liberal hypocrisy over the trayvon martin shooting

you have no idea how our justice system works, or you're just talking non sensical crap.

By that I assume that innocence or guilt is not decided by your judiciary. Mmm. Not a very nice place to be.
The innocence or guilt is not whether or not he shot the boy it is whether it was in self defence and that is a matter for the courts... well it is in any modern, civilised system. So stop being a prat, sir. If you do not believe in the rule of law just say so.
 
Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou
especially when you compare it against the backdrop of the oscar grant shooting.

both victims were young black men.

both victims were unarmed.

both victims were shot and killed by white men

the one underlying difference is that oscar grant was killed by the god like state agent of the liberals and conservatives.

Officer Johannes Mehserle shot him in the back. He only served two years in prison.

he was not arrested immediately either, so why are racist liberals whining and making petitions?

there was no huge outcry about changing some unnecessary law because mehserle felt threatened against an unarmed black man.

there were no continual media articles or opinions about the rampant racism running amok in the bay area, why?

because you're hypocrites who hate the notion that people are free and can think for themselves.

you want and need the government to control all of humanity to soothe your own fears of the unknown
.


What crap. There were a number of petitions circulating about this. [url]http://tinyurl.com/6tdrxn8[/URL]

And killings like this shouldn't be politicized with comments like "liberal hypocrisy, etc.". All people should stand up and protest and that includes conservatives.

People like STY are just insipidly stubborn and beligerent.....they just can't accept the FACT that (a) their very political existence of note as "theepers" and "oathers" only hit the headlines AFTER Rovian GOP propaganda machine stoked them with fears that Obama was a-com'in to take their guns away. And since that lie hasn't coalesced, jokers like STY are just lashing out like a maddened child. (b) As you so aptly proved, STY is either geniuingly ignorant of the subject matter or is just being his usual intellectually dishonest self.

What disturbs people like STY is that (yet another) gun manufacturer back, NRA flunkie endorsed gun lobbied law (this time in Florida) is going to come under public scrutiny...and be found wanting. Other than that, STY couldn't give a damn about Martin or victims like him.
 
Originally Posted by christiefan915
What crap. There were a number of petitions circulating about this. http://tinyurl.com/6tdrxn8

And killings like this shouldn't be politicized with comments like "liberal hypocrisy, etc.". All people should stand up and protest and that includes conservatives.
so should the FL killing be politicized by bashing libertarians?

The only "politicizing" that's happening to this situation comes by way of the very law passed under former Gov. Jeb Bush that allowed jerks like Zimmerman to act as he did ("stand your ground" I believe is the general term for it). And since Jeb was and is no "libertarian" by any means, I don't know exactly WTF you're going on about? Elucidate, old son, elucidate!
 
The only "politicizing" that's happening to this situation comes by way of the very law passed under former Gov. Jeb Bush that allowed jerks like Zimmerman to act as he did ("stand your ground" I believe is the general term for it). And since Jeb was and is no "libertarian" by any means, I don't know exactly WTF you're going on about? Elucidate, old son, elucidate!

Will the Chief of Police lose his job?
 
By that I assume that innocence or guilt is not decided by your judiciary. Mmm. Not a very nice place to be.
The innocence or guilt is not whether or not he shot the boy it is whether it was in self defence and that is a matter for the courts... well it is in any modern, civilised system. So stop being a prat, sir. If you do not believe in the rule of law just say so.
part of the reason we broke away from england is because the courts were an injustice to we the people. Our form of justice now is that guilt or innocence is determined by a jury of our peers. how that isn't completely fair is beyond me. If 'modern and civilized' is tyranny of the courts, you're welcome to it.
 
part of the reason we broke away from england is because the courts were an injustice to we the people. Our form of justice now is that guilt or innocence is determined by a jury of our peers. how that isn't completely fair is beyond me. If 'modern and civilized' is tyranny of the courts, you're welcome to it.

You really are dumb, aren't you? Now you are agreeing with me. Can you not see that?
 
By that I assume that innocence or guilt is not decided by your judiciary. Mmm. Not a very nice place to be.
The innocence or guilt is not whether or not he shot the boy it is whether it was in self defence and that is a matter for the courts... well it is in any modern, civilised system. So stop being a prat, sir. If you do not believe in the rule of law just say so.

Juries would decide that, unless he chooses to skip the jury and have the judge make the decision which is rare in criminal cases. The Judiciary does not decide guilt or innocence in most cases. The District or County attorney would decide if they had enough evidence to gain a conviction and decide whether to bring a case. The jury hears the case and decides... It's all part of that Constitution thing we have, and on many tv shows that I am sure you watch.
 
You really are dumb, aren't you? Now you are agreeing with me. Can you not see that?
you're incapable of coherent thought, then. what i see you talking about is having a judge decide guilt or innocence, but that is not how our system works. a jury of our peers decides guilt or innocence. In what universe is that agreeing with you?
 
Juries would decide that, unless he chooses to skip the jury and have the judge make the decision which is rare in criminal cases. The Judiciary does not decide guilt or innocence in most cases. The District or County attorney would decide if they had enough evidence to gain a conviction and decide whether to bring a case. The jury hears the case and decides... It's all part of that Constitution thing we have, and on many tv shows that I am sure you watch.

