#Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

[2938 Dead]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-
approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/

Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
By Andrew Jones
Sunday, April 8, 2012 15:02 EDT



Legendary comedian Bill Cosby strongly feels that George Zimmerman would
not have fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin if laws didn’t allow
neighborhood watchmen to carry guns.

In an interview published Saturday in The Washington Times, the 74-year-
old Cosby expressed his dismay at the controversial incident that has
become a major national story.

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to
be on neighborhood watch,” he told the newspaper. “Without a gun, I don’t
see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself. The power-of-the-gun
mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for
backup in similar situations.”

Cosby added: “When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill
somebody.”

--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[.MattB.]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

>
>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-
>approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>
>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>By Andrew Jones
>Sunday, April 8, 2012 15:02 EDT
>
>
>
>Legendary comedian Bill Cosby strongly feels that George Zimmerman would
>not have fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin if laws didn’t allow
>neighborhood watchmen to carry guns.
>
>In an interview published Saturday in The Washington Times, the 74-year-
>old Cosby expressed his dismay at the controversial incident that has
>become a major national story.
>
>“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to
>be on neighborhood watch,” he told the newspaper. “Without a gun, I don’t
>see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself. The power-of-the-gun
>mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for
>backup in similar situations.”
>
>Cosby added: “When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill
>somebody.”

Well Z was wrong is what he did and Ding bat Bill is wrong too.
I know many who have carried guns for decades and killed no one, Z
was a idiot.

That law needs to be reworked to make it plain it does not apply in
this type of situation.

[David Hartung]

On 04/08/2012 05:37 PM, 2938 Dead wrote:
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-
> approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>
> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
> By Andrew Jones
> Sunday, April 8, 2012 15:02 EDT
>
>
>
> Legendary comedian Bill Cosby strongly feels that George Zimmerman would
> not have fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin if laws didn’t allow
> neighborhood watchmen to carry guns.
>
> In an interview published Saturday in The Washington Times, the 74-year-
> old Cosby expressed his dismay at the controversial incident that has
> become a major national story.
>
> “We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to
> be on neighborhood watch,” he told the newspaper. “Without a gun, I don’t
> see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself. The power-of-the-gun
> mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for
> backup in similar situations.”
>
> Cosby added: “When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill
> somebody.”

This is exactly why entertainers have no more credibility than anyone
else on these matters.

I love Cosby as an entertainer. As an activist he is can be downright
stupid, as indicated above.

[Matt]

And why do you think Bill Cosby is "stupid", David? Do you think
people
carry guns not intending to harm somebody under some circumstance?

Matt

[2938 Dead]

Cosby was wrong on one point: Neighborhood Watch forbids their volunteer
members from carrying guns. For precisely the reasons Cosby enumerated.

[David Hartung]

Cosby is not a stupid man, in fact he holds a PHd. In the matter he is
discussing, he is being stupid, Taking guns away from law abiding people
does not take the away form criminals. That is a simple fact, which Dr.
Cosby seems to not understand.

[Limit Nigga Gangsta @whitehouse.gov Obama Looks like No Limit Nigga Trayvon Martin: Paternity test !]

"2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jlt400$apn$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-
> approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>
> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
> By Andrew Jones
> Sunday, April 8, 2012 15:02 EDT
>
>
>
> Legendary comedian Bill Cosby strongly feels that George Zimmerman would
> not have fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin if laws didn’t allow
>

So Cosby admits that Trayvon was a dangerous gangsta THUG that would only be
approached if they were carrying a gun for self defense.

[2938 Dead]

In what way do you think he is wrong?

[First. Post]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:08:56 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
wrote:

Here in my state they emphasize in the required course you have to pass to get a
permit that you are never to be the primary agressor in any situation.
The weapon is intended for self defense purposes alone and NOT to give the
carrier any more authority than any unarmed citizen. Here, if you carry a
handgun and pick a fight with someone for any reason then you are automatically
at fault. It falls under the technical definition of "pistol whipping" someone.
And it is made extremely clear that a carry permit does not make you any kind of
law enforcement officer in any fashion.
Here Zimmerman would very likely face manslaughter charges as he would have been
viewed as the agressor since he approached Martin first.
We have had numerous cases in the years since the carry laws came into being
here where permit holders shot and killed an agressor. None raised much
political or public interest as in each case the agressor was armed and
attempting to rob or do other harm to the carrier.
The instructor that taught the course I was in was an off duty Sheriff and he
advised us that we were to never instigate any situation involving our gun.
He rightfully informed us that it would bring down a shitstorm of trouble on
whoever started something and ended it with their gun. The gun is for ending a
dangerous situation, never starting one.

[First. Post]

I've never intended anyone any harm when carrying my pistol. I't drawn it twice
in my own defense since getting the permit. Neither time was anyone harmed nor
was the weapon discharged. Simply brandishing it was enough to get the agressor
to change their intended actions. And there have been several occassions that I
have no doubt that by simply having the weapon on my hip in it's holster avoided
a bad situation.
My intent in carrying in the city I reside in is not to harm anyone else. The
intent is to prevent harm from coming to myself.
Regardless of your biased opinion, the vast majority (as in over 95%) of folks
who get gun permits aren't doing so in order to feel powerful or to be any kind
of bad ass. Like myself most have seen a neighbor being taken out of their home
on a stretcher after being invaded and robbed or see on the news on any given
night how a regular citizen was attacked and beaten outside of a convenience
store for just a few dollars or less. Or what has happened here a few times
over the years when a mother is dragged kicking and screaming from her car and
getting it jacked with her child or children still in the back seat.
Carrying a pistol in a city like Memphis is like wearing knee high snake boots
while walking through the rocky areas of texas during rattlesnake mating season.
To not have such protection increases the likelyhood of getting "bitten".

[.MattB.]

This is a good thing to teach and should be required course in all
States IMO

>The weapon is intended for self defense purposes alone and NOT to give the
>carrier any more authority than any unarmed citizen. Here, if you carry a
>handgun and pick a fight with someone for any reason then you are automatically
>at fault. It falls under the technical definition of "pistol whipping" someone.
>And it is made extremely clear that a carry permit does not make you any kind of
>law enforcement officer in any fashion.

This is also very good to me.

>Here Zimmerman would very likely face manslaughter charges as he would have been
>viewed as the agressor since he approached Martin first.

Yes and I believe the Florida law should be changed to reflect
that.

>We have had numerous cases in the years since the carry laws came into being
>here where permit holders shot and killed an agressor. None raised much
>political or public interest as in each case the agressor was armed and
>attempting to rob or do other harm to the carrier.

Well Armed or not you enter a persons home and try to rob them, you
get what you get. Then guess that depends on the circumstances say a
150Lb women against a 210lb man.

>The instructor that taught the course I was in was an off duty Sheriff and he
>advised us that we were to never instigate any situation involving our gun.
>He rightfully informed us that it would bring down a shitstorm of trouble on
>whoever started something and ended it with their gun. The gun is for ending a
>dangerous situation, never starting one.

Very good instructor. This might help if more States had such.
Being able to buy a gun and get a permit without any training to me is
just dumb. I've seen people who are as much a danger to themselves as
to others.

I also think that if you have guns you should teach your kids what
they are. My kids shot a pistol at about age 6. Not for any reason
other than they heard the noise, and felt the kick, and were taught
they were never a toy. Then again Gun safes should be a requirement
for people that have kids. They even make Biometric safes for cars
now.

[.MattB.]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:03:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:08:56 -0700, .MattB.
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>

>>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>

>Told ya he was a racist chickenshit.


Bill Crosby said that. So you think Bill Crosby is a "racist
chickenshit."

He was a good actor. He is wrong in this instance IMO.

Why do you consider him a "racist chickenshit."????

[First. Post]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:09:32 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>

I was taught how to shoot a pistol at the age of 6. It was a little S&W .22.
My grandfather was the one that taught me. The first thing he showed me was a
(back in 1963) a glass Coke bottle filled with water and red food coloring. He
shot it with the pistol and then explained how that would be what would happen
if I ever pointed it and shot and anything living, like another person.
In 48 years I've never had so much as a close call with a gun thanks to his
lessons.

[2938 Dead]

Duh. You think?

>
>
>
>>--
>>Subscribe:
>>zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
>>zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
>>Unsubscribe:
>>zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
>>zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

[2938 Dead]

Do you think Zimmerman is your ideal example of "a law abiding" person?

[2938 Dead]

The last I saw, Zimmerman's lawyers were trying to claim he suffered from
"shaken baby syndrome" which is why he shot Martin.

I doubt Zimmerman would have had the courage to approach and confront
Martin without a hefty dose of gunpowder courage.

Zimmerman is a racist chickenshit. But that's redundant; all racists are
chickenshits.

Especially the ones reduced to rubber-glue games.

[2938 Dead]

All very good, but Cosby wasn't talking about most folks--he was talking
about Zimmerman specifically.

[MattB.]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 02:06:11 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:12:54 -0700, .MattB. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:03:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:08:56 -0700, .MattB.
>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn?t have approached Trayvon without a gun

>>>
>>>Told ya he was a racist chickenshit.
>>
>>
>> Bill Crosby said that. So you think Bill Crosby is a "racist
>> chickenshit."
>>
>> He was a good actor. He is wrong in this instance IMO.
>>
>> Why do you consider him a "racist chickenshit."????
>
>The last I saw, Zimmerman's lawyers were trying to claim he suffered from
>"shaken baby syndrome" which is why he shot Martin.
>
>I doubt Zimmerman would have had the courage to approach and confront
>Martin without a hefty dose of gunpowder courage.
>
>Zimmerman is a racist chickenshit. But that's redundant; all racists are
>chickenshits.

I can agree with that and you and Yoorghis are.

>
>Especially the ones reduced to rubber-glue games.

So true on both the left and the right.

[linuxgal]

First. Post wrote:

> I was taught how to shoot a pistol at the age of 6. It was a little S&W .22.
> My grandfather was the one that taught me. The first thing he showed me was a
> (back in 1963) a glass Coke bottle filled with water and red food coloring. He
> shot it with the pistol and then explained how that would be what would happen
> if I ever pointed it and shot and anything living, like another person.
> In 48 years I've never had so much as a close call with a gun thanks to his
> lessons.

