nothing else, any time Obama opens his mouth to say something that includes so much as an iota of truth, the response of that 23-26% whoare the United State's  real problem paints them for  exactly who and what they are, and all the greater for the louder and more repeatedly they say it.


I don't really disagree with you... But, I don't think that's the type of personality Obama has. He is a politician and seems to be more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. I also wish he had been more of firebrand on certain issues, but he has been able to articulate his opinions and beliefs intelligently, and I think, overall, he's handled himself well in the face of the ridiculous amounts of bile and nonsensical allegations that have been thrown at him since he first won the Presidency. Frankly, I'm amazed he's been able to do as much as he's been able to do despite the petulant children in Congress.
 
2013-07-20 12:26:09 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.

QFT


Was any additional information found when they reopened the case or had the FBI do an investigation?
 
2013-07-20 12:33:47 PM  

Aristocles: vygramul: Aristocles: vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.

Not so. He grilled by the cops that night, the day after and for several weeks. All the salvagable evidence was examined by forensic examiners for the state and then again by defense examiners.

The state had over a year to put together all of their evidence, the problem is, all of the evidence showed that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Never even should have gone to trial.

The state had over a year AFTER THE INITIAL PROTESTS THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.

No, there was an initial 3 week investigation in which nothing was found to indicate that Zimmerman had broken any laws. Just because Zimmerman was not charged, doesn't mean there was no investigation.


It's as if people are trying to intentionally misunderstand.

Find me a black person who shot a white kid and was left, RoR, to wander around rather than arrested after a self-defense assertion.

This isn't rocket science. There isn't an analog to pretend "this wouldn't receive attention" with a black guy doing the shooting. The only examples people ever provide are ones where the perps were arrested and tried WITHOUT the need for protests.
 
2013-07-20 12:34:30 PM  

Carth: Was any additional information found when they reopened the case or had the FBI do an investigation?


Irrelevant to the point being discussed.
 
2013-07-20 12:38:09 PM  
So.... blacks pulled the race card to harass an innocent Hispanic guy, and the president made excuses for them.
 
2013-07-20 12:43:15 PM  

vygramul: Carth: Was any additional information found when they reopened the case or had the FBI do an investigation?

Irrelevant to the point being discussed.


If the point being discussed was there wasn't a significant investigation then the FBI's found they overlooked key evidence that would be pretty relevant.
 
2013-07-20 12:46:17 PM  

Garble: A lot of Fark's legal experts seem to think Travon Martin was found guilty of assault and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.


Nah, it's just that the jury found George Zimmerman's self-defense argument valid so, while martin was not found legally guilty of the crime, he certainly did assault Zimmerman. Subsequent statements from Martin's friend Rachel actually cast doubt on whether Martin was really attempting to kill Zimmerman. She stated that Martin was merely going to bash him. However, a bashing against concrete is a bit more than a mere fist-fight. So, although Martin may not have actually wanted to attempt murder that's what he was in fact doing.
 
2013-07-20 12:49:14 PM  

vygramul: It's as if people are trying to intentionally misunderstand.

Find me a black person who shot a white kid and was left, RoR, to wander around rather than arrested after a self-defense assertion.

This isn't rocket science. There isn't an analog to pretend "this wouldn't receive attention" with a black guy doing the shooting. The only examples people ever provide are ones where the perps were arrested and tried WITHOUT the need for protests.


Of course they are,  because they're racist.  Hell, look at the (lack of) attention and outrage among the bootstrap community about the Marissa Alexander case. You know, the one that found stand-your-ground  and farking castle doctrine to boot doesn't apply for black women  warning shots. Where's the damn outrage among the "Second Amendment uber alles" crowd that she was convicted and given twenty years, when not even a month prior the leading talking point was "well if women would arm themselves, they wouldn't be victimized by men!"?

If a person can't look at her case, and the cases these wingnuts are crowing about as the pinnacle of self-defense by abused women, and recognize in a farking heartbeat the  only difference skin color, they're stupid and racist.
 
2013-07-20 12:49:25 PM  

from my blood: So.... blacks pulled the race card to harass an innocent Hispanic guy, and the president made excuses for them.


I don't see them harassing Zimmerman, I see them protesting "Stand Your Ground" laws and a justice system that treats blacks differently than it treats whites. Also, "not guilty" isn't "innocent".
 
2013-07-20 12:50:05 PM  

from my blood: So.... blacks pulled the race card to harass an innocent Hispanic guy, and the president made excuses for them.


Apparently President Obama is the emperor of black people in your mind.
 
2013-07-20 12:58:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: numbskull of the month: So.... blacks pulled the race card to harass an innocent Hispanic guy, and the president made excuses for them.

Apparently President Obama is the emperor of black people in your mind.


I assume you're using the bolded word in its loosest possibly definition... : )

It's fairly obvious the bright bulb you're responding to is either a moron or a glaringly obvious troll.
 
2013-07-20 01:00:20 PM  

keylock71: It's fairly obvious the bright bulb you're responding to is either a moron or a glaringly obvious troll.


I used to be naive and think the later when I first came to FARK. Now, I'm pretty sure it's the former unless it's done in a painfully sarcastic and Poe's Law adhering way (Think Pocket Ninja)

Moron until proven otherwise is the safest bet.
 
2013-07-20 01:01:09 PM  

vygramul: Aristocles: vygramul: Aristocles: vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.

Not so. He grilled by the cops that night, the day after and for several weeks. All the salvagable evidence was examined by forensic examiners for the state and then again by defense examiners.

The state had over a year to put together all of their evidence, the problem is, all of the evidence showed that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Never even should have gone to trial.

The state had over a year AFTER THE INITIAL PROTESTS THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.

No, there was an initial 3 week investigation in which nothing was found to indicate that Zimmerman had broken any laws. Just because Zimmerman was not charged, doesn't mean there was no investigation.

It's as if people are trying to intentionally misunderstand.

Find me a black person who shot a white kid and was left, RoR, to wander around rather than arrested after a self-defense assertion.

This isn't rocket science. There isn't an analog to pretend "this wouldn't receive attention" with a black guy doing the shooting. The only examples people ever provide are ones where the perps were arrested and tried WITHOUT the need for protests.


You seem to be confused.

Zimmerman waited for the police (who he had called, btw) to arrive and once his wounds were treated, he was detained. He was not allowed to wander around. He was cuffed, thrown into the back of a police car and hauled in for questioning.

If you want an example of a similar situation between an Hispanic aggressor and a black man claiming self-defense, I'm sure there are plenty of cases that can be found with a simple google search. However, the reason this is absurd is because we should never have heard about this case in the first place. It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

If Zimmerman was actually a perpetrator of a crime, then we could attempt to find cases that fit your misinformed version of this case. However, Zimmerman is not guilty, this should have never gone to trial.

A more fitting analogy for what happened to Zimmerman is an old-fashioned lynching based solely on race.
 
2013-07-20 01:05:51 PM  

hardinparamedic:
Moron until proven otherwise is the safest bet.


Heh... I've been coming to this site for over ten years and that's always been my policy. : )

Either way, really, you're dealing with a moron, and I've found the best response is always no response. Whether you type out a scathing rebuke or a simple "You're a moron", you're giving them exactly what they want.
 
2013-07-20 01:06:20 PM  

Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.


No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.
 
2013-07-20 01:06:50 PM  
On FARK if your aren't kissing somebodies black butt you're a racist.
 
2013-07-20 01:07:01 PM  

Carth: vygramul: Carth: Was any additional information found when they reopened the case or had the FBI do an investigation?

Irrelevant to the point being discussed.

If the point being discussed was there wasn't a significant investigation then the FBI's found they overlooked key evidence that would be pretty relevant.


Actually, it is irrelevant, Here's why: there is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime. None. As such, a three week investigation would turn up the same amount of evidence as a three month or three year investigation.

And, to answer your original question, no, no it didn't.
 
2013-07-20 01:09:01 PM  
Moss Covered Three Handled Hardcore Gredunza?
 
2013-07-20 01:09:36 PM  
Moss Covered Three Handled Hardcore Gredunza?

Like, for real this time.
 
2013-07-20 01:09:45 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.


You're right, he had a duty to retreat when he felt he was in danger. However, since he was pinned to the concrete, he was physically incapable of retreating.
 
2013-07-20 01:11:19 PM  

ZaldaPhlemm: On FARK if your aren't kissing somebodies black butt you're a racist.


