Former Head of South Carolina GOP Makes Remark About Trayvon Martin

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

You know, folks, people have called me paranoid and crazy for being afraid for saying that Anonymous and 4channers were getting into positions of power.

I'm going to point to THIS next time someone thinks I'm crazy for saying that.

Magenera:
Zimmerman is such an evil guy, that his story for the most part is looking to be true right? Evidence pretty much sided with his story

There must've been new developments then, because last time I checked, nothing at all backed up his story.

What exactly then supported the murderer's story?

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Zimmerman concluded the tragedy by panicking, taking his firearm and killing Martin as Martin walked away.

Martin was still on top of Zimmerman when he got shot, they could tell by the presence of powder burns around the wound and diameter of the spray how close he was. The information did come out at some point.

xDarc:

Martin was still on top of Zimmerman when he got shot, they could tell by the presence of powder burns around the wound and diameter of the spray how close he was. The information did come out at some point.

An interesting factoid about the situation, considering the Laws of Flordia; Trayvon Martin had a greater right to invoke the Stand your ground Law than George Zimmerman because. 1) The Gated community can be considered a type of residence that Martin occupied legally. 2) Zimmerman was, while clearly being armed, following Martin and presented while he approached Martin a perceived intent to remove Martin from that residence or do bodily Harm with the weapon. 3) While Zimmerman is also lawful resident, he had been taking the prescription drug Temazepam at the time, where as Martin was only shown to have consumed Marijuana 3-4 days prior. The usual side effects of the drug place Zimmerman as being more aggressive and paranoid when it is taken. 4) Martin was not unlawfully present in the area and could have perceived any advance from the armed Zimmerman as a possible threat of assault/ deadly force and as Martin had no duty to retreat (Although it wasn't the smartest move) Was legally entitled to meet perceived force with force and attempt to disarm Zimmerman.

Under Florida SYGL, Zimmerman performed an assault which entitled Martin to use any force necessary to neutralize the perceived threat but failed. Zimmerman presented a perceived, imminent threat which was then confirmed when he used lethal force to Murder Martin with his weapon and has committed a felony.

On a side note, if it was a black guy that had followed some white kid around a gated community with a gun and ended up killing him after getting beaten up by the kid in self defense; the black guy would've been in jail already.

On topic: That guy who made the tweet is dumb.

FieryTrainwreck:
I'm fascinated by his delusion. His racists views have become the minority, so now he's reacting as minorities once did, lashing out against the intolerance of others... for his intolerant views.

It's like a dude getting mad when you don't allow him the right to limit the rights of others.

Makes my head hurt.

Well, I wouldn't say the were necessarily the minority, but in their own minds they probably are. A lot of people seem to confuse "less overwhelming power" with "no power", which makes sense from the PoV of things being perfectly fine before they had to be made more fair.

Otherwise, more or less, yeah.

Notsomuch:
On a side note, if it was a black guy that had followed some white kid around a gated community with a gun and ended up killing him after getting beaten up by the kid in self defense; the black guy would've been in jail already.

Shortly afterwards, a black woman fired a warning shot to stop her abusive husband from attacking her, and teh judge decided that stand your ground didn't apply.

Notsomuch:

On a side note, if it was a black guy that had followed some white kid around a gated community with a gun and ended up killing him after getting beaten up by the kid in self defense; the black guy would've been in jail already.

People have a right to ask stupid kids what the hell they are doing dragging ass in the rain, looking like they're tripping on cough syrup, in their own communities, if the races were reversed it would not have made a difference in my eyes. It is not a crime to watch out for your own community. Initiating a physical altercation is a crime. That's why this guy sat at home eating wheaties for 2 months before the news media brain washed everyone into being scared to defend themselves and their communities, because it all fits into their anti-gun, trust in the establishment to provide and protect you agenda.

