Posted by Mufasa (+93) 8 years ago
George Zimmerman is not guilty. It is now officially okay to shoot a boy for being black. God bless America!
Top
Posted by Anns (+124) 8 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
Proof that we value possessions more than life. Sad day, IMO.
Top
Posted by neonfreedom (+290) 8 years ago
I agree with Richard!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
How on earth could he be found not guilty? I am sick with remorse. I wonder if this is the final straw.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17343) 8 years ago
How on earth could he be found not guilty?


You are aware that he was tried in the south? That pretty much says it all. A bigger bunch of ignorant dumbasses on the face of the earth, I don't know where you might find those that exceed the southeastern part of this country.
Top
Posted by Andy Muenich (+24) 8 years ago
If I ever end up in the terrible situation with someone on top of me beating the hell out of me and scraping my head into the cement and that I had to kill that person or persons in self defense I hope they are blond, blue eyed, straight males of Scandinavian descent with a name like Ole Svenson and/or Lars Erickson who only recently abandoned the Lutheran church so that I can't be accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, or religious intolerance. I hope all the people that pursued these charges against Mr. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic btw, are charged with Malicious Prosecution, right up to Odumba.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 8 years ago
If he would NOT have been carrying a gun:

1. He "probably" would not have trailed Trayvon Martin so closely. Having a readily accessible weapon offers an enhanced level of boldness.

2. There would "probably" have NOT been an altercation, since he would not have been so close or confrontational.

3. If there had been an altercation, neither person would have been shot, and it is very likely that neither person would have been killed.

4. If there was an altercation and we accept the George Zimmerman version, then he would have been injured in the "fight", maybe severely.

5. Using the CDC MMWR we note that although 39% of HS students get into fights, 4% report needing to see a doctor for injuries received. The mortality rate from altercations not involving a gun or a knife is very low. I will assume that George Zimmerman would have recovered from his injuries within the time frame of the incident and conclusion of trial.

6. Using the George Zimmerman version of events, Trayvon Martin would have been arrested and charged with assault.

7. Both parties would be alive today. Both healthy. One perhaps less willing to intercept someone that he feels is "suspicious". The other with a record which would either lead him to learn to control his temper or would further lead to additional charges and perhaps incarceration.

8. I would have NEVER heard of either George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.

9. Sadly, the result of number 7, above, could lead to Zimmerman thinking that if he only carried a gun then he would not have to worry about being assaulted, and he gets a gun.

Conjecture, I know. I just think the whole thing is sad for all involved. Everyone's life has been radically altered, but, unfortunately, death is the harshest.

FH
Top
Posted by celeste williams (+158) 8 years ago
You are aware that he was tried in the south? That pretty much says it all. A bigger bunch of ignorant dumbasses on the face of the earth, I don't know where you might find those that exceed the southeastern part of this country.

I am sorry you feel this way Gunnar. As a southern woman with 3 mixed race children, I can assure you we are not all ignorant dumbasses.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+763) 8 years ago
Had Zimmerman and Martin lived in Montana the overall results would be the same except no legal hassle for George. He could have invited Trayvon into his home and shot him there as an intruder. When you set out on a mission like he did you gotta have a good plan, this one wasn't very bright...
I hope something was learned from all this. People have got to work harder at getting along.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
I'm sure you're right to a point, Celeste. The problem in the south is that it appears to be the dumbarses are running the show.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9922) 8 years ago
Some good points Folks.

It seems to me that these "Stand your Ground" laws are based on a set of assumptions that the individual with the weapon is:
- - Not under the influence of drugs, alcohol
- - A mentally competent, functional adult
- - Possessed of good, solid moral & ethical values
- - Empathetic towards his/her fellow beings
- - Possessed of sound judgment
- - Not pumped full of adrenaline and/or scared spitless

Some accounts suggest that Trayvon Martin was pushed / provoked to the point that he reacted; and that once he reacted, Zimmerman "stood his ground." If that is correct, then there is a real flaw in that law.

What if Martin had been armed and shot Zimmerman, feeling he was in grave danger?

Can I threaten someone and then stand my ground when they react to threat?

I remain firmly convinced that anyone has the right to defend themselves and others in life-threatening situations . . . I hope I never I never find myself in the situations where I have to make a spit second decision to use deadly force.

And whether or not I agree with the jury's verdict - a jury has handed down a verdict. That's the way our system works. It cannot work if we only accept verdicts we agree with.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
While we all have to accept the verdict, it doesn't mean that we have to agree with it...it is wrong as Zimmerman was asked to remain in his car...having a gun gave him the boldness to pursue Martin IMO, which were the actions of a bully ...a teen is dead and that is just wrong...he wasn't armed...in my day a neighborhood watch person would offer the kid a ride home in the rain...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Trayvon Martin had three options that night.

He could have:

1) Kept walking to his father's house, gone inside and stayed there.

2) Stopped to confront George Zimmerman and when asked what he was doing there, said "I am going to my Fathers house, Sir, and if you would care to accompany me, I'll be happy to show you where he lives".

3) Circle back in the dark and attack a person who had every right to defend himself from physical harm by using deadly force.

If he would have chosen options 1 or 2, we never would have heard of either one of them. Trayvon Martin would still be walking this Earth. But he didn't choose the safe options. Martin chose option 3, which sealed his fate.

Sure, George Zimmerman had options as well, but he had every right to be curious about what a 6'2" stranger was doing, walking around in the rain, at night, in his neighborhood. A neighborhood with a history of break-ins. He also had the right extended to every citizen of Florida who can meet the standards of conduct and training; the right to be armed.

