Happy Trayvon Martin Day

[Auster]

You mean, for the sake of not embarrassing repubs. Given that the deadliest conflict in American history was the Civil War under Lincoln, a repub.

So Lincoln should have simply rolled over and pronounced slavery for all decent folk? To avoid nesscessary bloodshed?

You know better than this kind of generalization.

 

[zappasguitar]

so after my daily self username search I saw my name mentioned many times in this thread. I AM SO EXCITED. I am going to catch up right now. Looks like this has blown up.

Surprised people took your flamebait?

Nice to know that, despite all the high-minded rhetoric, at the heart of the much vaunted "trinity" there lies just another flame-baiting, asswipe troll.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

How was he a criminal? What criminal convictions did he have?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal

Being a criminal is not dependent on a conviction. It's merely one who commits crimes. Trayvon committed a crime and therefore he is a criminal, whether or not he was convicted is irrelevant.

n.One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

So when is there going to be a trial? Looks like everybody has decided the verdict already.

Two big parts. First is in mid april where there is a mini-trial of sorts to determine if stand your ground applies. If it does, zimmerman walks. If it doesn't, he can still argue self defense and the main trial will be in june.

Really he was convicted of that was he?

Asked and answered

Now, if just the claim that martin committed an assault against Zimmerman is enough to make him a criminal, then Zimmerman's shooting of Martin makes him a murderer.

Can't have it both ways, sorry boys.

Yes we can have it both ways. There are more than enough reasons in our justice system to kill somebody in self defense. Zimmerman legally executed the criminal trayvon martin after he was savagely beaten and brutalized and in fear for his life. He was on his back getting his head pummeled into the ground. Trayvon martin on the other hand savagely beat zimmerman, completely unprovoked. Zimmerman had committed no crime before Trayvon mercilessly attacked zimmerman.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I'm only up to post 35, still going.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So Lincoln should have simply rolled over and pronounced slavery for all decent folk? To avoid nesscessary bloodshed?

You know better than this kind of generalization.

and you should know better than to think that lincoln pursued the civil war because of slavery.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Make all the excuses you like.

It's easy for those of us with triple digit IQ's to spot the obvious back pedaling you are doing.

you cannot have a triple digit IQ if you propose magnets in school ceilings as a way to prevent school shootings.

 

[Airstrip One]

You mean, for the sake of not embarrassing repubs. Given that the deadliest conflict in American history was the Civil War under Lincoln, a repub.

It happened concurrently under Davis, a Dem. It was also started by a military that was under the command of Davis.

 

[Auster]

I'd like to think he was an idealist. Or that it was at least an excellent pretext for war.

 

[Airstrip One]

and you should know better than to think that lincoln pursued the civil war because of slavery.

Why? Did the fucktard south secede for a different reason?

 

[Timshel]

OMG... could you possibly inject more bullshit into the above? I don't think it is possible.

1) I did not drop any context... Darla commented on Grind calling him a criminal. I stated what I thought Grind was referring to. The physical evidence suggests that he did beat up Zimmerman.

2) Adding 'you apparently have argued bitterly' shows that you have no clue what my arguments have been on this topic, but that isn't stopping you from piping up about what I believe. As I stated, I do think the evidence that we have seen shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I also think that Zimmermans response should have had him charged with manslaughter. I don't think there is enough evidence, based on what we know to convict him of 2nd.

3) The Obama comment was simply a smart ass comment. Pretending I am trying to bury anything with it is pure nonsense on your part.

and again... if you have a problem with it, talk to Grind... he is the one calling him a criminal. I have said that the evidence does indeed suggest he assaulted Zimmerman.

Race baiting? That is truly hysterical. The race baiting from day one has been from those that have found Zimmerman guilty based on the medias bullshit from the start.

You prove with every post that one could add more bullshit.

You claimed that it's okay to assume those who have not been convicted are criminals, like OJ and apparently Trayvon Martin? But not Zimmerman?

Again, there is plenty of physical evidence suggesting that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime.

Adding "apparently" shows that I have acknowledged that I am not familiar with your previous arguments on this case, but since you did not seem to take exception and others have indicated this was your stance, it still seems safe to assume it was. You have even repeated a concern that there was a rush to judgement based on racial issues in this thread.

Those trying to paint Trayvon as some sort of criminal thug seem to be race baiting. But, maybe it's not really about his race but his clothing, right? It's not hysterical at all. What else is there to justify calling him a criminal?

There is no proof of assault by Trayvon. In fact Zimmerman, by following or worse, possibly attempting to apprehend Trayvon, is the one likely guilty of assault. That could be why Trayvon acted in self defense, rather than being guilty of battery. Zimmerman had no reason to be following Trayvon and his behavior may have made Trayvon feel threatened.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why? Did the fucktard south secede for a different reason?

let me channel darla for a few seconds...

diversionary. we were talking about lincoln, not the fucktard south.

so, maybe you'll have better luck getting someone close to me killed by a rogue ex-cop than you trying to make a good point in this thread.

 

[Timshel]

Yes we can have it both ways. There are more than enough reasons in our justice system to kill somebody in self defense. Zimmerman legally executed the criminal trayvon martin after he was savagely beaten and brutalized and in fear for his life. He was on his back getting his head pummeled into the ground. Trayvon martin on the other hand savagely beat zimmerman, completely unprovoked. Zimmerman had committed no crime before Trayvon mercilessly attacked zimmerman.

Bullshit! The criminal Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon. There is no proof that Trayvon committed any crime other than ones you have admitted. Trayvon was never even charged. But the criminal Zimmerman was charged with battery of a LEO and accused of domestic violence. How would you feel having such a criminal stalking you?

