No, the basic TV stations and FOX. That's enough to rattle my chains.

If this were a white kid shooting up a school everyone would be blaming violent video games and such. I don't see anyone blaming violent TV, movies and music - much less any national outrage - over a black kid shooting a 13 month old white baby in its stroller.

On the other hand time to recognize a hero.

Lancaster teen Temar Boggs hailed as a hero in 5-year-old's abduction - News (http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/872026_Lancaster-teen-Temar-Boggs-hailed-as-a-hero-in-5-year-old-s-abduction.html)

Even prime-time sitcoms aren't sacred any longer. I'm so glad my kids are adults and I don't have to monitor their TV watching. Whatever happened to I Love Lucy and The Ed Sullivan Show??? Sex and bathroom humor are everywhere -- or am I just getting old? (Sorry -- I'm off topic but had to vent.)

You also have to give a nod to shows like Red Skelton and ground breaking ones like Sanford and Son as well as All in the Family.

You also have to give a nod to shows like Red Skelton and ground breaking ones like Sanford and Son as well as All in the Family.
Definitely -- and many more of that ilk.

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/)

There seems to be different standards of the stand your ground laws in Florida.

That case is really unfair. I was shocked that it happened in Florida, you expect that in Canada or Britain. It's an obvious double standard, if someone who is poor or a minority defends themselves, prosecutors love to pick on them. If someone is white and a wealthy, prominent member of their community, they won't even be charged. I think everyone should have an equal right to defend themselves. Reminds me of that saying "you're innocent until proven broke."

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/)

There seems to be different standards of the stand your ground laws in Florida.

Doesn't appear to be a different standard. I agree with the judge. They had a means to leave without violence. The getting the gun and coming back is what changed the outcome as far as the law was concerned.

That case is really unfair. I was shocked that it happened in Florida, you expect that in Canada or Britain. It's an obvious double standard, if someone who is poor or a minority defends themselves, prosecutors love to pick on them. If someone is white and a wealthy, prominent member of their community, they won't even be charged. I think everyone should have an equal right to defend themselves. Reminds me of that saying "you're innocent until proven broke."



Why is it unfair?

Why is it unfair?

Is that a rhetorical question? Did you read the Marissa Alexander case?

Is that a rhetorical question? Did you read the Marissa Alexander case?

Yes I read what I could. They wanted money to get the deposition. But according to what was stated the woman left and came back with a gun. There is a big difference between eminent danger and someone threatening with a gun.


Quote from article:

In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "stand your ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."

20 years in prison for firing a warning shot to get rid of an abuser isn't standing your ground, but shooting and killing someone is? Same prosecutor I may add as the Martin case.


Alexander's father, Raoul Jenkins, told Crimesider that his daughter had had a licensed gun for years and the two had been to the shooting range together.

"If Marissa wanted to shoot anybody she could," Jenkins says. "But that was not her intent. Her intent was to diffuse the situation without anyone getting hurt or killed."

Angela Corey is a moron who should be disbarred . She had the option of a number of lesser charges ;but decided to vindictively play hardball against Alexander because she refused a plea deal. She prosecuted Zimmerman on strictly political considerations ;bypassed the Grand Jury process ;and went with charges that were almost impossible to prove.

Neither case was/is a stand your ground case. It is absurd to sentence Alexander for 20 years ;but that is a result of silly mandatory sentencing guidelines.

The fact that she could've left is not relevant in my view because the testimony was unclear if she could've left through the garage(which Gray claimed was locked ). So she had to reenter the house to "escape through the back door " . So the real question is to what extent did she feel threatened by Gray ? She had to force her way out of the bathroom just to retrieve her gun. The unallowed evidence was Gray's history of women abuse. This was not a clear cut case by any means . It's he said /she said.

20 years in prison for firing a warning shot to get rid of an abuser isn't standing your ground, but shooting and killing someone is? Same prosecutor I may add as the Martin case.

So your saying that since she didn't know what the law was or how to handle herself with a firearm then she deserves a pass? I understand she passed on a plea bargin that would have been much less. The fact that she fired the gun is what lead to her troubles without using it to hit her intended target. Sure 20 years is harsh. But this is something this person created.

Still wondering where the national outrage is over a black kid shooting a 13 month old white baby.

Still wondering where the national outrage is over a black kid shooting a 13 month old white baby.

If it doesn't interest Al Sharpton there will be no "outrage " .

if it doesn't interest Al Sharpton there will be no "outrage " .

Black on black or black on white violence doesn't give anyone the opportunity to tweet things like this:

So your saying that since she didn't know what the law was or how to handle herself with a firearm then she deserves a pass? I understand she passed on a plea bargin that would have been much less. The fact that she fired the gun is what lead to her troubles without using it to hit her intended target. Sure 20 years is harsh. But this is something this person created.

She did know what the law was but the judge denied immunity, she did know how to use a firearm, and chose a warning shot rather than injury or death, the intent was clear get him to leave, rather than kill. How is killing someone after losing the fight any different from warning off an abuser bent on beating your ? Had Zimmerman stayed in his car and waited for the cops we wouldn't be here so how is that killing not of his making?

The law is written to expand where you can kill a person beyond your own home and opens up for shoot first, think later, and the standards for reasonable fear of life is arbitrary, and undefined.

Or this:
Female jogger killed by Amtrak train near White Rock - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/07/15/bc-amtrak-train-death.html)

Trains have been killing white people for ages now - where's the outrage!

Or this:
Female jogger killed by Amtrak train near White Rock - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/07/15/bc-amtrak-train-death.html)

Trains have been killing white people for ages now - where's the outrage!?

Has there been some brewing outrage over racist white or "white Hispanic" trains murdering black people?

She did know what the law was but the judge denied immunity, she did know how to use a firearm, and chose a warning shot rather than injury or death, the intent was clear get him to leave, rather than kill. How is killing someone after losing the fight any different from warning off an abuser bent on beating your ? Had Zimmerman stayed in his car and waited for the cops we wouldn't be here so how is that killing not of his making?

The law is written to expand where you can kill a person beyond your own home and opens up for shoot first, think later, and the standards for reasonable fear of life is arbitrary, and undefined.

These cases are not related and comparing them is a stretch. The only common denominator is the idiot prosecutor . Anyone who thinks she isn't an incompetent political opportunist has not examined her history. Alan Dershewitz has been all over her case for months now.

Has there been some brewing outrage over racist white or "white Hispanic" trains murdering black people?Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Yep, just like your stupid question.

Yep, just like your stupid question.
"Margaret Thatcher used to say, ' I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.." ."(Sarah Palin)

"Margaret Thatcher used to say, ' I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.." ."(Sarah Palin)

You always brighten my day, too.

Where did I attack you personally?

Treyvon got everything he deserved. And the world is a little bit better as a result.

Where did I attack you personally?

Just grow up, dude.

See? You get caught up in your own lies all the time.

George Zimmerman: It Was God's Plan For Me To Kill Trayvon Martin

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=494275467323007

You think it was GIA the Earth Mothers plan?

See? You get caught up in your own lies all the time.

I knew I should have just said "wait for it," because BOOM, there it is.

You think it was GIA the Earth Mothers plan?I agree with you. It was Zimmerman's plan all the way. Using an unseen figure in the sky as your excuse is really pathetic.

Hello again,

Do you remember the ScottGem/Fredg feud?? It was a barnstormer. It overlapped two websites. They HATED each other. And, it went on FAR longer than your piddly ole cat fight has.

But, it's getting boring. I'd start cussing or threatening...

excon

I won't stop correcting people posting misinformation. One person just seems to thrive on doing it.

I agree with you. It was Zimmerman's plan all the way. Using an unseen figure in the sky as your excuse is really pathetic.

No more than the Aetheists that get their panties in a knot over someone in the sky they claim doesn't exist.

Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist either but you don't get as upset about those.

If you are so secure in your belief there is no higher being... why get so upset if others actually do.

I'm not upset about their beliefs... except they use it to justify killing someone.

I'm not upset about their beliefs...except they use it to justify killing someone.

Lame... really lame... Not even Zimmerman is blaming it on god... how you read that into it is beyond me.

The only justification he needed was Treyvon was physically assaulting him... End of story.

You might have to quietly lay back and get beat to death or raped in Canada... but this happened in the USA and we have the legal right to defend ourselves... even if we have to kill our attacker to do it.

.Not even Zimmerman is blaming it on god... how you read that into it is beyond me.He says: "It was all god's plan"

He says: "It was all god's plan"You do speak English... don't you?

Undertand what a figure of speech is?

Ok, explain it. People use that expression a lot, such as when a child dies.

I won't dive into that silly debate, the jury has spoken and some have had a change of heart - after learning the facts from the trial and not the media.

Trayvon Martin verdict: Racism, hate crimes prosecution, and other overreactions. - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecut ion_and_other_overreactions.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar)

I guess words from the only surviving person from that encounter isn't as important as an opinion piece.

I think it would be a waste of time trying... sort of like trying to teach trgonometry to special ed students.

Particularly to an Aetheist.

I only asked how it's a figure of speech. Why is that hard to answer?

I only asked how it's a figure of speech. Why is that hard to answer?

You have to grasp the concept of religion to see why Zimmerman wasn't blaming it on god... if you don't "get" religion.. you won't get what he was saying.

And I'm not a missoinary trying to convert anyone.

I get religion. So what was he saying?
Don't worry, I won't take it as trying to convert me.

Its not unlike Karma... when things are predestined to happen.. . because of (fill in your reason). That's things are not totally random... and you only have a limited control of what happens or doesn't.

Ever see the Final Destination series of movies?

and you only have a limited control of what happens or doesn'tThen who has the other part of the control?

I guess words from the only surviving person from that encounter isn't as important as an opinion piece.

I gave the most important words, "the jury has spoken." In fact one juror said Zimmerman's heart was in the right place and she wouldn't mind him back on neighborhood watch, with his gun - “I think he’d be more responsible than anybody else on this planet right now” she said.

I suppose if the "all God's plan remark was as important as you're trying to make it the prosecution should have hammered it home, but it amounts to nothing other than Zimmerman using a cliche that amounts to "oh, well" - not "God made me do it."

The opinion piece was revealing, it isn't every day a journalist takes himself and his colleagues to task in such a manner. As he said, "It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism."

But then it's been perfectly clear to me that the left and the media accomplices are invested in fanning the racial flames whenever they can while shamelessly preaching the need for racial harmony and refusing to recognize reality.

Race Relations In America Improving Every Year, And The Media Hates It | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/online/race-relations-in-america-improving-every-year-and-the-media-hates-it/)

Then who has the other part of the control?

Depends on your beliefs... it can be mostly some other power.. they universe... luck... a lot of different stuff. For some its God... (or whoever is their god)... even some aetheists believe in predestination.

I don't. I'm responsible for my actions.

So he's basically saying that the killing was going to happen because his god had control of part of him.

I don't. I'm responsible for my actions.

So he's basically saying that the killing was going to happen because his god had control of part of him.

Not really... just the chain of events would have had him there no matter what happened. Because it was meant to be...


