Mother-fuck. It's happened again.

New York (CNN) -- Protesters poured onto the streets of New York late Wednesday, upset over a grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer in the death of Eric Garner.

They marched at the same time U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal officials were moving ahead with a civil rights investigation.

Garner, an unarmed black man, died in July after a white officer, Daniel Pantaleo, put him in a chokehold. Garner's death was later ruled a homicide.

"This fight ain't over. It just begun. I'm determined to get justice for my husband because he shouldn't have been killed in that way. He shouldn't have been killed in any way," said Esaw Garner, his widow.

"He should be here, celebrating Christmas and Thanksgiving and everything else, with his children and his grandchildren. And he can't. Why? Because a cop did wrong. Somebody that gets paid to do right did wrong and he's not held accountable for it. But my husband's death will not be in vain. As long as I have a breath in my body I will fight the fight till the end."

Protesters gathered at various points in Manhattan, including Times Square and Union Square, marching peacefully north as crowds formed near Rockefeller Center for the lighting of the Christmas tree. Columbus Circle was blocked for a time.

There were demonstrations in other cities too, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Oakland, California.

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps there should be an educational programme in the US to teach people what to do if they're approached by a police officer. That education should include children.

The gun laws are stupid there IMO, and if people are allowed to carry them, of course the police are going to be a bit trigger happy because they don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. I don't even know why anyone knocks at someone's door over there - you might get shot just for doing that.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps there should be an educational programme in the US to teach people what to do if they're approached by a police officer. That education should include children.

The gun laws are stupid there IMO, and if people are allowed to carry them, of course the police are going to be a bit trigger happy because they don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. I don't even know why anyone knocks at someone's door over there - you might get shot just for doing that.

Agree, that is the reason why I Said guns and racism is the issue and they need to fix both, cause while everyone is pointing guns at each other No one can talk honestly and openly about issues that cause racism.

it has got crazy they the education program wouldn't help, They are Shooting first Even when it is kids or someone obviously dressed in a costume. they are not even giving people a chance to react they are just jumping out of the car and shooting. in the Tamir case literally within 3 seconds of getting out of the car he had shot the kid.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/la-cops-shoot-dead-street-performer-who-dressed-up-as-slasher-film-villain/ar-BBgvlOD?ocid=mailsignout

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps there should be an educational programme in the US to teach people what to do if they're approached by a police officer. That education should include children.

The gun laws are stupid there IMO, and if people are allowed to carry them, of course the police are going to be a bit trigger happy because they don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. I don't even know why anyone knocks at someone's door over there - you might get shot just for doing that.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not a wrong.  It's just leaving them behind.  Remember the goal is to elevate the status of African Americans.  If one person grows and the other doesn't, whose fault is that?

Listen, ignorant people are ignorant because: 1) they are really, really stupid; or 2) because they haven't figured it out yet.  Now, if they are stupid, leaving them behind is nature's way...survival of the fittest and all of that.  If they haven't managed to reason their way to the truth, leaving them behind is perhaps the best way to motivate them.

Pretty sure we said the same thing
That's why I said let their work and skill get their rewards. Currently I Believe most of them have what they have because of the advantages they were given. There is no need to take anything from them just give the African American the same. And let the best win
But really The more I have read into the More I think there is deep issues with racism in the USA and with Police Brutality/Militarisation. that are not going to be fixed easily. You probably need another civil war or something

Mint Press News wrote:Though Americans commonly believe law enforcement’s role in society is to protect them and ensure peace and stability within the community, the sad reality is that police departments are often more focused on enforcing laws, making arrests and issuing citations. As a result of this as well as an increase in militarized policing techniques, Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist, estimates a Washington’s Blog report based on official statistical data.

Steve Chapman wrote:Where the argument fails is in its assumption that blacks are complacent about these realities and that whites are blameless. The gist of the message is that blacks created the problem and blacks need to solve it.

But the problem didn't originate recently. In 1958—a time of lynchings, universal discrimination and legal segregation—Time magazine reported that in big cities, the "biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes" and said Negro leaders and civil rights groups should start "accepting responsibility in an area where they habitually look the other way."

