NBC fires producer over edited Zimmerman 911 call

Cynic said:
People are allowed to carry guns in america darla. Someone exercising their second amendment right isn't enough of a reason to fear for ones life. Secondly, what evidence do you have that trayvon knew the guy was carrying?

oh that's right.... no evidence at all.
Click to expand...

What evidence do any of us have that GZ was telling the unvarnished truth in his version of the events? No evidence at all.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
like whether martin attacked first, or zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, or martin tried to get zimmermans gun, or whether zimmerman was injured.

i guess your only issue is that someone used a gun on an unarmed person, that's all that matters. where is your outrage when cops kill unarmed people?
Click to expand...

That's kind of a boring broken record ya got going there...
 
Darla said:
Damo, we're not on the jury.

It doesn't bother you that people like USF have reached the conclusion that Martin was a "thug" and Zimmerman is innocent though? You'd want them judging the guy who killed someone you cared for right?
Click to expand...

it's no different than what you're doing.

and if you value falsifiable evidence, innocent until proven guilty, and how our justice system defaults to not guilty if there is a lack of compelling evidence, I would say those that are on your side are playing a more dangerous game.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
first off, i've said a few times that I could possibly buy martin using self defense. however, in doing so, you have to find some proof or evidence that martin know zimmerman was armed, in which case i'd have to declare martins death a suicide. if you're unarmed, you don't confront a gunman unless you have absolutely no where else to go.

the only reason you're not understanding anything is because you've made up your mind, regardless of any evidence, and your closed mindedness refuses to acknowledge anything else.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that only GZ knows the true version of the events, and why should we take his word for it? He's certainly not going to implicate himself as being the aggressor.
 
christiefan915 said:
The bottom line is that only GZ knows the true version of the events, and why should we take his word for it? He's certainly not going to implicate himself as being the aggressor.
Click to expand...
there's this thing we have called an inalienable right to self preservation. we also have this thing called the 5th Amendment. there are other rights as well, but you sound like you'd be happier suspending all of those rights in cases of crimes that involve black victims.
 
christiefan915 said:
What evidence do any of us have that GZ was telling the unvarnished truth in his version of the events? No evidence at all.
Click to expand...

again, my side is supported by hundreds of years of precedence. yours is not. when details are murky, or there is reasonable doubt, and you dont have falsifiable evidence, our justice system defaults to not guilty. If there is not sufficient enough evidence, you default to not even charging someone. And our society has a moral imperative to do so.
 
christiefan915 said:
The bottom line is that only GZ knows the true version of the events, and why should we take his word for it? He's certainly not going to implicate himself as being the aggressor.
Click to expand...

in that case, you must agree that he is found not guilty, as there is no compelling evidence that he should be convicted.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what else should we assume? do you post about them? do you condemn those murders? or do you say 'that's not right' and then go on your merry little way?
Click to expand...

Assume whatever you want. There are a lot of things that tick me off, personally. I don't feel like I have to do some sort of "equal outrage" dance for you every day.

There are a lot of reasons that this case is getting a great deal of attention - not least of which was compelling & very incriminating (as well as chilling) audio that was played on the national news, and a FL law that most hadn't heard of that seemed to allow what happened.

If you want to pretend everything is apples to apples, have at it.
 
Onceler said:
Assume whatever you want. There are a lot of things that tick me off, personally. I don't feel like I have to do some sort of "equal outrage" dance for you every day.

There are a lot of reasons that this case is getting a great deal of attention - not least of which was compelling & very incriminating (as well as chilling) audio that was played on the national news, and a FL law that most hadn't heard of that seemed to allow what happened.

If you want to pretend everything is apples to apples, have at it.
Click to expand...
so you prefer trials happen in the media, not a courtroom. and you also prefer that government agents receive a privileged status committing murder than a civilian. that's all you had to say.
 
Darla said:
I think that people who view this as basically a lynching, which is how I view it, would agree with me.

Stalking someone while armed and then shooting them is murder. I have zero doubt he had intent to make sure this one didn't get a way with it. Away with what? Why, walking while black that's what. This guy is nothing but a sick cop wannabe, and I find it fascinating that people like STY who hate cops and will freak out any time one of them murders someone, has NO problem with any jackass annointing himself a cop and shooting someone in cold blood. If this had been a cop shooting, STY would be on here fighting like hell with Free. But because the murderer didn't have a badge, STY and Free are now on the same side. I mean, I think that's awesome. I love watching this shit. STY loves anyone who shoots anyone for any reason, as long as they aren't a cop.

Free just loves anyone who shoots anyone for any reason, especially if they are a cop (he is a wannabe badge blower himself), and even more so if the dead guy is black.

For me, I couldn't give a shit what any of the assholes here think. This guy murdered someone and walked because the dead kid was black. There is NO other reason they drug tested the victim but not the shooter, and no other reason they didn't do a criminal background check on the shooter. And only racists, whether conscious or unconscious (see?) believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

You're so full of shit, you stupid bitch.
You are right on one aspect that is that the left are trying to lynch Zimmerman; just because it FEELS good.

You have zero doubt; because that's the only thought your single surviving brain cell will allow you to have.

The rest of your diatribe is nothing more then you stirring shit and it's a fact that you enjoy the smell.

How do you know that they didn't do a drug test on Zimmerman and/or a background check?
Show your proof bitch.
 
Darla said:
Also Grind, under the Stand your ground law, which btw does not officially read "White Dudes Stand YOur Ground", sorry, Martin had every right to in fact, murder Zimmerman. Zimmerman was following him, Zimmerman was armed. There is no doubt Martin had a reasonable fear of danger. He had every right to stand his ground.

Interesting that none of you defenders of the Stand your ground law get that.

That's why I say you are all UNCONSCIOUSLY telling me that you view this law as the "White Dude Stand Your Ground Law"

I mean, if it weren't for the dead kid, it would be actually funny. None of you make any sense.
Click to expand...

Cynic is correct.
You're just a fucking moonbat. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top