View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:23 pm



Reply to topic  [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1766
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Ether, again, you've fallen into DaveS's mental masturbation mind trap, and you've gotten way, way far afield. Perhaps with all of DaveS's obfuscation about what he said, his original thesis has become lost.


Whoa there cowboy, lets stick with the conversation at hand. I'm not DaveS and I claim no responsibility for what he is saying- I'm just trying to make my own point. That's why I asked you those questions.... none of which you have answered. Zero. Conversation works both ways, you know. I took the time to thoughtfully respond to your points, and you insulted me by taking no time to respond to mine. So I see no point in continuing until you learn how conversation works. We can't have an intellectual exchange until you do.


CC wrote:
Accordions are mostly associated with blacks in creole, Cajun/Zydeco music from Louisiana.
Accordions are mostly associated with whites in polka and other folk music of European origin.


You missed the point. Try reading what I wrote again. You don't seem to understand that stereotypes exist, right or wrong, and that there are exceptions to generalizations. You are at a severe disadvantage in this conversation if you don't understand these basic concepts. The fact that you had to look up the definition of 'stereotype' is alarming. Refusing to answer zero of the questions I posed directly to you is evasive if not disrespectful, and doesn't encourage anyone to take you seriously as an intellectual. You said you wanted that, right? Well, I'm trying here- but you gotta do your part too.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
That's the great thing about common knowledge... it doesn't need a lot of explanation because everyone knows it to be true.

Ether, you asserted that some stereotypes are common knowledge and are, hence, true. You gave several examples. Everyone does not know them to be true, and, in fact, by definition, they are not. The observations may be spot on, but the meanings attached to them, i.e., that they are accurate and generalizable comments about various cultures, ethnic groups or subcultures, are not.

Whether stereotypes exist or not is beside the point, and is not an issue on this thread. The issue was whether people generally stereotype all Black, hoodie-wearing youths as thugs, UNIVERSALLY, under all circumstances, and everywhere. They don't. Generally, people are rational and not hysterical. And although they are on the decline, and although they can be whipped into a frenzy of unrest like MSNBC almost single-handedly did, people are still generally rational, logical, reasonable, prudent, and responsible.

Even though DaveS asserted this flawed premise,
DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal [emphasis added.] to white culture, ... But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; [emphasis added.] people just think you can. [Emphasis added.]

he secretly agrees with me, (although he can't resist a good troll), to wit:
DaveS wrote:
All we have evidence for is that he dressed in a hoodie. That does not equal dressing like a thug/gangster. Although granted, it probably wasn't cold enough for a hood in Florida at the time, but still.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:32 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
The issue was whether people generally stereotype all Black, hoodie-wearing youths as thugs, UNIVERSALLY, under all circumstances, and everywhere.


Actually no, that's not the issue, for anyone except you. No one else here ever said anything about "universally", "under all circumstances", or "everywhere".

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
he secretly agrees with me,


I don't think you're that familiar with what the word "secretly" means.


Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:38 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS: Please stop smoking whatever it is that has obviously damaged or otherwise diminished what little memory you have left. Please also stop trolling my threads and posts. Please fuck off, you dumbass.

DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
I think some people think that white people are scarier. When's the last time you heard of a nuclear stand off, e.g., The Cuban Missile Crisis, between two black-dominated governments? Was a black person suspected of circulating the Anthrax-laced letters to Congress, etc.? Hell no. When's the last time a black man bombed a federal building? When's the last time a black man was suspected of bombing a church with children in it? When's the last time a white man was found dead hanging by his neck in a tree in an undeveloped rural area?


Well, yeah, if you wanna bring reality into it.

But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; people just think you can.

I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. The standard jokes usually apply only to a small subgroup, like hipsters, or yuppies, or rednecks, or old-money WASPs.

DaveS wrote:
Ether wrote:
I think some people think black people are scary no matter what they wear. It's weird to me.


Yeah. The Daily Show did something on that a week ago. It's extremely disturbing, and people have really short memories about it.
DaveS wrote:
For some people it seems to be the opposite of the use of the word "nigga"; it's only *not* ok when black people do it.

Also known as: not reverse racism but regular racism.


Ether wrote:
I think I must be the only person in this crazy world who doesn't find hoodiesthreatening/thuggish. Where I live, soccer moms wear hoodies. Children wear them. Old people wear them. I see joggers wearing them sometimes. I see Giraldo on TV talking about how the hoodie is REALLY to blame and I just don't get it.

