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

@oralloy,

Have done so. Racists always deny they're racist. They just don't see it however blatant. Call it a blind spot.

@MontereyJack,

So in other words, you're a racist.

You cannot provide an example of a post where you have ever pointed out an error in my posts.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong on all counts, as always,.

You have a big mouth, but you're all talk, and it's empty talk at that.

All you ever do is bluff and then run away without backing up your claims.

You cannot back up your empty bluffing by pointing out anything that I have ever been wrong about.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong, as always.

You have a big mouth, but you're all empty talk.

You cannot provide an example of an untrue statement in any of my posts.

MontereyJack wrote:

look at the sculptural and wall paintings and you'll see I'm right.

Your racism is despicable.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Right. Ignore the facts, which I have presented. Ignoring facts is your entire presence here. Your multiple racist posts are known by all of us.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No, in other words, you're the racist. Y ou're the one who maintained chgris cooper's request for an illegal dog be lkeashed was in some absurd way analogous to axe myurder. You're the okne who maintained a desire to not be killed by police was a desire to kill police, and called someone who did not want to be murdered a thug. You have clearly demonstrated your proclivities.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Right. Ignore the facts, which I have presented.

You have never presented any facts.

MontereyJack wrote:

Ignoring facts is your entire presence here.

Wrong again. My presence is to defend truth and justice.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your multiple racist posts are known by all of us.

The only racist here is you. Shame on you.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

No, in other words, you're the racist.

Nope. The only racist here is you.

MontereyJack wrote:

You're the one who maintained chris cooper's request for an illegal dog be leashed was in some absurd way analogous to axe murder.

Your characterization is hardly accurate. You left out the part where he threatened her.

MontereyJack wrote:

You're the one who maintained a desire to not be killed by police was a desire to kill police,

Again your characterization is hardly accurate. A desire to not be killed in justified self defense as they try to murder police officers.

MontereyJack wrote:

and called someone who did not want to be murdered a thug.

Again your description is hardly accurate. Justified self defense is not murder.

If he didn't want to be killed in justified self defense, the thug shouldn't have been attacking the captain of the neighborhood watch and bashing his head against a concrete sidewalk.

MontereyJack wrote:

You have clearly demonstrated your proclivities.

Yes. I stand firmly against your evil racism. Shame on you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

wrong on all counts, as usual.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You cannot provide a single example of me ever being wrong about anything.

You have a big mouth, but you never back up anything that you say.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

what a dreamer you are, .as wrong as you can possibly be.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It';s not justified self-defense when you murder someone who has no intention of attacking you. that's why there is a nationwide push on to reform qualified immunity.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It's not justified self-defense when you murder someone who has no intention of attacking you.

True.

But it IS justified self defense when you kill someone who is in the process of murdering you.

And Black Lives Matter thugs protest cases of police officers (and a neighborhood watch captain) killing people who were in the process of murdering them.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

what a dreamer you are, as wrong as you can possibly be.

You're a big mouth phony. You cannot back up anything you say about me.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

How do you know Martin attacked Zimmerman first, rather than Zimmerman attacking Martin?

As for Floyd, he did nothing that required 4 police officers kneeling on him for that length of time - particularly with weight on his chest & neck (he was handcuffed after all). As I previously mentioned - positional asphyxiation is a known cause of death. Here's a link to Victoria Police (in Australia), being advice to Security Officers. As such it obviously also applies to police officers in Victoria. The issue should also be known in most Western police forces:

There are techniques of restraint that have been associated with sudden, unexpected deaths. Security personnel must be aware of the potential dangers and take every precaution to ensure they adopt safe practice. Positional Asphyxia (restraint asphyxia) can be defined as obstruction of breathing as a result of restraint technique.

Physical restraint should only be used when the situation clearly justifies it and there is no other option available to prevent physical harm to the person or others and for the shortest possible time with the least reasonable force. Anyone who is restrained should be under constant observation and the time spent under restraint should be minimised.