I'm not part of the predestination crowd either. But I understand it because I know a lot of people that are.

I don't. I'm responsible for my actions.

So he's basically saying that the killing was going to happen because his god had control of part of him.

Sigh...


I suppose if the "all God's plan remark was as important as you're trying to make it the prosecution should have hammered it home, but it amounts to nothing other than Zimmerman using a cliche that amounts to "oh, well" - not "God made me do it."

Hello again,

The PUTRID thing about saying it was Gods plan, is that it totally absolves Zimmerman of any responsibility whatsoever for Trayvons death. It's revolting..

excon

That's why most NW programs stress meeting the neighbors, knowing them and they know you, and working in pairs, and never armed. Wait for a response by police when called. Never follow. Communicating with his fellow watchers, and staying in his car may have been the better course of action, and that's what cops preach to NW groups.

Then the nog head cowboy wannebe cops don't have to do stupid stuff that leads to tragedy because they played hero. A buddy system may have prevented him from "leaving his vehicle looking for a street sign in a community with 3 streets, which he lived at for 4 years". Assuming the buddy wasn't as stupid as he was.

The damn fool never even identified himself, so maybe it was Gods will he was born stupid. But luckily he had a white judge for a daddy to get him out of trouble for assaulting his girlfriend, and arguing with a cop, and molesting a cousin.

That was my best "Smoothy" imitation, but you can check my facts and opinion and decide for yourself.

Hello again,

The PUTRID thing about saying it was Gods plan, is that it totally absolves Zimmerman of any responsibility whatsoever for Trayvons death. It's revolting..

excon

No... the fact that Treyvon assulted him and was beating him absolves him... You don't pound someone's head into the sidewalk if you don't intend to kill them...

He had every right to kill that thug.

And if someone had done the same to you... so would you.

Treyvon had ZERO special rights just because he was black... contrary to what certain people think...

If Treyvon was man enough to attack someone that was smaller and older than he was (Typical.. thugs like bullies aren't man enough to go after the bigger people).. then he was man enough to accept what happened... in this case.. he got what he deserved.

Play with fire enough times... then expect to get burned.

The text messages in Treyvons cell phone proved he got into a LOT of fights... the biggoted Judge kept those from being used as evidence.

Hello again, smoothy:

the fact that Treyvon assulted him and was beating him absolves him... Let's be clear. It's NOT a fact. It's what Zimmerman said. The only person who could refute it, is dead. You happen to believe it. But, that doesn't make it a fact.

Excon

Hello again, smoothy:
Let's be clear. It's NOT a fact. It's what Zimmerman said. The only person who could refute it, is dead. You happen to believe it. But, that doesn't make it a fact.

excon

Really... The evidence was there (a LOT of it) and it was determined in a court of law and a jury that it was..

Get over it... Zimmerman is innocent. He's been tried and accquited.

Get with reality here.

Treyvon was a drug user.. a thug.. a thief... and the assailant.(all proven and fact)... he would NEVER be able to carry a gun... Zimmerman was none of those things.

She did know what the law was but the judge denied immunity, she did know how to use a firearm, and chose a warning shot rather than injury or death, the intent was clear get him to leave, rather than kill. How is killing someone after losing the fight any different from warning off an abuser bent on beating your ? Had Zimmerman stayed in his car and waited for the cops we wouldn't be here so how is that killing not of his making?

The law is written to expand where you can kill a person beyond your own home and opens up for shoot first, think later, and the standards for reasonable fear of life is arbitrary, and undefined.

What amazes me in all of this is you can't seem to see the clear division in the law. When she didn't leave and when she grabbed a gun there was no defensive posture.

Someone on top of you beating your head into the ground is from a defensive posture.

Can you really not see the difference?

Democrats believe you should keep retrying someone for the same crime over and over until they get the result they want... Despite double jeoprady laws...

Unless of course it's their guy... then they cry that there would ever be a trial in the first place.

Hello again,

The PUTRID thing about saying it was Gods plan, is that it totally absolves Zimmerman of any responsibility whatsoever for Trayvons death. It's revolting..

Excon

What's revolting is you guys are totally ignoring the evidence and still concocting your own narratives. In the same interview he said "I'm sorry that this happened. I hate to think that because of this incident, because of my actions, that it's polarized and divided America."

Geez people, give it up. Accept the verdict and the facts and move on.


You Are Not Trayvon Martin (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecut ion_and_other_overreactions.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar)
His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.
By William Saletan

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy- cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

What's revolting is you guys are totally ignoring the evidence and still concocting your own narratives.We're not concocting anything - did you not watch the video where Zimmerman says exactly what we say he says? Why are you changing the subject?

We're not concocting anything - did you not watch the video where Zimmerman says exactly what we say he says? Why are you changing the subject?

Caught in your lies again, this is entirely your concoction (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3508198-post301.html).


So he's basically saying that the killing was going to happen because his god had control of part of him.

That's the way Smoothy explained the figure of speech. You need to read his posts too... unless you've blocked him.

Not even the Pope hears god talk to him... and neither did Zimmerman.

That's the way Smoothy explained the figure of speech. You need to read his posts too...unless you've blocked him.

Another lie, he mentioned the possibility of predestination which in essence is Que Sera, Sera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Que_Sera,_Sera_%28Whatever_Will_Be,_Will_Be%29), not God pulling the trigger.

Another lieNope, it's god's will.

I though it was Shiva... or Gia?

Could be the Flying Spagetti Monster too.

Media bias is getting even worse, I saw one reporter referring to Martin as "child with a small frame." That is an absolute lie. 17 is hardly a child, it is nearly an adult and he certainly did not have a small frame, I don't know his exact height and weight, but he played football, so he obviously wasn't some skinny wimp, he was larger than many adult men. I would not have wanted to run into him on the street after dark.

Nope, it's god's will.

Unlike some I know what I'm talking about here and you're still moving the goalposts, from God was controlling him to it was His will. It's all a sideshow, stick to the facts in evidence that matter.

Media bias is getting even worse, I saw one reporter referring to Martin as "child with a small frame." That is an absolute lie. 17 is hardly a child, it is nearly an adult and he certainly did not have a small frame, I don't know his exact height and weight, but he played football, so he obviously wasn't some skinny wimp, he was larger than many adult men. I would not have wanted to run into him on the street after dark.

I heard 6'1" .....vs Zimmermans 5'8" I'm a lot bigger guy than Zimmerman at 5"11 and 220 lbs... and I'm good shape for my age.. but not on the same level as a 17 year old athlete (who is actually in his prime) and neither was Zimmerman...

I heard 6'1" .....vs Zimmermans 5'8" I'm a lot bigger guy than Zimmerman.
Zimmerman had one major advantage over Martin.

Zimmerman had one major advantage over Martin.

Well that was Martins mistake then... he should have considered that before he assaulted him. If you gamble with your life... then you take the risk of losing it. He was man enough to pull that stunt.. he's man enough to pay the price.

Even if he lived... he was old enough to be charged as an adult.

You never know WHO is carrying... man OR woman. And I've known women who were some VERY good shots.

I qualified as Sharpshooter on the range and they would beat me hands down.

Are you afraid of white boys the same size that played football? I suspect so. But your point is taken about fear, and its cousin hate, and being powerless.

Well that was Martins mistake then....he should have considered that before he assaulted him.
I didn't watch the trial. Did it come out what had been said when Zimmermann came up behind Martin? Was Zimmermann confrontational or warm and fuzzy? Did he say who he was?

Are you afraid of white boys the same size that played football? I suspect so. But your point is taken about fear, and its cousin hate, and being powerless.
If you are being assaulted on the street by someone you don't know... you have every legal right to assume the worst... and after the assault starts.. you have the legal right to take ANY and all steps needed to protect yourself... including lethal force.

Nobody shot anyone from a half a block away... he shot him once after he had his head pounded into the concrete a couple times... at point blank range when he was flat on his back being beaten with the thug sitting on top of him.

You can be assured they were not discussing the merits of French vs. Italian wines.

If I was Zimmerman... I would not have waited that long to shoot him... and wouldn't have stopped at a single shot.

And I can make that claim because I've been in a similar situation... only it was two guys it was daytime and I had witnesses. And one of them had to have seen his life flash before his eyes because he was a second or two away from having his skull split open like a watermelon. ( I was pulled off as I was starting to make the last two handed swing at his head) He spent the next month in intensive care as it was.

I didn't have a gun but I was thrown a steel bar that I used.

So I've been where Zimmerman's been. Not playing armchair quarterback after the game was over.

No it wasn't a pleasant experience... and I'd be happy if I never had to repeat it too... but I will never lie down if I'm being attacked... its against my nature. I'm the kind of person who would fight to the bitter end. However it turned out.

I didn't watch the trial. Did it come out what had been said when Zimmermann came up behind Martin? Was Zimmermann confrontational or warm and fuzzy? Did he say who he was?

No he did not.

I didn't watch the trial. Did it come out what had been said when Zimmermann came up behind Martin? Was Zimmermann confrontational or warm and fuzzy? Did he say who he was?

It came out where Martin came up behind Zimmerman and attacked... police evidence backed that up... eye witnesses back up Trayvon was the one assaulting Zimmerman... Martins girlfriend told the world her and Trayvon were both racists with the "Crazy white cracker comment" and how he was going to teach him a lesson.

Trayvons phone was full of texts about numerous previous fights he was recently in... and those WILL be part of any future trial... as they can't be kept out of evidence then.

I didn't watch the trial. Did it come out what had been said when Zimmermann came up behind Martin? Was Zimmermann confrontational or warm and fuzzy? Did he say who he was?

No he was returning to his car when he was attatcked by Treyvon. Treyvon was afraid he was going to be raped by zimmerman so he threw the first punch. He had to teach that homo a lesson.

No he was returning to his car when he was attatcked by Treyvon. Treyvon was afraid he was going to be raped by zimmerman so he threw the first punch. He had to teach that homo a lesson.
What was the conversation when Z came up behind him?

What was the conversation when Z came up behind him?

There wasn't one. Treyvon ran and hid like his girlfriend told him to do.

What was the conversation when Z came up behind him?

Video: Rachel Jeantel (Trayvon's Girlfriend) Talks To Piers Morgan About Thugs, N****s, And Trayvon Martin! (http://ilpvideo.com/video.php?v=NDU4MDU)

Video: Rachel Jeantel (Trayvon's Girlfriend) Talks To Piers Morgan About Thugs, N****s, And Trayvon Martin! (http://ilpvideo.com/video.php?v=NDU4MDU)



Part 2

Rachel Jeantel Piers Morgan Interview Part 2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvkjmHDSRBU)

Part 2

Rachel Jeantel Piers Morgan Interview Part 2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvkjmHDSRBU)



Part 3

EPIC!! Rachel Jeantel Explains The Difference Between 'N*gga' And 'N*gger' To Piers Morgan HAHA!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jUTzivZNO8)

Oh gawd... what a moron... makes you really think about what kind of guy would even date her... What a prize...

If anyone ever catches me with someone like that... PLEASE cut my wiener off.