I'm going to correct you on that.

On FARK, no one really knows you're a racist. No one knows what excuse you use in your heart to sleep at night, and really NOT be that way to people around you.

But you can certainly have statements that seem racist.  And you should be held accountable for those statements.
 
2013-07-20 01:12:55 PM  
There were three investigations done (Sanford, Florida, FBI) - None found evidence of racial profiling
The prosecution didn't accuse Zimmerman of racial profiling
Zimmerman never said he found Trayvon suspicious because of race

Obama goes on TV talking about racial profiling.

Sounds like race-baiting to me.
 
2013-07-20 01:13:02 PM  

Aristocles: A more fitting analogy for what happened to Zimmerman is an old-fashioned lynching based solely on race.


They drug Zimmerman out to an oak tree on the square, put a noose around his neck and strung him up without a trial?

Wow. We must be living in different worlds here.
 
2013-07-20 01:15:33 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.


What was he going to do run? You think he could out run the hood?
Zimmerman is why we must keep Stand Your Ground.
 
2013-07-20 01:16:10 PM  

Aristocles: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.

You're right, he had a duty to retreat when he felt he was in danger. However, since he was pinned to the concrete, he was physically incapable of retreating.


You're assuming he didn't feel he was in danger until then. If so, why did he call the police? Zimmerman didn't feel like he was in danger when he said to police, "Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is."? He could have retreated at that point and waited for the police to arrive, but he didn't. Why does he get to claim self-defense after that?
 
2013-07-20 01:17:35 PM  

from my blood: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.

What was he going to do run? You think he could out run the hood?
Zimmerman is why we must keep Stand Your Ground.


The law says "Duty to Retreat" is part of "Self-Defense", not me.
 
2013-07-20 01:18:31 PM  

from my blood: What was he going to do run? You think he could out run the hood?
Zimmerman is why we must keep Stand Your Ground.


No. Your words don't demonstrate any bias in the least. You couldn't even use the word "perp". He's a "hood".
 
2013-07-20 01:18:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: ZaldaPhlemm: On FARK if your aren't kissing somebodies black butt you're a racist.

I'm going to correct you on that.

On FARK, no one really knows you're a racist. No one knows what excuse you use in your heart to sleep at night, and really NOT be that way to people around you.

But you can certainly have statements that seem racist.  And you should be held accountable for those statements.


This. Also, if you're going to troll, we'll assume you're just a troll and we won't take anything you say seriously.
 
2013-07-20 01:24:35 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.

You're right, he had a duty to retreat when he felt he was in danger. However, since he was pinned to the concrete, he was physically incapable of retreating.

You're assuming he didn't feel he was in danger until then. If so, why did he call the police? Zimmerman didn't feel like he was in danger when he said to police, "Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is."? He could have retreated at that point and waited for the police to arrive, but he didn't. Why does he get to claim self-defense after that?


Wonderful! Thank you for accurately quoting evidence from the trial! (not being snarky)

Someone who is irrationally afraid of any stranger in his neighborhood definitely might have felt scared at this point. However, the crime du jour in that neighborhood was burglary, not assault.

Zimmerman said that Martin looked suspicious because he was in people's yards, walking slow in the rain, so it seems that, unless Zimmerman was irrationally afraid for his life or person at this point, his phone call to the non-emergency police line was to inform them of a suspicious, erratic individual creeping around people's houses in a neighborhood that had been hit was several burglaries in the recent months.
 
2013-07-20 01:26:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aristocles: A more fitting analogy for what happened to Zimmerman is an old-fashioned lynching based solely on race.

They drug Zimmerman out to an oak tree on the square, put a noose around his neck and strung him up without a trial?

Wow. We must be living in different worlds here.


Yes, yes they did. Metaphorically.

They literally, metaphorically strung him up without a trial.
 
2013-07-20 01:28:52 PM  

Aristocles: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.

You're right, he had a duty to retreat when he felt he was in danger. However, since he was pinned to the concrete, he was physically incapable of retreating.

You're assuming he didn't feel he was in danger until then. If so, why did he call the police? Zimmerman didn't feel like he was in danger when he said to police, "Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is."? He could have retreated at that point and waited for the police to arrive, but he didn't. Why does he get to claim self-defense after that?

Wonderful! Thank you for accurately quoting evidence from the trial! (not being snarky)

Someone who is irrationally afraid of any stranger in his neighborhood definitely might have felt scared at this point. However, the crime du jour in that neighborhood was burglary, not assault.

Zimmerman said that Martin looked suspicious because he was in people's yards, walking slow in the rain, so it seems that, unless Zimmerman was irrationally afraid for his life or person at this point, his phone call to the non-emergency police line was to inform them of a suspicious, erratic individual creeping around people's houses in a neighborhood that had been hit was several burglaries in the recent months.


Wait, are you seriously arguing that - regardless of the "crime du jour" - Zimmerman didn't feel threatened by "a suspicious, erratic individual" approaching him with something in his hands?
 
2013-07-20 01:29:30 PM  

vygramul: Aristocles: vygramul: s2s2s2: vygramul: Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager

There was a prosecution, but he did walk. That enough tit-for-tat to satisfy you?

Roderick Scott

And to anyone that has made the idiotic case that Zimmerman pulled a Jimbo, Roderick actually did:
"He's coming right for me!"

Someone else who used Jimbo Defense logic: Trayvon Martin. "He's gonna rape me!"

We'll never know if George Zimmerman was brandishing his "gun". *WINK*

Nope. Because the original problem is that Zim walked without a significant investigation.

Not so. He grilled by the cops that night, the day after and for several weeks. All the salvagable evidence was examined by forensic examiners for the state and then again by defense examiners.

The state had over a year to put together all of their evidence, the problem is, all of the evidence showed that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Never even should have gone to trial.

The state had over a year AFTER THE INITIAL PROTESTS THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.



Of course there was an investigation, conducted by the competent officials of Sanford, Florida, and the investigation found that there was no evidence to support a case that could be successfully prosecuted. That's why they refused to press charges.

But the race-baiters didn't like the findings of the investigation - so they created a media shiatstorm out of it, and rallied the troops for highly visible protests.

Still the Sanford PD maintained that the case could not be successfully prosecuted, and refused to press charges.

So the media shiatstorm grew in strength, with Obama, Holder, and the Feds forming the eyewall. Still the Sanford officials "stood their ground".

Finally, Florida's governor, under enormous pressure from the media, the race-baiters and the Feds took the extraordinary measure of "pulling rank", and appointed a special prosecutor - Angela Corey - with ONE JOB: Convict Zimmerman.

The investigation was hashed and rehashed, and the "best of the best" courtroom prosecutors were assembled to push the case in trial.

And they failed. Not guilty on all counts. Like the Sanford police said from the beginning - the case could NOT be successfully prosecuted.

But did the race-baiters relent? No, they simply changed their tune from "NO INVESTIGATION" to "GOT AWAY WITH MURDER"!!!, and continued to inflame the passions of the befuddled masses with their illogical irrelevant rhetoric.

Do you see a pattern here? The case was never about GZ, Trayvon or what actually happened that night. It was (and is) simply a symbolic rallying point for those that want to fan the flames of hatred and interracial strife.

Investigation: Done - immediately after the trial. Sanford police proven correct and exonerated.

Trial: Done. Zimmerman found not guilty on all counts - lawful self defense.

Race-baiting: Continues undaunted. They have not yet begun to fight.


Take a step back and look at the big picture. It will all make much more sense.
 
2013-07-20 01:33:06 PM  

vygramul: Find me a black person who shot a white kid and was left, RoR, to wander around rather than arrested after a self-defense assertion.


Right. So we agree that black men should be able to avoid arrest if there is not enough evidence to deny a reasonable claim to self defense, especially if they are as cooperative as Zimmerman was after the shooting.

We shouldn't be asserting that more white non-black men are mistreated so we can go ahead and keep harassing black men who were just defending themselves.
 
2013-07-20 01:35:05 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Why does he get to claim self-defense after that?


Trayvon Martin was an evil Time Lord, that's why. Martin was trying to get back to his TARDIS, which was disguised as a giant bucket of fried chicken and inside a house he'd have to break into, to complete his doomsday machine which could only be fueled by Skittles and iced tea. Zimmerman knew what was up, and did the only thing he could to stop the destruction of Earth: call the cops, get out of his SUV and look around. When Zimmerman didn't find anything, which was because Martin cloaked himself, and went back to his SUV, Martin struck. He grabbed Zimmerman, teleported them both ten minutes into the past and a hundred yards away, and started bashing his head against the concrete. So, Zimmerman shot Martin, and because Martin was on his last regeneration he stayed dead.
 
