South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

First topic message reminder :

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

Black-on-black crime may be far more prevalent than black-on-white crime... I'm not disputing that... I'm saying that black on white crime is huge while white on black crime is almost non existent in comparison.



Whites are deliberately targeted by blacks for many of these crimes.

TM wrote:Quill you tit, zimmerman was a security guard doing his job when he was attacked by the thug he then shot in self defence.

Tommy you cunnus. Lol…Zimmerman was not a security guard. He was a self-appointed vigilante. He was not even on assigned duty that night. He had been in a horrific fight with his girlfriend, in which she said she was leaving, and he was in an ugly mood, bent on killing a black.

TM wrote:Whites get targeted by blacks for violent assaults, robbery, rape and murder all the time in America and nothing is ever said about it.

Very infrequently, and then only by reason of the poverty in which whites force blacks to exist.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's very easy for the likes of Quill to condemn him for that, but to extend that to Zimmerman stalking and shooting a black teenager deliberately is a different matter.

Zimmerman was stalking a black child by any definition of the word. Indeed, that was recognized by the police when they ordered him to stop.

Contrary to police orders, Zimmerman continued to stalk and eventually murder Trayvon.

I know I got the security guard bit wrong, rags has already posted about that.


And it is very frequently and in many cases not attacked for financial gain at all.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's very easy for the likes of Quill to condemn him for that, but to extend that to Zimmerman stalking and shooting a black teenager deliberately is a different matter.

Zimmerman was stalking a black child by any definition of the word.  Indeed, that was recognized by the police when they ordered him to stop.  

Contrary to police orders, Zimmerman continued to stalk and eventually murder Trayvon.

Prove it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Zimmerman was stalking a black child by any definition of the word.  Indeed, that was recognized by the police when they ordered him to stop.  

Contrary to police orders, Zimmerman continued to stalk and eventually murder Trayvon.

Prove it.

He admitted he was stalking Trayvon. The police ordered him to stop. There are no intervening facts to show that Zimmerman followed the police orders, and of course we know that he found Martin and terminated him. Clearly Zimmerman pursued his course of action, admitted by him to be a stalking Martin, continued the course of action with no facts intervening, and accomplished his mission, which was to kill. The rest is self-serviing lies by Zimmerman, or self-serving spin by O'Mara.

But the Zimmerman case is merely an example. The real point--relevant to this Charleston case--is (admittedly, my speculation) that somehow Roof will either get off, or get a lighter sentence...perhaps insanity, despite Sec. 17-24-10 of South Carolina Code of Laws (2014).

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Zimmerman was stalking a black child by any definition of the word.  Indeed, that was recognized by the police when they ordered him to stop.  

Contrary to police orders, Zimmerman continued to stalk and eventually murder Trayvon.

Prove it.

That part is easy to prove because we have seen countless evidence that clearly Zimmerman is unable to control his anger in life of which we have seen numerous examples of this. That can be telling evidence to his reactions on seeing a young black lad who he had already perceived as suspicious. His adrenaline was no doubt on overdrive. When you have a Character known to lose control of his anger and hit out with violent acts, mixed in with clearly a stereotype view he had Blacks as criminals, being as he viewed him as suspicious and showed little for remorse for his actions. All adds up to a loose cannon, that when his temper snaps he will do irrational things. The difficulty here is proving he had such a stereotype view of black people, which to me is obvious for how he regarded him as suspicious. Clearly his anger had taken hold that night because he blatantly ignored the Police to not follow him and then did. When you look at these factors Zimmerman went into this not fully in control of the situation or of himself. Zimmerman created the whole situation by following him. If he had stayed put, that boy would still be alive today. I also reckon Zimmerman aggravated the situation further when he confronted the boy, leading to scuffle. His anger took control here because he was firm in his mind the boy was a criminal, even though he certainly was not. His blood was up, hence why he ignored the Police. Whether Zimmerman got found not guilty, does not change the fact he was lucky to get away with this, because all blame points back to him .

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Prove it.

He admitted he was stalking Trayvon.  The police ordered him to stop.  There are no intervening facts to show that Zimmerman followed the police orders, and of course we know that he found Martin and terminated him.  Clearly Zimmerman pursued his course of action, admitted by him to be a stalking Martin, continued the course of action with no facts intervening, and accomplished his mission, which was to kill.  The rest is self-serviing lies by Zimmerman, or self-serving spin by O'Mara.

