‘Hey Irma, North Korea is that way’: Defiant Floridians write hilarious messages on the boarded windows of their evacuated homes and businesses the dailymail.co.uk headlines their gallery of pre-Irma folk art. Yeah, well, the one above isn’t what I’d call hilarious . . .
Not given the racial animosity stirred-up by the Zimmerman case. In fact, that message doesn’t look like it was spray-painted on a board now does it? Which makes you wonder why The Mail decided to include it. Oh how they laughed in the newsroom!
Anyway, The People of the Gun are generally tolerant of free expression. If not, a gentle reminder: sometimes the first step to forgiveness is realizing the other person was born a total idiot. Whether that’s an author or a publisher.
That is right sheeple, even in the case of horrible things with death and distrustion, let us keep the hate alive and going strong. BASTARDS
“Distrustion.”
Interesting new word, but I can see some potential usefulness in it.
It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
I like it. I also like “simplicate” and “complexify”
I can carry two seemingly contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time: The verdict in the George Zimmerman trial was proper based upon the known facts, but he is also a violent idiot who should never be allowed to carry a gun again.
The looters arrested so far have a distinct look more reminiscent of Obama’s spiritual son rather than a “white Hispanic,” but keep sniggering from across the Atlantic you limey bastards.
its funny, everytime I get into an argument about the Zimmerman thing it ends the same way.
I point out the facts of the case, and at some point in the story, I get told I’m wrong, a racist, and it doesn’t matter anyway “because”
and note…I rarely if ever deviate in anyway from the court testimony.
That’s about what I get as well. He didn’t do everything perfect, but if someone’s attacked then I’d expect that person to protect themselves. The real facts now are that the left needs to get over it.
What facts? Guy stalked a kid for no good reason, alleges he got attacked (which would have been self defense on Trayvon’s part) and then he killed him.
Nothing about that case was in Zimmerman’s favor, not to mention his numerous other run ins with the law.
Why does lying not bother you?
What in my post is a lie?
@Jim Everything. Including the a, and, and the.
Jim,
Is your name really Jim?
Trying to throw you a favor. Aside from that, everything you wrote, aside from, “killed him.” Is a baldfaced lie. Why does that not bother you?
This ignorance is making Kyle’s point.
Wrong, there is no ignorance in what I said.
@Jim Everything you posted is ignorant, including the a, and, and the.
You might need to reconsider your hallucinogenic mushroom habit.
1) Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. At least, no evidence was introduced in court to that effect. The evidence provided showed he initially followed him briefly at a distance, then turned back to his car. Stalking is a legal term that requires a pattern of repeated behavior with no legitimate purpose.
2) Evidence of injuries on Zimmerman’s face, the back of his head, and Martin’s knuckles support his claim of being attacked. An independent eyewitness also saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him.
Contrary to your claim, practically everything in the case worked in Zimmerman’s favor. The prosecution, for reasons I still can’t fathom, brought in his videotaped interrogation, basically allowing Zimmerman to tell his side of the story without cross-examination, a performance which they capped off by having a police officer proclaim it to be credible(!). By closing arguments, the prosecution was arguing reasonable doubt. It was about as hopeless a case as any I’ve ever seen.
1) Semantics, he followed him for no good reason. No legal definition here, but he was stalking someone with no reason for doing so, period.
2) He got into a fight for following him, again for no good reason. If someone follows me like that, I’d beat the tar out of them too. Zimmerman shot him because he got his ass handed to him, when he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Zimmerman won the case because he was the only one there left, it doesn’t mean his version of events was factual and claiming that him saying it makes it factual is hilarious.
Semantics: n. The study of the meaning (e.g. of natural language). Yes, it has a great deal to do with semantics, because the case against Zimmerman completely dries up when we cut through the emotional rhetoric and start relating words to concrete meanings, then demand those meanings be backed up with facts.
Briefly following somebody with the intent of asking their business is not stalking. It is, in fact, not any flavor of crime.
Notice the use of passive phrasing. These fights, they just happen! The evidence supported Zimmerman’s claim that he was attacked by Martin. Maybe Zimmerman actually was the first to lay hands on Martin, and just didn’t happen to leave any physical evidence, or have any other witnesses. The thing is that you can’t convict somebody based on what might have happened, absent any evidence to that effect.