2013-07-20 01:36:00 PM  
A proper investigation would include taking crime scene photos including of the wounds received by one member of the scuffle, properly securing the crime scene to prevent loss of evidence (like putting a tarp over where Zimmerman shot Martin), and not letting the wife move the truck because you failed to realize the vehicle was involved. Oh, and how about you don't  your narcotics officer do the investigation?
 
2013-07-20 01:41:37 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Trayvon Martin was an evil Time Lord, that's why. Martin was trying to get back to his TARDIS, which was disguised as a giant bucket of fried chicken and inside a house he'd have to break into, to complete his doomsday machine which could only be fueled by Skittles and iced tea. Zimmerman knew what was up, and did the only thing he could to stop the destruction of Earth: call the cops, get out of his SUV and look around. When Zimmerman didn't find anything, which was because Martin cloaked himself, and went back to his SUV, Martin struck. He grabbed Zimmerman, teleported them both ten minutes into the past and a hundred yards away, and started bashing his head against the concrete. So, Zimmerman shot Martin, and because Martin was on his last regeneration he stayed dead.


WRONG!
Trayvon, being a Time Lord, took them back a few decades, to Hawaii. He had one more generation left, and had befriended a young, mixed race couple hoping to have a child(but unable to do so), on previous visits.
As he was regenerating, he sent CyberZimmerman back to that night in Feb, where CZ found himself dazed and confused, somehow knowing, he'd be the only (now partially)human to get away with killing a sitting president.
 
2013-07-20 01:42:27 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.

You're right, he had a duty to retreat when he felt he was in danger. However, since he was pinned to the concrete, he was physically incapable of retreating.

You're assuming he didn't feel he was in danger until then. If so, why did he call the police? Zimmerman didn't feel like he was in danger when he said to police, "Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is."? He could have retreated at that point and waited for the police to arrive, but he didn't. Why does he get to claim self-defense after that?

Wonderful! Thank you for accurately quoting evidence from the trial! (not being snarky)

Someone who is irrationally afraid of any stranger in his neighborhood definitely might have felt scared at this point. However, the crime du jour in that neighborhood was burglary, not assault.

Zimmerman said that Martin looked suspicious because he was in people's yards, walking slow in the rain, so it seems that, unless Zimmerman was irrationally afraid for his life or person at this point, his phone call to the non-emergency police line was to inform them of a suspicious, erratic individual creeping around people's houses in a neighborhood that had been hit was several burglaries in the recent months.

Wait, are you seriously arguing that - regardless of the "crime du jour" - Zimmerman didn't feel threatened by "a suspicious, erratic individual" approaching him with something in ...


Yes, as a rational human being and acting in good faith, George Zimmerman most likely did not think of Mr. Martin as a serious threat to his life or person until Martin jumped him some 4 minutes later.
 
2013-07-20 01:42:29 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: A proper investigation would include taking crime scene photos including of the wounds received by one member of the scuffle, properly securing the crime scene to prevent loss of evidence (like putting a tarp over where Zimmerman shot Martin), and not letting the wife move the truck because you failed to realize the vehicle was involved. Oh, and how about you don't  your narcotics officer do the investigation?


You forgot having statements made by the paramedics who treated Zimmerman at the scene, who almost certainly would have checked him for signs of serious head trauma and would have hauled his ass to the ER if they so much as  suspected it, with no option for going AMA since Zimmerman at the point was in state custody. If the situation (and the wounds sustained by Zimmerman) were as dire as his story comports, there's no way on Earth any halfway competent paramedic would have released him into police custody.
 
2013-07-20 01:43:18 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.



When you're on your back, pinned to the ground by some clown trying to pound you into unconsciousness (or to death), "retreating" becomes a bit difficult.

What was Zimmerman to do? Burrow into the grass?

One mistake Zimmerman DID make, was not realizing that the guy who was beating him was only 17 years old.

He really should have asked for ID before shooting.
 
2013-07-20 01:47:51 PM  

s2s2s2: WRONG!
Trayvon, being a Time Lord, took them back a few decades, to Hawaii. He had one more generation left, and had befriended a young, mixed race couple hoping to have a child(but unable to do so), on previous visits.
As he was regenerating, he sent CyberZimmerman back to that night in Feb, where CZ found himself dazed and confused, somehow knowing, he'd be the only (now partially)human to get away with killing a sitting president.


Then how do you explain the body? Spontaneous biological meta-crisis?
 
2013-07-20 01:51:22 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Mike Chewbacca: A proper investigation would include taking crime scene photos including of the wounds received by one member of the scuffle, properly securing the crime scene to prevent loss of evidence (like putting a tarp over where Zimmerman shot Martin), and not letting the wife move the truck because you failed to realize the vehicle was involved. Oh, and how about you don't  your narcotics officer do the investigation?

You forgot having statements made by the paramedics who treated Zimmerman at the scene, who almost certainly would have checked him for signs of serious head trauma and would have hauled his ass to the ER if they so much as  suspected it, with no option for going AMA since Zimmerman at the point was in state custody. If the situation (and the wounds sustained by Zimmerman) were as dire as his story comports, there's no way on Earth any halfway competent paramedic would have released him into police custody.


Actually, the paramedics recommended further treatment but Zimmerman declined hospitalization.

Was this a good decision? Probably not, but the man had just been bashed to the concrete in a struggle for his life.
 
2013-07-20 01:52:18 PM  

Amos Quito: DarwiOdrade: Aristocles: It should have been treated like any other self-defense case regardless of the race and ethnicity of the individuals.

No - self defense includes the "duty to retreat", something Zimmerman never did.

Duty to Retreat:The doctrine holding that a victim of a deadly assault must attempt to safely retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

This is precisely why "Stand Your Ground" is an issue, even though it wasn't used as part of Zimmerman's defense.


When you're on your back, pinned to the ground by some clown trying to pound you into unconsciousness (or to death), "retreating" becomes a bit difficult.

What was Zimmerman to do? Burrow into the grass?

One mistake Zimmerman DID make, was not realizing that the guy who was beating him was only 17 years old.

He really should have asked for ID before shooting.


Pro-Tip: Read before you post.
 
2013-07-20 01:54:54 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: A proper investigation would include taking crime scene photos including of the wounds received by one member of the scuffle, properly securing the crime scene to prevent loss of evidence (like putting a tarp over where Zimmerman shot Martin), and not letting the wife move the truck because you failed to realize the vehicle was involved. Oh, and how about you don't  your narcotics officer do the investigation?


Actually, the lack of Martin's DNA on evidence was something that the prosecution tried to exploit in the trial. Had the evidence been preserved immediately (or had it not been raining) the states points about Martin not having Zimmerman's DNA on his hands would have been in jeopardy.
 
2013-07-20 01:58:40 PM  

Aristocles: Yes, as a rational human being and acting in good faith, George Zimmerman most likely did not think of Mr. Martin as a serious threat to his life or person until Martin jumped him some 4 minutes later.


So we have established
1) Zimmerman considered this person to be "suspicious" and "erratic"
2) Zimmerman called to police to report "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something."
3) This suspicious, erratic person who looks like he's up to no good, or on drugs approaches Zimmerman with an unidentified object in his hands.
And with all of this, you think it's rational for Zimmerman not to think of this person as a serious threat to his life or person? Really?
 
2013-07-20 01:58:53 PM  

from my blood: The ONLY relevant point is that Zimmerman feared for his life, so he did what he had to do to defend himself.  End of story.


Actually it isn't, and you have no proof this was the case.
 
2013-07-20 02:04:56 PM  

Amos Quito: Now, why don't you do YOUR duty as a filthy oppressive whitey, and find yourself a melanin-rich gent to whom you can offer up your precious bodily fluids.


You seem to believe that justice was not served in that Florida courtroom, whidbey.


No. I don't. Zimmerman got off for shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager. That isn't justice.

Perhaps you'd care to take a stab at telling us where "it all went wrong"?

I already have. Not going to repeat the obvious. If you have any questions, you can go back through the two posts where I totally handed you your ass for being a predictable vocal proponent of our racist justice system and society.
 
