Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 147

Thread: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

  1. #91
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Wallowing in willful ignorance. Check.
    Still bored... can you get more interesting pls?
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #92
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,598

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I would think the story is the photos are questionable based on the source.
    The story is, the Libbo media got busted pimping pics of Martin when he was 12...not 17.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #93
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The dispatcher has no authority - yes he ignored the dispatchers request to stop following Martin. The law is fine IMO. I'm not sure how it's being applied in this case, since this case has not even been reviewed by a Grand Jury yet.
    So then you have no problem with a law that essentially says if a couple of trick o treaters come up to your door dressed like cops and robbers with toy guns, you could technically shoot them? A law that even a lot of law enforcement thinks is bs?


    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Which means what? That Martin had every right to confront and attack Zimmerman?




    A 17 year old, who would be tried as an adult if the shoe was on the other foot, is hardly what anyone without an agenda would call a "child". I saw some of his tweets and "child" is the last description that comes to mind.
    There is far less conclusive evidence that the kid did anything to him. Are you telling me that "if" a kid punches you in the nose that gives you the right to kill him? What kind of "man" is that?

    As for trying 17 year olds as adults, give them full legal adult rights at 17 then try them. His tweets as you say are in question, and there are many faked accounts out there. Even so the kid for all I know was a total asshole. Most likely, being that he was 17 I would almost guarantee he was. When I was 17, I had long grungy hair, 2 eyebrow rings in one eyebrow, wore System of a Down shirts and had baggy jeans. No one at school would ever **** with me because I was 6'1 220 lbs of punk kid. Anymore, what someone says when they are 13 on up to 17 really has little difference. So what was the point in your post other than trying to justify the murder of an unarmed child?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If that "child" is physically assaulting someone then the person being assaulted has the right to use lethal force to defend himself.
    So let me so if I am following you on this one. If anyone, child or not gets into a fist fight with you out in the street you have the right to stab or shoot that person?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    This is exactly why they chose a picture of him at 10-12 years old instead a recent. This is spur more sympathy for the alleged murder victim, to attack stand your ground laws and to turn public opinion against Zimmerman. I am pretty sure that somewhere there are sine recent picture of Martin in prom tux, some church clothes or even some normal casual clothes that makes him appear squeaky clean.
    You're gonna love this one, I totally forgot to mention this in my own derailing of this thread, but the picture of that badass kid? That isn't him. Yep, whatever "reputable" news source you got that from isn't all that reputable. Of course anyone could tell the difference couldn't they? Well wait, you probably couldn't could you? That is what is so hilarious about all the **** you posted! You can't! Neither can any of the other concerned totally unracist citizens that posted those cute little pictures showing Zimmerman in a suit, and the other kid.


    Anyways, it's been swell guys.If you are wanting to talk about this in one of the other 500 threads about this topic I would be more than happy to.
    Last edited by JohnWOlin; 03-30-12 at 04:10 AM.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  4. #94
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    152

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    The photos are very different there is no matching in this photos. This is story is diverting the case.

  5. #95
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    ****in' cauliflower!

    How the **** do you know what I heard or did not hear?
    Seeing how the word after ****ing practically inaudible I know you lying your ass off when you say you heard coon.


    Like I said, go on out and test your theory.

    If a person reasonably believes that the follower is a threat to cause them great bodily harm or even death, or that the follower will commit a felony against them, they are justified in standing their ground and defending themselves, even so far as using deadly force in Florida.
    Thinking someone is following you does not warrant you assaulting that person. Normal people ask why are you following me, what the **** are you following me for, got a problem with me, and etc. Again if being followed or thinking you are being followed gave you a license to assault people a lot of security guards, store clerks, cops and so on would be getting their ass whipped.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #96
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    So let me so if I am following you on this one. If anyone, child or not gets into a fist fight with you out in the street you have the right to stab or shoot that person?
    As long as you are the one who starts the assault ,Yes I have to the right to use lethal force to stop you.

    You're gonna love this one, I totally forgot to mention this in my own derailing of this thread, but the picture of that badass kid? That isn't him. Yep, whatever "reputable" news source you got that from isn't all that reputable. Of course anyone could tell the difference couldn't they? Well wait, you probably couldn't could you? That is what is so hilarious about all the **** you posted! You can't! Neither can any of the other concerned totally unracist citizens that posted those cute little pictures showing Zimmerman in a suit, and the other kid.
    Its no more reputable or honest than a news source posting a picture of what appears to be a 12 year old instead of a recent photo of a 6 foot 3 inch tall seventeen year old. This is a blatant dishonest attempt by the media to stir emotion and hatred.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #97
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    As long as you are the one who starts the assault ,Yes I have to the right to use lethal force to stop you.
    That isn't true. If I slap you across the face, you do not have the legal right to hit me over the head with a baseball bat. Get real.

