The Glade 4.0

Anyway, George gave extensive detail to the police why he thought Trayvon was suspicious, and two members of the Sanford Police testified under oath that calling NEN was reasonable.

And part of George's NEN call was that it looked like 'he's on drugs or something'...which Trayvon in fact was.

So what should I use as a news source that will make you guys happy? FOX is out because hey...VRWC! Can't just MSNBC, NBC, ABC because they pretty much started this whole race war with the trial, going so far as edit things to make Zim look worse. CNN and CBS are just lighter versions of the previous stations. How bout other blogs? Huffpo? You guys don't seem to have a problem with that site when RD uses it. Yeah, they lean left so I'll leave it be.

So, really...what's the deal? Is the site I use the most wrong? I like the personal opinions that the writers give. I don't always agree but they put things in a way that makes sense to me. Have you guys actually found something wrong with the info they state? Is that even the point of this idiotic derail? Seriously, if I post something from there and you read something is wrong(somehow I doubt you and Hop even bother) then say so. I've seen them post things that are wrong and them post the correction.

And no, my panties are fine. You and Hop seem to have an issue, I don't. So either move on with the discussion about the trial or put me on ignore. But hey, you know me...you want to keep going round and round...I'm all for it. I got the time.

As for the Monty comment...thing there is that even when his source was proven wrong, he dug in. Have I done that? Don't think so. Swing and a miss. Might want to switch to granny panties if the ones you are currently having issues with keep bothering you like they are.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

No, the trial isn't over. But the prosecution has rested it's case and they didn't come anywhere close to proving their case. At absolute best, they have shown their version of events is plausible. Not likely, but plausible. And even "likely" isn't enough to convict. And the defense's case has already shifted that further away from plausible.

So he was stationary for 3-4 minutes? Wow, he was really aggressively pursuing Martin. I know when people stand around for a couple of minutes talking on the phone in my general vicinity, I feel very menaced.

The saddest part of this trial that dawned on me, if TM had been murdered by another black man, then not one of us would even know, much less give a flying ****.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Except he wasn't on the phone Arathain, this was after he hung up and you are making an assumption that he was standing there not 1) runniing around looking for Trayvon or 2) pushing Trayvon around after he found him.

_________________

Sure, but only because a black person wouldn't have called the cops.

He's making that assumption because there is literally no evidence to substantiate it.



I'm still wondering where the timeline came from that indicated when Martin's call dropped.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Cell phone records

Which apparently are now somehow public record...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/1/ ... ne-Records

So my cell phone records are no longer private, the NSA reads my emails and texts, drones can spy on me, satellites can map my yard, Google can take pictures of my house and when George Zimmerman gets acquitted any douchebag on the planet can just follow me around. **** it, might as skip well to the chase and build a house of glass.

_________________

There has been no evidence presented that 1) occurred, and evidence presented that directly contradicts 2).


They could have done that before anyway. I suppose you'd prefer that Zimmerman gets convicted so that any douchebag on the planet can then violently assault you because you are on the same sidewalk as they are, and everyone involved would know that you couldn't defend yourself unless you were willing to go to prison?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

They could have done that before anyway. I suppose you'd prefer that Zimmerman gets convicted so that any douchebag on the planet can then violently assault you because you are on the same sidewalk as they are, and everyone involved would know that you couldn't defend yourself unless you were willing to go to prison?[/quote]
Well since you haven't read anything I've posted here is my take.

Shooting someone assaulting you = legit self-defense
Provoking someone into assualting you out of fear so that you can shoot them in "self-defense" is bullshit.

Zimmerman should've stayed in his truck and minded his own **** business after notifying the police. He should've been charged with and convicted of manslaughter.

_________________

Oh, I've read everything you've posted, believe me.

Glad to hear you know what consequences he should face. Why even have a legal system? Just ask Hopwin and he'll tell you what people are guilty of - he watches the news and he's not biased at all!

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Glad to hear you know what consequences he shouldn't face. Why even have a legal system? Just ask Vindicarre and he'll tell you what people are not guilty of - he watches the news and he's not biased at all!

_________________

Well since you haven't read anything I've posted here is my take.

Shooting someone assaulting you = legit self-defense
Provoking someone into assualting you out of fear so that you can shoot them in "self-defense" is bullshit.

Zimmerman should've stayed in his truck and minded his own **** business after notifying the police. He should've been charged with and convicted of manslaughter.[/quote]


And has been pointed out time and time again, following someone does not equate provoking. Had Martin just went home, not punched anyone, not decided to go Jon Jones on Zim...he would be very much alive.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

People need to fix their quote tags.