Here is the "racist " Zimmerman in action . 2010 the son of a Sanford police official attacked a homeless black man named Sherman Ware without provocation.

Cops Son Caught On Camera Punching Homeless Man - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGEam82GME&feature=player_embedded)

The Sanford police were sweeping the incident under the rug and very little was done about it .Zimmerman and his wife started a “Justice for Sherman Ware” campaign. Zimmerman organized the black community to get results and justice for Sherman Ware.

Here is the "racist " Zimmerman in action . 2010 the son of a Sanford police official attacked a homeless black man named Sherman Ware without provocation.

Cops Son Caught On Camera Punching Homeless Man - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGEam82GME&feature=player_embedded)

The Sanford police were sweeping the incident under the rug and very little was done about it .Zimmerman and his wife started a “Justice for Sherman Ware” campaign. Zimmerman organized the black community to get results and justice for Sherman Ware.

According to Martins nigga girl friend I can now call you a nigga 'cause you are male what sort of crap is this and what is the correct term for a negro woman?

All I have to say about Rachel Jeantel is that the idiots in the media are trying to create a celeb out of this unfortunate failure of liberal education.

Are there any successes of conservative education?

Yes... the best educations are from conservative institutions, but what has been an abject failure everywhere is Liberal education... You just can't teach a stump much of anything.

No he was returning to his car when he was attatcked by Treyvon.

And you see that as many times as the facts have been presented here they keep returning to the same concocted stories.


Treyvon was afraid he was going to be raped by zimmerman so he threw the first punch. He had to teach that homo a lesson.

Yep, had to get that "creepy a$$ cracka".

Are there any successes of conservative education?

Hillsdale College - Home (http://www.hillsdale.edu/)

I don't think they offer any degrees in pole dancing.

Treyvon and that dumb ugly cow he called a girlfriend are Both racists of the worst kind. As proven by their own words, under oath.. on the stand.

Hillsdale College - HomeWhat successful people can you point me to who are products of a conservative education.

What successful people can you point me to who are products of a conservative education.

You seem to be under the impression that education has always been liberal/progressive as defined today. And as I've pointed out numerous times during the contraceptive mandate discussion education, as with medicine, was largely a product of the church in this country, schools were not run by flaming libs so I believe I can safely say a great many people throughout this country's history have been the product of 'conservative' education as opposed to today's liberal education.

You really should read about Hillsdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsdale_College#Founding_principles_and_Civil_Wa r_involvement), it has quite a history.


Shortly after its founding, Hillsdale, as a part of the anti-slavery Freewill Baptist denomination, emerged as an early agitator for the abolition of slavery and for the education of black students.[16] Black students were admitted immediately after the college's 1844 founding, and the College became the second[3] school in the nation to grant four-year liberal arts degrees to women.[17]

Many Hillsdale students served in the Union army during the American Civil War. A higher percentage of Hillsdale students enlisted than from any other non-military college.[18] Of the more than 400 men serving, half became officers. During the conflict, four Hillsdale students received the Medal of Honor, three became generals, and many more served as regimental commanders. For the more than sixty that died, a monument was erected in their honor, which now stands between Kendall and Lane Halls.[3]

Non-discrimination policy

Hillsdale's non-discrimination policy remained controversial throughout its history. For example, Hillsdale's football team refused to play in the 1956 Tangerine Bowl in Florida when the governing committee of the Bowl would not allow the team's black players to join the white players on the field; the committee then selected Juniata College instead.[19][20]

Hillsdale College's policies came under fire in the 1970s following the enactment of affirmative action legislation. Because some students were receiving federal loans, the federal government asserted that it could require Hillsdale College to submit Assurance of Compliance forms mandated by Title IX as a condition of the continued receipt of federal financial assistance by two hundred Hillsdale students. Hillsdale refused compliance on the grounds that its own policies were less discriminatory than those the federal government would impose. This ongoing dispute with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) began to intensify in 1979 when the College filed a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to overturn a previous decision by the Reviewing Authority, Office of Civil Rights of HEW. In December 1982, the Sixth Circuit upheld Hillsdale's refusal to sign the compliance forms but also ruled that government aid to individual students could be terminated without a finding that a college actually discriminated.

In February 1984, in a related case, Grove City College v. Bell, the Supreme Court required every college or university to fulfill federal requirements – past and future requirements – if its students received federal aid. As a result of the court's decision, Hillsdale withdrew from all federal assistance beginning with the 1984–85 academic year; Grove City College, the defendant in that case, followed Hillsdale's lead four years later.

Beginning with the 2007–2008 academic year, Hillsdale also stopped accepting Michigan state assistance, instead matching any funds that a student would have received from the state with its own aid.[21] Since 2007, Hillsdale's entire operating budget of the college, including scholarships, comes from private funding and endowments.

Hillsdale's feud with the federal government is ongoing; in its 2010 "Resolution Against Federal Interference," it accuses both Congress and the Obama administration of appearing, "even more than the worst of their predecessors, bent on extending federal control over American higher education and other areas of American life."[22]


Edmund Burke Fairfield was the college's second president, leading Hillsdale from 1848 to 1869.[33] During his presidency, he helped found the Republican Party.[34]

James Calder was the college's third president, serving from 1869 to 1871. He later resigned to serve as president of the Pennsylvania State University.[33] He was succeeded by DeWitt Clinton Durgin, a graduate of Union College, from 1874–1878,[33] and George F. Mosher, who served from 1886 to 1901.[33][35]

Joseph William Mauck was the sixth president, leading from 1902 to 1922.[33] He was an outspoken advocate for women's suffrage.[36][37] He was succeeded by William Gear Spencer from 1922 to 1932,[33] who departed to lead Franklin College.[38]

List of Hillsdale College alumni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillsdale_College_alumni)

But go ahead, keep trying to mock conservative education.

The 1800's and 1902 - good to know. Thanks.

What successful people can you point me to who are products of a conservative education.
Me me me! 1950s and early 1960s -- Palmer Penmanship, memorizing times tables, memorizing Bible verses/Psalms/classic poems, art and music appreciation lessons, practical classes on managing your checking account/checkbook, etc. -- and that was elementary school to 8th grade.

4/5th of those are taught at all schools (or so I hope). Though I wish more schools taught basic personal finance skills; no problem though, that's my job as a parent.

The 1800's and 1902 - good to know. Thanks.

For someone whose job it is to make sure links are in the right places you sure do have a hard time understanding how they work. Click the second link, not the one 'about' Hillsdale which I excerpted. You know, the one that says "List of Hillsdale College alumni."

P.S.Success is timeless and has nothing to do with fame.

You won't see this one on the news... From the floor of the House of Representatives.

Bridenstine Questions President's Leadership - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86UL9ekiXDk&feature=player_embedded)

Guess who got their panties in a knot at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue that night.

Hello again, smoothy:

You won't see this one on the news... From the floor of the House of Representatives.What? That's NEW?

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Excon

Shows there are polititians with the balls to tell OWEbama what they think of him, Joe the Joke, and Eric Heldem too tight... without mincing words.

More pandering to the right wing loony fringe. Its job security.

More pandering to the right wing loony fringe. Its job security.

Owebama does that every time he gets in front of a camera.. and all the democrats get on their knees and prostrate themsleves like Muslims praying to Allah.

THere was not one single word he said in that video that was even the slightest bit incorrect... it was 100% factual and the lefties can't disprove any of it.

Hello again, smoothy:

without mincing words.I don't know. This right winger didn't break any new ground, and didn't use new language.. I've heard the same thing from them day in and day out, since Obama was elected.

Excon

More pandering to the right wing loony fringe. Its job security.

Pandering? Like Holder (http://news.msn.com/us/ag-holder-questions-stand-your-ground-laws?ocid=ansnews11) and Sebelius (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-obamacare-opponents-those-who-opposed-civil-rights) yesterday?

Hello again, smoothy:

it was 100% factual and the lefties can't disprove any of it.The problem is, if you want to get RID of Obama, it's YOU GUYS that have to prove it, and you can't, can't, can't. If you COULD, you WOULD!

Excon

Hello again, smoothy:
The problem is, if you wanna get RID of Obama, it's YOU GUYS that have to prove it, and you can't, can't, can't. If you COULD, you WOULD!

excon

We have... Owebama Butt buddy Eric is preventing any investigations...

However these crimes don't have a statute of limitations... and both their days in office are limited. Biden will just end up wearing a diaper in a nursing home...

Hello smoothy:

We have... Owebama Butt buddy Eric is preventing any investigations... Nahhhh... That ain't the way things work... Asking the executive branch to investigate itself isn't the thing to do... In this great nation of ours, the founders gave each branch of government a check on the other. One of those checks is the oversight of the executive BY the congress... Certainly, you know this.

Now, we've got a Republican controlled congress. They have the POWER to investigate. They have the WILL to investigate. They have the POWER to subpoena witnesses, and they have the POWER to put them in jail if they DON'T cooperate. They only thing they DON'T have, is PROOF of wrongdoing!!

So, Daryl Issa, like you, throws up his hands and snivels. Now, I KNOW why he won't investigate, and you do too.. It's because there's NOTHING there... IF there was, you'd grab it. You surly would. You and Issa HATE Obama soooo much, that you'd grab on to ANYTHING that would get rid of him...

But, you don't.. Because you can't.

Excon

Hello smoothy:
Nahhhh... That ain't the way things work... Asking the executive branch to investigate itself isn't the thing to do... In this great nation of ours, the founders gave each branch of government a check on the other. One of those checks is the oversight of the executive BY the congress... Certainly, you know this.

Now, we've got a Republican controlled congress. They have the POWER to investigate. They have the WILL to investigate. They have the POWER to subpoena witnesses, and they have the POWER to put them in jail if they DON'T cooperate. They only thing they DON'T have, is PROOF of wrongdoing!!!

So, Daryl Issa, like you, throws up his hands and snivels. Now, I KNOW why he won't investigate, and you do too.. It's because there's NOTHING there... IF there was, you'd grab it. You surly would. You and Issa HATE Obama soooo much, that you'd grab on to ANYTHING that would get rid of him...

But, you don't.. Because you can't.

excon


If congress does all that... then what are we spending all that money on the DOJ for.

If the republican controlled house cannot get some real evidence to go with their rants then what do you expect anyone to do? Like ex said, you guys got nothing but hot air. Now you want to blame everyone else for your failure to do your job.

Oh that's right you expect everyone to be jumping to help you with your idiocy, after you have been doing nothing but throwing rocks at them. Silly wingers. Typical right wing lunacy.

Hear that?? That's Holder laughing at you guys. Contemptible ain't it?

Tom answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3502505-post523.html) ex's "sniveling" remarks sufficiently.


You and I both know that the so called inherent contempt power is, and pretty much has always been a dormant implied power. Anything further requires a criminal contempt charge ;and that requires the cooperation of the executive branch and possibly the judiciary .

And you ain't getting ANY cooperation from the executive branch. 'Tis they who are standing in the way of getting all the answers.

