Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

Quote:

If I'm missing your point, I guess you'll need to clarify if you want me to understand what you are driving at.

The thing is - explaining it is a matter of perspective. And history has shown explaining pure perspective to you is not going to help you understand a different perspective. So perhaps if you work out for yourself how it relates, you might come to a more inclusive perspective.

By the way - if it at all helps - I have no issue with people defending themselves against violence.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Reality is reality regardless of perspective.

Of the following scenarios, one is less-bad than the other two:

a) Your pet being killed or maimed by a thug.

b) Calling 911 on a thug and having your life destroyed by a progressive lynch mob.

c) Killing a thug and then quietly slipping away unnoticed.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Everything in this post you call a fact is not what happened and not what the evidence adduced at the trial shows. What you call "facts" are not the facts.. ;They are your own peculiar inferences and not what the evidence shows.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

None of what you claim here is true.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

None of your conjectures in this post are true either.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

these aren't true either.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

He was not a thug. It's clearly racist when you use that as your descriptor of choice for black males being perfectly reasonable. He did not threaten her. He did not threaten her dog either. He said she woiuld not like what he woulkd do. Considering she had a fit when he asked her to leash the dog, she would not like anything he did no matter how innocuous, and all he wanted to happen was as the tules said, pfantasy.ut the dog on a leash, which she would not like. Anything else is purely your evidence-free fantasy. She got hysterical and sblatantly mischaracterized to the copswhat was happening. Fortunately theyu seem to have realized she was out of her mind. Shwas deservedly fired. No client of the bank would trust her after that diatribe. Withal, he doesn't think she should be threatened by social media jerks.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Everything in this post you call a fact is not what happened

That is incorrect. You really are the only person here who mistakes opinions for facts and reality.

MontereyJack wrote:

and not what the evidence adduced at the trial shows.

You're not on trial. Just stop falsely accusing me and I'll stop pointing out that you are the one who is actually doing it.

MontereyJack wrote:

What you call "facts" are not the facts.. They are your own peculiar inferences and not what the evidence shows.

That is incorrect. The record shows that I am not the one who refers to opinions as facts.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

None of what you claim here is true.

That is incorrect. The evidence shows that Trayvon tried to murder Mr. Zimmerman and was killed in self defense.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

None of your conjectures in this post are true either.

I posted no conjectures in that post. That Trayvon was a murdering thug who was killed in self defense is a fact.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

these aren't true either.

That is incorrect. The evidence shows that Trayvon tried to murder the captain of the neighborhood watch and was killed in justified self defense.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

He was not a thug.

His attempt to harm her dog shows otherwise.

MontereyJack wrote:

It's clearly racist when you use that as your descriptor of choice for black males being perfectly reasonable.

There was nothing reasonable about his attack on her dog.

MontereyJack wrote:

He did not threaten her. He did not threaten her dog either. He said she would not like what he would do.

Saying that "he's going to do something and she's not going to like it" is a threat.

It's a threat that he subsequently acted on by trying to lure her dog away from her.

MontereyJack wrote:

Considering she had a fit when he asked her to leash the dog, she would not like anything he did no matter how innocuous, and all he wanted to happen was as the rules said, put the dog on a leash, which she would not like. Anything else is purely your evidence-free fantasy.

The evidence shows that he threatened her dog and then tried to carry out his threat.

MontereyJack wrote:

She got hysterical and blatantly mischaracterized to the cops what was happening.

No mischaracterization. He threatened her and then tried to grab her dog.

MontereyJack wrote:

She was deservedly fired. No client of the bank would trust her after that diatribe.

People do not deserve to be fired for calling 911 when a black man attacks them.

Instead of calling for help, people should just kill the attacker and quickly walk away before anyone notices.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I paid attention to what came out in the trial and the debunking of the extreme baseless speculations of the right wing Zimmerman apologists.. You clearly didn't.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I pay attention to the fact that the location of the fight was the exact spot where Mr. Zimmerman stopped tailing Trayvon several minutes earlier on the advice of the dispatcher. That is concrete proof that the fight started by Trayvon coming up to Mr. Zimmerman.

And then there is the fact that it was Mr. Zimmerman's head that was being bashed against the concrete sidewalk.

I am not aware of any debunking, but I'm probably also unaware of the speculation that you are saying was debunked. Although it is hard to know what exactly you are referring to without more details.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

that is a factless racist conjecture. Not factual at all.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. That Trayvon was a murdering thug who was killed in self defense is a fact.

Pointing out facts is hardly racist.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Zimmerman apologists.

You mean the jury?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

prrtthy much all of yoiurspecukations above oof where,w when and how aboveare inconsistent with the evidence.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

None of that characterization is fact. All twisted opinion.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Yes, the jury that thought he got away with murder but couldn't prove it because he murdered the witness against him. That jury. He also never testified under oath and there were a lot of lies in his descripitionsons of his life and the case.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know