Also, you cannot "provoke someone to assault you." Assaulting somebody is a choice that you yourself make when you do it.

Perhaps you meant to use different nomenclature?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Cute.

The only problem with that is I'm not the one throwing out "possible" things people could have been doing when there is no evidence for, or direct evidence against, my statements; not to mention proclaiming what the outcome of the trial should be.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yup, I tell my daughters (5 and 7 years old) all the time that someone can't "make them mad, etc."; they get to choose how to handle their own emotions. Some people never figure that out.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Indeed.

To be fair, the nomenclature thing is a valid question. Perhaps Hopwin meant "provoke someone to defend themself" or something like that. The semantics of the phraseology here are important, because defending yourself from an assault is legit while initiating through provocation is not.

Neither one is, in my opinion, 2nd degree murder.




That said, evidence of behavior rising to "provocation" has not been presented at this time. And again, following somebody in a public venue is most assuredly not provocation.

In fact, I'm really not sure why all of a sudden in this trial people think they have a right to privacy in public that extends to being followed.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I understand there is no evidence to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter (let alone murder) but I strongly feel he should be solely based on the undisputed facts that he got out of his vehicle to follow someone on foot, was told there was no need to do that, instructed to meet officers at the clubhouse and ignored that request too and instead was apparently standing around in the cut-through (which has been described here as backyards) looking for an address (on the back of people's homes?) and he was attacked by someone who jumped out of bushes (where there are no bushes in the video walkthrough he gave the day after).

And yes my reason for this is the completely selfish belief that no one has a right to invade what I believe myself, personally to be my privacy. As DE and I went through before, the government has no right to my business, nor does a private citizen, unless I am actively engaged in a criminal act.



If Zimmerman threatened him, showed him his gun, etc. That would be provoking someone into self-defense. I believe it is known as the Bush Doctrine?

_________________

Zimmerman was a tool for following.

Martin was what 200 yards from his home? Why didn't Martin call the PD instead of assaulting Zim? Why didn't he just go home?

Martin *chose* to assault Zim and beat the **** out of him. He was not cornered, he was not threatened overtly. Before I saw the maps of the area, I had thought Zim had followed Martin into a backyard area where Martin had no choice but the defend himself.

Yes, Zim was a tool. However Martin made the conscious decision to assault Zim. This, in no way rises to the level of manslaughter. Martin instigated the assault, Zim ended it. It was an appropriate use of force. Tragic, but appropriate.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No, he shouldn't have. Following someone is not "provokign them into assaulting you."

Get this through your head. You don't have a right for people not to follow, observe, videotape, cell phone record, listen to, or otherwise make themselves of what you are doing when in public. That isn't a provocation in and of itself. Other things they might do in the process, such as taunt or harass you might be, but Zimmerman did not do any of those things. Furthermore, if you think someone is overstepping their bounds you can CALL THE POLICE YOURSELF. Trayvon Martin, despite having a phone, notably did not do so, even though "There is a man following me for no apparent reason" is something the police would no doubt have responded to.



It doesn't matter what you yourself think the limits of your privacy are. Society decides that, so that its the same for everyone.

Anyone has a right to observe and act on what they observe about you in public, and that includes following you and calling the police if they suspect you of engaging in criminal activity. If you don't want it observed, don't do it in public.

The justice system works on principles evolved so that everyone is treated the same, and so that people cannot use the rules as a shield for criminal activity. Rights are there to keep the innocent from being wrongly convicted, not wrongly suspected. They are also not there as a shield for criminals to use to evade consequences.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't get the equivocation of the two. I can be down with Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck. I'm not sure how that equals manslaughter just because you feel the right to privacy is tantamount? Can you shoot someone to protect your right to privacy then?



Is there any evidence of that? Also your snarkiness gets you nowhere.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Probably because he was being egged on to beat that creepy *** cracka by his illiterate-ass girlbeast.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So, even though there is no evidence to convict the guy, you believe that because of an illogical sense of what you believe to be an invasion of your privacy by a private citizen walking the same direction as you are on a public sidewalk, he should be convicted and spend decades of his life in prison? I'm a huge proponent of personal privacy, but that's just - Wow.




And if Zimmerman was raping his mom that would be provocation too. Your problem here is that the evidence presented for both acts is the same - none.

Bush Doctrine, a phrase coined by a political pundit - Neither Zimmerman nor Martin are international political actors.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Either that, or he didn't think the police would help him because he's black. It's lovely how that works. Had Martin not been shot, he probably then would have believed the police were taking the side of the white guy - who called them - and not him, who decided to assault someone rather than calling the cops. Clearly, racism in action.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."