The common impulse of whites, then and now, was to blame blacks for pathologies that whites played a central role in creating. Criminologist Charles Silberman wrote in 1978 that "it would be hard to imagine an environment better calculated to evoke violence than the one in which black Americans have lived." Pretending black crime is a black-created problem is like pretending New Orleans never got hit by a hurricane.

The Giuliani view omits some vital facts. The epidemic of unarmed blacks being killed by police comes not when black crime is high but when it is low. Homicides committed by African Americans declined by half between 1991 and 2008.

Since the early 1990s, arrests of black juveniles have plunged by more than half. In New York City, where Eric Garner was killed by police, the rate of homicides by blacks is down by 80 percent. In Chicago, where most murders are committed by African Americans, the number last year was the lowest since 1965—and this year's could be lower yet.

What is also easy to forget in the denunciation of black crime is that the vast majority of blacks are not criminals.  In any given year, less than 5 percent of African Americans are involved in violent crime as perpetrators or victims. The fact that blacks make up a large share of the violent criminal population gives many whites the impression that violent criminals make up a large share of the black population. They don't.

Why don't more blacks living in bad neighborhoods learn to behave like sober middle-class suburbanites? One reason is the shortage of stable families, steady incomes, good schools and safe streets. If you grow up with those advantages, it's relatively easy to do the right thing. If you don't, it's a lot harder.

People trapped in a poor and dangerous slum can't depend on the authorities to keep them safe. They face serious threats every time they leave home. But a young black man who packs or uses a weapon to protect himself against gangs is committing a crime. Even motivated, well-intended kids can wind up in jail.

Crime and poverty create a vicious cycle: A child raised in a chaotic environment is not likely to learn the habits that foster success. Black children afflicted with these disadvantages often take the wrong path as teens or adults. And when they turn out badly, people like Giuliani act as though whites bear no responsibility.

Conservatives are right to say that many of the problems afflicting black communities grow out of lamentable conditions in black communities. Their mistake is thinking that's the end of the discussion. It's only the beginning.

Original Quill wrote:We can argue the individual case or we can argue the broad statistical case, but I think we all agree that something is wrong.  While we are talking about statistics and generalities, lets go back to the fact that this police terrorism is all happening to black men.  That's intentional targeting.

Those who try to excuse the police agencies because of externalities (crime associated with some group, or the age of the victim, turn the issue into easy access to firearms, etc.) are missing (or evading?) the point that police are doing this and no one is making motions to improve the situation.  That's the difference between excuses and reasons.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:We can argue the individual case or we can argue the broad statistical case, but I think we all agree that something is wrong.  While we are talking about statistics and generalities, lets go back to the fact that this police terrorism is all happening to black men.  That's intentional targeting.

Those who try to excuse the police agencies because of externalities (crime associated with some group, or the age of the victim, turn the issue into easy access to firearms, etc.) are missing (or evading?) the point that police are doing this and no one is making motions to improve the situation.  That's the difference between excuses and reasons.

I'd like to know more about the statistics actually. It might be that the shooting of black people by white officers just gets into the news more.

I agree that something is wrong, but I've already commented on that - it's the gun laws in the US.

veya_victaous wrote:Agree with raggs the foundational cause is the gun laws,
they give the officers the excuse for the siege mentality and the shoot first attitude.
Yes racism is clearly also an issue but you cant even begin to work on that while people are shooting each other.

veya_victaous wrote:the Cop has to take the risk of not shooting first, which is a much lower and reasonable risk/threat level if they know the odds the 'suspect' has a gun is very low (like the UK and Australia) it is harder to expect the officer to take the risk when the odds of the suspect being armed is high.

There is definitely some very telling racial stats about the rate of search etc and the whole Teen gets shot no questions asked yet gun man that literally has corpses in the theatre is surrounded and forced to give up as opposed to shot on sight.. definitely difference in reaction from the officers, I am not familiar enough with the regional variances of the say that it is or isn't a local culture. the fact that you see it from New York to LA is Surprising and really has me in a bit of a pickle.... if it wasn't for the gun culture there would be no question that such numbers could only be produced by police terrorism and the oppression of a race and the gun laws themselves are not enough to produce the kind of numbers either.. so there is definitely a race issue but it is a bit like trying to fix an engine that also has a broken starter motor its going to be Really hard and probably wont see any results until you fix the part that stops progress DEAD in the very beginning.

as a side note: Airsoft guns are illegal here and are classified as the same as real gun. Even the fact that such realistic looking gun are made for children show how deeply fucked up the US attitude is towards guns.

Original Quill wrote:They call them Tibetan monks.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'd like to know more about the statistics actually. It might be that the shooting of black people by white officers just gets into the news more.

I agree that something is wrong, but I've already commented on that - it's the gun laws in the US.

Not a chance!  The number is so outrageous that the Police hardly try to deny it.  They evade...talk about blacks and crime...talk about resisting arrest (when there was no basis in the first place)...anything to change the subject.

Original Quill wrote:I'd like to think like you.  But America keeps disappointing me.

We are lulled into believing that Americans just go to sleep on their past, and they aren't like that today.

But then something like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or Eric Garner happens, and I'm not so sure it isn't the same old wicked people performing the same old wicked deeds.

I mean...how could a Grand Jury not indict, at least???  Only if they didn't give a shit!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'd like to know more about the statistics actually. It might be that the shooting of black people by white officers just gets into the news more.

I agree that something is wrong, but I've already commented on that - it's the gun laws in the US.

Not a chance!  The number is so outrageous that the Police hardly try to deny it.  They evade...talk about blacks and crime...talk about resisting arrest (when there was no basis in the first place)...anything to change the subject.

So are black people more likely to carry guns? What about gun crime in general? I'm not convinced that white officers see a black person and decide to shoot them at the drop of a hat because they're black.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are black people more likely to carry guns? What about gun crime in general? I'm not convinced that white officers see a black person and decide to shoot them at the drop of a hat because they're black.

It's definitely more complicated than that. It has a lot to do with the U.S. gun situation, the right-wing media's depiction of the "black criminal" narrative, the way media outlets choose to frame news items and many other things.

Ben_Reilly wrote:More or less. There are white people who fall into this dire situation for sure, but less often because U.S. society sets white people up to succeed, and not end up in poor neighborhoods, far more than any other ethnic group.

I should add that my brother and I have been in that economic class. We've both been pulled over by police because we (ahem) "match a description" before.

We talk about black and white in the U.S. because we're in the whole too cowardly to talk about the poor and the rich, and because here the categories overlap rather neatly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:More or less. There are white people who fall into this dire situation for sure, but less often because U.S. society sets white people up to succeed, and not end up in poor neighborhoods, far more than any other ethnic group.

I should add that my brother and I have been in that economic class. We've both been pulled over by police because we (ahem) "match a description" before.

We talk about black and white in the U.S. because we're in the whole too cowardly to talk about the poor and the rich, and because here the categories overlap rather neatly.

I can see the problem, but why do you say that society sets up white people to succeed? Black people go to school don't they? They can do just as well as a white person if they want to?

This is all a bit weird to me because in the UK people just don't come up with things like that.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Why do you keep dragging Trayvon Martin into this? He was not shot by a police officer, he was shot by a person who was shouting for help because Trayvon was on top of him.

...........

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Why do you keep dragging Trayvon Martin into this? He was not shot by a police officer, he was shot by a person who was shouting for help because Trayvon was on top of him.

...........

WHY do you keep on perpetuating those already widely disproven NRA/"open carry" lies, Raggs ???

Trayvon Martin wasn't "on him" ~ he was actually several feet away and your friendly 'Neighbourhood Watch'ee' approached him - despite being told not to, and to remain in his car !

Zimmerman wasn't 'shouting for help' until AFTER the shooting !

Zimmerman wasn't being attacked or beaten ~ HE was the one who started the harassment..

Zimmerman had a gun and a car ~ Martin wasn't armed, he had a mobile phone and a can of soft drink...

Zimmerman was never under any kind of genuine threat ~ despite whatever outright lies the NRA, open carry goons, KKK, and you Ragg's, keep spouting..   BUT under Florida law, you don't need to be in imminent danger to claim 'self defence' ~ all that you have to convince a court of, is that you "believed" that your victim just might perhaps, or not really necessarily so, have taken it into his/her head sometime over the next century or so, to maybe think of doing you some harm. Or maybe not..      

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Why do you keep dragging Trayvon Martin into this? He was not shot by a police officer, he was shot by a person who was shouting for help because Trayvon was on top of him.

...........

Zimmerman wasn't 'shouting for help' until AFTER the shooting !

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not a chance!  The number is so outrageous that the Police hardly try to deny it.  They evade...talk about blacks and crime...talk about resisting arrest (when there was no basis in the first place)...anything to change the subject.

So are black people more likely to carry guns? What about gun crime in general? I'm not convinced that white officers see a black person and decide to shoot them at the drop of a hat because they're black.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I'd like to think like you.  But America keeps disappointing me.

We are lulled into believing that Americans just go to sleep on their past, and they aren't like that today.

But then something like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or Eric Garner happens, and I'm not so sure it isn't the same old wicked people performing the same old wicked deeds.

I mean...how could a Grand Jury not indict, at least???  Only if they didn't give a shit!

Why do you keep dragging Trayvon Martin into this? He was not shot by a police officer, he was shot by a person who was shouting for help because Trayvon was on top of him.

Mind you, the shooting of Trayvon Martin is a good example of the daft gun laws. If George Zimmerman did not have a gun on him, would he have stayed in his vehicle? I think that's possible.

Also, why did Trayvon hang around instead of running home? If you never know who's carrying a gun, and you think you're being followed, surely it's best to get out of there.

Raggamuffin wrote:How many black people being shot by police are we talking about here? There's Michael Brown and Tamir Rice. Eric Garner wasn't shot, although that was another tragic death. I watched a video of a black man being shot by police, but I can't remember who posted it and who the man was.

Washington Post wrote:Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings [of black men] a year. There is no way to know how many victims, like Brown, were unarmed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:


Zimmerman wasn't 'shouting for help' until AFTER the shooting !

Let's just deal with this particular statement. Are you suggesting that the shouting on the phone call which was recorded was fictitious? Why did none of the witnesses say that Zimmerman shouted for help after the shooting? I'd be interested to know where you're getting your information from.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How many black people being shot by police are we talking about here? There's Michael Brown and Tamir Rice. Eric Garner wasn't shot, although that was another tragic death. I watched a video of a black man being shot by police, but I can't remember who posted it and who the man was.

Washington Post wrote:Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings [of black men] a year. There is no way to know how many victims, like Brown, were unarmed.

Raggs...denial is a river in East Africa.  Lol.

Cherry-picking your facts on Zimmerman, eh?  Trayvon's friend on the phone heard the whole thing when the murder took place...you have no reason to doubt her word, do you?  Zimmerman himself said he was stalking Trayvon...you have no reason to doubt his word, do you?

Cherry-picking is not what the job requires.  It requires 'Listening to all the evidence.' Cherry-picking is what racists do to justify themselves.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Let's just deal with this particular statement. Are you suggesting that the shouting on the phone call which was recorded was fictitious? Why did none of the witnesses say that Zimmerman shouted for help after the shooting? I'd be interested to know where you're getting your information from.

YOU'RE proving yourself here to be little more than a lying piece of racist shit, Raggs...

I READ those court "transcripts" as well ~ and as Quill points out, you deliberately 'cherry pick" those bits that support your agenda, and ignore everything that doesn't fit..

ALL of those witnesses appeared after Zimmerman attacked Martin ~ the evidence to Zimmerman's unnecessary approach and illegal harassment is contained in the phone conversations. NOT in any eyewitness accounts..

THE KKK and NRA will love your gullibility and cupidity, Raggs !

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why do you keep dragging Trayvon Martin into this? He was not shot by a police officer, he was shot by a person who was shouting for help because Trayvon was on top of him.

Mind you, the shooting of Trayvon Martin is a good example of the daft gun laws. If George Zimmerman did not have a gun on him, would he have stayed in his vehicle? I think that's possible.

Also, why did Trayvon hang around instead of running home? If you never know who's carrying a gun, and you think you're being followed, surely it's best to get out of there.

Divide and conquer, eh?  Only this time you want to slice up American racism and then deny that it’s really happening.  We see where you are going.

So let’s rewind…first there was slavery, then there was post-reconstruction outlawry, then the KKK, then separate but equal, then segregation, then the cute games played today by racists in order to say Who Me?  They think they are clever, but as we see by the demonstrations from New York to California recently, decent people are sick and tired and are not going to fuckin’ take it anymore.

Raggs, the point is your distinctions are without a difference.  George Zimmerman posed as a policeman (neighborhood watch) and was treated that way in the event.  The same in Furguson and Staten Island and Cleveland.  But it extends out into society just as much.  Murders of black men take place every day, and not just by cops.  It’s a seamless pattern in American society.  This is not a police phenomenon, it is  
a bit of American racism.

Nor does your subterfuge into the gun control issue work.  Gun control is a problem, yes.  But it's not the only problem in the US.  It is not even the biggest, in my opinion.  The biggest problem is racism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



Raggs...denial is a river in East Africa.  Lol.

Cherry-picking your facts on Zimmerman, eh?  Trayvon's friend on the phone heard the whole thing when the murder took place...you have no reason to doubt her word, do you?  Zimmerman himself said he was stalking Trayvon...you have no reason to doubt his word, do you?

Cherry-picking is not what the job requires.  It requires 'Listening to all the evidence.' Cherry-picking is what racists do to justify themselves.

I already said that Zimmerman was following Trayvon - we know this - it's well documented. However, that did not give Trayvon the right to get on top of him and bash his head on the ground.

I think it's you who's cherry picking.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:


YOU'RE proving yourself here to be little more than a lying piece of racist shit, Raggs...

I READ those court "transcripts" as well ~ and as Quill points out, you deliberately 'cherry pick" those bits that support your agenda, and ignore everything that doesn't fit..

ALL of those witnesses appeared after Zimmerman attacked Martin ~ the evidence to Zimmerman's unnecessary approach and illegal harassment is contained in the phone conversations. NOT in any eyewitness accounts..

THE KKK and NRA will love your gullibility and cupidity, Raggs !

So come on then - where did you get the information that the shouting only started after the shooting? Back up what you're saying for a change instead of trying to deflect away from your own bigotry and racism.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin - where did you get that from?

You can never back yourself up can you? That's because you lie to suit your own agenda. You're just a lying piece of garbage, and have been ever since I've been a member of this forum at least.

Raggs wrote:Trayvon Martin wasn't murdered though.

Raggs wrote:I think you missed my point that if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun he might not have followed Trayvon in the first place.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I already said that Zimmerman was following Trayvon - we know this - it's well documented. However, that did not give Trayvon the right to get on top of him and bash his head on the ground.

I think it's you who's cherry picking.

The point is that Zimmerman started the fight by stalking Trayvon.  Now, when you start a fight and find yourself losing, that doesn't give anyone the right to murder.  If that were the case, murder would be legal plain and simple.

I think you are taking some pretty twisted paths to avoid the common sense of the matter.  You don't start a fight and then whine when you are too weak to win it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggs wrote:Trayvon Martin wasn't murdered though.

Yes he was.  It's just that the KKK got him off.  Come on...Florida is a racist, southern state.  And it's no secret that some fat cats have been throwing money at Zimmerman to keep him out of trouble...because he is a poster boy for racism.  Look how he bought his way out of charges stemming from his abuse of his gf.

Do you think OJ was innocent?  Lol.  Just testing.

Raggs wrote:I think you missed my point that if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun he might not have followed Trayvon in the first place.

I know, he's a coward.  But he was carrying a gun.  The question you have to ask is, Why?  

There was a specific reason.  He had just broken up with his gf, and he was out to kill a black kid to vent.  His abusive personality is well documented from the break up of his marriage.  His last gf described him as a passive aggressive personality with a deadly mean streak...which explains why he was such an ambush predator.

He's a sick boy and no doubt he will kill again.  He pulled his gun on his gf, even after the trail for the murder of Trayvon.  Cops had to take it away from him.

Raggamuffin wrote:My point is that Zimmerman was legally carrying a gun, which was hidden from view. He knew that he would be able to defend himself with that gun if necessary. If he had not been able to carry that gun, I wonder if he would have got out of the vehicle in the first place.

Raggamuffin wrote:The KKK? I didn't know the KKK was on the jury.

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman was married - do you mean his wife, or are you suggesting he had a girlfriend as well? Where did you get the info that he was breaking up with his wife (or girlfriend)?

PoliticusUSA wrote:
Shellie explained that she wasn’t home that February night, “I was staying at my father’s house. We had gotten into an argument the night before, and I left.”

*  *  *  *

The night George Zimmerman got out of his car to stalk Trayvon Martin after profiling him, he was angry and ready to unleash that anger on whatever target was available. Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin was caught in the crossfire.

(RNN) - George Zimmerman was arrested on Monday and taken to the Seminole County, FL, jail, according to Dennis Lemma of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office.

Zimmerman has been charged with aggravated assault, battery-domestic violence and criminal mischief after an incident with his girlfriend.

Zimmerman was arrested at around 1 p.m. EST, after authorities responded to a disturbance call at a house in Apopka, FL.

The victim stated that she and Zimmerman were having a verbal dispute, when he broke a table and pointed a double-barrel shotgun at her. She also said he pushed her out of the residence and barricaded the door.
"You just broke my sunglasses and put your gun in my freaking face," the victim can be overheard yelling on a 911 call.

"He knows how to do this, he knows how to play this game," she later told the dispatcher.

Zimmerman also called 911. In the call obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman said his girlfriend, who he claimed is pregnant with his child, "started smashing stuff, taking stuff that belonged to me and throwing it outside, throwing it out of her room, throwing it out of the house. She broke a glass table," after the two agreed to part ways.  

"She told me it was better if we co-parented and that she raise the child on her own. That's fine," he told a 911 operator. "As soon as I started packing up my stuff to leave, she completely changed."
Lemme said Zimmerman's girlfriend is not pregnant.

According to Lemma, when deputies arrived, Zimmerman offered no resistance and was not armed.
The Seminole County Sheriff's Office has requested a search warrant for the home, because they have not recovered the weapon.

Zimmerman will make his first appearance in front of a judge Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. EST.
Until then, he's being held without bond.

If the judge grants him bond, "We would like the judge to impose electronic monitoring … this is an extra step that we ask for in every domestic violence case here in Seminole County," Lemma said.  

Zimmerman has had multiple run-ins with the law since being acquitted in July of the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Raggamuffin wrote:If he had been out to kill a black kid, he would hardly have phoned the police in advance.

You're just speculating, and you are biased, so your claims can't really be taken seriously.

Scheibe says George and Shellie's relationship had soured by February 2012.
On February 26 -- the night of the [Martin]  shooting -- she says Shellie and George had gotten into a heated argument. Shellie had left to spend the night elsewhere, and that’s why she wasn’t home when the shooting happened.  Talk of divorce had already started, she says.

“He clearly behaves in a passive aggressive manner. Blames others for his conflicts (Trayvon, wife, girlfriend). He is clearly and unquestionably is a liar. He lacks the maturity and ability to cope as a responsible citizen.”

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you said Zimmerman was breaking up with his girlfriend, which is why I asked if you meant his wife. I don't see how breaking up with his wife would make him want to go out and kill a black person.

Raggamuffin wrote:I really don't think he would call the police and admit that he was following a black person if he intended to kill that black person all along - that's just off its head.

Raggamuffin wrote:Re my point about the gun - that was a comment about the gun laws. If people could not legally carry guns, I doubt they would be so keen to start following someone down dark footpaths if they thought that person was up to no good.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
The point is that Zimmerman started the fight by stalking Trayvon.  Now, when you start a fight and find yourself losing, that doesn't give anyone the right to murder.  If that were the case, murder would be legal plain and simple.

I think you are taking some pretty twisted paths to avoid the common sense of the matter.  You don't start a fight and then whine when you are too weak to win it.

I don't think that works in a legal sense. Zimmerman was following Trayvon initially, but let's face it -when Trayvon ran off there's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with him before he got home. Zimmerman  was on the phone to the police dispatcher and there was no sign of Trayvon then. Common sense suggests that Trayvon must have waited somewhere...

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't think that works in a legal sense. Zimmerman was following Trayvon initially, but let's face it -when Trayvon ran off there's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with him before he got home. Zimmerman  was on the phone to the police dispatcher and there was no sign of Trayvon then. Common sense suggests that Trayvon must have waited somewhere...

UTTER bull(dust)...

THE deleted paragraph is an total and convoluted fabrication on Ragg's part here, as well ~ as her farcical reconstruction of events simply doesn't tie in with either the court transcripts available online, or those parts of the trial that were broadcast on regular TV services..

IT DOES, however, tie in with the KKK version that was available on the NRA's website, back when..  

“Common sense is not so common.”
― Voltaire, A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary

Ragg's seems determined to prove that she has no understanding of what "common sense" is !