quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

Kinda like the civil prosecution of oj.

You miss the point OJ was sued by the Goldman family, not a government agency.

What is your point?
Had you taken the time to do a little research you would find that this has happened many times with bigots like you. I am not the least bit sorry that your asshole is sore because you cannot get your way.
Should your little butt bitch get convicted {if there is a trial}this time will you say that a jury of his peers did their duty?

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

I disagree with you on every point but one.
It is quite possible that Martin felt threatened.
It is reasonable to think that Martin believed Zimmerman was going for a weapon when he reached for his cell phone.
This means that I would have been arguing for Martin being acquitted were he on trial.
This in spite of the fact that according to his GF (after the trial of course) said that Martin thought (profiled as) Zimmerman was a homosexual out to rape him. And her admission the Martin almost certainly started the fight.
None of this negated Zimmerman's right to self defense as it was a cell phone not a weapon.
A tragedy not a crime

I see all of that except: Martin felt threatened.
He made it to the apartment, turned around, went "cracka huntin", and found one.

quote:

Well, well, well. Let's have some fun.

I can't find the initial thread but someone made a passive-aggressive comment on my avatar.

quote:

When that didn't work, the passive-aggressive moron, brought it to this unmoderated thread (please notice the time stamps)

quote:

Since this is an unmoderated thread and there's some discussion about my avatar, let me clear up a couple of things.

My previous avatar (which was not explicit and did not violate TOS) was removed after a bunch of cry-baby pussies went running to the administration here, complaining that my avatar was offensive.

quote:

So, a new, un-written rule was made up to appease the little bitches.

Now, I am unable to change my avatar and you get the primary photo from my profile. Since the photo is not explicit and does not violate TOS, this is what you get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Well, well, well. Let's have some fun.

I can't find the initial thread but someone made a passive-aggressive comment on my avatar.

When that didn't work, the passive-aggressive moron, brought it to this unmoderated thread (please notice the time stamps)

Post 1942

Then: Post 1944

Then, after the events transpired that I describe here, I decided to show the spineless little pussy what an unmoderated thread is for

I just thought it was much better to call a spade a spade and be done with it.

That last link, in my "attack", I included the post that I was responding to but, why would any PPL tell the whole story? It's much more fun to be willfully ignorant.



Peace,



Gen George S. Patton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

my heart pumps purple piss

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LMAO you are insisting that the "CCC"s have influence on the mods, which is laughable, as are most of your claims and
that shows just the smallest mental capacity you are capable of, you cant accept that you have been a consistent misogynistic ass and THAT is YOUR issue, not any one elses. Oh maybe Awarenes's too
pathetic attempt, but typical.