Zimmerman was a wimp just like those that think he is a hero.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Dr. K. and others are always scolding us for judging prematurely, yet that's exactly what he's doing. Where's the proof TM is a criminal? It's GZ that has a rap sheet.

Well, if you remember correctly my current approach and demeanor was inspired by the insipid bullshit I saw last year, of people constantly jumping the gun and buying into the propaganda. I wanted to throw it back in your faces, though I feel I have the moral high ground as in our system we have a presumption of innocence.

I am glad you are learning how fucking annoying it is for people to assume stuff right out the gate. That doesn't change my actual beliefs on the matter, but yes part of this exercise is to beat you guys into submission. Now the people that wouldn't shut the fuck up last year all take the "lets wait and see approach" much to my delight.

So striking someone can be done in self defense? You assume Trayvon's guilt but not Zimmerman's. Why?

We are allowed to judge the merits of the incident based on the proponderance of evidence and come to various conclusions. I assume trayvons guilt because there is physical evidence that zimmerman was beaten, bloodied, and on his back. Last I heard even the gunshot wound shows a trajectory of being shot from that angle. There is ample evidence that shows that trayvon beat the shit ouf of zimmerman, but there is zero evidence that shows zimmerman did anything criminal or wrong before the vicious incident.

I wonder how anyone can get a fair trial after all the publicity surrounding this case.

It's pretty much impossible imo.

Surprised people took your flamebait?

Nice to know that, despite all the high-minded rhetoric, at the heart of the much vaunted "trinity" there lies just another flame-baiting, asswipe troll.

Considering you can't make a single post without using the words "butt-hurt" or "asswipe" I'll be banning you from all future threads until you can learn to not be such a crybaby and troll.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

There is no proof of assault by Trayvon. In fact Zimmerman, by following or worse, possibly attempting to apprehend Trayvon, is the one likely guilty of assault.

following is not a crime. And there is zero evidence of him doing anything else, other than your own speculation.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Yes, you were dropping the context. The context was that Darla took exception with you assuming Trayvon was a criminal based on the accusation of battery while, apparently, you have argued bitterly that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. Of course I agree with the latter premise but it does clash with the former, as Darla noted. You are now trying to bury your mistake by calling out Obama and distorting the context of the discussion.

The point is and has been that calling Trayvon a criminal is unwarranted. Frankly, I think it is nothing more than race baiting. There is much more cause for what might be a rush to judgement against Zimmerman.

Well said.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

OMG... could you possibly inject more bullshit into the above? I don't think it is possible.

1) I did not drop any context... Darla commented on Grind calling him a criminal. I stated what I thought Grind was referring to. The physical evidence suggests that he did beat up Zimmerman.

2) Adding 'you apparently have argued bitterly' shows that you have no clue what my arguments have been on this topic, but that isn't stopping you from piping up about what I believe. As I stated, I do think the evidence that we have seen shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I also think that Zimmermans response should have had him charged with manslaughter. I don't think there is enough evidence, based on what we know to convict him of 2nd.

3) The Obama comment was simply a smart ass comment. Pretending I am trying to bury anything with it is pure nonsense on your part.



and again... if you have a problem with it, talk to Grind... he is the one calling him a criminal. I have said that the evidence does indeed suggest he assaulted Zimmerman.



Race baiting? That is truly hysterical. The race baiting from day one has been from those that have found Zimmerman guilty based on the medias bullshit from the start.

Ha, he is totally right and you are just mad that you can't call him "hysterical" or any of the other names you call me.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

so after my daily self username search I saw my name mentioned many times in this thread. I AM SO EXCITED. I am going to catch up right now. Looks like this has blown up.

Grind you really need to get laid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Make all the excuses you like.

It's easy for those of us with triple digit IQ's to spot the obvious back pedaling you are doing.

20.1 doesn't count as triple digits

 

[zappasguitar]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal

Being a criminal is not dependent on a conviction. It's merely one who commits crimes. Trayvon committed a crime and therefore he is a criminal, whether or not he was convicted is irrelevant.

n.One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.




Two big parts. First is in mid april where there is a mini-trial of sorts to determine if stand your ground applies. If it does, zimmerman walks. If it doesn't, he can still argue self defense and the main trial will be in june.



Asked and answered



Yes we can have it both ways. There are more than enough reasons in our justice system to kill somebody in self defense. Zimmerman legally executed the criminal trayvon martin after he was savagely beaten and brutalized and in fear for his life. He was on his back getting his head pummeled into the ground. Trayvon martin on the other hand savagely beat zimmerman, completely unprovoked. Zimmerman had committed no crime before Trayvon mercilessly attacked zimmerman.

So one who commits a crime is a criminal?

Fine...then all you've got to do is PROVE Trayvon committed a crime.

I'll be waiting over here...

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal

Being a criminal is not dependent on a conviction. It's merely one who commits crimes. Trayvon committed a crime and therefore he is a criminal, whether or not he was convicted is irrelevant.

n.One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.




Two big parts. First is in mid april where there is a mini-trial of sorts to determine if stand your ground applies. If it does, zimmerman walks. If it doesn't, he can still argue self defense and the main trial will be in june.



Asked and answered



Yes we can have it both ways. There are more than enough reasons in our justice system to kill somebody in self defense. Zimmerman legally executed the criminal trayvon martin after he was savagely beaten and brutalized and in fear for his life. He was on his back getting his head pummeled into the ground. Trayvon martin on the other hand savagely beat zimmerman, completely unprovoked. Zimmerman had committed no crime before Trayvon mercilessly attacked zimmerman.

Nope, you can't prove any of this, and in fact, there are more than enough reasons in our criminal justice system to strike someone in self-defense.

The fact is you have been caught in a huge contradiction. Poor SF got caught up in your contradiction and just got his ass handed to him by String. You should apologize to SF!