She-Guevara racist white nationalist
Comments
-
And while I generally appreciate a lot of what you post, @SFGbob, your repeatedly unfunny and unclever use of Trademark in place of Trayvon proves that, at the end of the day, you're just a dick who isn't worth the time or effort.
Bye, dick. -
No I do not.SFGbob said:
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?creepycoug said:
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?SFGbob said:
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters? -
No. And for reasons I've explained 100x, I don't care.SFGbob said:
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?creepycoug said:
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?SFGbob said:
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters? -
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?creepycoug said:
I. DID. NOT. STATE. AT. ANY. TIME. HE. STARTED. THE. FIGHT.SFGbob said:
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.creepycoug said:When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
-
Take it up with his mother, she's the one who trademarked her own son's name.TurdBuffer said:And while I generally appreciate a lot of what you post, @SFGbob, your repeatedly unfunny and unclever use of Trademark in place of Trayvon proves that, at the end of the day, you're just a dick who isn't worth the time or effort.
Bye, dick. -
I'd start with the unarmed dead 17 year old.SFGbob said:
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?creepycoug said:
I. DID. NOT. STATE. AT. ANY. TIME. HE. STARTED. THE. FIGHT.SFGbob said:
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.creepycoug said:When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me? -
He armed himself with the sidewalk that he smashed Zimmerman's head into. I guess Mike Brown couldn't have been the aggressor either since he too was unarmed.2001400ex said:
I'd start with the unarmed dead 17 year old.SFGbob said:
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?creepycoug said:
I. DID. NOT. STATE. AT. ANY. TIME. HE. STARTED. THE. FIGHT.SFGbob said:
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.creepycoug said:When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me? -
It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
-
All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor. -
From the account of the only person who lived. And was clearly a pussy.SFGbob said:All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