Perhaps we should look at the meanings of the word we use. I said 'judiciary'. What do you think that means? Do you think the meaning is confined to a judge? If so you are wrong. The judiciary is the people in the system that implements justice.
If you people had the ability to see debate in terms other than party political then this board would have far fewer ridiculous arguments.
The boy was shot and killed. Some people maintained that Zimmerman was innocent of murder. I maintained that he should be arrested (held) and the case tried. I was criticised for that. Now with the great body of opinion saying the same those excusers of this uncivilised attitude (not to mention out and out racism) are back tracking faster than an Italian tank and saying they supported this all the time.
Both you and that dumb fool Smarter than whatever clearly have no personal sense of justice choosing to shout first and think later. Typical of the breed.
End of discussion.
Neither of you are worth the discussion time.
 
Perhaps we should look at the meanings of the word we use. I said 'judiciary'. What do you think that means? Do you think the meaning is confined to a judge? If so you are wrong. The judiciary is the people in the system that implements justice.
not in the USA. The 'judiciary' is the bench, or the courts. i.e. judges only. That isn't defined along party lines or political ideology. That's the creation of our government via the constitution.

Both you and that dumb fool Smarter than whatever clearly have no personal sense of justice choosing to shout first and think later. Typical of the breed.
clearly, they have institutional idiocy in your country. you have been wrong more often than you have been right and that is sad. THAT is the end of discussion.
 
not in the USA. The 'judiciary' is the bench, or the courts. i.e. judges only. That isn't defined along party lines or political ideology. That's the creation of our government via the constitution.

clearly, they have institutional idiocy in your country. you have been wrong more often than you have been right and that is sad. THAT is the end of discussion.
This from Webster:
Definition of JUDICIARY



1 a: a system of courts of law b: the judges of these courts


2: a branch of government in which judicial power is vested

— judiciaryadjective
 
You are simply making excuses or attempting to justify the hotch potch of laws particularly in Florida. There appears to be little actual contention between us and it 'appears' that the obvious 'wrongs' of this case are being addressed, but , again, it appears significant that the chief of police 'stepped down' to avoid his own obvious bias being exposed.

Who am I making excuses for? You are now just making shit up. From the very first I stated that the locals fucked up in my opinion and that they should have arrested Zimmerman. What part of that are you too slow to grasp? The point is that it is NOT the law that failed, but the people sworn to uphold the law.

Tell me one reason - just one - why ANYONE in the world would be jealous of a country that kills thousands of its own citizens every year, where nearly half its population is so poorly educated that they believe in creationism and have almost no idea of the rest of the world. A country where should one wish to employ someone one must first find someone capable of writing a letter of application! A country in which many of its population consider black people to be actually inferior. A country in which whole governments pass or fail because of non political affairs like religion and abortion. A country that invades countries and kills innocents. A country imbued with violence and confrontationalism from its school kids to its government.
No, my friend. (and this is not just forum crap) very few people, and particularly not me, are jealous of America. Like many of your countrymen, you need to stop kidding yourself. Many people, however, and I count myself as one, are quite interested in America rather as we might be interested in North Korea or Mars or spiders.
Don't tell me people flock to live in America, they flock to live in many countries particularly the UK. Don't tell me about China because I know full well and that does not make American actions (or inactions) justifiable.

Like I said, you are jealous... hence all the hate filled crap above. We are most certainly not perfect, we have many areas where we can improve. But I had to stop reading the above at 'who kills thousands of its citizens'... pure hate filled nonsense
 
Who am I making excuses for? You are now just making shit up. From the very first I stated that the locals fucked up in my opinion and that they should have arrested Zimmerman. What part of that are you too slow to grasp? The point is that it is NOT the law that failed, but the people sworn to uphold the law.



Like I said, you are jealous... hence all the hate filled crap above. We are most certainly not perfect, we have many areas where we can improve. But I had to stop reading the above at 'who kills thousands of its citizens'... pure hate filled nonsense

Why should anyone hate America? Please elucidate?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The only "politicizing" that's happening to this situation comes by way of the very law passed under former Gov. Jeb Bush that allowed jerks like Zimmerman to act as he did ("stand your ground" I believe is the general term for it). And since Jeb was and is no "libertarian" by any means, I don't know exactly WTF you're going on about? Elucidate, old son, elucidate!
Will the Chief of Police lose his job?

Possibly....but that STILL gives no basis for >none's< libertarian bashing statement.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
blah blah blah liberalism is the bomb blah blah blah, liberals hate guns, blah blah blah, non liberals are racist, blah blah blah, threepers, oathers, GOP, neocons, blah blah blah
did you have anything significant to add to the thread? or do you simply prefer your own prattle?

The chronology of this thread clearly demonstrates what a joke your screen name is, STY...and how you act out EXACTLY as I described to Christie:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...e-trayvon-martin-shooting&p=970104#post970104

I assume your next response will be more of the same, as you clearly have neither the brains nor the guts to honestly debate the issue. You may have the last predictable word. Carry on.
 
Back
Top