Gun Legislation

[Boatrocker]

. . . Comprehend much, like the word "refutes"?

I think you mean, "refudiate."

[rstrong]

Your claim that the toddler was "going about his business and doing nothing wrong," is an argument from facts not in evidence

That is a fact. Except of course for your lame "toddler" diversion from the facts. He went to a convenience store and got a drink and some Skittles.

who was in possession of precursors to the drug Lean

Namely Skittles.

No, really. That's what Zimmerman fanboys are telling gullible submorons is a drug precursor. Skittles. Which someone else in the household asked him to pick up.

was skulking about in yards

There's no evidence that he was doing this. All the evidence is that he was walking home from 7-11, talking on the phone with his girlfriend, when Zimmerman confronted him.

Of course afterward he may have cut corners to get away. Zimmerman killed him just 70 yards from his house.

...pure-blooded Aryan... ...lilly-white monster... ...pure-blooded Caucasian... ...so long as it's a black kid doing it...

I never mentioned race.

That's too much information about what's going on in your head.

[Cannonpointer]

O Really:

No, I agree with your right to disagree with the jury, and I acknowledge that an acquittal means nothing more than that the state could not prove its case - it does not guarantee that even the jury members themselves considered the defendant innocent.

That said, this was a public show trial. The original authorities found that no crime could be proved, and were hammered by the press. Then a special prosecutor was appointed and given plenty of time and money and expert assistance to prove the case. He failed.

Race was injected into the case by obvious race baiters, who bent over backwards to make a man whose ancestors include an African slave and a Peruvian mother "white," in order to cast the tiny, tiny child who was killed as a "victim" of "racism."

The real issue here is the right of a peaceful adult to monitor the activities of a suspicious teenager. I stand with the law of society, sir, and you stand with the law of the jungle. It appears to me that you hold the black infant to a lower standard because of his race.

Again, sir, I challenge you to address this important point: The state's own witness testified that her boyfriend made it home, then doubled back to way lay the "creepy ass cracker." There's the FIRST injection of race in this case, sir. CREEPY ASS CRACKER.

You side with a fellow who, following a racist utterance, launched an attack because he was pissed off. That's recorded testimony from the state's own witness.

[Cannonpointer]

RStrong said:

I never mentioned race.


Come now, RStrong. Let's not be coy. Race was injected the minute the attacker identified his victim as a "creepy ass cracker" in the moments before he ambushed the man. It was further injected by the press, who INSISTED that a man whose mom was Peruvian and whose great granddad was an African slave be identified as "white" for the purpose of the narrative.

[Cannonpointer]

rstong said:

"There's no evidence that he was doing this. All the evidence is that he was walking home from 7-11, talking on the phone with his girlfriend, when Zimmerman confronted him."

This is a lie. Zimmerman never confronted Trayvon, according to testimony.

The state's own witness claimed the opposite: That Trayvon left his place of "safety" (assuming he EVER felt "threatened"), and doubled back to assault the "creepy ass cracker."

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede wrote:

"Could be, but I've had my doubts since your first homophobic post here and your subsequent posts have lent support to those doubts."

I would never expect you to understand my genius, sir. You cannot even wrap your head around the fact that even "creepy ass crackers" still have a right to defend themselves against deadly force.

I can assure you that for your purposes, I am NOT a good little leftist. I am, as I said in another thread, an FDR Democrat - NOT a great society wimp or progressive apologist for violence so long as it's perpetrated by a pet victim group.

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede said:

"You don't have to break a law to initiate an unnecessary confrontation. Try to make sense."

Riiiight...

Behaving lawfully - but in a manner that annoys a minority - justifies an assault from ambush by the person you angered (IF he is a member of an identifiable victim group).

[O Really]

Now you're just being silly. It is perfectly lawful to go up to a few motorcyclists and tell them their colors are faded, but maybe not wise.

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede said:

"Wow, you actually believe GZ would have stalked a white kid. How dumb is that?"

The guy was a neighborhood watch volunteer, keeping an eye out for suspicious characters in an area where burglaries were occurring.

Yes, he would have followed a white teen. HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE RACE OF THE TEEN HE WAS FOLLOWING, when first interrogated on that subject.

Tell us how you became such an expert on the inner thoughts of the neighborhood watch volunteer, sir.