    Just say, "You're right," or clarify your statement or something. That's just silly.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #98
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    So then you have no problem with a law that essentially says if a couple of trick o treaters come up to your door dressed like cops and robbers with toy guns, you could technically shoot them?
    If the trick or treaters attack you at your door and slam you into the ground... no I have no issue with the homeowner bustin' a cap in dey ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    A law that even a lot of law enforcement thinks is bs?
    Apparently not enough of law enforcement since it passed the state assembly, legislature and was signed into law.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    There is far less conclusive evidence that the kid did anything to him. Are you telling me that "if" a kid punches you in the nose that gives you the right to kill him? What kind of "man" is that?
    A man who felt his life may be in danger. While I understand your discounting what you don't want to believe as far as evidence... fact is there's little evidence so far. What of it there is especially by Zimmerman is corroborated by the eyewitnesses. You discount that because it doesn't follow the narrative you want to emotionally believe. Which is why the court systems and legal system is in place - so they can address evidence without injecting the emotions.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    As for trying 17 year olds as adults, give them full legal adult rights at 17 then try them. His tweets as you say are in question, and there are many faked accounts out there. Even so the kid for all I know was a total asshole.
    I don't know if the twitter account is fake or not. If it's real... well... all I can say is the kid had issues. If it's fake, it was a few month long fake account that seemed very convincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    Most likely, being that he was 17 I would almost guarantee he was. When I was 17, I had long grungy hair, 2 eyebrow rings in one eyebrow, wore System of a Down shirts and had baggy jeans. No one at school would ever **** with me because I was 6'1 220 lbs of punk kid. Anymore, what someone says when they are 13 on up to 17 really has little difference. So what was the point in your post other than trying to justify the murder of an unarmed child?
    You went from considering 17 year old and giving them full adult rights to "unarmed child"? The characterization of child doesn't fit...

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    So let me so if I am following you on this one. If anyone, child or not gets into a fist fight with you out in the street you have the right to stab or shoot that person?
    If that 6' "child" of 17, assaults me in Florida, decks me and pounds my head in the ground and I feel my life is in danger, yes, I shoot him and I shoot to kill.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    You're gonna love this one, I totally forgot to mention this in my own derailing of this thread, but the picture of that badass kid? That isn't him. Yep, whatever "reputable" news source you got that from isn't all that reputable. Of course anyone could tell the difference couldn't they? Well wait, you probably couldn't could you? That is what is so hilarious about all the **** you posted! You can't! Neither can any of the other concerned totally unracist citizens that posted those cute little pictures showing Zimmerman in a suit, and the other kid.
    I'd love to see the sourced information that identifies the pictures are not him. Post the links please...
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    494

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The "****in' Coons" at 2:20 is pretty racist.



    That, and the fact that he actively seeks out confrontations with people (or "****in' coons") and shoots them after the altercation begins.





    He sought the kid out and began an altercation with him after following and staring at the kid despite the fact that the 911 dispatcher told him not to do that.

    See, this stupid **** doesn't realize that when you stare at someone for an extended period of time while following them, you becomes a suspicious looking person who might want to do the innocent person you are staring at harm. When you then seek out an altercation with that innocent person, they might even feel compelled to defend themselves. When you then shoot and kill them, you prove they were perfectly justified in thinking the pusy **** following them was a threat to them and that they were justified in attempting to defend themselves when said asshole tries to start an altercation with them.



    I don't care which one of them was screaming for help. I really don't. As I said earlier, I don't give a **** if Martin threw the first punch in the altercation. Zimmerman initiated the altercation.

    If he had listened to the dispatcher instead of pretending he was John Wayne, an innocent person would not be dead right now.

    Think about it as a human being: Some dickhead is staring at you and then starts following you around when you are just going about your day. You try to run away from him, but he still follows you. then he comes at you again. What do you do?

    Personally, I'm going to try to defend myself against the creepy goofball.

    So the simple fact that Zimmerman was looking for an altercation with martin is all that we need to know he's a murdering douchebag.
    Why don't you do this forum a favor and change your lean status. It's pure dishonesty to put Conservative in your status when you're obviously a typical race baiting Liberal blinded by your misguided far left ideology.

  10. #100
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    d
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    So then you have no problem with a law that essentially says if a couple of trick o treaters come up to your door dressed like cops and robbers with toy guns, you could technically shoot them? A law that even a lot of law enforcement thinks is bs?




    There is far less conclusive evidence that the kid did anything to him. Are you telling me that "if" a kid punches you in the nose that gives you the right to kill him? What kind of "man" is that?

