The politics of hoodie wearing

@JTT,

I know that the article is long, but as I mentioned, it is only the tip of the iceberg. It is but a mere speck compared to what is hidden in CIA/NSA and other government files.

I suspect that, considering the level of honesty that comes from the vast majority of Americans, that is the last thing they would ever want to consider.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

I know that the article is long, but as I mentioned, it is only the tip of the iceberg.
It is but a mere speck compared to what is hidden in CIA/NSA and other government files.

J, even if anyone RESPECTED u, that pile of crap is a lot to ask us to ingest.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

J, even if anyone RESPECTED u, that pile of crap is a lot to ask us to ingest.

Your first sentence is illustrative of your great disdain for the truth, Om. Another of your famous distractions. This information comes from US government sources, from honest - unlike you - Americans.

I knew that it was a lot to digest. It's that way even for HONEST Americans. For lazy, no account, shiftless, amoral buggers like you it's nigh on impossible.

But it does illustrate that you are incredibly naive, dumb as a sack of hoe handles or one of the greatest liars the world has known.

It also confirms the premise that the US is a terrorist nation that has committed innumerable war crimes.

2 Replies

@JTT,

DAVID wrote:

J, even if anyone RESPECTED u,
that pile of crap is a lot to ask us to ingest.

JTT wrote:

Your first sentence is illustrative of your great disdain for the truth, Om.

U misunderstand, J.
I have no disdain for the truth; that is disdain for U.

JTT wrote:

Another of your famous distractions. This information comes from US government sources, from honest - unlike you - Americans.

Your credibility is so low, so poor
that I will not bother taking cognizance
of so long an offering. Forget it.

U, JTT, r not my news source.

David

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

It also confirms the premise that the US is a terrorist nation that has committed innumerable war crimes.

How can that be? We are a Christian Nation and God is on our side or things would not be so good for us. We have our petrodollars and God has allowed us to have military bases in so many countries. He would not have allowed us to do that if we were not the true peace keepers that we are would he? Shocked

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

EDIT: One smiley is too short a message for the hamsters to allow as a post whereas two are not.

0 Replies

http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-zimmerman-medical-report-shows-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html

He was beaten up.

Makes a difference to me.

Jury still out. (my little jury committee....)

1 Reply

@Lash,

And if he'd stayed put like he was told to, he wouldn't have a scratch on him and there would be no DEAD teenager in the morgue!

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Perhaps, but how many voices in this forum insisted that all claims about personal injury were fraudulent?

Not to mention that not "staying put" is not a crime.

Whether or not Zimmerman's failure to "stay put" was good judgment it doesnt exonerate his attacker.

If, as it appears, Martin chose to attack Zimmerman, the fact that Zimmerman ignored the advice or instructions of the police is meaningless.

Martin had a choice.

That he was a teenager is also meaningless, except to those who find it emotionally compelling, unless you believe a teenage murderer is fundamentally different from the adult version.

Once someone resorts to violence, they forfeit any argument that the violence that may receive in return is extreme.

The notion that someone in fear for their life is supposed to weigh the age of their attacker and whether or not their poor judgment put them at risk, is absurd.

Martin had a choice.

It appears he chose to attack Zimmerman.

The only rationale excuse for such an attack is that he feared for his safety.

Maybe that was the case, but it has to be proven, and not merely assumed by those who are in possession of precious few facts and a plethora of preconcieved notions.

Zimmerman needs to live with the fact that if he had "stayed put" Martin would not be dead, but unless their are laws about "staying put," Martin seems legally innocent.

He must be found guilty of violating an actual law, not someone's personal opinion of sensible conduct.

Martin's age, his race, and any history of injustice must be immaterial to this case.

Zeal, paranoia, and stupidity are not crimes.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Whether or not Zimmerman's failure to "stay put" was good judgment it doesnt exonerate his attacker.

1. You are assuming facts not in evidence. (Trayvon has not been determined to have been the attacker.)
2. Trayvon doe not need to be exonerated; he has not been charged.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

1) Except by the account of an eye-witness and Zimmerman. You're right though, it hasn't been proven than Martin was the attacker anymore than it has been proven that Zimmerman killed him. Somewhere on the internet there must be floating a conspiracy theory that asserts a phantom racist appeared who beat up Zimmerman to falsely lay the blame on Martin. Surely there must also be one to which I would not be shocked to learn you subscribe , that asserts Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood and then self-inflicted his injuries to cover up first degree murder.

2) Martin is dead, he can't be charged. If he need not be exonerated, why so much effort in this thread to do just that?

BTW - Is religiously referring to "Martin" by his given name somehow perceived as an expression of solidarity with one group or the other?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If, as it appears, Martin chose to attack Zimmerman, the fact that Zimmerman ignored the advice or instructions of the police is meaningless.

Zimmerman chose to disregard the advice of the police dispatcher that he called for advice. What do you suppose that dispatcher would have said to him if Zimmerman had been honest and not only admitted he was following Trayvon, but also revealed that he was armed???

So Zimmerman sustained a few minor injuries and dealt with that situation by shooting an unarmed teenager who was walking home from buying snacks and minding his own business. I'll never in a million years be convinced that passes any smell test on the planet.

NO pursuit, NO gun, NO dead teenager.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Martin had a choice.

Zimmerman had several. Martin's choices were severely circumscribed by the choices Zimmerman had already made. If you exercise poor judgment with a deadly weapon that results in the death of another human being -- and yes the fact that he was not yet an adult does matter, especially in terms of the judgment he was supposed to have exercised -- then you are most definitely responsible for that person's death.