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede said:

"We get it already, you would have run and hid from someone stalking you."

Yes, you now ADMIT that the kid doubled back and confronted Zimm - so don't pretend later that Zimm confronted the kid.

[Cannonpointer]

I'm not a victim - just someone who agrees with the jury and disagrees with a racist.

[neoplacebo]

I'm not a victim - just someone who agrees with the jury and disagrees with a racist.

I advise you to turn back, Captain Redlegs.

[O Really]

Tell us how you became such an expert on the inner thoughts of the neighborhood watch volunteer, sir.

I don't know about Vrede, but I have been in a Community Watch in Florida - took the training from the cops, was even a block leader. Nothing that Zimmerman stated he did that night complies with anything a community watch person is supposed to do, other than calling the cops, after which he's supposed to go home or wherever he's going. He's not supposed to be armed in that role, and he's not supposed to confront a "suspect."

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede said:

"I can see Cannonpointer being that stupid and then, if one of the bikers told him to fudge off, stupidly, stupidly reaching into his pocket and then whining and whining about how unfair subsequent events were, if he survived them. That's how wimps with a perpetual victim mentality are."

You have a fertile imagination, son. Equating keeping an eye on a minority teen with picking a biker fight merely shows your expectation that all minorities are violent. Quite racist of you.

[Roland Deschain]

a masterfully spun web of word twisting and disparaging comments.

vrede when you offer something of actual substance the conversation other than your usual tripe. I might pay attention a bit...until then...not so much.

[Cannonpointer]

O Really said:

"I don't know about Vrede, but I have been in a Community Watch in Florida - took the training from the cops, was even a block leader. Nothing that Zimmerman stated he did that night complies with anything a community watch person is supposed to do, other than calling the cops, after which he's supposed to go home or wherever he's going. He's not supposed to be armed in that role, and he's not supposed to confront a suspect."

The testimony from the state's own star witness is that Trayvon did the confronting - that he made it home, and then looped around to await Zimmerman, who had broken off the pursuit. So he did not "confront a suspect."

The rest of your critique of zimm's adherence to neighborhood watch protocols is accurate to the best of my understanding. But he was not legally bound by those protocols, and at not juncture did he waive his right to self defense when attacked by a larger, stronger, better condition and better seasoned fighter.

You ARE aware, I hope, that the photo of the little boy published in original race baiting reports was a bit dated, yes?

[O Really]

You ARE aware, I hope, that the photo of the little boy published in original race baiting reports was a bit dated, yes?

Maybe "a bit dated," but not totally faked and of another person like the famous "big dude with tats and grill"

If Zimmerman had abided by the rules of his Community Watch and not gotten out of the car, everybody would have gotten home safely. Makes no difference if what he did was technically legal. Legal is not always wise. That was the point of my motorcyclist example - some things will predictably get a negative reaction, and one way to avoid getting killed or injured is to avoid those types of things. Like flipping birds in traffic. Like criticizing somebody's kid in the restaurant. Like talking to the drunk guy's girlfriend in the bar. Like following somebody you believe might be dangerous and getting out of the car to look for him.

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede said:

"You made the silly assertion that we can expect physical response only to illegal behavior."

Again, a fertile imagination. I made no such assertion. You may have inferred that, but I never said it - nor did I imply it or intend that you infer it.

My actual intention, which bounced off your already/always manner of experiencing the world, was that you understand you cannot justify unlawful behavior with unwise behavior. But you were doing just that when you implied that Zimm was "asking for it," and therefore responsible if he did get jumped - indeed, you carry on as if Zimmerman waived the right to self defense, since he behaved differently that you would have done.

[Cannonpointer]

O Really said, of the trayvon photo,

"Maybe a bit dated,"

You have demonstrated mastery of understatement. Well done.

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede said:

"Lie, again. GZ stated that there was a close quarters verbal confrontation before anything got physical, that's not 'ambush'."

Incorrect, of course. You do not understand what an ambush is, clearly. According to the state's start witness, Trayvon was AT HIS HOUSE. He then took off to encircle and confront the "creepy ass cracker." While the "creepy ass cracker" was retracing the steps he had taken while following the thug, the thug appeared in front of him.

The fact that Trayvon was verbal, pre-assault, doesn't mean it wasn't an ambush. You need a more complete dictionary, it would seem.