Or it's you guys who control the house that holler and blow smoke but got nothing. What you expect people to throw rocks at themselves because yours don't reach their target?

Issa is a laughing stock, but he's the best you got.

Obama and Holder specifically want to make it illegal for women to shoot a rapist, or a carjacker... or if a gang of hoodlums decide to beat an armed individual... because a Registered democrat or democrats would get shot. Some of them might even be black... So like the spotted owl... no matter what they do.. they want to make it illegal to kill one.

Their stupid rant about wanting to repeal Stand your ground laws effectively means exactly that.


Despite the evidence they are breeding in sufficient numbers to cover the losses of those killed during crimes.

Hello again, smoothy:
I dunno. This right winger didn't break any new ground, and didn't use new language.. I've heard the same thing from them day in and day out, since Obama was elected.

excon

Must be the same stuff that never got answered before. Seems the list keeps growing.

OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY!.flv - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y)

Must be the same stuff that never got answered before. Seems the list keeps growing.

OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY!.flv - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y)

He sure did a lousy job of banning that video from 2011 if its still available on YouTube.

You really are going to have to throw bigger rocks than that.

Hello again, dad:

As a concerned citizen, I don't care about the list of COMPLAINTS the right wing has against the president... I want to know what they can PROVE. I want to KNOW if my president is a crook. I WANT the congress to DO THEIR JOB. They HAVE the power to investigate... That's NOT a teensy weensy little power.. It's a HUGE, HUMONGOUS power. It's the power of the United States Government... That power brought down one president... If Obama is corrupt, there's NO reason why THIS congress can't bring him down too...

The reason why you don't, however, is simple. There's NO corruption. There's only right wingers flapping their gums...

excon

Hello again, dad:

As a concerned citizen, I don't care about the list of COMPLAINTS the right wing has against the president... I wanna know what they can PROVE. I wanna KNOW if my president is a crook. I WANT the congress to DO THEIR JOB. They HAVE the power to investigate... That's NOT a teensy weensy little power.. It's a HUGE, HUMONGOUS power. It's the power of the United States Government... That power brought down one president... If Obama is a corrupt, there's NO reason why THIS congress can't bring him down...

The reason, however, is simple. There's NO corruption. There's only right wingers flapping their gums...

excon



Ok, then lets pick one from the list and go for it. Will he release records from school as other presidents have done? Well maybe we can do some research and find out if he did say under oath he had not used any other names? Those should be simple enough for starters.

If the accusations are proven true then up the ladder we go.

Simle right? Get the cooperation from the records and it will all become clear.

Ok, then lets pick one from the list and go for it. Will he release records from school as other presidents have done? Well maybe we can do some research and find out if he did say under oath he had not used any other names? Those should be simple enough for starters.

If the accusations are proven true then up the ladder we go.

Simle right? Get the cooperation from the records and it will all become clear.

Here is one. Maybe its all a big mistake. Check it yourself.

https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp


Just enter Obama for a result.

Don't remember him claiming to be a lawyer. Didn't know he was a practicing one. I could be wrong. What's the point?

What's the problem there?

Hello again, dad:

Get the cooperation from the records and it will all become clear.If you want to get him, you have to do it Constitutionally.. That means you're going to have to get him WITHOUT his cooperation..

Look... This is simple... IF there was a scandal, Issa would be NECK deep in it, and we couldn't keep our eyes off the hearings. Instead, he's sniveling about Holder NOT investigating himself...

You can ask all the questions you like about his records, or his birth certificate, or his gay lover.. I don't care about that crap.. I want to know if he's a CROOK.

Excon

Don't remember him claiming to be a lawyer. Didn't know he was a practicing one. I could be wrong. What's the point?

How could you not... he spent most of his first campaign bragging about it.

We had arguments here about his involvement in the banks being forced to give loans to people who weren't credit worthy and could never pay them back... back in the 80's. And it was only a year or so ago.

Don't remember him claiming to be a lawyer. Didn't know he was a practicing one. I could be wrong. What's the point?
He is a lawyer (as is Michelle) and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

Wikipedia -- Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Hello again, dad:
If you wanna get him, you have to do it Constitutionally.. That means you're going to have to get him WITHOUT his cooperation..

Look... This is simple... IF there was a scandal, Issa would be NECK deep in it, and we couldn't keep our eyes off the hearings. Instead, he's sniveling about Holder NOT investigating himself...

You can ask all the questions you like about his records, or his birth certificate, or his gay lover.. I don't care about that crap.. I wanna know if he's a CROOK.

excon

You keep mentioning this sniveling, give me some quotes.

Oh that's right you expect everyone to be jumping to help you with your idiocy, after you have been doing nothing but throwing rocks at them. Silly wingers. Typical right wing lunacy.

Imagine how far the Plame investigation would've gone if the Dems didn't have the ACTIVE cooperation of the Bush WH . It was the executive branch that appointed an independent prosecutor to the case . It was President Bush who directed his staff to give Fitzgerald their full cooperation. In other words ,there was no executive dept cover-up or stonewalling . It was not some vast fantasy powers that the Legislature has to impose their will.

Take another example... Watergate . Nixon stonewalled and STILL had his Dept of Justice actively investigate the case even as his AG ,Richard G. Kleindienst was resigning over his participation in the Watergate affair .

Hello again, Steve:

You keep mentioning this sniveling, give me some quotes.I'm not going to look, so this isn't an exact quote, but SOMEBODY said, Owebama and his butt buddy Holder won't do what we want... Waaaahh..

Excon

Bush was presented with a smoking gun, so was Nixon, where's yours for Obama?

We got an armory full of smoking guns.

Don't remember him claiming to be a lawyer. Didn't know he was a practicing one. I could be wrong. What's the point?

The point was that he lied under oath. He was asked if he ever used another name. According to records that we know of he started as Barry Sotoro. He went by that name all the way up to college. And later changed his name without any record of it being a legal name change.

Hello again, dad:


The point was that he lied under oath. He was asked if he ever used another name.Now we're getting somewhere... Got a link? I HATE lying under oath.

Excon

The point was that he lied under oath. He was asked if he ever used another name. According to records that we know of he started out as Barry Sotoro. He went by that name all the way up to college. And later changed his name without any record of it being a legal name change.
This? snopes.com: Barack Obama's Columbia University Student ID (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/studentid.asp)

Answer Man: Was Barack Obama ever Barry Soetoro? | Answer Man | News Democrat (http://www.bnd.com/2012/09/22/2334245/was-barack-obama-ever-barry-soetoro.html)

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/why-the-idea-that-the-president-attended-columbia-university-as-barry-soetoro-is-beyond-silly/

This? snopes.com: Barack Obama's Columbia University Student ID (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/studentid.asp)

Answer Man: Was Barack Obama ever Barry Soetoro? | Answer Man | News Democrat (http://www.bnd.com/2012/09/22/2334245/was-barack-obama-ever-barry-soetoro.html)

Why the idea that the President attended Columbia University as “Barry Soetoro” is beyond silly | Obama Conspiracy TheoriesObama Conspiracy Theories (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/why-the-idea-that-the-president-attended-columbia-university-as-barry-soetoro-is-beyond-silly/)

Since his college transcripts are national secrets... I'm curious how they were able to prove he wasn't there under that name.

Since his college transcripts are national secrets...I'm curious how they were able to prove he wasn't there under that name.
If you saw Obama on his college transcripts, would that convince you?

If you saw Obama on his college transcripts, would that convince you?
If we the public saw his college transcripts it would put a lot of questions to rest.

Hello again, smoothy, birther:

What questions would it satisfy? That he's smart? That he's stupid? It's going to be one or the other, and what difference would it make anyway?

Nooooo... I think the question you want answered is whether Obama is REALLY a citizen.

And, Carol brings up a good point.. IF the transcripts were revealed, there's NO WAY you'd accept them as real. Everybody knows that. Don't you?

excon

Hello again, smoothy, birther:

What questions would it satisfy? That he's smart? That he's stupid? It's gonna be one or the other, and what difference would it make anyway?

Nooooo... I think the question you want answered is whether Obama is REALLY a citizen.

And, Carol brings up a good point.. IF the transcripts were revealed, there's NO WAY you'd accept them as real. Everybody knows that. Don't you?

excon
I haven't seen any proof he is smart... certainly not from his transcripts and his actions in office were those of a special ed student. No offense intended to the special ed students.

The year he got into college affirmative action was just starting and was working on Quota alone... not qualifications.

I happen to know this because we are only a few months apart in age and we both started college nearly the same time.

He got in because he applied... not because he had the grades.

If we the public saw his college transcripts it would put a lot of questions to rest.
Like with his birth certificate?

Bush was presented with a smoking gun, so was Nixon, where's yours for Obama? What smoking gun in the Plame case ? Richard Armitage admitted early in the investigation that he inadvertently leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak . The rest of the investigation was a witch hunt by an over zealous prosecutor who spent months tilting at windmills until he finally caught Scotter Libby on some inconsistent testimony that he used to charge him with perjury.

If perjury is the bar we are going after ,there is already plenty of evidence . But it takes a prosecutor to take the case and make the charges.

As far as Nixon goes ;when his AG resigned ,the Senate (who actually does have some power because of the 'advise and consent clause' ) held up his nominee for AG until Nixon appointed a special prosecutor (Archibald Cox) .

Now Nixon was called the imperial President . But he cooperated . This emperor ? He would let the Justice Dept run with an acting AG or try to sneak his nominee in on some bogus definition of a Senate recess.

Hello again, dad:

Now we're getting somewhere... Got a link? I HATE lying under oath.

excon

Already been posted. It shows that he claims to have never gone by another name. That oath would also state that very same thing.

Like with his birth certificate?

Took way too many years to present that... and when it was... there are legitimate questions about certain parts of it that call authenticity into question.


Every previous president or candidate has released their information... whats he trying to hide. Or what is he ashamed of that's in it?

I'm thinking this harkens back to George Bushes last term where JOhn Kerry was making a lot of derogatory claims about Bushes college record... when months after the election when he finally did release his own... they showed his grades were far worse than Bushes were. I think this is another case of the same.

Funny how legitimate national secrets are easier to access and release (several cases in the news reflects that) than those documents..


If he had simply released them it would have defused much of the suspicion about the unprecedented secretive behviour... and the reasons that might be driving it.


You know the old saying... where there's smoke... theres fire.

The birther issue was always bogus. The college records is an interesting issue ,but ultimately not very relevant to anything.There are now plenty of real issues about the emperor to deal with without wasting any effort on what at this point is a diversion . I'm sure he'd love to have people talking about his college records instead of his incompetent and corrupt execution of his duties .

Just part of the ever expenading web of deceit that his administration has woven. And it's a HUGE web.

Hello again, dad:

Already been posted. It shows that he claims to have never gone by another name. That oath would also state that very same thing.I'm not going to look. Can you post it again? I want to SEE that oath part. You know, when we're dealing with impeachable offenses, I want to SEE the evidence with my OWN EYES.

Excon

It's funny how Republicans in congress aren't pursuing these issues but anonymous people on the interwebs seem to know more than them. LOL.

but anonymous people on the interwebs seem to know more than them. LOL.

Like you?

Am I making an outraged issue of it?

Now you know why we call them the party of angry white guys that only love rich guys. They are suspicious of everybody that doesn't look like them, nor conform to what they think is the way they think it should be. They call it principles, but I call it prejudice.

Why else would they blame everything and everybody else but NEVER themselves, for anything? How else could you justify killing a kid, a neighbor, that gave a dumbass with a gun a bloody nose?

Trayvon is a thug, and so is the president, can we not see a pattern here? Can we not see a pattern in the way they govern when they have power?

Now you know why we call them the party of angry white guys that only love rich guys. They are suspicious of everybody that doesn't look like them, nor conform to what they think is the way they think it should be. They call it principles, but I call it prejudice.

That's funny, we're not the ones telling everyone to beware of white guys, or "white Hispanic" guys.


Why else would they blame everything and everybody else but NEVER themselves, for anything? How else could you justify killing a kid, a neighbor, that gave a dumbass with a gun a bloody nose?

Trayvon is a thug, and so is the president, can we not see a pattern here? Can we not see a pattern in the way they govern when they have power?

That's even funnier, accusing us of passing the buck while the most transparent administration ever ducks, dodges, obstructs, conceals and blames everyone but himself for his failures and scandals.

the birther issue was always bogus. The college records is an interesting issue ,but ultimately not very relevant to anything.There are now plenty of real issues about the emperor to deal with without wasting any effort on what at this point is a diversion . I'm sure he'd love to have people talking about his college records instead of his incompetent and corrupt execution of his duties .

But he's on it now, he's going to get Zimmerman - they've set up a tip line (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story) to get dirt on him for a civil case. Powerline calls it correctly (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/obamas-doj-demagogues-the-zimmerman-case.php):


As we have written repeatedly over the years, Barack Obama has introduced the concept of gangster government to the United States. But this is beyond the pale: the Obama administration has publicly solicited slander, directed against a private citizen who has already been acquitted of the only misdeed of which he has been accused. The Obama administration, it seems to me, has crossed the Rubicon. Its gangsterism should be condemned by all people of good faith, regardless of their political persuasion.

So, what other tip lines can we set up? Benghazi? IRS? Fast & Furious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman
Now you know why we call them the party of angry white guys that only love rich guys. They are suspicious of everybody that doesn't look like them, nor conform to what they think is the way they think it should be. They call it principles, but I call it prejudice.

That's funny, we're not the ones telling everyone to beware of white guys, or "white Hispanic" guys.

No you holler that white guys can kill based on their feelings of fear. And punk George is a hero.

Quote:

Why else would they blame everything and everybody else but NEVER themselves, for anything? How else could you justify killing a kid, a neighbor, that gave a dumbass with a gun a bloody nose?

Trayvon is a thug, and so is the president, can we not see a pattern here? Can we not see a pattern in the way they govern when they have power?

That's even funnier, accusing us of passing the buck while the most transparent administration ever ducks, dodges, obstructs, conceals and blames everyone but himself for his failures and scandals.

I haven't accused you wingers of passing the buck, I stated that you use principles to justify your own prejudice. And make punks who screw up by the numbers into heroes.

No you holler that white guys can kill based on their feelings of fear. And punk George is a hero.

I can't wait for this, prove it.


I haven't accused you wingers of passing the buck, I stated that you use principles to justify your own prejudice. And make punks who screw up by the numbers into heroes.

You spoke of deflecting blame, but the one thing that's clear here is these were both guys of color. It was not a white vs black thing and no one has found any evidence of it being racially motivated, so the only one justifying their prejudice is you.

Your prejudice against conservatives is so deep you can't acknowledge the plain fact that this was not about race. You can't let it go, you continue perpetuating the division and now go so far as to make this incredulous claim that we see Zimmerman as a hero. You're still on the same witch hunt the administration is on. I repeat:


But he's on it now, he's going to get Zimmerman - they've set up a tip line to get dirt on him for a civil case. Powerline calls it correctly:

Quote:
As we have written repeatedly over the years, Barack Obama has introduced the concept of gangster government to the United States. But this is beyond the pale: the Obama administration has publicly solicited slander, directed against a private citizen who has already been acquitted of the only misdeed of which he has been accused. The Obama administration, it seems to me, has crossed the Rubicon. Its gangsterism should be condemned by all people of good faith, regardless of their political persuasion.

A tip line? Seriously? This was not about feelings it was about facts, and the facts have spoken, the system has done its job, yet it is YOUR side taking your FEELINGS to absurd heights in making a mockery of our our country by going on a witch hunt against one private citizen while your government is spying on you, lying to you and using its power to harass and intimidate citizens for exercising their rights.

I wonder how he'll reconcile that with the fact that the FBI did a thorough investigation of Zimmerman already and found no grounds for a civil rights charge.

With this admin the facts are what you make them, and if that isn't enough you just muzzle them (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/congressman-benghazi-survivors-forced-sign-non-disclosure-agreements_739975.html).

Casablanca gambling? I'm shocked! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME)

She did know what the law was but the judge denied immunity, she did know how to use a firearm, and chose a warning shot rather than injury or death, the intent was clear get him to leave, rather than kill. How is killing someone after losing the fight any different from warning off an abuser bent on beating your ? Had Zimmerman stayed in his car and waited for the cops we wouldn't be here so how is that killing not of his making?

The law is written to expand where you can kill a person beyond your own home and opens up for shoot first, think later, and the standards for reasonable fear of life is arbitrary, and undefined.

She should have used the Biden defense.

Vancouver man’s gun shooting defense: Biden (http://www.koin.com/2013/07/17/vancouver-man-who-fired-gun-cites-biden-in-defense/)

The law is written to expand where you can kill a person beyond your own home and opens up for shoot first, think later, and the standards for reasonable fear of life is arbitrary, and undefined.
And when the Tampa Bay Times did a study of the application of the law it found that the stand your ground law benefits black defendants to a much greater extent than white defendants . But why should they have the right to defend themselves... right ?

Stand your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/)


A Tampa Bay Times investigation has found that Florida's "stand your ground" law is being used in ways never imagined — to free gang members involved in shootouts, drug dealers beefing with clients and people who shot their victims in the back.

Who goes free sometimes depend more on where a case is heard than its merits. Read the story (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133)

From the second link,


• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.If your link is different, please share.

I went to the study itself to find that Black Floridians have made about a third of the state's total “Stand Your Ground” claims .The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.
You can look it up .
Stand your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases)

Blacks :

7 convicted

25 justified

8 pending

Whites :
30 convicted

39 justified

9 pending

Basically that's the same link, and I used this for a sample size comparison,

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime.aspx)


The list, though incomplete, is the most comprehensive in the state and likely includes most fatal cases.

This was the disclaimer for the TBT survey because the sample size they used was less than 1%. That's why I went to two other sources.

I see we're having that honest conversation I challenged you to. Rich Lowry weighed in on that...


Let’s take the advice of the attorney general of the United States. Let’s have a national conversation about race in the wake of the Zimmerman case. Let’s make it a painfully honest conversation — except about all the things that are painful for us to admit.

Let’s take a tragedy and make it a racial crime. Let’s not acknowledge the evidence suggesting that Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman. Let’s never, ever admit that if Martin hadn’t hit Zimmerman, he would almost certainly be alive today.

Let’s act as if the main threat to young black men in America is overzealous neighborhood watch volunteers who erroneously consider them suspicious, call the police and follow them, then shoot them in self-defense after a violent altercation in confusing circumstances that will never be entirely disentangled. Let’s pretend that this happens all the time.

Let’s send down the memory hole reports of burglaries and attempted break-ins in Zimmerman’s community that, according to a Reuters report, “had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.”

Let’s ignore that Zimmerman is from a mixed-race household. Let’s forget that he initially didn’t mention Martin’s race on his 911 call and said he “looks black” only when prompted by the operator. Let’s disregard testimony about his good character, lest it get in the way of the national dialogue about how he’s a racist murder who got away with it.

Let’s say the trial was about race in America or about whether black men can walk home from the store or any other insipid, racially charged nonsense to fill the air or the column inches. The national conversation cannot afford to get mired down in legal niceties like what constitutes lawful self-defense, let alone reasonable doubt.

Let’s call people we disagree with racists. We often do that anyway, but during such an open discussion, it is particularly important that dissenting voices be swiftly condemned. Richard Cohen, who wrote that Zimmerman might have had legitimate grounds to be suspicious of Martin? That guy is David Duke with a Washington Post column. Please refer all complaints about the publication of his piece to Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Post. People have an obligation to be careful about what they say or publish during a national dialogue about race, especially one as freewheeling as this.

Let’s not talk about the 90 percent of black murder victims killed by other blacks. That is not a fit topic for the nation’s wide-ranging national conversation. Why should we get worked up about something that happens on the streets of Chicago literally every night? If you are bothered by routine slaughter, sadly, you just don’t get it. For national conversation purposes, not all murders are equal.

Let’s blast New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy as the worst kind of racial inequity. Let’s not bother to note that New York City once had 2,200 murders a year and now has 400, nor that many of the thousands of lives saved are those of black men. Let’s focus on the important thing — condemning the policy that is saving those lives as heinously racist.

Let’s talk about guns, except the guns that black men use to shoot other black men. No one should worry too much about those guns, or attempt to take them out of the hands of the people carrying them illegally, because that’s racist (please see above and try to follow along — this essential national dialogue cannot succeed without your careful attention).

Let’s listen to the attorney general inveigh against Stand Your Ground laws and make believe that he knows what the hell he’s talking about. Let’s ignore that the Stand Your Ground law wasn’t the reason the Sanford, Fla., police initially didn’t arrest Zimmerman and that it had nothing to do with the trial.

In short, let’s take a terrible event and make it a festival for all our ideological and racial ax-grinding and a showcase for our inability or unwillingness to reason clearly. Let’s do it in perpetually high dudgeon and while simultaneously patting ourselves on the back about our fearlessness and honesty.

Yes, Mr. Attorney General, you are right. This conversation is exactly what the country need

Read more: Opinion: Conversation about race? Get real - Rich Lowry - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/george-zimmerman-race-trayvon-martin-national-conversation-94381.html#ixzz2ZR7B33EI)

So speech are you for or against the proposition that the Zimmerman result was racist?

Have you not been paying attention?

Zimmerman may not be a racist, but clearly his judgment has to be suspect at best. At worst he blundered into a bad situation and made it much worse. One juror has said she sympathized with him, but the stand your ground law gave her no other choice, but to acquit.

Was that racism..?. prejudice... or a lousy written law? The jury is out on this, until facts come out.

The jury is not out, there has been no evidence of it being racially motivated. Give it up, dude. If you really want to get to that post-racial paradise Obama was supposed to usher in then stop stirring the pot.

Meanwhile, Chris Matthews took it upon himself to speak on behalf of "all white people."

gko17Ad4nXY

Speak for yourself a$$hole, I have nothing to apologize for.

Why don't I find this shocking? OH... its because a sitting president and the Attourney General are both calling for lynching an innocent man... in this day and age... and almost everyone on the left thinks it's a good idea.

And how exactly is that any different than a bunch of white guys 60 or more years ago calling for lynching a black man that was just found innocent of killing a white woman because they just KNEW he did it and justice wasn't served.

That's what is happening to Zimmerman right now.

Let's take the advice of the attorney general of the United States. Let's have a national conversation about race in the wake of the Zimmerman case. Let's make it a painfully honest conversation — except about all the things that are painful for us to admit.

Let's take a tragedy and make it a racial crime. Let's not acknowledge the evidence suggesting that Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman. Let's never, ever admit that if Martin hadn't hit Zimmerman, he would almost certainly be alive today.

Let's act as if the main threat to young black men in America is overzealous neighborhood watch volunteers who erroneously consider them suspicious, call the police and follow them, then shoot them in self-defense after a violent altercation in confusing circumstances that will never be entirely disentangled. Let's pretend that this happens all the time.

Let's send down the memory hole reports of burglaries and attempted break-ins in Zimmerman's community that, according to a Reuters report, “had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.”

Let's ignore that Zimmerman is from a mixed-race household. Let's forget that he initially didn't mention Martin's race on his 911 call and said he “looks black” only when prompted by the operator. Let's disregard testimony about his good character, lest it get in the way of the national dialogue about how he's a racist murder who got away with it.

Let's say the trial was about race in America or about whether black men can walk home from the store or any other insipid, racially charged nonsense to fill the air or the column inches. The national conversation cannot afford to get mired down in legal niceties like what constitutes lawful self-defense, let alone reasonable doubt.

Let's call people we disagree with racists. We often do that anyway, but during such an open discussion, it is particularly important that dissenting voices be swiftly condemned. Richard Cohen, who wrote that Zimmerman might have had legitimate grounds to be suspicious of Martin? That guy is David Duke with a Washington Post column. Please refer all complaints about the publication of his piece to Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Post. People have an obligation to be careful about what they say or publish during a national dialogue about race, especially one as freewheeling as this.

Let's not talk about the 90 percent of black murder victims killed by other blacks. That is not a fit topic for the nation's wide-ranging national conversation. Why should we get worked up about something that happens on the streets of Chicago literally every night? If you are bothered by routine slaughter, sadly, you just don't get it. For national conversation purposes, not all murders are equal.

Let's blast New York City's stop-and-frisk policy as the worst kind of racial inequity. Let's not bother to note that New York City once had 2,200 murders a year and now has 400, nor that many of the thousands of lives saved are those of black men. Let's focus on the important thing — condemning the policy that is saving those lives as heinously racist.

Let's talk about guns, except the guns that black men use to shoot other black men. No one should worry too much about those guns, or attempt to take them out of the hands of the people carrying them illegally, because that's racist (please see above and try to follow along — this essential national dialogue cannot succeed without your careful attention).

Let's listen to the attorney general inveigh against Stand Your Ground laws and make believe that he knows what the hell he's talking about. Let's ignore that the Stand Your Ground law wasn't the reason the Sanford, Fla. police initially didn't arrest Zimmerman and that it had nothing to do with the trial.

In short, let's take a terrible event and make it a festival for all our ideological and racial ax-grinding and a showcase for our inability or unwillingness to reason clearly. Let's do it in perpetually high dudgeon and while simultaneously patting ourselves on the back about our fearlessness and honesty.

Yes, Mr. Attorney General, you are right. This conversation is exactly what the country needs.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and the author of the new book “Lincoln Unbound.”

Conversation about race? Get real - POLITICO.com Print View (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B1CF3A6F-F0CB-4A1C-A143-620F71CF35DC)

The election of a black man isn't ushering in a post racial period and the white men on your side are still angry at everyone but themselves so you want to have a conversation, learn how to talk not command and demand, and demean.

While many places have come a long way, Sanford Florida clearly has not come as far. They are still the place that ran Branch Rickey out when he brought in Jackie Robinson. You can thank Zimmerman for continuing the tradition of lousy judgment that led directly to tragedy.

Go ahead keep letting ALEC (http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F)write the laws for you.

Yeah.. the left still keeps the KKK alive in their hearts... because if a legal decision isn't what they demand... then its wrong. And they refuse to respect it.

I suppose we should organise a lynching of the people that supported Obamacare... and affirmative action... those were wrong legal decisions and justice wasn't served there either.

The KKK is alive and well and because they took off the hoods and run for office doesn't mean they changed their ways.

The KKK is alive and well and because they took off the hoods and run for office doesn't mean they changed their ways.

They are the invention of Democrats... and have always been the bastion of the left.

They are the invention of Democrats... and have always been the bastion of the left.

Damn facts get in the way eh smoothy?
Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as the Klan or the "Hooded Order", is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[7][8][9][10] organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically expressed through terrorism.

Damn facts get in the way eh smoothy?
Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)

Well... leave it to a Canadian to get it wrong again.

Are you aware of just how often Wikipedia is wrong?

I suppose it was martians and not democrats that fought against the civil rights laws?

Well I always thought Al Gore was from outer space... because he father was apparently.

The Longest serving Sneator... a Democrat was a big Klansman...

Sen. Robert C. Byrd Google it up.

There you go ignoring the flip flop of yesterdays political parties to the current ones. Those anti civil rights democrats are now republicans. Your hood is on to tight, backward, or BOTH!!

If I recall Sheets Byrd was always a Democrat and Republicans have always been the party that fought for civil rights. You guys are the ones with hoods on too tight, you only switched to grab an opportunity to get a permanent constituency and In my opinion are keeping blacks enslaved to you with your policies. They can never be free as long as you keep them as dependent victims.

There you go ignoring the flip flop of yesterdays political parties to the current ones. Those anti civil rights democrats are now republicans. Your hood is on to tight, backward, or BOTH!!!

It's the left that's doing the flip flopping... the fact remains the KKK was started by and populated most by lefties... and democrats... and the Democrats really didn't care because they had reelected so many so many Klansmen into office for so many decades AS Democrats. Byrd wasn't the only one... only the longest serving klansman. There were a LOT more Democrats than republicans...

ANd From needkarmas beloved wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

That was then, this is now. What are you stuck in the past or something? Or in denial?

That was then, this is now. What are you stuck in the past or something? Or in denial?

Obama who is just as white as Zimmerman is... yet the left refuses to call Obama a white... or Zimmerman a Hispanic... Hypocrisy...

And Obama and Holder... both are blacks that are showing their hatred of anyone not black with the Zimmerman Lynching.

THat fact is Zimmerman was acquitted of any crime in the court of law... despite a prejudicial judge and a procescuter who was caught witholding evidence.

I bet they wouldn't be so approving of this behaviour if THEY were the targets of it.

, you only switched to grab an opportunity to get a permanent constituency and In my opinion are keeping blacks enslaved to you with your policies.

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." (Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson on the 1957 Civil Rights Act)

“I'll have those n+ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (Lyndon Baines Johnson... Ronald Kessler's 'Inside the White House' )

Guess it worked huh? To bad there were no other options on the other side. You have often said it's the best of two bad choices.

Guess it worked huh? To bad there were no other options on the other side. You have often said its the best of two bad choices.

In other words nothing did change after all, you still practice giving them "a little something" but "not enough to make a difference" to keep them voting Democratic.

Republicans offered black folks more of the same, dogs water hoses and more discrimination. Just like now. You aren't really wondering why woman and minorities don't like you guys, ideas, or policies do you?

Coddling a guy with a bloody nose ain't helping your case at all and reasonable white people were just as shocked. They are taking to the streets protesting too, so its not just black people that are outraged.

Give it a rest, you have nothing but the same rhetoric and lies about us discriminating. Like I've said before, if I have to lie to them, buy their votes with handouts and stir up sh*t to get their vote you can have them and I'll hold onto my integrity. Some day those who aren't afraid to speak out against your deception and slander are going to get through and they're going to realize they've been played.

svIDcRFDaPY

Republicans offered black folks more of the same, dogs water hoses and more discrimination. just like now. You aren't really wondering why woman and minorities don't like you guys, ideas, or policies do you?

Coddling a guy with a bloody nose ain't helping your case at all and reasonable white people were just as shocked. They are taking to the streets protesting too, so its not just black people that are outraged.

Its already been proven there are a bunch of uninformed idiots running around in this country. If they can't comprehend the law then they are protesting for nothing.I guess his girlfriend is the perfect living example of the way things are in the younger generation.

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works.

I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. I doesn't mean that we're in a postracial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they're better than we are. They're better than we were on these issues. And that's true in every community that I've visited all across the country.

And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we're becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.
cherry picked comments from the emperor's musings yesterday. Every once in a while he has random moments of acting Presidential.

I like the measured approach of BO to this issue, he remarked that generation by generation you are improving. That is positive, isn't it?

like I said... random act of being Presidential... I did not cherry pick the many irresponsible comments he made in the same address... like his life experiences have any relevance to this discussion. That would only be true if he had also been twice suspended from school ,once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of property that did not belong to him. Did our young emperor like to fight and see his opponent bleed?
Articles: New Evidence Shows Trayvon's Life Unraveling (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html)
Did he ever sucker punch anyone ,and straddle him punching his face repeatedly telling that person they were going to die ?
Did he go to the convenience store to get the ingredients for a home made recreational drug ? Skittles and Arizona Watermelon are two ingredients commonly used to make a "lean" or "purple drank."Trayvon's Facebook posts indicate he was actively seeking other ingredients to make a batch of lean, namely Promethazine with Codeine VC (sometimes the DXM in Robitussin is substituted too) .
Our young emperor's experiences as a youth are as far from Treyvon's as mine are . He had all the advantages that Treyvon would never have had. So his projections are fantasies . And Treyvon's death is no more or less tragic depending on his biography.

He also irresponsibly implied that there is “a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.” What does he mean by that ? Is he saying that the verdict would've been different had Treyvon been white ? His "sense " of the events is not backed up by the evidence of the case .Everyone from the prosecution to Treyvon's parents have stated that race had nothing to do with the case . So why make that statement except to inflame the situation on the eve of Al Sharpton's planned 100 city protest ?

Hello again, tom;

Did he ever sucker punch anyone ,and straddle him punching his face repeatedly telling that person they were going to die ? Zimmerman was acquitted because NOBODY knows what happened at that crucial moment. Why you take his words as gospel is beyond me.

Excon

So once again Tom you are saying BO is a white n******, not representative of his people. How polite of you not to say something else

so once again Tom you are saying BO is a white nigga, not representative of his people. how polite of you not to say something else

Your words ;not mine.

Hello again, tom;
Zimmerman was acquitted because NOBODY knows what happened at that crucial moment. Why you take his words as gospel is beyond me.

excon

Show me where the prosecution disputed that fact .

Hello again, tom;
Zimmerman was acquitted because NOBODY knows what happened at that crucial moment. Why you take his words as gospel is beyond me.

excon

Zimmerman was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of the charges even though he admitted to shooting Martin. That's the way it works, get over it.

Hello again, Steve:

Your right wing knee jerked. I said NOTHING different than you. The NOBODY above, was the jury, and that's WHY they acquitted him.. Get over it.

At least you didn't say you took Zimmermans word like tom did.

excon

Then why are we still talking about it?

I take his word because no evidence was presented to dispute it even as the defense made it a key point . The prosecution had the last word and still did not dispute it .

Hello again, tom:

show me where the prosecution disputed that fact . I'm not here to carry water for the prosecution. They were UNABLE to prove the allegations BEYOND a reasonable doubt.. That's just so. It was an IMPOSSIBLE hurdle from the get go.

The prosecution would have to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, in those final moments, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Since we ONLY have Zimmerman's version, proof BEYOND a reasonable doubt cannot be known. It's an IMPOSSIBLE task. Whether the jurors believed him or not CHANGES nothing about the impossibility of the prosecutions case... It's absolutely consistent to BELIEVE that Zimmerman is a LYING, murdering, SOB, and I do, and believe the verdict was correct...

I don't know if he lied.. But, he WOULD lie if he were a murderer. You KNOW that he would.

Excon

Yeah the last card the prosecution played was the "liar" card .The evidence was something else. The evidence provided by Rachel Jeantel was that even though she advised him to run ,that he confronted Zimmerman instead . The evidence shows that when Zimmerman was advised by the dispatcher that they did not need him to pursue or even find out an exact address that Zimmerman attempted to return to his car. The evidence shows that Treyvon initiated the confrontation and that it was his option to either confront or avoid confrontation.

Hello again, tom:

The evidence shows that Treyvon initiated the confrontation and that it was his option to either confront or avoid confrontation.Nahhhh. It's like I said, NOBODY was there but Zimmerman.. Therefore, the words out of his mouth AIN'T evidence. It's not even CLOSE. Evidence is CORROBORATED... At best, it's an accused murderer's VERSION of the facts - NOTHING MORE!

Now, you can BELIEVE it if you CHOOSE, but I'd ask myself why.

Excon

It's what the jury believes that matters and they've spoken.

Hello again, Steve:

It's what the jury believes that matters and they've spoken.
We were talking about what YOU guys thought. But, if you want to leave it at that, I'm cool with it.

Excon

What I think has been established, no need to rehash. Again, and again and again.

The evidence shows that Treyvon initiated the confrontation and that it was his option to either confront or avoid confrontation.

There was no evidence that showed who started the confrontation, just the word of the survivor who had a lot to lose, and was shown to be knowledgeable in what to say in this situation, yet lied about it on tape when asked directly.

That didn't seem to give the jury or you guys pause, or consideration for some reason. Nor the lack of remorse by Zimmerman. He got what he always wanted, he didn't let one of those guys get away this time, bloody nose and all the scraps and bumps.

Sorry while I try to respect the process, and the verdict, I can't believe Zimmerman in anything he says, and still see Trayvon as his victim, wannebe thug, or not. I guess the law did what it was supposed to. Protect a scared dumbass from his own stupidity, and bad judgement, and kept him out of jail.

Still with repeating the same old lies. I've documented his remorse. What do want from him, spend the next 20 years walking around with a sign saying I'm sorry or what? Where's the remorse from the media that falsely portrayed him as a racist "white Hispanic" murdering a helpless little black boy for wearing a hoody?

Still with repeating the same old lies. I've documented his remorse. What do want from him, spend the next 20 years walking around with a sign saying I'm sorry or what? Where's the remorse from the media that falsely portrayed him as a racist "white Hispanic" murdering a helpless little black boy for wearing a hoody?

It's probably in the same place as you swallowing his story completely without reservation.

He apologized to the family at his bond hearing,  he tried to apologize to them privately but was "rebuffed" acccording to CNN, and also in the Hannity interview,  but what you guys got out of that was God made him do it. 


At times Zimmerman seemed to eke out a nervous smile, with sweat gathering on his upper lip. He spent much of the one-hour interview recounting the moments just before and after the shooting. But he also addressed Martin's parents. When asked what he would say to them, he answered, "I would tell them again that I'm sorry."

"I don't have my wife and I don't have any children," he said. "I have nephews that I love more than life, I love them more than myself. I know that when they were born it was a different, unique bond and love that I have with them. And I love my children, even though they aren't born yet. And I am sorry that they buried their child. I can't imagine what it must feel like, and I pray for them daily."

Zimmerman Apology: Trayvon Martin Shooter Tells Parents He's Sorry During 'Hannity' Interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/zimmerman-apology-trayvon_n_1684878.html)

So what more do you want?

P. S. He sure sounds like a cracka when he talks eh?

So what more do you want?
Apologies are easy to give when you have nothing to lose.

If I don't believe his account of events, or his reasoning behind his actions that led to the events why should I believe his apology. But I do believe the dead kid was afraid of the stranger stalking him.

Apologies are easy to give when you have nothing to lose.

John 8:7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone... (ASV - sent from CadreBible)

Would you be as respectful had a black jury convicted him?

Would you be as respectful had a black jury convicted him?

I defer to the jury, period. That's how it works. Your turn.

Hello:

Stand your ground is soooo stupid... If somebody picks a fight with you, you'd BETTER lose, because if you start WINNING, he can shoot you..

excon

Would you be as respectful had a black jury convicted him?

More proof that it's your side that is stoking the flames of racism. Why don't you look up the jury trial of the murderer of Yankel Rosenbaum ,Lemrick Nelson and get back to us ? After that jury nullification of the law ,some of the jurors attended a party with Nelson.

Why can't you just answer the question?

Hello:

Stand your ground is soooo stupid... If somebody picks a fight with you, you'd BETTER lose, because if you start WINNING, he can shoot you..

excon

You got the memo.

Media Won't Stand Down on 'Stand Your Ground' | National Review Online (http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/353887/media-wont-stand-down-stand-your-ground-andrew-johnson)

Why can't you just answer the question?

I did. Your turn.

From Jazz Shaw on the Comforter in Chief's 'healing' speech.



This leads us to the other glaring omission. You'll note that in the initial expressions of sympathy and understanding, George Zimmerman's name was not mentioned once. If my previous, far fetched idea that Zimmerman was innocent – backed up only by the flimsy excuse that a court of law found him to be so – were even possibly true, was the Zimmerman family also not feeling the sting of the long, drawn out proceedings which followed and the social stigma which will be trailing George Zimmerman for the rest of his life? Was there not a moment to spare in this “historic speech” (as Wolf Blitzer later termed it) for a few thoughts for the family of the man who was found innocent?


Spot on. You lefties have forgotten there is more than one family here and Zimmerman and his family's lives will never be the same even though he was found innocent of the charges.

Sorry I haven't moved to sympathy for the guy who started this tragedy by his actions before the confrontation, a 28 year old guy who supposedly was trained to know better, though I do feel sympathy for his family who yet again have had to endure his mistakes.

Because of him the "young thug wannabe" as you say will never be have the chance to amend his ways and be better. I can agree on the media hurting both families, but an honest dialog need to be had. You can't just sweep it under the rug and forget it.

Sorry I haven't moved to sympathy for the guy who started this tragedy by his actions before the confrontation, a 28 year old guy who supposedly was trained to know better, though I do feel sympathy for his family who yet again have had to endure his mistakes.

Because of him the "young thug wannabe" as you say will never be have the chance to amend his ways and be better. I can agree on the media hurting both families, but an honest dialog need to be had. You can't just sweep it under the rug and forget it.

Tom and I both posted what your 'honest dialog' consists of, or rather omits - the honest part.

Why can't you just answer the question?

I don't care what a jury looks like. So long as they follow the rule of law then the ruling is valid until it is appealed.

Why keep playing race as a factor?

So you don't agree him breaking the rules of being in the neighbor hood watch was the root cause that lead to this tragedy, and application of a bad law facilitated that decision to leave his truck?

Even the jury person acknowledged it influenced her thinking. He crossed a line of good behavior when he profiled the teen in the first place. He doesn't have to be a racist to be wrong.

I dont care what a jury looks like. So long as they follow the rule of law then the ruling is valid until it is appealed.

Why keep playing race as a factor?

Because it is and ignoring it keeps us stuck in the same mud of close minded segregation that creates more problem than it solves. You can't live in fear and prejudice and make policy and procedure from that fear, and prejudice without consequence.

So you don't agree him breaking the rules of being in the neighbor hood watch was the root cause that lead to this tragedy, and application of a bad law facilitated that decision to leave his truck?

Even the jury person acknowledged it influenced her thinking. He crossed a line of good behavior when he profiled the teen in the first place. He doesn't have to be a racist to be wrong.

First off I don't believe stand your ground is bad law. Second is that stand your ground wasn't a part of this case. The fact you keep bringing it up shows your lack of concern for the parties involved and the prejudice you hold for the situation.

I know your not in favor of carry permits in general and you believe that people who do carry that aren't police can never be properly trained. But your wrong. I aknowlage it's a terrible tragidy to have to lose a life when its someone so young. But maybe what this case should really be doing is focusing on the system that created this whole mess. This country is going to hell in a handbasket and we are dropping fast. We (everyone) needs to regain control of our own destiny and not just allow government to tell us where to be and what to do.

Im still proud of my country and do not fear voicing my opinion in it. I am pro 2nd amendment. I try to be reasonable about the way things are and focus on the law at hand. Too many teens are being twisted into situations they don't belong in and it's a result of attitudes and environment. Its time for change.

This case as I see it is Obama's saving grace so he and others are going to perpetuate it for as long as possible to keep the spotlight off the administrations activities and allow him to continue flying under the radar.

If you want to propose moving away from a nation of laws to one of a feel good anything goes society then start that argument so we can get on with the debate. But in my lifetime I have never seen so much BS being slung around as truth because the media says so as I have in this case. It is only going to get worse if we don't change.

Because it is and ignoring it keeps us stuck in the same mud of close minded segregation that creates more problem than it solves. You can't live in fear and prejudice and make policy and procedure from that fear, and prejudice without consequence.

The ONLY reason race continues to be a factor in anything is because your side perpetuates it. You continue to oppress persons of color for no reason other then to control them. Its very sad.

breaking the rules of being in the neighbor hood watch
What rules were these ? Who's rules ? I did some checking on that and did not find his neighborhood watch group affiliated with any outside organization ,or even directly with the local police.
Does it not occur to you that had his intent been to shoot Martin ,he probably would not have called 9 1 1 first ? Or maybe you think that was part of his diabolical plot too ?

Hello again, dad:

The ONLY reason race continues to be a factor in anything is because your side perpetuates it. You continue to oppress persons of color for no reason other then to control them. Its very sad.That is the right wing narrative, isn't it? But, in order to believe that, you'd have to believe the birth certificate fiasco had NOTHING to do with race... Of course, it had EVERYTHING to do with race, didn't it??

Excon

Maybe that was the problem Tom, they made up the rule as they went along without the proper guidance. The NW groups I have associated with were guided and set up with the help of the cop.

No wonder he screwed up and shot a neighbor.

Hello again, dad:
In order to believe that, you'd have to believe the birth certificate fiasco had NOTHING to do with race... Of course, it had EVERYTHING to do with race, didn't it???

excon

Which birth certificate are you referring to ?

Hello again, dad:

Which birth certificate are you referring to ?I don't know if you actually DON'T know what I'm talking about, or if you're insulting my intelligence...

If it's the former, you need to pay better attention. If it's the latter, that's what you guys do when you have NO answers.

Excon

Well ex everyone has a birth certificate but sometimes the details are embarrassing. Now we could conclude that the details are embarrassing for BO or they are embarrassing for his opponents

Eric Liu: Real Neighborhoods Should Do More than Watch | TIME.com (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/17/real-neighborhoods-should-do-more-than-watch/)

Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch gun rules - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch)

Sanford's police chief eyeing changes for Neighborhood Watch program | Bay News 9 (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/19/sanford_s_police_chi.html)


A resident at The Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Martin was fatally shot, said the homeowner's association there permanently suspended their neighborhood watch program immediately after the shooting in February 2012. The neighborhood now has a community enforcement agreement with the Sanford Police Department.

Hello again, dad:
I dunno if you actually DON'T know what I'm talking about, or if you're insulting my intelligence...

If it's the former, you need to pay better attention. If it's the latter, that's what you guys do when you have NO answers.

excon

Im just making sure that you get an answer to whatever your talking about. But to do that we just need to start on the same page. Are we revisiting the BO birth certificate issue or is there something else brewing that I missed ?

Eric Liu: Real Neighborhoods Should Do More than Watch | TIME.com (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/17/real-neighborhoods-should-do-more-than-watch/)

Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch gun rules - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch)

Sanford's police chief eyeing changes for Neighborhood Watch program | Bay News 9 (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/19/sanford_s_police_chi.html)




Is it a surprise that they suspended it? All sorts of people run when in danger of a lawsuit and public pressure. They are no different. They are afraid to stand up for what is right in favor of a false sense of security that it will go away by ignoring it.

Hello again, dad:

Im just making sure that you get an answer to whatever your talking about. Look. If I belonged to a party of RACIST BASTARDS, I'd dance around the question too..

Excon

Hello again, dad:
Look. If I belonged to a party of RACIST BASTARDS, I'd dance around the question too..

excon

Maybe Im wrong but I thought we both were independents ?

For me it wasn't a question of race. It was a question of eligibility. Just like if you remember at the time John McCain was held in question also in OB's first presidential run.

McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate - Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-05-02/politics/36847474_1_mccain-side-mccain-campaign-natural-born-citizen)

Hello again, dad:

The ONLY reason race continues to be a factor in anything is because your side perpetuates it.Fruitvale Station. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57594533/fruitvale-station-recreating-a-tragic-loss-of-a-life/) What's your excuse for that?

Excon

Hello again, dad:
Fruitvale Station. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57594533/fruitvale-station-recreating-a-tragic-loss-of-a-life/) What's your excuse for that?

excon

Looks like neglegence to me on the part of the Bart Officer. He stood trial and was found guilty. What more do you want?

Can you explain this one?

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newso m)

Hello again, dad:

What more do you want?I want you to explain the events PRIOR to the shooting, and tell me that this kid wasn't racially PROFILED and wound up dead.

Profiling is the issue - NOT what happened to the cop.

Excon

Eric Liu: Real Neighborhoods Should Do More than Watch | TIME.com (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/17/real-neighborhoods-should-do-more-than-watch/)

Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch gun rules - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch)

Sanford's police chief eyeing changes for Neighborhood Watch program | Bay News 9 (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/19/sanford_s_police_chi.html)

From your link:

The Neighborhood Watch at Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmerman lived and was chosen as coordinator by his neighbors, was formed in September, Dorival said. It is not registered with the national group, but there is no registration requirement. The Sanford Police Department provides training and community signs, and informs residents about crime trends and prevention.

Zimmerman raised no red flags during an organizational meeting Sept. 22, and no one had complained about him before the shooting, Dorival said.
Like the link says ;there are no set rules for community watch groups . The local police may or may not help in the details . I remember when the Guardian Angels formed here by Curtis Sliwa. He established his own guidelines that the police and even Mayor Koch opposed. Since then they have been embraced .

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch gun rules - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch)

Hello again,

If ALL the conditions to stand your ground are met, what if you have an ankle holster? What if your gun is in a drawer two feet away? What if it's on a table six feet away? What if it's in another room?

excon

Hello again,

I got MORE questions about this stupid, stupid law.

What happens if I start a fight with you? I get off the first punch and put you on the ground... Now I'm STANDING over you ready to do it again, and you FEEL (key word) threatened... According to the law, you can shoot me.

But, you don't. Instead you get up, and nail ME, and now I'M on the ground and you're standing over me. I FEEL (key word) threatened. Can I shoot you?

excon

At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch gun rules - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch)[/QUOTE]

Again ; Dorival said. It is not registered with the national group, but there is no registration requirement. The Sanford Police Department provides training and community signs, and informs residents about crime trends and prevention.

National Sheriffs' Association has a set of guidelines that a group may or may not follow . A group may or may not register with them as they choose . What is sad is that there were so many break-ins in the peaceful community of Twin Lakes that they felt the need to create a community watch group in the 1st place . People forget that little tidbit .There were 8 break ins in the year prior to the night of the incident . In one of the cases ,Olivia Bertalan was home alone with her infant son when her home was broken into by 2 men. She ran upstairs and locked herself and her son in a bedroom .One of the men tried to enter the room ,but could not because it was locked . He knew she was there because both she and the baby were crying . She was lucky . The cops showed up that time and the men fled... but not before stealing her laptop and digital camera . God knows what would've happened if they did not show up when they did. For Olivia Bertalan that was enough . She was not going to live in fear . She moved out of the community specifically because of the number of instances of break ins.

Hello again,

I got MORE questions about this stupid, stupid law.

What happens if I start a fight with you? I get off the first punch and put you on the ground... Now I'm STANDING over you ready to do it again, and you FEEL (key word) threatened... According to the law, you can shoot me.

But, you don't. Instead you get up, and nail ME, and now I'M on the ground and you're standing over me. I FEEL (key word) threatened. Can I shoot you?

Excon
Maybe you should ask some of the victims of the "knockout game" what they think.

In May 2013, a 51 year-old man named Michael Daniels died from his injuries after he was attacked outside a convenience store in Syracuse, NY, by two teenagers playing the game.The suspects, 15 year-old Ander Grady and an unnamed 13 year-old, were charged with manslaughter.Grady's charges were later upgraded to criminally negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, and assault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_(violent_game)
But... but... Ander Grady's just a kid . How could a kid beat up an adult male ? You know... if the emperor had a son ,he could look like Grady.. in fact ;Grady could've been the emperor 35 years ago .
Man (http://centralny.ynn.com/content/top_stories/667109/man-s-death-linked-to--knockout-game-/)

Hello again, tom:

In other words, you got nothing...

excon

Hello again, dad:
I want you to explain the events PRIOR to the shooting, and tell me that this kid wasn't racially PROFILED and wound up dead.

Profiling is the issue - NOT what happened to the cop.

excon

From what the report showed was that a report of fighting on the tain had occurred. Was it more like rough housing between friends or what I have no idea. But I didn't see any charges of civil rights brought against the officer. I don't know the exact initial report that was turned in. Bart police are not regular police in the same sense as a city owned force but are more of a private force.

It appears the cop made a mistake. On purpose or not I can't tell from the video. But it is clear he shot at point blank range. If your expecting me to say this was profiling I can not without more information.

Hello again,

I got MORE questions about this stupid, stupid law.

What happens if I start a fight with you?? I get off the first punch and put you on the ground... Now I'm STANDING over you ready to do it again, and you FEEL (key word) threatened... According to the law, you can shoot me.

But, you don't. Instead you get up, and nail ME, and now I'M on the ground and you're standing over me. I FEEL (key word) threatened. Can I shoot you?

excon

We went through this before. But as a refresher it does protect you if it is life threatened. Well beyond simple threat.

Hello again, dad:
I dunno if you actually DON'T know what I'm talking about, or if you're insulting my intelligence...

If it's the former, you need to pay better attention. If it's the latter, that's what you guys do when you have NO answers.

excon

I think this should be on the "it's come to this" thread. Playing the birther card on a thread about a Hispanic shooting a black guy? Really? Speaking of insulting other's intelligence...


You guys make race a factor in everything and especially so since Dear Leader came on the scene and that's the shame. You are directly responsible for perpetuating racial tension, including with the birther nonsense.

Hello again,

I got MORE questions about this stupid, stupid law.

What happens if I start a fight with you?? I get off the first punch and put you on the ground... Now I'm STANDING over you ready to do it again, and you FEEL (key word) threatened... According to the law, you can shoot me.

But, you don't. Instead you get up, and nail ME, and now I'M on the ground and you're standing over me. I FEEL (key word) threatened. Can I shoot you?

excon

I'd shoot regardless of the law.

Bad news. In spite of angry blacks and other liberals' protesting to urge the feds to lynch Zimmerman, ex's bulldog buddy says it probably ain't going to happen.


A leading House Democrat questioned Friday whether the Justice Department (DOJ) has the evidence to mount a civil rights case against George Zimmerman, the man acquitted of killing an unarmed black teenager in Florida.

Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a television interview that "it seems unlikely" Attorney General Eric Holder would file discrimination charges against Zimmerman. 

The killing of Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman's subsequent acquittal have sparked demonstrations around the country. Protests were scheduled nationwide on Saturday as disappointed court-watchers urged DOJ to pursue charges against Zimmerman. 

Waxman's comments put him at odds with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have said that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights in February, 2012, by pursuing him through a neighborhood. 

"I haven't heard that they could show that there was anything with regard to race involved," Waxman told C-SPAN's Newsmakers program. 

"There was a boy and this fellow Zimmerman thought he was up to no good and they got into a fight.

"Maybe he decided [Martin] was doing something wrong because he was African American, but there was no clear evidence that was the supposition. It seems unlikely that they could make a case." 

Waxman also said he understood why jurors came to their conclusion in the case.

"I can see how a jury trying to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt for guilt could have a reasonable doubt and come to the conclusion they reached," he said. 

Read more: Leading Dem casts doubt on possible DOJ charges against Zimmerman - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312417-leading-dem-casts-doubt-on-possible-doj-charges-against-zimmerman#ixzz2ZikpYidr Follow) us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

He sounds just like us wingers. Who knew Waxman was such a racist.

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... Like my friend Henry, I too have no problem with the verdict, and I too don't think there's grounds for civil rights charges.

Nonetheless, stand your ground needs to be repealed. It's a license to kill black people.

Prior to stand your ground, our self defense laws allowed you to kill, if you had NO OTHER OPTION.. Stand your ground allows you to kill even if you HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. If you have a SAFE avenue of escape, sticking around to "stand your ground" ISN'T about self defense.. It's about kicking some a$$.

excon