    As for trying 17 year olds as adults, give them full legal adult rights at 17 then try them. His tweets as you say are in question, and there are many faked accounts out there. Even so the kid for all I know was a total asshole. Most likely, being that he was 17 I would almost guarantee he was. When I was 17, I had long grungy hair, 2 eyebrow rings in one eyebrow, wore System of a Down shirts and had baggy jeans. No one at school would ever **** with me because I was 6'1 220 lbs of punk kid. Anymore, what someone says when they are 13 on up to 17 really has little difference. So what was the point in your post other than trying to justify the murder of an unarmed child?



    So let me so if I am following you on this one. If anyone, child or not gets into a fist fight with you out in the street you have the right to stab or shoot that person?



    You're gonna love this one, I totally forgot to mention this in my own derailing of this thread, but the picture of that badass kid? That isn't him. Yep, whatever "reputable" news source you got that from isn't all that reputable. Of course anyone could tell the difference couldn't they? Well wait, you probably couldn't could you? That is what is so hilarious about all the **** you posted! You can't! Neither can any of the other concerned totally unracist citizens that posted those cute little pictures showing Zimmerman in a suit, and the other kid.


    Anyways, it's been swell guys.If you are wanting to talk about this in one of the other 500 threads about this topic I would be more than happy to.
    6' 3" isn't a "kid" to most people.
    Do you really think a person must agree to only defend he/herself without a weapon when under attack? That a woman can not?

    I actually tried to figure it statistically one time across my life. How many "fights" (real world) fights I had been in and how many I saw. Though not typical for certain, the those numbers are around 2,000 and 20,000 by age 16. I could have rather easily quickly downed and done about anything I wanted to men of more docile, ordinary society if were to become necessary for me to so. This level significantly reduced after that, but did not become rare until about 4 years ago when I dramatically changed my life circumstances and environment for the 3rd time. As an adult, I was detained, questioned and even arrested a few times for matters concerning "assault." The question was never if violence was justified on my part, but rather was the level of harm to the other person excessive?

    That is not an easy question for law enforcement to decide with perfect clarity. They had to make a judgment call each time. Generally, they knew 1.) I was within my rights to use physical violence against the other person in a defense of others or myself, 2.) it wasn't really a fair fight in terms of skills, in the sense the other person essentially had no chance of winning 3.) I probably had the person unable to proceed with threat or assault without as much injury done and 4.) I could have easily continued to do far greater, even permanent or lethal, harm to the person but did not. With that, they had to decide had I shifted from reasonable defense to unreasonable and has I shifted from being defensive to assaultive? Those really not simplistic questions with absolute answers.

    My brief explanation, wording actually by an attorney, was that I had acted in defense or others or myself against assault or reasonably believed imminent assault based upon the words or actions of the other person. What I did responsively was for the purpose of as quickly and in a manner I believed most likely to be successful in disabling the person from being able to injury or continue to injury anyone, myself and to avoid escalation of events that could result in greater injury or death to the other person. With that, the police had to decide if they have basis for an initial arrest, and if so, then whether they really wanted to give it to the DA to consider or just drop it.

    There are many cops and ex-cops on this forum too. They can tell you with certainty 1.) for the average man they could not only "beat up" that man, but then could proceed to do serious and even permanent injury or death just with their hands or feet and 2.) even an unskilled person can cause permanent injury or death on a lucky punch or kick.

    Once someone knocked you down and had overwhelmed you, they could tear out your eyes (literally and that has happened in "unarmed fights," kill you by stomping on your throat or just a hard punch in the throat, kick your ribs into your lungs, pull so hard on your testicles that you end effectly castrated, and essentially any severe, permanent or lethal damage they way.

    The standard of law is what would a reasonable person do? A woman certainly could use a weapon to defend against an attack by the average man. But not if she's an athlete and the man weighing 110 pound and a last-stage dying cancer patient or an elderly Alzheimer's patient who do then to get violent.

    When is it "reasonable" for a man to use a weapon to defend against or stop a violent assault or reasonably believed imminent violent assault? There is no absolute answer at all, is there? Some aspects of law are ill-defined and impossible to have perfect clarity.

    The question in regards to Zimmerman is would a reasonable man being him in his situation reasonably believe using deadly force (ie a gun) necessary to assured defend against or stop a serious violent assault against him that is or reasonably is believed may cause him serious physical injury or death. The age of the other person isn't of itself relevant. The reasonably believed danger and actions of the other person is. Thus, but for injury to the back of Zimmerman's head, probably using deadly force was unreasonable or questionably so. IF his head was being pounded into the concrete, probably it was - though all factors to be considered.

    You over-simply if you claim a person cannot use a deadly weapon against an unarmed assault.
    Last edited by joko104; 03-30-12 at 11:50 AM.

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •