Obama

Clemenza said:
You forgot to mention msnbc editing the zimmerman 911 call to make him sound racist.

You really don't even have to go much further than to understand msnbc was owned by GE until recently. GE, a huge donor to obama, received a very nice bonus in the stimulus package. GE did not pay a dollar in federal income taxes last year.

This is no conspiracy theory. It is corruption plain and simple and explains why msnbc is owned lock stop and barrel by the obama administration
Click to expand...

Lol. :/
 
southpaw23 said:
You keep bringing up MSNBC almost reflexively which is predictable. At what point did I say MSNBC was the most credible source of news reporting? If you paid attention to my prior remarks, you'd clearly see that I stated MSNBC is the flip side of Fox.
Click to expand...

Ok, I know you watch the news, Who do you watch? I believe this was asked a number of times and Im not sure if it was answered.
 
ax1 said:
Ok, I know you watch the news, Who do you watch? I believe this was asked a number of times and Im not sure if it was answered.
Click to expand...

I answered it...you clearly didn't pay attention, which begs the question as to why your responses are always clearly reflexive.
 
southpaw23 said:
I answered it...you clearly didn't pay attention, which begs the question as to why your responses are always clearly reflexive.
Click to expand...

I remember you stating that you listen to college educated well suited Journalists. Thats not specific enough. If you did can you please repost?
 
ax1 said:
I remember you stating that you listen to college educated well suited Journalists. Thats not specific enough. If you did can you please repost?
Click to expand...

Lol. No wonder you post the sources you do. Those aren't my words, those are yours. I tend to read a lot, i.e. Newsweek, Time Magazine etc. In terms of news reporting, I watch CNN or the BBC. And yes, I believe education is of the utmost importance in terms of sourcing/vetting information.
 
southpaw23 said:
Lol. No wonder you post the sources you do. Those aren't my words, those are yours. I tend to read a lot, i.e. Newsweek, Time Magazine etc. In terms of news reporting, I watch CNN or the BBC. And yes, I believe education is of the utmost importance in terms of sourcing/vetting information.
Click to expand...

So do you think your sources allow a free open forum to all independent Journalists? Or ones they choose?

Do you think Walter Cronkite was a bad journalist because he dropped out of college? That means he was fooled when man landed on the moon right, and his WWII reporting was irrelevant?
 
southpaw23 said:
MSNBC is the flipside of Fox, both are cut from the same cloth, albeit Chris Matthews is educated and has been involved in politics his entire career, whereas Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity lack formal education and fundamental political experience, in that vein I'd be willing to accept explanations from Chris Matthews on any given political issue, over the latter as his of the informed variety, whereas the others just prefer to emote. O'Reilly, tends to go overboard at times, more so for ratings, but he's an intelligent guy. I tend to watch CNN and the BBC. The Syrian ran news reporting agency is based entirely on propaganda, this is I know firsthand as I've explained that I have friends who are from there/lived there. The comparison between the major reporting agencies in the US and Syria are night and day. I fully agree with your last statement.
Click to expand...

You are the one that said you find Matthews credible, that's why I keep bringing it up. I keep pointing out that they are no more credible than others that you claim aren't. You keep skirting the evidence of msnbc and nbc deceitfully editing tapes to change the narrative of the story. And when I post video evidence that confirms that, you just attack the source, instead of the issue. Typical Alynski tactic.
 
ax1 said:
So do you think your sources allow a free open forum to all independent Journalists? Or ones they choose?

Do you think Walter Cronkite was a bad journalist because he dropped out of college? That means he was fooled when man landed on the moon right, and his WWII reporting was irrelevant?
Click to expand...

You do realize there are qualifications/accreditation for one to be deemed a "journalist." 99.9% of the sources posted here are from "bloggers" not journalists. The same way you can't walk into a hospital and declare, "I'm ready to perform heart surgery because I saw an episode of ER last night." You seem to think they are both one in the same. You post a link, I'm going to ask you who is behind that site? And what is their background/expertise relative to journalism, not blogging.
 
youngandfree said:
You are the one that said you find Matthews credible, that's why I keep bringing it up. I keep pointing out that they are no more credible than others that you claim aren't. You keep skirting the evidence of msnbc and nbc deceitfully editing tapes to change the narrative of the story. And when I post video evidence that confirms that, you just attack the source, instead of the issue. Typical Alynski tactic.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to, Saul Alinsky? If that's the case, you couldn't even get his name right and it's your own example. :/
 
southpaw23 said:
You do realize there are qualifications/accreditation for one to be deemed a "journalist." 99.9% of the sources posted here are from "bloggers" not journalists. The same way you can't walk into a hospital and declare, "I'm ready to perform heart surgery because I saw an episode of ER last night." You seem to think they are both one in the same. You post a link, I'm going to ask you who is behind that site? And what is their background/expertise relative to journalism, not blogging.
Click to expand...