2013-07-20 02:07:37 PM  

whidbey: Zimmerman got off for shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager. That isn't justice.


That's a ridiculous statement and you damn well know it.
 
2013-07-20 02:15:37 PM  

Aristocles: Actually, the paramedics recommended further treatment but Zimmerman declined hospitalization.

Was this a good decision? Probably not, but the man had just been bashed to the concrete in a struggle for his life.


The fact they allowed him to refuse meant, in their professional opinion and probably backed up with a MMSE test, that he did not have an acute head injury.

And no, it probably did not help his case any at all. Especially when early photos released of him after the wounds were cleaned up showed them not to be as dramatic as they appeared when he was first photographed.

To be quite frank, I use Zimmerman's first photograph as an example of a "distracting injury" when I teach new EMTs.

Amos Quito: Take a step back and look at the big picture. It will all make much more sense.


The big picture is that outside of Florida, this would have never been a criminal case but a civil one. Zimmerman would be writing blank checks to the family for the rest of his life for a negligent death caused by his actions, even though the situation may have put him in the legal right at the time of the shooting.
 
2013-07-20 02:16:33 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: whidbey: Zimmerman got off for shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager. That isn't justice.

That's a ridiculous statement and you damn well know it.


Agree.  Very bad trolling, mr popcorn, no butter for you.
 
2013-07-20 02:18:25 PM  

from my blood: Agree.  Very bad trolling, mr popcorn, no butter for you.


I've got some yellow liquid for him. And it's dairy free. :)
 
2013-07-20 02:23:25 PM  

from my blood: Agree.  Very bad trolling, mr popcorn, no butter for you.


Team Trayvon doesn't even try to debate the facts of the case, they just go right to calling Team Zim members a troll. Interesting tactic.
 
2013-07-20 02:31:15 PM  

that bosnian sniper: s2s2s2: WRONG!
Trayvon, being a Time Lord, took them back a few decades, to Hawaii. He had one more generation left, and had befriended a young, mixed race couple hoping to have a child(but unable to do so), on previous visits.
As he was regenerating, he sent CyberZimmerman back to that night in Feb, where CZ found himself dazed and confused, somehow knowing, he'd be the only (now partially)human to get away with killing a sitting president.

Then how do you explain the body? Spontaneous biological meta-crisis?


They fudge on true Time Lord lore for the sake of television.
 
2013-07-20 02:41:08 PM  

Aristocles: Actually, the paramedics recommended further treatment but Zimmerman declined hospitalization.

Was this a good decision? Probably not, but the man had just been bashed to the concrete in a struggle for his life.


Yeah, EMS doesn't work that way. That "recommendation" was probably in the context head trauma had already been ruled out with as close to a hundred-percent certainty as a paramedic in the field can have, and an offer to be taken to the hospital for the sake of his mental state, or to offer painkillers and/or sedatives (that offer being a clear indicator EMT's and/or paramedics are absolutely certain there is no chance of head trauma).

Zimmerman, at that point, was in police custody. He had no option to go against medical advice, if the paramedics genuinely felt hospitalization was necessary. If that was the case, speaking to him about it would have been a legal precaution and/or courtesy. Hell, patients with severe head trauma can be (and often are) considered incompetent to go AMA at the scene.

Again, if Zimmerman's injuries  were consistent with his account, he'd have ended up in the ER that night one way or the other.
 
2013-07-20 02:47:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: they allowed him to refuse


that bosnian sniper: He had no option to go against medical advice, if the paramedics genuinely felt hospitalization was necessary


A competent adult has a constitutionally guaranteed right to refuse medical treatment.

This is America, ya know?
 
2013-07-20 02:48:22 PM  

that bosnian sniper: and an offer to be taken to the hospital for the sake of his mental state, or to offer painkillers and/or sedatives (that offer being a clear indicator EMT's and/or paramedics are absolutely certain there is no chance of head trauma).


Unless it was a Community Care/Advanced Practice paramedic with treat and release protocols and prescription power, they'd never give painkillers or sedatives to a patient and not transport. That's a sure way to lose your license.

Even when patients NEED sedation and pain control, we're very conservative with it in managing head traumas unless they're intubated and need it.

that bosnian sniper: He had no option to go against medical advice, if the paramedics genuinely felt hospitalization was necessary. If that was the case, speaking to him about it would have been a legal precaution and/or courtesy. Hell, patients with severe head trauma can be (and often are) considered incompetent to go AMA at the scene.


That's not exactly as easy as you make it sound. If they pass a MEND exam and have no neuro deficits, they are legally competent to refuse care as long as you do not suspect substance intoxication. Remember, refusal of care in and of itsself is NOT a sign of mental incompetency. I've fought with cops on scene before to place someone in protective custody, and it's sometimes an act of God to get them to do (they also are responsible for the first 24 hours of billing in that case, as well)
 
2013-07-20 02:49:26 PM  

Aristocles: A competent adult has a constitutionally guaranteed right to refuse medical treatment.

This is America, ya know?


There are exceptions to this, and something tells me that you know this.
 
2013-07-20 02:49:34 PM  

SunsetLament: 784.03Battery; felony battery.-
(1)(a)The offense of battery occurs when a person:1.Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or2.Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
Good luck proving to a jury that because Zimmerman tapped Martin on the shoulder (an act, I might add, that there is absolutely no evidence of whatsoever, but for the sake of argument we will accept) that Martin reasonably believed Zimmerman was going to imminently intentionally cause bodily harm to him.  According to your new standard, when some guy at TGI Friday's at the next table taps you on the shoulder and asks to borrow your salt, you can ground and pound him and then ram his head into the floor.  Sorry, no.


Again, incorrect.  If he reached out to touch Martin, it was intentional, its involuntary if he has a seizure or something.  Intentionality is not "did he intend to cause fear,"  intentionality is "did he voluntarily take the action that caused the fear in the other person."  This is not a "new standard" this is the actual legal standard.  Go read up on the "eggshell skull" doctrine and intentionality hoss before you start internet lawyering and making yourself look foolish.  Also protip: assault and battery are two different things, Zimmerman could have been guilty of assault and never touched Martin all he had to do was create in martin the reasonable belief that he was being threatened and Zimmerman had the means to do it.

Your assertion that Zimmerman's  constitutional right to bear arms has any bearing whatsoever on an assault charge is equally incorrect.  If Martin didn't know Zimemrman had a gun you are correct, that couldn't have been used to file assault, but if he chased him and grabbed Martin's shoulder that would have been a clear assault and battery (even if there is no real physical harm).
 
2013-07-20 02:52:15 PM  

amiable: Again, incorrect.  If he reached out to touch Martin, it was intentional, its involuntary if he has a seizure or something.  Intentionality is not "did he intend to cause fear,"  intentionality is "did he voluntarily take the action that caused the fear in the other person."  This is not a "new standard" this is the actual legal standard.  Go read up on the "eggshell skull" doctrine and intentionality hoss before you start internet lawyering and making yourself look foolish.  Also protip: assault and battery are two different things, Zimmerman could have been guilty of assault and never touched Martin all he had to do was create in martin the reasonable belief that he was being threatened and Zimmerman had the means to do it.

Your assertion that Zimmerman's  constitutional right to bear arms has any bearing whatsoever on an assault charge is equally incorrect.  If Martin didn't know Zimemrman had a gun you are correct, that couldn't have been used to file assault, but if he chased him and grabbed Martin's shoulder that would have been a clear assault and battery (even if there is no real physical harm).


In practice, however, it is accepted that starting a fight makes you under no obligation to get murdered by the other party - AS LONG AS - you make an attempt to clearly disengage and get away.

However, what sets Florida apart is that it apparently extends blanket civil immunity in this event, despite the fact that party instigated it. I know for a fact that the state I live in does not, and explicitly states this is a situation where you have civil liability that can be gone after in court.
 
2013-07-20 02:54:33 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aristocles: A competent adult has a constitutionally guaranteed right to refuse medical treatment.

This is America, ya know?

There are exceptions to this, and something tells me that you know this.


Yes, there are a few cases where a court has stepped in to deny someone's request to be taken off life-support, you're right.
 
2013-07-20 02:56:35 PM  
Oh, I forgot to mention the cops didn't test Z for drugs or alcohol, although they did test Martin. That just seems strange.
 