Did you notice that the jury instructions included no mention of provocation? The Provocation Doctrine is an important part of Self-Defense law, and given the physical altercation preceding the shooting, it’s notable by its absence from the jury instructions. The reason it was absent is that no evidence was presented that would raise the question of provocation in the legal sense. If you were to haul off and attack somebody for following you in such circumstances, you would be the one committing the crime, and they would be perfectly within their rights to use whatever force necessary to stop you. That you apparently cultivate a criminal mentality explains much about your position on the issue.
I never said that Zimmerman’s claiming something made it factual. What it does is make it the only version supported by evidence at trial. Good grief, can you imagine what the justice system would look like for young black men if we convicted people based solely on what jurors, or better yet the media, imagined might have happened?
“he followed him for no good reason” – Working neighborhood watch and seeing someone acting suspiciously (“This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”) is not a good reason to try to follow the person to see what he’s up to?
So someone walking home from the store doing nothing wrong that YOU interpret as suspicious gives you reason to follow them? I think not.
You appear to be willfully ignoring the 911 call transcript. If someone is walking around your neighborhood in the rain, staring at houses, you most certainly do have a reason to follow and keep an eye on them. And, so long as you do not approach them in a menacing manner, they do not have any right to attack you just because they don’t like being followed.
It was such an obviously justifiable use of force that the police didn’t even arrest Zimmerman. Race baiting media and politicians ruined his life just to make a statement.
Are you insane? In what world is walking home in the rain and looking around some sort of crime that demands you follow them? Are you paranoid or what?
“I point out the facts of the case, and at some point in the story, I get told I’m wrong, a racist, and it doesn’t matter anyway ‘because'”
This thread is totally proving the truth of this statement 😀
People get so invested in their pre-conceived ideas that they can’t hear facts anymore.
Yo, Jim. Anybody can legally follow anybody, anywhere, unless a restraining order has been issued. Up the street, in the rain, whatever, you’re being a doofus, there does not need to be ANY crime involved. What you can NOT legally do is to physically attack someone, break his nose, knock him down, sit on his chest and slam his head into the concrete repeatedly. When he knocked *me* down, I would have drawn and fired instantly, and I would have been completely justified in doing so. It is really obvious you have been/are being lied to, you should do some actual investigation of the facts. If you think following someone is just cause for someone to physically attack you, you could use some legal education as well. If that is not understood, you are a troll.
LOL I’ll assume your kidding. If your serious, then I’m just going to say,
No…..just, No
“I’d beat the tar out of them too.”
Well, when someone shoot you, you’ll know why.
Zimmerman is an a-hole with a history of violent confrontations. But being an a-hole is not sufficient reason for another a-hole to slam Zimmerman’s head into the pavement.
The verdict in the George Zimmerman trial was proper based upon the known facts. But George should never be allowed to own a gun again.
We should remember this the next time someone named Mohammad drives a rented van over London Bridge.
So don’t loot and you won’t get the Zimmerman solution. Amazing how Miami takes heavy damage and Obama son’s thought new shoes was exactly what they needed to survive.
They were rescuing the shoes before they were damaged by floodwaters! Have you no heart for those poor Air Jordan’s?!
Man, that is depressing.
I feel like setting fire to an abandoned building.
Or, watching some porn.
Too close to call, really.
Why not both? First one then the other. For safety, you might not want to try both at the same time though; but hey, it’s your choice. Have fun.
Something, something, rubbing sticks, something, something…
Just watching? Better get something to keep your hands busy then.
Stupid, and incorrect, but I did laugh fairly hard.
What happened to George Zimmerman was a progressive social news experiment to see how gullible people on the left actually are… Ranking even above the asian vegetable peeler.
SMH GZ for voting Democrat.
That may be but the Asian banana slicer is the real deal.
So much for tolerance.
http://imgur.com/gallery/dSygm
Now if that gets said about TreVon, what do you suppose the outcry would be?
Saint Skittles is burning in hell with the gentle giant, Mikey Brown. Zimmerman and Wilson are both heroes. Who knows how many people have been saved from being assaulted, robbed or even killed because those two worthless pieces of detritus were removed from this earth.