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. -
No, from the physical evidence that was collected and presented at trial. Let me guess, you're trolling me again with your stupidity.2001400ex said:
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. -
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at. -
No, Coug did not. You're a liar.SFGbob said:All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
Yes, it is.
Not, it does not. -
Why are you talking about George?creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at. -
Yes. Do you have something new that takes it off the table? Not only did I say he could have, I also said it was plausible. And. It. Is. Tell me why it isn't other than the fact that once the fight started he lost it, because that's irrelevant to the genesis of the altercation, which is what matters.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?
Meanwhile the evidence that does exist only points to Zimmerman as the pursuer (not the one being pursued), the agitator and the instigator. The one who followed him like a weirdo creep stalking a victim, the one who disobeyed actual directive to disengage, and the one who got out of his car and gave chase when the kid tried to run away from him - the opposite of disengaging. That guy. Is he the one who you can't imagine starting something with Martin? That guy?
Does this mean he did start it? No.
Does anything point to Martin starting it? Not really, though one could easily imagine being chased by someone who has made you fear for your safety and abandoning flight and turning to fight.
Does the fact that Zimmerman can't fight point to Martin starting it? No, and it is with this point you and dumb dumb seem to be struggling the most.
Not only is it false that all the evidence "points to Trademark as the aggressor", but it's more accurate to say none of it does. As I've pointed out several times, and which your bozo friend and you have failed to refute, the fact that he was winning the fight is indicative of absolutely nothing other than Zimmerman being a shitty fighter.
What actions? How about stalking someone and chasing them when they tried to get away, all for doing nothing wrong.
At this point I'm confident my Lab understands this. -
Maybe his mom is a shit like Zimmerman. You didn't take him to task for trying to capitalize on the tragedy by selling the famous murder weapon. Why take Trayvon to task by being unoriginal and using the term in lieu of his name ad nauseam? He didn't do it. In fact, maybe now you should quit listing the fact that his mom kicked him out as evidence he's was a bad kid. Maybe she was a bad mom.SFGbob said:
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.
-
Thought you were taking the day off.RaceBannon said:
Why are you talking about George?creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Why not? -
The comparison to the Mike Brown situation is entirely inapposite. Totally different facts and circumstances. The only common fact is the kid was black in both cases. Is that how you think they're the same?SFGbob said:
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? -
He has nothing to do with the current Tryvon TV showcreepycoug said:
Thought you were taking the day off.RaceBannon said:
Why are you talking about George?creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Why not?
The left is still making money off the dead kid.
-
Pathetic. No one claimed that this remained in the news because the media used sanitized pictures of Trademark. But the narrative that the media happily created, innocent, poor young black child who wanted to be an astronaut, coming home with candy he had purchased for his sick brother who was at home watching the All-Star game, murdered by a big fat white guy who racially profiled the innocent teen and then called him a "coon" before shooting him dead, definitely played a role in all of this still being in the collective mind of the left.creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Change Zimmerman name to Jorge Gonzalez and this case would have never gone to trial and Tayvon's mother would have never felt the need to trademark his name. -
Play your fucking word games Kunt. So Zimmerman was the "instigator" of the fight but he didn't "start" the fight. What a putz.creepycoug said:
No, Coug did not. You're a liar.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.
Yes, it is.
Not, it does not. -
Take it up with your ass munching pal Hondo, he's the dipshit that claimed being unarmed was the relevant factor here.creepycoug said:
The comparison to the Mike Brown situation is entirely inapposite. Totally different facts and circumstances. The only common fact is the kid was black in both cases. Is that how you think they're the same?SFGbob said:
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? -
Sure. I've conceded the point that shit gets politicized.RaceBannon said:
He has nothing to do with the current Tryvon TV showcreepycoug said:
Thought you were taking the day off.RaceBannon said:
Why are you talking about George?creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Why not?
The left is still making money off the dead kid.
As for people not forgetting the matter, or at least forgetting George, George himself had something to do with it for a time. I think this one goes beyond bleeding heart liberals and making a buck. @TurdBuffer is not the only person I know who is right of center who found the Martin case concerning.
And I've not once encountered anyone who's defended Zimmerman like these two yahoos. -
I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
-
So now you're conceding the fact that the left has been making money off of Trademark for years after saying earlier today:creepycoug said:
Sure. I've conceded the point that shit gets politicized.RaceBannon said:
He has nothing to do with the current Tryvon TV showcreepycoug said:
Thought you were taking the day off.RaceBannon said:
Why are you talking about George?creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Why not?
The left is still making money off the dead kid.
As for people not forgetting the matter, or at least forgetting George, George himself had something to do with it for a time. I think this one goes beyond bleeding heart liberals and making a buck. @TurdBuffer is not the only person I know who is right of center who found the Martin case concerning.
And I've not once encountered anyone who's defended Zimmerman like these two yahoos.
Again, people forgot about this whole matter 5 minutes after he was acquitted.
You'll say whatever bullshit you think you can get away with Coug. -
Good. I don't care about that part of it anyway, as I've explained to you. I'm sure you are fair and balanced when it comes to spotting politicized tragedy, so I'll leave you to monitor that particular problem in our society. And as I wrote in the prior post, maybe Trayvon's mom is a piece of shit too.SFGbob said:
Pathetic. No one claimed that this remained in the news because the media used sanitized pictures of Trademark. But the narrative that the media happily created, innocent, poor young black child who wanted to be an astronaut, coming home with candy he had purchased for his sick brother who was at home watching the All-Star game, murdered by a big fat white guy who racially profiled the innocent teen and then called him a "coon" before shooting him dead, definitely played a role in all of this still being in the collective mind of the left.creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Change Zimmerman name to Jorge Gonzalez and this case would have never gone to trial and Tayvon's mother would have never felt the need to trademark his name.
He may not have measured up to your standards, and the media may have sanitized him a bit, but there is not one question in my mind that I grew up around kids a lot tuffer, a lot more violent and a lot less respectful than anything I've read about Martin would suggest he was. Aberdeen, and most towns like it, were and are full of kids who move out of their houses because of trouble with family, who drink, who smoke pot (wtf cares?), get into fights and act like a bad ass. It's a defense mechanism Einstein. The vast majority with that profile don't turn out to be career criminals. Get a fucking clue.
And, while it doesn't fit into your brain apparently, a kid can be all the things you describe as part of going through some stage and also want to be an astronaut and also be actually carrying only candy in his pocket (fact that night) and actually be on his way to see a sick brother, and, maybe, the sick brother was actually watching the All Star game. Fuck, I don't know. All of that can be true. So what if it is? So what if it isn't?
The only thing about him that mattered relative to this case was what he was doing that night when Zimmerman decided he was following Ted Bundy.
My beef with the matter has not changed. I am not and would never be shocked or offended that people would use a tragedy for their own gain or interests. Sadly that's the world in which we live. Happens every day.
-
You've said a lot of dumb shit. That one takes the Cake. The Best part is this is after you've been railing on the "rats in the media brainwashing the left". Yet here you are brainwashed.SFGbob said:
Pathetic. No one claimed that this remained in the news because the media used sanitized pictures of Trademark. But the narrative that the media happily created, innocent, poor young black child who wanted to be an astronaut, coming home with candy he had purchased for his sick brother who was at home watching the All-Star game, murdered by a big fat white guy who racially profiled the innocent teen and then called him a "coon" before shooting him dead, definitely played a role in all of this still being in the collective mind of the left.creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Change Zimmerman name to Jorge Gonzalez and this case would have never gone to trial and Tayvon's mother would have never felt the need to trademark his name. -
Being unarmed is relevant. Are you saying it's not relevant?SFGbob said:
Take it up with your ass munching pal Hondo, he's the dipshit that claimed being unarmed was the relevant factor here.creepycoug said:
The comparison to the Mike Brown situation is entirely inapposite. Totally different facts and circumstances. The only common fact is the kid was black in both cases. Is that how you think they're the same?SFGbob said:
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?
Come watch such fag Bob struggle in every thread. -
Back with the tuff talk. Ok!SFGbob said:
Play your fucking word games Kunt. So Zimmerman was the "instigator" of the fight but he didn't "start" the fight. What a putz.creepycoug said:
No, Coug did not. You're a liar.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.
Yes, it is.
Not, it does not.
If you can't understand that the word "instigate" has a range of meanings, and that throwing the first punch or making the first physical move in an altercation is a narrower description of events, then take it up with your parents who didn't see to it that you obtained a proper education in American English. You can blame a lot of shit on me and mine, but not that one.
Dumbshit. -
Yes! People have been making $$ with it, and I've conceded 20X that it was politicized, because that happens all the fucking time. Run with it.SFGbob said:
So now you're conceding the fact that the left has been making money off of Trademark for years after saying earlier today:creepycoug said:
Sure. I've conceded the point that shit gets politicized.RaceBannon said:
He has nothing to do with the current Tryvon TV showcreepycoug said:
Thought you were taking the day off.RaceBannon said:
Why are you talking about George?creepycoug said:
Good point.RaceBannon said:It was forgot about 5 minutes after the trial?
Now showing
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Why not?
The left is still making money off the dead kid.
As for people not forgetting the matter, or at least forgetting George, George himself had something to do with it for a time. I think this one goes beyond bleeding heart liberals and making a buck. @TurdBuffer is not the only person I know who is right of center who found the Martin case concerning.
And I've not once encountered anyone who's defended Zimmerman like these two yahoos.
Again, people forgot about this whole matter 5 minutes after he was acquitted.
You'll say whatever bullshit you think you can get away with Coug.
You're still left with what happened.
