Well then you suck pretty bad a profiling. I once again, for the second time, thank my stars that you aren't police in my area of NC. You'd have to pull over every other ****ing car since anything remotely hinting towards hip hop means they might be jumping someone! LOL
Way to hone your police skills, bro!
Are you making assumptions again?
I claimed it wouldn't be hard to
believe. In this context,
believinga story told by someone else.
Please prove your
ASSumption that I would
accuse someone without evidence other than hip-hop music (which BTW, you provided much more than that in your explanation of yourself... I found the comment about how people would be talking about a fight you got into most moving).
This is just too easy. You take a single comment and then you add to it from your own mind and make an accusation. Not surprising though, considering what you've mentioned in this thread about yourself.
I challenge you to provide proof from my words only, not from your assumptions of my words (assumptions based upon a bias you need to get checked out), that I stop people or profile people based upon their use of hip-hop music alone. Any dodging or deflection will be pointed out.
Thank you.
Also, where is the proof I called him a nigger?
THis is not about no_limit_nigga's dressing, its about no_limit_nigga's criminal threat.
All that matters LEGALLY is whether no_limit_nigga's physical attack on Mr. Zimmerman caused him to reasonably fear serious bodily injury.
Stay on topic
Can't we go back to calling him Trayvon? I know you are trying to push buttons, but for whatever reason *
I* am taking the flak for your repeated use of the term.
I didn't get your words mixed up with someone else. I said, "You people".
WHAT DO YOU MEAN.... "YOU PEOPLE" ?? Racists I swear... SMH.
So, are you going to be on record to tell Excon he was wrong to call Zimmerman's wounds as "gashing wounds"?
As often as you misrepresent what people said, I'm not going to go there. You should address what Excon said in a reply to Excon. Not to me.
Ridiculous logic.
Of course you didn't mention "Trayvon had his hand covering Zimmerman's bleeding nose". That's the point. You were evading my point about that claim of his that was disproven by the forensic evidence.
Instead of addressing the above point, you evade that into a small cut on Zimmerman's face which wasn't even in debate. Why can't you be honest for a change? While you are at it, try to be logical and make some sense in your rebuttal also.
Ive never made such a claim, so I don't understand why you are addressing that particular problem with ME. Reply to who said it. Also, do you have a copy of this "forensic evidence" that you speak of? Have you interviewed the forensics team who is surely going to put on a great display of evidence (not) in this case? Or are you assuming that a lack of information, or in this case, a lack of blood transfer automatically means something when it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does?
Go back to your post #723:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...e-being-struck-w-815-a-73.html#post1060672894
Previously I said:
"We are not just talking about simple punching. We are talking about repeated punching and head slamming with 50% of the head covered in blood and Trayvon's hands were said to cover his broken nose and grabbed his bloody head."
Where did you get the 50% number?
In your reply, you didn't address my point about "repeated punching and head slamming with 50% of the head covered in blood and Trayvon's hands were said to cover his broken nose and grabbed his bloody head." You didn't even dare to address the nose covering part. Instead, you evaded and said:
"As you can see from the photos posted, the cut on the front of his face was extremely small compared to the total size of his face... That leads to a very great amount of space that can be touched without blood transfer. A cut that small is not going to be spurting blood like the episode of Beavis and Butthead when they accidentally chop Beavis's finger off or anything.
Obviously, the cuts on the back of his head were on the back of his head..... and not facing Trayvon. Nobody is claiming he was bleeding PROFUSELY, losing pints at a time or anything like that."
Exactly. Because I didn't come up with the 50% number, nor did I agree with it, I explained how your number is most likely WRONG. However, you took this as evasion because you couldn't fathom the thought that the 50% number you pulled out of your rectum was incorrect.
I didn't asked you about the "estremely small" cut in front of his face. Why did you purposely evade the pertinent one in front of his face which I did mention, i.e. his bleeding broken nose that was said to be covered by Trayvon's hand? That was the whole argument but you just convieniently set up a strawman to make your case as a desperate attemopt at evasion.
Because you are confronting me with information that I have no knowledge about, ie the "Covering hand" part. Its not my dog to fight. To reply to someone else about it.
You people = you, Excon, zoko, etc = Zimmerman supporters. Oh, also that blind supporter of yours who whined about "anti-TM evidence", which are all fairy tales of course.
We know what you really mean.......... Non-Liberal Whites.
This was what I said:
"You people simply want to ignore forensic science and logic at all cost to defend your ground for Zimmerman."
On that point alone you and Excon, zoko and other Zimmerman supporters on this board do agree unanimously by ignoring and dismissing or trying to explain away the inconsistency in Zimmerman's account of Trayvon covering his bleeding nose with his hand that was not supported by forensic finding of no Zimmerman's blood found on Trayvon's hands or sleeve cuffs.
As I have stated before. Its not a guarantee. I had to control a lady's head during an arrest when she had blood all over it, yet I got no blood on my gloves/hands/anywhere else while she twisted and writhed around. I must have been lying about the whole thing right? Wrong. Its not a guarantee.
There are many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's accounts. But this is just one of them we are addressing right now.
There are inconsistencies for those who are looking really ****ing hard for them. There are ALWAYS going to be small, minor, inconsistencies in any retelling of a story. That is how the human memory works. This is WHY investigators do multiple interviews with someone about the same story. Those of us who know and understand that aren't making a big stink about it. Those who are looking for anything to say, "AHHH -HAH!!!!!!!" will.
I don't have a TV to watch anything let alone CSI. I don't even like watching CSI or any make believe ER show. If I have access to a TV, I'd like to watch real life crime report not from someone's imaginative scripts.
Talk about you being a police office and looking at real evidence, just tell me: How is it possible to have Trayvon's hand pressing hard against Zimmerman's bleeding broken nose and yet had no trace of blood in his hand? We are not even talking about his other hand covering Zimmerman's screaming mouth and many other inconsistencies and contradictions.
Its possible because blood transfer does not always occur, blood doesn't instantly start spurting out of a wound if the wound is small. Often small cuts start out slowly and then build over time. There are WAYYY too many "Unknowns" about the scenario you bring up for anything to be definitive. How can you not see that?
When you have to explain away the impossible events of not just one inconsistency, not even just two, not three, not four and not five but many more, there is something wrong not only in Zimmerman's claims but something is also seriously wrong with you people.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN..... "YOU PEOPLE" ??
And, like I have said before, there will always be minor inconsistencies. Especially for those who aren't thinking things through enough to realize the difference.
Sometimes people speak "un-literally". They use terms like "he popped out of the bushes" when they don't mean LITERALLY BUSHES. Sometimes people explain to 911 that a person walked their direction and then walked away, without describing the pattern of their walk, while later using the term "circled" to describe it.....
These things mean little to nothing in the grand scheme of things.
If you have something vital to bring up, by all means do. But these "what if" scenarios like the blood above which isn't a guarantee, and the "But he said circle and not square! OMFG!" bull**** has to stop.
eace