Both of them had a right to be doing what they were doing, but Trayvon Martin's right to control his own destiny ended when his fist smashed into George Zimmerman's nose. At that point, George Zimmerman's right to use deadly force for self-defense was in full play.

Apparently, even a jury of Southern "ignorant dumbasses" was able to figure out the law on this case, from the evidence presented. If the prosecution had anything more than conjecture, they would have brought it.

Some of you would be better served researching the facts, rather than blindly following the narrative coming from the race-baiters. Trayvon Martin suffered the consequences resulting from HIS choice of options. George Zimmerman will suffer the rest of his life, for the consequences that resulted from his own choices and from Trayvon Martin's choice to be belligerent and stupid.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
George Zimmerman had no business being where he was. He wasn't a neighborhood watch volunteer any more. He had been told by police to leave the kid alone. There was nothing mysterious or dangerous about Trayvon Martin aside from the color of his skin. Zimmerman attacked a frightened teenager who was walking to his dad's house for no particular reason and killed him when the kid, who was within his rights, tried to defend himself.

I am sick with what this country is coming to. I can't even think about it anymore. Between Texas and North Carolina and Florida, I can only hope I never have reason to visit the south.

Trayvon Martin is beyond suffering. George Zimmerman is a racist pile of excrement who is rejoicing that he has been praised for a pointless, senseless murder.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (7/14/2013)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
If Zimmerman was so afraid of Martin, so terrified... why didn't he stay in his car where he was safe, could take cell pictures as evidence if Martin was doing something illegal, or could follow at a distance?!? Wait for the real cops to show up and do THEIR job? Wasn't he told to wait for law enforcement to arrive?

I guess my confusion level regarding WHY he would even approach the teenager is pretty high. Maybe someone can clarify this... It is still legal to walk down the street, correct? And it was brought up during the trial that Martin had every Right to be in that neighborhood. So again, why is it illegal to WALK SOMEWHERE without being stopped and questioned by some wanna-be neighborhood patrol??

[This message has been edited by Hannah Nash (7/14/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+284) 8 years ago
In my opinion, everything that happened after Zimmerman was told by a dispatcher to "stand down", rests squarely on Zimmermans shoulders. You just can't ignore that advice, track down the unarmed kid, pick a fight for no reason, get your butt handed to ya, then kill the kid. Well I guess in Florida ya can. I saw people on TV, lamenting the fact that Zimmerman will be burdened by this forever. His burden pales in comparison to being DEAD! I also find it interesting that every Fox News on air personality experienced a concurrent orgasm last night after the verdict was read. Rich white people rejoicing that it is now ok to hunt black kids in Florida. That's priceless, and more than a bit evil.
Top
supporter
Posted by Grandma Hoopy (+143) 8 years ago
If Martin or Zimmerman would have been taught right from wrong from their parents, this probably wouldn't have happened. Why is it that so many don't know how to have a civil conversation? Why does everything have to be confrontational? Simply because that is how they are being raised. Can't wait to see the next generation-can you imagine them as parents trying to raise kids? What a scary thought.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
Now we wait for the civil case.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+763) 8 years ago
You nailed it, Grandma Hoopy. But I don't want to agree with your prediction, I'd rather be one of those who is trying to raise problem solvers, not trouble makers. It's the only way out of this mess and even God doesn't give a crap any more.
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+479) 8 years ago
Did anybody really expect a different outcome from the state that
delivered the Casey Anthony verdict.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
"Now we wait for the civil case."

Well, you're probably going to be disappointed again, Ms. Wilson

Since the Zimmerman verdict essentially validates his self-defense claim, his lawyers will seek, and probably get, immunity under the Florida "Stand your Ground" law. In the event that Zimmerman doesn't get immunity, the civil actions will be made more difficult to win as all the evidence of Trayvon Martin's thuggery, which was excluded from the murder trial, will probably be admissible.

Additionally, there is nothing here for the lawyers but risk of ending up holding the sack for court costs. George Zimmerman isn't O.J. He doesn't have a pot to piss in.

As an experienced lawyer, what grounds (and what possible reason) do you see here to pursue a civil action against Zimmerman?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Oddjob, when you read about a sexual assault, is your first reaction to ask what the victim was wearing?
Top
Posted by Angela Lee (+14) 8 years ago
First,Casey Anthony, now George Zimmerman.... wtf is wrong with you people in Florida???
Top
Posted by ungyded (+38) 8 years ago
George Zimmerman for President!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
Well, oddjob, I'm not sure what you mean by immunity. If you mean double jeopardy it dosn't apply to civil actions. I would argue that all the jury verdict means is that the prosecution did not carry its burden of proof. That doesn't necessarily mean they bought the "stand your ground" defense. I do agree that Zimmerman is probably a poor target for a civil suit.
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
If Zimmerman did not have a handgun , he would have had one less thing to worry about and would have had two hands free as Martin did and may have been better able to defend himself. Who could have predicted if Martin was armed or not. Martin was young and strong and used the weapon at hand. Perhaps if you people could have someone young and strong beating your head on concrete it might shake some cobwebs loose and you could think more clearly. You can get dead real fast from blows to the back of the head.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
...but a kid, especially a black kid, doesn't have the right to defend himself against a stalker.

I'd say the lack of empathy is astonishing, but it's not at all.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Ms. Wilson

The Florida "Stand your Ground" Law allows for immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions, if certain criteria are met. Justifiable use of force for self-defense is one of them. Zimmerman's lawyers chose not to go with a "Stand your Ground" hearing initially, but I do not believe that precludes them from doing so now. Read the law.

http://floridastandyourground.org/

I agree the the verdict means the State did not meet the burden of proof for the charges filed, but an acquittal on the murder charge and manslaughter option will provide a very high hurdle for anyone trying to prove negligence.

