Relatives rape 14 year old and kill unborn child.

[Faun]

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.

The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.

 

[Faun]

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

 

[Meathead]

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.

The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.

**** it Faun, you've lost this on all ******* fours.

Ciao

 

[Faun]

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.

The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.

**** it Faun, you've lost this on all ******* fours.

Ciao

No doubt you believe that based on your established ignorance of our justice system.

Should I care?

 

[Correll]

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

Zimmerman's shoving of a cop years earlier does not compare to sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Martin's actions define him as a thug and a criminal.

If the OP was race baiting, than so was Obama.

 

[Correll]

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.

The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.

**** it Faun, you've lost this on all ******* fours.

Ciao

No doubt you believe that based on your established ignorance of our justice system.

Should I care?

You should care.

You look like a self deluded fool.

No offense meant, but that's the truth.

 

[Faun]

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

Zimmerman's shoving of a cop years earlier does not compare to sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Martin's actions define him as a thug and a criminal.

If the OP was race baiting, than so was Obama.

Zimmerman's prior actions establish him as a criminal. Your inability to determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not establishes your opinion worth less than the price of admission to this website.

 

[Faun]

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.

The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.

**** it Faun, you've lost this on all ******* fours.

Ciao

No doubt you believe that based on your established ignorance of our justice system.

Should I care?

You should care.

You look like a self deluded fool.

No offense meant, but that's the truth.

In all fairness, a "truth" to someone hallucinating that Martin was a criminal and whose opinion bears little, if any, credibility.

Which then begs the question, why should I care?

 

[Correll]

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

Zimmerman's shoving of a cop years earlier does not compare to sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Martin's actions define him as a thug and a criminal.

If the OP was race baiting, than so was Obama.

Zimmerman's prior actions establish him as a criminal. Your inability to determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not establishes your opinion worth less than the price of admission to this website.

No, they really don't. None of them hold a candle to sitting on a man's chest and beating him while he screamed for help.

This is the central truth that you are so desperate to lie about.

I have determined that Martin was NOT acting in self defense.

Granting you that your self defense scenario was barely possible, and then pointing out that there was no evidence or eyewitnesses accounts to support it, does not equate with not being able to "determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not " and it is dishonest of you to pretend that it does.

Does not the fact that you have to lie so much to even pretend to score the tiniest point, not raise any red flags in your mind that maybe you need to reconsider your assumptions?

 

[Correll]

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.

The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.

**** it Faun, you've lost this on all ******* fours.

Ciao

No doubt you believe that based on your established ignorance of our justice system.

Should I care?

You should care.

You look like a self deluded fool.

No offense meant, but that's the truth.

In all fairness, a "truth" to someone hallucinating that Martin was a criminal and whose opinion bears little, if any, credibility.

Which then begs the question, why should I care?

My opinion is based on the obvious fact that sitting on a man's chest and beating him while he screams for help is almost certainly a criminal act.

That has far more credibility than your unlikely and completely unsupported scenario.

And I already explained why you should care.

Have you even sat on a man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

 

[Faun]

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

Zimmerman's shoving of a cop years earlier does not compare to sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Martin's actions define him as a thug and a criminal.

If the OP was race baiting, than so was Obama.

Zimmerman's prior actions establish him as a criminal. Your inability to determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not establishes your opinion worth less than the price of admission to this website.

No, they really don't. None of them hold a candle to sitting on a man's chest and beating him while he screamed for help.

This is the central truth that you are so desperate to lie about.

I have determined that Martin was NOT acting in self defense.

Granting you that your self defense scenario was barely possible, and then pointing out that there was no evidence or eyewitnesses accounts to support it, does not equate with not being able to "determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not " and it is dishonest of you to pretend that it does.

Does not the fact that you have to lie so much to even pretend to score the tiniest point, not raise any red flags in your mind that maybe you need to reconsider your assumptions?

I highlighted the salient portion of your post. Suffice it to say, your determination couldn't matter less in this debate. Your notion that the president took the side of a criminal based upon your determination is beyond silly. Shirley even you can recognize that, right?

 

[Correll]

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

Zimmerman's shoving of a cop years earlier does not compare to sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Martin's actions define him as a thug and a criminal.

If the OP was race baiting, than so was Obama.

Zimmerman's prior actions establish him as a criminal. Your inability to determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not establishes your opinion worth less than the price of admission to this website.

No, they really don't. None of them hold a candle to sitting on a man's chest and beating him while he screamed for help.

This is the central truth that you are so desperate to lie about.

I have determined that Martin was NOT acting in self defense.

Granting you that your self defense scenario was barely possible, and then pointing out that there was no evidence or eyewitnesses accounts to support it, does not equate with not being able to "determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not " and it is dishonest of you to pretend that it does.

Does not the fact that you have to lie so much to even pretend to score the tiniest point, not raise any red flags in your mind that maybe you need to reconsider your assumptions?

I highlighted the salient portion of your post. Suffice it to say, your determination couldn't matter less in this debate. Your notion that the president took the side of a criminal based upon your determination is beyond silly. Shirley even you can recognize that, right?

Bullshit.

My "determination" was based on the facts and the eyewitness account.

Your's seem to be based on nothing more than your preconceived notions, biases, and wishful thinking.

You are holding forth as a standard a bar that could almost never be reached.



Obama identified with a criminal based on Race.

You libs loved it.

Marianne Identified Obama with a criminal based on Race.

You libs hated it.

You are hypocrites.

 

[Ernie S.]

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

But Martin was a criminal.
Self defense laws allow someone being assaulted, the right of self defense. George Zimmerman was found not guilty be virtue of self defense. Had there been no assault, there could have been no self defense. Treyvon Martin ipso facto, was guilty of assault.

 

[Faun]

Suffice it to say, I never said Zimmerman was committing a crime. I said he was a criminal, Martin was not. To be clear, in case you're unaware, I am speaking of Zimmerman's crime prior to his encounter with Martin.

And the only race baiting going on here stems from anyone making the case of the poor 14 year old victim in the OP being about race.

Zimmerman's shoving of a cop years earlier does not compare to sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Martin's actions define him as a thug and a criminal.

If the OP was race baiting, than so was Obama.

Zimmerman's prior actions establish him as a criminal. Your inability to determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not establishes your opinion worth less than the price of admission to this website.

No, they really don't. None of them hold a candle to sitting on a man's chest and beating him while he screamed for help.

This is the central truth that you are so desperate to lie about.

I have determined that Martin was NOT acting in self defense.

Granting you that your self defense scenario was barely possible, and then pointing out that there was no evidence or eyewitnesses accounts to support it, does not equate with not being able to "determine if Martin was acting in self defense or not " and it is dishonest of you to pretend that it does.

Does not the fact that you have to lie so much to even pretend to score the tiniest point, not raise any red flags in your mind that maybe you need to reconsider your assumptions?

I highlighted the salient portion of your post. Suffice it to say, your determination couldn't matter less in this debate. Your notion that the president took the side of a criminal based upon your determination is beyond silly. Shirley even you can recognize that, right?

Bullshit.

My "determination" was based on the facts and the eyewitness account.

Your's seem to be based on nothing more than your preconceived notions, biases, and wishful thinking.

You are holding forth as a standard a bar that could almost never be reached.



Obama identified with a criminal based on Race.

You libs loved it.

Marianne Identified Obama with a criminal based on Race.

You libs hated it.

You are hypocrites.

You are not an authority. your determination is meaningless. You can't prove Martin was committing a crime, therefore, your claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains the strawman it was from the first time you uttered it.

 

[Faun]

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

But Martin was a criminal.
Self defense laws allow someone being assaulted, the right of self defense. George Zimmerman was found not guilty be virtue of self defense. Had there been no assault, there could have been no self defense. Treyvon Martin ipso facto, was guilty of assault.

Ipso facto, you're an idiot. Florida law permits the use of deadly force even if for no other reason than to protect ones self from imminent death or great bodily harm. Even if the other person is not committing a felony. It can't be proven who initiated the physical altercation nor did it matter in Zimmerman's self defense case. All Zimmerman had to demonstrate to the jury was a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

 

[Ernie S.]

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

But Martin was a criminal.
Self defense laws allow someone being assaulted, the right of self defense. George Zimmerman was found not guilty be virtue of self defense. Had there been no assault, there could have been no self defense. Treyvon Martin ipso facto, was guilty of assault.

Ipso facto, you're an idiot. Florida law permits the use of deadly force even if for no other reason than to protect ones self from imminent death or great bodily harm. Even if the other person is not committing a felony. It can't be proven who initiated the physical altercation nor did it matter in Zimmerman's self defense case. All Zimmerman had to demonstrate to the jury was a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

And the Florida jury ruled not guilty by self defense.
Essentially they ruled that Zimmerman was in fear of death or bodily harm. In other words, he was being assaulted. Glad you agree.

 

[Faun]

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

But Martin was a criminal.
Self defense laws allow someone being assaulted, the right of self defense. George Zimmerman was found not guilty be virtue of self defense. Had there been no assault, there could have been no self defense. Treyvon Martin ipso facto, was guilty of assault.

Ipso facto, you're an idiot. Florida law permits the use of deadly force even if for no other reason than to protect ones self from imminent death or great bodily harm. Even if the other person is not committing a felony. It can't be proven who initiated the physical altercation nor did it matter in Zimmerman's self defense case. All Zimmerman had to demonstrate to the jury was a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

And the Florida jury ruled not guilty by self defense.
Essentially they ruled that Zimmerman was in fear of death or bodily harm. In other words, he was being assaulted. Glad you agree.

You've already proven you're an idiot, why do you persist in reaffiming it? In what way do you contend Zimmerman's life or limb was being threatened by an assault, rising to justified use of deadly force?

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

But Martin was a criminal.
Self defense laws allow someone being assaulted, the right of self defense. George Zimmerman was found not guilty be virtue of self defense. Had there been no assault, there could have been no self defense. Treyvon Martin ipso facto, was guilty of assault.

Ipso facto, you're an idiot. Florida law permits the use of deadly force even if for no other reason than to protect ones self from imminent death or great bodily harm. Even if the other person is not committing a felony. It can't be proven who initiated the physical altercation nor did it matter in Zimmerman's self defense case. All Zimmerman had to demonstrate to the jury was a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

And the Florida jury ruled not guilty by self defense.
Essentially they ruled that Zimmerman was in fear of death or bodily harm. In other words, he was being assaulted. Glad you agree.

You've already proven you're an idiot, why do you persist in reaffiming it? In what way do you contend Zimmerman's life or limb was being threatened by an assault, rising to justified use of deadly force?

Imagine that! YOU calling ME an idiot.
The jury ruled self defense. In order for self defense to be justified, an assault had to be taking place.
Any further discussion would be idiotic. Thanks for confirmation.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They're black. Apparently, all black people are now related to Obama somehow.

Obama seems to think so.
Unless of course the negroes in question get caught doing something as heinous as what these sick ***** did.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He could start by not blaming the cops for black criminality.

Where did he do that? Citation needed.

Have you been living under a rock?