Liberals, put your gun control theories to the test: walk down
Pennsylvania Avenue at 3 AM. There IS safety in numbers. For example
.357, .44, .45...gun control is being able to put 2 bullets through the
same hole. Body Piercing by Colt. We don't need child-proof gun trigger
locks. We need a liberal proof Congress.

[David Hartung]

I have never said such.

In any case, the issue is not whether or not Zimmerman should have been
armed, but whether or not he broke the law. More immediately the issue
is whether or not the Sanford police did a professional instigation. As
we learn more about the issue, it is apparent that they did.

The ultimate question is whether or not you are rational enough to
accept that basic fact.

[David Hartung]

You really need to begin to learn how to think rationally and
dispassionately.

[2938 Dead]

Your state has a sensible approach to the whole matter.

[MattB.]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:26:56 -0500, First. Post

In my private life I am much the same.

Never thought about the red food coloring. Will suggest that to
parents.

[2938 Dead]

Poor David. I suppose that's the best you can manage by way of a
response.

Cosby was talking about Zimmerman specifically. Yes or no?

[David Hartung]

And passing judgment with no facts, just like you. As I said, he was
being stupid.

[2938 Dead]

I didn't ask if you had said it. I wanted to know if you thought it.

>
> In any case, the issue is not whether or not Zimmerman should have been
> armed, but whether or not he broke the law. More immediately the issue
> is whether or not the Sanford police did a professional instigation. As
> we learn more about the issue, it is apparent that they did.
>

No, the issue is whether Cosby was correct in saying that unarmed,
Zimmerman would never have approached Martin.

> The ultimate question is whether or not you are rational enough to
> accept that basic fact.

Unlike you, I can actually read with comprehension.

[2938 Dead]

Vote Republican. You'll never have to worry about any dissenting
opinions, ever again.

[2938 Dead]

He expressed an opinion, as is his right to do so.

But I see you are too cowardly and disingenuous to provide a legitimate
response, and frankly, you have nothing else of interest to offer, so I'm
done with you.

[*us*]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:12:54 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:03:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:08:56 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/

>>
>>Told ya he was a racist chickenshit.
>
> Bill Crosby said that.

Cosby's right.

It's also true that Zimmerman is a racist chickenshit
who snapped and murdered an innocent kid.

>So you think Bill Crosby is a "racist
>chickenshit."

Non sequitur. You didn't read for comprehension.

[Matt]

On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net>
wrote:

That may be. But if someone comes at you, do you or do you not intend
to use the
weapon?

> My intent in carrying in the city I reside in is not to harm anyone else.  The
> intent is to prevent harm from coming to myself.
> Regardless of your biased opinion, the vast majority (as in over 95%) of folks
> who get gun permits aren't doing so in order to feel powerful or to be any kind
> of bad ass.  Like myself most have seen a neighbor being taken out of their home
> on a stretcher after being invaded and robbed or see on the news on any given
> night how a regular citizen was attacked and beaten outside of a convenience
> store for just a few dollars or less.  Or what has happened here a few times
> over the years when a mother is dragged kicking and screaming from her car and
> getting it jacked with her child or children still in the back seat.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, 5% (and more likely closer to 10) is
a very large number.
How many people who experiment with drugs steal to support their
habit? Yet drugs are
illegal.

> Carrying a pistol in a city like Memphis is like wearing knee high snake boots
> while walking through the rocky areas of texas during rattlesnake mating season.
> To not have such protection increases the likelyhood of getting "bitten".

I've spent my share of time in Memphis, Newark, Los Angeles and other
"high crime"
areas. I don't carry guns. Somehow, I've managed to survive.

Matt

[Matt]

On Apr 8, 6:34 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:

> Cosby is not a stupid man, in fact he holds a PHd. In the matter he is
> discussing, he is being stupid, Taking guns away from law abiding people
> does not take the away form criminals. That is a simple fact, which Dr.
> Cosby seems to not understand.

He didn't say guns should be taken away, that is what you said.

Matt

[MattB]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:56:13 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:12:33 -0700, MattB.
><trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>
>>>Zimmerman is a racist chickenshit. But that's redundant; all racists are
>>>chickenshits.
>>
>> I can agree with that and you and Yoorghis are.
>

>You stupid fuckwit, McNothing
>
>It's not racist to call a racist what he is

To me it is racist to want to treat people of different races
differently solely based on race.

So to me AA is racist. A White calling a black a "nigger" is no
worse than a Black calling a white a "cracker".




>
>You not only can't read---you can't think for yourself.

Now I don't believe a brain dead racist like you would say this.
Wonder if you support the Black Klan.

[MattB]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:55:17 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:12:54 -0700, .MattB.

><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:03:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:08:56 -0700, .MattB.
>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>
>>>Told ya he was a racist chickenshit.
>>
>>
>> Bill Crosby said that. So you think Bill Crosby is a "racist
>>chickenshit."
>

>It's almost pathetic to have to explain things to you, loonboy
>
>Cosby said.....
>
>The subject was Zimmerloon---
>
>Agreein with cosby, I said:
>
>I told you he was a chickeshit.
>
>
>He did not approach Martin without a gun.

Well we are in agreement on this one thing Z should never have
approached Martin.

As to what he would or wouldn't have done. That is speculation.

[MattB]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:57:10 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>Pretty hard to have a close call with your head up the nearest winger
>asshole, dirtbag.

I'm sure you support anything that means Gangbangers own the
streets.

[First. Post]

Stupid question. If attacked I will use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to defend myself.
Is there a moral difference between putting a bullet in someone and ramming a
screwdriver or ball point pin through their eye socket as hard as you can into
their brain? Or sticking my 4 inch Cold Steel Ti-Lite through their rib cage and
slicing their heart open? The main reason I started carrying a pistol in recent
years is the simple fact that I have enough sense to realize that I probably
wouldn't fare as well taking on a 25 year old thug at my current age as I could
20 years ago. Grey hair and a slower walk make one a target in the 2nd mosy
dangerous city to live in in the USA.
Plus, only a fool carries a weapon that they are not prepared to use if
required.
20 years ago you could walk down most streets in Memphis without any worries.
Kids could leave their bycicles on the front lawn overnight and they would still
be their in the morning. A single murder would be major news for weeks because
they were so rare. People could sleep with their windows open and could leave
their car unlocked overnight.
That is not the city it is today. It has turned into the Detroit of the south.

>
>> My intent in carrying in the city I reside in is not to harm anyone else.  The
>> intent is to prevent harm from coming to myself.
>> Regardless of your biased opinion, the vast majority (as in over 95%) of folks
>> who get gun permits aren't doing so in order to feel powerful or to be any kind
>> of bad ass.  Like myself most have seen a neighbor being taken out of their home
>> on a stretcher after being invaded and robbed or see on the news on any given
>> night how a regular citizen was attacked and beaten outside of a convenience
>> store for just a few dollars or less.  Or what has happened here a few times
>> over the years when a mother is dragged kicking and screaming from her car and
>> getting it jacked with her child or children still in the back seat.
>
>I agree with you. Unfortunately, 5% (and more likely closer to 10) is
>a very large number.
>How many people who experiment with drugs steal to support their
>habit? Yet drugs are
>illegal.
>
>> Carrying a pistol in a city like Memphis is like wearing knee high snake boots
>> while walking through the rocky areas of texas during rattlesnake mating season.
>> To not have such protection increases the likelyhood of getting "bitten".
>
>I've spent my share of time in Memphis, Newark, Los Angeles and other
>"high crime"
>areas. I don't carry guns. Somehow, I've managed to survive.
>
>Matt

It is likely that you don't have a job that requires you to be in parts of town
in the overnight hours that most folks avoid in broad daylight.

And obviously, unlike myself, you have been fortunate enough to not experience
someone kicking your back door in at 2:00 am with you and your wife and kids at
home.
Nor have you ever experienced someone approaching you on the street, pulling a
butterfly knife and telling you "I need some money and I need it NOW!".

Had I not been armed on either occassion then it would be very doubtful that I
would be breathing today. And as stated, sticking a .40 cal S&W in an
agressor's face "eliminates the threat" often times without anyone pulling a
trigger.

Sorry but you are just pissing up a rope trying to convince someone who has
actually had to defend themself with a firearm on more than one occassion
that they shouldn't be carrying one.

[Matt]

On Apr 9, 6:28 pm, First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net>
wrote:

Okay, so you agree with Bill Cosby.

> Is there a moral difference between putting a bullet in someone and ramming a
> screwdriver or ball point pin through their eye socket as hard as you can into
> their brain? Or sticking my 4 inch Cold Steel Ti-Lite through their rib cage and
> slicing their heart open?  The main reason I started carrying a pistol in recent
> years is the simple fact that I have enough sense to realize that I probably
> wouldn't fare as well taking on a 25 year old thug at my current age as I could
> 20 years ago.  Grey hair and a slower walk make one a target in the 2nd mosy
> dangerous city to live in in the USA.
> Plus, only a fool carries a weapon that they are not prepared to use if
> required.

Absolutely, and that was his point, and mine.

Matt

[First. Post]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:12:51 -0700, MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
wrote:

Great argument presented by Gary yes?
Someone states a simple fact and he knocks it right out of the sky with a
personal insult that has nothing to do with the subject. Ingenius no?

[MattB.]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:31:42 -0500, First. Post

<OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:12:51 -0700, MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:57:10 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:26:56 -0500, First. Post
>>><OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In 48 years I've never had so much as a close call with a gun thanks to his
>>>>lessons.
>>>
>>>Pretty hard to have a close call with your head up the nearest winger
>>>asshole, dirtbag.
>>
>> I'm sure you support anything that means Gangbangers own the
>>streets.
>>
>>
>Great argument presented by Gary yes?
>Someone states a simple fact and he knocks it right out of the sky with a
>personal insult that has nothing to do with the subject. Ingenius no?

Ingenious NO but expected. That is all they have.

[Capt. Justice]

Trayvon's thuggish attack on
Zimmerman is proof it should be legal
for neighborhood watch on patrol
should be permitted to carry a gun.
If I'm understanding correctly
this is the first time Zimmerman ever
shot somebody...and it definetly was
in self-defense. The Media purposely
seems not to connect the dots that
exist on those two things.

