State v Zimmerman

Post Reply
User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tyrannical » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:33 am

Trayvon called him a crazy ass cracker. That makes Trayvon racist, and Zimmerman was just reacting to that hate speech :hehe:
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:33 am

But you never know what crazy ass crackers will do. The best thing is to shake their head against concrete till they give up their gun.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Seth » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:39 am

:pop:
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Seth » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:42 am

Tero wrote:But you never know what crazy ass crackers will do. The best thing is to shake their head against concrete till they give up their gun.
You're a racist. You assume first that he IS a "cracker" (which he's not, he's Hispanic) and then you stereotype "crackers" as being "crazy ass."

Doesn't get more racist than that.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:39 am

It was a TVM talk parody.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:48 pm

Tero wrote:Yes well, we clearly have a 29 year old idiot and a teen idiot. Which one would you think has some experience to counteract his lack of smarts?
Age has little to do with it.

It doesn't matter how stupid either one of them was.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:01 pm

So a 12 year old "acting weird" in a gated community would need to be stalked as well?

You keep critising my post as if I'm defending M. It's your stupid syg that is on trial. It produces unnecessary conflicts among idiots. Teens in hoidies: "these assholes always get away."

But not if you have an eager volunteer with a gun in his belt.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:09 pm

Tero wrote:So a 12 year old "acting weird" in a gated community would need to be stalked as well?
Stalked? No. But, certainly a 12 year old out fairly late at night alone, skulking between people's homes, in the rain, with no evident purpose....prudence would dictate that someone give him a shout out and perhaps ask him "what are you doing here?" or something. If addressed in that manner, it would seem rather untoward for a 12 year old to attack the person addressing him.
Tero wrote:
You keep critising my post as if I'm defending M. It's your stupid syg that is on trial. It produces unnecessary conflicts among idiots.
How is the system on trial?

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tyrannical » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:14 pm

Tero wrote:So a 12 year old "acting weird" in a gated community would need to be stalked as well?
It wasn't stalking. Neighbors should approach strangers to find out what they want, especially in a gated community where strangers aren't allowed. It's private property, Trayvon didn't live there, and guests have to follow rules while they are visiting.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:49 pm

What rules did he break so had to be stalked? Wear a hoodie?

Skalking? The concrete path is common! It leads to his patio.
Last edited by Tero on Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:51 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Tero wrote:So a 12 year old "acting weird" in a gated community would need to be stalked as well?
Stalked? No. But, certainly a 12 year old out fairly late at night alone, skulking between people's homes, in the rain, with no evident purpose....prudence would dictate that someone give him a shout out and perhaps ask him "what are you doing here?" or something. If addressed in that manner, it would seem rather untoward for a 12 year old to attack the person addressing him.
Tero wrote:
You keep critising my post as if I'm defending M. It's your stupid syg that is on trial. It produces unnecessary conflicts among idiots.
How is the system on trial?
Lawmakers will follow this case. SYG needs much narrower limits.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41047
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:55 pm

Tero wrote:So a 12 year old "acting weird" in a gated community would need to be stalked as well?

You keep critising my post as if I'm defending M. It's your stupid syg that is on trial. It produces unnecessary conflicts among idiots. Teens in hoidies: "these assholes always get away."

But not if you have an eager volunteer with a gun in his belt.
a 12 year old in a gated community IS weird anyway...
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tyrannical » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:01 pm

Tero wrote:What rules did he break so had to be stalked? Wear a hoodie?

Skalking? The concrete path is common! It leads to his patio.
He had hopped the fence and was cutting behind people's houses.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:11 pm

Tero wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Tero wrote:So a 12 year old "acting weird" in a gated community would need to be stalked as well?
Stalked? No. But, certainly a 12 year old out fairly late at night alone, skulking between people's homes, in the rain, with no evident purpose....prudence would dictate that someone give him a shout out and perhaps ask him "what are you doing here?" or something. If addressed in that manner, it would seem rather untoward for a 12 year old to attack the person addressing him.
Tero wrote:
You keep critising my post as if I'm defending M. It's your stupid syg that is on trial. It produces unnecessary conflicts among idiots.
How is the system on trial?
Lawmakers will follow this case. SYG needs much narrower limits.
What do you think stand your ground means?

And, since stand your ground hasn't been raised in this case, how is it being tried?

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:12 pm

There is a path there! It is common ground. You only own the patio. The community mows the grass, not you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], L'Emmerdeur and 13 guests