DaveS wrote:
Rockula! wrote:
People need to realize that when they act and dress like a thug then they are going to be treated like one
I am not going to comment on what supposedly happened because I wasn't there
However, I am pretty sure that all of this could have been avoided if the person who dressed like a thug/gangster had acted like a normal law abiding citizen instead of an incredulous [sic] thug, outraged by "racial profiling" then this never would have happened

Nope, it's not right to be judged on your race/appearence etc...
But if you made a decision to identify yourself with a group that has a clear reputation for violent criminal behavior then you must accept the snap judgements people make about you


All we have evidence for is that he dressed in a hoodie. That does not equal dressing like a thug/gangster. Although granted, it probably wasn't cold enough for a hood in Florida at the time, but still.

And your last 2 sentences are in direct conflict with each other. If it is not right to be judged by your race/appearance, then how can you say that you "must" accept the snap judgments peolpe make? So you must accept that which is not right? Hell no. What is not right is by definition that which we must not accept.

Your 1st 2 sentences conflict too. You say you're not going to comment on what happened, and then you make a wild speculation about exactly that.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I see the problem. You resized the wrong things. You failed to see the negative operators that take scope over every instance of anything universal in anything I wrote, and also failed to notice any of the existential quantifiers. I'll resize them for you so the scope is clear.

DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; people just think you can.

I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. The standard jokes usually apply only to a small subgroup, like hipsters, or yuppies, or rednecks, or old-money WASPs.

DaveS wrote:
Ether wrote:
I think some people think black people are scary no matter what they wear. It's weird to me.


Yeah. The Daily Show did something on that a week ago. It's extremely disturbing, and people have really short memories about it.
DaveS wrote:
For some people it seems to be the opposite of the use of the word "nigga"; it's only *not* ok when black people do it.

Also known as: not reverse racism but regular racism.

Ether wrote:
I think I must be the only person in this crazy world who doesn't find hoodies threatening/thuggish. Where I live, soccer moms wear hoodies. Children wear them. Old people wear them. I see joggers wearing them sometimes. I see Giraldo on TV talking about how the hoodie is REALLY to blame and I just don't get it.


Note, this one, by Ether, is clearly intended to be an exaggeration.

Rockula! wrote:
People need to realize that when they act and dress like a thug then they are going to be treated like one
I am not going to comment on what supposedly happened because I wasn't there
However, I am pretty sure that all of this could have been avoided if the person who dressed like a thug/gangster had acted like a normal law abiding citizen instead of an incredulous [sic] thug, outraged by "racial profiling" then this never would have happened

Nope, it's not right to be judged on your race/appearence etc...
But if you made a decision to identify yourself with a group that has a clear reputation for violent criminal behavior then you must accept the snap judgements people make about you


This one's controversial, and I did argue against it, but it still says nothing about "universal", "everywhere", or "in all circumstances".

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Please also stop trolling my threads and posts. Please fuck off, you dumbass.

I respectfully decline your request. But thanks for asking nicely.


Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
I see the problem. You resized the wrong things. You failed to see the negative operators that take scope over every instance of anything universal in anything I wrote, and also failed to notice any of the existential quantifiers. I'll resize them for you so the scope is clear.

You're so hopelessly confused now, DaveS, that your thinking is topsy-turvy. The predicate of the point that you made is not what people don't do, it's what people actually do, which is to actually do what you said you either can't (logically, reasonably and rationally) do "for US-based Black people", or what people "don't tend to do with White people". Therefore, your predicate, i.e., the one that is logically consistent with this thread, is:

    "People (the subject) just think [your emphasis] ["think" being the operative verb] you can -- i.e., "find traits perceived to be universal to" -- "US-based black people" (the object) -- "and be afraid of that."

And it is this very assertion which is patently untrue, because people generally don't believe in concepts that are factually inaccurate, illogical, irrational, unreliably generalizable from the observed sample to the target group in question, or are unable to be empirically validated. And after receiving much prodding and guidance, you eventually came to understand this (by your own dysfunctional thought process) as "a stereotype of a stereotype" -- at least until you got yourself all fucked inside-out again by confusing yourself with the machinations of your own sophistry -- which is why I would appreciate it if you kindly spent your time pissing up ropes, or whatever you hopelessly arcane, ivory-tower academics do when you're not polluting young people's minds with your useless bullshit.

DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved [sic] to be universal to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; people just think you can.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:15 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
The issue was whether people generally stereotype all Black, hoodie-wearing youths as thugs, UNIVERSALLY, under all circumstances, and everywhere.


Actually no, that's not the issue, for anyone except you. No one else here ever said anything about "universally", "under all circumstances", or "everywhere".


Try to stay on topic.