2013-07-20 02:56:39 PM  

Aristocles: Yes, there are a few cases where a court has stepped in to deny someone's request to be taken off life-support, you're right.


Cute, but you know it's far more complicated than that.

Someone has the right to refuse to the extent that they are competent to do so. If I reasonably think you're altered in any way, the law stands behind my ability to tell you to set your ass on the cot and stop acting a fool, or you can go with the nice po-po in the back of the squad car.

In fact, the law holds my license over my head if I don't, and you end up dying or getting crippled because of it.
 
2013-07-20 03:05:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aristocles: Yes, there are a few cases where a court has stepped in to deny someone's request to be taken off life-support, you're right.

Cute, but you know it's far more complicated than that.

Someone has the right to refuse to the extent that they are competent to do so. If I reasonably think you're altered in any way, the law stands behind my ability to tell you to set your ass on the cot and stop acting a fool, or you can go with the nice po-po in the back of the squad car.

In fact, the law holds my license over my head if I don't, and you end up dying or getting crippled because of it.


Thanks for that info. It's been a while since my Bio-Ethics undergrad course so I do not claim to be an expert. To be honest, it took me a second to think of the case where the right to refuse did not apply.

However, does this law to which you refer still apply if a waiver is signed?
 
2013-07-20 03:12:53 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Oh, I forgot to mention the cops didn't test Z for drugs or alcohol, although they did test Martin. That just seems strange.


Testing is a normal part of an autopsy. It's not something done with a person being questioned about a shooting.
 
2013-07-20 03:13:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aristocles: Actually, the paramedics recommended further treatment but Zimmerman declined hospitalization.

Was this a good decision? Probably not, but the man had just been bashed to the concrete in a struggle for his life.

The fact they allowed him to refuse meant, in their professional opinion and probably backed up with a MMSE test, that he did not have an acute head injury.

And no, it probably did not help his case any at all. Especially when early photos released of him after the wounds were cleaned up showed them not to be as dramatic as they appeared when he was first photographed.

To be quite frank, I use Zimmerman's first photograph as an example of a "distracting injury" when I teach new EMTs.

Amos Quito: Take a step back and look at the big picture. It will all make much more sense.

The big picture is that outside of Florida, this would have never been a criminal case but a civil one. Zimmerman would be writing blank checks to the family for the rest of his life for a negligent death caused by his actions, even though the situation may have put him in the legal right at the time of the shooting.



Please elaborate: How does Florida law differ from that of other states WRT self defense? Why would / should GZ be liable, civilly or criminally in ANY state? Please be specific.

What "negligent" actions did GZ take that caused TM's demise?

(Please check all that apply, and write a brief explanation for each item below)

* Obtaining a CCW permit and lawfully exercising his right to carry
* Participating in a neighborhood watch program
* Leaving his house after dark
* Spotting a suspicious individual
* Notifying police of the presence of said individual and calling for help
* Giving a proper description of said individual to the dispatcher
* Informing the dispatcher that the individual was watching and approaching him
* Informing the dispatcher that the individual was fleeing on foot - disappearing from view
* Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police
* Agreeing with the dispatcher's SUGGESTION that he need not follow said individual
* Completing his call to police before the police actually arrived
* Allowing himself to be surprised and confronted by said suspicious individual
* Allowing himself to be punched, grounded and beaten by said individual
* Screaming for help while under vicious, brutal attack by said individual
* Finally, drawing his legal firearm, thereby failing to allow said individual to beat him into unconsciousness / death

(Feel free to add anything I may have missed)


/Not really expecting an answer
 
2013-07-20 03:17:55 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Mike Chewbacca: Oh, I forgot to mention the cops didn't test Z for drugs or alcohol, although they did test Martin. That just seems strange.

Testing is a normal part of an autopsy. It's not something done with a person being questioned about a shooting.


Unless the shooter appears inebriated.
 
2013-07-20 03:22:54 PM  

Amos Quito: Please elaborate: How does Florida law differ from that of other states WRT self defense? Why would / should GZ be liable, civilly or criminally in ANY state? Please be specific.


Please stop trying to make this something I did not say. I said civilly liable. Zimmerman inserted himself into a situation where he had no legal duty to act, and where his life was not in imminent danger until he escalated the situation by following someone he vocalized was involved in criminal activity in his mind. Tennessee state law is what I'm familiar with since I carry in that state with a permit.

Tennessee is VERY specific under what circumstances civil immunity can be applied to. Mainly when in your own business or dwelling/vehicle. Arkansas and Mississippi are similar, but Mississippi does have a broad castle doctrine when talking about property you're lawfully residing on.

If this had happened in my state, he would face civil liability for what he did, as he escalated the situation by following Martin AFTER he had voiced concern he was engaged in illegal or suspicious activity.

Amos Quito: Obtaining a CCW permit and lawfully exercising his right to carry
* Participating in a neighborhood watch program
* Leaving his house after dark
* Spotting a suspicious individual
* Notifying police of the presence of said individual and calling for help
* Giving a proper description of said individual to the dispatcher
* Informing the dispatcher that the individual was watching and approaching him
* Informing the dispatcher that the individual was fleeing on foot - disappearing from view
* Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police
* Agreeing with the dispatcher's SUGGESTION that he need not follow said individual
* Completing his call to police before the police actually arrived
* Allowing himself to be surprised and confronted by said suspicious individual
* Allowing himself to be punched, grounded and beaten by said individual
* Screaming for help while under vicious, brutal attack by said individual
* Finally, drawing his legal firearm, thereby failing to allow said individual to beat him into unconsciousness / death


You left out the part where even after he "agreed" to not get out of his vehicle, he did it anyway and confronted the person he suspected to be involved in a crime, with no duty to do so under the law.

Aristocles: However, does this law to which you refer still apply if a waiver is signed?


If the person was not determined to be competent to begin with - i.e. they had a head injury which caused altered mentation, had dementia or were under the care of a Power of Attourney, or were under the influence of drugs or alcohol which caused altered mentation - the waiver is invalid. It's the same as entering into a contract when not of sound mind.

It's not just laypeople who have trouble with this concept, though. Nursing Homes, in my experience, have a major problem with it as well. They seem to think that people there for assisted living, who are still their own power of attourney, must do what the nursing staff, doctor, or family say regardless of their own wishes.
 
2013-07-20 03:24:19 PM  

s2s2s2: Unless the shooter appears inebriated.


Had Zimmerman actually gone to the hospital, chances are the doctor would have ordered a UDS as part of the head injury protocol to rule out intoxication by common substances as a cause for mental status change.
 
2013-07-20 03:33:49 PM  

hardinparamedic: You left out the part where even after he "agreed" to not get out of his vehicle, he did it anyway and confronted the person he suspected to be involved in a crime, with no duty to do so under the law.


This is false. He was already out of the car and on the dog walk when he agreed to stop following. He never agreed to not start following,and the dispatcher testified that it was reasonable for GZ to interpret "let me know if he does anything else" as "keep an eye on him" and is why he followed up with "are you following him?" And "we don't need you to do that."
 
2013-07-20 03:38:06 PM  
Obama sent the DOJ to Florida last year to crank up protests because he needed black people to get fired up and go vote for him. It worked. Slick.

Now Obama doesn't need this anymore. That's why Obama made the comments he did yesterday. He was ending it. There will be no more said or done on Zimmerman from him or his admin.

The dupes just haven't learned this yet.
 
2013-07-20 03:46:13 PM  

s2s2s2: This is false. He was already out of the car and on the dog walk when he agreed to stop following. He never agreed to not start following,and the dispatcher testified that it was reasonable for GZ to interpret "let me know if he does anything else" as "keep an eye on him" and is why he followed up with "are you following him?" And "we don't need you to do that."


So, how did he end up behind a residence, away from his car and involved in a fight? Did Martin drag him back there?
 
2013-07-20 03:48:34 PM  

vygramul: thamike: SunsetLament: One question, however: In this new scenario, is Zimmerman (the assailant) hispanic? Or are we pretending he's still caucasian?

If Martin had been white (or even Hispanic for that matter), Zimmerman would have been Hispanic.  If Martin had been a woman, Zimmerman would have been Hispanic.  If Zimmerman had been black, nobody would have ever heard of this.

This is why I deplore the current face of television news.

Nobody would have heard of this because he would have been arrested, convicted, and then executed.