[MattB.]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:02:40 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:10:01 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's not racist to call a racist what he is
>>
>> To me it is racist to want to treat people of different races
>>differently solely based on race.
>

>When that stops occuring, let us know.
>
>For now, the laws are designed to stop the most BLATANT
>discrimination, racism, which is why they're in place
>
>The white power and wealth majority in America has a dismal record of
>equality---embodied now in the Conservative GOP---it engenders and
>emboldens those who are prejudiced.
>
>The very act of placing the Civil War rallying cry "States rights" as
>a Republican party plank is an affront to people of color
>
>The act of flying the racist rebel flag is a public insult to blacks
>
>The south, and most particularily the conservative political
>element---has NEVER changed---is is only Curtailed by law.
>
>Jesse Helms in one of his last campaigns was asked:
>
>"Sir, do you still belive in segregaton"?
>
>Helms replied: "Not any more"
>
>"why did you change your mind"?
>
>Helms: "Because the law changed"
>
>Even you ought to be able to parse that answer


So what is the answer taking all white peoples money and businesses?
There are poor white people, the answer to getting a better life is
partially education. Blacks or those that believe it need to get rid
of the "I am owed" mentality and work to make a better life. There
are people like me willing to give anyone of any race a chance and you
attack them,

Your solution and that of the far left will end up in blood. The
Democrats have in my eyes shown themselves to be major racist. The
gun control laws they want now seem to have a long term purpose to
disarm law abiding Americans for the slaughter.

[MattB.]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:03:56 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:11:32 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well we are in agreement on this one thing Z should never have
>>approached Martin.
>

>Then you have to agree that there is NO way anyone can argue that
>Zimmerloon was protected by the "stand yer ground" law.

Unless it can be shown Martin did attack him. NO

[*us*]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/

>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

> ... thuggish attack...

Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.

Zimmerman's been caught lying already.

Zimmerman was known to "snap" and violently assault
victims including at least two women and a cop, then
lie and attempt to blame his victims afterward.

"George Zimmerman was fired from his job as an under-the-table security guard
for “being too aggressive...”...“But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude
snapped, he snapped.”...“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One
time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool
and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird... he got all nuts. He picked her up and
threw her. It was pure rage...”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223?localLinksEnabled=false

Zimmerman was terrorizing the neighborhood.

"Neighbours in Zimmerman's community had
issued complaints about the 26-year-old to
local police and the homeowners association..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114152/Trayvon-Martin-shot-dead-Police-say-theres-evidence-dispute-claim-neighbourhood-watch-captain-George-Zimmerman-acted-self-defence.html#ixzz1rJPbiuC5

"What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin (1995-2012)"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

Zimmerman had become rather obviously obsessed
with young black men.

Zimmerman had no valid basis for his pursuit or attack
on his victim.

Zimmerman didn't let Martin have the option of a trial.
Zimmerman was judge, jury, and executioner.
That's unacceptable in civilization.

Aren't you the least concerned that there wasn't
going to be any jury at all until people complained?

[*us*]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:47:16 -0700, MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:

>... Martin did attack...

No, Martin's hands didn't show any evidence of that.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:12:54 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:03:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:08:56 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/

>>
>>Told ya he was a racist chickenshit.
>
> Bill Crosby said that.

Cosby's right.

It's also true that Zimmerman is a racist chickenshit
who snapped and murdered an innocent kid.

>So you think Bill Crosby is a "racist
>chickenshit."

[George Plimpton]

Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:

> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.

You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>
>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>
>You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
>you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>

Sure it was unjustified.

>You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.

The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>
>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>
>> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
>> you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>
> Sure it was unjustified.

You're not in a position to say. You weren't there. If you're assuming
it was unjustified, you're assuming that based on your own racial views,
not on an analysis of the evidence.

>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>
> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.

It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
without provocation. Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
at any point in the future.

[JohnJohnsn]

True up to the point where you wrote "political prosecution:" you
should have written `political persecution' by Eric "The Red" Holder's
Department of (in)Justice (unless you are a member of the Black
Panther Party: then you go scott free while committing armed
intimidation of voters).

The impediment to the feds is that there appears to be no "federal
nexus" present; seeing as how both were minorities (TM being black and
GZ being Hispanic).

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>>
>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>
>>> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
>>> you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>>
>> Sure it was unjustified.
>
>You're not in a position to say. You weren't there. If you're assuming
>it was unjustified, you're assuming that based on your own racial views,
>not on an analysis of the evidence.
>

It has nothing to do with race. Zimmerman never should have got out of
his car, never should have pursued him on foot, and never should have
been carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.

See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
this a racial incident?

>
>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>
>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>
>It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>without provocation.

There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post. You need
to READ MORE and stop listening to TV and radio talking heads give you
their opinion. Get the FACTS, dumbass.

> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
>at any point in the future.

Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:

>* US * wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>
>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>
>>Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>
>

> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
> a statement for the police then.
>
As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.

>
>>Zimmerman's been caught lying already.
>
>

> First time anybody's ever covered their ass !

>
>
>>Zimmerman was known to "snap" and violently assault
>>victims including at least two women and a cop, then
>>lie and attempt to blame his victims afterward.
>

> Um ... beating up cops isn't usually something
> 'cowards' do. Takes pretty big cajones actually ...
>
Bullshit.

>
>>"George Zimmerman was fired from his job as an under-the-table security guard
>>for “being too aggressive...”...
>

> Which sounds bad UNTIL you actually NEED a
> security guard who'll lift a finger to
> help YOUR ass.
>
Nope. It sounds bad because it IS bad. He wasn't able to do his job as
instructed.

Shall I correct you on anything else?

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 9:20 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
>>>> you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>>>
>>> Sure it was unjustified.
>>
>> You're not in a position to say. You weren't there. If you're assuming
>> it was unjustified, you're assuming that based on your own racial views,
>> not on an analysis of the evidence.
>>
> It has nothing to do with race. Zimmerman never should have got out of
> his car, never should have pursued him on foot, and never should have
> been carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.

Zimmerman was foolish to have tried to act alone, but nothing he did up
to the point the confrontation began was illegal. A citizen has every
right to keep an eye on a suspicious person. If Martin attacked
Zimmerman as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
contended, then the shooting *was* justified.

>
> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
> this a racial incident?

I didn't. The baying mob did. Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it. Those
who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.

>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>
>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>
>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>> without provocation.
>
> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.

She has a staff, you stupid cunt.

> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.

List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -
Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.

>> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>> come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
>> at any point in the future.
>
> Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.

And very political.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 9:20 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:

>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>
>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>> without provocation.
>
> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago.

It was over two weeks ago, you stupid cunt.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>> * US * wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>
>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>
>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>> a statement for the police then.
>>
> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.

*NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
Martin began. IF Martin began the violence, as Zimmerman says happened,
then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin. That's a big if, and
I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
did, then the shooting was justified.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> * US * wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>>
>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>
>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>
>*NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
>on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
>Martin began.

Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!

> IF Martin began the violence,

That's the question, isn't it?

> as Zimmerman says happened,

AFTER he CREATED the confrontation

>then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.

Nope. That's not what the law says. Once again you're not READING
enough.

> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
>did, then the shooting was justified.

No it's not.

And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:35:48 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 4/10/2012 9:20 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
>>>>> you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>>>>
>>>> Sure it was unjustified.
>>>
>>> You're not in a position to say. You weren't there. If you're assuming
>>> it was unjustified, you're assuming that based on your own racial views,
>>> not on an analysis of the evidence.
>>>
>> It has nothing to do with race. Zimmerman never should have got out of
>> his car, never should have pursued him on foot, and never should have
>> been carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>
>Zimmerman was foolish to have tried to act alone, but nothing he did up
>to the point the confrontation began was illegal.

That's to be determined.

> A citizen has every right to keep an eye on a suspicious person.

What made Martin suspicious?

>If Martin attacked Zimmerman

We don't know that

>as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>

No it's not. You haven't read enough to give a damned opinion,
dumbass.

>
>>
>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
>> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
>> this a racial incident?
>
>I didn't. The baying mob did.

Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?

>Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.

You and I aren't talking about that. Try to keep on topic. Stick to
the FACTS.

> Those
>who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
>injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.
>

YOU did in your post.

>
>>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>>
>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>
>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>> without provocation.
>>
>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>
>She has a staff, you stupid cunt.
>

SHE makes the decision, dumbass. Not her staff.

>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
>> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.
>
>List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -

That's one.

>Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.
>

But SHE is the one making the decision.

>
>>> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>>> come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
>>> at any point in the future.
>>
>> Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.
>
>And very political.

Not necessarily.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:37:17 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Wrong again.

[Mark Clarke]

"Lookout" wrote in message
news:7aq8o79i4g6bemsa2...@4ax.com...

^^^^

I was there.
Bill Cosby had "the gun", shot the kid, and ran away sounding like "Fat
Albert".

"Hey, hey HEY! I framed a Jew-atin!"

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 10:15 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:35:48 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2012 9:20 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist, and
>>>>>> you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it was unjustified.
>>>>
>>>> You're not in a position to say. You weren't there. If you're assuming
>>>> it was unjustified, you're assuming that based on your own racial views,
>>>> not on an analysis of the evidence.
>>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with race. Zimmerman never should have got out of
>>> his car, never should have pursued him on foot, and never should have
>>> been carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>
>> Zimmerman was foolish to have tried to act alone, but nothing he did up
>> to the point the confrontation began was illegal.
>
> That's to be determined.

Nope. It's a fact. He was not disobeying a police order when he got
out of his car. He was not committing a crime when he followed and
observed Martin. He had a license to carry the gun.

>> A citizen has every right to keep an eye on a suspicious person.
>
> What made Martin suspicious?

Irrelevant. But here we see that you, predictably, are injecting race
into the discussion (not that there was any doubt you were.)

>
>> If Martin attacked Zimmerman
>
> We don't know that

Right, we don't.

>
>> as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>> contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>>
> No it's not.

Yes, it would be. If Martin initiated the violence, then shooting him
would be justified.

>>>
>>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
>>> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
>>> this a racial incident?
>>
>> I didn't. The baying mob did.
>
> Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?

Knock yourself out, you racist bigot.

>> Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>> acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.
>
> You and I aren't talking about that.

You accused me of saying something about race, and I didn't. It *is* a
racially charged event, and I'm not the one who injected race into it,
you cunt.