DaveS wrote:
People (the subject) just think [your emphasis] ["think" being the operative verb] you can -- i.e., "find traits perceived to be universal to" -- "US-based black people" (the object) -- "and be afraid of that."


I suppose you think "universal to US-based black people" is equal to "under all circumstances" and "everywhere"? Or that "people (the subject)" necessarily means "people generally"?


Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:03 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
No one else here ever said anything about "universally", "under all circumstances", or "everywhere".

DaveS, your feeble attempt to spin what an obviously asinine choice of words you made (i.e., in constructing your spurious and fallacious thesis) is only compounding the self-demeaning (and self-defeating) appearance of your foppish, flailing attempts to extricate yourself from the folly of your own serially-generated sophisms.

    Example: First, on Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:12 pm you say:

    DaveS wrote:
    Well, yeah, if you wanna bring reality into it.

    But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; people just think you can.

    I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. The standard jokes usually apply only to a small subgroup, like hipsters, or yuppies, or rednecks, or old-money WASPs.

    Then on Thu Apr 05, 2012 @ 6:38 pm you say:
    DaveS wrote:
    Actually no, that's not the issue, for anyone except you. No one else here ever said anything about "universally", "under all circumstances", or "everywhere".

    And when confronted with your weaseling ways, on Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:20 pm you equivocate by saying:
    DaveS wrote:
    This one's controversial, and I did argue against it, but it still says nothing about "universal", "everywhere", or "in all circumstances".

Really. Stop digging. And now you're resorting to desperate, pathetic denials that no reasonable, marginally intelligent, and scrupulously objective outsider -- especially someone who has access to a dictionary and who has a modicum of reading comprehension skill -- would believe, to wit:

    DaveS wrote:
    I suppose you think "universal to US-based black people" is equal to "under all circumstances" and "everywhere"? Or that "people (the subject)" necessarily means "people generally"?

u·ni·ver·sal (yn-vûrsl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key). [Editorial Note: The reader may substitute the phrase "venue in question" for "entire world", e.g., American society or Western culture, in order to attain the ethnologically/culturally appropriate context for assessing the scope of applicability.]
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. See Synonyms at general.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
[Emphasis was added to all of the above definitions of DaveS's unfortunately inauspicious and obtuse selection of the word, "universal".]

They're your words! Besides, it's not what I think, it's what the objective outsider who is casually browsing this thread thinks about your ridiculously desperate and pathetic attempts to salvage some negligible remnant of your credibility, which devolved into a series of incorrigibly petulant, impotent, and compulsively-proffered canards, long ago. Worse yet, I shudder when imagining what registered board users will think when they look up your profile. One can only speculate at their profound incredulity.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1766
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Ether, you asserted that some stereotypes are common knowledge and are, hence, true. You gave several examples.


I never said stereotypes or generalizations are true. You made that up.

Saying that it is common knowledge that people make generalizations is a far cry different than saying, "all generalizations are true." You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone if you aren't willing to listen to what they say. I hate to say it, but I'm actually with DaveS on this one- you don't seem to read what has been written to you whether by me or him or anyone else. I asked very simple questions that you were unable or unwilling to entertain which grinds conversation to a halt. Until you can comprehend what I'm writing, I have a natural disincentive to write responses to you.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:03 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Besides, it's not what I think, it's what the objective outsider who is casually browsing this thread thinks...

Right, you don't approach these boards with the intention of having a conversation. You approach them as establishing for posterity, for all those casual browsers out there, who has credibility and who doesn't.

I don't personally see why you care what all those casual broswers think of *your* credibility, let alone what they think of mine. If they're not even going to respond or show in any other way what they think, then why does it matter to you?

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
DaveS, your feeble attempt to spin what an obviously asinine choice of words you made

So you admit your only problem with my "thesis" (and that's a ridiculous choice of words on your part) is my choice of words, I guess specifically the word "universal". In context, it should have been clear what I meant (and if you'd asked politely, I would have explained it much earlier):

DaveS wrote:
I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. The standard jokes usually apply only to a small subgroup, like hipsters, or yuppies, or rednecks, or old-money WASPs.


That is, universal across subcultures. The people in question, the people who believe the relevant stereotypes (and yes they exist, and I never said it was a majority) do not recognize different subcultures of black people the way they recognize subcultures of white people. And it's hard to think of stereotypes that people apply universally to all white subcultures. (In that I disagree with Ether; I think his examples of stereotypes about white people only apply to certain subcultures. But at the same time, they are often given as stereotypes of white people in general, such as in comedy.) It doesn't necessary mean that anyone believes it about every single black person anywhere, in any situation, of any age, of any sex, etc. And that fits perfectly well into your dictionary definition; the members of the class or group can be subcultures, not individual people.


Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
/ignore DaveS <enter>

Petulant, pointlessly-sophistic douche bag rejection complete.

Troll-free environment restored.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
<duplicated above>

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:51 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Ether, you asserted that some stereotypes are common knowledge and are, hence, true. You gave several examples.

I never said stereotypes or generalizations are true. You made that up.

It was a reasonable inference based on what you wrote. Apparently that was not what you meant by your subsequent qualification below.

Crusty-'n-Cranky wrote:
Ether wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
No you did not. You never once cited why or upon what authority you based your judgments. I've never associated any of your examples generally with white people. Hence, I can only conclude that they are peculiar to you alone.

That's the great thing about common knowledge... it doesn't need a lot of explanation because everyone knows it to be true.

I work in advertising. I produce images of people from agencies all around the world. Hikers are always white in ads because that is their target demographic. Same thing with rock climbing, kayaking, swimming. Ever been ice fishing? How many black people do you see engaging in that activity? The answer is virtually zero. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or passing any kind of judgment, it just is what it is. People generalize all the time and societies associate certain types of people with certain things, right or wrong.

No they don't and no it isn't. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Lot's of people are incredibly parochial in their world view, largely because they are intellectually underdeveloped. Hence, stereotyping, which is the subject at issue in this thread.

I will admit to making my interpretation with undue haste, and, hence, failing to consider an alternative more favorable to you. My skeptical and critical evaluation method is to focus on whether an argument, as found in the context in which it is written, can withstand rigorous scrutiny; i.e., if any of the pillars of its foundation are so faulty that once kicked the argument fails, then I must dismiss it in view of a larger, more poignant, or more salient point to be made. Unfortunately, my interpretation of what you said did not seem inconsistent with your line of argumentation. Perhaps also, the general vein of argumentation on this thread colored my perception of what yours was, as they seemed to be parallel.

One must endeavor to write in such a manner so that another cannot reasonably misinterpret you.

Ether wrote:
Saying that it is common knowledge that people make generalizations is a far cry different than saying, "all generalizations are true."

Indeed it is, and that qualification was not sufficiently evident in your former assertion. I simply misunderstood your point. Regardless, just because it is true that people stereotype, it does not mean those individual stereotypes are pervasively shared, i.e., common knowledge. Perhaps what you meant was that it is common knowledge that some people do stereotype, and perhaps a paltry number of stereotypes are common knowledge, but generally speaking, alleging that most stereotypes are common knowledge is a dubious assertion of doubtful credibility. And perhaps you did not intend to intimate that position either, but, again, it was unclear from your post.

Regardless, simply because it is true that some people do stereotype others, that does not mean that such views are either predominate, pervasive or anything more than a social phenomenon that tends to be grouped in with the same character traits that have a greater tendency to include parochial mindsets, superstitiousness, gullibility, poor critical analysis skills, irrational fears, religious dependence, and a constellation of other perceptual and conceptual deficits that generally accompany underdeveloped intellects and ignorance, generally.

Moreover, observations about the lack of representation of black people in certain activities cannot be logically attributed to, or associated with, a cultural trait unless there is a very logical and TESTABLE explanation.

Example: Blacks are far disproportionately less likely to be associated with bondage and discipline, at least in public settings, due to cultural stigmas and aversions associated with 18th and 19th Century slavery. The same could be said of camping, now that you mention it. Whereas before I would have attributed such observations to proximity with locations and with economic disparity, rather than anything cultural.

Blacks have historically been disproportionately represented in the ranks of poverty and squalor, particularly in the poor, rural south, where both hot and cold running water and either gas or electric stoves were disproportionately less pervasive in Black households than in White households up until the 1950's. So it's more likely to be culturally adverse for them to go camping where they would be forced to repeat or relive that lifestyle. Indeed, while we're at it, ice fishing may likewise be culturally explainable insofar as prior to the Great Migration, Blacks were predominantly settled in the deep south, where there were insufficient needs or opportunities to motivate significant engagement in ice fishing by them.

Ether wrote:
You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone if you aren't willing to listen to what they say. I hate to say it, but I'm actually with DaveS on this one- you don't seem to read what has been written to you whether by me or him or anyone else. I asked very simple questions that you were unable or unwilling to entertain which grinds conversation to a halt. Until you can comprehend what I'm writing, I have a natural disincentive to write responses to you.