Shoe me a situation where a black guy shots an unarmed white teenager, the police show up, take his statement, and then he walked with no prosecution - the thing that STARTED all this. Then I'll believe you. In the meantime, false equivalency is usually reserved for Noam Chomsky liberals.


I think you misread my comment.
 
2013-07-20 03:57:28 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: Obama sent the DOJ to Florida last year to crank up protests because he needed black people to get fired up and go vote for him. It worked. Slick.

Now Obama doesn't need this anymore. That's why Obama made the comments he did yesterday. He was ending it. There will be no more said or done on Zimmerman from him or his admin.

The dupes just haven't learned this yet.


And you would know all about that, wouldn't you

i915.photobucket.comi915.photobucket.com

Look at it.  Look at how long you've been a twit.
 
2013-07-20 04:17:11 PM  

hardinparamedic: s2s2s2: This is false. He was already out of the car and on the dog walk when he agreed to stop following. He never agreed to not start following,and the dispatcher testified that it was reasonable for GZ to interpret "let me know if he does anything else" as "keep an eye on him" and is why he followed up with "are you following him?" And "we don't need you to do that."

So, how did he end up behind a residence, away from his car and involved in a fight? Did Martin drag him back there?


I did leave that detail out. I apologize. He walked.
 
2013-07-20 04:22:39 PM  
I think today is the first full day without a Zimmerman thread since the trial started. We did it! The threads are over!
 
2013-07-20 04:24:52 PM  

hardinparamedic: Unless it was a Community Care/Advanced Practice paramedic with treat and release protocols and prescription power, they'd never give painkillers or sedatives to a patient and not transport. That's a sure way to lose your license.

Even when patients NEED sedation and pain control, we're very conservative with it in managing head traumas unless they're intubated and need it.

[...]

That's not exactly as easy as you make it sound. If they pass a MEND exam and have no neuro deficits, they are legally competent to refuse care as long as you do not suspect substance intoxication. Remember, refusal of care in and of itsself is NOT a sign of mental incompetency. I've fought with cops on scene before to place someone in protective custody, and it's sometimes an act of God to get them to do (they also are responsible for the first 24 hours of billing in that case, as well)


Indeed, but as far as I know there's no readily-available report on what level the EMS personnel who treated Zimmerman at the scene were (as far as I know), so I'm trying to speak in generalities that encompass every possibility. I'm no EMT or paramedic, and most of my knowledge about EMS comes from having dated more than a few EMT's and having an EMT-A parent, whose written resources I read from a very early age on. Having lived from adolescence on in an area very prone to severe car wrecks didn't hurt, either.

Either way, point is had Zimmerman taken the beating he claimed to have taken, I don't see a likely outcome in which he  didn't suffer trauma that would have got him taken to the ER. Which means, he's either lucky beyond mere luck, a complete puss, or not being remotely as truthful as  some would have us believe. Personally, I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
 
2013-07-20 04:33:19 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Indeed, but as far as I know there's no readily-available report on what level the EMS personnel who treated Zimmerman at the scene were (as far as I know), so I'm trying to speak in generalities that encompass every possibility.


Given that it was Florida and a fire department making the response, I'm going to go with it being an ALS Engine Company with a Paramedic on board. Also, I'm going to bet that because of what was going on, they got the clearance from an OLMC Physician before allowing him to sign too.

A Basic 911 unit, with two EMT-Basics in Florida, would not have been allowed by their protocols to DNT/AMA him. They would have had to call for a Paramedic to make scene.

that bosnian sniper: I'm no EMT or paramedic, and most of my knowledge about EMS comes from having dated more than a few EMT's and having an EMT-A parent, whose written resources I read from a very early age on. Having lived from adolescence on in an area very prone to severe car wrecks didn't hurt, either.


Paramedics have a test called a MIND Exam. It's several mentally complex tasks, including basic knowledge repetition, copying and reading a sentence, and drawing a picture copy from an image to the best of their ability, that demonstrates high level thinking at the time and is legally defensible in court if something happens down the road to say this man was of sound mind, and in conjunction with informed consent he refused further care.

that bosnian sniper: Either way, point is had Zimmerman taken the beating he claimed to have taken, I don't see a likely outcome in which he  didn't suffer trauma that would have got him taken to the ER. Which means, he's either lucky beyond mere luck, a complete puss, or not being remotely as truthful as  some would have us believe. Personally, I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B.


Honestly, I used to be on the "Zimmerman's a racist killer" side, and now I'm just on the position of him being an idiot who could have completely avoided this whole thing to begin with. Zimmerman's injuries were distracting - as all scalp injuries are - and by the time he waited to see a doctor and had post-injury photographs taken by then, the injuries weren't as dramatic appearing as they were in the police photograph of him all bloody that was released down the road.

Going to the ER didn't help his case, but it didn't hurt him either. A layperson would look at the photo of him with that scalp lac and broken nose, and argue up and down how he was lucky to be alive.
 
2013-07-20 05:31:52 PM  

hardinparamedic: You left out the part where even after he "agreed" to not get out of his vehicle, he did it anyway and confronted the person he suspected to be involved in a crime, with no duty to do so under the law.



On the contrary, GZ had left his vehicle and was on foot, walking toward the "T" in the sidewalk BEFORE the SUGGESTION was made: "We don't NEED you to do that".

He was NOT ordered not to FOLLOW. It was merely a SUGGESTION. Get it?

And "duty under the law"?  What kind of BS is that? He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch.

Kindly discontinue repeating the blatant lie that Zimmerman "agreed" not to follow *before* he left his vehicle. I've hear the recordings and read the transcripts, and so have you - so you know that it is a lie - indeed the KEY lie that keeps feeding this race-baited bullshiat.

You're not doing anyone (aside from the divisive race-baiters) any favors by repeating what you know damn well to be false. You're not helping the "blacks", you're not helping the "whites", and you are not helping preserve justice or the rule of law. You ARE helping to destroy the unity of the nation, and that, sir, is unconscionable.

Thanks, Brony-hardin-whatever
 
2013-07-20 05:36:56 PM  

Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch.


He wasn't acting in the capacity of neighborhood watch; he was getting something from the store.  In any case they specifically instruct you as part of the Neighborhood Watch not to follow suspects.

Amos Quito: You ARE helping to destroy the unity of the nation


Go away troll.
 
2013-07-20 05:43:56 PM  

Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police


Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.
 
2013-07-20 05:44:00 PM  

Fart_Machine: Go away troll.


Trolling would take him off the hook. He really is white-knighting (heh) the racist US justice system.
 
2013-07-20 05:47:17 PM  

Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch


While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.
 
2013-07-20 05:50:16 PM  

vygramul: While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.


NW tells you not to observe and report? Oh wait, you still have this ridiculous, unproven idea that Zim was attempting to detain the Skittles kid.
 
2013-07-20 05:51:43 PM  
For those trying to compare OJ and Zimmerman.

OJ was famous as a sports icon and an actor.  He never admitted killing anyone in self defense.
 
2013-07-20 05:58:17 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aristocles: However, does this law to which you refer still apply if a waiver is signed?

If the person was not determined to be competent to begin with - i.e. they had a head injury which caused altered mentation, had dementia or were under the care of a Power of Attourney, or were under the influence of drugs or alcohol which caused altered mentation - the waiver is invalid. It's the same as entering into a contract when not of sound mind.

It's not just laypeople who have trouble with this concept, though. Nursing Homes, in my experience, have a major problem with it as well. They seem to think that people there for assisted living, who are still their own power of attourney, must do what the nursing staff, doctor, or family say regardless of their own wishes.


But that's just what I was saying, a competent adult has the right to refuse medical treatment.

Anyway, the medics that first examined Zimmerman confirmed that his injuries were consistent with his account of the events that night.

What grounds do we have to second guess those who actually treated his injuries?

whidbey: Fart_Machine: Go away troll.

Trolling would take him off the hook. He really is white-knighting (heh) the racist US justice system.


And there you have it. J4Ters believe that the system is inherently racist.

Gee, if I thought I were being persecuted or were in danger of being persecuted at any time, for any reason... I think I'd, you know, find somewhere else to live.
 
2013-07-20 06:00:08 PM  

rnld: For those trying to compare OJ and Zimmerman.

OJ was famous as a sports icon and an actor.  He never admitted killing anyone in self defense.


And, OJ actually murdered Brown and Goldman. Zimmerman stopped a vicious crime in progress.
 