>> Those
>> who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
>> injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.
>>
> YOU did in your post.

I didn't. The race element is intrinsic to the topic.

>>>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>>>
>>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>>> without provocation.
>>>
>>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>>
>> She has a staff, you stupid cunt.
>>
> SHE makes the decision, dumbass. Not her staff.

There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.

>>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
>>> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.
>>
>> List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -
>
> That's one.

It's not, you stupid cunt.

>> Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.
>>
> But SHE is the one making the decision.

Fuck off, cunt. There are prosecutors - a prosecutorial team. You're
fucking wrong.

Naturally, you couldn't cite another of the supposed "MANY facts wrong",
and the one you did cite is not an error on my part. Fuck off.

>>>> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>>>> come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
>>>> at any point in the future.
>>>
>>> Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.
>>
>> And very political.
>
> Not necessarily.

Necessarily.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 10:11 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>>
>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>>
>>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>
>> *NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
>> on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
>> Martin began.
>
> Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!

He didn't.

>> IF Martin began the violence,
>
> That's the question, isn't it?

Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists just
deny it.

>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>
> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation

No.

>
>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>
> Nope. That's not what the law says.

Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks me,
I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.

>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
>> did, then the shooting was justified.
>
> No it's not.

Yes, it would be.

> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.

Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
challenge Martin's presence in the area.

If I see someone who may be up to no good and I challenge his presence
orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2dj8o7hq4s4aqp6nl...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>
>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>
>>You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a racist,
and
>>you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>
> Sure it was unjustified.

Opinion. Facts aren't out yet.

>>You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>
> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.

True.


--

If you take out the killings,
Washington actually has a very low crime rate!!!

Marion Barry


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[*us*]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, Pimples the Blowjob <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>Blowjob...I Hate the US... don't know what the fuck ... a racist, and...Blowjob...

You do have problems.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

> ... thuggish attack...

Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.

[*us*]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:02:49 -0700 (PDT), Plop Slop <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>...Justice...

That's not served by letting people stalk and murder kids.

[*us*]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, Blowjob <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>...Zimmerman has not been
>arrested and charged...

His Daddy stepped in.

The malfeasance of the local PD
should also be investigated.

[George Plimpton]

Yes, you are, you stupid cunt:

The fate of George Zimmerman now rests in the hands of one of
Florida's toughest prosecutors.

State Attorney Angela Corey was thrust into the national spotlight
on Monday when she announced that she - and not a grand jury -
would decide whether to charge Zimmerman for killing Trayvon
Martin on Feb. 26.

The former special prosecutor on the case, Norman Wolfinger,
called for a grand jury in March, but later recused himself from
the case.

Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to take over on March 23.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-trayvon-martin-case-tough-crime-article-1.1059093


March 23 - more than two weeks ago, you *STUPID* cunt.

You work at being stupid, don't you, you stupid cunt? It's the only
thing in life at which you succeed, too. Fuck off.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b6n8o79mv3j5hprh3...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>On 4/10/2012 8:12 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a
>>>> racist, and you have a reflexive race-based reaction to this.
>>>>
>>> Sure it was unjustified.
>>
>>You're not in a position to say. You weren't there. If you're
>>assuming it was unjustified, you're assuming that based on your own
>>racial views, not on an analysis of the evidence.
>>
> It has nothing to do with race.

If it wasn't a white on black shooting this would only have reached the
local papers. Where is all the outcry about black on black shootings?

Zimmerman never should have got out of
> his car, never should have pursued him on foot, and never should have
> been carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.

He got out of his car because he couldn't use it to follow Martin down a
sidewalk between units.


He continued on down that sidewalk after the 911 operator told him it
wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin, apparently to get a house
number so he could give the address to the police when they got there.
He was carrying a gun because he had a state issued permit to do so.

> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
> this a racial incident?

A great many people are.....like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the New
Balck Panthers, much of the media.....

>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>
>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>
>>It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny
>>(the local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.)
>>The longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the
>>state prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot
>>Martin without provocation.
>
> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post. You need
> to READ MORE and stop listening to TV and radio talking heads give you
> their opinion. Get the FACTS, dumbass.

True....no matter what both sides want and think.

>> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>>come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could
>>happen at any point in the future.
>
> Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.
>

[Kickin' Names Is Takin' It In The Ass]

Bill Cosby Has It Right. Latino-Americans, White Americans, and
Asian-Americans Are Scared To Death Of black Thugs And
Criminals

On Apr 10, 8:12 am, * US * wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dynola...@webtv.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-ha...

> >>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
> > ... thuggish attack...
>
> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>
> Zimmerman's been caught lying already.
>
> Zimmerman was known to "snap" and violently assault
> victims including at least two women and a cop, then
> lie and attempt to blame his victims afterward.
>
> "George Zimmerman was fired from his job as an under-the-table security guard
> for “being too aggressive...”...“But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude
> snapped, he snapped.”...“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One
> time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool
> and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird... he got all nuts. He picked her up and
> threw her. It was pure rage...”
>

> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-pa...

>
> Zimmerman was terrorizing the neighborhood.
>
> "Neighbours in Zimmerman's community had
> issued complaints about the 26-year-old to
> local police and the homeowners association..."
>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114152/Trayvon-Martin-shot-d...

>
> "What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin (1995-2012)"
>

> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-shou...

[*us*]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, Blowjob Pimples <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>... the actual confrontation ...

Zimmerman caused it, not his victim.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

> ... thuggish attack...

Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.

Zimmerman's been caught lying already.

Zimmerman was known to "snap" and violently assault
victims including at least two women and a cop, then
lie and attempt to blame his victims afterward.

"George Zimmerman was fired from his job as an under-the-table security guard

[*us*]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:

> Hmmm ... so ...

So if Zimmerman had done what he'd been told
to do, he couldn't confront Martin.

> Um ... beating up cops isn't usually something
> 'cowards' do.

It was in that case, but you're not expected to be
able to understand, or even find out.

> security guard who'll lift a finger to

That's not the same as assault, idiot.

> Even security guards are human.

Most of them don't stalk and shoot kids.

> All I see here

You need to pull your head out.

>... ultraracist persecution ...

Zimmerman's victim was killed for being black.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:keq8o7le0j9qjop42...@4ax.com:

Who knows? None of us were in his head that night.

>>If Martin attacked Zimmerman
>
> We don't know that

True.

>>as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>>contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>>
> No it's not. You haven't read enough to give a damned opinion,
> dumbass.

Sorry, but IF Martin was the aggressor, initiated the confrontation and
had Zimmerman down on the sidewalk while beating his head against, YES,
Zimmerman was authorized by state law to use deadly physical force.

>>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to
>>> inject race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you
>>> trying to make this a racial incident?
>>
>>I didn't. The baying mob did.
>
> Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?
>
>>Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>>acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.
>
> You and I aren't talking about that. Try to keep on topic. Stick to
> the FACTS.

You do the same.

[*us*]

Zimmerman was a crook who didn't pay his taxes,
and now he's begging all his kuku kluxer klannies to
send him money.

Hope it all goes to the victim's family from civil action.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:15:53 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

I never said he was.

> He was not committing a crime when he followed and
>observed Martin. He had a license to carry the gun.
>

All true.
He STILL created the confrontation.

>
>
>>> A citizen has every right to keep an eye on a suspicious person.
>>
>> What made Martin suspicious?
>
>Irrelevant.

NO! YOU said it's important. What made Martin suspicious? He had every
right to be walking down the street.

> But here we see that you, predictably, are injecting race
>into the discussion (not that there was any doubt you were.)
>

Nope. YOU brought it up, not me.

>>
>>> If Martin attacked Zimmerman
>>
>> We don't know that
>
>Right, we don't.
>
>
>>
>>> as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>>> contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>>>
>> No it's not.
>
>Yes, it would be. If Martin initiated the violence, then shooting him
>would be justified.
>

Nope. That's NOT what the law says. Once again...you are LISTENING to
opinions instead of READING.

>
>>>>
>>>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
>>>> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
>>>> this a racial incident?
>>>
>>> I didn't. The baying mob did.
>>
>> Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?
>
>Knock yourself out, you racist bigot.
>

HAHAAHHA
Uh..one thing. I'm white. Why would I be backing the black man?

>
>>> Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>>> acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.
>>
>> You and I aren't talking about that.
>
>You accused me of saying something about race, and I didn't. It *is* a
>racially charged event, and I'm not the one who injected race into it,
>you cunt.
>

"based on your own racial views"

YOUR words, dumbass

>

>>> Those
>>> who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
>>> injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.
>>>
>> YOU did in your post.
>
>I didn't. The race element is intrinsic to the topic.
>

Why?

>
>>>>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>>>> without provocation.
>>>>
>>>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>>>
>>> She has a staff, you stupid cunt.
>>>
>> SHE makes the decision, dumbass. Not her staff.
>
>There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.
>

No. There is ONE prosecutor who will make the call. Again, you are
listening to OPINIONS instead of READING.

>
>>>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
>>>> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.
>>>
>>> List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -
>>
>> That's one.
>
>It's not, you stupid cunt.
>
>
>>> Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.
>>>
>> But SHE is the one making the decision.
>
>Fuck off, cunt. There are prosecutors - a prosecutorial team. You're
>fucking wrong.
>

HAHAHAHHA

>Naturally, you couldn't cite another of the supposed "MANY facts wrong",
>and the one you did cite is not an error on my part. Fuck off.
>

I have.
WHO created the situation?
Zimmerman
WHO followed a citizen walking?
Zimmerman
WHO got out of his car to continue STALKING a citizen?
Zimmerman
WHO initiated the one on one contact?
Zimmerman
ZIMMERMAN created the confrontation.

You were wrong on each part of this.

>
>>>>> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>>>>> come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
>>>>> at any point in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.
>>>
>>> And very political.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>Necessarily.

Only if YOU make it so.

And you will. Because you're a racist.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:37 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

See where it says ONE of Florida's toughest prosecutors?
You keep saying it's MORE than one yet YOU prove YOURSELF wrong,
dumbass!

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

> State Attorney Angela Corey was thrust into the national spotlight
> on Monday when she announced that she - and not a grand jury -
> would decide whether to charge Zimmerman for killing Trayvon
> Martin on Feb. 26.
>
> The former special prosecutor on the case, Norman Wolfinger,
> called for a grand jury in March, but later recused himself from
> the case.
>
> Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to take over on March 23.
>
>
>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-trayvon-martin-case-tough-crime-article-1.1059093
>
>
>March 23 - more than two weeks ago, you *STUPID* cunt.
>

Do you think she was just sitting there doing nothing when this
happened?
She didn't start looking at it until a few days ago.

>
>You work at being stupid, don't you, you stupid cunt? It's the only
>thing in life at which you succeed, too. Fuck off.

AHHAH
ONE prosecutor, dumbass!

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:20:48 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 4/10/2012 10:11 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>>>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>>>
>>>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>>>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>>>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>>
>>> *NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
>>> on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
>>> Martin began.
>>
>> Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!
>
>He didn't.
>

Did Martin follow Zimmerman?
Hell no, Zimmerman STALKED Martin. That's a fact. Zimmerman CREATED
the confrontation by following, for no reason, a citizen who was doing
nothing wrong.

>
>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>
>> That's the question, isn't it?
>
>Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists just
>deny it.
>

Yes it could. But there is no proof.

>
>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>
>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>
>No.
>

So Zimmerman DIDN'T follow Martin in his car? And Zimmerman DIDN'T get
out of his car and follow Martin? Is that what you're saying?

>
>>
>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>
>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>
>Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks me,
>I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.
>

The law does NOT say "attack". You're wrong again.

>
>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
>>> did, then the shooting was justified.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
>Yes, it would be.
>
>
>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>
>Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
>challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>

Show me the law where it's legal for Zimmerman to "CHALLENGE" Martin.

Go ahead...we'll wait.

>If I see someone who may be up to no good

So now you are saying Martin was up to no good?
Really?

See? Now you're making shit up because you know you're wrong.

> and I challenge his presence
>orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
>confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.

Stop making shit up. Stick to the facts.

[George Plimpton]

No, not if Martin swung on him first.

>>>> A citizen has every right to keep an eye on a suspicious person.
>>>
>>> What made Martin suspicious?
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> NO! YOU said it's important. What made Martin suspicious? He had every
> right to be walking down the street.

It's irrelevant what made him appear suspicious to Zimmerman. Zimmerman
broke no law of any kind by viewing Martin as a suspicious character.

>> But here we see that you, predictably, are injecting race
>> into the discussion (not that there was any doubt you were.)
>>
> Nope. YOU brought it up, not me.
>>>
>>>> If Martin attacked Zimmerman
>>>
>>> We don't know that
>>
>> Right, we don't.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>>>> contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it would be. If Martin initiated the violence, then shooting him
>> would be justified.
>>
> Nope.

Yep.

>>>>>
>>>>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
>>>>> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
>>>>> this a racial incident?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't. The baying mob did.
>>>
>>> Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?
>>
>> Knock yourself out, you racist bigot.
>>
> HAHAAHHA
> Uh..one thing. I'm white. Why would I be backing the black man?

Illiberal white "liberals" are racist. They think race is important -
that makes them racist.

>>>> Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>>>> acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.
>>>
>>> You and I aren't talking about that.
>>
>> You accused me of saying something about race, and I didn't. It *is* a
>> racially charged event, and I'm not the one who injected race into it,
>> you cunt.
>>
> "based on your own racial views"

The racial aspect of the case was already there. *Your* racial views,
which you are gutlessly trying to pretend are not completely implicated
in your participation here ("What made Martin suspicious?"), were
already mixed into this as well.

>>>> Those
>>>> who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
>>>> injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.
>>>>
>>> YOU did in your post.
>>
>> I didn't. The race element is intrinsic to the topic.
>>
> Why?

Because you illiberal white "liberal" racists made it so. You made it
so by insisting that Zimmerman "only" was suspicious of Martin because
of Martin's race.

>>>>>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>>>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>>>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>>>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>>>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>>>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>>>>> without provocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> She has a staff, you stupid cunt.
>>>>
>>> SHE makes the decision, dumbass. Not her staff.
>>
>> There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.
>>
> No. There is ONE prosecutor who

There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.


>>

>>>>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
>>>>> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.
>>>>
>>>> List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -
>>>
>>> That's one.
>>
>> It's not, you stupid cunt.
>>
>>
>>>> Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.
>>>>
>>> But SHE is the one making the decision.
>>
>> Fuck off, cunt. There are prosecutors - a prosecutorial team. You're
>> fucking wrong.
>>
> HAHAHAHHA
>
>> Naturally, you couldn't cite another of the supposed "MANY facts wrong",
>> and the one you did cite is not an error on my part. Fuck off.
>>
> I have.
> WHO created the situation?
> Zimmerman

No.

> WHO followed a citizen walking?
> Zimmerman

Yes, and entirely reasonably, too.

> WHO got out of his car to continue STALKING a citizen?
> Zimmerman

Yep - against the advice of a 911 dispatcher, but still legal.

> WHO initiated the one on one contact?
> Zimmerman

Not according to him. He says he lost sight of Martin, turned around
and was returning to his car, and Martin jumped him.


> ZIMMERMAN created the confrontation.

No. If Zimmerman's story is correct, Martin swung on him, creating the
confrontation.

>>>>>> Of course, federal civil rights charges that might
>>>>>> come down would be a purely political prosecution, and that could happen
>>>>>> at any point in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very true and very probable no matter what the prosecutor decides.
>>>>
>>>> And very political.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> Necessarily.
>
> Only if YOU make it so.

Nope. Those federal civil rights prosecutions *aways* are political.

[George Plimpton]

Fuck off. Stay on topic, which at present is your error.

>> State Attorney Angela Corey was thrust into the national spotlight
>> on Monday when she announced that she - and not a grand jury -
>> would decide whether to charge Zimmerman for killing Trayvon
>> Martin on Feb. 26.
>>
>> The former special prosecutor on the case, Norman Wolfinger,
>> called for a grand jury in March, but later recused himself from
>> the case.
>>
>> Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to take over on March 23.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-trayvon-martin-case-tough-crime-article-1.1059093
>>
>>
>> March 23 - more than two weeks ago, you *STUPID* cunt.
>>
> Do you think she was just

*More* than two weeks ago, cunt.

> She didn't start looking at it until a few days ago.

*MORE* than two weeks ago, cunt.

You fucked up. You were wrong, because you're stupid. You're stupid,
because you work at being stupid.

>>
>> You work at being stupid, don't you, you stupid cunt? It's the only
>> thing in life at which you succeed, too. Fuck off.
>
>
> AHHAH
> ONE prosecutor

Nope - prosecutors, you stupid racist cunt.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2012 11:50 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:20:48 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2012 10:11 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/

>>>>>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn�t have approached Trayvon without a gun

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>>>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>>>>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>>>>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>>>
>>>> *NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
>>>> on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
>>>> Martin began.
>>>
>>> Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!
>>
>> He didn't.
>>
> Did Martin follow Zimmerman?
> Hell no, Zimmerman STALKED Martin.

No.

As soon as you use that language, you give yourself away.

>>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>>
>>> That's the question, isn't it?
>>
>> Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists just
>> deny it.
>>
> Yes it could. But there is no proof.

I didn't say there was, you racist cunt.

>>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>>
>>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>>
>> No.
>>
> So Zimmerman DIDN'T follow Martin

He did. That's not a confrontation.

>>>
>>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>>
>>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>>
>> Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks me,
>> I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.
>>
> The law does NOT say "attack".

I didn't say the word was in the law, you stupid racist cunt.

You're not a lawyer. Shut your fucking yap about the law.

>>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
>>>> did, then the shooting was justified.
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it would be.
>>
>>
>>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>>
>> Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
>> challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>>
> Show me the law where it's legal for Zimmerman to "CHALLENGE" Martin.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Show me a law that *prohibits* a
citizen from challenging a suspicious person.

You see, you stupid cunt, here in America, if there is no law against
something, it is presumed to be legal to do it. If you want to live in
a regime in which everything is presumptively illegal, unless there is a
law that authorizes it, then get the fuck out of *MY* country and get
your sorry racist stupid cunt's ass to North Korea or Cuba or some other
totalitarian shithole. Here in America, I have the right to challenge
the presence of someone in my neighborhood if I think he doesn't have
any legitimate business there and is up to no good.

>> If I see someone who may be up to no good
>
> So now you are saying Martin was up to no good?

No. Zimmerman thought he might be up to no good, which is why he
challenged him - reasonably.

> See? Now you're making shit up because

No, I'm not making anything up. Zimmerman really did think Martin might
have been up to no good.

>
>> and I challenge his presence
>> orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
>> confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.
>
> Stop making shit up.

I never started. Stop talking bullshit.

[RD Sandman]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote in
news:OvGdnee1Vq-f5xnS...@giganews.com:

> On 4/10/2012 10:11 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938
>>>>>>> Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-would
>>>>>>>> nt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/ Bill Cosby: Zimmerman
>>>>>>>> wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>>>
>>>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>>>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>>>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>>
>>> *NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing
>>> whatever on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual
>>> confrontation with Martin began.
>>
>> Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!
>
> He didn't.

We don't know that......from his discussion with his father he
didn't....but...

>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>
>> That's the question, isn't it?
>
> Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists
> just deny it.

Either one could have been the aggressor and started the confrontation.

>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>
>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>
> No.

We don't know.

>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>
>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>
> Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks
> me, I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.

Not quite. Here is the law:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in
using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of
unlawful force.

[Up to here.....use of deadly physical force is NOT on the table.]

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not
have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

[There it was along with the stand-your-ground clause.]

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

This cited statute is Castle Doctrine as it covers being in your house or
your car.

You were close but not quite there.

>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it
>>> happened that way, but if it did, then the shooting was justified.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
> Yes, it would be.

If it met the parameters of 776.012, you are correct. It would be
justified.

>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>
> Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
> challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>
> If I see someone who may be up to no good and I challenge his presence
> orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
> confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.
>

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ssv8o7la8r2bqibn3...@4ax.com:

No, it isn't. Zimmerman *followed* Martin. That's a fact. Stalking
isn't.

Zimmerman CREATED
> the confrontation by following, for no reason, a citizen who was doing
> nothing wrong.

As a Neighborhood Watch Captain (self appointed), apparently, Zimmerman
felt he had a reason to follow him.

