37
   

The politics of hoodie wearing

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 04:32 pm
@DrewDad,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
FALSE! Zimmy determined him to be the attacker.
THEN Zimmy TERMINATED the attack.
DrewDad wrote:
Only "Zimmy" knows why "Zimmy" fired that shot.
I have a hunch that that was the LAST thing that Mr. T damned well knew.



DrewDad wrote:
But I'm not questioning that Zimmerman decided to shoot; I'm questioning Zimmerman's judgement,
In other words: BETTER judgment to let him CONTINUE smashing his brain
against the street
and see how that works out.
Leave it in Mr. T 's discretion; that 's better judgment.
Yeah, if u 'd been there, u cud have advised Zimmy to DO that.

U have my implicit trust
that if u were getting your head slammed by ( a living) Mr. T
against the street, u 'd leave that matter in his discretion,
and u 'd keep your gun peacefully hostered.





DrewDad wrote:
and I question whether he's telling the truth about why he made that decision.
U did.




DrewDad wrote:
You've decided to accept Zimmerman's story at face value,
I did.



DrewDad wrote:
which is your prerogative.
It is.



DrewDad wrote:
Your insistence that everyone else do the same, however, is both tiresome
and inconsistent with your stated worldview.
I did not insist that, and I challenge u to prove that I insisted that.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 04:37 pm
@Irishk,
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.
Irishk wrote:
The lead detective doesn't think Zimmerman was being truthful with his version of events on the night in question.
Did the OTHER police AGREE with that point of vu???????
Was his a minority opinion ?????????
Shud the freedom of the citizens depend on minority opinions ??????



Irishk wrote:
Hopefully, a jury will figure that out, as well.
Hopefully, the case will be dismissed on a motion,
long before it gets to any jury, thereby to end Zimmy 's discomfort, if such there be.





David
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 04:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Repeating it ad nauseum is an implicit insistence that we accept your point of view.

The fact is, that there is no evidence that Zimmerman's life was in danger at the time of the shooting, other than his own testimony.

The fact is, that there is evidence that Trayvon was calling for help at the time of the shooting.

Personally, I doubt that someone intent on murder is going to be calling repeatedly for help.

Please stop badgering us with your opinion. At the very least, admit that is, in fact, only your opinion.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 05:36 pm
@DrewDad,
You all keep feeding, which is a way of fostering.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 08:49 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Repeating it ad nauseum is an implicit insistence that we accept your point of view.
What induces your nausea is seeing authoritarian-collectivism (i.e., "liberalism") being defeated in argument.
The cure is your abandonment of liberalism. Try it !




DrewDad wrote:
The fact is, that there is no evidence that Zimmerman's life was in danger
Assuming that to be true, for the moment,
he had no duty to put up with having his brain slammed on the street, instead of shooting the bad guy.
That 's what guns r for, which is the essence of what the USSC said in the HELLER case.



DrewDad wrote:
at the time of the shooting, other than his own testimony.
His testimony is OK; that 's good evidence.




DrewDad wrote:
The fact is, that there is evidence that Trayvon was calling for help at the time of the shooting.
That appears not to be the case (note the black dog-walker to the contrary),
but it is also irrelevant. [If u found out that John Wilkes Booth were calling for help
while inside Lincoln 's booth, wud that exculpate him ??????]
What is relevant is Zimmy 's effort to get Mr. T off his chest
and to end the further slamming of his brain, as aforesaid.



DrewDad wrote:
Personally, I doubt that someone intent on murder is going to be calling repeatedly for help.
U deny Zimmy 's 911 call for police??


DrewDad wrote:
Please stop badgering us with your opinion.
At the very least, admit that is, in fact, only your opinion.
Y not see if u can get the Terms of Service amended
so that AUTHORITARIAN-COLLECTIVISTS must get the last word over freedom-lovers,
either that, or just use the Ignore button ??
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:00 pm
@ossobuco,
Why doesn't that seem to resonate with them, osso?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:21 pm
@snood,
I have no idea - I keep watching some of the posters I take seriously engaging on and on and on and on and on and on.
And then on and on and on and on.
Even JoeNation.
And so, on and on and on and on.

I think this happened in psych 1A.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:29 pm
are we there yet...?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:01 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I have no idea - I keep watching some of the posters I take seriously engaging on and on and on and on and on and on.
And then on and on and on and on.
Even JoeNation.
And so, on and on and on and on.

I think this happened in psych 1A.




Yes, even Joe Nation. It baffles.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The cure is your abandonment of liberalism. Try it !

I fail to see how embracing idiocy is the cure for anything.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:09 pm
@DrewDad,
reality?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:11 pm
@snood,
JoeN was late to the scene and had stuff to say.

The rest - we're on page 40 - I see as feeding.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:30 pm
@Irishk,
I don't disagree with what you said. It doesn't change the fact that he wasn't lying about being attacked.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:32 pm
@Lash,
or hit by defense
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:34 pm
@Lash,
No, it means he wasn't lying about being struck in the face. It offers no evidence on whether he was the attacker or the attacked.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:36 pm
@ossobuco,
I would like to clarify - weird that I think I have to - pointing out that those who denied Zimmerman had any marks from a fight were wrong means nothing more right now than they were wrong.

And they were.

Wrong.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:37 pm
@DrewDad,
Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:57 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.

Just curious. Does it factor in with you at all that Zimmerman initiated the whole encounter?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 11:11 pm
@Lash,
The back of his head was injured? You're referring to those two baby scratches??? OMG, Mr.Irish gets worse than that from a friendly weekend rugby match!

Of course, Zimmerman's attorney will make it sound like he sustained brain damage -- I have not one doubt about that.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:40 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
I would like to clarify - weird that I think I have to - pointing out that those who denied Zimmerman had any marks
from a fight were wrong means nothing more right now than they were wrong.

And they were.

Wrong.
Yes n thay STILL r rong !





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2024 at 04:50:02