A hypothetical Martin/Zimmerman scenario

[PredFan]

I think the police may have already botched the case to the point they have no other alternative but to decline charges

What proof do you have the police botched the case?

I think much of the evidence that needed to be collected immediately is gone. They never took the gun, the guys clothes or did alcohol or drug tests

Even a cop who discharged his gun would get more scrutiny

You still believe that nonsense? They confiscated the gun, they took him in for questioning, and they treated his wounds. They did not test him for drugs but there was no reason to. it was determined that it was self-defense.

 

[PredFan]

So we can make up any quote we want and rationalize it as a real quote because it is "close enough." Thus "peace" becomes "kill ******" "justice" becomes "kill ******" "deeply saddened" becomes "kill ******."

What do you want to bet that you will have a shit fit if I quote YOU as saying "kill *******" because "It's close enough" to what you DID say!!!!!

So what do you think "the law of retaliation" means? Hugs and orange sherbet?

It means, obviously, that the law of the land will exact justice in retaliation for the murder. Do you think that the law says murder should go unpunished?

It was self-defense not murder. Do you have proof of murder? No you don't. You're an idiot.

 

[California Girl]

So we can make up any quote we want and rationalize it as a real quote because it is "close enough." Thus "peace" becomes "kill ******" "justice" becomes "kill ******" "deeply saddened" becomes "kill ******."

What do you want to bet that you will have a shit fit if I quote YOU as saying "kill *******" because "It's close enough" to what you DID say!!!!!

So what do you think "the law of retaliation" means? Hugs and orange sherbet?

It means, obviously, that the law of the land will exact justice in retaliation for the murder. Do you think that the law says murder should go unpunished?

What 'murder'?

 

[daveman]

So we can make up any quote we want and rationalize it as a real quote because it is "close enough." Thus "peace" becomes "kill ******" "justice" becomes "kill ******" "deeply saddened" becomes "kill ******."

What do you want to bet that you will have a shit fit if I quote YOU as saying "kill *******" because "It's close enough" to what you DID say!!!!!

So what do you think "the law of retaliation" means? Hugs and orange sherbet?

It means, obviously, that the law of the land will exact justice in retaliation for the murder. Do you think that the law says murder should go unpunished?

The law of the land is justice, not retaliation. Moron.

Obviously, you're being willfully ignorant about Farrakhan's intent. But of course, you're unable to condemn a fellow lefty. For anything.

 

[Liability]

Guess again!

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know "Minister" Farrahkan DID say:

-- Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Farrakhan Hints At Violence In Retaliation For Trayvon Martin Killing…

So we can make up any quote we want and rationalize it as a real quote because it is "close enough." Thus "peace" becomes "kill ******" "justice" becomes "kill ******" "deeply saddened" becomes "kill ******."

What do you want to bet that you will have a shit fit if I quote YOU as saying "kill *******" because "It's close enough" to what you DID say!!!!!

You apparently are unable to stop being a totally dishonest shithead. Not unexpected.

FIRST off, she did not "quote" anybody as saying "kill ******." Your simplistic construction (if it's in quotes it must be a quote) is wrong. You simple minded twit. Retarded children grasp things more quickly and accurately than you do.

And nothing I EVER said or suggested or implied comes anywhere near the vile shit you just wrote, you dishonest brain-dead piece of shit.

Again, you just keep proving that you are hostile to honesty and truth, you scumbag rat twat.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think the police may have already botched the case to the point they have no other alternative but to decline charges

What proof do you have the police botched the case?

I think much of the evidence that needed to be collected immediately is gone. They never took the gun, the guys clothes or did alcohol or drug tests

Even a cop who discharged his gun would get more scrutiny

Hmmmm...do you have proof they didn't take the gun? I know they took him in for questioning, I doubt they'd let him keep his gun? Do you have evidence that they didn't take his gun? Did he seem intoxicated at the scene, did he appear to be on any drugs? Does he have a history of drug or alcohol issues? They gave him medical attention, what was that for?

A cop gets more scrutiny for discharging a gun? Should he not be scrutinized?

 

[PredFan]

What proof do you have the police botched the case?

I think much of the evidence that needed to be collected immediately is gone. They never took the gun, the guys clothes or did alcohol or drug tests

Even a cop who discharged his gun would get more scrutiny

Hmmmm...do you have proof they didn't take the gun? I know they took him in for questioning, I doubt they'd let him keep his gun? Do you have evidence that they didn't take his gun? Did he seem intoxicated at the scene, did he appear to be on any drugs? Does he have a history of drug or alcohol issues? They gave him medical attention, what was that for?

A cop gets more scrutiny for discharging a gun? Should he not be scrutinized?

They took the gun into evidence, but they may have returned it concidering they ruled it self-defense. I don't know that for a fact. I do know for a fact that they confiscated the weapon, a Kel-Tek 9mm, at the scene.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think much of the evidence that needed to be collected immediately is gone. They never took the gun, the guys clothes or did alcohol or drug tests

Even a cop who discharged his gun would get more scrutiny

Hmmmm...do you have proof they didn't take the gun? I know they took him in for questioning, I doubt they'd let him keep his gun? Do you have evidence that they didn't take his gun? Did he seem intoxicated at the scene, did he appear to be on any drugs? Does he have a history of drug or alcohol issues? They gave him medical attention, what was that for?

A cop gets more scrutiny for discharging a gun? Should he not be scrutinized?

They took the gun into evidence, but they may have returned it concidering they ruled it self-defense. I don't know that for a fact. I do know for a fact that they confiscated the weapon, a Kel-Tek 9mm, at the scene.

I know they did, but I want rightwinger to answer the questions I presented, he seems to have special insight, so he should tell us what he pretends to know. Honestly, I don't think he'll give answer, let alone an honest answer.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Quotation marks mean you are quoting someone. Who did you quote who said "kill ******"?

If I were directly quoting Sharpton I'd say I was quoting him and post the link. That's how I roll.

Cry "kill ******" is an expression (hence the cry part and the "kill ******" part in quotes) . . . as in "bring ****** to justice", which is what Al and his ilk want/imply when they open their mouths before knowing all the facts. <---- True story.

So you admit that "Kill ******" is a CON$ervoFascist expression placed by CON$ in the mouths of people CON$ hate. <---- True story.

Nope. You do.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So you admit that "Kill ******" is a CON$ervoFascist expression placed by CON$ in the mouths of people CON$ hate. <---- True story.

Can't "admit" something she never said, you dickwad.

Are you so fully dishonest as to deny that some black activists have endorsed the expression "kill ******?"

Even without the use of that precise phrase, you aren't SO TOTALLY dishonest as to pretend that some of the reaction from SOME black (so-called) "leaders" is consistent with a call to violence -- are you?

Well. It's you. So maybe you ARE that dishonest.

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know she DID say:

Notice how the CON$ervoFascist expression "kill ******" was first attributed to Sharpton, then Farrakhan, and now "some black activists" as yet unnamed, thus rationalizing that the original fake quote is now not a fake quote.
CON$ can rationalize anything!!!

Why do YOU want to "Kill *******?"

I never quoted Sharpton with those words, idiot. TM and boedecca put that lie out there.

No I didn't but of course that's how you'd see it. Typical. Did you not notice the quote marks I used when I typed "kill ******"? <--- see there, I just did it again. Figure of speech, sweetie but as usual, you take it literally.

Why do you hate white victims?

Quotation marks mean you are quoting someone. Who did you quote who said "kill ******"?

If I were directly quoting Sharpton I'd say I was quoting him and post the link. That's how I roll.

Cry "kill ******" is an expression (hence the cry part and the "kill ******" part in quotes) . . . as in "bring ****** to justice", which is what Al and his ilk want/imply when they open their mouths before knowing all the facts. <---- True story.

Are you saying that Sharpton and his ilk never open their mouths calling for "****** justice" prior to having all the facts? How 'bout Barry?

 

[edthecynic]

Guess again!

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know "Minister" Farrahkan DID say:

-- Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Farrakhan Hints At Violence In Retaliation For Trayvon Martin Killing…

So we can make up any quote we want and rationalize it as a real quote because it is "close enough." Thus "peace" becomes "kill ******" "justice" becomes "kill ******" "deeply saddened" becomes "kill ******."

What do you want to bet that you will have a shit fit if I quote YOU as saying "kill *******" because "It's close enough" to what you DID say!!!!!

Do I know these CON$ervoFascist sissies or what?! The little crybaby had such a shit fit only a spiteful neg rep could ease the soul.

 

[edthecynic]

Can't "admit" something she never said, you dickwad.

Are you so fully dishonest as to deny that some black activists have endorsed the expression "kill ******?"

Even without the use of that precise phrase, you aren't SO TOTALLY dishonest as to pretend that some of the reaction from SOME black (so-called) "leaders" is consistent with a call to violence -- are you?

Well. It's you. So maybe you ARE that dishonest.

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know she DID say:

Notice how the CON$ervoFascist expression "kill ******" was first attributed to Sharpton, then Farrakhan, and now "some black activists" as yet unnamed, thus rationalizing that the original fake quote is now not a fake quote.
CON$ can rationalize anything!!!

Why do YOU want to "Kill *******?"

I never quoted Sharpton with those words, idiot. TM and boedecca put that lie out there.

Quotation marks mean you are quoting someone. Who did you quote who said "kill ******"?

If I were directly quoting Sharpton I'd say I was quoting him and post the link. That's how I roll.

Cry "kill ******" is an expression (hence the cry part and the "kill ******" part in quotes) . . . as in "bring ****** to justice", which is what Al and his ilk want/imply when they open their mouths before knowing all the facts. <---- True story.

Are you saying that Sharpton and his ilk never open their mouths calling for "****** justice" prior to having all the facts? How 'bout Barry?

How does a CON$ervoFascist handle being called on making up a phony quote? They deny it and then make up another phony quote, of course!

 

[Ariux]

I believe Al and his ilk will still cry "kill ******", but hey, that's just my opinion.

fucking lying asshole.

Who said kill ******?

You're too much of an asshole yourself to recognize that the other poster is speaking proverbially. How also too much of an asshole to recognize that some black assaulted someone and was then shot in self-defense.

 

[Liability]

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know she DID say:

Notice how the CON$ervoFascist expression "kill ******" was first attributed to Sharpton, then Farrakhan, and now "some black activists" as yet unnamed, thus rationalizing that the original fake quote is now not a fake quote.
CON$ can rationalize anything!!!

Why do YOU want to "Kill *******?"

I never quoted Sharpton with those words, idiot. TM and boedecca put that lie out there.

If I were directly quoting Sharpton I'd say I was quoting him and post the link. That's how I roll.

Cry "kill ******" is an expression (hence the cry part and the "kill ******" part in quotes) . . . as in "bring ****** to justice", which is what Al and his ilk want/imply when they open their mouths before knowing all the facts. <---- True story.

Are you saying that Sharpton and his ilk never open their mouths calling for "****** justice" prior to having all the facts? How 'bout Barry?

How does a CON$ervoFascist handle being called on making up a phony quote? They deny it and then make up another phony quote, of course!

We wouldn't have any way of knowing. What we do know is that completely dishonest asshole scumbags like you make false allegations and then object when you get called on having made a false allegation. Poor pitiful you.

Go back to eating shit, ya hapless fuckwit.

 

[Liability]

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know "Minister" Farrahkan DID say:

-- Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Farrakhan Hints At Violence In Retaliation For Trayvon Martin Killing…

So we can make up any quote we want and rationalize it as a real quote because it is "close enough." Thus "peace" becomes "kill ******" "justice" becomes "kill ******" "deeply saddened" becomes "kill ******."

What do you want to bet that you will have a shit fit if I quote YOU as saying "kill *******" because "It's close enough" to what you DID say!!!!!

Do I know these CON$ervoFascist sissies or what?! The little crybaby had such a shit fit only a spiteful neg rep could ease the soul.

And now you, being the hapless dickless twat you are, resort to neg whining.



Need tissue, bitch?

 

[Pheonixops]

Fast-forward a week:

The special prosecuter assigned to the case, along with FBI investigators, conclude that the evidense supports George Zimmerman's story and that there is insufficient evidence that the incident didn't happen the way Zimmerman said it did. In light of this fact, the authorities cannot bring this case to trial.

Will Al Sharpton and his lynch mob accept that?

Thoughts?

No, why should they? If some asshole was following YOU down the street when you are walking home and you tried to employ some evasive tactics and they came up on YOUR ASS, what would you do?

 

[Pheonixops]

I think the police may have already botched the case to the point they have no other alternative but to decline charges

Even Santorum states the police messed up in this case.

Yeah, that surprised me.............................

 

[Liability]

Fast-forward a week:

The special prosecuter assigned to the case, along with FBI investigators, conclude that the evidense supports George Zimmerman's story and that there is insufficient evidence that the incident didn't happen the way Zimmerman said it did. In light of this fact, the authorities cannot bring this case to trial.

Will Al Sharpton and his lynch mob accept that?

Thoughts?

No, why should they? If some asshole was following YOU down the street when you are walking home and you tried to employ some evasive tactics and they came up on YOUR ASS, what would you do?

Well, first off, you don't know how it went down.

Secondly, even if your suspicions are true, all that means is that YOU think the wise course was to engage in combat with the armed neighborhood-watch guy.

It might make a little bit more sense to continue to walk away or evade the guy rather than to become an aggressor. At the very least, we now know how that worked out. Not well. Very sad. Tragic.

So, that COULD be a clue that YOUR way isn't the right way.

 

[Pheonixops]

Fast-forward a week:

The special prosecuter assigned to the case, along with FBI investigators, conclude that the evidense supports George Zimmerman's story and that there is insufficient evidence that the incident didn't happen the way Zimmerman said it did. In light of this fact, the authorities cannot bring this case to trial.

Will Al Sharpton and his lynch mob accept that?

Thoughts?

No, why should they? If some asshole was following YOU down the street when you are walking home and you tried to employ some evasive tactics and they came up on YOUR ASS, what would you do?

Well, first off, you don't know how it went down.

Secondly, even if your suspicions are true, all that means is that YOU think the wise course was to engage in combat with the armed neighborhood-watch guy.

It might make a little bit more sense to continue to walk away or evade the guy rather than to become an aggressor. At he very least, we now know how that worked out. Not well. Very sad. Tragic.

So, that COULD be a clue that YOUR way isn't the right way.

Was the kid walking and did the asshole follow him?

Did the kid notice that some asshole in a truck was following and state such to his friend on the phone?

Did the kid try to evade the asshole who was following him?

Did the asshole call the police and state that he was following the kid?

Did the dispatcher tell the asshole that he doesn't need to engage the kid?

Did the asshole NOT HEED THAT ADVICE?

Did the ASSHOLE get out of his truck and confront the kid who was simply walking down the street?

Maybe the kid felt he was cornered and did the best thing he thought he could do to defend himself. I don't care if Zimmerman was Black, Asian, White, Mixed race, etc., he could have kept observing the kid from afar, instead he chose to confront him. Because that asshole chose to do that, there is an unarmed kid who is DEAD.

ETA: I don't even think that a police officer would have the PC to stop this kid even for a "Terry Stop", so what gives this civilian a "right" to do so?

 

[Liability]

No, why should they? If some asshole was following YOU down the street when you are walking home and you tried to employ some evasive tactics and they came up on YOUR ASS, what would you do?

Well, first off, you don't know how it went down.

Secondly, even if your suspicions are true, all that means is that YOU think the wise course was to engage in combat with the armed neighborhood-watch guy.

It might make a little bit more sense to continue to walk away or evade the guy rather than to become an aggressor. At he very least, we now know how that worked out. Not well. Very sad. Tragic.

So, that COULD be a clue that YOUR way isn't the right way.

Was the kid walking and did the asshole follow him?

You don't know. You may THINK you know, but you don't. And that's kinda the point. The kid MAY very well have been just walking. And the person you cavalierly label "the asshole" MAY have followed him. And that might not have been improper.

Did the kid notice that some asshole in a truck was following and state such to his friend on the phone?

The kid MAY very well have noticed the neighborhood watch guy following. YOU still don't know, but let's go ahead and assume it's so.

Did the kid try to evade the asshole who was following him?

YOU don't know. He may have tried to evade the neighborhood watch guy who may have been "following" him. If so, that might have been a good idea.

Did the asshole call the police and state that he was following the kid?

Did the negihborhood watch guy continue to monitor the kid? Apparently. Yes. And as I understand it, he did tell the 9-1-1 operator that he was following. Yes.

Did the dispatcher tell the asshole that he doesn't need to engage the kid?

No. What the dispatcher told the neighborhood watch guy was that he didn't need to follow the kid any further. The "engage" shit is all yours.

Did the asshole NOT HEED THAT ADVICE?

Did the neighborhood watch guy continue to follow and observe the kid despite having been told that he didn't need to do so? Evidently, yes.

Did the ASSHOLE get out of his truck and confront the kid who was simply walking down the street?

Did the neighborhood watch guy get out of his truck and "confront" the kid? Possibly. YOU don't know that, however. And WAS the kid merely walking down the street at that point? YOU don't know.

Maybe the kid felt he was cornered

Maybe. And maybe he was wrong. YOU don't know since YOU weren't there.

and did the best thing he thought he could do to defend himself.

Maybe. YOU don't know. But if he DID, maybe it wasn't such a hot idea.

I don't care if Zimmerman was Black, Asian, White, Mixed race, etc., he could have kept observing the kid from afar, instead he chose to confront him.

YOU don't know that. It is possible that the kid chose to actively confront the neighborhood watch guy.

Because that asshole chose to do that, there is an unarmed kid who is DEAD.

YOU don't know that. YOU weren't there. YOU are engaging in rank speculation.

ETA: I don't even think that a police officer would have the PC to stop this kid even for a "Terry Stop", so what gives this civilian a "right" to do so?

YOU don't know that. But YOU also don't know that the neighborhood watch guy "stopped" the kid or even tried to. Monitoring may have been all he was doing, and possibly (YOU sure don't know, and neither do I, but unlike you, I don't claim to know) -- possibly the kid chose that moment to run up on the neighborhood watch guy.

Bottom line: YOU don't know even half of what you are assuming. And it remains quite possible that the neighborhood watch guy didn't actually do anything wrong.

On the other hand, it is possible that the neighborhood watch guy DID do something wrong. Just like YOU can't actually tell us, neither can I. But -- and here's a kicker YOU cannot get around -- the eyewitness who evidently spoke to the cops provided information consistent with much of what Zimmerman had described. And that might very well mean that the cops also did nothing wrong by electing not to make an arrest.