2013-07-20 06:00:14 PM  

hardinparamedic: from my blood: So.... blacks pulled the race card to harass an innocent Hispanic guy, and the president made excuses for them.

Apparently President Obama is the emperor of black people in your mind.


You don't have to be "Emperor of Black People" to make excuses for them; most liberals make excuses for them.
 
2013-07-20 06:04:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch.

He wasn't acting in the capacity of neighborhood watch; he was getting something from the store.  In any case they specifically instruct you as part of the Neighborhood Watch not to follow suspects.

Amos Quito: You ARE helping to destroy the unity of the nation

Go away troll.



What's that smell?


vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.



Cite that. Relevant documents, dated prior to the incident. Then cite the law(s) that would indicate GZ's (alleged) failure to follow said (alleged) training legally culpable.

vygramul: Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch

While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.



Again, cite that. And make sure your sources PRE-DATE the incident.

Thanks in advance.
 
2013-07-20 06:05:51 PM  

Aristocles: Garble: A lot of Fark's legal experts seem to think Travon Martin was found guilty of assault and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

Nah, it's just that the jury found George Zimmerman's self-defense argument valid so, while martin was not found legally guilty of the crime, he certainly did assault Zimmerman.


That's now how it works. 3 of the Jurors thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter but were talked into having a reasonable doubt. That they weren't certain Zimmerman lied doesn't prove that Martin assaulted anyone.

That you choose to believe Zimmerman's account despite his injuries not matching the severity of such a struggle is just your own assertion.
 
2013-07-20 06:10:13 PM  

Amos Quito: hardinparamedic: You left out the part where even after he "agreed" to not get out of his vehicle, he did it anyway and confronted the person he suspected to be involved in a crime, with no duty to do so under the law.


On the contrary, GZ had left his vehicle and was on foot, walking toward the "T" in the sidewalk BEFORE the SUGGESTION was made: "We don't NEED you to do that".

He was NOT ordered not to FOLLOW. It was merely a SUGGESTION. Get it?

And "duty under the law"?  What kind of BS is that? He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch.



It's called "inventing a new legal standard because the one we actually have doesn't fit the facts we have".  This is Fark - it doesn't have to be actually true, they just have to say it enough and really, really want it to be true.
 
2013-07-20 06:20:18 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.

NW tells you not to observe and report? Oh wait, you still have this ridiculous, unproven idea that Zim was attempting to detain the Skittles kid.


Nice strawmen. I never asserted he was attempting to detain the kid. I also didn't say they told you not to observe and report. If you have a couple of brain cells to rub together, you can figure out what else they might tell you.

I mean, if you're intellectually honest AT ALL.
 
2013-07-20 06:21:32 PM  

Aristocles: rnld: For those trying to compare OJ and Zimmerman.

OJ was famous as a sports icon and an actor.  He never admitted killing anyone in self defense.

And, OJ actually murdered Brown and Goldman. Zimmerman stopped a vicious crime in progress.


No he didn't. At least, according to the GZ defenders in this thread. He was found NOT GUILTY. Which is the same as being found INNOCENT, according to the GZ white knighters.
 
2013-07-20 06:24:18 PM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.


Cite that. Relevant documents, dated prior to the incident. Then cite the law(s) that would indicate GZ's (alleged) failure to follow said (alleged) training legally culpable.


Ah, already making an excuse, I see. It doesn't MATTER if the training said not to, if you're legally not culpable, that trumps the training!

vygramul: Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch

While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.


Again, cite that. And make sure your sources PRE-DATE the incident.

Thanks in advance.


Sure. But before I do, are you willing to agree that if the NW training said not to, he should not have left his vehicle?
 
2013-07-20 06:27:35 PM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his

CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.

His CCW included training on when not to go looking for someone?  When I had mine it was situation questions on when to shoot and not to shoot.
 
2013-07-20 06:28:35 PM  

Garble: Aristocles: Garble: A lot of Fark's legal experts seem to think Travon Martin was found guilty of assault and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

Nah, it's just that the jury found George Zimmerman's self-defense argument valid so, while martin was not found legally guilty of the crime, he certainly did assault Zimmerman.

That's now how it works. 3 of the Jurors thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter but were talked into having a reasonable doubt. That they weren't certain Zimmerman lied doesn't prove that Martin assaulted anyone.

That you choose to believe Zimmerman's account despite his injuries not matching the severity of such a struggle is just your own assertion.


The jury unanimously found not guilty. I'm sure as the case unfolded people's opinions changed. This was a good, open minded jury. They weren't a bunch of ideologues who were "talked into" a verdict.
 
2013-07-20 06:30:47 PM  

Sagus: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.

His CCW included training on when not to go looking for someone?  When I had mine it was situation questions on when to shoot and not to shoot.


Wrong! CCW training means that whatever anyone tells you, no matter what the situation, you are legally bound to follow their orders. And, let say no one actually gives you an order, anti gun folks can invent an order that you disobeyed.
 
2013-07-20 06:31:33 PM  

vygramul: Nice strawmen. I never asserted he was attempting to detain the kid. I also didn't say they told you not to observe and report. If you have a couple of brain cells to rub together, you can figure out what else they might tell you.

I mean, if you're intellectually honest AT ALL.


Before you get all derpy, lets remember that Zim wasn't out acting as the NW, he was on his way to the store when he saw the Skittles bandit out casing houses.
 
2013-07-20 06:33:05 PM  
Oh hey. Another thread where Amos Quito pretends the concept of duty to act and it's application to civil responsibility are "made up" concepts, and takes arguments far off into left field in ways that were never even posted.

Or, as its known on FARK, Saturday

Hint: I didn't say "duty under law" I said "duty to act". The later is actually an important legal concept when talking about Civil Negligence. The other is "Made up in the dank cavern that Amos Quito" ass-pulled it from.

Remind, me, Amos? If you do not have a duty to act, and you are not witnessing a felony crime in progress, what does the law say of your responsibility civilly when you injure someone in a confrontation with them?
 
2013-07-20 06:36:12 PM  

Sagus: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.

His CCW included training on when not to go looking for someone?  When I had mine it was situation questions on when to shoot and not to shoot.


Mine said the gun isn't to enable you to remain in a dangerous situation. It was to get you out of one, but that you should leave an area of criminal activity and call the police.
 
2013-07-20 06:36:57 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: Nice strawmen. I never asserted he was attempting to detain the kid. I also didn't say they told you not to observe and report. If you have a couple of brain cells to rub together, you can figure out what else they might tell you.

I mean, if you're intellectually honest AT ALL.

Before you get all derpy, lets remember that Zim wasn't out acting as the NW, he was on his way to the store when he saw the Skittles bandit out casing houses.


Then perhaps we shouldn't try to cloak Zim in the authority and responsibility of the NW.
 
2013-07-20 06:38:14 PM  

Aristocles: Sagus: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.

His CCW included training on when not to go looking for someone?  When I had mine it was situation questions on when to shoot and not to shoot.

Wrong! CCW training means that whatever anyone tells you, no matter what the situation, you are legally bound to follow their orders. And, let say no one actually gives you an order, anti gun folks can invent an order that you disobeyed.


Nice irrelevant derp. Keep gyrating.
 
2013-07-20 06:41:45 PM  

vygramul: Then perhaps we shouldn't try to cloak Zim in the authority and responsibility of the NW


I wasn't. Zim was some dude that saw a suspicious person and reported it.
 
2013-07-20 06:44:35 PM  
The funny thing is, you're taught in CCW class to be a witness, not to go after someone you think is committing a crime.

You know, so you don't end up having to use your weapon.
 
2013-07-20 06:45:07 PM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.


Cite that. Relevant documents, dated prior to the incident. Then cite the law(s) that would indicate GZ's (alleged) failure to follow said (alleged) training legally culpable.

Ah, already making an excuse, I see. It doesn't MATTER if the training said not to, if you're legally not culpable, that trumps the training!



"Excuses"?

We're talking about laws, and civil / criminal liability here, not table manners and etiquette. Also, you may recall that the dispatcher had told him to inform him if the suspicious character "does anything else". How could GZ have followed THIS request if he is unable to observe the character in question?


vygramul: Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch

While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.


Again, cite that. And make sure your sources PRE-DATE the incident.

Thanks in advance.

Sure. But before I do, are you willing to agree that if the NW training said not to, he should not have left his vehicle?



Wait, are you claiming that the jury's decision was "bad", and that GZ SHOULD have been found guilty, or not?

