Police Chief May Lose Job Over Trayvon Martin Case
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
Comments 101 through 245 of 245 shown.
Page
1
2
flashlv: sloth, if the kid was on top of him, that is justification for self defense.
It could be, though frankly sounds like the kid was just "Standing His Ground" against the creepy guy stalking him and reporting his movements to someone on the phone.
It could be, though frankly sounds like the kid was just "Standing His Ground" against the creepy guy stalking him and reporting his movements to someone on the phone.
flashlv: sloth, if the kid was on top of him, that is justification for self defense.
that was the kid defending himself.
standing his ground, as it were.
that was the kid defending himself.
standing his ground, as it were.
Sounds like even if Zimmerman won't get his day in criminal court, he very well may have to pay the piper in civil court. Kinda like OJ!
fatsean: Sounds like even if Zimmerman won't get his day in criminal court, he very well may have to pay the piper in civil court. Kinda like OJ!
I think he will be tried.
I think he will be tried.
flashlv: I was getting to that, and you whining doesn't help.
Oh, really. Oh, I'm so sorry that I interrupted the eight minutes it took for you to type (reads the rest of response) nothing at all. What did I interrupt...
They confirmed his ID
Ah, you're pretending that valaru actually meant "he said no and they said bye". Of course they took his ID, they talked to him didn't they?
took his info down
and did nothing with it to validate his background.
probably took him to the station and questioned him.
Yeah... "probably". So you refute valaru's possibly wrong understanding with a "maybe".
Or at least they got all the info needed to start an investigation.
half-assed and they didn't collect everything... like blood or whatever to do drug/alcohol testing on Zimmerman.
They also corrected witnesses during statements, it seems.
flashlv: Careful, you posted less than 15 words.
Like I stated, there is a difference between succinct and terse/contrarian.
Oh, really. Oh, I'm so sorry that I interrupted the eight minutes it took for you to type (reads the rest of response) nothing at all. What did I interrupt...
They confirmed his ID
Ah, you're pretending that valaru actually meant "he said no and they said bye". Of course they took his ID, they talked to him didn't they?
took his info down
and did nothing with it to validate his background.
probably took him to the station and questioned him.
Yeah... "probably". So you refute valaru's possibly wrong understanding with a "maybe".
Or at least they got all the info needed to start an investigation.
half-assed and they didn't collect everything... like blood or whatever to do drug/alcohol testing on Zimmerman.
They also corrected witnesses during statements, it seems.
flashlv: Careful, you posted less than 15 words.
Like I stated, there is a difference between succinct and terse/contrarian.
sloth: Several of the witnesses interviewed actually corroborate that he was blindsided, and the kid was on top of him, beating him, just before the shot.
He claims he was blindsided at his truck. The kid has a right to surprise and tackle/whatever someone who is pursuing him, especially if he is pinned. We aren't playing by Colonial battle rules.
He claims he was blindsided at his truck. The kid has a right to surprise and tackle/whatever someone who is pursuing him, especially if he is pinned. We aren't playing by Colonial battle rules.
supergrover: Oh, really. Oh, I'm so sorry that I interrupted the eight minutes it took for you to type (reads the rest of response) nothing at all. What did I interrupt...
They confirmed his ID
Ah, you're pretending that valaru actually meant "he said no and they said bye". Of course they took his ID, they talked to him didn't they?
took his info down
and did nothing with it to validate his background.
probably took him to the station and questioned him.
Yeah... "probably". So you refute valaru's possibly wrong understanding with a "maybe".
Or at least they got all the info needed to start an investigation.
half-assed and they didn't collect everything... like blood or whatever to do drug/alcohol testing on Zimmerman.
They also corrected witnesses during statements, it seems.
Like I stated, there is a difference between succinct and terse/contrarian.
but, he's getting to it...I'm sure.
They confirmed his ID
Ah, you're pretending that valaru actually meant "he said no and they said bye". Of course they took his ID, they talked to him didn't they?
took his info down
and did nothing with it to validate his background.
probably took him to the station and questioned him.
Yeah... "probably". So you refute valaru's possibly wrong understanding with a "maybe".
Or at least they got all the info needed to start an investigation.
half-assed and they didn't collect everything... like blood or whatever to do drug/alcohol testing on Zimmerman.
They also corrected witnesses during statements, it seems.
Like I stated, there is a difference between succinct and terse/contrarian.
but, he's getting to it...I'm sure.
valaru: I think he will be tried.
Painful as it sounds, I think he'll be acquitted - as wrong as his prior actions were (and they were very, very wrong) he did actually have the right to defend himself once the other party became the aggressor, had him pinned, and seemed intent on doing him bodily harm. No matter how much he deserved the beating (and he did).
Painful as it sounds, I think he'll be acquitted - as wrong as his prior actions were (and they were very, very wrong) he did actually have the right to defend himself once the other party became the aggressor, had him pinned, and seemed intent on doing him bodily harm. No matter how much he deserved the beating (and he did).
flashlv: sloth, if the kid was on top of him, that is justification for self defense.
So if I start a fight and the other guy wins, I get to kill him? That is what your situation describes.
He also had no duty or justification to pursue the kid. Nor would you if the kids you were watching panicked and ran. (Unless, since I feel I have to caveat every time with you, you witness them in the commission of a crime or they are possibly (and reasonably to assume) moving to harm someone else). Just because it doesn't feel right doesn't mean you get to even detain.
So if I start a fight and the other guy wins, I get to kill him? That is what your situation describes.
He also had no duty or justification to pursue the kid. Nor would you if the kids you were watching panicked and ran. (Unless, since I feel I have to caveat every time with you, you witness them in the commission of a crime or they are possibly (and reasonably to assume) moving to harm someone else). Just because it doesn't feel right doesn't mean you get to even detain.
valaru: but, he's getting to it...I'm sure.
Silly me for interrupting. Stop posting, everyone, until flash gets the answer... but he must've refreshed, so EVERYONE post saying "we'll be quiet until you splain, lucy"
Silly me for interrupting. Stop posting, everyone, until flash gets the answer... but he must've refreshed, so EVERYONE post saying "we'll be quiet until you splain, lucy"
sloth: Painful as it sounds, I think he'll be acquitted - as wrong as his prior actions were (and they were very, very wrong) he did actually have the right to defend himself once the other party became the aggressor, had him pinned, and seemed intent on doing him bodily harm. No matter how much he deserved the beating (and he did).
chicken or egg.
it's a stand your ground state, who is to say the kid wasn't acting to defend himself.
also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
chicken or egg.
it's a stand your ground state, who is to say the kid wasn't acting to defend himself.
also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
flashlv: Mutual combat.
So you acknowledge that Zimmerman started the aggression? In order for the kid to not be standing his ground, he would have to be in combat already and to not start it and be involved in it infers that the other party initiated.
So you acknowledge that Zimmerman started the aggression? In order for the kid to not be standing his ground, he would have to be in combat already and to not start it and be involved in it infers that the other party initiated.
valaru:
also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
flashlv:
I didn't hear about that, and if true, others here need to see that.
also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
flashlv:
I didn't hear about that, and if true, others here need to see that.
flashlv: Mutual combat.
So now it's mutual.
not matter what, it's going to be the black kids fault in your world isn't it?
no matter that happens, it can't be this cop-wanna-be's fault in your view.
So only one of them, the one you identify more with, has the right to defend themselves.
So now it's mutual.
not matter what, it's going to be the black kids fault in your world isn't it?
no matter that happens, it can't be this cop-wanna-be's fault in your view.
So only one of them, the one you identify more with, has the right to defend themselves.
supergrover: So if I start a fight and the other guy wins, I get to kill him? That is what your situation describes.
He also had no duty or justification to pursue the kid. Nor would you if the kids you were watching panicked and ran. (Unless, since I feel I have to caveat every time with you, you witness them in the commission of a crime or they are possibly (and reasonably to assume) moving to harm someone else). Just because it doesn't feel right doesn't mean you get to even detain.
Mutual combat, therefore either who used deadly force probably would have been justified.
These scenarios are things that would get Zimmerman off.
He also had no duty or justification to pursue the kid. Nor would you if the kids you were watching panicked and ran. (Unless, since I feel I have to caveat every time with you, you witness them in the commission of a crime or they are possibly (and reasonably to assume) moving to harm someone else). Just because it doesn't feel right doesn't mean you get to even detain.
Mutual combat, therefore either who used deadly force probably would have been justified.
These scenarios are things that would get Zimmerman off.
sloth: Painful as it sounds, I think he'll be acquitted - as wrong as his prior actions were (and they were very, very wrong) he did actually have the right to defend himself once the other party became the aggressor, had him pinned, and seemed intent on doing him bodily harm. No matter how much he deserved the beating (and he did).
You may know better than I, but I don't see why you would get to start the fight and also get to kill your way out of it. You are, aren't you, under obligation to NOT initiate if you fear for your life.
You are prolly right about him being acquitted...
You may know better than I, but I don't see why you would get to start the fight and also get to kill your way out of it. You are, aren't you, under obligation to NOT initiate if you fear for your life.
You are prolly right about him being acquitted...
flashlv: Mutual combat, therefore either who used deadly force probably would have been justified.
These scenarios are things that would get Zimmerman off.
If this kid surprised Zimmerman coming around the corner and popped Zimmerman so hard in the nose that it killed him, you would find that justified? (Equal force and all)
If Zimmerman had that gun out during pursuit, or announced he had it, the kid is more justified in kicking his ass.
These scenarios are things that would get Zimmerman off.
If this kid surprised Zimmerman coming around the corner and popped Zimmerman so hard in the nose that it killed him, you would find that justified? (Equal force and all)
If Zimmerman had that gun out during pursuit, or announced he had it, the kid is more justified in kicking his ass.
supergrover: So you acknowledge that Zimmerman started the aggression? In order for the kid to not be standing his ground, he would have to be in combat already and to not start it and be involved in it infers that the other party initiated.>>
No I don't acknowledge that.
The kid being on top shows he could have been the aggressor.
No I don't acknowledge that.
The kid being on top shows he could have been the aggressor.
supergrover: If this kid surprised Zimmerman coming around the corner and popped Zimmerman so hard in the nose that it killed him, you would find that justified? (Equal force and all)
If Zimmerman had that gun out during pursuit, or announced he had it, the kid is more justified in kicking his ass.
No, because following someone isn't grounds for deadly force IMO.
It's like shooting someone in the back.
If Zimmerman had that gun out during pursuit, or announced he had it, the kid is more justified in kicking his ass.
No, because following someone isn't grounds for deadly force IMO.
It's like shooting someone in the back.
valaru: chicken or egg.
it's a stand your ground state, who is to say the kid wasn't acting to defend himself.
The fact that the kid initiated the physical violence - or at least that the preponderance of statements so far support that allegation. It's going to come down to a question of whether Zimmerman's creepy stalking will be considered "instigating."
valaru: also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
Not if that unarmed person has you pinned on your back and seems intent on doing grievous bodily harm to you - and it's not going to help that the person doing the beating was 6'3". Creepy self-appointed neighborhood watchman has a pretty good case here.
it's a stand your ground state, who is to say the kid wasn't acting to defend himself.
The fact that the kid initiated the physical violence - or at least that the preponderance of statements so far support that allegation. It's going to come down to a question of whether Zimmerman's creepy stalking will be considered "instigating."
valaru: also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
Not if that unarmed person has you pinned on your back and seems intent on doing grievous bodily harm to you - and it's not going to help that the person doing the beating was 6'3". Creepy self-appointed neighborhood watchman has a pretty good case here.
valaru: So now it's mutual.
not matter what, it's going to be the black kids fault in your world isn't it?
no matter that happens, it can't be this cop-wanna-be's fault in your view.
So only one of them, the one you identify more with, has the right to defend themselves.
Give me evidence Zimmerman did something illegal.
not matter what, it's going to be the black kids fault in your world isn't it?
no matter that happens, it can't be this cop-wanna-be's fault in your view.
So only one of them, the one you identify more with, has the right to defend themselves.
Give me evidence Zimmerman did something illegal.
valaru: chicken or egg.
it's a stand your ground state, who is to say the kid wasn't acting to defend himself.
also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
It doesn't say that at all.
it's a stand your ground state, who is to say the kid wasn't acting to defend himself.
also, the law says force to force, I believe that would make using lethal force against an unarmed person excessive.