While we may miscommunicate, DaveS is a completely disingenuous troll, an admitted sophist and a liar, to wit: viewtopic.php?f=20&p=102688#p102688

Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:36 pm:
DaveS wrote:
Well, I can admit when I've been beaten. Yes, I tried throughout this thread to convince you that I had definitive knowledge of exactly who reads these discussion boards, and how each of them finds out about it. I had no such knowledge, but I tried to blindside you with confident-sounding rhetoric, misleading analogies, and irrelevant data. This is actually a habit of mine, to convince people of things that aren't true using misleading and unsupported statements. The truth is, it works so well on so many people that I never thought it would fail to work on you as well.

But I hadn't been trying this on minds as well-informed and disciplined as yours. You were able to see my statements for the trickery that they were. Your combination of careful logical thinking and tenacity paid off. After my first attempts to fool you failed, I was hoping that if I kept at it, with more and more ridiculous deceptions, you would give up. But you stuck with it, kept knocking down attempt after attempt, and in the end I had no tricks left. I had to give up.

I lied about another thing too: I have read your posts, every last word. The depth and innovation of your analysis of political issues intimidated me; I felt threatened, and the only thing I could think to do is fool you into thinking I had information that I did not. Clearly you could have moved right on to another insightful analysis of political issues of our day, but instead you took the time to work with me on the issue of what knowledge is possible about who exactly reads these boards and who doesn't. That means a lot to me, and I am grateful.

Thank you.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:55 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
With the new pics & eye witnesses supporting George Z it's looking pretty bad for Jessse Jackson & Al Sharptons attack on the 2nd ammendment.

The frenzied rush to judgement by lawyers & "community activists" has done plenty to damage justice, but if the facts come out proving Hispanic George Z was indeed getting his brains bashed in & acted in self defense... we could see more "stand your ground" laws across the land.
It's kind of sad that SyG isn't just the law of the land actualy, isn't self preservation what this country & freedom all about? More guns = less crime. Pretty simple stuff!


Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
No comment about the details of the case; we'll see. But in no way does SyG follow the spirit of "self-preservation". It says you can attack if you just "feel threatened". No burden of proof to show that you *were* threatened. Makes no sense. And as for "more guns = less crime"... Simple? Yes, but so is "more guns = more crime". Same number of letters. But which one is simpler is not the point. The question is which one is *correct*.


Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Wow, this is looking better and better for zimmerman:

Quote:
ABC News has obtained a copy of a doctor’s report on a visit by George Zimmerman the day after the Trayvon Martin shooting. The report discloses that Zimmerman had a broken nose, two black eyes, two cuts on the back of his head, bruising on the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain.


No wonder the mainstream news has dropped this like a hot potato! certainly doesn't help the anti stand your ground folks.


Wed May 16, 2012 1:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
More cops and witnesses that support zimmermans claims today. I wonder if the case may get thrown out now? Why has crusty gone silent?


Thu May 17, 2012 7:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Wow, this case is falling apart for the prosecution. First a ear witness that totally backfired & supported Zimmermans claims, Tryvons criminal record & now Zimmermans testimony is going well. Where did Crusty go?!


Quote:
Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin, got out of his car to call police and was walking back to his vehicle when the 17-year-old attacked him.

“He jumped out of the bushes and he said ‘What the f..k is your problem, homie?’” Zimmerman said on the tape.

“And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time, and I said ‘I don’t have a problem.’ And he goes, ‘No, now you have a problem,’ and he punched me in the nose.”

In court, jurors listened closely to the tape, while Zimmerman showed no emotion and Martin’s father closed his eyes from time to time.

Zimmerman told police he fell down to the ground after being punched repeatedly. “I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face, and I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breathe.”

“He puts his hand on my nose and mouth, and he says ‘You are going to die tonight.’

He said “the suspect” was “mounted on top of me” and began to bang his head onto the ground.

“As he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him,” Zimmerman said.

He said Martin fell backward. “And he’s like ‘Alright, you got me, you got me.'”

Under questioning, Officer Doris Singleton, who conducted the audio interview, said Zimmerman appeared shocked when he learned Martin’s wound was fatal.

“He’s dead!?” she quoted him as saying.

“I thought you knew that,” she said she replied.

Zimmerman “kinda slung his head and shook it,” she said.

Jurors were also shown a second interview, this one videotaped by police a day after the slaying. In this version, Zimmerman re-enacted the confrontation and added that he pulled out his gun “after he hit my head against the concrete several times.”

The prosecution maintains that Martin, not Zimmerman, was the person that neighbors heard shouting for help that night.


Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:00 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Finaly! CONCEAL CARRY IN LAND OF LINCOLN !
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/lawmaker ... s-gun-bill

Just in time for the verdict riots?!


Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Whoa! Ether has an icon pic!


Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
But in no way does SyG follow the spirit of "self-preservation". It says you can attack if you just "feel threatened". No burden of proof to show that you *were* threatened. Makes no sense.


Don't all people acting with a motive of self-preservation "feel threatened"? Do they all need some proof Zimmerman hasn't got? Don't they just need a story that convinces a jury and judge?

Zimmerman has much more proof than that, but he shouldn't need it if his recounting is convincing.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:04 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Based on Zimmerman's use of the expletive "fucking coon"...


Did anyone mention this never happened?

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Mby on Fox they did. They tend to be more honest than most msm news org.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:38 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
The jury got it right.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Gary Younge tells it like it is:

Quote:
Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.

The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.

But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.

Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.

Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?

Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.

"Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."

So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.


Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:16 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Quote:
...Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.


OR did Zimmerman believe him to be a criminal, yet he retreated to his car? Martin pursued and attacked him. They fought, with Zimmerman getting beaten on the ground. Then, Zimmerman shot him dead.

They account you quoted is sure of itself, but we cannot claim that certainty.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:06 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
He did pursue him after the police told him not to.

It's also not his place to decide he's a "criminal", that's for the real police to figure out.

Zimmerman is a racist coward who murdered a teenager.


Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
It's a great day for America & gun civil rights laws, a terrible day for race baiter industry like, Jackson, Sharpton, Moore & Obama. Even tho Zimmerman never should have been prosecuted, the race baiters got their case. And now they are still unhappy and still angry.

Quote:
OR did Zimmerman believe him to be a criminal, yet he retreated to his car? Martin pursued and attacked him. They fought, with Zimmerman getting beaten on the ground. Then, Zimmerman shot him dead.


Well... that's what witnesses saw, but who cares! Zimmerman should have stayed on his back and let Trayvon bash his brains in. To fight back would be raaaaaacccisssst.

Quote:
Zimmerman is a racist coward who murdered a teenager.


Yea... I bet Zimmerman hates Hispanics too! :lol:


Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:10 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Zimmerman is a racist coward who murdered a teenager.


Though the FBI determined he showed no racial bias in his actions. He saw a possible criminal in a hoodie.

The racism comes in the form of CNN labeling Zimmerman a "white Hispanic" in order to make it about racism.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:29 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Gary Younge tells it like it is:

Quote:
.. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. ..

Clearly, Gary Younge is some sort of dipshit troll.
Which of those weapons does he think Martin busted-up Zimmerman's face with?
The can of iced tea, or the bag of Skittles?


Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:56 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
NIce job guys.. great day to be able to murder anyone you find to be suspicious in your narrow minds.

Next time someone punches you, it's okay to kill them, right?

The doughy chickenshit murderer will have a nice life ahead I'm sure.

Hey, here's another Brave Hero for you guys to admire:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345

And any statement made regarding "race-baiting" while factually verifiable racism exists in the US "justice" system shows a true ignorance and/or refusal to accept facts.

Another fact is that the coward Zimmerman refused medical attention because he had very minor injuries. But according to you guys, Martin deserved a bullet to the heart for whatever he did.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Another fact is that the coward Zimmerman refused medical attention because he had very minor injuries. But according to you guys, Martin deserved a bullet to the heart for whatever he did.


You ever cut yourself with a kitchen knife and think you're gonna need stitches for sure... but when you finally get a look at it, it's not so bad? Martin pounded Zimmerman's head on the tar, supposedly. Zimmerman is apparently supposed to take that restful, calming moment to assess how far Martin's going to take things and how bad the wounds might be afterward.

So silly.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:42 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
NIce job guys.. great day to be able to murder anyone you find to be suspicious in your narrow minds.

Next time someone punches you, it's okay to kill them, right?


Silly generalizations.

Not "punches you." It's "punches you and slams your head an unknown number of times, ending who knows when and escalating to who knows what."

Not "anyone you find to be suspicious." It's someone you found suspicious who follows you back to your car as you're leaving punches you and slams your head an unknown number of times, ending who knows when and escalating to who knows what."

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Oh poor Geroge, He received a minor injury that did not even need treatment, and being twice the size of the teenager, he felt the only option he had was to shoot the kid in the heart.

Yes, perfect sense there. A fake racist cop with a grudge against black teens felt like his life was in danger after he pursued a kid because he didn't like the way he looked.

"Slams his head" OH boo fucking hoo.

George Zimmerman is a racist coward murderer who will have to live with his horrific actions.

But either way, it's proper that he murdered the kid, right? Killing is what Jesus wants us to do to each other.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Oh poor Geroge, He received a minor injury that did not even need treatment, and being twice the size of the teenager...


He didn't know the injury would end at minor until after the shot.

The little teenager managed to pin him on the ground and beat him.

zom-zom wrote:
A fake racist cop with a grudge against black teens...


The FBI said they found no racism in their interviewing of Zimmerman. Zimmerman was after thieves... not black kids.

zom-zom wrote:
"Slams his head" OH boo fucking hoo.


If Zimmerman had slammed Martin's head, would that be "OH boo fucking hoo", too?

zom-zom wrote:
George Zimmerman is a racist...


Facts not in evidence. Zimmerman is a minority.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:14 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
So it's cool with you that he murdered the unarmed teenager.

A non-uniformed "neighborhood watch" clod with a pistol can pursue a teenager that he doesn't like the look of, after the police told him not to, and then shoot him in the heart. OK.

Expect more killings. Great society we're entering here with the ALEC-created "stand your ground" shit.

Killing feels good, right? Good Christian behaviour.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:53 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
We know from Zimmerman's own 9-1-1 narrative, and from witnesses that heard screaming before Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range, that Zimmerman pursued and instigated a confrontation with Martin, and that he did so without either having witnessed a misdemeanor, or without having personal knowledge of specific, articulable facts that would logically lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that Martin had probably, i.e., more likely than not, committed a felony. Therefore, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was not in lawful "fresh pursuit" of Martin under statutes that authorize same for the purposes of making a citizen's arrest.

Moreover, Zimmerman had been told by the 9-1-1 dispatcher that his pursuit of Martin was unnecessary for the interests and purposes of relevant law enforcement.

Additionally, Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense by using deadly force in making a strategic attack on an aggressor who had surprised him under conditions reasonably suggestive of an ambush. Nor had he otherwise been pursued into an inescapable and threateningly vulnerable position. Nor is there any objective evidence that he was either overtly threatened by Martin, or subjected, through no fault of his own, to otherwise unreasonably threatening circumstances, where if attacked, Zimmerman would have been subjected to an imminent and unreasonable risk of harm.2

Therefore, Zimmerman's conduct vis-à-vis Martin's, was a complete and unwarranted lark of its own, and it was outside the bounds of any legal sanction.

In summation, Zimmerman engaged in wrongful, aggressive, and threatening conduct in pursuing Martin, and he did so without just cause. He further escalated the threat posed to Martin by provoking an unwarranted confrontation with him, all the while having not been in lawful "fresh pursuit" of a crime suspect at the time. Consequently, as a matter of public policy if not as a matter of venerated law, Zimmerman cannot claim self-defense in justifying having shot Martin in a situation that Zimmerman created, irrespective of Martin's conduct under the circumstances. Such is the tentative and tenuous nature of human and constitutional rights under the pall of "Stand Your Ground".
.

Wow, could anyone be so wrong & off on their facts? I guess CC will make a great lawyer! Or politician? lol

^ that was in March 2012, and now, well over a year later, all of a sudden zom has somthing to say & thinks he knows all the facts.

But facts don't matter, just the narrative & perception of having the "moral high ground". Sorry to see the house of cards collapse z! lol!


Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
So it's cool with you that he murdered the unarmed teenager.


Nothing cool about it. Legal? Yup.

zom-zom wrote:
A non-uniformed "neighborhood watch" clod with a pistol can pursue a teenager that he doesn't like the look of, after the police told him not to, and then shoot him in the heart. OK.


Again, you're leaving out too many details for that to be an accurate description of events.

zom-zom wrote:
Great society we're entering here with the ALEC-created "stand your ground" shit.


Except that this case had nothing to do with stand your ground. It was thrown out pretrial.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
That's cool.. you guys must walk around in fear every day and now you're all happy and inspired that you too can murder a kid that you don't like the look of.

Good job! Get those guns and start murdering, that's what God wants us all to do.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
That's cool.. you guys must walk around in fear every day and now you're all happy and inspired that you too can murder a kid that you don't like the look of.


Again, you've left out pertinent details.

The jury heard them all and said Zimmerman goes home.

The FBI heard them all and said Zimmerman wasn't racially motivated.

That dope Nancy Grace still quotes Zimmerman's racial epithets, even though he never said them. She pals with you?

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
What's your favourite teenager-murdering weapon?


Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
What's your favourite teenager-murdering weapon?


I'm not sure what veinsplashers is, but I know what Obama's is. Socialism. Hows that black unemployment rate in Chi town looking zom?

Why doesn't Obama just drop a drone on zimmerman? Your hero Obama loves to kill thousands of brown people with drones.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Nice racism fisty!


Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:25 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Here you guys, come to the protest and maybe you'll learn something.