There are plenty more people like George Zimmerman walking around America right now, but the media only goes after stories they can easily distort to the purposes of their own agenda. That is more gun control, and make people scared to own guns or defend themselves in the first place by sensationalizing and twisting the facts.

xDarc:
/snip

That makes absolutely no sense. You're the one if anything who is manipulating the situation. Ignoring what Notsomuch said about the stand your ground law, insinuating that Zimmerman had a right to shoot him. Blaming the media for bringing up a case which people tried to sweep under the rug. It's okay if it's small government manipulation rather than big government? Is that what you're saying?
For the sake of the argument who are you referring to when you say "plenty more people"

Helmholtz Watson:
/snip

When did I start condemning everyone else? When did I say that Zimmerman was a complete monster? How did "justifying the death" ever translate to the above two? You attacked me with a website I never linked.

Media manipulation is bad and pieces of work like Magenera will say their usual diatribe. I think it's well in my right to say that shit will hit the fan, and not good discussion will come out of it.

The case was completely insane.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
snip

Magenera:
snip

Blablahb:
snip

xDarc:
snip

NameIsRobertPaulson:
snip

Notsomuch:
snip

Frission:
snip

Can I politely ask that this thread not become a re-litigation of the Martin-Zimmerman case? I remember those threads and they poisoned the atmosphere in the R&P forums for a long while...

The question is why do people think that these things will be ok or go unnoticed? He must have been drunk. Even for a political figure who plays to his crowd that is just plain stupid to say.

Frission:
I think it's well in my right to say that shit will hit the fan, and not good discussion will come out of it.

The case was completely insane.

You're right, you have a right to say that the discussion will get ugly. The only thing I pointed out is that I don't appreciate you telling me that I should just drop it and not discuss the case while at the same time you give your own opinion on the case. If you wish for me to not talk about the case, that's fine. I just ask that you do the same.

darlarosa:
The question is why do people think that these things will be ok or go unnoticed? He must have been drunk. Even for a political figure who plays to his crowd that is just plain stupid to say.

For the people who used to vote for him, saying such things is probably okay. There were a ton of bloodthirsty GOP'ers all too happy to defend the murder when details about the case were unknown, and there probably still are now, and it smelled of more than a little racism being involved.

I mean, if you're talking to people who, judging by their kneejerk responses to the case, really think that "ohmygawd, there's a nigger in my neighbourhood" is a reason to grab and gun, chase aftrer him and maybe even kill him, such statements are acceptable.

It's not the first statement I see from political America where either minorities or fringe groups get mentioned in a wildly inapropriate way after a fatal shooting and people seem to love it. I remember a case where someone was sitting on the ground, a hispanic, young, male, lower class looking (and therefore also on the "be totally scared of" list) in some kind of police stop while something else was going on. He stood up at some point and a police officer shot and murdered him immediatly. A newspaper ran a poll if the extrajudicial murder was justified, and twothirds of the (presumable American) audience voted yes, even if there was no threat, no weapon and it was even unclear what the incident prior to the murder was all about. Responses like "he could've had a gun" (but didn't, you twat) and "That should happen to people like him" or "serves them right" (why them? there was only one victim). The officer wasn't even charged. Some politicians also said some really stupid things after that, but it was apparently acceptable.

GunsmithKitten:
You know, folks, people have called me paranoid and crazy for being afraid for saying that Anonymous and 4channers were getting into positions of power.

I'm going to point to THIS next time someone thinks I'm crazy for saying that.

Is this in the wrong topic or something? I don't even see how an image board about anime, games and other shit is somehow getting into positions of power, unless that's just what I WANT you to think.

Blablahb:

darlarosa:
The question is why do people think that these things will be ok or go unnoticed? He must have been drunk. Even for a political figure who plays to his crowd that is just plain stupid to say.

For the people who used to vote for him, saying such things is probably okay. There were a ton of bloodthirsty GOP'ers all too happy to defend the murder when details about the case were unknown, and there probably still are now, and it smelled of more than a little racism being involved.

I mean, if you're talking to people who, judging by their kneejerk responses to the case, really think that "ohmygawd, there's a nigger in my neighbourhood" is a reason to grab and gun, chase aftrer him and maybe even kill him, such statements are acceptable.

It's not the first statement I see from political America where either minorities or fringe groups get mentioned in a wildly inapropriate way after a fatal shooting and people seem to love it. I remember a case where someone was sitting on the ground, a hispanic, young, male, lower class looking (and therefore also on the "be totally scared of" list) in some kind of police stop while something else was going on. He stood up at some point and a police officer shot and murdered him immediatly. A newspaper ran a poll if the extrajudicial murder was justified, and twothirds of the (presumable American) audience voted yes, even if there was no threat, no weapon and it was even unclear what the incident prior to the murder was all about. Responses like "he could've had a gun" (but didn't, you twat) and "That should happen to people like him" or "serves them right" (why them? there was only one victim). The officer wasn't even charged. Some politicians also said some really stupid things after that, but it was apparently acceptable.

You're right.
A lot of people see a minority, particularly latino and black minorities, and danger is always assumed. Its one thing to be wary of individuals dressed or acting a certain way (white, black, asian etc. some people are intimidating) particular in certain neighborhoods, but there is this justification in these incidents that certain races are more dangerous than other. Its just shocking to see it so overtly

thaluikhain:

Shortly afterwards, a black woman fired a warning shot to stop her abusive husband from attacking her, and the judge decided that stand your ground didn't apply.

That definitely sounds like something that would happen.

xDarc:

People have a right to ask stupid kids what the hell they are doing dragging ass in the rain, looking like they're tripping on cough syrup, in their own communities, if the races were reversed it would not have made a difference in my eyes.

To Mr. Martin, there was a suspicious man following him home and considering the medication Zimmerman was on, Martin, by your own logic, had every right to ask what this armed man that was 'tripping on cough syrup' was doing in his neighborhood, following random kids around. By all account, Martin had greater Civil authority, being the sober individual during the altercation and might have even had the authority to perform a citizens arrest on Zimmerman (Who in this hypothetical resisted with lethal force and in doing so committed a felony.)

It is not a crime to watch out for your own community. Initiating a physical altercation is a crime. That's why this guy sat at home eating wheaties for 2 months before the news media brain washed everyone into being scared to defend themselves and their communities, because it all fits into their anti-gun, trust in the establishment to provide and protect you agenda.

Martin was watching out for his community if he did end up investigating Zimmerman and by accurate accounts, was engaged in altercation by Zimmerman which forced Martin to escalate the altercation under stand your ground, since Zimmerman was armed and presented an immediate, lethal threat in Martins eyes.

There are plenty more people like George Zimmerman walking around America right now, but the media only goes after stories they can easily distort to the purposes of their own agenda. That is more gun control, and make people scared to own guns or defend themselves in the first place by sensationalizing and twisting the facts.

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he might not have had the courage to play vigilante. If there are more people like Zimmerman out there, which there probably are, they should likely be stripped of their weapons.

Gold:

GunsmithKitten:
You know, folks, people have called me paranoid and crazy for being afraid for saying that Anonymous and 4channers were getting into positions of power.

I'm going to point to THIS next time someone thinks I'm crazy for saying that.

Is this in the wrong topic or something? I don't even see how an image board about anime, games and other shit is somehow getting into positions of power, unless that's just what I WANT you to think.

Listen to what he says. That's textbook Anonymous modus operandi.

Apparently not the only thing he said:
image

Neither was he drunk or something because he defended the tweets later on too.

And more which clearly indicates this GOP guy's racist thinking:
image

And some more:
image

I ask you: If someone is walking through the neigbourhood where he lives, towards home, what has he done to deserve being murdered? Nothing. So why can he frame the murder as karmic retribution? The only explanation for that is that he, like Ron Paul, believes that all black people are criminals.

GunsmithKitten:
Listen to what he says. That's textbook Anonymous modus operandi.

This really isn't the place to use crazy conspiracy theories about some kind of Anon 5th column infiltrating the gun lobby, just because some members of said lobby are saying stuff that damages your political goals.

The guy's a republican hotshot, apparently has his own legal firm and gun lover, with a long history in that party. Anon are 12-20 year old idiots living in basements, committing cybervandalism. What's next? The guy is part of the illuminati?

Blablahb:
Apparently not the only thing he said:
image

Neither was he drunk or something because he defended the tweets later on too.

And more which clearly indicates this GOP guy's racist thinking:
image

And some more:
image

I ask you: If someone is walking through the neigbourhood where he lives, towards home, what has he done to deserve being murdered? Nothing. So why can he frame the murder as karmic retribution? The only explanation for that is that he, like Ron Paul, believes that all black people are criminals.

GunsmithKitten:
Listen to what he says. That's textbook Anonymous modus operandi.

This really isn't the place to use crazy conspiracy theories about some kind of Anon 5th column infiltrating the gun lobby, just because some members of said lobby are saying stuff that damages your political goals.

The guy's a republican hotshot, apparently has his own legal firm and gun lover, with a long history in that party. Anon are 12-20 year old idiots living in basements, committing cybervandalism. What's next? The guy is part of the illuminati?

Am I really living in a world were elected officials are allowed to say these sort of things and not be re spited by the general populous, I swear this guy is taking the piss out of someone here. And he appears to be a Libertarian, not at all surprised that a disgusting human being like himself is Libertarian.

Blablahb:

darlarosa:
The question is why do people think that these things will be ok or go unnoticed? He must have been drunk. Even for a political figure who plays to his crowd that is just plain stupid to say.

For the people who used to vote for him, saying such things is probably okay. There were a ton of bloodthirsty GOP'ers all too happy to defend the murder when details about the case were unknown, and there probably still are now, and it smelled of more than a little racism being involved.

Oh yeah, there's people calling Zimmerman an American hero, and saying "I am Zimmerman" like they are claiming to be Spartacus.

Apparently this douchebag is soliciting donations for his "Twitter Gulag Defense Network." The basic premise is accusing liberals of abusing the ToS to silence conservative voices. He says shit like what's seen here, and when people call him an asshole, he tells his followers to report those people for abuse and get their accounts suspended. Classy, no? Anyway, he claims that he's hired on a full-time assistant to monitor trends in the #TGDN hashtag, which is stupid since Twitter's infrastructure makes such an assistant unnecessary. Combined with the lack of a name, it's safe to assume this assistant doesn't actually exist. He also has not said where or how the donations will be applied to further his vague goals, so it's also safe to assume that the money will be going into Mr. Kincannon's "Buy Me a New BMW" fund.

Show of hands: who is surprised?

This guy is a moron so obviously we should abandon fiscal conservatism, ban all firearms, and enact massive tax hikes. My problem with articles like this is that their soul purpose is to use argumentum ad hominem to push political agenda.

"Member of political party X is a racists douche-bag. Therefore, we should totally reject political party X and any viewpoint they hold."

The title of this article is the same as a headline reading "Woman raped by two black men". There is no use for the article or the title other than to villainize a particular group of people. Yes this guy is an attention seeking moron, but there are better uses of our time than beating up on the straw man.

cthulhuspawn82:
This guy is a moron so obviously we should abandon fiscal conservatism, ban all firearms, and enact massive tax hikes. My problem with articles like this is that their soul purpose is to use argumentum ad hominem to push political agenda.

"Member of political party X is a racists douche-bag. Therefore, we should totally reject political party X and any viewpoint they hold."

The title of this article is the same as a headline reading "Woman raped by two black men". There is no use for the article or the title other than to villainize a particular group of people. Yes this guy is an attention seeking moron, but there are better uses of our time than beating up on the straw man.

You may not have realized it yet, but black people do not choose to be black due to having similar beliefs. They cannot be kicked out of being black for having racist beliefs. Nor can you become head of the black people in South Carolina.

And don't complain about ad hominems when you're busy building strawmen. Who said this in and of itself was enough to totally reject a political party AND any views they hold? I'd say it certainly contributes to the former when a group chooses someone like that as a leader, but no one even said as much.

cthulhuspawn82:
This guy is a moron so obviously we should abandon fiscal conservatism, ban all firearms, and enact massive tax hikes. My problem with articles like this is that their soul purpose is to use argumentum ad hominem to push political agenda.

"Member of political party X is a racists douche-bag. Therefore, we should totally reject political party X and any viewpoint they hold."

The title of this article is the same as a headline reading "Woman raped by two black men". There is no use for the article or the title other than to villainize a particular group of people. Yes this guy is an attention seeking moron, but there are better uses of our time than beating up on the straw man.

Were you stung by a bee that voted Democrat when you were a child?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked