Relatives rape 14 year old and kill unborn child.

[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.

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.

Of course you're an idiot. That's obvious by your inability to describe in what way Martin assualted Zimmerman which rose to the level of justifiable deadly force. Even you know you're too stupid to explain it which is why, rather than offer an explanation, you're relying on your strawman that there must have been an assault since Zimmerman's self defense prevailed. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your circular illogic does not prove Martin assualted Zimmerman and you're clearly not capable of demonstrating an assault took place.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Notice how the sycophants on the left are focusing on the term "Obamasons" instead of the heinous crime they committed? Can you say "deflection"?

Black lives really don't matter to them after all.

Apparently not even to their own families.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Obama boys"(Obamasons) are teenage black thugs. It was Obama's call, so you don't get to call racism on it.

On the contrary -- trying to scrape up some kind of connection between completely unrelated subjects on the basis of absolutely nothing but their race does indeed invite that call.

You may also recall this expressed as, "they all look alike to me".

Talk to Obama about it, not me. They were his words.

I didn't quote his words, if they even exist. I quoted yours.

If they even exist!!?? Oh you wacky liberals and your selective memory.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Of course you're an idiot. That's obvious by your inability to describe in what way Martin assualted Zimmerman which rose to the level of justifiable deadly force. Even you know you're too stupid to explain it which is why, rather than offer an explanation, you're relying on your strawman that there must have been an assault since Zimmerman's self defense prevailed. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your circular illogic does not prove Martin assualted Zimmerman and you're clearly not capable of demonstrating an assault took place.

I don't have to describe anything. The jury essentially ruled that Martin was in the process of an assault that would or could, have caused Zimmerman to suffer death or grievous bodily harm.
The jury heard the evidence and ruled based on that evidence. Case closed. I am under no obligation to prove anything to idiots who can't understand that.

 

[Faun]

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.

Of course you're an idiot. That's obvious by your inability to describe in what way Martin assualted Zimmerman which rose to the level of justifiable deadly force. Even you know you're too stupid to explain it which is why, rather than offer an explanation, you're relying on your strawman that there must have been an assault since Zimmerman's self defense prevailed. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your circular illogic does not prove Martin assualted Zimmerman and you're clearly not capable of demonstrating an assault took place.

I don't have to describe anything. The jury essentially ruled that Martin was in the process of an assault that would or could, have caused Zimmerman to suffer death or grievous bodily harm.
The jury heard the evidence and ruled based on that evidence. Case closed. I am under no obligation to prove anything to idiots who can't understand that.

The jury ruled no such thing about an assault. Your idiotic claim is so stupid and so indefensible that you're reduced to lying. All the jury said was, "We, the jury, find George Zimmerman, not guilty. So say we all, foreperson."

Nope, no mention there that they ruled in Zimmerman's favor due to the alleged assault you claim took place but clearly can't prove. It's cute though, watching you argue your mind-numbing circular logic that Zimmerman was found not guilty, therefore an assault had to take place, even though you obviously can't describe it.

 

[Ernie S.]

<<< shakes head in disbelief.

 

[Faun]

<<< shakes head in disbelief.

Those who can .... do; those who can't .... cower with their tail tucked betwixt their hind legs and try to bluff their way into convincing others they really do know what they're talking about.

You prove to be the latter as you fight with every ounce you can muster to not explain what assault took place rising to the level of justifiable lethal self defense. If you could, you would. Simple as that.

 

[Ernie S.]

I am under no such obligation. The jury found Zimmerman's self defense claim valid. In order to do that, they had to assume an assault took place, you dumb ****.

Good bye.

 

[Faun]

I am under no such obligation. The jury found Zimmerman's self defense claim valid. In order to do that, they had to assume an assault took place, you dumb ****.

Good bye.

Again ... what assault? You won't say.

Of course you're under no obligation to demonstrate you're not the flaming idiot you appear to be. But make no mistake, citing the verdict as evidence of something we both know you're incapable of explaining, since it's not true, only further certifies what an idiot you are.

Again ... those who can ... do; those who can't ... cower with their tail tucked firmly between their hind legs.

Keep cowering!

 

[Pogo]

"Obama boys"(Obamasons) are teenage black thugs. It was Obama's call, so you don't get to call racism on it.

On the contrary -- trying to scrape up some kind of connection between completely unrelated subjects on the basis of absolutely nothing but their race does indeed invite that call.

You may also recall this expressed as, "they all look alike to me".

Talk to Obama about it, not me. They were his words.

I didn't quote his words, if they even exist. I quoted yours.

If they even exist!!?? Oh you wacky liberals and your selective memory.

We have what we call "links" to sorta breathe life into our points. If you have any clue what the **** he's talking about, use one.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Obama boys"(Obamasons) are teenage black thugs. It was Obama's call, so you don't get to call racism on it.

On the contrary -- trying to scrape up some kind of connection between completely unrelated subjects on the basis of absolutely nothing but their race does indeed invite that call.

You may also recall this expressed as, "they all look alike to me".

Talk to Obama about it, not me. They were his words.

I didn't quote his words, if they even exist. I quoted yours.

If they even exist!!?? Oh you wacky liberals and your selective memory.

We have what we call "links" to sorta breathe life into our points. If you have any clue what the **** he's talking about, use one.

If you're so fucken stupid as to not remember obams comments I dont know why I waste my time with you.

 

[Correll]

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.

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

 

[Correll]

I am under no such obligation. The jury found Zimmerman's self defense claim valid. In order to do that, they had to assume an assault took place, you dumb ****.

Good bye.

Again ... what assault? You won't say.

Of course you're under no obligation to demonstrate you're not the flaming idiot you appear to be. But make no mistake, citing the verdict as evidence of something we both know you're incapable of explaining, since it's not true, only further certifies what an idiot you are.

Again ... those who can ... do; those who can't ... cower with their tail tucked firmly between their hind legs.

Keep cowering!

Dude, you just got your ass kicked.

 

[Faun]

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.

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

 

[Faun]

I am under no such obligation. The jury found Zimmerman's self defense claim valid. In order to do that, they had to assume an assault took place, you dumb ****.

Good bye.

Again ... what assault? You won't say.

Of course you're under no obligation to demonstrate you're not the flaming idiot you appear to be. But make no mistake, citing the verdict as evidence of something we both know you're incapable of explaining, since it's not true, only further certifies what an idiot you are.

Again ... those who can ... do; those who can't ... cower with their tail tucked firmly between their hind legs.

Keep cowering!

Dude, you just got your ass kicked.

Sure I did by someone who couldn't describe an assault he insists took place which he idiotically claims led to Zimmerman's acquittal.

That's rightard logic ... someone who couldn't prove their bullshit, kicked my ass by repeatedly refusing to prove it.

 

[Correll]

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.

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

 

[Faun]

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.

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

 

[Correll]

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.

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

 

[Faun]

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.

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

 

[Correll]

I do not claim to be an authority. I did not ask you to accept my determination as fact based on my authority.

I explained my reasoning and pointed out that it was supported by evidence and an eyewitness account.

You claimed that there was a possibility that a man witnessed sitting on top of another and beating him while he screamed for help might have been defending himself.

I agreed.

It was unlikely but possible.

I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support that, nor any eyewitness accounts to support it.

My judgement is supported by quite a bit.

Yours is supported by your wishful thinking.

Martin was a criminal. Obama identified with him based on Race. And you libs loved it.

So when you complain about Marianne identifying Obama with some other criminals, based on Race, that is just you being a hypocrite.

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.