But the Zimmerman case is merely an example.  The real point--relevant to this Charleston case--is (admittedly, my speculation) that somehow Roof will either get off, or get a lighter sentence...perhaps insanity, despite Sec. 17-24-10 of South Carolina Code of Laws (2014).

None of that is proof, it's speculation and opinion.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course Quill is biased. He thinks that all black people must be victims by default.

This is at least closer to the point. Yes, black people have been victims in America, and continue to be victims in America. Particularly in the South. There is no "default" about it...It's a fact!

Raggamuffin wrote:None of that is proof, it's speculation and opinion.

It's a prediction. Wait and see...Roof will get leniency despite the gravity of his acts.

Nobody can prove that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was advised he didn't need to do that. Nobody can prove that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Nobody can prove that it wasn't self defence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:None of that is proof, it's speculation and opinion.

It's a prediction.  Wait and see...Roof will get leniency despite the gravity of his acts.

I was referring to the part about Zimmerman. You have still to prove your allegations.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course Quill is biased. He thinks that all black people must be victims by default.

This is at least closer to the point.  Yes, black people have been victims in America, and continue to be victims in America.  Particularly in the South.  There is no "default" about it...It's a fact!

By default means that you automatically assume a black person can do no wrong. That is of course nonsense.

Zimmerman was attacked and he shot his gun in self defence... end of story.



Roof is a despicable evil cretin who should be shown no mercy.


If he had popped off a few thugs then I probably wouldn't be that bothered about it, but he attacked innocent and decent people.

How long would it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

Tommy Monk wrote:Zimmerman was attacked and he shot his gun in self defence... end of story.



Roof is a despicable evil cretin who should be shown no mercy.


If he had popped off a few thugs then I probably wouldn't be that bothered about it, but he attacked innocent and decent people.

I read today that Roof had second thoughts because the people at the Bible class were nice to him. What a pity he didn't walk away.

Yes rags, I heard that too.


For him to do that to such nice people is beyond belief.

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes rags, I heard that too.


For him to do that to such nice people is beyond belief.

He sat there with them for an hour and then announced he was going to kill them. He must be very cold blooded, or completely off his rocker.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a prediction.  Wait and see...Roof will get leniency despite the gravity of his acts.

I was referring to the part about Zimmerman. You have still to prove your allegations.

I just added importance evidence to Quill's points:



That part is easy to prove why he stalked, because we have seen countless evidence that clearly Zimmerman is unable to control his anger in life of which we have seen numerous examples of this. That can be telling evidence to his reactions on seeing a young black lad who he had already perceived as suspicious. His adrenaline was no doubt on overdrive. When you have a Character known to lose control of his anger and hit out with violent acts, mixed in with clearly a stereotype view he had Blacks as criminals, being as he viewed him as suspicious and showed little for remorse for his actions. All adds up to a loose cannon, that when his temper snaps he will do irrational things. The difficulty here is proving he had such a stereotype view of black people, which to me is obvious for how he regarded him as suspicious. Clearly his anger had taken hold that night because he blatantly ignored the Police to not follow him and then did. When you look at these factors Zimmerman went into this not fully in control of the situation or of himself. Zimmerman created the whole situation by following him. If he had stayed put, that boy would still be alive today. I also reckon Zimmerman aggravated the situation further when he confronted the boy, leading to scuffle. His anger took control here because he was firm in his mind the boy was a criminal, even though he certainly was not. His blood was up, hence why he ignored the Police. Whether Zimmerman got found not guilty, does not change the fact he was lucky to get away with this, because all blame points back to him .


I will add one last thing. We now Zimmerman has a history of not controlling his temper, ask some of the women he has been with. He clearly wrongly believed in TM as being not a suspect but a criminal based on a poor stereotype view of a black kid walking the streets. He has security guard mentality, thinking he is the Police, as many security Guard soften think they are. He clearly loses his rags to things that get his goat. No doubt doing security, one of his most pet hates would be criminality. That would make him immediately angry  to the situation where in his mind TM is a criminal and must be stopped at all costs, even though no actual crime had been committed.  This is easily seen by his call to the "non-emergency number for the Police:

Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy." He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."