>>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>>
>>> That's the question, isn't it?
>>
>>Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists
>>just deny it.
>>
> Yes it could. But there is no proof.

In either direction at this point. Only conjecture.

>>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>>
>>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>>
>>No.
>>
> So Zimmerman DIDN'T follow Martin in his car? And Zimmerman DIDN'T get
> out of his car and follow Martin? Is that what you're saying?

No, he is saying that Martin may have started the confrontation and
escalation.

>>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>>
>>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>>
>>Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks
>>me, I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.
>>
> The law does NOT say "attack". You're wrong again.

We don't know if Zimmerman "attacked" Martin or if Martin "attacked"
Zimmerman. And you, certainly, don't know anymore than anyone else does
at this point.

>>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it
>>>> happened that way, but if it did, then the shooting was justified.
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>>Yes, it would be.
>>
>>
>>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>>
>>Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
>>challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>>
> Show me the law where it's legal for Zimmerman to "CHALLENGE" Martin.

OK, show everyone where that occurred. Let's see your proof that
Zimmerman CHALLENGED Martin. Go for it, Mr Facts and Figures.

Go ahead...we'll wait.

>>If I see someone who may be up to no good
>
> So now you are saying Martin was up to no good?
> Really?

We don't know, but I doubt he was.

> See? Now you're making shit up because you know you're wrong.

You tend to do the same.

>> and I challenge his presence
>>orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
>>confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.
>
> Stop making shit up. Stick to the facts.

Take your own advice.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:55:20 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

YOU brought it up, nitwit.
YOU said it was more than one prosecutor.
You're wrong by your own post, dumbass

>
>>> State Attorney Angela Corey was thrust into the national spotlight
>>> on Monday when she announced that she - and not a grand jury -
>>> would decide whether to charge Zimmerman for killing Trayvon
>>> Martin on Feb. 26.
>>>
>>> The former special prosecutor on the case, Norman Wolfinger,
>>> called for a grand jury in March, but later recused himself from
>>> the case.
>>>
>>> Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to take over on March 23.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-trayvon-martin-case-tough-crime-article-1.1059093
>>>
>>>
>>> March 23 - more than two weeks ago, you *STUPID* cunt.
>>>
>> Do you think she was just
>
>*More* than two weeks ago, cunt.
>
>
>> She didn't start looking at it until a few days ago.
>
>*MORE* than two weeks ago, cunt.
>
>You fucked up. You were wrong, because you're stupid. You're stupid,
>because you work at being stupid.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> You work at being stupid, don't you, you stupid cunt? It's the only
>>> thing in life at which you succeed, too. Fuck off.
>>
>>
>> AHHAH
>> ONE prosecutor
>
>Nope - prosecutors, you stupid racist cunt.

"The fate of George Zimmerman now rests in the hands of one of
Florida's toughest prosecutors."

Now..what makes me racist? Keep in mind I'm white.
And I didn't vote for Obama.

[George Plimpton]

Well, the idiot to whom I was responding is claiming that merely by
following and observing Martin, Zimmerman "created" the confrontation.
That's nonsense.

If I go out on the street to observe someone I think looks out of place
in my neighborhood, and he approaches me and swings on me, I didn't
"create" the confrontation - the shitbag did.

>>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>>
>>> That's the question, isn't it?
>>
>> Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists
>> just deny it.
>
> Either one could have been the aggressor and started the confrontation.

Could be, but the idiot to whom I was responding says that Zimmerman
"created" it simply by following and observing Martin. That's bullshit.

>
>>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>>
>>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>>
>> No.
>
> We don't know.

See above.

>
>>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>>
>>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>>
>> Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks
>> me, I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.
>
> Not quite. Here is the law:
>
> 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in
> using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
> that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
> defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of
> unlawful force.
>
> [Up to here.....use of deadly physical force is NOT on the table.]
>
> However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not
> have a duty to retreat if:
>
> (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
> prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
> another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
>
> [There it was along with the stand-your-ground clause.]
>
> (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
>
> This cited statute is Castle Doctrine as it covers being in your house or
> your car.
>
> You were close but not quite there.

Given the description of Martin's alleged violence against Zimmerman -
standing over him banging Zimmerman's head on concrete - I'd say
Zimmerman would have had reasonable fear for his life.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:00:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 4/10/2012 11:50 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:20:48 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2012 10:11 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2012 9:24 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/

>>>>>>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>>>>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>>>>>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>>>>>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>>> *NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
>>>>> on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
>>>>> Martin began.
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!
>>>
>>> He didn't.
>>>
>> Did Martin follow Zimmerman?
>> Hell no, Zimmerman STALKED Martin.
>
>No.
>
>As soon as you use that language, you give yourself away.
>

Who FOLLOWED whom?
Just answer the question.

>
>>>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>>>
>>>> That's the question, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists just
>>> deny it.
>>>
>> Yes it could. But there is no proof.
>
>I didn't say there was, you racist cunt.
>
>
>>>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>>>
>>>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>> So Zimmerman DIDN'T follow Martin
>
>He did. That's not a confrontation.
>

There wouldn't have been a confrontation if Zimmerman didn't follow
Martin, correct?

>
>>>>
>>>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>>>
>>> Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks me,
>>> I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.
>>>
>> The law does NOT say "attack".
>
>I didn't say the word was in the law, you stupid racist cunt.
>

So you admit you're wrong. Good.

>You're not a lawyer. Shut your fucking yap about the law.
>
>
>>>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
>>>>> did, then the shooting was justified.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Yes, it would be.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>>>
>>> Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
>>> challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>>>
>> Show me the law where it's legal for Zimmerman to "CHALLENGE" Martin.
>
>Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Show me a law that *prohibits* a
>citizen from challenging a suspicious person.
>

You can't prove something that doesn't exist, dumbass.
But if you do "challenge" someone..and the word challenge is an
OFFENSIVE word, then, using your example, Martin would have had the
right to defend himself. That makes Zimmerman the ATTACKER.

>You see, you stupid cunt, here in America, if there is no law against
>something, it is presumed to be legal to do it.

Really? Show me that in law.
Go ahead..well wait.

> If you want to live in
>a regime

Here you go..making shit up again. All the rest of this is off topic.

>
>>> If I see someone who may be up to no good
>>
>> So now you are saying Martin was up to no good?
>
>No. Zimmerman thought he might be up to no good, which is why he
>challenged him - reasonably.
>

No. Zimmerman does NOT have the right to make that decision. That's up
to the police. Zimmerman's ONLY choice is to OBSERVE and REPORT.

>
>> See? Now you're making shit up because
>
>No, I'm not making anything up. Zimmerman really did think Martin might
>have been up to no good.
>

And the ONLY right he had was to REPORT that. He has NO RIGHT to
intervene.

>>
>>> and I challenge his presence
>>> orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
>>> confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.
>>
>> Stop making shit up.
>
>I never started. Stop talking bullshit.

You're a real dumbass.

[George Plimpton]

The idiot gave himself away by referring to following as "stalking".

[George Plimpton]

stupid cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:55:20 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>

>> stupid cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:37 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> stupid cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:37:17 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> stupid cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> stupid cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:06:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>>>>>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>>>>>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>>>>>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>>>>>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>>>>>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>>>>>>> without provocation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>>>>>>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was over two weeks ago, you stupid cunt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are, you stupid cunt:
>>>>
>>>> The fate of George Zimmerman now rests in the hands of one of
>>>> Florida's toughest prosecutors.
>>>>
>>> See where
>>
>> Fuck off. Stay on topic, which at present is your error.
>>
> YOU brought it up,

The topic is your error. Keep reading, cunt.

>>>> State Attorney Angela Corey was thrust into the national spotlight
>>>> on Monday when she announced that she - and not a grand jury -
>>>> would decide whether to charge Zimmerman for killing Trayvon
>>>> Martin on Feb. 26.
>>>>
>>>> The former special prosecutor on the case, Norman Wolfinger,
>>>> called for a grand jury in March, but later recused himself from
>>>> the case.
>>>>
>>>> Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to take over on March 23.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-trayvon-martin-case-tough-crime-article-1.1059093
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> March 23 - more than two weeks ago, you *STUPID* cunt.
>>>>
>>> Do you think she was just
>>
>> *More* than two weeks ago, cunt.
>>
>>
>>> She didn't start looking at it until a few days ago.
>>
>> *MORE* than two weeks ago, cunt.
>>
>> You fucked up. You were wrong, because you're stupid. You're stupid,
>> because you work at being stupid.

That's your error, stupid cunt. You said Corey "was just assigned the
case days ago." That's wrong, stupid cunt - it was *more* than two
weeks ago that she, and her team of prosecutors, was assigned the case.

>>>>
>>>> You work at being stupid, don't you, you stupid cunt? It's the only
>>>> thing in life at which you succeed, too. Fuck off.
>>>
>>>
>>> AHHAH
>>> ONE prosecutor
>>
>> Nope - prosecutors, you stupid racist cunt.
>
> "The fate of George Zimmerman now rests in the hands of one of
> Florida's toughest prosecutors."

And her team of assistant attorneys, you stupid cunt, who along with her
are prosecutors.

[de...@dudu.org]

Two things are for certain: Zimmerman was a self appointed cop who
packed a gun and wandered the streets at night looking for trouble.
Martin was a kid who went to the local market for iced tea and candy
and was on his way home when he ran into Zimmerman. So that means
Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor based on his past history and
actions of stalking the neighborhood at night looking for trouble. If
he hadn't been out there looking for trouble Martin would still be
alive and no laws would have been broken.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:53:37 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

He started the confrontation by approaching him. He had NO RIGHT to do
that. His only option is to REPORT that to the police. He has NO RIGHT
WHAT SO EVER to intervene.

>
>>>>> A citizen has every right to keep an eye on a suspicious person.
>>>>
>>>> What made Martin suspicious?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> NO! YOU said it's important. What made Martin suspicious? He had every
>> right to be walking down the street.
>
>It's irrelevant what made him appear suspicious to Zimmerman. Zimmerman
>broke no law of any kind by viewing Martin as a suspicious character.
>

Zimmerman has never said any of that. Once again you're making shit
up.