I'll be waiting for the documents AND the law(s) that show he is culpable, because otherwise, you're just pissing into the breeze.

Also, please show what the Neighborhood Watch and CCW training manuals instruct people to do if they find themselves straddled, screaming for help and being mercilessly beaten even while being observed and warned by concerned neighbors.

Do these manuals make any reference to "saying your prayers"?
 
2013-07-20 06:46:53 PM  

Amos Quito: What's that smell?


Your bullshait.

Amos Quito: Again, cite that.


Like you'll read it.
 
2013-07-20 06:47:15 PM  

hardinparamedic: The funny thing is, you're taught in CCW class to be a witness, not to go after someone you think is committing a crime.

You know, so you don't end up having to use your weapon.


The funny thing is, you still think that Zim was going after Tray.
 
2013-07-20 06:48:20 PM  

Aristocles: Sagus: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.

His CCW included training on when not to go looking for someone?  When I had mine it was situation questions on when to shoot and not to shoot.

Wrong! CCW training means that whatever anyone tells you, no matter what the situation, you are legally bound to follow their orders. And, let say no one actually gives you an order, anti gun folks can invent an order that you disobeyed.


Hmm ok must be different state to state.
 
2013-07-20 06:50:42 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: hardinparamedic: The funny thing is, you're taught in CCW class to be a witness, not to go after someone you think is committing a crime.

You know, so you don't end up having to use your weapon.

The funny thing is, you still think that Zim was going after Tray.


Zimmerman never confronted someone he verbalized was in his mind engaged in criminal activity? When he had no duty to do so, and after reporting him to the police for this?

I guess Martin pulled him from his vehicle and dragged him from it, then?
 
2013-07-20 06:50:47 PM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: What's that smell?

Your bullshait.

Amos Quito: Again, cite that.

Like you'll read it.


From your article:

"First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing."

None of the investigations found evidence ZImmerman approached Martin.

"Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons "

He wasn't on patrol at the time. He was going to Target. Being on the neighborhood watch doesn't mean you never carry a gun.


Now that the trial has finished it doesn't look like he actually broke any of the "rules" in the article. Or he is a master criminal and managed to break them all and leave no evidence that the police or FBI could find.
 
2013-07-20 06:50:54 PM  

Amos Quito: Also, please show what the Neighborhood Watch and CCW training manuals instruct people to do if they find themselves straddled, screaming for help and being mercilessly beaten even while being observed and warned by concerned neighbors.


My guess is that both say if you find yourself straddled, screaming for help, and being beaten mercilessly, then you've already failed. Zimmerman had plenty of time to act or retreat long before that.
 
2013-07-20 06:53:23 PM  

vygramul: Sagus: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.

His CCW included training on when not to go looking for someone?  When I had mine it was situation questions on when to shoot and not to shoot.

Mine said the gun isn't to enable you to remain in a dangerous situation. It was to get you out of one, but that you should leave an area of criminal activity and call the police.


That was included in mine. If you draw your weapon you'd better be prepared to use it. Many times I would keep the bank bag and go home instead of taking a chance on an encounter.
 
2013-07-20 06:54:27 PM  

Carth: None of the investigations found evidence ZImmerman approached Martin.


I must have missed the part where it says members of the watch should leave their vehicle to pursue suspects.

Carth: He wasn't on patrol at the time. He was going to Target.


So the whole acting in the capacity of Neighborhood Watch was a load of bullshait.  You should talk to the other guy because he's making the claim.
 
2013-07-20 06:55:18 PM  

hardinparamedic: The funny thing is, you're taught in CCW class to be a witness, not to go after someone you think is committing a crime.

You know, so you don't end up having to use your weapon.


So?

Fact is, Zimmerman was attacked. He took a beating for about a minute, screaming for help. No one helped and the assailant was not letting up, so he shot. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly legal.
 
2013-07-20 06:55:26 PM  

rnld: He never admitted killing anyone in self defense


He kinda said he did it for love.

cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-20 06:57:49 PM  

Aristocles: hardinparamedic: The funny thing is, you're taught in CCW class to be a witness, not to go after someone you think is committing a crime.

You know, so you don't end up having to use your weapon.

So?

Fact is, Zimmerman was attacked. He took a beating for about a minute, screaming for help. No one helped and the assailant was not letting up, so he shot. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly legal.


Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened until the attack actually started, which doesn't jibe with the police call. But, hey, evidence shmevidence, right?
 
2013-07-20 06:58:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: Carth: None of the investigations found evidence ZImmerman approached Martin.

I must have missed the part where it says members of the watch should leave their vehicle to pursue suspects.

Carth: He wasn't on patrol at the time. He was going to Target.

So the whole acting in the capacity of Neighborhood Watch was a load of bullshait.  You should talk to the other guy because he's making the claim.


Zimmerman got out of the car when the dispatcher asked him to keep them advised of Martin's movements and which way he was running. He started walking back to the car when they told him they didn't mean for him to follow martin. (so claim the defense)

It may not be true but nothing in the trial or investigation contradicted that telling of events.

I'm not making any claim. I'm just saying he was going to Target and not "on patrol" that night which is probably why he had his gun.
 
2013-07-20 07:01:56 PM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: * Exiting his vehicle to better determine the whereabouts of the fleeing individual so that he might better direct arriving police

Which both his CCW and his Neighborhood Watch training said NOT to do. Ever.


Cite that. Relevant documents, dated prior to the incident. Then cite the law(s) that would indicate GZ's (alleged) failure to follow said (alleged) training legally culpable.

Ah, already making an excuse, I see. It doesn't MATTER if the training said not to, if you're legally not culpable, that trumps the training!


"Excuses"?

We're talking about laws, and civil / criminal liability here, not table manners and etiquette. Also, you may recall that the dispatcher had told him to inform him if the suspicious character "does anything else". How could GZ have followed THIS request if he is unable to observe the character in question?


vygramul: Amos Quito: He was performing a service to the community as a participant in the neighborhood watch

While doing exactly what the Neighborhood Watch program told him not to.


Again, cite that. And make sure your sources PRE-DATE the incident.

Thanks in advance.

Sure. But before I do, are you willing to agree that if the NW training said not to, he should not have left his vehicle?


Wait, are you claiming that the jury's decision was "bad", and that GZ SHOULD have been found guilty, or not?

I'll be waiting for the documents AND the law(s) that show he is culpable, because otherwise, you're just pissing into the breeze.

Also, please show what the Neighborhood Watch and CCW training manuals instruct people to do if they find themselves straddled, screaming for help and being mercilessly beaten even while being observed and warned by concerned neighbors.

Do these manuals make any reference to "saying your prayers"?


Your inability to maintain a consistent conversation on one topic at a time is creating a lot of confusion in your mind.
 
2013-07-20 07:02:43 PM  
Aristocles:
Fact is, Zimmerman was attacked. He took a beating for about a minute, screaming for help. No one helped and the assailant was not letting up, so he shot. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly legal.

You DO know the difference between civil and criminal, right? A lawful shooting does not abdicate you from civil responsibility for the death.  Especially when that death could have been reasonably avoided in the first place. This is why many states set distinct civil immunity limits for self-defense shooting.

There is a major difference between what happened here, and someone who broke into your house in the middle of the night with nefarious intent.
 
2013-07-20 07:17:09 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aristocles:
Fact is, Zimmerman was attacked. He took a beating for about a minute, screaming for help. No one helped and the assailant was not letting up, so he shot. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly legal.

You DO know the difference between civil and criminal, right? A lawful shooting does not abdicate you from civil responsibility for the death.  Especially when that death could have been reasonably avoided in the first place. This is why many states set distinct civil immunity limits for self-defense shooting.

There is a major difference between what happened here, and someone who broke into your house in the middle of the night with nefarious intent.


In Florida, he has immunity from any civil suit pertaining to this event.

Of course, we now hear that Holder is trying to invent some sort of ex post facto racism charges or whatever.
 
2013-07-20 07:20:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: Zimmerman never confronted someone he verbalized was in his mind engaged in criminal activity? When he had no duty to do so, and after reporting him to the police for this?

I guess Martin pulled him from his vehicle and dragged him from it, then?


Wait, because Zim left his vehicle, he's the one who confronted Tray? I'm going to need a diagram to see how the hell you're able to connect those two events.
 
2013-07-20 08:04:04 PM &nb