And Chicago Police

I'm sure I could find many more similar police sources on the problem.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

How do you know Martin attacked Zimmerman first, rather than Zimmerman attacking Martin?

Because the location of the confrontation took place in the area where they were four minutes earlier when the police dispatcher advised Mr. Zimmerman that tailing Trayvon was a very bad idea.

Remaining in that area is evidence that Mr. Zimmerman stopped tailing Trayvon when advised to do so, and Trayvon therefore had four minutes to get home.

Yet somehow, four minutes after Mr. Zimmerman stopped following him, Trayvon ended up back in that spot in a fight with Mr. Zimmerman.

vikorr wrote:

I'm sure I could find many more similar police sources on the problem.

I am in favor of reforms to avoid such deaths.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Here's an alternative version:

- Zimmerman said he wouldn't follow
- Zimmerman, frustrated that they always get away with it, changed his mind and followed
- Trayvon Martin saw a creepy white guy stalking him, hid, or tried to escape, but Zimmerman eventually managed to find him / cut him off
- Zimmerman tackled Martin
- Martin fought off Zimmermans attack
- Zimmerman, losing the fight he initiated, and not willing to let Martin get away, pulled his gun and shot him

This is the problem with taking one persons word for what happened during a period of time that is essentially, known by only one person - the killer.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Here's an alternative version:

- Zimmerman said he wouldn't follow
- Zimmerman, frustrated that they always get away with it, changed his mind and followed

Your alternative version is contrary to the evidence. The location of the fight is clear evidence that Mr. Zimmerman did not follow.

vikorr wrote:

This is the problem with taking one persons word for what happened during a period of time that is essentially, known by only one person - the killer.

I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. I'm considering the location of the fight.

That said, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a civilized country. It's not up to the accused to prove that they are innocent.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Your alternative version is contrary to the evidence. The location of the fight is clear evidence that Mr. Zimmerman did not follow.

This is not correct. It can very simply be explained by:
- Martin hiding until Zimmerman found him (Zimmerman could easily have pulled his gun on getting out of his vehicle)
- Zimmerman chasing Martin around in circles (martin may not have wanted to lead a whack job stalker home)

After all, the question of 'what was X doing in the area for 4 minutes' applies to both Martin and Zimmerman.

Quote:

I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. I'm considering the location of the fight.

Actually, both versions explain the location of the fight - so you are taking one persons word.

Quote:

That said, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a civilized country. It's not up to the accused to prove that they are innocent.

Which is fine, and not at issue here.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

This is not correct. It can very simply be explained by:
- Martin hiding until Zimmerman found him (Zimmerman could easily have pulled his gun on getting out of his vehicle)

So upon hearing that he should probably stop following, Mr. Zimmerman instead starts looking for a hiding place in the same area where he received the advice, and then suddenly finds Trayvon hidden after searching the same area for four minutes?

That scenario is implausible in the extreme.

vikorr wrote:

- Zimmerman chasing Martin around in circles (martin may not have wanted to lead a whack job stalker home)

It's a pretty odd coincidence that the confrontation happened right in the area where Mr. Zimmerman was advised that pursuit was a bad idea.

vikorr wrote:

After all, the question of 'what was X doing in the area for 4 minutes' applies to both Martin and Zimmerman.

Mr. Zimmerman was spending that four minutes staying in one area and not following Trayvon.

vikorr wrote:

Actually, both versions explain the location of the fight - so you are taking one persons word.

Your first version is implausible. How does Trayvon go from "fleeing in the distance" to "being hidden right next to Mr. Zimmerman"?

And if Mr. Zimmerman is searching only in that one area, why does it take four minutes for him to find Trayvon?

Your second version is unlikely. What are the odds that going in circles for four minutes will lead to a confrontation in the same area where Mr. Zimmerman received advice to not pursue?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know