Possible Civil Rights Case Against Zimmerman

It was nice to see that our leaders could take a break from their busy schedules of arming mexican cartels and terrorists in Syria and celebrating Independence day-the 4th of July in Africa, to stir up some racism.

I know the secret to life. "All the life's a stage, we are all merely players in it."
 
There is no self defense when you are the provoker in a attack

You obviously have only the weepy liberal, knee jerk education to self defense. If you read the actual law, it will become apparent, even to a brain damaged liberal that SD is legitimate EVEN IF YOU ARE THE AGGRESSOR.
 
Well, it seems the sore losers Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, etc., are trying for "legal" double jeopardy against the legally exonerated George Zimmerman. They've got masses of blacks enraged and signing petitions to charge him with federal civil rights violations. They will not stop until the whole country is perpetually stirred up like a hornets nest; blacks against whites. They've set race relations back a few years so far, and they may put us back in 1960s Selma, Alabama before it's all said and done. Shame on them.

But I thought Trayvon's parents and lawyer said they didn't want this case to be about race?

they didnt want it to be about race until they lost the trial. Now it has to be about race because it is the only thing they can get him on.

Despite the fact that the FBI already looked into Zimmerman's past and have determined there is no case here, Holder and his gang of merry men are not going to stop until they get something on zimmerman. They are not seeking justice, they are seeking vengeance.
 
See what we haven't discussed is hate-thought. Many are taught to hate before they realize it is hate and may never realize what exactly drives their mean spirited point of view.

I was raised with, "They all look alike." And true, the dark face swallows the light and if you don't actually look......

But, I tell ya. I started to look. And in Jr. High it came to me and I think it is true.

The average black guy is much better looking than the average white guy. So, I then examined the ladies. :)

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches
 
See what we haven't discussed is hate-thought. Many are taught to hate before they realize it is hate and may never realize what exactly drives their mean spirited point of view.

I was raised with, "They all look alike." And true, the dark face swallows the light and if you don't actually look......

But, I tell ya. I started to look. And in Jr. High it came to me and I think it is true.

The average black guy is much better looking than the average white guy. So, I then examined the ladies. :)

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

Coincident with the onset of puberty. Not that there is anything wrong with that, Doer. ;-)
 
Pretty big rod he is fishing with, eh Doer? ;-)


hooked-up-on-marlin-in-hong-kong-1024x682.jpg
 
Pretty big rod he is fishing with, eh Doer? ;-)


hooked-up-on-marlin-in-hong-kong-1024x682.jpg

A little scrawny since I last saw, ole Tiney. Those calf presentations are a joke.

But, I can never figure out his parents. I mean if your last name is Peeney, why name your kid....never mind.

Hey, I found out the secret, black guys will absolutely not give the....never mind.
 
I disagree that a document can't be written for all the people. I guess the founders thought as you do. I don't think the Constitution was written as a moral binding, but more so as to a legal one.

Okay. Yes, in the absolute you or I could write a document and DECLARE it is binding on all the people. Semantics aside... for it to be valid, legal documents and contracts need what? They need the actual consent of the parties to it. Uni-lateral contracts are a fraud and extortive, and frankly not very nice....ever try to take a uni-lateral contract to court? Bi-lateral contracts are morally valid and legally enforceable.

A document that purports to be for everybody, but is written by and agreed to by the few is what? It is a claim of ownership others put on those who didn't consent to it.

Are you saying a bunch of old dead white guys can give the consent of people born hundreds of years later? Even, today, if you or a group of your friends that call themselves government make a "document that binds all people" , me and my friends might say, no thank you we are not participating in this. So if you deny us this and say, "no you must be bound by it" you are by extension saying some people can own and control other people. Why do you want to do this?
 
Why is it so hard?

We can indeed do that. Our Founders did. A lot of people said oh hell no! And they said, we will see.

Just to make it official, to raise an army, etc, they wrote some things down and signed up to be hanged.

If you are willing to sign up to be hanged then you can create a Doc, call it binding and use force to make it so.

Now that was a while ago. You think you just fell off the tomato truck or something?

Hey, set up a Compound, raise a Flag, declare yourself UN-goverened. Make sure you run off the first County Inspector that shows up. Get off the grid. Allow no govt to approach you.

Just see what happens. Why can you not face reality? Force happens. Now what do you do? Oh, you will fight.

Good. Hope you win. WE did.
 
Okay. Yes, in the absolute you or I could write a document and DECLARE it is binding on all the people. Semantics aside... for it to be valid, legal documents and contracts need what? They need the actual consent of the parties to it. Uni-lateral contracts are a fraud and extortive, and frankly not very nice....ever try to take a uni-lateral contract to court? Bi-lateral contracts are morally valid and legally enforceable.

A document that purports to be for everybody, but is written by and agreed to by the few is what? It is a claim of ownership others put on those who didn't consent to it.

Are you saying a bunch of old dead white guys can give the consent of people born hundreds of years later? Even, today, if you or a group of your friends that call themselves government make a "document that binds all people" , me and my friends might say, no thank you we are not participating in this. So if you deny us this and say, "no you must be bound by it" you are by extension saying some people can own and control other people. Why do you want to do this?

should the united states contact every 14 year old, pre-menstrual, angst-ridden rob roy to make sure you consent to the constitution first?

should they go ahead and draft a new one every time a 14 year old, pre-menstrual, angst-ridden rob roy disagrees?
 
should the united states contact every 14 year old, pre-menstrual, angst-ridden rob roy to make sure you consent to the constitution first?

should they go ahead and draft a new one every time a 14 year old, pre-menstrual, angst-ridden rob roy disagrees?

They don't really teach much any more. It is a legal document of protection. Mutual protection. It honors regions and we may go where we want. It honors those families that set all that up. It is good to have this protection. The common defense.

All these rules are unfortunate but that is only because we are such a bunch dangerous assholes us, shiny, clever monkeys.

And always there is the intellectual, dreaming of a better way, and always there is a vast array of force built up from a time we can't even remember. This force of arms is the only thing that lets the dreamers dream.

Here at least in self rule, we only have ourselves to blame so, it is more stable. Yet, we manufacture blame the govt andf fall for the anti-constitutional forces. Some siren song of, there is something better.

Yet, what is, is what is. Not better or worse, just real.

How about count your blessings? I had to stand for the draft. Several here, slugged it out in Nam.

A different world now. And you get to have it. :)
 
Uuuummmm
View attachment 2740331

yea, that's what I thought too.

Peace

Asmallvoice

there's a reason why black people rioted after the rodney king case but white people didn't after the OJ verdict: it's because the OJ verdict wasn't one more straw on the camel's back of continued persecution and injustice against white people in the united states.

you'd have to be dumber than a fucking rock on whippits to not put 2 and 2 together on something as easy as this.

but then again, look who i am talking to. no surprise.
 
there's a reason why black people rioted after the rodney king case but white people didn't after the OJ verdict: it's because the OJ verdict wasn't one more straw on the camel's back of continued persecution and injustice against white people in the united states.
.

I don't know about this buck.

White people only riot after their favorite team wins the game. It is usually more of a drunken celebration than a all out riot.
 
I don't know about this buck.

White people only riot after their favorite team wins the game. It is usually more of a drunken celebration than a all out riot.

i checked the the sports forum and could not find anyone lamenting possible riots due to sports victories comparable to the number of asshats in politics falsely predicting riots due to the zimmerman verdict.

seems like those predicting riots have singular racial focus. odd.
 
Back
Top