The only fact that I needed to know was that Zimmerman was told by the police not to pursue Martin. He did anyway. Martin was not engaging in criminal activity until Zimmerman engaged him. He had a reason to be there and had been there before. The question you need to ask yourself, GD, is if Martin was a hot blond, would he still be alive?
NO, the operator did not. IF you had bothered to pay any attention whatsofuckingever to the trial, you would have known that while the operator told him he didn't "need to do that", the operator and police also testified that 911 operators have no power or right to give orders to anybody, just suggestions.
Furthermore, trying to keep an eye on Martin is not illegal and is not assault. When Martin came back and assaulted Zimmerman, then everything changed. You cannot assault someone for following you, or for looking at you funny. That is a crime. Zimmerman was committing no crime by acting as a community watch. Had Martin just gone home, that would've been the end of the story. Nor was this some lily-white gated community: it's about 49% non-Hispanic white, 23% Hispanic (of any race), 20% black, and 5% Asian. Read a little more on the background and get your facts straight before talking out of your ass.
The only ass talking going in is yours, Larry which is so ridiculously obvious, given you political slant, that is makes me nauseous.
What frustrates me the most about this case is the obvious reaction from the usual sides. The left overreacts and calls it racism with all the usual chowderheads like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton coming out of the woodwork (Dr. King would be so disappointed with them).
The right underreacts and leaps to the defense of the lone vigilante trying to clean up the streets like Dirty Harry while also doing their usual DARVO. This all plays in to their disdain for police which is based on an adolescent power fantasy and loss of control issues.
George Zimmerman is not a racist but he was obviously prejudiced (meaning he pre-judged a situation). Conservative columnist Neil Boortz has a great piece on this which is pretty much where I am at.
The fact is that Zimmerman was a moron. He never should have pursued Martin and should have let the cops handle it. Further, he clearly had no experience with early teens and how volatile their emotions can be. Martin thought the guy was going to attack him and so he reacted in the way any teen would he felt threatened. He defended himself. And now he is dead.
You posted the same shit over on TSM and were called out for it being ignorant there as well.
The fact is that Zimmerman was a moron.
Not a fact but hey, you don't know fact from fiction.
He never should have pursued Martin and should have let the cops handle it.
He was waiting for the cops to handle it and was confronted according to testimony.
He defended himself. And now he is dead.
He attacked. And now he is dead. FIFY
State didn't have a case and it showed. You are nothing more than a parrot for the Media talking points and not far removed from Al Sharpton. Good job ignoramus!
Plus, after being told, "you don't have to do that," when Zimmerman answered that he was following Martin, Zimmerman quit following him. Noffke asked because he could hear Zimmerman breathing heavily as he was running. After Zimmerman agrees to stop pursuit, his breath immediately returns to normal.
So whatever 'pursuit' you think happened, ended several minutes before Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
Markadelphia, if you've got a point to make about what I've said, then address the fucking points I made. The only crime committed was when Trayvon went back from the house he was staying back to confront and assault Zimmerman. The 911 operator most certainly did testify that not only was Zimmerman not ordered to back off, they had no legal power to do so. It's been established in open court not only that Zimmerman was already out of the truck to see where the suspicious-acting guy had gone when the 911 operator made his suggestion, but that Martin was on his way back to his truck when Trayvon cofronted him. What part of that are you not understanding? Nor did Zimmerman do one solitary fucking thing that was illegal. Neither did Trayvon, right up to the point he sucker-punched Martin, knocked him down and pinned him, and started wailing on him MMA-style. That's assault and battery in any jurisdiction, butt-munch.
Zimmerman wasn't playing "Dirty Harry", either, you pathetic lying weasel. Zimmerman's the one who called the cops! Keeping track of someone (from some distance) until the cops arrive isn't "being a vigilante" outside of your magical word redefinition bubble. Zimmerman didn't try to make a citizens arrest. Zimmerman didn't assault Trayvon.
There's no fucking bias there, just a straight recitation of facts. I don't give a shit what Boortz said before a lot of details came out. I care about what came out as evidence in the trial. As should you. The only racism in this case is the opportunistic race-baiting of the professional grievance mongers, and most of the media. NBC's performance was beyond shameful and if there's any justice, they will pay through the nose for libel.