At the moment there is still no evidence that Trayvon hit him more than once, and as far as I can tell from the reports Zimmerman isn't claiming he was hit more than once. Black eyes are a symptom of a broken nose, not an indication that he was hit in each eye, Three Stooges style. The current news report doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know and it doesn't excuse the killing of a young man who was otherwise minding his business.

Quote:

Once someone resorts to violence, they forfeit any argument that the violence that may receive in return is extreme.

That may be true in some human sense but it isn't true in a legal sense. And for good reason.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Is there an eye-witness other than Zimmerman?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

it hasn't been proven than Martin was the attacker anymore than it has been proven that Zimmerman killed him.

Silly lines like this seriously undermine your credibility. Zimmerman himself admits that he shot the kid. Are you positing that invisible space monkeys came down and stopped Trayvon's heart instead of Zimmerman's bullet?

Sometimes I wonder if you're attempting a parody of a rabid wingnut, but then I realize that someone with enough talent to pull that off would do a better job.

As for calling Trayvon by his given name, it's no more a slavish devotion to solidarity than the attempt by Zimmerman supporters to control the language by calling him "Martin." Get over yourself. Oh, wait, that will never happen.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Whether or not Zimmerman's failure to "stay put" was good judgment it doesnt exonerate his attacker.

DrewDad wrote:

1. You are assuming facts not in evidence. (Trayvon has not been determined to have been the attacker.)

FALSE! Zimmy determined him to be the attacker.
THEN Zimmy TERMINATED the attack.

David

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Quote:
If, as it appears, Martin chose to attack Zimmerman, the fact that Zimmerman ignored the advice or instructions of the police is meaningless.
Zimmerman chose to disregard the advice of the police dispatcher that he called for advice. What do you suppose that dispatcher would have said to him if Zimmerman had been honest and not only admitted he was following Trayvon, but also revealed that he was armed???

So Zimmerman sustained a few minor injuries and dealt with that situation by shooting an unarmed teenager who was walking home from buying snacks and minding his own business. I'll never in a million years be convinced that passes any smell test on the planet.

NO pursuit, NO gun, NO dead teenager.

Zimmy was 1OO% within his rights, both legal and moral,
to do ALL of those things.
Please note that I speak as a man who has been PURSUED on the road,
by some guys WITH A GUN, and shot at.

If the same thing happens 7 more times,
I will STILL fully support Zimmy 's rights in this matter, IrishK.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

FALSE![/size] Zimmy determined him to be the attacker.
THEN Zimmy TERMINATED the attack.

Only "Zimmy" knows why "Zimmy" fired that shot.

But I'm not questioning that Zimmerman decided to shoot; I'm questioning Zimmerman's judgement, and I question whether he's telling the truth about why he made that decision.

You've decided to accept Zimmerman's story at face value, which is your prerogative. Your insistence that everyone else do the same, however, is both tiresome and inconsistent with your stated worldview.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Zimmy was 1OO% within his rights, both legal and moral, to do ALL of those things.

Nope.

Legal to follow Trayvon? Sure. Moral? Seems that way.
Legal to carry a weapon? Sure. Moral? Unlikely.
Legal to shoot Trayvon? Undetermined. Moral? Unlikely.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Martin had a choice.

FreeDuck wrote:

Zimmerman had several. Martin's choices were severely circumscribed
by the choices Zimmerman had already made.
If you exercise poor judgment with a deadly weapon

Zimmy's choices concerning that weapon were fine, admirable
and in keeping with Original American Constitutionalism, as set forth in the Bill of Rights.

FreeDuck wrote:

that results in the death of another human being -- and yes the fact
that he was not yet an adult does matter,

That assertion is irrational,
in that Zimmy 's only concern was ending that attack,
so as to defend his own well being, not to protect the assailant,
whose age was irrelevant to Zimmy 's survival intact.

Think about it.
There is HUMOR in that notion:
If an adult is beating u to death, inflicting any unknown injuries,
then its OK to defensively kill him, but if
u r being gradually slaughtered by a juvenile,
then u need to let him DO it; don 't hurt him too much.
Its hard to believe that anyone can proffer such ideas, except in jest.
Presumably, Zimmy was duty-bound to demand of Mr. T
that he show his driver 's license for an age check,
while he was beating Zimmy 's head on the street.

FreeDuck wrote:

especially in terms of the judgment he was supposed to have exercised

"Supposed" if Martin were a defendant in litigation for assault upon the hapless Zimmy.
U are confusing different concepts here.

FreeDuck wrote:

then you are most definitely responsible for that person's death.

No. That death was perfectly justified
and the rest of us r all the safer for it.

FreeDuck wrote:

At the moment there is still no evidence that Trayvon hit him more than once,
and as far as I can tell from the reports Zimmerman isn't claiming he was hit more than once.

That is false.
ABC News has published a report
of Zimmy telling nabors that his head was being slammed on the street.

FreeDuck wrote:

Black eyes are a symptom of a broken nose, not an indication that he was hit in each eye, Three Stooges style. The current news report doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know and it doesn't excuse the killing of a young man who was otherwise minding his business.

"Otherwise" than slamming Zimmy 's brain on the street; reminiscent of the joke:
"Otherwise than that, how did u enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln ? "

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

But I'm not questioning that Zimmerman decided to shoot; I'm questioning Zimmerman's judgement, and I question whether he's telling the truth about why he made that decision.

The lead detective doesn't think Zimmerman was being truthful with his version of events on the night in question. Hopefully, a jury will figure that out, as well.

1 Reply

The politics of hoodie wearing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know