>
>>> But here we see that you, predictably, are injecting race
>>> into the discussion (not that there was any doubt you were.)
>>>
>> Nope. YOU brought it up, not me.
>>>>
>>>>> If Martin attacked Zimmerman
>>>>
>>>> We don't know that
>>>
>>> Right, we don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>>>>> contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Yes, it would be. If Martin initiated the violence, then shooting him
>>> would be justified.
>>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
>>>>>> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
>>>>>> this a racial incident?
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't. The baying mob did.
>>>>
>>>> Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?
>>>
>>> Knock yourself out, you racist bigot.
>>>
>> HAHAAHHA
>> Uh..one thing. I'm white. Why would I be backing the black man?
>
>Illiberal white "liberals" are racist. They think race is important -
>that makes them racist.
>

Nope. I'm not a liberal either, dumbass.

>
>
>>>>> Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>>>>> acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.
>>>>
>>>> You and I aren't talking about that.
>>>
>>> You accused me of saying something about race, and I didn't. It *is* a
>>> racially charged event, and I'm not the one who injected race into it,
>>> you cunt.
>>>
>> "based on your own racial views"
>
>The racial aspect of the case was already there.

Not as far as I'm concerned.

>*Your* racial views,
>which you are gutlessly trying to pretend are not completely implicated
>in your participation here ("What made Martin suspicious?"), were
>already mixed into this as well.
>

Nope. I never considered race in any of my comments. You SUPPOSE that
I have. You'd be wrong again, dumbass.

>
>>>>> Those
>>>>> who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
>>>>> injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.
>>>>>
>>>> YOU did in your post.
>>>
>>> I didn't. The race element is intrinsic to the topic.
>>>
>> Why?
>
>Because you illiberal white "liberal" racists made it so.

Now you've made up a term. What is an "illiberal white liberal
racist"?

> You made it
>so by insisting that Zimmerman "only" was suspicious of Martin because
>of Martin's race.
>

I never said that in this thread. Not once.

>
>>>>>>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>>>>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>>>>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>>>>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>>>>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>>>>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>>>>>> without provocation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>>>>>
>>>>> She has a staff, you stupid cunt.
>>>>>
>>>> SHE makes the decision, dumbass. Not her staff.
>>>
>>> There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.
>>>
>> No. There is ONE prosecutor who
>
>There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.
>

Not according to YOUR post, dumbass!

AHAHAHAH You made yourself look stupid!

>>>
>>>>>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
>>>>>> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.
>>>>>
>>>>> List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -
>>>>
>>>> That's one.
>>>
>>> It's not, you stupid cunt.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.
>>>>>
>>>> But SHE is the one making the decision.
>>>
>>> Fuck off, cunt. There are prosecutors - a prosecutorial team. You're
>>> fucking wrong.
>>>
>> HAHAHAHHA
>>
>>> Naturally, you couldn't cite another of the supposed "MANY facts wrong",
>>> and the one you did cite is not an error on my part. Fuck off.
>>>
>> I have.
>> WHO created the situation?
>> Zimmerman
>
>No.
>

Of course he did. He approached Martin for no reason. He has NO LEGAL
AUTHORITY to intervene if he is suspicious. NONE. PERIOD.

>
>> WHO followed a citizen walking?
>> Zimmerman
>
>Yes, and entirely reasonably, too.
>
>
>> WHO got out of his car to continue STALKING a citizen?
>> Zimmerman
>
>Yep - against the advice of a 911 dispatcher, but still legal.
>

SO he created the confrontation.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

>
>> WHO initiated the one on one contact?
>> Zimmerman
>

Who approached WHOM

>
>Nope. Those federal civil rights prosecutions *aways* are political.

Again. you are making shit up.
Why? Why are you lying?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:30:19 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Well, clearly, if Zimmerman hadn't been out at night with a gun
stalking people then the confrontation never would have occurred, so
yea, Zimmerman created the confrontation.

>If I go out on the street to observe someone I think looks out of place
>in my neighborhood, and he approaches me and swings on me, I didn't
>"create" the confrontation - the shitbag did.

But that's not what happened, now is it?

>

[Mark Clarke]

DooDoo LIED in message news:fn29o7pfjjpq28vvd...@4ax.com...

(snip)

Wrong again, you lying retard.

Go suckle up to lookout and consume more Ambien.

[George Plimpton]

stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:00:22 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>

>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:20:48 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:23:30 -0400, Mr.B1ack<b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:33:42 -0500, dyno...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/bill-cosby-zimmerman-wouldnt-have-approach-trayvon-without-a-gun/
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Cosby: Zimmerman wouldn’t have approached Trayvon without a gun
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... thuggish attack...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman's attack on Martin was entirely unjustified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm ... so you were there ? Better fill out
>>>>>>>> a statement for the police then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I already said...Zimmerman never should have got out of his car,
>>>>>>> never should have pursued him on foot and never should have been
>>>>>>> carrying a gun. For those three reasons alone it was unjustified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *NONE* of what Zimmerman ought not to have done has any bearing whatever
>>>>>> on what was, or was not, "justified" once the actual confrontation with
>>>>>> Martin began.
>>>>>
>>>>> Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation, dumbass!
>>>>
>>>> He didn't.
>>>>
>>> Did Martin follow Zimmerman?
>>> Hell no, Zimmerman STALKED Martin.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> As soon as you use that language, you give yourself away.
>>
> Who FOLLOWED whom?

Zimmerman followed - not "stalked" - Martin. When you say "stalked",
you give yourself away as a fuckwitted ideological extremist cunt.

>>>>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the question, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists just
>>>> deny it.
>>>>
>>> Yes it could. But there is no proof.
>>
>> I didn't say there was, you racist cunt.
>>
>>
>>>>>> as Zimmerman says happened,
>>>>>
>>>>> AFTER he CREATED the confrontation
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>> So Zimmerman DIDN'T follow Martin
>>
>> He did. That's not a confrontation.
>>
> There wouldn't have been a confrontation if

Following someone is not illegal and does not constitute a confrontation.

If Zimmerman's story is correct, Martin started the confrontation.

>>>>>
>>>>>> then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. That's not what the law says.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it *is* what the law says, cunt. If someone physically attacks me,
>>>> I have the right to resist, including using deadly force.
>>>>
>>> The law does NOT say "attack".
>>
>> I didn't say the word was in the law, you stupid racist cunt.
>>
> So you admit you're wrong.

Nope, didn't admit any such thing, stupid racist cunt.

>> You're not a lawyer. Shut your fucking yap about the law.

Shut the fuck up about the law, cunt.

>>>>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it happened that way, but if it
>>>>>> did, then the shooting was justified.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>>>>
>>>> Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights to
>>>> challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>>>>
>>> Show me the law where it's legal for Zimmerman to "CHALLENGE" Martin.
>>
>> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Show me a law that *prohibits* a
>> citizen from challenging a suspicious person.
>>
> You can't prove something that doesn't exist

Actually, sometimes you can, but that's not what I told you to do,
stupid cunt. You stupidly wrote, "Show me the law where it's legal for
Zimmerman to "CHALLENGE" Martin", and I informed you that Zimmerman
didn't have any *need* of such a law in order to challenge Martin
entirely legally.

> But if you do "challenge" someone..and the word challenge is an
> OFFENSIVE word, then, using your example, Martin would have had the
> right to defend himself. That makes Zimmerman the ATTACKER.

No. If Zimmerman said "What are you doing here?", that's a challenge.
If Martin then swung on Zimmerman, as Zimmerman alleges, that makes
Martin the attacker - the aggressor.

Have you not read what Zimmerman reported? He said that Martin
surprised him, not the other way around - Zimmerman says he had lost
sight of Martin, and was returning to his car - no confrontation.
Suddenly, Martin appeared and asked Zimmerman, "You got a problem with
me?" Still not quite a confrontation. Zimmerman says he replied "no" -
certainly not a confrontation - whereupon Martin said, "Well, now you
do", and slugged Zimmerman in the face. Confrontation - started by
Martin, IF that's how it happened.

>> You see, you stupid cunt, here in America, if there is no law against
>> something, it is presumed to be legal to do it.
>
> Really? Show me that in law.

I don't have to show it to you in the law, stupid cunt: it's the
operating presumption. For example, here in California, it is
*presumed* that I may make a U-turn at a signal-controlled intersection,
*unless* there is a sign telling me I may not. That's how it works.

There is no law that "permits" me to mow my lawn, brush my teeth, prune
my roses bushes, you stupid cunt - it is *presumed* that I may do all
those things.

>> If you want to live in
>> a regime
>
> Here you go..making shit up again.

Nope.

Restore:

If you want to live in a regime in which everything is presumptively
illegal, unless there is a law that authorizes it, then get the fuck out
of *MY* country and get your sorry racist stupid cunt's ass to North
Korea or Cuba or some other totalitarian shithole. Here in America, I
have the right to challenge the presence of someone in my neighborhood
if I think he doesn't have any legitimate business there and is up to no
good.

>>>> If I see someone who may be up to no good
>>>
>>> So now you are saying Martin was up to no good?
>>
>> No. Zimmerman thought he might be up to no good, which is why he
>> challenged him - reasonably.
>>
> No. Zimmerman does NOT have the right to make that decision.

*ABSOLUTELY* he has the right to make that decision.

> That's up to the police. Zimmerman's ONLY choice is to OBSERVE and REPORT.

He *was* observing, you stupid cunt. Why do you think he continued to
observe? *Because* he thought Martin was up to no good.

>>> See? Now you're making shit up because
>>
>> No, I'm not making anything up. Zimmerman really did think Martin might
>> have been up to no good.
>>
> And the ONLY right he had was to REPORT that. He has NO RIGHT to
> intervene.

What the fuck do you mean, "intervene"? Zimmerman *absolutely* was
within his rights to follow, observe and even orally challenge Martin.
If he had approached Martin and said, "Excuse me, but do you live around
here?", that would be perfectly legal.

You have no evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal, up to the
point at which the confrontation with Martin began.

>>>> and I challenge his presence
>>>> orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not "created" the
>>>> confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender has.
>>>
>>> Stop making shit up.
>>
>> I never started. Stop talking bullshit.
>
> You're a real dumbass.

No, but you're a works-at-being-stupid cunt.

[George Plimpton]

No, that's your pejorative gloss is all. He was some kind of
"neighborhood watch" patroller, not "a self appointed cop."

> packed a gun and wandered the streets at night looking for trouble.

No, that's not a fact, either.