Buck

I have a daughter. In the event she was ever assaulted, I guarantee you that the perp would meet with a tragic ending before he ever saw the inside of a courthouse. I will be having dinner in plain view of 50 or 60 witnesses at the time of his demise.

Are you a little clearer now, on what I think?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
The victim is to blame unless it's your child?

I mean, that's what you said. Black kid minding his own business shouldn't have been walking around being a black kid. Like your daughter shouldn't be out after dark because it's her fault for being such a tempting piece of ass. You get what I'm saying?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 8 years ago
I have a daughter. In the event she was ever assaulted, I guarantee you that the perp would meet with a tragic ending before he ever saw the inside of a courthouse.


assaulted past participle, past tense of as·sault (Verb)
Verb

1. Make a physical attack on.
2. Attack or bombard (someone or the senses) with something undesirable or unpleasant.


Using the 2nd definition, which I am sure applies here, specifically "unpleasant", looks like we're talking about a suicide and not a murder.

FH

...sorry, but I always hate that pompous "I'll take care of it myself attitude".
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
"I mean, that's what you said. Black kid minding his own business shouldn't have been walking around being a black kid."

Is putting words into someones mouth the only thing you do here, or is your comprehension level that seriously impaired?

The issue here is a kid (any kid) who quits "minding his own business" and smashes his fist into somebody's nose because he happens to be in his space, might limit his survivability quotient. Martin had other options (and the time) that would have kept him alive. He chose badly. Only the complete nuts still think that Zimmerman deliberately went after Martin; to hunt him down and kill him.

From your last comment about my daughter, I think it's pretty clear why you would think another persons first thought about rape victims is "what were they wearing". It's obviously the first thought that pops into your head.
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+284) 8 years ago
Zimmerman also had options, and was given advice by professionals that he chose to ignore. He made his choices, bolstered by bravado, and a kid is dead. By his hands. OJ was also found not guilty. It doesn't mean he was innocent. Just because they couldn't convict Zimmerman, doesn't mean he has no blood on his hands. The kid is dead, because of Zimmermans actions that night. As an adult, I think the burden of making sound choices weighs more on him than an underage kid.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Man, don't go blaming me for saving everyone about 250 words when you could have just said it yourself. Whether you realize it or not, or like it or not, your list of ways the victim could have saved himself is EXACTLY the same as blaming the victim of a sexual assault for their dress or the fact they drank or weren't using the buddy system or went out after dark. The kid had every right to be where he was when he was and had no obligation to stop and explain himself to anyone. See if you can't put your daughter in Trayvon Martin's shoes, because it's really no different; someone is stalking her, she defends herself and ends up dead. I guess she should have explained to the nice gentleman what she was doing in his neighborhood?

I understand the burden of proof and that the state couldn't make a case. What I don't understand is why anyone, outside the usual hate groups, would bother defending this jackass.
Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+475) 8 years ago
It's interesting how many "experts" there are in this case who weren't at the scene, nor did they hear any of the testimony.

I guess the whole notion of a "trial by jury" in this country is invalid when it doesn't come out the way you like.
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
The important thing to remember here is ,and it is an important lesson ,that you do not need to own or possess a handgun. The police are here to protect you. In this case , the police got there in time to save an innocent man from some possible "vigilante"
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
Since there seems to be some confusion regarding Zimmerman's acquittal-- (this was effectively explained on NPR today by the Atlantic's legal advisor) according to Florida's mutant law, Zimmerman was fully within his rights to "defend himself". The Defend Myself statute extends beyond property, to car, to the Person (statute's progression, historically). So since there is no evidence aside from his word to say otherwise, even though HE was the instigator, He had every right to ignore the dispatcher, approach the youth, even start something with the youth, and THEN defend himself. And it's all legal.

The prosecution failed because of mutant laws on the Florida books that lead to dangerous "take the law into your own hands"/wanna-be cop (which Zimmerman totally was!) behavior. I've read conflicting reports-- but the consensus seems to be that Zimmerman wasn't even part of the Neighborhood Watch in that area. He was just Joe Citizen watching and looking. And it's all legal.

I'm not sure how I would react if a man approached me carrying a gun and inquired why I was walking down the street. That's a very dangerous and intimidating situation. And I'm a grown woman, not a minor. And I would never presume to acost/question someone walking down the streets of Miles City (gun or no) and inquire what they were up to.

This brings to light the hideous laws in Florida (and other locations), and why we need to examine the system and make sure that all people receive fairness and justice.
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
Is there a zombie law also?
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
Hanna , I just reread your post and am laughing here. Let me explain something to you. "fair" is a place where you take your prize hog in the fall to be judged.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
1. It's Hannah NOT "Hanna"
2. Your insinuation that fairness is not part of our system of justice is a little offensive. I will provide a picture that might help you grasp the concept:



Equality,pictured on the left (which conservatives often mistake for fairness) is everyone getting the same thing. Fairness, pictured on the right, is actually everyone getting what they need or deserve. See the difference?

It is sick that laws like the "stand your ground" law exist. It is more than ironic that the "pro-life" crowd backs such hideous laws. Valuing possessions more than life is wrong!
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
Why did these white kids not have money for decent seats? Did they have to sneak in? Is the score even? Is that fair? Perhaps South Africa is a good example of fair.

Who aquired the boxes they are standing on? WHO PAID FOR THEM??? Did the shortest person somehow pay more or are the other two penalized because of the shorter cartoon dude. Why are there no zombies? Is that fair?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
Oh, good grief. Are you sure your last name isn't Less and you have two siblings, Clue and Point?
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
`ya know Richard

You get sooo much soooo wrong it is finally good to see you get something right.

