Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jeantel Warned of Gay Rapist; Black Juror Ops

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

People also ask why there were no blacks in the jury. According to CNN, the prosecutor excused a potential black juror because the man was a Fox News viewer. The real discrimination is against Black Conservatives, not blacks, this coming from the Left of course.

http://newsbusters.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 3:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

LOL. Of course Zimmerman was not a gay rapist.


People also ask why there were no blacks in the jury. According to CNN, the prosecutor excused a potential black juror because the man was a Fox News viewer. The real discrimination is against Black Conservatives, not blacks, this coming from the Left of course.

http://newsbusters.org...

I saw this earlier and thought it was disgusting. She should have been on the jury. More important, there should have been 12 juries of men and women.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:03:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 3:51:58 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

LOL. Of course Zimmerman was not a gay rapist.
How the hell would he know that? All he knows is some fat creepy dude is following him. This helps my point that Martin only attacked because he believed he was in danger.



People also ask why there were no blacks in the jury. According to CNN, the prosecutor excused a potential black juror because the man was a Fox News viewer. The real discrimination is against Black Conservatives, not blacks, this coming from the Left of course.

http://newsbusters.org...

I saw this earlier and thought it was disgusting. She should have been on the jury. More important, there should have been 12 juries of men and women.

Agreed.
#BlackLivesMatter
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

So it's one thing to say that using a gun was excessive in pursuit of self-defense, but another thing to sit here and actually claim that the kid had a right to initiate the fight because he was being followed. If someone is tailgaiting you on the highway, do you think you can pull out a gun and shoot his tires and that would be perfectly okay? Or if someone calls you a name, can you knock that person down and that would be perfectly okay?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:20:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Are you serious man? Do you believe all violence is physical? Making someone feel threatened is an act of violence. It is not OK to make someone fear for their well being or the well being of loved ones. Answer me this, If I start chasing a woman down the street and she's running away but then she stops and maces me, and kicks me in the groin. Are you honestly going to charge this woman with assault?
So it's one thing to say that using a gun was excessive in pursuit of self-defense, but another thing to sit here and actually claim that the kid had a right to initiate the fight because he was being followed. If someone is tailgaiting you on the highway, do you think you can pull out a gun and shoot his tires and that would be perfectly okay? Or if someone calls you a name, can you knock that person down and that would be perfectly okay?

Tailgating me is stupid, dangerous and annoying but not very threatening. Calling me a name? Childish but not threatening. Actually threatened my life, my son's or my wife's life, and I will fVcking bury you.
#BlackLivesMatter
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:25:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:20:56 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Are you serious man? Do you believe all violence is physical? Making someone feel threatened is an act of violence. It is not OK to make someone fear for their well being or the well being of loved ones. Answer me this, If I start chasing a woman down the street and she's running away but then she stops and maces me, and kicks me in the groin. Are you honestly going to charge this woman with assault?

Well that's pretty different and non-analogous to the known facts in this case, innit?

If a guy's following at a distance too great to be maced, and the woman then turns, run towards him, and maces him and kicks him in the nards? I most certainly would.

So it's one thing to say that using a gun was excessive in pursuit of self-defense, but another thing to sit here and actually claim that the kid had a right to initiate the fight because he was being followed. If someone is tailgaiting you on the highway, do you think you can pull out a gun and shoot his tires and that would be perfectly okay? Or if someone calls you a name, can you knock that person down and that would be perfectly okay?

Tailgating me is stupid, dangerous and annoying but not very threatening. Calling me a name? Childish but not threatening. Actually threatened my life, my son's or my wife's life, and I will fVcking bury you.

As well you should. And if there were actual evidence that that occurred, the dialogue would be different. But you don't get to attack someone based on assumptions, do you? You need actual imminent threat.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:25:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/16/2013 5:20:56 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Are you serious man? Do you believe all violence is physical? Making someone feel threatened is an act of violence. It is not OK to make someone fear for their well being or the well being of loved ones. Answer me this, If I start chasing a woman down the street and she's running away but then she stops and maces me, and kicks me in the groin. Are you honestly going to charge this woman with assault?

Well that's pretty different and non-analogous to the known facts in this case, innit?