It doesn't say that at all.
supergrover: You may know better than I, but I don't see why you would get to start the fight and also get to kill your way out of it. You are, aren't you, under obligation to NOT initiate if you fear for your life.
The thing is, he _didn't_ start the fight - both of the witnesses who actually witnessed the start of the fight agree on that. What he did was creep the kid out and put him in a situation where he thought he was going to have something bad happen to him - and I don't put real good odds on a jury saying that meets the legal definition of "instigation." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet on it.
The thing is, he _didn't_ start the fight - both of the witnesses who actually witnessed the start of the fight agree on that. What he did was creep the kid out and put him in a situation where he thought he was going to have something bad happen to him - and I don't put real good odds on a jury saying that meets the legal definition of "instigation." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet on it.
sloth: The thing is, he _didn't_ start the fight - both of the witnesses who actually witnessed the start of the fight agree on that. What he did was creep the kid out and put him in a situation where he thought he was going to have something bad happen to him - and I don't put real good odds on a jury saying that meets the legal definition of "instigation." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet on it.
So you're suggesting the kid was not in a position where he had the right to stand his ground?
So you're suggesting the kid was not in a position where he had the right to stand his ground?
maybe we'll get lucky and someone will 'act in self defense' when they see Zimdog on the street
flashlv: No, because following someone isn't grounds for deadly force IMO.
It's like shooting someone in the back.
Stand Your Ground. Strange dude creeping behind you and chases you when you run and pins you. Just as reasonable fear for safety as Zimmerman could have before beginning the footrace.
It's like shooting someone in the back.
Stand Your Ground. Strange dude creeping behind you and chases you when you run and pins you. Just as reasonable fear for safety as Zimmerman could have before beginning the footrace.
sloth: The thing is, he _didn't_ start the fight - both of the witnesses who actually witnessed the start of the fight agree on that. What he did was creep the kid out and put him in a situation where he thought he was going to have something bad happen to him - and I don't put real good odds on a jury saying that meets the legal definition of "instigation." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet on it.
If the kid felt threatened, well... what I just posted to Flash.
[I thought I had asked bout the witnesses saying he didn't start it, but I guess I didn't thanks for following up and clarifying to some degree]
If the kid felt threatened, well... what I just posted to Flash.
[I thought I had asked bout the witnesses saying he didn't start it, but I guess I didn't thanks for following up and clarifying to some degree]
surfnazi: So you're suggesting the kid was not in a position where he had the right to stand his ground?
I'm saying I wouldn't put odds on a jury finding that he met the legal requirements for being justified in initiating physical force.
I'm saying I wouldn't put odds on a jury finding that he met the legal requirements for being justified in initiating physical force.
sloth: The fact that the kid initiated the physical violence - or at least that the preponderance of statements so far support that allegation. It's going to come down to a question of whether Zimmerman's creepy stalking will be considered "instigating."
I grabbed and chucked someone who I thought was stalking me in the halls at college some years back. Turned out he was trying to get monies from others earlier. Of course, I didn't climb on the guy and whale away, either.
I grabbed and chucked someone who I thought was stalking me in the halls at college some years back. Turned out he was trying to get monies from others earlier. Of course, I didn't climb on the guy and whale away, either.
whale? wail?
sloth: The fact that the kid initiated the physical violence - or at least that the preponderance of statements so far support that allegation. It's going to come down to a question of whether Zimmerman's creepy stalking will be considered "instigating."
Not if that unarmed person has you pinned on your back and seems intent on doing grievous bodily harm to you - and it's not going to help that the person doing the beating was 6'3". Creepy self-appointed neighborhood watchman has a pretty good case here.
Whether he initiated the violence or not (which has yet to be determined) he could have been scared for his life, and defending himself, as the law allows.
for the shooting, there are reports of the kid yelling no, stop, etc. Which, to me, point to;
a)he saw the gun
b) he disengaged (if he was still engaged at the time)
so, it will have to go to court, but if I was the DA I would be arguing that the 911 calls point to the fact that any physical altercation was over by this point, and zimmerman, in a fit of rage still decided to pull the trigger, even though the threat was neutralized.
adding to my case would be zimmerman's history, his reputation as a loose cannon
also, he was told that he didn't need to follow the kid.
sounds like a slam dunk case to me.
and that is IF the kid attacked first, these witness reports can be the ones the police "corrected"
which should be another criminal case alltogether.
witnesses say the kid was calling for help, again showing he was in fear for his safety.
Not if that unarmed person has you pinned on your back and seems intent on doing grievous bodily harm to you - and it's not going to help that the person doing the beating was 6'3". Creepy self-appointed neighborhood watchman has a pretty good case here.
Whether he initiated the violence or not (which has yet to be determined) he could have been scared for his life, and defending himself, as the law allows.
for the shooting, there are reports of the kid yelling no, stop, etc. Which, to me, point to;
a)he saw the gun
b) he disengaged (if he was still engaged at the time)
so, it will have to go to court, but if I was the DA I would be arguing that the 911 calls point to the fact that any physical altercation was over by this point, and zimmerman, in a fit of rage still decided to pull the trigger, even though the threat was neutralized.
adding to my case would be zimmerman's history, his reputation as a loose cannon
also, he was told that he didn't need to follow the kid.
sounds like a slam dunk case to me.
and that is IF the kid attacked first, these witness reports can be the ones the police "corrected"
which should be another criminal case alltogether.
witnesses say the kid was calling for help, again showing he was in fear for his safety.
sloth: I'm saying I wouldn't put odds on a jury finding that he met the legal requirements for being justified in initiating physical force.
but killing him is a-ok?
but killing him is a-ok?
supergrover:
Like I stated, there is a difference between succinct and terse/contrarian.
Hey man, quit interrupting him!!!
Jeeze, can't even let a brotha talk!
Like I stated, there is a difference between succinct and terse/contrarian.
Hey man, quit interrupting him!!!
Jeeze, can't even let a brotha talk!
flashlv: It doesn't say that at all.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
supergrover: If the kid felt threatened, well... what I just posted to Flash.
They both felt threatened, for different reasons :)
supergrover: [I thought I had asked bout the witnesses saying he didn't start it, but I guess I didn't thanks for following up and clarifying to some degree]
link
They both felt threatened, for different reasons :)
supergrover: [I thought I had asked bout the witnesses saying he didn't start it, but I guess I didn't thanks for following up and clarifying to some degree]
link
sloth: They both felt threatened, for different reasons :)
link
that link is over a week old.. i think the stories have changed since then
link
that link is over a week old.. i think the stories have changed since then
sloth: They both felt threatened, for different reasons :)
link
fox news!!!!
and was this the "corrected" statements
link
fox news!!!!
and was this the "corrected" statements
valaru: but killing him is a-ok?
If he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself (which is likely to be upheld given the fact that he was pinned and getting beaten), and if his previous stalking did not rise to the level of "instigation," yes.
If he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself (which is likely to be upheld given the fact that he was pinned and getting beaten), and if his previous stalking did not rise to the level of "instigation," yes.
sloth: If he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself (which is likely to be upheld given the fact that he was pinned and getting beaten), and if his previous stalking did not rise to the level of "instigation," yes.
he outweighed the kid by quite a bit.
if he was half the size, maybe.
he outweighed the kid by quite a bit.
if he was half the size, maybe.
valaru: fox news!!!!
and was this the "corrected" statements
That's fox orlando, not fox news - different entities. And what do you mean "corrected?" I haven't heard anything about this. Of course the situation changes greatly if the kid didn't initiate force, or didn't have him in a position where he could reasonably fear serious harm.
and was this the "corrected" statements
That's fox orlando, not fox news - different entities. And what do you mean "corrected?" I haven't heard anything about this. Of course the situation changes greatly if the kid didn't initiate force, or didn't have him in a position where he could reasonably fear serious harm.
BREAKING: Police Chief in Sanford, Fla., Stepping Aside Amid Shooting Controversy
sloth: They both felt threatened, for different reasons :)
That law is shitty. Not that I think Zimmerman would have done anything differently, but he would at least be not scot free in this.
link
Where is the part that said the witnesses said Martin started the physical part?
My phone tells me Billy Lee stepped down.
That law is shitty. Not that I think Zimmerman would have done anything differently, but he would at least be not scot free in this.
link
Where is the part that said the witnesses said Martin started the physical part?
My phone tells me Billy Lee stepped down.
sloth: That's fox orlando, not fox news - different entities. And what do you mean "corrected?" I haven't heard anything about this. Of course the situation changes greatly if the kid didn't initiate force, or didn't have him in a position where he could reasonably fear serious harm.
the fox news was a joke.
and it came out the the police "corrected" certain witnesses, when they said it was the kid calling for help, the police told them it was zimmerman calling for help.
the age of your link makes me question if it was one of these.
the fox news was a joke.
and it came out the the police "corrected" certain witnesses, when they said it was the kid calling for help, the police told them it was zimmerman calling for help.
the age of your link makes me question if it was one of these.
finnley wren: And, catching up on the discussion . . .
Contrarians gonna contrary.
For what lulz, I don't know.
Contrarians gonna contrary.
For what lulz, I don't know.
valaru: and it came out the the police "corrected" certain witnesses, when they said it was the kid calling for help, the police told them it was zimmerman calling for help.
the age of your link makes me question if it was one of these.
Ah. Yeah, hadn't heard that one. Shitty if true.
the age of your link makes me question if it was one of these.
Ah. Yeah, hadn't heard that one. Shitty if true.
sloth: That's fox orlando, not fox news - different entities. And what do you mean "corrected?" I haven't heard anything about this. Of course the situation changes greatly if the kid didn't initiate force, or didn't have him in a position where he could reasonably fear serious harm.
link
Other stuff
link
Allegations of serious police misconduct have arisen, including the "correction" of a witness who said the boy called for help and not his attacker, George Zimmerman, who claims he shot in self defense.
Other stuff
• Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle. Attorneys for the dead teen’s family believe the information was added in a second report to justify the lack of an arrest.
• Police said witness statements supported Zimmerman’s account. But several of the witnesses expressed surprise, telling The Herald that they reported hearing someone crying for help just before a shot ended the cries. The 911 tapes of witness calls bolstered their claims.
• One of the witnesses who heard the crying said she called a detective repeatedly, but said he was not interested because her account differed from Zimmerman’s.
• For nearly a month, police never noticed a profanity Zimmerman mumbled under his breath when he called police, which some people believe was accompanied by a muffled racial slur.
• Even though investigators have the dead boy’s cell phone, it was Trayvon’s father who combed through the phone records to discover that his son was talking to a girlfriend in the moments that led up to his death.
ambition chicken: Yes they do.
I was going to say that, if you gave me time, jeebus, keep your pants on!!!
I was going to say that, if you gave me time, jeebus, keep your pants on!!!
valaru: no they don't.
ambition chicken: Yes they do.
STOP IT I"M TRYING TO THINK!
or
\YOU'RE TEARING UUSSS APPPPAAAAAAARTT!
ambition chicken: Yes they do.
STOP IT I"M TRYING TO THINK!
or
\YOU'RE TEARING UUSSS APPPPAAAAAAARTT!
sloth: Ah. Yeah, hadn't heard that one. Shitty if true.
It's been confirmed that corrections happened, don't know if it was your witness though.
It's been confirmed that corrections happened, don't know if it was your witness though.
ambition chicken: For what lulz, I don't know.
Some corporations, concerned with evolving a culture of "yes men" that will not question senior management, often appoint a rotating "devil's advocate" in decision-making meetings, to question every decision eight ways to Sunday, no matter how bizarre the questioning might seem, to preclude groupthink.
However, they make sure to rotate that position, so the rest of the company won't think they're just being a dick.
Some corporations, concerned with evolving a culture of "yes men" that will not question senior management, often appoint a rotating "devil's advocate" in decision-making meetings, to question every decision eight ways to Sunday, no matter how bizarre the questioning might seem, to preclude groupthink.
However, they make sure to rotate that position, so the rest of the company won't think they're just being a dick.
finnley wren: Some corporations, concerned with evolving a culture of "yes men" that will not question senior management, often appoint a rotating "devil's advocate" in decision-making meetings, to question every decision eight ways to Sunday, no matter how bizarre the questioning might seem, to preclude groupthink.
However, they make sure to rotate that position, so the rest of the company won't think they're just being a dick.
Grahams needs to ask Flash to step down. I think he's being a dick.
However, they make sure to rotate that position, so the rest of the company won't think they're just being a dick.
Grahams needs to ask Flash to step down. I think he's being a dick.
finnley wren: Some corporations, concerned with evolving a culture of "yes men" that will not question senior management, often appoint a rotating "devil's advocate" in decision-making meetings, to question every decision eight ways to Sunday, no matter how bizarre the questioning might seem, to preclude groupthink.
However, they make sure to rotate that position, so the rest of the company won't think they're just being a dick.
I would love that job....I have that job.
I am the dick, who questions everything.
However, they make sure to rotate that position, so the rest of the company won't think they're just being a dick.
I would love that job....I have that job.
I am the dick, who questions everything.
supergrover: Grahams needs to ask Flash to step down. I think he's being a dick.
for some, it's natural.
for some, it's natural.
supergrover: link Allegations of serious police misconduct have arisen, including the "correction" of a witness who said the boy called for help and not his attacker, George Zimmerman, who claims he shot in self defense.
Nothing personal, but do you have a link that isn't the Huffington Post and/or doesn't get the facts of the case wrong in the first paragraph?
Your other link is much better, and nicely summarizes a lot of the issues with how this case was handled, but doesn't mention the "correction."
Nothing personal, but do you have a link that isn't the Huffington Post and/or doesn't get the facts of the case wrong in the first paragraph?
Your other link is much better, and nicely summarizes a lot of the issues with how this case was handled, but doesn't mention the "correction."
sloth: Nothing personal, but do you have a link that isn't the Huffington Post and/or doesn't get the facts of the case wrong in the first paragraph?
Your other link is much better, and nicely summarizes a lot of the issues with how this case was handled, but doesn't mention the "correction."
It's been mentioned by ABC news, I am just too lazy to look up the link.
Your other link is much better, and nicely summarizes a lot of the issues with how this case was handled, but doesn't mention the "correction."
It's been mentioned by ABC news, I am just too lazy to look up the link.
finnley wren: Some corporations, concerned with evolving a culture of "yes men" that will not question senior management, often appoint a rotating "devil's advocate" in decision-making meetings, to question every decision eight ways to Sunday, no matter how bizarre the questioning might seem, to preclude groupthink.
fwiw, the term "Devil's Advocate" actually comes from the Roman Catholic Church - he's the guy that tries to prove a candidate for sainthood really wasn't all that saintly.
fwiw, the term "Devil's Advocate" actually comes from the Roman Catholic Church - he's the guy that tries to prove a candidate for sainthood really wasn't all that saintly.
valaru: It's been mentioned by ABC news, I am just too lazy to look up the link.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2uIKhEgfY9
ha, I posted a link earlier that mentions it.
other stories get into more detail
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2uIKhEgfY9
ha, I posted a link earlier that mentions it.
other stories get into more detail
valaru: It's been mentioned by ABC news, I am just too lazy to look up the link.
Fair 'nuff - I'll take your word for it, but that HuffPo piece is awful, and blatantly inaccurate on other points, so I really wouldn't use it to support anything.
Fair 'nuff - I'll take your word for it, but that HuffPo piece is awful, and blatantly inaccurate on other points, so I really wouldn't use it to support anything.
sloth: fwiw, the term "Devil's Advocate" actually comes from the Roman Catholic Church - he's the guy that tries to prove a candidate for sainthood really wasn't all that saintly.
that is just roman catholic propaganda.
/not really.
that is just roman catholic propaganda.
/not really.
supergrover: So if I start a fight and the other guy wins, I get to kill him? That is what your situation describes.
He also had no duty or justification to pursue the kid. Nor would you if the kids you were watching panicked and ran. (Unless, since I feel I have to caveat every time with you, you witness them in the commission of a crime or they are possibly (and reasonably to assume) moving to harm someone else). Just because it doesn't feel right doesn't mean you get to even detain.
I don't think so. I worked one winter as a "Doorman" (really a bouncer) and a rough club. One night a guy pulled a knife, and we beat and kicked him into the middle of the street, where he pulled ANOTHER knife on a cop. The cop didn't like that at all. Out came the baton, and he whipped they guy.
Another night we threw a guy out (this happened quite frequently, as there always seemed to be somebody, 99% male and 1% female, that apparently just wanted to go out for an ass-kicking). After closing, he's waiting out side and tries to start a conversation with me. I tell him I'm tired and going home. I reach for the handle on my truck and he slams the door shut. Using my favorite move (a leg sweep coupled with my hand on the throat), he's on the ground, and I deal a couple of blows to his face. The whole thing took about 10 seconds. Well shit, I cut my pinkie knuckle, and his face is open and bleeding in the snow. That's why I don't like to punch people in the face (I'm more of a headbutting, limb-twisting, choke-out kind of guy). He recovers and starts sputtering "You know who I am? My Dad owns..." "Shut off motherfucker. Take your ass home." What's your name?" "Nunjo. Now I'm getting in my truck and leaving." I called the owners of the bar, who were inside fucking the remnants, and went to an all-night clinic for an exam.
Nothing was ever said about it.
There were some other incidents, I always got off.
He also had no duty or justification to pursue the kid. Nor would you if the kids you were watching panicked and ran. (Unless, since I feel I have to caveat every time with you, you witness them in the commission of a crime or they are possibly (and reasonably to assume) moving to harm someone else). Just because it doesn't feel right doesn't mean you get to even detain.
I don't think so. I worked one winter as a "Doorman" (really a bouncer) and a rough club. One night a guy pulled a knife, and we beat and kicked him into the middle of the street, where he pulled ANOTHER knife on a cop. The cop didn't like that at all. Out came the baton, and he whipped they guy.
Another night we threw a guy out (this happened quite frequently, as there always seemed to be somebody, 99% male and 1% female, that apparently just wanted to go out for an ass-kicking). After closing, he's waiting out side and tries to start a conversation with me. I tell him I'm tired and going home. I reach for the handle on my truck and he slams the door shut. Using my favorite move (a leg sweep coupled with my hand on the throat), he's on the ground, and I deal a couple of blows to his face. The whole thing took about 10 seconds. Well shit, I cut my pinkie knuckle, and his face is open and bleeding in the snow. That's why I don't like to punch people in the face (I'm more of a headbutting, limb-twisting, choke-out kind of guy). He recovers and starts sputtering "You know who I am? My Dad owns..." "Shut off motherfucker. Take your ass home." What's your name?" "Nunjo. Now I'm getting in my truck and leaving." I called the owners of the bar, who were inside fucking the remnants, and went to an all-night clinic for an exam.