The spelling of Hanna`s name......
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
The Fair is a great place/time, Al, you should try it sometime.

There's nothing wrong with striving for MORE, BETTER for the future. If you are against progress and improvement, I would encourage you to step out of the way and let everyone else through. I'm all for you joining the progress; you are more than welcome to come with me... but it IS polite to learn how to spell my name so we can be friends on the journey.

Top
banned
Posted by coffeedrunk (+58) 8 years ago
The black boy should not have been walking around looking into homes like he was trying to find an easy target. I applaud Zimmerman, he did the community a good deed, by getting rid of someone whom would have beat him or anyone else to death if given the chance.

It is funny how the police originally thanked Zimmerman, as did the original prosecutor, you know the one that refused to prosecute this non-crime.

By this reasoning, it seems like most of the people on this topic are anti-law enforcement. I think we should get the NSA to look into the possibility of terrorist ties that many of you may have.

You liberals may be disappointed to know that Kim Jung ill's boat full of surface to air missiles and other bombs meant to harm Americans was stopped and seized, so your ally is not doing you justice.

Good job Zimmerman and America, "STAND YOUR GROUND".
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+284) 8 years ago
I stand corrected. Evidently it is possible to get drunk off your ass on coffee.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 8 years ago
coffeedrunk wrote:
The black boy white girl should not have been walking around looking into homes like he she was trying to ...

Etc., ad nauseum.

I paid no attention to the trial, however, at least attempt to preface arguments with the racism a little bit hidden.
Top
Posted by Carol H (+122) 8 years ago
Not so innocent after all - 2 of 3 ingredients used to make a "buzz drink" called "Lean":

The Conservative Treehouse earned Zimmerman's grateful acknowledgement because of its extraordinary investigative work undertaken throughout the saga, particularly in obtaining through Freedom of Information Act and publishing public records that revealed the corruption and racism connected to the charges and the trial itself, naming who was involved regardless of how high up the political food chain it went, in what the investigative bloggers called "The Zimmerman Railroading."

Among its reports, Trayvon Martin's drug use, explaining how the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail drink he carried that night are ingredients that, when mixed with dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup, e.g., Robitussin DM, create "Lean", a concocted high which can cause psychosis and aggression over the longer term. According to the autopsy report, Martin's liver showed damage consistent with DXM abuse.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
Conservative Treehouse???? any conservative speak makes me want to know a great deal more sources before I believe it...a rag tag looking web page...

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/

[This message has been edited by howdy (7/16/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
I thought lean was made with Sprite and Jolly Ranchers.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 8 years ago
Oh yeah, "The Conservative Treehouse" is a great source of information ...

Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Miles City, where its always 1953.
Top
Posted by ungyded (+38) 8 years ago
George Zimmerman for President!

[This message has been edited by ungyded (7/17/2013)]
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9922) 8 years ago
There's been so much in the news, I probably missed this piece in all the clutter . . . what did the Martin kid offer up to explain what he was doing that night?

Oh . . . well yeah . . . there is that.
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
Sorry Hannah

but it was already pointed out by a helpful little soul of my typing mistake concerning the spelling of your name. A person with excellent ideas until questions are asked,

This journey. Is it the road to socialism? Perhaps further? Maybe I don`t want to go.

There has not been much mention of the jury. Had it been all men I believe they would have been blamed-at least here.

I think this should be tried in Federal Court. It will be shot down there and someone will dream of new reasons to riot.

If you are a young male that is black and do not want to be profiled,quit committing the crimes. Check the percentages.

This fairness that Richard talks about. That would mean that equal percentages of all races should be in US prisons. Would that be fair? The black people want it that way. Maybe Richard is black.

Black people-a large percentage of them-do not like the law. This goes back to the days when blacks and Irish amoung others including others were slaves.

When a slave committed a crime , the slave`s owner was held responsible as the owner. Just as if your prize hog jumps out of your trailer on the way to the fair and roots up someone`s garden (Hey! He was just trying to look good and fat for the fair) you would be responsible.

When the law applied to former slaves,it seems the slaves that caused the trouble had trouble with the law. Many murdered and were hanged as murderers. There is still outrage about these hangings. Some justly so , but most of the outrage seems to be about the color of the skin of the hangee. That is the only thing that seems to make it right or wrong. And Richard , if I spelt "hangee" wrong feel free to pipe up. If the hangee was black then something terrible was done. The rest is mostly forgotten.

Today , it is hard or impossible to find a black person charged with a hate crime , although it happens daily. Now blacks are choosing victims at random and beating them and killing? them and yelling "THIS IS FOR THE PRESIDENTS........ I mean this is for Trevor Martin--so that makes it all right. Any hate crimes there?

15 years ago or so in Billings , a white woman yelled at , threw rocks at a black person`s house and called the black woman some name(s). She was charged with a felony hate crime. Some kids in Billings were argueing across an intersection , the kids were white , traffic seperating them , one called the other a slang term for a (fcking)jew-ooops , that might have been it. You guessed it , hate crime.

Now why do these laws not apply to blacks. Why are blacks mollycoddled so here?

I used coon in a post here and someone came unglued and ranted and raved and was going to talk to the webmaster about banning me ect. Ammorette did not even read the post , she just saw the word coon and flew off the handle. You are just being used as an example here Ammorette. Your reaction seems to be the almost norm.

Someone needs to explain to the black people that the laws apply to them also. It needs to be explained that if you riot it does not make things better in other people`s eyes.

Or does it?

Look at the reaction here. It is Ok for the blacks to riot. Laws were upheld but we don`t like it and it was not fair because someone BLACK is dead. Maybe someone (Richard?) could post the definition of racist/racism here.
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+479) 8 years ago
WOW
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
I appreciate your apology, Al. Thank you.