Now you tell me, was he suspicious? Or did being black make him automatically suspicious to Zimmerman?
He then went to follow him after being advised not to. His blood is up, thinking he is going to catch someone who he already believes is one of the guilt parties behind some of the recent break in's.
His last comment is telling:

On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away

Who does he mean by these?
It can only be one of three things.
Blacks
Criminals
Or both.


There is your evidence to the nature and character of Zimmerman that night, who as seen proves my point on how he feels about crime with his phone call message. His blood was up, he already viewed TM as a criminal and not as a suspect, hence why he went following him. Zimmerman created every problem here and if he is angry already and believes the boy is guilty, then I have no doubt in my mind he over stepped himself by trying to stop TM which led to the scuffle. When you look at what I said, it will make sense. Unable to prove in court sadly, but one where he is very much guilty of cross negligence.

None of you are looking at the actual evidence - proper evidence about time, place, distance, etc. You all keep saying Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, but where is your proof?

How long does it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody can prove that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was advised he didn't need to do that. Nobody can prove that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Nobody can prove that it wasn't self defence.

Nobody has to prove it. Zimmerman admitted he was following Trayvon. There is no proof of an intervening event. He merely continued his course of conduct.

Raggamuffin wrote:None of you are looking at the actual evidence - proper evidence about time, place, distance, etc. You all keep saying Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, but where is your proof?

How long does it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

I have researched the evidence, hence why its important to try and understand the Character of Zimmerman, which as I just showed, there is lots of evidence pointing to how this unfolded. The evidence is in how he refers to TM. The evidence is there is in how he feels on crime. How he cannot control his anger in life on numerous occasions. How from the very start of believing TM was a criminal, Zimmerman had no self control. He was in no reasoning mode, as seen by how he ignored the Police. Its very easy to understand him based on the evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody can prove that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was advised he didn't need to do that. Nobody can prove that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Nobody can prove that it wasn't self defence.

Nobody has to prove it.  Zimmerman admitted he was following Trayvon.  There is no proof of an intervening event.  He merely continued his course of conduct.

Well they did have to prove it in court, and they failed to do so - for good reason. Zimmerman was silly to follow Trayvon at all, but there's no evidence that he continued to do so. In fact, he said that he didn't know where Trayvon was. He said he walked to the end of the path and came back.

How long does it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

Why do you always fail to explain why Trayvon did not go home?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is at least closer to the point.  Yes, black people have been victims in America, and continue to be victims in America.  Particularly in the South.  There is no "default" about it...It's a fact!

By default means that you automatically assume a black person can do no wrong. That is of course nonsense.

No, by "default" you intend to trivialize the fact of discrimination against blacks for over 500-years in this country.

In the final analysis, you side with the racists. Mr. Roof used .45 cal. bullets. You are doing the same thing with your skewed pseudo-defense of racism: you assume racism is only "default", implying that it cannot be real.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nobody has to prove it.  Zimmerman admitted he was following Trayvon.  There is no proof of an intervening event.  He merely continued his course of conduct.

Well they did have to prove it in court, and they failed to do so - for good reason. Zimmerman was silly to follow Trayvon at all, but there's no evidence that he continued to do so. In fact, he said that he didn't know where Trayvon was. He said he walked to the end of the path and came back.

How long does it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

Why do you always fail to explain why Trayvon did not go home?

Hearsay to highlighted part.
It would take about 30-40 seconds and again if we go off what Zimmerman claims that is, which is hearsay again. Clearly as I just proved his blood was up and he went to stop him and detained him until the Police arrived.

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they did have to prove it in court, and they failed to do so

They did not fail.  You can't bring forth any facts of intervention, in response to my challenge, can you?  That is implicit proof that Zimmerman continued his announced course of conduct.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

By default means that you automatically assume a black person can do no wrong. That is of course nonsense.

No, by "default" you intend to trivialize the fact of discrimination against blacks for over 500-years in this country.  

In the final analysis, you side with the racists.  Mr. Roof used .45 cal. bullets.  You are doing the same thing with your skewed pseudo-defense of racism: you assume racism is only "default", implying that it cannot be real.

No, by default means that you cannot or will not accept that a black person can do something wrong. That is why you cannot or will not acknowledge that Trayvon Martin was capable of attacking George Zimmerman.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they did have to prove it in court, and they failed to do so

They did not fail.  You can't bring forth any facts of intervention, in response to my challenge, can you?  That is implicit proof that Zimmerman continued his announced course of conduct.