> Martin was a kid who went to the local market for iced tea and candy
> and was on his way home when he ran into Zimmerman.

Maybe.

> So that means
> Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor based

...only on your fevered, racist imagination.

If the physical confrontation began as Zimmerman claims, then *Martin*
was the aggressor.

[RD Sandman]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote in

news:0p6dnbiFWZ7QFxnS...@giganews.com:

Yep.

> If I go out on the street to observe someone I think looks out of
> place in my neighborhood, and he approaches me and swings on me, I
> didn't "create" the confrontation - the shitbag did.

If that was the condition, you would be correct.

>>>>> IF Martin began the violence,
>>>>
>>>> That's the question, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Of course. But it could well have happened that way. You racists
>>> just deny it.
>>
>> Either one could have been the aggressor and started the
>> confrontation.
>
> Could be, but the idiot to whom I was responding says that Zimmerman
> "created" it simply by following and observing Martin. That's
> bullshit.

That's Lookout.

If that all is true and Zimmerman did NOT start the escalation into a
fight. If Zimmerman did, stand your ground would have applied to Martin.

>>>>> That's a big if, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to know it
>>>>> happened that way, but if it did, then the shooting was justified.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Yes, it would be.
>>
>> If it met the parameters of 776.012, you are correct. It would be
>> justified.
>>
>>>> And once again, Zimmerman CREATED the confrontation.
>>>
>>> Not proved. Zimmerman was acting entirely within his legal rights
>>> to challenge Martin's presence in the area.
>>>
>>> If I see someone who may be up to no good and I challenge his
>>> presence orally and he reacts with physical violence, I have not
>>> "created" the confrontation, you stupid fuck - the violent offender
>>> has.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:m139o7dik4pur0v1n...@4ax.com:

Just who was he stalking? He followed Martin for awhile. He was
licensed to carry the gun by the State of Florida.

then the confrontation never would have occurred, so
> yea, Zimmerman created the confrontation.

If you really wish to stretch it, if Martin had not gone to the store,
the confrontatin never would have occurred, so yes, Martin created the
confrontation.

Bottom line, Dudu, is that YOU don't know exactly what occurred, Lookout
doesn't know exactly what occurred, I don't know exactly what occurred,
yet depending on exactly what DID occur, either Zimmerman or Martin could
have been covered under that law.

>>If I go out on the street to observe someone I think looks out of
>>place in my neighborhood, and he approaches me and swings on me, I
>>didn't "create" the confrontation - the shitbag did.
>
> But that's not what happened, now is it?

We don't know and neither do you. We all have our suspicions, but none
of know for sure.

[George Plimpton]

stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:53:37 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>

>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:15:53 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:35:48 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:51:29 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> stupid *racist* cunt, who *works* at being stupid, lied:

No. Approaching someone is not starting a confrontation. I approach
the clerk at the checkstand at the grocery store all the time - not a
confrontation.

> He had NO RIGHT to do that.

He had *EVERY* right to do that. It might not have been prudent, but it
was perfectly legal.

Shut your fucking yap about the law, stupid cunt - you don't know what

the fuck you're talking about.

> His only option is to REPORT that to the police. He has NO RIGHT
> WHAT SO EVER to intervene.

Approaching a suspicious-looking person is not "intervening".

>>>>>> A citizen has every right to keep an eye on a suspicious person.
>>>>>
>>>>> What made Martin suspicious?
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>> NO! YOU said it's important. What made Martin suspicious? He had every
>>> right to be walking down the street.
>>
>> It's irrelevant what made him appear suspicious to Zimmerman. Zimmerman
>> broke no law of any kind by viewing Martin as a suspicious character.
>>
> Zimmerman has never said any of that.

He has.

>>>> But here we see that you, predictably, are injecting race
>>>> into the discussion (not that there was any doubt you were.)
>>>>
>>> Nope. YOU brought it up, not me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Martin attacked Zimmerman
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't know that
>>>>
>>>> Right, we don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as Zimmerman claims happened, and as at least one eyewitness
>>>>>> contended, then the shooting *was* justified.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be. If Martin initiated the violence, then shooting him
>>>> would be justified.
>>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See? NOTHING about race there at all. YOU are the one trying to inject
>>>>>>> race into this. Why? What's wrong with you? Why are you trying to make
>>>>>>> this a racial incident?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't. The baying mob did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall we go back and look at how many times YOU mentioned race?
>>>>
>>>> Knock yourself out, you racist bigot.
>>>>
>>> HAHAAHHA
>>> Uh..one thing. I'm white. Why would I be backing the black man?
>>
>> Illiberal white "liberals" are racist. They think race is important -
>> that makes them racist.
>>
> Nope. I'm not a liberal either,

You're *at least* an illiberal white racist "liberal", stupid cunt.

>>>>>> Those who are claiming that Zimmerman
>>>>>> acted because of the race of the dead kid injected race into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You and I aren't talking about that.
>>>>
>>>> You accused me of saying something about race, and I didn't. It *is* a
>>>> racially charged event, and I'm not the one who injected race into it,
>>>> you cunt.
>>>>
>>> "based on your own racial views"
>>
>> The racial aspect of the case was already there.
>
> Not as far as I'm concerned.

Bullshit. *Your* racial views are completely implicated in your snide
question, "What made Martin suspicious?" I know what you think made
Zimmerman see Martin as suspicious, even though you haven't said it
directly. Soon enough, I'll maneuver you into saying it; maybe you
already have, farther down.

>> *Your* racial views,
>> which you are gutlessly trying to pretend are not completely implicated
>> in your participation here ("What made Martin suspicious?"), were
>> already mixed into this as well.
>>
> Nope. I never considered race in any of my comments.

Bullshit.

>>>>>> Those
>>>>>> who are claiming that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he is white have
>>>>>> injected race into it. I haven't injected race into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> YOU did in your post.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't. The race element is intrinsic to the topic.
>>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because you illiberal white "liberal" racists made it so.
>
> Now you've made up a term. What is an "illiberal white liberal
> racist"?

It speaks for itself. If English is not your native tongue, too bad for
you. Study harder.

>> You made it
>> so by insisting that Zimmerman "only" was suspicious of Martin because
>> of Martin's race.
>>
> I never said that in this thread.

Yet it is *precisely* what you had in mind when you snidely demanded,
"What made Martin suspicious?"

>>>>>>>>>> You're also late, Blowjob. This is out of the news now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The prosecutor hasn't made that decision yet, dumbass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been almost a month and a half since the event, and nearly a
>>>>>>>> month since this hit the national news scene. Zimmerman has not been
>>>>>>>> arrested and charged, *despite* massive state and federal scrutiny (the
>>>>>>>> local jurisdiction turned the investigation over to the state.) The
>>>>>>>> longer it goes without charges, the more likely it is that the state
>>>>>>>> prosecutors cannot make a compelling case that Zimmerman shot Martin
>>>>>>>> without provocation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is ONE prosecutor, not several, dumbass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She has a staff, you stupid cunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> SHE makes the decision, dumbass. Not her staff.
>>>>
>>>> There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.
>>>>
>>> No. There is ONE prosecutor who
>>
>> There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.
>>
> Not according to

There are prosecutors, plural, you stupid cunt.


>>>>

>>>>>>> The CURRENT prosecutor was just assigned the case days ago. She hasn't
>>>>>>> made a decision yet. You have MANY facts wrong in your post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List one, you stupid cunt. Forget about the plural "prosecutors" -
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one.
>>>>
>>>> It's not, you stupid cunt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Angela Corey has a staff of attorneys working with her, you stupid cunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But SHE is the one making the decision.
>>>>
>>>> Fuck off, cunt. There are prosecutors - a prosecutorial team. You're
>>>> fucking wrong.
>>>>
>>> HAHAHAHHA
>>>
>>>> Naturally, you couldn't cite another of the supposed "MANY facts wrong",
>>>> and the one you did cite is not an error on my part. Fuck off.
>>>>
>>> I have.
>>> WHO created the situation?
>>> Zimmerman
>>
>> No.
>>
> Of course he did. He approached Martin for no reason.

He had every reason - he viewed Martin with suspicion.

>>> WHO followed a citizen walking?
>>> Zimmerman
>>
>> Yes, and entirely reasonably, too.
>>
>>
>>> WHO got out of his car to continue STALKING a citizen?
>>> Zimmerman
>>
>> Yep - against the advice of a 911 dispatcher, but still legal.
>>
> SO he created the confrontation.

Nope - not by following observing and perhaps approaching Martin. None
of those is inherently a confrontation.

>>> WHO initiated the one on one contact?
>>> Zimmerman
>>
> Who approached WHOM

It's not clear who approached whom. Zimmerman claims he lost sight of
Martin, was going back to his car, when suddenly Martin appeared before
him and challenged him. If that's true, then Martin approached
Zimmerman, and according to your line of reasoning, began the
confrontation right then. In fact, Zimmerman says Martin challenged him
(Z) by asking, "You [Zimmerman] got a problem with me [Martin]?" That's
starting to sound like the beginning of a confrontation to me.
Zimmerman says he replied "no", whereupon Martin slugged him in the
face. That's *definitely* the start of a confrontation, and *IF* that's
how it happened, then Martin started it.

>>
>> Nope. Those federal civil rights prosecutions *aways* are political.
>
> Again.

Always.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:fn29o7pfjjpq28vvd...@4ax.com:

No, we don't know that. Zimmerman was a self appointed Neighborhood
Watch Captain......he certainly wasn't a cop. He carried a gun as he was
licensed by the State to do so. I am also licensed by the state
(although Arizona doesn't require a CCW for concealed carry) and I also
carry a gun most times. We don't know if he wandered the street looking
for trouble or just ran across Martin.

> Martin was a kid who went to the local market for iced tea and candy
> and was on his way home when he ran into Zimmerman.

Most likely.......

So that means
> Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor based on his past history and
> actions of stalking the neighborhood at night looking for trouble.

There you go again....from stating a truth to stating your conjecture and
trying to label it as truth. Bottom line, is you may have an idea of
what happened but you don't know what happened. Neither does the other
side. Both sides are trying to blow smoke up each other's ass.

If
> he hadn't been out there looking for trouble Martin would still be
> alive and no laws would have been broken.

No laws may have been broken with the story so far. That is what the
prosecutor has to determine.