Nothing was ever said about it.
There were some other incidents, I always got off.
sloth: fwiw, the term "Devil's Advocate" actually comes from the Roman Catholic Church - he's the guy that tries to prove a candidate for sainthood really wasn't all that saintly.
I am aware. Thanks, though.
I am aware. Thanks, though.
sloth: Nothing personal, but do you have a link that isn't the Huffington Post and/or doesn't get the facts of the case wrong in the first paragraph?
Your other link is much better, and nicely summarizes a lot of the issues with how this case was handled, but doesn't mention the "correction."
abc
Your other link is much better, and nicely summarizes a lot of the issues with how this case was handled, but doesn't mention the "correction."
abc
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
totalsecurity: There were some other incidents, I always got off.
I don't think we needed this detail.
I don't think we needed this detail.
sloth: Fair 'nuff - I'll take your word for it, but that HuffPo piece is awful, and blatantly inaccurate on other points, so I really wouldn't use it to support anything.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/21/trayvon-martin-civil-rights-police-chief-resignation?newsfeed=true
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/21/trayvon-martin-civil-rights-police-chief-resignation?newsfeed=true
valaru: I would love that job....I have that job.
I am the dick, who questions everything.
surfnazi: Are you?
He's that little dick that pops up on your screen when you're visiting xhampster or whatever... "You look like you're about to masturbate... would you like some (product)?"
I am the dick, who questions everything.
surfnazi: Are you?
He's that little dick that pops up on your screen when you're visiting xhampster or whatever... "You look like you're about to masturbate... would you like some (product)?"
Can't we just shoot a Cuban and call it even?
supergrover: abc
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
Mmkay, they corrected her while she was giving the statement? Funny. He was probably just trying to confirm what she said, but it's still rather improper. Anyway, that's not the one I posted earlier - that one was from a dude.
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
Mmkay, they corrected her while she was giving the statement? Funny. He was probably just trying to confirm what she said, but it's still rather improper. Anyway, that's not the one I posted earlier - that one was from a dude.
sloth: Fair 'nuff - I'll take your word for it, but that HuffPo piece is awful, and blatantly inaccurate on other points, so I really wouldn't use it to support anything.
yeah, I just googd [trayvon correcting witness]. I should have used more discretion.
yeah, I just googd [trayvon correcting witness]. I should have used more discretion.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I think that the law in Florida was meant to be a shield for those who truly act in self defense by removing the question of whether they could have withdrawn. However, as with most laws, the language is really poorly drafted so that it basically allows anyone to claim they were in fear for their life.
It seems to me that the second Zimmerman called the police, and was instructed to stand down, any further actions or contact make him liable for his actions. I fully support the right of citizens to be armed and defend themselves, and I would even support a right to stand your ground where you are 100% the victim, but if you involved yourself in a situation where there is a likelihood that it could escalate to violence (like chasing a suspicious individual) then you should have to be held to a higher standard.
I think that the law in Florida was meant to be a shield for those who truly act in self defense by removing the question of whether they could have withdrawn. However, as with most laws, the language is really poorly drafted so that it basically allows anyone to claim they were in fear for their life.
It seems to me that the second Zimmerman called the police, and was instructed to stand down, any further actions or contact make him liable for his actions. I fully support the right of citizens to be armed and defend themselves, and I would even support a right to stand your ground where you are 100% the victim, but if you involved yourself in a situation where there is a likelihood that it could escalate to violence (like chasing a suspicious individual) then you should have to be held to a higher standard.
supergrover: He's that little dick that pops up on your screen when you're visiting xhampster or whatever... "You look like you're about to masturbate... would you like some (product)?"
I hate that shit. I'm about to jerk it, no I don't want to send time giving you all my personal information and money in order to jerk it.
I hate that shit. I'm about to jerk it, no I don't want to send time giving you all my personal information and money in order to jerk it.
someone who may or may not be Just sayin'
2012-03-22 13:26:02.0
login to vote
score 0
Is this where we try to out-obfuscate flash?
That second sentence can work as a reply, or as a completely unconnected an unnecessary statement of fact.
sloth: Mmkay, they corrected her while she was giving the statement? Funny. He was probably just trying to confirm what she said, but it's still rather improper. Anyway, that's not the one I posted earlier - that one was from a dude.
I'm not sure what the last sentence was about. I wasn't correcting something you said, you had asked.
I'm not sure what the last sentence was about. I wasn't correcting something you said, you had asked.
sloth: Mmkay, they corrected her while she was giving the statement? Funny. He was probably just trying to confirm what she said, but it's still rather improper. Anyway, that's not the one I posted earlier - that one was from a dude.
I like to just print up the statements and have witnesses sign them.
Very tidy.
I like to just print up the statements and have witnesses sign them.
Very tidy.
vic rattlehead: This is why we can't have nice things.
I think that the law in Florida was meant to be a shield for those who truly act in self defense by removing the question of whether they could have withdrawn. However, as with most laws, the language is really poorly drafted so that it basically allows anyone to claim they were in fear for their life.
It seems to me that the second Zimmerman called the police, and was instructed to stand down, any further actions or contact make him liable for his actions. I fully support the right of citizens to be armed and defend themselves, and I would even support a right to stand your ground where you are 100% the victim, but if you involved yourself in a situation where there is a likelihood that it could escalate to violence (like chasing asuspicious individual kid who is running because you have been eyeballing him for no reason) then you should have to be held to a higher standard.
ftfm.
I think that the law in Florida was meant to be a shield for those who truly act in self defense by removing the question of whether they could have withdrawn. However, as with most laws, the language is really poorly drafted so that it basically allows anyone to claim they were in fear for their life.
It seems to me that the second Zimmerman called the police, and was instructed to stand down, any further actions or contact make him liable for his actions. I fully support the right of citizens to be armed and defend themselves, and I would even support a right to stand your ground where you are 100% the victim, but if you involved yourself in a situation where there is a likelihood that it could escalate to violence (like chasing a
ftfm.
supergrover: ftfm.
I was simply giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, and putting the responsibility on him. If he really thought the guy was dangerous, then chasing him was escalating the situation needlessly. In this case it's perception not reality that matters in judging the conduct of Zimmerman.
I was simply giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, and putting the responsibility on him. If he really thought the guy was dangerous, then chasing him was escalating the situation needlessly. In this case it's perception not reality that matters in judging the conduct of Zimmerman.
sloth: Mmkay, they corrected her while she was giving the statement? Funny. He was probably just trying to confirm what she said, but it's still rather improper. Anyway, that's not the one I posted earlier - that one was from a dude.
there was more than one corrected statements reported.
which makes me think it's a pattern.
there was more than one corrected statements reported.
which makes me think it's a pattern.
vic rattlehead: I was simply giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, and putting the responsibility on him. If he really thought the guy was dangerous, then chasing him was escalating the situation needlessly. In this case it's perception not reality that matters in judging the conduct of Zimmerman.
It's cool. That's why I 'FTFM' instead of 'FTFY'.
It's cool. That's why I 'FTFM' instead of 'FTFY'.
valaru: there was more than one corrected statements reported.
which makes me think it's a pattern.
Plus, the one cited was a teacher. Old enough and responsible to probably be able to differentiate between a correction and a call for clarification.
which makes me think it's a pattern.
Plus, the one cited was a teacher. Old enough and responsible to probably be able to differentiate between a correction and a call for clarification.
supergrover: Plus, the one cited was a teacher. Old enough and responsible to probably be able to differentiate between a correction and a call for clarification.
add to that, the past difficulties this police department had...
add to that, the past difficulties this police department had...
supergrover: do tell
In the other threads about his, the details are hazy, but one of the investigating officers had something on him, etc...
In the other threads about his, the details are hazy, but one of the investigating officers had something on him, etc...
vic rattlehead: I think that the law in Florida was meant to be a shield for those who truly act in self defense by removing the question of whether they could have withdrawn. However, as with most laws, the language is really poorly drafted so that it basically allows anyone to claim they were in fear for their life.
It seems to me that the second Zimmerman called the police, and was instructed to stand down, any further actions or contact make him liable for his actions. I fully support the right of citizens to be armed and defend themselves, and I would even support a right to stand your ground where you are 100% the victim, but if you involved yourself in a situation where there is a likelihood that it could escalate to violence (like chasing asuspicious individual kid black person) then you should have to be held to a higher standard.
supergrover: ftfm.
FTFY
It seems to me that the second Zimmerman called the police, and was instructed to stand down, any further actions or contact make him liable for his actions. I fully support the right of citizens to be armed and defend themselves, and I would even support a right to stand your ground where you are 100% the victim, but if you involved yourself in a situation where there is a likelihood that it could escalate to violence (like chasing a
supergrover: ftfm.
FTFY
supergrover: do tell
from the wikipedia article
News reports noted that the police department of the city of Sanford has been confronted with allegations of racial prejudice before.[45] The police chief in 2011, Brian Tooley, was forced from office after the son of a lieutenant was caught on camera beating up an unsuspecting homeless black man, but whom the department declined to prosecute. After the footage went viral on YouTube, the perpetrator, Justin Collison, was arrested.[45][46][47]The officer in charge of that case was also the one in charge of the Trayvon Martin shooting scene.[9] In 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford police department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.[45][48]
the bold is my own
from the wikipedia article
News reports noted that the police department of the city of Sanford has been confronted with allegations of racial prejudice before.[45] The police chief in 2011, Brian Tooley, was forced from office after the son of a lieutenant was caught on camera beating up an unsuspecting homeless black man, but whom the department declined to prosecute. After the footage went viral on YouTube, the perpetrator, Justin Collison, was arrested.[45][46][47]The officer in charge of that case was also the one in charge of the Trayvon Martin shooting scene.[9] In 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford police department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.[45][48]
the bold is my own
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
supergrover: do tell
2006: son of a Sanford cop and another police volunteer, working as security guards shot and killed a black man, claiming self-defense. Turned out they never identified themselves and the victim was shot in the back. No charges filed.
2010: son of another Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and was let go by officers on the scene. Video showed up on YouTube, eventually leading to the demise of the previous police chief.
2006: son of a Sanford cop and another police volunteer, working as security guards shot and killed a black man, claiming self-defense. Turned out they never identified themselves and the victim was shot in the back. No charges filed.
2010: son of another Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and was let go by officers on the scene. Video showed up on YouTube, eventually leading to the demise of the previous police chief.
sabine: 2006: son of a Sanford cop and another police volunteer, working as security guards shot and killed a black man, claiming self-defense. Turned out they never identified themselves and the victim was shot in the back. No charges filed.
2010: son of another Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and was let go by officers on the scene. Video showed up on YouTube, eventually leading to the demise of the previous police chief.
2010: son of another Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and was let go by officers on the scene. Video showed up on YouTube, eventually leading to the demise of the previous police chief.
sabine: 2006: son of a Sanford cop and another police volunteer, working as security guards shot and killed a black man, claiming self-defense. Turned out they never identified themselves and the victim was shot in the back. No charges filed.
2010: son of another Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and was let go by officers on the scene. Video showed up on YouTube, eventually leading to the demise of the previous police chief.
sabine is not a quick1
2010: son of another Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and was let go by officers on the scene. Video showed up on YouTube, eventually leading to the demise of the previous police chief.
sabine is not a quick1
valaru: from the wikipedia article
The officer in charge of that case was also the one in charge of the Trayvon Martin shooting scene.
the bold is my own
lovely.
The officer in charge of that case was also the one in charge of the Trayvon Martin shooting scene.
the bold is my own
lovely.
someone who may or may not be just say'in
2012-03-22 13:57:42.0
login to vote
score 0
valaru: call me paranoid, but I am glad I am not black in that town.
On the bright side, looks like the spics have it pretty sweet there.
On the bright side, looks like the spics have it pretty sweet there.
valaru: call me paranoid, but I am glad I am not black in that town.
Whatever. Racism is over and for you to suggest that this has anything to do with race is just playing out that tired Lib Meme that white people have it out for black people. Get over it, please.
Whatever. Racism is over and for you to suggest that this has anything to do with race is just playing out that tired Lib Meme that white people have it out for black people. Get over it, please.
little hands of concrete: Whatever. Racism is over and for you to suggest that this has anything to do with race is just playing out that tired Lib Meme that [hispanic] people have it out for black people. Get over it, please.
Having though about this some more, I'm perfectly fine with the police chief stepping down/no confidence.
We've only heard about this for a week, but this guy had three weeks and did nothing. This merited far more attention than that, even if they didn't arrest him that night.
We've only heard about this for a week, but this guy had three weeks and did nothing. This merited far more attention than that, even if they didn't arrest him that night.
little hands of concrete: Whatever. Racism is over and for you to suggest that this has anything to do with race is just playing out that tired Lib Meme that white people have it out for black people. Get over it, please.
There's the trolling we've missed! Good to see you back on your game.
There's the trolling we've missed! Good to see you back on your game.
valaru: call me paranoid, but I am glad I am not black in that town.
Clearly you shouldn't have your name start with "Tra-".
Clearly you shouldn't have your name start with "Tra-".
so vote republican: There's the trolling we've missed! Good to see you back on your game.
Eh, the blatant strawman schtick is tired, and already claim, but it's a start.
Eh, the blatant strawman schtick is tired, and already claim, but it's a start.
so vote republican: this guy had three weeks and did nothing. This merited far more attention than that
It seems to be even worse than "nothing". Looks like the actions the police did take attempted to spin things Zimmerman's way.
It seems to be even worse than "nothing". Looks like the actions the police did take attempted to spin things Zimmerman's way.
so vote republican: There's the trolling we've missed! Good to see you back on your game.
Trolling? I have been pretending to be a Lib pretty much since I have posting on bN. In the vernacular of our black southern friends, "Y'all mufuckers been gettin' played, yo."
Trolling? I have been pretending to be a Lib pretty much since I have posting on bN. In the vernacular of our black southern friends, "Y'all mufuckers been gettin' played, yo."
sloth: Eh, the blatant strawman schtick is tired, and already claim, but it's a start.
Naw, LHOC is the original in my book. Plus he doesn't call people names and stuff, so he gets the nod from me.
Naw, LHOC is the original in my book. Plus he doesn't call people names and stuff, so he gets the nod from me.
sloth: Eh, the blatant strawman schtick is tired, and already claim, but it's a start.
Whatever. I don't even know what a strawman is, let alone know how to play one.
Whatever. I don't even know what a strawman is, let alone know how to play one.
sabine: It seems to be even worse than "nothing". Looks like the actions the police did take attempted to spin things Zimmerman's way.
That too, definitely.
That too, definitely.
so vote republican: Naw, LHOC is the original in my book. Plus he doesn't call people names and stuff, so he gets the nod from me.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love LHOC, and have missed him. This is definitely a step back in the right direction :)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love LHOC, and have missed him. This is definitely a step back in the right direction :)
someone who may or may not be just say'in:
...well looking at how they get treated, yeah.
I get enough flack as a jew, I can't imagine what it would be like to be a visible minority.
...well looking at how they get treated, yeah.
I get enough flack as a jew, I can't imagine what it would be like to be a visible minority.
sloth: Eh, the blatant strawman schtick is tired, and already claim, but it's a start.
Know what else is tired?
Know what else is tired?
sabine: It seems to be even worse than "nothing". Looks like the actions the police did take attempted to spin things Zimmerman's way.
Well, you know, if they decide that an actual crime occurred, there's just so much paperwork to do.
Well, you know, if they decide that an actual crime occurred, there's just so much paperwork to do.
sloth: Oh, don't get me wrong, I love LHOC, and have missed him. This is definitely a step back in the right direction :)
Yeah, I read that before I saw who it was from, and I was getting ready for a debate with phil.
Yeah, I read that before I saw who it was from, and I was getting ready for a debate with phil.
valaru: I get enough flack as a jew, I can't imagine what it would be like to be a visible minority.
Not all Jews are invisible, val.
Not all Jews are invisible, val.
finnley wren: Know what else is tired?
Zimmerman's mom's orifices after a triple penetration gang-bang?
/orifi?
Zimmerman's mom's orifices after a triple penetration gang-bang?
/orifi?
valaru: ...well looking at how they get treated, yeah.
I get enough flack as a jew, I can't imagine what it would be like to be a visible minority.
Hmmm... "Zimmerman"?
I know why everyone is so angry now!
I get enough flack as a jew, I can't imagine what it would be like to be a visible minority.
Hmmm... "Zimmerman"?
I know why everyone is so angry now!
sloth: Well, you know, if they decide that an actual crime occurred, there's just so much paperwork to do.
That gives me an idea. You know those icon-based keyboards they have for McDonalds counter staff, so they can place your order without having to be literate in English? There's gotta be a market for a law-enforcement version of those.
That gives me an idea. You know those icon-based keyboards they have for McDonalds counter staff, so they can place your order without having to be literate in English? There's gotta be a market for a law-enforcement version of those.
sabine: That gives me an idea. You know those icon-based keyboards they have for McDonalds counter staff, so they can place your order without having to be literate in English? There's gotta be a market for a law-enforcement version of those.
Super-taze it!
Super-taze it!
sabine: That gives me an idea. You know those icon-based keyboards they have for McDonalds counter staff, so they can place your order without having to be literate in English? There's gotta be a market for a law-enforcement version of those.
Mmkay, I've got a super-sized homicide with a diet paranoia. Please pull around.
Mmkay, I've got a super-sized homicide with a diet paranoia. Please pull around.
sloth: Mmkay, I've got a super-sized homicide with a diet paranoia. Please pull around.
Sweet, they threw a free tazing in the bag.
Sweet, they threw a free tazing in the bag.
valaru: he's hispanic.
In the proud tradition of the conquistadors of old, like Ponce de Leon, Hernando Cortez, Hans-Deiter Zimmermann and Juan Vasquez de Coronado.
In the proud tradition of the conquistadors of old, like Ponce de Leon, Hernando Cortez, Hans-Deiter Zimmermann and Juan Vasquez de Coronado.
Comments 101 through 245 of 245 shown.
Page
1
2
If you logged in, you could post here.