They did fail. I thought you said you watched the trial. You were impressed with the prosecution? I thought they had an air of defeat right from the start - because they knew they couldn't prove anything. They absolutely failed to prove that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, and that he did not act out of self defence.

You have consistently failed to answer any my questions - why is that?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

By default means that you automatically assume a black person can do no wrong. That is of course nonsense.

No, by "default" you intend to trivialize the fact of discrimination against blacks for over 500-years in this country.  

In the final analysis, you side with the racists.  Mr. Roof used .45 cal. bullets.  You are doing the same thing with your skewed pseudo-defense of racism: you assume racism is only "default", implying that it cannot be real.

Brilliant point Quill of which Rags is failing to understand as she has firmly ruled out racism, when as seen Zimmerman's choice of words say otherwise and how wrongly he viewed TM as a criminal from the start.
The question here needing to be asked is would he have felt the same if that had been a white person and called them in as acting suspcious. I very much doubt again based on how he referred to TM as an arsehole.

On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away

"They" can only mean he is referring to black people, as it would make no utter sense to say criminals always get away.
He clearly either had a racist view of blacks or the poorest stereotype view of blacks.

Yawn...!

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they did have to prove it in court, and they failed to do so - for good reason. Zimmerman was silly to follow Trayvon at all, but there's no evidence that he continued to do so. In fact, he said that he didn't know where Trayvon was. He said he walked to the end of the path and came back.

How long does it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

Why do you always fail to explain why Trayvon did not go home?

Hearsay to highlighted part.
It would take about 30-40 seconds and again if we go off what Zimmerman claims that is, which is hearsay again. Clearly as I just proved his blood was up and he went to stop him and detained him until the Police arrived.

30 to 40 seconds? How far could one walk in two minutes?

I don't think you know what hearsay is.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they did have to prove it in court, and they failed to do so - for good reason. Zimmerman was silly to follow Trayvon at all, but there's no evidence that he continued to do so. In fact, he said that he didn't know where Trayvon was. He said he walked to the end of the path and came back.

How long does it take to walk 50 or 60 metres?

Why do you always fail to explain why Trayvon did not go home?

Hearsay to highlighted part.
It would take about 30-40 seconds and again if we go off what Zimmerman claims that is, which is hearsay again. Clearly as I just proved his blood was up and he went to stop him and detained him until the Police arrived.

It is indeed hearsay. But it is also inspired. Keep in mind, he was on the phone to the police in order to set up his alibi. As one girlfriend said, he is a passive-aggressive...his plot was to appear as a police presence, and thus justify his planned murder.

All criminals use deceit. Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false.

Forget about it rags, it's not worth going over all this old ground again...



The lefties are so eager to prop up their false belief that whites are racist and responsible for all the crime in the world, either by doing it or by being so racist as to force others to do it...


So they will cling to this false belief that sinnermam wasn't attacked and didn't defend himself...


What they fail to remember is that zimmerman wasn't even white, he was Hispanic wasn't he?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Hearsay to highlighted part.
It would take about 30-40 seconds and again if we go off what Zimmerman claims that is, which is hearsay again. Clearly as I just proved his blood was up and he went to stop him and detained him until the Police arrived.

30 to 40 seconds? How far could one walk in two minutes?

I don't think you know what hearsay is.

Wow

What does it matter how far I could go in to minutes. It takes the average person about 20 minutes to walk a mile. Why would he walk being clearly he is trying to find him, no doubt he could cover the distance in around 20-25 seconds running. You cannot grasp the character of the man on the night.

Original Quill wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Hearsay to highlighted part.
It would take about 30-40 seconds and again if we go off what Zimmerman claims that is, which is hearsay again. Clearly as I just proved his blood was up and he went to stop him and detained him until the Police arrived.

It is indeed hearsay.  But it is also inspired.  Keep in mind, he was on the phone to the police in order to set up his alibi.  As one girlfriend said, he is a passive-aggressive...his plot was to appear as a police presence, and thus justify his planned murder.

All criminals use deceit.  Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false.

It's not hearsay. It's what Zimmerman said - that's not hearsay. You might disbelieve him, but it's not hearsay.

Please explain how he could have been on the phone to the police and attacking Trayvon Martin at the same time.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

30 to 40 seconds? How far could one walk in two minutes?

I don't think you know what hearsay is.