If a guy's following at a distance too great to be maced, and the woman then turns, run towards him, and maces him and kicks him in the nards? I most certainly would.

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying that that's necessarily analogous, either, but rather, that since we don't know the specifics, it could be either scenario, and assuming the veracity of one is not appropriate.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But we KNOW the Trayvon took off running and we KNOW the Zimmerman gave chase. What we don't know is who initiated contact. We just know that Zimmerman was getting his @ss beat.

And I never said I would be following the woman. I said chasing. Following is ambiguous. Chasing is direct. Zimmerman chased Martin
#BlackLivesMatter
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:43:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:20:56 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Are you serious man? Do you believe all violence is physical? Making someone feel threatened is an act of violence. It is not OK to make someone fear for their well being or the well being of loved ones. Answer me this, If I start chasing a woman down the street and she's running away but then she stops and maces me, and kicks me in the groin. Are you honestly going to charge this woman with assault?
So it's one thing to say that using a gun was excessive in pursuit of self-defense, but another thing to sit here and actually claim that the kid had a right to initiate the fight because he was being followed. If someone is tailgaiting you on the highway, do you think you can pull out a gun and shoot his tires and that would be perfectly okay? Or if someone calls you a name, can you knock that person down and that would be perfectly okay?

Tailgating me is stupid, dangerous and annoying but not very threatening. Calling me a name? Childish but not threatening. Actually threatened my life, my son's or my wife's life, and I will fVcking bury you.

There's a fine line between terrorizing someone by purporting to inflict harm upon him or her, and simply following someone. We don't live in a world where you get to physically hurt other people because they have offended you or annoyed you. Following is not a threat to your life. Following is not a violation of your liberty, and inasmuch as Trayvon had the right to be on that sidewalk, Zimmerman had the right to be there too.

I understand that a threat may escalate from the act of following - but then it would be the threat or expression of violent intentions that warrants self-defense, and not the following itself.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:49:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:37:38 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
But we KNOW the Trayvon took off running and we KNOW the Zimmerman gave chase. What we don't know is who initiated contact. We just know that Zimmerman was getting his @ss beat.

And I never said I would be following the woman. I said chasing. Following is ambiguous. Chasing is direct. Zimmerman chased Martin

You're right. You used loaded language on purpose. I tried to ignore it.

We don't know Zimmerman gave chase in the manner you describe. His testimony is that he was going towards his car at the time he was attacked. There aren't other witnesses saying he was "chasing". Testimony from the person TM was on the phone with was that the "chase" had ended, even if it was a chase, since there was conversation.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:02:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:37:38 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
But we KNOW the Trayvon took off running and we KNOW the Zimmerman gave chase. What we don't know is who initiated contact. We just know that Zimmerman was getting his @ss beat.

And I never said I would be following the woman. I said chasing. Following is ambiguous. Chasing is direct. Zimmerman chased Martin

False. Zimmerman FOLLOWED him to locate the address of his coordinates to report to the police. Travyon said that Zimmerman was staring at him. That's not chasing.

"Pursuit" is a lie, never happened according to the available evidence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

She said 'might'. Which, if all I knew was that someone was following someone else with no particular reason why, would be a possibility I would consider.

People also ask why there were no blacks in the jury. According to CNN, the prosecutor excused a potential black juror because the man was a Fox News viewer. The real discrimination is against Black Conservatives, not blacks, this coming from the Left of course.

http://newsbusters.org...

Daily Caller, which is hardly a left bastion, quoted the guy saying:

Costello reminded her guests that the prosecution had struck down one black potential juror, and Skolnick suggested it was because he was a viewer of the Fox News Channel.

"Yeah, he was also, I was just " he was also a Fox News watcher," Skolnick said. "So that was, you know, problematic for the prosecution."

[Emphasis mine]

http://dailycaller.com...
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:27:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why did Trayvon hit Zimmerman? Was he trying to steak his watch?

Let's run an experiment. I want to have someone follow you gentleman just to see how you feel. I'll just put like a post on your local craiglist or something. We might actually get someone who will do it too. Gotta love the internet.
#BlackLivesMatter
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:27:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Why did Trayvon hit Zimmerman? Was he trying to steak his watch?

Let's run an experiment. I want to have someone follow you gentleman just to see how you feel. I'll just put like a post on your local craiglist or something. We might actually get someone who will do it too. Gotta love the internet.

Just because a person is creeped out by someone is not justification for violence. Clearly, it is for you, which frightens the heck out of me considering your job.

The only justification for violence is in response to imminent threat.

Why did TM attack Z? The short answer is: we'll never know if he did or didn't.

But if we assume he did, he might have been scared. People do stupid things when they're scared. Doesn't make them less stupid. It might be because he wanted to be a tough guy, a la the stereotypical belligerant "What're you staring at!" guy who starts fights in bars. Pretending that it MUST have been because of an imminent threat, JUST BECAUSE he attacked him, is laughable. We may as well say Z MUST be innocent, otherwise he wouldn't have shot!

Pre-emptive violence is not legal, even if someone is doing something you don't like. And, honestly, people who are ACTUALLY scared don't talk with friends on the phone; if they're going to use the phone, they call the cops.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:27:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Why did Trayvon hit Zimmerman? Was he trying to steak his watch?

because he was being followed and thought that would be an appropriate response.

I don't know what to make of a police officer arguing that it's okay to attack people if they follow you. And, yeah hi, this conflict occurred on public grounds! Who the hell claims the right to isolated independence when you're on property you don't own and is available to everyone? If someone wants to follow you while you're walking on a street, that person's a creep, but he/she damn well has the right to do so and that is not an act of aggression by any reasonable standard.

So enough of this nonsense. He started the fight, he faced the consequences. I'd support a change to the law in which you should be forced to find a way to escape the conflict or fight back physically before using deadly force. But to sit here and pretend like following is a sufficient threat to initiate violence is beyond unconscionable to me.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 8:39:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

People also ask why there were no blacks in the jury. According to CNN, the prosecutor excused a potential black juror because the man was a Fox News viewer. The real discrimination is against Black Conservatives, not blacks, this coming from the Left of course.

http://newsbusters.org...

More twaddle from dear Geo.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Y'know, it's like what's done is done. Zimmerman was acquitted. Do we really need to harp on and on like we're trying to prove that Zimmerman is even more innocent or something?

A bit redundant, if you ask me.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:47:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:27:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Why did Trayvon hit Zimmerman? Was he trying to steak his watch?

Let's run an experiment. I want to have someone follow you gentleman just to see how you feel. I'll just put like a post on your local craiglist or something. We might actually get someone who will do it too. Gotta love the internet.

I don't blame Travyon or Jeantel for anything. They're both innocent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:50:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me clarify that I too would tell Travyon that the guy is up to no good and to get out of there. If I was Travyon, I too would feel threatened by someone following me.

I've always said this tragedy occurred due to a misunderstanding on behalf of both of them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:29:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.

Okay, just don't even respond to my arguments because you hardly know how to read. When it reaches the point that every time you speak I need to tell you that what you're saying is not what I'm arguing, you should just stop.

Obviously pointing a gun at someone is a threat of violence. I've made it pretty clear that there has to be clear and immediate suggestion of violent intentions in order for one to actually fear for his life. And the act of following in itself does not cause mortal fear - perhaps the events that may be arise from the following would initiate the mortal fear, but fear from the following itself would be speculative at best and not enough to initiate violence and call it self-defense.

Furthermore, you have no such right to independent isolation in public, on land that you don't own, and that's open to everyone. So inasmuch as Trayvon has the right to be on that sidewalk walking home, Zimmerman has every right to follow him if he so wishes. You can't just restrict non-violational free motion on public property, especially if that motion does NOT include physically incapacitative invasion of personal space. So every argument on the matter is completely moot. Not only isn't mere following grounds for certain mortal fear, it isn't illegal and it isn't immoral. It's just annoying to the subject and that's too bad.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 7:46:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 4:03:48 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 3:51:58 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

LOL. Of course Zimmerman was not a gay rapist.
How the hell would he know that? All he knows is some fat creepy dude is following him. This helps my point that Martin only attacked because he believed he was in danger.

And if Martin were on trial, he would not be found guilty if he could show the jury that he genuinely believed he was in danger and that's why he threw a punch.

See how that works? (Not addressed to you in particular, just the collective imbecility of the people who literally want to make a federal case of this)
This space for rent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 8:02:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.

The guy who pulled the gun would not be prosecuted for attempted murder. Because it wouldn't meet the criteria. It would be assault with a deadly weapon (as assault generally takes into account threats). However, you're equating pointing a gun at someone with following them. Not the same thing. One has a clear and imminent danger, the other does not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:30:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:50:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let me clarify that I too would tell Travyon that the guy is up to no good and to get out of there. If I was Travyon, I too would feel threatened by someone following me.

I've always said this tragedy occurred due to a misunderstanding on behalf of both of them.

Thank you! Very much agreed here. I don't see Zimmerman as some KKK member who wanted to kill some black kid. He's prejudice, sure. but not racist. And Martin is some violent thug who beat Zimmerman just because he could.
#BlackLivesMatter
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:34:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:29:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.

Okay, just don't even respond to my arguments because you hardly know how to read. When it reaches the point that every time you speak I need to tell you that what you're saying is not what I'm arguing, you should just stop.

Obviously pointing a gun at someone is a threat of violence. I've made it pretty clear that there has to be clear and immediate suggestion of violent intentions in order for one to actually fear for his life. And the act of following in itself does not cause mortal fear - perhaps the events that may be arise from the following would initiate the mortal fear, but fear from the following itself would be speculative at best and not enough to initiate violence and call it self-defense.

Furthermore, you have no such right to independent isolation in public, on land that you don't own, and that's open to everyone. So inasmuch as Trayvon has the right to be on that sidewalk walking home, Zimmerman has every right to follow him if he so wishes. You can't just restrict non-violational free motion on public property, especially if that motion does NOT include physically incapacitative invasion of personal space. So every argument on the matter is completely moot. Not only isn't mere following grounds for certain mortal fear, it isn't illegal and it isn't immoral. It's just annoying to the subject and that's too bad.

Buuut it is illegal. Here I'll post it again.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct(following) directed at a specific person(Martin) that would cause a reasonable person to"
(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

We know from his phone call that his is how he felt.
#BlackLivesMatter
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:47:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:34:33 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:29:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.

Okay, just don't even respond to my arguments because you hardly know how to read. When it reaches the point that every time you speak I need to tell you that what you're saying is not what I'm arguing, you should just stop.

Obviously pointing a gun at someone is a threat of violence. I've made it pretty clear that there has to be clear and immediate suggestion of violent intentions in order for one to actually fear for his life. And the act of following in itself does not cause mortal fear - perhaps the events that may be arise from the following would initiate the mortal fear, but fear from the following itself would be speculative at best and not enough to initiate violence and call it self-defense.

Furthermore, you have no such right to independent isolation in public, on land that you don't own, and that's open to everyone. So inasmuch as Trayvon has the right to be on that sidewalk walking home, Zimmerman has every right to follow him if he so wishes. You can't just restrict non-violational free motion on public property, especially if that motion does NOT include physically incapacitative invasion of personal space. So every argument on the matter is completely moot. Not only isn't mere following grounds for certain mortal fear, it isn't illegal and it isn't immoral. It's just annoying to the subject and that's too bad.

Buuut it is illegal. Here I'll post it again.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct(following) directed at a specific person(Martin) that would cause a reasonable person to"
(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

We know from his phone call that his is how he felt.

nonsense. Following does not apply under either of those descriptions and I doubt imprisoning people for the crime of "following" was the intention of the law. So no reasonable person would believe that it applies.

I feel fear for my safety every time someone runs with scissors. I fear for my safety every time someone has a candle near me. I fear for my safety every time someone legally merges on the highway. I guess I should call the police an all of them then.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:47:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:34:33 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:29:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.

Okay, just don't even respond to my arguments because you hardly know how to read. When it reaches the point that every time you speak I need to tell you that what you're saying is not what I'm arguing, you should just stop.

Obviously pointing a gun at someone is a threat of violence. I've made it pretty clear that there has to be clear and immediate suggestion of violent intentions in order for one to actually fear for his life. And the act of following in itself does not cause mortal fear - perhaps the events that may be arise from the following would initiate the mortal fear, but fear from the following itself would be speculative at best and not enough to initiate violence and call it self-defense.

Furthermore, you have no such right to independent isolation in public, on land that you don't own, and that's open to everyone. So inasmuch as Trayvon has the right to be on that sidewalk walking home, Zimmerman has every right to follow him if he so wishes. You can't just restrict non-violational free motion on public property, especially if that motion does NOT include physically incapacitative invasion of personal space. So every argument on the matter is completely moot. Not only isn't mere following grounds for certain mortal fear, it isn't illegal and it isn't immoral. It's just annoying to the subject and that's too bad.

Buuut it is illegal. Here I'll post it again.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct(following) directed at a specific person(Martin) that would cause a reasonable person to"
(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

We know from his phone call that his is how he felt.

Then Zimmerman could be considered guilty of stalking. But just because committing a crime gets you into a potentially deadly confrontation doesn't mean if you defend yourself you've committed murder.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:49:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 3:50:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People often asked what reason would Travyon have to attack Zimmerman. Jeantel told the world on CNN yesterday. She told Travyon through the phone that Zimmerman was a gay rapist.

http://drudgereport.com...

People also ask why there were no blacks in the jury. According to CNN, the prosecutor excused a potential black juror because the man was a Fox News viewer. The real discrimination is against Black Conservatives, not blacks, this coming from the Left of course.

http://newsbusters.org...

False. Unless you are Black you could never understand the sheer hatred and resentment that comes from the other side.
So your comments are dead to me.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:51:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:47:40 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Then Zimmerman could be considered guilty of stalking. But just because committing a crime gets you into a potentially deadly confrontation doesn't mean if you defend yourself you've committed murder.

Okay can we please stop for a moment and digest the sheer unconstitutional absurdity of jailing people for following others? Is it every time we find someone creepy or annoying that we get to abolish it and imprison offenders? There has to be a violation of someone's freedom or someone's right. And so long as you're on public property, you don't have a right to not be followed or be isolated or to be independent. Followers are creeps but they're not violating anything.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:04:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:47:17 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/17/2013 9:34:33 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:29:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:40:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
AO:

I don't see how you can think it's ever justified for someone to initiate violence and be the physical aggressor in a conflict. Following someone is not an act of violence, nor does that following incapacitate you or your liberties. Violence does.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Pointing a gun at someone is not initiating violence. Only pulling the trigger is initiating violence.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I would feel aggressed, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. I would feel justified, if I survived the encounter, to call the cops and expect the man to be prosecuted for attempted murder.

It does not take overt violence for someone to feel threatened.

Okay, just don't even respond to my arguments because you hardly know how to read. When it reaches the point that every time you speak I need to tell you that what you're saying is not what I'm arguing, you should just stop.

Obviously pointing a gun at someone is a threat of violence. I've made it pretty clear that there has to be clear and immediate suggestion of violent intentions in order for one to actually fear for his life. And the act of following in itself does not cause mortal fear - perhaps the events that may be arise from the following would initiate the mortal fear, but fear from the following itself would be speculative at best and not enough to initiate violence and call it self-defense.

Furthermore, you have no such right to independent isolation in public, on land that you don't own, and that's open to everyone. So inasmuch as Trayvon has the right to be on that sidewalk walking home, Zimmerman has every right to follow him if he so wishes. You can't just restrict non-violational free motion on public property, especially if that motion does NOT include physically incapacitative invasion of personal space. So every argument on the matter is completely moot. Not only isn't mere following grounds for certain mortal fear, it isn't illegal and it isn't immoral. It's just annoying to the subject and that's too bad.

Buuut it is illegal. Here I'll post it again.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct(following) directed at a specific person(Martin) that would cause a reasonable person to"
(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

We know from his phone call that his is how he felt.

nonsense. Following does not apply under either of those descriptions and I doubt imprisoning people for the crime of "following" was the intention of the law. So no reasonable person would believe that it applies.

I feel fear for my safety every time someone runs with scissors. I fear for my safety every time someone has a candle near me. I fear for my safety every time someone legally merges on the highway. I guess I should call the police an all of them then.

How the hell are those directed at you!? Is he running with scissors at you? Trying to burn you with a candle? Trying to run you off the road? Because then yes, guy, call the goddamn police.
#BlackLivesMatter