Also, there may be black teenagers in attendance, please don't shoot them.

https://www.facebook.com/events/205300609626208/


Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:41 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:49 pm
Posts: 3153
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
there may be black teenagers in attendance


Again with the race card.

_________________
And over the ashes the stories are told
Of witches and werewolves and Oak Island gold


Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3438
Location: minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
to be fair, after arguing with fisty for a while, the whole "refusing to acknowledge a point that has been brought up repeatedly" is a learned tactic.

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:59 pm
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Nice racism fisty!


:lol: Isn't that "raaaaacissst!" zom? I'm not the one that supports a racist Homophobe for prez/ lol

zom-zom wrote:
Here you guys, come to the protest and maybe you'll learn something.

Also, there may be black teenagers in attendance, please don't shoot them.


"there may be black teenagers in attendance" < RACISM!

Why do you think there "might be" people of color there?! Are they too lazy in your mind to bother to show up and join your hipster white bread crowd? hmmmm?... You better explain that one.

From what I've read there could be lots of hipsters shooting each other there anyway over: racism, Food co-ops ect... holy crap it's like the good ol TCP Days on the hipster board! lol!


Last edited by 2fisted on Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Nice racism, fisty.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:03 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I guess I'll stop by Bill's Gun Shop today seeing that the press has all the rioting hipsters all ginned up! :lol:

Went there last week & 9mm lead tipped was GONE, so I had to settle for FMJ. I guess I could see if they have hollow point today... good stopping power. 8)


Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Good job, coward!


Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Checked out your link & see that you haven't committed to go to the riot zom, you just a arm chair protester? :lol:


Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Guns make you feel tough, do they?

Of course I'm not going to the protest, I'm playing at the Triple Rock, dummy.

I thought that you should go though, bring your gun and show everyone how tough you are. Maybe you'll learn something.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:27 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
oh yea! I bet it will be a fun show! Chats cool that you'll continue to party & rock n roll! I'd rather be there than burning flags with protesters.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/15/conse ... -the-head/

It's funny but I DO have a renewed interest in Guns & civil rights/gun laws thx to Obamas America... your America. 8)


Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
George Zimmerman is a racist coward murderer who will have to live with his horrific actions.

But either way, it's proper that he murdered the kid, right? Killing is what Jesus wants us to do to each other.
No, fisty, just because we don't agree with YOUR oversimplified & cherry-picked stance doesn't mean we think "the other team" is completely justified and in the right.

Oh, wait, that was a post by zom-zom...


Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
lol bingo rskm!

I actually expected this thread to be forgotten by now. One has to wonder what had gotten the Race baiters all fired up, I mean the verdict came in after 12 hours!

It's got to be the failed narrative or guilt or both?


Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Probably your racism combined with glee that the murderer got off.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Probably your racism combined with glee that the murderer got off.

The real question is "was Treyvon a homophobe?" That's what CNN should be asking.

And this:

http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerman-v ... f-defense/


Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:31 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
2fisted wrote:
The real question is "was Treyvon a homophobe?" That's what CNN should be asking.


Quote:
JEANTEL WARNED ZIMMERMAN COULD BE GAY RAPIST
TRAYVON: NOT THAT KIND OF WAY
Tue Jul 16 2013 11:55:00 ET

Last night Trayvon Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel gave CNN her first interview since testifying in the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.

She explained to CNN's Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman -- could be a gay rapist!
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?

JEANTEL: Yes.

MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

She continued:

"And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."



Developing...


Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:51 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I think the new facts about the case have prolly put a nail in the coffin for the exploited death of Treyvon story. With exception to Obama trying to politicize his tragic death (by going after civil rights & gun rights) the possibility that Treyvon may have attacked Zimmerman because he assumed him to be a predatory Homosexual really has the lefty media machine flummoxed.

Can we finally just move on?


Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:19 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3248
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Gosh you're an idiot.

Here's some fun facts:

Quote:
In Zimmerman’s case, two pieces of character evidence never made it to the trial. First, a recorded statement from Witness No. 9, Zimmerman’s female cousin, in which she said that he molested her for ten years when they were both children, beginning when she just 6 years old. Second, a report filed in August 2005, when Zimmerman’s former fiancé sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence.

[...]

Zimmerman’s pattern for violence had already been established: trolling a neighborhood for his victim, pushing her when confronted, attacking her character, and arguing that she was the aggressor when charges were filed against him. While the Assistant State Attorney Bernardo de la Rionda brought up both testimonies in bond hearing in April 2012, they were not presented as evidence during the trial. In contrast, the judge did rule that evidence of marijuana that was found in Martin’s system was admissible.


Great guy you're defending here.


Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:03 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.