If you read through my post... I never mentioned race. In fact, I only dealt strictly with the LAW in Florida and why that law has issues. I never referenced African Americans, Native Americans, Jews, or any other race/group (not even Whites). My concerns, questions, and examples all used the names of the two men involved, and the law of the State of Florida.

When I asked you to "join me" on a journey of discussion and progress, it was in reference to my post and the ability to address the very REAL concerns regarding a flawed law and the dangerous society it helps to create. (Not sure where you pulled in "socialism" from that). Moving the discussion forward is something we can all do, together, regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, etc. There is nothing "socialist" or "racist" about a discussion of existing laws and how we can make things better and serve justice in the future.

And to answer some of your questions:

No, it isn't OK for people to violently riot. If you cannot peacefully protest, you have issues.

The law applies to all Citizens.

Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers. I have stated quite eloquently above WHY that ruling was in-sync with the existing Florida Law.

Regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. people need to quit being jerks to one-another. It is not that hard to be a decent human. Evolve already.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Silver lining: Stupidity is color blind.
Top
Posted by MEBO9 (+44) 8 years ago
Al Borden wrote:

Maybe someone (Richard?) could post the definition of racist/racism here.


Well I'm not Richard, but here is a definition of racism:

"When one group's racial prejudices are enforced by the systems and institutions of a society, giving power and privilege based on racial identity to the group in power, and limiting the power and privilege of the racial groups that are not in power. Racism is, therefore, the misuse of systemic power. "
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 8 years ago
rac·ism

Noun

1.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...

2.Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Top
Posted by Carol H (+122) 8 years ago
.


Sherman Ware. A black homeless man who was beaten by the son of a white policeman in Sanford, FL in 2010. Anyone want to guess who was the one 'white' person who went to churches passing out flyers calling attention to a coverup? Anyone want to guess who went to public meetings and demanded that this black man deserved better? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting fliers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?

You guessed it. George Zimmerman. But the main stream media isn't talking about that are they.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/20...z2Z9MO5mLR
Share
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17343) 8 years ago
As troubling as it is for me to admit this, Al Borden does bring up some valid points.

But that does not change my opinion that the majority of white Americans living in the south from Texas on east are a bunch of dumbass crackers.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
This fairness that Richard talks about. That would mean that equal percentages of all races should be in US prisons. Would that be fair? The black people want it that way. Maybe Richard is black.


1. My race and ethnicity is irrelevant.

2. The attempt to make my race relevant is a form of racism.

3. Your description is not at all the "fairness" I was talking about.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
Gunnar said "As troubling as it is for me to admit this, Al Borden does bring up some valid points."

Which points, Gunnar? All I got out of Borden's rant was someone who apparently knows all there is to know about being black.

Its easy to be racist. Just keep score. Pick any group of people. Any time one of them does something wrong, chalk it up to race or whatever identifies their group. If someone in your own group does something wrong, well, these things happen. How about that guy who just killed a three-year-old in Anaconda? Oh. He was from Washington. He's not like me.

I had a friend who admitted her husband was racist but 'had an excuse'. One of his friends had been killed by a black man. The black man who killed his friend apparently represented ALL blacks. I wonder how he would have handled it if his friend had been killed by a white man?

My objection to racism, and people like Al, is the air of superiority. If Al represents the master race, we're in trouble.
Top
Posted by Landen Yanez (+37) 8 years ago
Hahahahah you think he shot him for being black?? I think you need to take a closer look at the case, friend. if a built, athletic thug was pummeling me to the point where I thought I was going to die, I would have shot him too. Zimmerman did the absolute right thing and although it is a shame that the young man died, he shouldn't have beat up Zimmerman. He should have been a man and cooperate with Zimmerman and answer any questions he had, hell, even talk to the police if Zimmerman wanted him too.
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 8 years ago
And why did the kid beat up the older guy? Who was stalking whom? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and done what the cops told him to do, an innocent wouldn't have been murdered for the crime of walking to his father's house.

So, why did Zimmerman chase and harass him? That is what started this whole thing. What motivated Zimmerman to decide a teenager walking to his father's house was threat? What did he base his judgement on? The Skittles? The iced tea? The hood on his sweatshirt?

Or the color of his skin.

It all started with one person deciding, based on NO evidence, that a kid heading home was a threat. Last I looked, walking to your father's house is not a crime. Walking to your father's house at seven o'clock at night with candy and a drink is not a crime. Unless you black.
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
Now wouldn`t that jury of women convicted Zimmerman of something had he been guilty? The prosecution could not even get him convicted of jaywalking on the way home from church. Now why is that? I do not know that the defense even used the stand your ground law. The news media sure used it a lot though.
There should maybe be a law. One that says the news media has to tell the truth.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
Al - My problem is more with the stupid stand-your-ground law than with Zimmerman or the jury. Don't get me wrong. Zimmerman screwed up royally by NOT STANDING DOWN AFTER BEEN ORDERED TO DO SO BY A DISPATCHER. He also had a gun on his person......etc, etc. All of this has been discussed and ignored.

The only real advantage I see in these new laws is they increase the likelihood that wang-heads like Al and Oddjob(and progeny)will be shootin' each other up like in the old west.

This almost makes me look forward to the day when the NRA makes it legal to carry in to a bar(unless they already have).
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
I think some dispatcher should tell you to........you get the picture.

I worked as a dispatcher for a trucking company bob. I am telling you to STAND DOWN on your posts here until you smarten up. I do not know if you will obey or not though bob. You are a poster not a thinker.

Maybe if some innocent athletic kid would beat the back your head off of the concrete a few times you would think differently. That would probably smarten you up. But until then

YOU ARE ORDERED TO STAND DOWN ON YOUR POSTS
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+479) 8 years ago
I think being a dispatcher for a trucking company and law enforcement
might be just a teensy weensy different.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Your only problem Bob is that you already know everything there is to know, so you don't let facts get in the way of your pronouncements.

"Zimmerman screwed up royally by NOT STANDING DOWN AFTER BEEN ORDERED TO DO SO BY A DISPATCHER."

911 Dispatcher:

"We don't need you to do that."

That's not an "order".

"Stay in the car!" is an order. "Hold your position" is an order. The dispatcher didn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything. He told him "We don't need you......"

And there was a reason for that.

Did you ever read the transcript of the call? Did you ever bother to find out that the dispatcher (who was flipping pizzas before this job) had NO authority beyond offering suggestions, because of the liability's involved?

If you had ever read the transcript, perhaps you would know that initially, Martin turned back toward Zimmerman's position and walked toward him with his hand stuck in his waistband, before turning and running.

Hardly the actions of a "child" who was in fear for his life; to perform such an overtly threatening act.

Read an unaltered version of the whole transcript. Here's an excerpt:

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?

George Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

911 dispatcher:


Are you following him? [2:24]

George Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don't need you to do that.[2:26]

George Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

But then, again, you already knew there was nothing but murderous rage in the heart of George Zimmerman, fueled by racial hatred as he stalked a black kid into the night....

Amorette told you so.......
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Dumbass
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
Al Borden wrote:
YOU ARE ORDERED TO STAND DOWN ON YOUR POSTS

No way. That Borden kid is sneaking around the 'hood again. I think I'll follow him around, confront him, scream for help while blowing his brains out and then bang my head on the concrete. No jury in the world could convict me.

And for those who take everything literally....I'm just making a point. I'm smart enough to avoid the situation I described above - unlike Saint Zimmerman.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton II (7/25/2013)]
Top
banned
Posted by Al Borden (+256) 8 years ago
Your black hero kid was on top of Zimmerman. Why was he doing that?

How many of you here , admit it at least to yourself--had a black person who was older shot a young athletic white punk who was beating the back of the black person`s head on the concrete--you would instantly say there was an exception to everything you have ever said about handguns supposidly used for self defense , and that black people need a way to protect themselves.

In Oakland Ca. Gun violence is 469% higher than comparable cities. Who lives there? Is a white person safe there? I would help start a fund to send you camping there in a city park bob. If you made it a night , you would be permanantly reduced to crying for your mommy. Not saying you aren`t already.....

Pack up bob. Do it on your own. Take your buddies that agree here with you. Prove me wrong. Just do it bob. No internet to hide behind,but take your sissy internet bravado with you and go camping.oO(Bob:Richard,know the difference between gay sex and camping? Richard:no... Bob:Wanna go camping?!?!?!?!? Buck:WAIT! WAIT! ME`N CJ WANT TO GO TOO!!! Bob:Nope! Me`n Richard are going to meet some new friends there)
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 8 years ago
You always go scary psycho weirdo.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17069) 8 years ago
See ya, "SD" "Al".
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Weird, no one even said "penis". Penis.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (7/26/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
I hate being called gay by someone so gay.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
I contend Oddjob, who thinks Trayvon should have stopped and politely answered questions for George Zimmerman but also thinks George Zimmerman didn't have to listen to a dispatcher because they lack authority, also fits Wikipedia's description. He is a dumbass, as well.
Top
Posted by Landen Yanez (+37) 8 years ago
If you wanna bring up the race card, then i'm calling Trayvon racist for calling Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracka"
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+763) 8 years ago
You can't do that, Landen. That bus doesn't go in reverse. It only took three years in Navy for me to realize that it is official policy and you better not even try to mess with it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
They already banned Trayvon from making any more posts on milescity.com, Landen.

And this discussion shouldn't be about race, it should be about accountability. That laws allow what happened to happen sets a dangerous legal precedent. People are allowed to kill based on the subjective perception of a threat and it seems a lot of you p******* spend all your time feeling threatened.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (7/27/2013)]
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
I'd say getting your nose smeared all over your face, having your head bashed into the sidewalk while being pummeled by fists could be defined as "the subjective perception of a threat".

Apparently the jury thought so as well, with half the exculpatory information that you're privy to.


Not to jump the gun here, but can you call me some more names, Buck?

I love it when you run out of arguments talk dirty.

I'm particularly fond of "racist", which essentially defines endgame.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Oh, the double standard must be based on age. And I'd say your glee is getting in the way of your common sense, but you're probably glad there are laws protecting wannabe heroes and paranoid pistol packers when their stupidity costs a life, so I don't think you're glee is interfering with anything, that's just the misguided, myopic individual you are.
Top
Posted by Landen Yanez (+37) 8 years ago
If everybody is going to say Zimmerman killed him because he was racist, then i am going to point out the fact that Trayvon called him a "creepy ass cracka". Nobody seems to point out the fact that he beat up Zimmerman after calling him that.

Everybody keeps over-looking the fact that Trayvon physically assaulted his teacher, graffitied his school, smoked weed at school, stole a bunch of womens jewelry, and beat up a man for questioning his suspicious behavior.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
None of which Zimmerman knew. All Zimmerman knew was a black kid was walking home in a place that the black kid had every right to be. The question still comes back to WHY DID ZIMMERMAN GO AFTER THE BLACK KID? Was it because he was black? The kid wasn't doing anything suspicious. He was just walking home.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Misguided? Myopic?

Perhaps, but nonetheless.....

"In regione caecorum rex est luscus"

-Desiderius Erasmus
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
There is a cure for your blindness that starts with admitting a lot of the things you were taught are wrong. You're among a dying breed on milescity.com and in the real world.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (7/29/2013)]
Top
Posted by Landen Yanez (+37) 8 years ago
Clearly you paid no attention to the case whatsoever. Otherwise you would realize that Zimmerman said he saw a PERSON (no color was stated) walking suspiciously around the neighborhood and looking at all the houses. He wanted to be more safe than sorry. Also, the police do not get to the crime scene until after the crime has been committed. So that "kid" could have broke into a house, stole a bunch of crap, made a sandwich and left before cops arrived, and Zimmerman knew that (that's why he carries a gun, because he doesn't trust cops to make it to him on time). If I were Zimmerman, I would have stayed and been submissive, put my hands up to show I don't want any trouble. I would have offered to answer any questions him or the police had and I would be calm and mature about it. Instead, he decided to beat the crap out of Zimmerman and left him with no choice but to protect his own life. (Which he has the fullright to do so)
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
Fortunately we don't live in Landen's world were folks are judged guilty of some imaginary crime before it's even committed. You've been reading too much Phillip K. Dick, my friend.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Unfortunately, we live in a world where one guy doesn't have the right to walk down the street without being "suspicious", but another guy has the right to do pretty much whatever. We have no explanation for the disparity other than it's definitely not racism.
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 8 years ago
So, walking home to your dad's house is suspicious behavior? How could he have been less suspicious? Tap-danced as he walked? Then, when some guy stalks him and attacks him, he defended himself.

Walking is a crime? Defending yourself is a crime?

Only if you are a person of color.
Top
Posted by fuzzystinker (+15) 8 years ago
That old adage applies here: "there are two sides to every story." We don't always get the truth from the media. One of my favorite rants - the liberal controlled media, television news, newspapers, magazines, radio; all continue to show 12 year old Trayvon; NOT 17 year old Trayvon.
They continue to show the 5 year old picture of him at age 12, BECAUSE it helps to cement in your mind the cute, little, hoodie-wearing youngster who was stalked by this monster.

In reality "little Trayvon" at the ti me of his death stood almost 6'2" tall and weighed 175 muscular pounds. He had numerous run ins with authorities (both at school and local police), had been stopped and almost arrested two days before his death for smacking a bus driver in the face, because the driver refused to let him ride for free. He was released because the driver was told not to press charges by the bus company and to continue on his route.

When "little Trayvon" was suspended at school it was not only because he tried to bring a little marijuana in with him, he was in possession of wedding rings and other jewelry, watches, etc. that he said he "found" along with a large screwdriver while on the way to school that day. The jewelry was turned over to the Police by the school.

I am not trying to say this kid deserved to die. I am saying the media in the USA is controlled by liberals who twist and distort what you see and hear in order for you to see things their way.

Not a single paper has printed RECENT photos of this kid, because it would not keep your interest in this case.

Not a single paper will admit that this kid was a marijuana dealer.

His friends on Facebook all say he had the "best plants". Not a single paper will show you any of his recent photos where he shows off a mouthful of gold teeth and all of his tattoos.

Not a single newspaper will tell the news like it really is....and NOT how they want you to think it is...

President Obama looked at the FIVE year old photo the media chose to show the Nation and said, "If I had a son...he would look like Trayvon.." So from that comment should I assume you did not bother to look for the facts in this shooting..or should I assume you want a son who is a 17 year old drug dealing, gold teethed, tattooed thug whose name on one of his facebook profiles was "Wild Nigga" who 'finds" jewelry and burglary tools on the way to school?

http://texswp.blogspot.com/2013/07/its-not-really-george-zimmerman-on-trial.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Good Lord.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 8 years ago
I'm not influenced by any photos or media.

A young man is dead. He was shot by another man who made a judgement based on a visual observation. The mistaken man proceeded to act on his assumption up to the point of a direct interaction with the other man resulting in his death.

Truths:

1. The man who died had every right to be where he was.

2. The man who lived should NOT have interacted with the other man.

3. The man who lived carried a deadly weapon into the confrontation.

4. The man who died is dead.

Assumptions:

1. The man who lived assumed that the man who died should NOT be where he was based on his appearance.

2. The man who lived gained a sense of confidence to interact with the man who died because he was carrying a deadly weapon.

3. Anyone who is celebrating the verdict is celebrating while a young man lays dead. There should be no celebrating.

FH
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
This is one of the rare instances where I admire the police, who treat victims of murder the same way whether the deceased is a hardened criminal or an innocent child. There are people here who refuse to understand that the kid didn't deserve to die even if he fits every negative stereotype associated with young, black males. Even these ignorant dumbasses deserve a day in court and not a bullet in the heart.
Top
supporter
Posted by cubby (+2629) 8 years ago
Why did the fight even start? Did Zimmerman just ask the kid what he was doing or just followed him long enough that Martin just turned around and started swinging on Zimmerman out of fear? I mean what ever happened to just asking questions before judging anyone? I don't understand or missed what it all started over. I know that Zimmerman got out of his car but did he just ran up and try to detain Martin?
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+797) 8 years ago
Thank you, Frank. Maybe you should post that every ten days, lest we forget
Top
Posted by Landen Yanez (+37) 8 years ago
What i dont get is why none of you are freaking out about Chicago. 61 people were shot and murdered during the Zimmerman case alone. Yet, you're here trying to find justice for some punk thug who hits his teachers, steals jewelry, and graffities schools? Why dont you heartless folk go find justice for the other 61 people who were violently shot and murdered?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Landen, are you familiar with the term "principle"?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (7/31/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
Landen is 16 (or so). When I was 16, I believed in all sorts of stupid things, mostly because I hadn't realized that libertarianism was really just FYIGMism, and that Rush Limbaugh was just playing the rubes for rubes.