Wow

What does it matter how far I could go in to minutes. It takes the average person about 20 minutes to walk a mile. Why would he walk being clearly he is trying to find him, no doubt he could cover the distance in around 20-25 seconds running. You cannot grasp the character of the man on the night.

It matters a great deal, and it would matter to you if you had looked at a map of the area. Have you done that?

"...All criminals use deceit. Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false..."


Yeah... except for The black and Muslim ones who by your reckoning are all innocent victims of circumstance!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Wow

What does it matter how far I could go in to minutes. It takes the average person about 20 minutes to walk a mile. Why would he walk being clearly he is trying to find him, no doubt he could cover the distance in around 20-25 seconds running. You cannot grasp the character of the man on the night.

It matters a great deal, and it would matter to you if you had looked at a map of the area. Have you done that?

Yes I have thank you and are you refuting the time it would take even by waking?

Tommy Monk wrote:

"...All criminals use deceit.  Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false..."


Yeah... except for The black and Muslim ones who by your reckoning are all innocent victims of circumstance!!!

Such immaturity yet again from Tommy Blooper.
Let me know when you want to tackle my points:


That part is easy to prove why he stalked, because we have seen countless evidence that clearly Zimmerman is unable to control his anger in life of which we have seen numerous examples of this. That can be telling evidence to his reactions on seeing a young black lad who he had already perceived as suspicious. His adrenaline was no doubt on overdrive. When you have a Character known to lose control of his anger and hit out with violent acts, mixed in with clearly a stereotype view he had Blacks as criminals, being as he viewed him as suspicious and showed little for remorse for his actions. All adds up to a loose cannon, that when his temper snaps he will do irrational things. The difficulty here is proving he had such a stereotype view of black people, which to me is obvious for how he regarded him as suspicious. Clearly his anger had taken hold that night because he blatantly ignored the Police to not follow him and then did. When you look at these factors Zimmerman went into this not fully in control of the situation or of himself. Zimmerman created the whole situation by following him. If he had stayed put, that boy would still be alive today. I also reckon Zimmerman aggravated the situation further when he confronted the boy, leading to scuffle. His anger took control here because he was firm in his mind the boy was a criminal, even though he certainly was not. His blood was up, hence why he ignored the Police. Whether Zimmerman got found not guilty, does not change the fact he was lucky to get away with this, because all blame points back to him .


I will add one last thing. We now Zimmerman has a history of not controlling his temper, ask some of the women he has been with. He clearly wrongly believed in TM as being not a suspect but a criminal based on a poor stereotype view of a black kid walking the streets. He has security guard mentality, thinking he is the Police, as many security Guard soften think they are. He clearly loses his rags to things that get his goat. No doubt doing security, one of his most pet hates would be criminality. That would make him immediately angry to the situation where in his mind TM is a criminal and must be stopped at all costs, even though no actual crime had been committed. This is easily seen by his call to the "non-emergency number for the Police:

Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy." He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."


Now you tell me, was he suspicious? Or did being black make him automatically suspicious to Zimmerman?
He then went to follow him after being advised not to. His blood is up, thinking he is going to catch someone who he already believes is one of the guilt parties behind some of the recent break in's.
His last comment is telling:

On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away

"They" can only mean he is referring to black people, as it would make no utter sense to say criminals always get away.
He clearly either had a racist view of blacks or the poorest stereotype view of blacks.

There is your evidence to the nature and character of Zimmerman that night, who as seen proves my point on how he feels about crime with his phone call message. His blood was up, he already viewed TM as a criminal and not as a suspect, hence why he went following him. Zimmerman created every problem here and if he is angry already and believes the boy is guilty, then I have no doubt in my mind he over stepped himself by trying to stop TM which led to the scuffle. When you look at what I said, it will make sense. Unable to prove in court sadly, but one where he is very much guilty of cross negligence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They did not fail.  You can't bring forth any facts of intervention, in response to my challenge, can you?  That is implicit proof that Zimmerman continued his announced course of conduct.

They did fail. I thought you said you watched the trial. You were impressed with the prosecution? I thought they had an air of defeat right from the start - because they knew they couldn't prove anything. They absolutely failed to prove that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, and that he did not act out of self defence.

You have consistently failed to answer any my questions - why is that?

You still have brought forth no fact, have you? "Continuance' is a reference to what went on beforehand. Zimmerman 'continued' what he admitted he was doing: stalking a black child. He continued doing what he was doing. When you have no facts to prove an intervening fact, we may presume 'continuance'.

Presumption is a rule of law. When and under what circumstances may we presume something? One of the first principles is that in the absence of contravening facts, we may presume what is factually established. Zimmerman's own statements show he was stalking Trayvon. There is no contravening fact offered to show he stopped.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It matters a great deal, and it would matter to you if you had looked at a map of the area. Have you done that?

Yes I have thank you and are you refuting the time it would take even by waking?

No I'm not.

Where do you think that Zimmerman's vehicle was parked?

Original Quill wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Hearsay to highlighted part.
It would take about 30-40 seconds and again if we go off what Zimmerman claims that is, which is hearsay again. Clearly as I just proved his blood was up and he went to stop him and detained him until the Police arrived.

It is indeed hearsay.  But it is also inspired.  Keep in mind, he was on the phone to the police in order to set up his alibi.  As one girlfriend said, he is a passive-aggressive...his plot was to appear as a police presence, and thus justify his planned murder.

All criminals use deceit.  Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false.

I am off out mate, so will catch up tomorrow.
She does not understand what hearsay is.

Night Quill

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They did fail. I thought you said you watched the trial. You were impressed with the prosecution? I thought they had an air of defeat right from the start - because they knew they couldn't prove anything. They absolutely failed to prove that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, and that he did not act out of self defence.

You have consistently failed to answer any my questions - why is that?

You still have brought forth no fact, have you?  "Continuance' is a reference to what went on beforehand.  Zimmerman 'continued' what he admitted he was doing: stalking a black child.  He continued doing what he was doing.  When you have no facts to prove an intervening fact, we may presume 'continuance'.

Presumption  is a rule of law.  When and under what circumstances may we presume something?  One of the first principles is that in the absence of contravening facts, we may presume what is factually established.  Zimmerman's own statements show he was stalking Trayvon.  There is no contravening fact offered to show he stopped.

Prove that he continued. You can't, can you? There is no indication during in the phone call that he continued. Do you disagree?

Belatucadros wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It is indeed hearsay.  But it is also inspired.  Keep in mind, he was on the phone to the police in order to set up his alibi.  As one girlfriend said, he is a passive-aggressive...his plot was to appear as a police presence, and thus justify his planned murder.

All criminals use deceit.  Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false.

I am off out mate, so will catch up tomorrow.
She does not understand what hearsay is.

Night Quill

Oh I do, it's you who does not.

Do you all think that Zimmerman parked just before the cut through? Do you think that Trayvon went down that path and then turned right at the T junction towards his father's house? Do you think that he went another way?

Tommy Monk wrote:

"...All criminals use deceit.  Of course, when you take their own testimony, you can probably count on it to be 90% false..."

Yeah... except for The black and Muslim ones who by your reckoning are all innocent victims of circumstance!!!

That's what you call racism, tommy.  You are a racist!

Reminds me of a racist joke:

Man in Alabama runs into Sheriff's office and says:  Sheriff, there was a terrible accident on the road back yonder.  A truck load of niggers was killed.

The Sheriff exclaims: That's terrible.  Are you sure they are dead?  What did you do?

Man:  I buried them.  They's some that were complainin', but Sheriff, you know how they lie.

And here's you tommy, saying 'you know how they lie.'

Tommy Monk wrote:Black-on-black crime may be far more prevalent than black-on-white crime... I'm not disputing that... I'm saying that black on white crime is huge while white on black crime is almost non existent in comparison.



Whites are deliberately targeted by blacks for many of these crimes.

Again, why bring that up in this thread? Are you trying to say Roof's murder spree was justified?

It seems to me that what Tommy is talking about is the issue of what constitutes a hate crime, or a racially-motivated crime, yes?

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that what Tommy is talking about is the issue of what constitutes a hate crime, or a racially-motivated crime, yes?

I think we are all talking about that.  Only you and tommy are denying that Zimmerman was racially motivated to commit murder. Tommy is additionally trying to falsify the record, to the misguided effect that blacks prey on whites in crime.

I'm hoping to move on and discuss the Charleston murders.  My point is that Mr. Roof will be given leniency in whatever way, but the southern jury.

It was your statement quill... but you don't apply the same to blacks or Muslim criminals... to you they are all just innocent victims.