I often site direct sources. You just blow them off because they may be in a different format other than the ones your comfortable with.

Where do I post "blogging?" And if someone was blogging using direct sources we can all go to, why would that be deemed as invalid?
 
ax1 said:
I often site direct sources. You just blow them off because they may be in a different format other than the ones your comfortable with.

Where do I post "blogging?" And if someone was blogging using direct sources we can all go to, why would that be deemed as invalid?
Click to expand...

Again, and again, oh and again...you post sources, I'm going to ask you who is behind those sources. For example, one source just posted was mediahaven.com. Who is John Haven?
 
Southpaw you also never addressed the point I made about Matt Lauer not actually finishing college and being "granted" enough credits for his degree. He is well respected and esteemed among his peers, yet was given a degree years after he dropped out of college.
 
southpaw23 said:
Again, and again, oh and again...you post sources, I'm going to ask you who is behind those sources. For example, one source just posted was mediahaven.com. Who is John Haven?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, 100% thats why I even stay skeptical about all sources I read...but who is behind your sources? Who funds them, who owns them?

You do know CNN, BBC, Newsweek, and Time are all a part of the corporate infrastructure right? What is their primary motive? To inform or to profit?
 
ax1 said:
I agree with you, 100% thats why I even stay skeptical about all sources I read...but who is behind your sources? Who funds them, who owns them?

You do know CNN, BBC, Newsweek, and Time are all a part of the corporate infrastructure right? What is their primary motive? To inform or to profit?
Click to expand...


Invalid Link Removed



​
 
Did you watch the videos? If John Haven is merely reposting video taken from the public event, much like msnbc SHOULD BE DOING, the videos would be the same. I can go to msnbc's website and repost the same video, and that in and or itself doesn't change the narrative in the video. But to edit it out, and add commentary to change it does indeed change the context. Just like they did. But once again, you fail to address facts and points, and merely resort to attacks.
 
youngandfree said:
Did you watch the videos? If John Haven is merely reposting video taken from the public event, much like msnbc SHOULD BE DOING, the videos would be the same. I can go to msnbc's website and repost the same video, and that in and or itself doesn't change the narrative in the video. But to edit it out, and add commentary to change it does indeed change the context. Just like they did. But once again, you fail to address facts and points, and merely resort to attacks.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed the MSNBC go to play that you seem so fond of. I asked you who John Haven is, predictably you won't respond, but you rather keep the focus on MSNBC. You used the name (misspelled ironically) Saul Alinsky to describe my posts and yet you couldn't even take the time to get his name right and it happens to be your own example.
 
southpaw23 said:
I've already addressed the MSNBC go to play that you seem so fond of. I asked you who John Haven is, predictably you won't respond, but you rather keep the focus on MSNBC. You used the name (misspelled ironically) Saul Alinsky to describe my posts and yet you couldn't even take the time to get his name right and it happens to be your own example.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, these are just forums your not going to bypass his points on spelling errors, are you?
 
I still stand behind my point that just because a "legitimate" news source doesn't report something, doesn't mean the event didn't happen. And when NBC proven ti gave edited the Zimmerman tap to paint a different picture of him, and change the context of the tape, you don't seem to care. Now, here is a second event of them doing the same thing, in order to change the narrative of the story. Of course the other main stream outlets aren't going to report on one of their own, using shoddy journalism. They aren't going to discredit their own. That's why when they don't report in something, be it CNN, NBC, ABC, whoever, it doesn't mean that something never happened. It means they chose not to report it.
 
Clemenza said:
You're way off on this. The idea and occurrance of free market capitalism can be found in the first few books of Moses.

And the day Jesus is or appoints a dictator to fairly distribute currency and value, I will then become a socialist.

Jesus a socialist? You've obviously never read and understood scripture. Unless of course it came from the Michael Moore handbook.
Click to expand...

What does Moses have to do with Jesus when we were talking about using Jesus as President? A few quotes from Jesus (and FWIW I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times, being an agnostic doesn't mean I took the short road to get there):

"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

"Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

"For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

I was joking when I made my comments as trying to figure out what kind of President Jesus would be wasn't my point....merely that if someone was going to base their presidency off the teachings of Jesus as you suggested then maybe sharing the wealth would be something Jesus would do. He doesn't exactly sound like a "get rid of welfare, screw income inequality, tired of these "takers" type of President.

FWIW I'm not interested in a look at the Bible verses I find for free markets or whatever. Personally I think the free market system is by far the best thing in the world for distributing our resources. I just don't think it's a stretch to say Jesus would treat the poor a lot differently than those on the left and right do with our crony capitalist system.
 
youngandfree said:
I still stand behind my point that just because a "legitimate" news source doesn't report something, doesn't mean the event didn't happen. And when NBC proven ti gave edited the Zimmerman tap to paint a different picture of him, and change the context of the tape, you don't seem to care. Now, here is a second event of them doing the same thing, in order to change the narrative of the story. Of course the other main stream outlets aren't going to report on one of their own, using shoddy journalism. They aren't going to discredit their own. That's why when they don't report in something, be it CNN, NBC, ABC, whoever, it doesn't mean that something never happened. It means they chose not to report it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Zimmerman is a victim because he wasn't as a police officer, nor had he received a degree/accreditation towards that pursuit, was advised by a dispatcher not to follow a "kid", which he then willfully ignored and somehow MSNBC decided to get in on this conspiracy. It all makes sense now! Oh wait...

You cite the wackiest examples.
 
southpaw23 said:
Yeah, Zimmerman is a victim because he wasn't as a police officer, nor had he received a degree/accreditation towards that pursuit, was advised by a dispatcher not to follow a "kid", which he then willfully ignored and somehow MSNBC decided to get in on this conspiracy. It all makes sense now! Oh wait...

You cite the wackiest examples.
Click to expand...

they edited audio to make it sound the way fit their agenda, they purposefully chose the worst picture of zimmerman they could find, and the best 6 year old picture of trayvon they could find. But sure, real journalists.
 
EasyEJL said:
they edited audio to make it sound the way fit their agenda, they purposefully chose the worst picture of zimmerman they could find, and the best 6 year old picture of trayvon they could find. But sure, real journalists.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to what MSNBC reported as I hadn't watched any of their coverage regarding the case. (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, CAN WE GET OFF THE MSNBC TRAIN)
 
southpaw23 said:
I can't speak to what MSNBC reported as I hadn't watched any of their coverage regarding the case. (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, CAN WE GET OFF THE MSNBC TRAIN)
Click to expand...

funny, you seemed to be ready to speak to it in the piece I quoted. note that i didn't mention msnbc as most of the mainstream media did exactly the same thing
 
EasyEJL said:
funny, you seemed to be ready to speak to it in the piece I quoted. note that i didn't mention msnbc as most of the mainstream media did exactly the same thing
Click to expand...

Funny, you seemed to "interpret" it that way. I merely listed the facts of the case and they are indisputable. How MSNBC opted to cover the story is irrelevant, as the facts of the case are public record.
 
Geoforce said:
What does Moses have to do with Jesus when we were talking about using Jesus as President? A few quotes from Jesus (and FWIW I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times, being an agnostic doesn't mean I took the short road to get there):

"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

"Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

"For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

I was joking when I made my comments as trying to figure out what kind of President Jesus would be wasn't my point....merely that if someone was going to base their presidency off the teachings of Jesus as you suggested then maybe sharing the wealth would be something Jesus would do. He doesn't exactly sound like a "get rid of welfare, screw income inequality, tired of these "takers" type of President.

FWIW I'm not interested in a look at the Bible verses I find for free markets or whatever. Personally I think the free market system is by far the best thing in the world for distributing our resources. I just don't think it's a stretch to say Jesus would treat the poor a lot differently than those on the left and right do with our crony capitalist system.
Click to expand...

When Jesus says give to the "poor", you have to understand the poor in context with the time were poor due to disability or oppression from rulers/kings.

I don't see Jesus telling hard working people to give their hard earned money to todays american "poor" who are physically and mentally capable to work but choose not to. Opting for government assistance when not needed doesn't sound like something Jesus teaches. Nor does forced distribution of earned money.
 
But actually your version as presented on your news sources is in dispute. The audio from 911 does not indicate that he willfully ignored the dispatcher not to follow?Martin. He had already been watching him, and when the dispatcher told him not to, he said he lost him and began walking back to his vehicle. He clearly made arrangements with the dispatcher on where to meet an officer over by one of the gates. At that point he wasn't still following him. So to keep saying he was is just false. You say evidence shows Zimmerman wasn't a trained officer and never should have been there. I say Martin was a dirtbag teenager who had been suspended from school several times. He was known to deal drugs. Was found to have burglary tools and items in his backpack at school. If he was such a great kid then he wouldn't have been home from school again on suspension and would have never been in Sanford.
 
youngandfree said:
But actually your version as presented on your news sources is in dispute. The audio from 911 does not indicate that he willfully ignored the dispatcher not to follow?Martin. He had already been watching him, and when the dispatcher told him not to, he said he lost him and began walking back to his vehicle. He clearly made arrangements with the dispatcher on where to meet an officer over by one of the gates. At that point he wasn't still following him. So to keep saying he was is just false. You say evidence shows Zimmerman wasn't a trained officer and never should have been there. I say Martin was a dirtbag teenager who had been suspended from school several times. He was known to deal drugs. Was found to have burglary tools and items in his backpack at school. If he was such a great kid then he wouldn't have been home from school again on suspension and would have never been in Sanford.
Click to expand...

:/ Of course you do. You don't think I already know or rather predict what your perceptions/opinions would be regarding this case and someone like him (Trayvon)? I guess every kid who's made mistakes deserves death by your narrow logic. Debate with AX not me, honestly, this isn't even interesting.
 
Clemenza said:
When Jesus says give to the "poor", you have to understand the poor in context with the time were poor due to disability or oppression from rulers/kings.

I don't see Jesus telling hard working people to give their hard earned money to todays american "poor" who are physically and mentally capable to work but choose not to. Opting for government assistance when not needed doesn't sound like something Jesus teaches. Nor does forced distribution of earned money.
Click to expand...

This is a little short sighted IMO. Many of today's "poor" are oppressed from our system which tends to vastly reward certain people while screwing the majority. I.E. the fact that corporate profits have been through the roof while hiring has not and wages are stagnant, the vast discrepancy in income inequality, etc. And while certainly some poor people are poor because of laziness it's a pretty big stretch to consider most of the poor are poor by their own choosing IMO and if they would just work harder they would become rich. George Carlin said "it's the American dream because you must be asleep to believe it." Based on those quotes I tend to think Jesus would have a ton of issues with our current setup...but seriously arguing it is probably comical at best :)

Few people on this sight believe in the power of the free market more than I do, but what we have isn't even close to a free market.
 
Geoforce said:
This is a little short sighted IMO. Many of today's "poor" are oppressed from our system which tends to vastly reward certain people while screwing the majority. I.E. the fact that corporate profits have been through the roof while hiring has not and wages are stagnant, the vast discrepancy in income inequality, etc. And while certainly some poor people are poor because of laziness it's a pretty big stretch to consider most of the poor are poor by their own choosing IMO and if they would just work harder they would become rich. George Carlin said "it's the American dream because you must be asleep to believe it." Based on those quotes I tend to think Jesus would have a ton of issues with our current setup...but seriously arguing it is probably comical at best :)

Few people on this sight believe in the power of the free market more than I do, but what we have isn't even close to a free market.
Click to expand...

Oh without a doubt Jesus would have issue with our current system.
I think Jesus would have most sympathy for the current middle class for the way they are being ripped off from the top and the bottom.

I don't blame corporations for increasing their profits. That is their goal and rightfully so. But when these corporations start lobbying government for bailouts funded by.middle class tax dollars is when they become criminal imo. The system which allows this is broken.

I do work in many poor neighborhoods in NY. Do you know how often I see a grown man, big strong in perfect health, in his twenties, pull up to a deli in a mercedes benz, pull out his iphone, pay for his lotto tickets, philly blunt, and beer with cash, and use EBT Benefit Card to buy his milk and five kids candy. At noon on a weekday.

He is considered "poor".

I don't think Jesus was talking about him when he was telling people to give to the poor.
 
southpaw23 said:
:/ Of course you do. You don't think I already know or rather predict what your perceptions/opinions would be regarding this case and someone like him (Trayvon)? I guess every kid who's made mistakes deserves death by your narrow logic. Debate with AX not me, honestly, this isn't even interesting.
Click to expand...

A kid who makes mistakes doesn't deserve death. A kid that just makes mistakes doesn't become a habitual offender. A kid with drug residue in school is one thing. A kid suspended multiple times for various things, including suspected burglary is another. Since I don't do drugs, I don't subscribe to the notion that a dope head is no big deal.

As far as a person walking up to another person and saying you now have a problem, and sucker punch them deserves whatever they get. He wanted to be a man and start a fight, so he gets to play by adult rules. If you or anyone else were to do the same thing to anyone, and were fatally wounded while your victim was defending themselves, I would say you got what you deserve. Your past makes no difference the instance you lay hands on a person.
 
Clemenza said:
Oh without a doubt Jesus would have issue with our current system.
I think Jesus would have most sympathy for the current middle class for the way they are being ripped off from the top and the bottom.

I don't blame corporations for increasing their profits. That is their goal and rightfully so. But when these corporations start lobbying government for bailouts funded by.middle class tax dollars is when they become criminal imo. The system which allows this is broken.

I do work in many poor neighborhoods in NY. Do you know how often I see a grown man, big strong in perfect health, in his twenties, pull up to a deli in a mercedes benz, pull out his iphone, pay for his lotto tickets, philly blunt, and beer with cash, and use EBT Benefit Card to buy his milk and five kids candy. At noon on a weekday.

He is considered "poor".
Click to expand...

FWIW I don't blame corporations either. They are supposed to maximize profit, that is the goal of any business. But it does go to show you in such "awful" economic times the fat cats aren't touched, they are getting even fatter. They will give tons of money to Obama and tons of money to Romney, Dems and Republicans. They will hedge their bets by buying insane influence to write the rules the way that keeps them getting fatter.

And those type of people you mentioned make me sick and by no means am I saying they don't exist. Yet plenty of people also have a hard time getting ahead in our system no matter how hard they try. I hardly think the answer to the poverty problem is "well they need to quit being lazy."
 
southpaw23 said:
Funny, you seemed to "interpret" it that way. I merely listed the facts of the case and they are indisputable. How MSNBC opted to cover the story is irrelevant, as the facts of the case are public record.
Click to expand...

those "facts" aren't relevant to the case in any way shape or form. You are making the same sad mistake as the major media has.

Please read the florida statute on self defense, nowhere does it mention you have to be a police officer, etc to be able to defend yourself. It does specifically even state that even if you are the aggressor, but leave the situation and the other person continues the conflict, you have a right to self defense.
 
Geoforce said:
FWIW I don't blame corporations either. They are supposed to maximize profit, that is the goal of any business. But it does go to show you in such "awful" economic times the fat cats aren't touched, they are getting even fatter. They will give tons of money to Obama and tons of money to Romney, Dems and Republicans. They will hedge their bets by buying insane influence to write the rules the way that keeps them getting fatter.

And those type of people you mentioned make me sick and by no means am I saying they don't exist. Yet plenty of people also have a hard time getting ahead in our system no matter how hard they try. I hardly think the answer to the poverty problem is "well they need to quit being lazy."
Click to expand...

I agree with that.

However I guarantee if we ended the massive entitlements and benefits, those lazy people, which I believe are much.more than we think, will have no choice but to find a job. While you're at it deport the illegal undocumented aliens, and those so.called "jobs americans won't do", will now be done by americans bc they have no choice.

And save the entitlement money for the blind, the people with cerebral palsy, the injured vets, etc. the people who really need it.
 
EasyEJL said:
those "facts" aren't relevant to the case in any way shape or form. You are making the same sad mistake as the major media has.

Please read the florida statute on self defense, nowhere does it mention you have to be a police officer, etc to be able to defend yourself. It does specifically even state that even if you are the aggressor, but leave the situation and the other person continues the conflict, you have a right to self defense.
Click to expand...

I've read the statute in it's entirety, and many FL lawmakers find its application confusing and overly broad. In fact some lawmakers in FL, would like to see it changed. The fact is this situation would not have developed/escalated had an armed Zimmerman NOT decided to follow someone. Although, not required by law with respect to listening to a dispatcher, he willfully ignored the dispatcher's request not to follow/aggravate the situation further, which resulted in death.
 
youngandfree said:
A kid who makes mistakes doesn't deserve death. A kid that just makes mistakes doesn't become a habitual offender. A kid with drug residue in school is one thing. A kid suspended multiple times for various things, including suspected burglary is another. Since I don't do drugs, I don't subscribe to the notion that a dope head is no big deal.

As far as a person walking up to another person and saying you now have a problem, and sucker punch them deserves whatever they get. He wanted to be a man and start a fight, so he gets to play by adult rules. If you or anyone else were to do the same thing to anyone, and were fatally wounded while your victim was defending themselves, I would say you got what you deserve. Your past makes no difference the instance you lay hands on a person.
Click to expand...

So let me get your "logic" straight...you follow me, I feel threatened and lash out, then I'm somehow the provocateur? Interesting.
 
Yes if I don't ever make a physical contact with you and am maintaining my distance while keeping an eye on you. When you turn around to confront me and sucker punch me, that's it. Its now your initiation of a physical confrontation that changes the rules. Plain and simple. Remember, "your rights end where my nose starts."

Someone walking behind you, that hasn't spoken to you or touched you can not be considered the same threat as a guy turning around and walking up to you and then punch you in the face. Period. I don't care how liberal or conservative you are, or where you get your news from. If you lay hands on someone in a violent manner, you have assaulted someone and better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
 
southpaw23 said:
I've read the statute in it's entirety, and many FL lawmakers find its application confusing and overly broad. In fact some lawmakers in FL, would like to see it changed. The fact is this situation would not have developed/escalated had an armed Zimmerman NOT decided to follow someone. Although, not required by law with respect to listening to a dispatcher, he willfully ignored the dispatcher's request not to follow/aggravate the situation further, which resulted in death.
Click to expand...

which has 0 to do with a self defense claim.
 
youngandfree said:
Yes if I don't ever make a physical contact with you and am maintaining my distance while keeping an eye on you. When you turn around to confront me and sucker punch me, that's it. Its now your initiation of a physical confrontation that changes the rules. Plain and simple. Remember, "your rights end where my nose starts."

Someone walking behind you, that hasn't spoken to you or touched you can not be considered the same threat as a guy turning around and walking up to you and then punch you in the face. Period. I don't care how liberal or conservative you are, or where you get your news from. If you lay hands on someone in a violent manner, you have assaulted someone and better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

So let's say you follow a woman for a few blocks, she feels threatened and turns around and begins screaming at you out of fear, the situation results in an assault having taken place. Are you arguing that stand your ground would protect you, even though you FOLLOWED her, which in her view was an act of aggression/provocation?
 
southpaw23 said:
So let's say you follow a woman for a few blocks, she feels threatened and turns around and begins screaming at you as a result of fear, the situation results in an assault. Are you arguing that stand your ground would protect you, even though you FOLLOWED her, which in her view is an act of aggression/provocation?
Click to expand...

walking on public property is not an act of aggression. In your scenario or in the martin scenario both parties would be protected by the stand your ground law. The woman or trayvon would have been if they were in fear for their life, and he / zimmerman would be if they attempt to withdraw themselves after.

According to that florida law, I can run up to you from behind, sucker punch you and leave, and if you come after me while i'm leaving and i'm in fear for my life I am justified.
 
EasyEJL said:
walking on public property is not an act of aggression. In your scenario or in the martin scenario both parties would be protected by the stand your ground law. The woman or trayvon would have been if they were in fear for their life, and he / zimmerman would be if they attempt to withdraw themselves after.

According to that florida law, I can run up to you from behind, sucker punch you and leave, and if you come after me while i'm leaving and i'm in fear for my life I am justified.
Click to expand...

For the love of god, FOLLOWING SOMEONE, not walking, FOLLOWING SOMEONE is viewed as an act of provocation if said person feels threatened, all this was explained at the press conference by the lead prosecutor. Zimmerman wasn't out taking a stroll, he was following a kid while trying to be community cop against the orders of the dispatcher, all of this while being armed.
 
According to your scenario, if a woman feels threatened because I am behind her and screams, that still doesn't give her the right to turn around and physically assault me. Period. That's the only way an assault would have occurred if I never had any intention of making physical or verbal contact with her, which btw, Zimmerman made neither. Martin is the one that walked up and initiated the actual contact.

You seem to keep glossing over the.point that on the 911 tape, when the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow, he began to make arrangements on where to meet the officer. He says on tape he lost him, and is discussing where exactly he will be when the officer arrives. You keep saying that he willfully ignored the dispatcher's request and CONTINUED to follow Martin, which isn't supported by the 911 tape in any fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top