Why the hell not. Everyone else is.

[BotanyBoy]

No shots. I've already known for a loooooooong time that you keep telling everyone that you are a part of that "fashionable mix of both and neither at the same time."

Everything is subject dependent...sometimes the left get's it, other times a 3rd party, and once in a blue moon a conservative will say something worth listening too. I pick and choose based off what information I have available...not what my party tells me to. If that makes me a douche...so be it.

I could give a fuck about an MSN bandwagon. I'm about verity, guy. And what the system does for the system's sake ain't verity.

It's not what the system does for the systems sake....it's what the system does for peoples sake.

If you can't prove a crime you shouldn't be able to lock someone up, plain and fucking simple bro. Anything short of that is not only as antiquated as drowning women in a pond to see if they are witches, it's just as fucking barbaric. So if you REALLY wanted verity, you should require PROOF of a crime before you take someones freedom and or life from them would you not?

But you aren't interested in verity....you want torches, pitchforks and a rope. Quit denying it, I have seen you posting thumbs up to all the "THIS AIN'T OVER!/WATCH YOUR BACK!!" type shit directed at zim, own it like an adult.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Paras.

that's how i got away with it. the cloggies owe us.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually, none of the "crimes" you listed are de facto, or de jure, violent. And the US has this novel concept where one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of ones peers.

Because the police in his home jurisdiction want to keep crime statistics, they ignore some crimes.

But, consider this. TM had women's jewelry in his backpack, along with a screwdriver, which could be used as a pry bar. He wouldn't say where he had gotten it, just that he was holding it for somebody, but he also refused to say for whom. He was not charged with burglary, for reasons given in my first sentence, but he was probably a burglar or, at least, a receiver of stolen goods.

Residential burglary is usually classified as a violent crime, as is armed robbery, because of the potential for injury to a victim. Whether a burglary was actually committed is still unproven, but the evidence strongly indicates that one was.

You're right, of course, he has never been convicted of a crime of violence or any other crime, and let me say something else on that subject: I am certainly glad you agree Z is innocent of any crime, since he was actually acquitted by a jury of his peers.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because the police in his home jurisdiction want to keep crime statistics, they ignore some crimes.

But, consider this. TM had women's jewelry in his backpack, along with a screwdriver, which could be used as a pry bar. He wouldn't say where he had gotten it, just that he was holding it for somebody, but he also refused to say for whom. He was not charged with burglary, for reasons given in my first sentence, but he was probably a burglar or, at least, a receiver of stolen goods.

Residential burglary is usually classified as a violent crime, as is armed robbery, because of the potential for injury to a victim. Whether a burglary was actually committed is still unproven, but the evidence strongly indicates that one was.
.

And it has ZERO bearing on if Zim shot in self defense or gunned a kid down in cold blood.

It's not relevant man....

 

[IrezumiKiss]

But you aren't interested in verity....you want torches, pitchforks and a rope. Quit denying it, I have seen you posting thumbs up to all the "THIS AIN'T OVER!/WATCH YOUR BACK!!" type shit directed at zim, own it like an adult.

No, that's the way you see it and that's all about you.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, guy. It's all good. What you eat is not making me shit.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And it has ZERO bearing on if Zim shot in self defense or gunned a kid down in cold blood.

It's not relevant man....

I'm just refuting - at least partially - something else that has been said. There is all sorts of evidence, including eye witness, simple observation and forensic that says he did act in self defense. The jury believed it too.

 

[Liar]

And depending on which state you live in, only an attack on person justifies it and in other states you have the right to protect your property as well.

I wouldn't call that moral though. But that's another topic alltogether.

 

[run_silent]

I'm just refuting - at least partially - something else that has been said. There is all sorts of evidence, including eye witness, simple observation and forensic that says he did act in self defense. The jury believed it too.

How dare you stick to the facts. What is wrong with you.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, that's the way you see it and that's all about you.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, guy. It's all good. What you eat is not making me shit.

LOL whatever dude.....and I can post "Women are all stupid cows" pic's with thumbs up next to them all day long, I would totally not be sexist....RIGHT??? Live in denial all you want day day....supporting those pictures supports the pictures messages as if they came from your own lips, own it like an adult.

Look it's a pretty clear cut issue with two options....

A) Let the state lock people up based on conjecture, speculation and or public opinion. That is to say you disagree with the Zimmerman acquittal.

or

B) Require that the state prove to 6/12 peers that there was in fact a crime committed beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that meets a set and defined criteria before the state locks someone up.

If you think this is better than option A you support the Zimmerman acquittal.

I really don't see what grey area or third option there is on what is required to lock someone in a hole for extended periods of time. If you have a 3rd option as to a method of locking up more criminals without putting innocent people behind bars....I'm sure the world would love to hear it.

I think you would rather just have option A though. wait...>BUT ONLY in this case ....LMFAO!!!

 

[Boxlicker101]

If anybody is interested, here is a description of the burglary laws in FL.

ETA: Here is some detail on Florida's three strike law:

http://defensehelp.com/felony-criminal-charges-lawyer/florida-three-strikes-law

Apparently, since residential burglary is included as a one-strike offense, it is considered to be a violent crime.

 

[Wok]

And you guys have to sit there and criticize people for what purpose? It's my thread. If I want to say something else about it, I will. Why can't you guys just post your opinions about the topic and be done? Jeez it's like you guys all just thrive off of proving a point. That's not what life is all about you know. Lighten up for a change.

<snip> That's what I have to say on that matter, and it'll be the last of what I have to say.

 

[Sean]

I'm just refuting - at least partially - something else that has been said. There is all sorts of evidence, including eye witness, simple observation and forensic that says he did act in self defense. The jury believed it too.

The evidence was conflicting. But, reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt and I've said elsewhere that I think the jury delivered the only verdict they could. Doesn't mean I have to think it's right, or moral.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I wouldn't call that moral though. But that's another topic alltogether.

Me neither, but on a whole few laws are definitively moral, I'm not sure and highly doubt ANY of our laws are.

 

[BotanyBoy]

LOL whatever dude.....and I can post "Women are all stupid cows" pic's with thumbs up next to them all day long, I would totally not be sexist....RIGHT??? Live in denial all you want day day....supporting those pictures supports the pictures messages as if they came from your own lips, own it like an adult.

Look it's a pretty clear cut issue with two options....

A) Let the state lock people up based on conjecture, speculation and or public opinion. That is to say you disagree with the Zimmerman acquittal.

or

B) Require that the state prove to 6/12 peers that there was in fact a crime committed beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that meets a set and defined criteria before the state locks someone up.

If you think this is better than option A you support the Zimmerman acquittal.

I really don't see what grey area or third option there is on what is required to lock someone in a hole for extended periods of time. If you have a 3rd option as to a method of locking up more criminals without putting innocent people behind bars....I'm sure the world would love to hear it.

I think you would rather just have option A though. wait...>BUT ONLY in this case ....LMFAO!!!

Zumazoom???

 

[Squibbs]

I have not made one comment on the Zimmerman case yet. I pick now to do so. Just so you all know, Trayvon Martin was not an innocent, young 17 year old African American as everyone would like to portray. In fact, he has been caught in several violent crimes including theft, possession of marjiuana, possession of several weapons, and another specific one was the intent to burglarize. Now, thus being said, he was not charged or arrested. Why? Because of a corrupt police system that made a sworn promise to the school system Trayvon was involved in to keep the crime rate down. All of his "antics" were marked off as warnings or waived completely. The case has absolutely nothing to do with race. In fact, Zimmerman has no background of any racism. Although, studies showed that a possibility of homophobia is actually a more plausible case ground. I am in no way condoning this cruel crime. This case has caused widespread racial hate crimes, and lawlessness across the nation. For what? Something that the media portrayed when in fact it is not the case? Think what you want. Just know that there are facts out there. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge them or not is entirely on you. That's what I have to say on that matter, and it'll be the last of what I have to say.

Dumb cunt say what.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dumb cunt say what.

No shit.....since when was possession of cannabis a violent fucking crime???

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have not made one comment on the Zimmerman case yet. I pick now to do so. Just so you all know, Trayvon Martin was not an innocent, young 17 year old African American as everyone would like to portray. In fact, he has been caught in several violent crimes including theft, possession of marjiuana, possession of several weapons, and another specific one was the intent to burglarize. Now, thus being said, he was not charged or arrested. Why? Because of a corrupt police system that made a sworn promise to the school system Trayvon was involved in to keep the crime rate down. All of his "antics" were marked off as warnings or waived completely. The case has absolutely nothing to do with race.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with Trayvon Martin's history, of which Zimmerman knew nothing.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by heather_baby View Post
I have not made one comment on the Zimmerman case yet. I pick now to do so. Just so you all know, Trayvon Martin was not an innocent, young 17 year old African American as everyone would like to portray. In fact, he has been caught in several violent crimes including theft, possession of marjiuana, possession of several weapons, and another specific one was the intent to burglarize. Now, thus being said, he was not charged or arrested. Why? Because of a corrupt police system that made a sworn promise to the school system Trayvon was involved in to keep the crime rate down. All of his "antics" were marked off as warnings or waived completely. The case has absolutely nothing to do with race. In fact, Zimmerman has no background of any racism. Although, studies showed that a possibility of homophobia is actually a more plausible case ground. I am in no way condoning this cruel crime. This case has caused widespread racial hate crimes, and lawlessness across the nation. For what? Something that the media portrayed when in fact it is not the case? Think what you want. Just know that there are facts out there. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge them or not is entirely on you. That's what I have to say on that matter, and it'll be the last of what I have to say.

Dumb cunt say what.

I believe these posts represent a perfect example of what two groups of people are posting here. One is reasonable and logical and has thought behind it. The other is just crude and insulting.