I'd like to take the "pathetic lying weasel" back. I've no evidence that you're deliberately lying. Though you may very well be, based upon your long, Homeric struggles against reality. Little in them is worthy of remembrance; much seeks oblivion. To paraphrase Churchill. Most likely you're merely ignorant, but more than willing to pass yourself off as expertly informed. Well, that's a form of lying, too. Maybe I don't take it all back, after all. You're just a "pathetic weasel".
Attacked. Not defended. Thanks for admitting that.
Attacked, not defended as there was no legally justifiable cause for Martin to use force upon Zimmerman. Zimmerman was committing no crime, and thus Martin had no cause to use force.
But Martin did use force. Unjustifiably. That unjustified use of force was a criminal assault. When that criminal assault started using concrete as a weapon to the head it became lethal force. At that point Zimmerman had every right to use lethal force in defense of his life.
That didn't answer my question nor did I mean to infer that Martin was the offender in this situation because I don't think he was. I'm wondering what was the motivation for Martin to attack Zimmerman. Why?
I get that you guys are really sensitive about this one because of the whole Dirty Harry hard on you get for cases like this but real life is not a movie.
I don't know why he attacked. You're the professional mind-reader here. What do you think? I doubt he had any more reason than the (white) kid in high school who didn't like the look I shot his way when he said something really racist, and then approached me, and sucker punched me, smashing my glasses, just because he felt 'dissed' as they say today, and that I was an easy target. Fortunately for me, that was enough to demonstrate his manhood for his friends, who all laughed, and then they were on their way. I wasn't in fear for my life because I (sort of) knew who was (a bad kid and one to avoid) and it was daylight. If he'd decided to go further, like Martin did, it was night, and he was stranger, and had me pinned and kept on wailing on me, that would've been very different.
And once again, 'Dirty Harry' my dirty dog's ass. Zimmerman's the one who called the cops. Martin called Jeantel. Sounds like he was real worried. Didn't go home, either, like most kids would. Honestly, it sounds like you're excusing Martin's actions because he's a young black male, and what else could you expect of a black male than a violent over-reaction... Soft racism, in other words.
Any guess as to why Martin ILLEGALLY ASSAULTED Zimmerman is just mental masturbation. It has no bearing on the case. Unless you are trying to argue that some people should be allowed to assault other people for special reasons?????
Which of these two CONFLICTING statements are you making?
nor did I mean to infer that Martin was the offender
OR
what was the motivation for Martin to attack Zimmerman
Attack - means attack. Stop using the word if that's not what you mean.
So, what do you mean? Is there a justification, or was it an attack?
the whole Dirty Harry hard on you get for cases like this but real life is not a movie.
Yeah, you should stop basing your reality on movies.
Do you somehow believe self defense to be vigilantism? Do you deny that bashing a person's head into concrete is lethal force? Do you have any clue whatsoever?
But by Zimmerman's own admission Martin was "up to no good." He knew it. He just knew it. But he was wrong.
You guys love the stories about how people take the law into their own hands and finally do what has to be done because the cops suck and can't be relied upon. Why did an unarmed teen to young to drive attack Zimmerman?
No, Zimmerman said, "There's a real suspicious guy. ... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about."
And do you have even a scintilla of logical thought coursing through your brain? Zimmerman didn't take the law into his own hands, asshole, he called the law and was attempting (if unwisely) to assist. And since when is 17 too young to drive? In Florida, with which I had experience at the same age, the restriction on a 17-year old driver is no driving between 1 A.M. and 5 A.M. unless with a 21-yr old licensed driver, or to and from work. Do you just spout off the first shit that pops into your mind? Then again, you claim that a 17-yr old is an "early teen", and even a 1st grader could tell you that 13, 14, 15, 16 come before 17, and only 18 and 19 follow it. That's not "early" by any standard, and is old enough to enlist in the military with parents' permission. Your desperate, Homeric struggles against Reality continue...
Knowing that everything I write is recorded for posterity (something Markadelphia doesn't quite seem to understand the implications of, considering he can't remember what he wrote within the very same comment thread), I would like to point out that we really don't need to know why M. attacked Z., we only need to know that he did.
However unwise Z. was in getting out of his car and trying to determine M.'s whereabouts after he ran, Z. did nothing illegal. M. did something both unwise and criminal when he attacked Z.
M. was "profiled" because his actions didn't match someone who belonged in the (20% black) gated community. Your stupid video shows a white person in a white neighborhood apparently pulling off a brazen crime. The key word being "brazen". I was "profiled" in a white neighborhood in Florida back when I was in college because I and my friends were young males in a neighborhood that, according to the policeman who stopped us, had experienced a number of burglaries in the last few weeks. We (3 whites, 1 Hispanic) were let go on our way after some routine questions about who we were, where we had been (late night showing of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" back in in the Dark Ages), and where we were going (back to the dorms, we were taking what we thought/hoped was a shortcut after my friends car wouldn't start). If it had been a neighborhood watch person initially keeping tabs on us, and we were black, are you saying it would've been justified for us to attack him for keeping tabs on us before the police showed up? If not, why not? If not, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING?
That was one of the stupider things you've said...
Ever heard of concealed gun? Have any knowledge on the actual FACTS of the case?
I think the key to the whole case was the motivation as to why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why?
Yes, that is A key. But why is only important up to the point that the 'why' would give Martin a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason to use physical force upon Zimmerman. Any 'why' that DOES NOT DO THAT is irrelevant.
With that in mind, can YOU articulate any scenario that FITS WITH THE KNOWN FACTS that would give Martin a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason to use physical force upon Zimmerman, further what would then give Martin a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason to use lethal force upon Zimmerman?
Of course he has no real knowledge of the facts of the case except for what he's picked up on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, and MSNBC. But that won't stop him from expounding on the case.
Having grave doubts as to whether Markadelphia will answer guardduck's questions, I will still answer Markadelphia's question: why would an unarmed guy attack a guy with a gun? Because he had no idea that Z. was carrying a concealed weapon. You do understand that one of the requirements of carrying a concealed weapon legally is that you keep it concealed, don't you? I would think that's understood by everybody with more than half a brain, but perhaps not. Nor are you required to wear a large, scarlet 'A' for Armed, either, since that pretty much destroys the concept of concealment. Nor do you even draw it until you really have to do so, or you are guilty of 'brandishing', and had Z. drawn it before he was down and struggling, it might not (probably wouldn't) have gone well for him in court (though M. might be alive if he'd realized Z. was armed).
what he's picked up on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, and MSNBC.
Straw man...
And reading comprehension problem. Once the trial started, I stopped paying attention to the news, as I said above. Of course, the fact that you say this means that you likely got your info from FOX, Daily Caller, and Brietbart. Nice try, though:)
GD, your use of CAPITAL LETTERS means that you are likely VERY INSECURE about what you perceive to be the facts of the case. How do you know that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed? Also, where did you guys get the idea that Martin went home and then came back out again? The only "evidence" for this I saw was in the bubble.
None of you have answered the question as to why he would attack Zimmerman. Until that question is answered, Zimmerman's story doesn't add up.
No, it is the truth as you cannot process anything that doesn't come pre-digested by proggie drool.
FOX, Daily Caller, and Brietbart.
See it is only wrong when the other guys do it.
How do you know that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed?
I doubt that any of us know that - but it is the smart money position. Contrast that with your bewilderment about why M would attack Z knowing that Z was armed.
He apparently had a few minutes to think about it inside his father's friend's place. I'm guessing there was something said between him and Ms. Jenteal that might shed more light on it. It is so easy to goad a teenage boy into something foolish. [Hey, now who does that remind me of.]
Since you post stuff, including graphics, from those sites, it seems reasonable to conclude you read them.
So where have you gotten your information? Or are you STILL low-information?
As far as your latest round of questions, how do you know that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed? What's your grand theory? Because we all know that young men who think themselves dangerous badasses never, ever start trouble, let alone throwing punches. Perfect little angels, they are. Not.
If you think something different happened, then it's incumbent upon YOU to state what you think happened and to point to evidence that supports it. And so far, you've done nothing except to say that maybe Zimmerman's concealed weapon wasn't concealed (got any evidence for that, any whatsoever?), which begs the question of why Zimmerman then let himself get sucker-punched, knocked down, straddled and beat on if he already had the gun out. And why Martin was beating on Zimmerman instead of grabbing the gun. So why don't you put up or shut up, because there's no way to know what was in Martin's mind and there's no way to ask him. But assaults happen all the time. But this time, the perpetrator chose unwisely.
My use of capital letters is to EMPHASIZE important legal points that you are completely ignoring.
My 'perception' of the facts of the case? At least I am referencing facts, you are basing your entire argument on conjecture.
How do you know that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed?
Zimmerman had a concealed weapons license. He had a holster that would have held the pistol in a concealed manner. There is NO evidence that Zimmerman unconcealed his pistol prior to the assault by Martin. Absent that evidence then one must assume the pistol remained concealed. Therefore assuming Martin knew Zimmerman was armed is completely unsubstantiated conjecture.
where did you guys get the idea that Martin went home and then came back out again
Nobody said he went home and came back out. However, home was a short enough distance away that he most certainly could have been there prior to the time he assaulted Zimmerman.
The only "evidence" for this I saw was in the bubble.
The 'evidence' for this was in the trial - that you did not pay attention to.
None of you have answered the question as to why he would attack Zimmerman. Until that question is answered, Zimmerman's story doesn't add up.
No. Your story does not add up. It is not required to have a 'reason' for Martin to attack Zimmerman. If there were a reason that were legitimate then that reason would be a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason for the use of force. This I have asked you to articulate a scenario that fits within the facts to provide any LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE cause for Martin to use physical force upon Zimmerman. You haven't done that.
Any reason for the attack that is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE would be a logical reason. Any reason that IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE would be an illogical reason. You are asking for a logical reason for Martin to have committed an illogical act.
By definition, therefore, if you cannot present a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason for Martin to use physical force upon Zimmerman then whatever reason Martin used to convince himself that it was ok to commit a violent crime on another person is just that - internalized excuse making.
So do you want to present a scenario in which Martin would be LEGALLY JUSTIFIED to use physical force, or do you want to continue to try to make excuses for criminal acts?
Besides which, there's Trayvon's own text messages and postings regarding fights, being angry at losing a fight not long before that night, trying buy guns illegally, evidence that he had been involved in at least one burglary (which resulted in suspension when it should have led to more serious repercussions). This "No Limit Nigga" (his self-chosen screen name) who said, "Naw, I'm a gangsta." Who could imagine such a darling child might take up the chance to beat up a "creepy-ass cracker" without much apparent risk?
But damn it all, I've been suckered into responding to Markadelphia's tried and true "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response.
Ah, that whole deliberate fuckwit thing is just a dodge to get you guys to feel good about yourselves in terms of reflection avoidance. I'm the one being "stupid"....riiight...
Standard Response #1 "I can't hear you" in action. The only one avoiding anything at all here is the host, who seems to regard arguing from a position of unshakeable ignorance as a strong point of his 9/11 "Troofer"-like "just asking questions" mode.
There is no "my way"...there is no "winning" or "losing." You guys really don't get how other people (meaning the rest of America that isn't brainwashed with fear and paranoia) think.
38 comments:
Did you even watch the trial? Get any information about the case from sources other than the mainstream media?
Or was your mind made up long ago before you had all the facts and the facts you did have were wrong?
The only fact that I needed to know was that Zimmerman was told by the police not to pursue Martin. He did anyway. Martin was not engaging in criminal activity until Zimmerman engaged him. He had a reason to be there and had been there before. The question you need to ask yourself, GD, is if Martin was a hot blond, would he still be alive?
Yeah, thought so. You don't even have any details of the case, just outrage provided by your handlers in the media. And...
The only fact that I needed to know was that Zimmerman was told by the police not to pursue Martin.
proving that you made up your mind and aren't open to knowing the facts. Exposed again for being a complete ignoramus and proud of it.
Stop dodging the point, 6Kings. Did the 911 operator ask him to not pursue Travyon. Yes or no?
NO, the operator did not. IF you had bothered to pay any attention whatsofuckingever to the trial, you would have known that while the operator told him he didn't "need to do that", the operator and police also testified that 911 operators have no power or right to give orders to anybody, just suggestions.
Furthermore, trying to keep an eye on Martin is not illegal and is not assault. When Martin came back and assaulted Zimmerman, then everything changed. You cannot assault someone for following you, or for looking at you funny. That is a crime. Zimmerman was committing no crime by acting as a community watch. Had Martin just gone home, that would've been the end of the story. Nor was this some lily-white gated community: it's about 49% non-Hispanic white, 23% Hispanic (of any race), 20% black, and 5% Asian. Read a little more on the background and get your facts straight before talking out of your ass.
The only ass talking going in is yours, Larry which is so ridiculously obvious, given you political slant, that is makes me nauseous.
What frustrates me the most about this case is the obvious reaction from the usual sides. The left overreacts and calls it racism with all the usual chowderheads like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton coming out of the woodwork (Dr. King would be so disappointed with them).
The right underreacts and leaps to the defense of the lone vigilante trying to clean up the streets like Dirty Harry while also doing their usual DARVO. This all plays in to their disdain for police which is based on an adolescent power fantasy and loss of control issues.
George Zimmerman is not a racist but he was obviously prejudiced (meaning he pre-judged a situation). Conservative columnist Neil Boortz has a great piece on this which is pretty much where I am at.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/mar/21/treyvon-martin/
The fact is that Zimmerman was a moron. He never should have pursued Martin and should have let the cops handle it. Further, he clearly had no experience with early teens and how volatile their emotions can be. Martin thought the guy was going to attack him and so he reacted in the way any teen would he felt threatened. He defended himself. And now he is dead.
You posted the same shit over on TSM and were called out for it being ignorant there as well.
The fact is that Zimmerman was a moron.
Not a fact but hey, you don't know fact from fiction.
He never should have pursued Martin and should have let the cops handle it.
He was waiting for the cops to handle it and was confronted according to testimony.
He defended himself. And now he is dead.
He attacked. And now he is dead. FIFY
State didn't have a case and it showed. You are nothing more than a parrot for the Media talking points and not far removed from Al Sharpton. Good job ignoramus!
The only fact that I needed to know was that Zimmerman was told by the police not to pursue Martin.
So the only 'fact' you need is not a fact at all.
Noffke testified on the first day of the jury trial that it is dispatchers’ policy not to give orders to callers. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he explained. “We always try to give general basic . . . not commands, just suggestions.” So, “We don’t need you to do that” is different than a more direct “Don’t do that.”
It wasn't a command. Period.
Plus, after being told, "you don't have to do that," when Zimmerman answered that he was following Martin, Zimmerman quit following him. Noffke asked because he could hear Zimmerman breathing heavily as he was running. After Zimmerman agrees to stop pursuit, his breath immediately returns to normal.
So whatever 'pursuit' you think happened, ended several minutes before Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
Markadelphia, if you've got a point to make about what I've said, then address the fucking points I made. The only crime committed was when Trayvon went back from the house he was staying back to confront and assault Zimmerman. The 911 operator most certainly did testify that not only was Zimmerman not ordered to back off, they had no legal power to do so. It's been established in open court not only that Zimmerman was already out of the truck to see where the suspicious-acting guy had gone when the 911 operator made his suggestion, but that Martin was on his way back to his truck when Trayvon cofronted him. What part of that are you not understanding? Nor did Zimmerman do one solitary fucking thing that was illegal. Neither did Trayvon, right up to the point he sucker-punched Martin, knocked him down and pinned him, and started wailing on him MMA-style. That's assault and battery in any jurisdiction, butt-munch.
Zimmerman wasn't playing "Dirty Harry", either, you pathetic lying weasel. Zimmerman's the one who called the cops! Keeping track of someone (from some distance) until the cops arrive isn't "being a vigilante" outside of your magical word redefinition bubble. Zimmerman didn't try to make a citizens arrest. Zimmerman didn't assault Trayvon.
There's no fucking bias there, just a straight recitation of facts. I don't give a shit what Boortz said before a lot of details came out. I care about what came out as evidence in the trial. As should you. The only racism in this case is the opportunistic race-baiting of the professional grievance mongers, and most of the media. NBC's performance was beyond shameful and if there's any justice, they will pay through the nose for libel.
I'd like to take the "pathetic lying weasel" back. I've no evidence that you're deliberately lying. Though you may very well be, based upon your long, Homeric struggles against reality. Little in them is worthy of remembrance; much seeks oblivion. To paraphrase Churchill. Most likely you're merely ignorant, but more than willing to pass yourself off as expertly informed. Well, that's a form of lying, too. Maybe I don't take it all back, after all. You're just a "pathetic weasel".
So M is an out and out racist. Nice to show your true colors there chief.
He attacked. And now he is dead.
Why did he attack?
Attacked. Not defended. Thanks for admitting that.
Attacked, not defended as there was no legally justifiable cause for Martin to use force upon Zimmerman. Zimmerman was committing no crime, and thus Martin had no cause to use force.
But Martin did use force. Unjustifiably. That unjustified use of force was a criminal assault. When that criminal assault started using concrete as a weapon to the head it became lethal force. At that point Zimmerman had every right to use lethal force in defense of his life.
That didn't answer my question nor did I mean to infer that Martin was the offender in this situation because I don't think he was. I'm wondering what was the motivation for Martin to attack Zimmerman. Why?
I get that you guys are really sensitive about this one because of the whole Dirty Harry hard on you get for cases like this but real life is not a movie.
I don't know why he attacked. You're the professional mind-reader here. What do you think? I doubt he had any more reason than the (white) kid in high school who didn't like the look I shot his way when he said something really racist, and then approached me, and sucker punched me, smashing my glasses, just because he felt 'dissed' as they say today, and that I was an easy target. Fortunately for me, that was enough to demonstrate his manhood for his friends, who all laughed, and then they were on their way. I wasn't in fear for my life because I (sort of) knew who was (a bad kid and one to avoid) and it was daylight. If he'd decided to go further, like Martin did, it was night, and he was stranger, and had me pinned and kept on wailing on me, that would've been very different.
And once again, 'Dirty Harry' my dirty dog's ass. Zimmerman's the one who called the cops. Martin called Jeantel. Sounds like he was real worried. Didn't go home, either, like most kids would. Honestly, it sounds like you're excusing Martin's actions because he's a young black male, and what else could you expect of a black male than a violent over-reaction... Soft racism, in other words.
It did answer the question.
Notice: no legally justifiable cause.
Any guess as to why Martin ILLEGALLY ASSAULTED Zimmerman is just mental masturbation. It has no bearing on the case. Unless you are trying to argue that some people should be allowed to assault other people for special reasons?????
Which of these two CONFLICTING statements are you making?
nor did I mean to infer that Martin was the offender
OR
what was the motivation for Martin to attack Zimmerman
Attack - means attack. Stop using the word if that's not what you mean.
So, what do you mean? Is there a justification, or was it an attack?
the whole Dirty Harry hard on you get for cases like this but real life is not a movie.
Yeah, you should stop basing your reality on movies.
Do you somehow believe self defense to be vigilantism? Do you deny that bashing a person's head into concrete is lethal force? Do you have any clue whatsoever?
But by Zimmerman's own admission Martin was "up to no good." He knew it. He just knew it. But he was wrong.
You guys love the stories about how people take the law into their own hands and finally do what has to be done because the cops suck and can't be relied upon. Why did an unarmed teen to young to drive attack Zimmerman?
But by Zimmerman's own admission Martin was "up to no good." He knew it. He just knew it. But he was wrong.
That's just too funny. Who was on top of who, hitting whom, when the shot was fired? That's a fact, not an opinion - so you probably can't process it.
No, Zimmerman said, "There's a real suspicious guy. ... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about."
And do you have even a scintilla of logical thought coursing through your brain? Zimmerman didn't take the law into his own hands, asshole, he called the law and was attempting (if unwisely) to assist. And since when is 17 too young to drive? In Florida, with which I had experience at the same age, the restriction on a 17-year old driver is no driving between 1 A.M. and 5 A.M. unless with a 21-yr old licensed driver, or to and from work. Do you just spout off the first shit that pops into your mind? Then again, you claim that a 17-yr old is an "early teen", and even a 1st grader could tell you that 13, 14, 15, 16 come before 17, and only 18 and 19 follow it. That's not "early" by any standard, and is old enough to enlist in the military with parents' permission. Your desperate, Homeric struggles against Reality continue...
Knowing that everything I write is recorded for posterity (something Markadelphia doesn't quite seem to understand the implications of, considering he can't remember what he wrote within the very same comment thread), I would like to point out that we really don't need to know why M. attacked Z., we only need to know that he did.
However unwise Z. was in getting out of his car and trying to determine M.'s whereabouts after he ran, Z. did nothing illegal. M. did something both unwise and criminal when he attacked Z.
M. was "profiled" because his actions didn't match someone who belonged in the (20% black) gated community. Your stupid video shows a white person in a white neighborhood apparently pulling off a brazen crime. The key word being "brazen". I was "profiled" in a white neighborhood in Florida back when I was in college because I and my friends were young males in a neighborhood that, according to the policeman who stopped us, had experienced a number of burglaries in the last few weeks. We (3 whites, 1 Hispanic) were let go on our way after some routine questions about who we were, where we had been (late night showing of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" back in in the Dark Ages), and where we were going (back to the dorms, we were taking what we thought/hoped was a shortcut after my friends car wouldn't start). If it had been a neighborhood watch person initially keeping tabs on us, and we were black, are you saying it would've been justified for us to attack him for keeping tabs on us before the police showed up? If not, why not? If not, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING?
If not, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING?
I think the key to the whole case was the motivation as to why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why? Why would an unarmed guy attack a guy with a gun?
Why would an unarmed guy attack a guy with a gun?
An unarmed guy attacked an unknown guy who looked 'creepy'. He had no knowledge of anything else. Why would you presume he knew Z had a gun?
Why would an unarmed guy attack a guy with a gun?
That was one of the stupider things you've said...
Ever heard of concealed gun? Have any knowledge on the actual FACTS of the case?
I think the key to the whole case was the motivation as to why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why?
Yes, that is A key. But why is only important up to the point that the 'why' would give Martin a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason to use physical force upon Zimmerman. Any 'why' that DOES NOT DO THAT is irrelevant.
With that in mind, can YOU articulate any scenario that FITS WITH THE KNOWN FACTS that would give Martin a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason to use physical force upon Zimmerman, further what would then give Martin a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason to use lethal force upon Zimmerman?
Of course he has no real knowledge of the facts of the case except for what he's picked up on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, and MSNBC. But that won't stop him from expounding on the case.
Having grave doubts as to whether Markadelphia will answer guardduck's questions, I will still answer Markadelphia's question: why would an unarmed guy attack a guy with a gun? Because he had no idea that Z. was carrying a concealed weapon. You do understand that one of the requirements of carrying a concealed weapon legally is that you keep it concealed, don't you? I would think that's understood by everybody with more than half a brain, but perhaps not. Nor are you required to wear a large, scarlet 'A' for Armed, either, since that pretty much destroys the concept of concealment. Nor do you even draw it until you really have to do so, or you are guilty of 'brandishing', and had Z. drawn it before he was down and struggling, it might not (probably wouldn't) have gone well for him in court (though M. might be alive if he'd realized Z. was armed).
one of the requirements of carrying a concealed weapon legally is that you keep it concealed
Minor quibble, that's not necessarily the case in all jurisdictions. I do not know if that is the case in FL.
what he's picked up on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, and MSNBC.
Straw man...
And reading comprehension problem. Once the trial started, I stopped paying attention to the news, as I said above. Of course, the fact that you say this means that you likely got your info from FOX, Daily Caller, and Brietbart. Nice try, though:)
GD, your use of CAPITAL LETTERS means that you are likely VERY INSECURE about what you perceive to be the facts of the case. How do you know that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed? Also, where did you guys get the idea that Martin went home and then came back out again? The only "evidence" for this I saw was in the bubble.
None of you have answered the question as to why he would attack Zimmerman. Until that question is answered, Zimmerman's story doesn't add up.
Straw man...
No, it is the truth as you cannot process anything that doesn't come pre-digested by proggie drool.
FOX, Daily Caller, and Brietbart.
See it is only wrong when the other guys do it.
How do you know that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed?
I doubt that any of us know that - but it is the smart money position. Contrast that with your bewilderment about why M would attack Z knowing that Z was armed.
He apparently had a few minutes to think about it inside his father's friend's place. I'm guessing there was something said between him and Ms. Jenteal that might shed more light on it. It is so easy to goad a teenage boy into something foolish. [Hey, now who does that remind me of.]
Since you post stuff, including graphics, from those sites, it seems reasonable to conclude you read them.
So where have you gotten your information? Or are you STILL low-information?
As far as your latest round of questions, how do you know that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed? What's your grand theory? Because we all know that young men who think themselves dangerous badasses never, ever start trouble, let alone throwing punches. Perfect little angels, they are. Not.
If you think something different happened, then it's incumbent upon YOU to state what you think happened and to point to evidence that supports it. And so far, you've done nothing except to say that maybe Zimmerman's concealed weapon wasn't concealed (got any evidence for that, any whatsoever?), which begs the question of why Zimmerman then let himself get sucker-punched, knocked down, straddled and beat on if he already had the gun out. And why Martin was beating on Zimmerman instead of grabbing the gun. So why don't you put up or shut up, because there's no way to know what was in Martin's mind and there's no way to ask him. But assaults happen all the time. But this time, the perpetrator chose unwisely.
My use of capital letters is to EMPHASIZE important legal points that you are completely ignoring.
My 'perception' of the facts of the case? At least I am referencing facts, you are basing your entire argument on conjecture.
How do you know that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed?
Zimmerman had a concealed weapons license. He had a holster that would have held the pistol in a concealed manner. There is NO evidence that Zimmerman unconcealed his pistol prior to the assault by Martin. Absent that evidence then one must assume the pistol remained concealed. Therefore assuming Martin knew Zimmerman was armed is completely unsubstantiated conjecture.
where did you guys get the idea that Martin went home and then came back out again
Nobody said he went home and came back out. However, home was a short enough distance away that he most certainly could have been there prior to the time he assaulted Zimmerman.
The only "evidence" for this I saw was in the bubble.
The 'evidence' for this was in the trial - that you did not pay attention to.
None of you have answered the question as to why he would attack Zimmerman. Until that question is answered, Zimmerman's story doesn't add up.
No. Your story does not add up. It is not required to have a 'reason' for Martin to attack Zimmerman. If there were a reason that were legitimate then that reason would be a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason for the use of force. This I have asked you to articulate a scenario that fits within the facts to provide any LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE cause for Martin to use physical force upon Zimmerman. You haven't done that.
Any reason for the attack that is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE would be a logical reason. Any reason that IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE would be an illogical reason. You are asking for a logical reason for Martin to have committed an illogical act.
By definition, therefore, if you cannot present a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason for Martin to use physical force upon Zimmerman then whatever reason Martin used to convince himself that it was ok to commit a violent crime on another person is just that - internalized excuse making.
So do you want to present a scenario in which Martin would be LEGALLY JUSTIFIED to use physical force, or do you want to continue to try to make excuses for criminal acts?
Besides which, there's Trayvon's own text messages and postings regarding fights, being angry at losing a fight not long before that night, trying buy guns illegally, evidence that he had been involved in at least one burglary (which resulted in suspension when it should have led to more serious repercussions). This "No Limit Nigga" (his self-chosen screen name) who said, "Naw, I'm a gangsta." Who could imagine such a darling child might take up the chance to beat up a "creepy-ass cracker" without much apparent risk?
But damn it all, I've been suckered into responding to Markadelphia's tried and true "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response.
Ah, that whole deliberate fuckwit thing is just a dodge to get you guys to feel good about yourselves in terms of reflection avoidance. I'm the one being "stupid"....riiight...
While you ignore paragraphs of argument to focus on one sentence.....
That makes a lot of sense.
Standard Response #1 "I can't hear you" in action. The only one avoiding anything at all here is the host, who seems to regard arguing from a position of unshakeable ignorance as a strong point of his 9/11 "Troofer"-like "just asking questions" mode.
Aaaaannnndddd there goes Brave Sir Marxy.
It didn't go your way Markadelphia, accept it. Go protest with reverend al this weekend.
There is no "my way"...there is no "winning" or "losing." You guys really don't get how other people (meaning the rest of America that isn't brainwashed with fear and paranoia) think.
You guys really don't get how other people (meaning the rest of America that isn't brainwashed with fear and paranoia) think.
Us or them, you're either with us or against us. Must be why you hated "W" so much - he was so much like you.
That is pretty much the epitome of childish; I wonder when dishonest is going to show up.
And still no theory presented of a legally justifiable reason for Martin to use force or lethal force upon Zimmerman.
Post a Comment