As I noted elsewhere, Landen is a firm believer that the 'appeal to hypocrisy' is a valid form of argument. I'd suggest that, as happened with the various reactionary infatuations of my callow youth, he will one day realize the fact that we are all in this together, and hopefully see through the lies and glamours of the people who profit off of keeping people scared and paranoid.

Everybody should read Frank's thoughts on this again, and then STFU until they've reflected upon them for at least a day or two.

GODDAMNIT I WASN'T GOING TO POST ON THIS THREAD, NOW LOOK WHAT YOU'VE MADE ME DO!
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 8 years ago
I too, was not going to post on this thread!!

Looks like Landen Yanez is wise despite his years. As the old saw, Age is just a number.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 8 years ago
Or he might grow up to be ike
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
Yeah, I deleted that part from my original post, because it was just to sad.

Modern conservatism is a moral cancer Ike, that teaches you to pretend that everything that breaks your way in life is because you willed it so, and everything that doesn't is because someone who doesn't look like you was given a handout that you certainly weren't offered.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 8 years ago
Please explain modern liberal1sm in the same context??
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
"Modern liberalism is a philosophy that argues for increased social justice as well as social progression, with specific institutions given the mandate to maintain the same. Modern liberalism recognizes the authority of the state in solving social nightmares."

Modern liberalism focuses on the "ends" of action; what can be accomplished.

Context?
Considering the current behavior of the GOP in gutting the food stamp (SNAP) portions of the Farm Bill, why maintaining the gluttony of large corporate farm subsidies (not your mom-and-pop farms; your CORPORATE farms), only shows their contempt for the down-trodden, the elderly, the children, the Veterans. "Let them starve", "Let them beg at doorsteps and churches". Whereas any educated individual knows that churches have BEGGED the government to maintain the SNAP program, as they cannot even afford to feed 6% of the Nation's hungry.

I've said it here on MilesCity.com and other places: food insecurity is a REALITY in EVERY CITY IN THIS COUNTRY. I challenge ANY person who dares to take meals away from children (veterans, elderly) claiming that they "will be just fine", needs to come volunteer with me at the children's free lunch program, that they need to spend time in public schools where teachers and educators fear for children's nutritional needs outside of school, volunteer at the local soup kitchen, St. V's... you need to SEE THE NEED in this community before you even THINK of passing or supporting legislation that takes food away from human beings.

And this is just one example; and it's an UGLY EXAMPLE of how selfish the "Modern Conservative" is.

So "ike eichler", I will put up defense of "social nightmares" against the "selfishness" any day of the week. Modern Conservatives: you think taking bowls of food away from children, elderly, Veterans, is a noble cause?? Bring. It. On.


/rant
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
It's what Christ would want.
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 8 years ago
Hannah Nash defines Modern Liberalism, "Modern Liberalism recognizes the Authority Of the state in solving social nightmares".

That sounds dangerously close to some other isms that have not worked very well.

The rest is a self described rant that has nothing to do with this thread.

I have no desire to argue politics nor isms with anyone. Usually, it becomes an exercise in futility.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
If hannah changed that to 'actor of last resort in the social safety net', would you like it better?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 8 years ago
That sounds dangerously close to some other isms that have not worked very well.


I have no desire to argue politics nor isms with anyone. Usually, it becomes an exercise in futility.


Sounds like you wish to argue politics plenty (see your quotes above), but provide zero substance (there wasn't anything else THERE in your post). I provided CONTEXT, as you requested, substance (actual examples of the "selfishness" that I attributed to Modern Conservatism), and ranted a bit (which you didn't request, but quite possibly needed to hear).

I provided what you asked for:
Please explain modern liberal1sm in the same context??

And a little bit extra (just think of it as some icing on the cake). Mmmmmm, tasty.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
Ike's checks from the government don't cover cake, to say nothing of icing.

(think landen can spot the logical fallacy above?)
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 8 years ago
Mr. W.

No cake nor frills.

Are you POed that the fed "borrowed" my work years pay ins, and now am getting some of yours?
Top
Posted by fuzzystinker (+15) 8 years ago
Top
Posted by Jay (+281) 8 years ago
Fuzzystinker: What the hell does this picture have to do with the Travon Martin case?
If you are suggesting that this is Martin, you are full of it. This has (pic) been passed around the web as an image of Martin. If that is what you are doing, here is a news break for you. That is a picture of a rapper by the name or Jayceon Terrel Taylor.
There is enough stirring of the poop pot on this thread without you adding more crap like this.

[This message has been edited by Jay (8/3/2013)]
Top
Posted by fuzzystinker (+15) 8 years ago
oops! My bad.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17069) 8 years ago
Good job, Jay.

That photo came from the blog entry that "fuzzy" copied and pasted a link (http://texswp.blogspot.co...trial.html) to on 7/30/2013.

I guess maybe the blog owner and "fuzzy" are trying to say people with tattoos should be shot on sight. We know it has nothing to do with the color of the man's skin.

If you read other entries in that blog I'm sure you will agree the owner is not a racist nor a small-minded redneck.

http://texswp.blogspot.com

[This message has been edited by David Schott (8/3/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+763) 8 years ago
David, I think "the Chief" was just using the wrong picture to make a point. The point being that the media was using the wrong picture also, and they shouldn't do that. This whole case is turning into scrutiny and accusations of media tactics, and that's important to study, and be aware of. That kid that got shot, I forget his name, was just one more of dozens murdered every day. I don't think there's an unusual story there. What-ev. But that jury knows a lot more about it than I ever will.
Top