13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 7/24/13 08:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 7/24/13 08:18 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: let the killing of children continue!A non-viable fetus is only human by it's DNA. It's hardly a child.
An adult isn't a child either. An adult is also physically and biologically developed than a child as well while also having the capacity to contribute far more to society than a child.
So considering a fetus is merely an earlier stage of development of the same human individual, just as a child is from an adult; and considering society weeps more over the death of a less capable, less biologically developed child over a more developed adult... it has me increasingly amused at how a certain class of humanity would designate another class of humanity as "not" or "less" human as an attempt to justify their killing of said class out of convenience.
Especially considering how humankind isn't anything special to begin with. I guess it just has to do with people, including you, naively believing you're anything special.
At 7/20/13 10:41 PM, Profanity wrote: FYI, TheKlown is referring to the time Harvard Professor HL Gates was arrested by a Cambridge police officer who was trampling all over his fourth and fifth amendment rights
The irony of one of the arresting officers being black.
At 7/14/13 05:48 PM, Memorize wrote:
No shit. Now it's your job to disprove he committed murder.
Prove*
Obviously...
At 7/14/13 05:18 PM, Fim wrote:
1) killing a unarmed 17 year old is a bad thing, regardless of whether 'he started it' thats a bullshit excuse coming from a grown adult who started the ball rolling in the first place.
Except here's the problem. YOU CAN'T PROVE WHO STARTED IT.
Also, under your logic, I guess we should prosecute old ladies who kick the shins of their 17 year old purse snatchers, right?
Also, 17 year olds are 50% more likely to commit murder than 28.
And I do love this liberal logic of "Their old enough to make their own sexual choices, but not old enough to fight back against if they attack you."
Tell me, would you still hold this position if a 17 year old sexually assaulted a woman whereupon she shot him?
2) doesn't treyvon have a right to defend himself against some strange guy who's following him around in a car in the rain?
Wow, way to completely ignore the reasons for being suspicious and whether or not it's illegal.
It'd be like if you found several AK's in the back of some guy's trunk with body armor and ski masks. I bet you would be right there going "Meh..."
3) there's a lot of grey area in this case, but mainly because the only other person who could have shed some light on what happened has been fucking killed.
No shit. Now it's your job to disprove he committed murder.
4) America retains its title as the irony free zone after zimmermans lawyer had a party celebrating the case, where his daughter instagramed some photos with the hash tag #dadkilledit. I know I shouldn't laugh, but that's hilariously fucked.
Only among the American left can you turn an Obama voting/supporting Hispanic into a white racist.
At 7/14/13 01:35 PM, Fim wrote:
Just because a lawyer can convincingly argue that narrative doesn't make it right by any stretch. From what I've researched there was enough evidence here for manslaughter at the very least. How can he justify following around a kid who hadn't committed any crime besides 'looking suspicious', against the advise of a 911 operative, and carrying a loaded weapon? I don't understand how it can be classed as SYG when he knowingly and deliberately put himself into a situation that spiralled into an altercation.
1) Keeping an eye on someone and calling the police to report someone suspicious isn't illegal.
2) There had been a burglary problem in the neighborhood and Treyvon was someone new in the community who Zimmerman didn't recognize, who was wandering around looking at people's homes including standing around for a while on the property of someone who had recently been burglarized. Where upon Treyvon notices Zimmerman's truck, walks towards it, circles it, then starts running. All of which makes being suspicious reasonable. Zimmerman was told to keep an eye on him by the dispatcher.
3) Zimmerman then gets out of the truck to follow Treyvon at which point the dispatcher asks what he's doing and tells Zimmerman "you don't need to do that." Zimmerman responds with "ok". In that same audio a few seconds later the dispatcher asks Zimmerman his home address to which Zimmerman responds "I don't want to say because I don't know where he (Treyvon) went." Meaning he wasn't following him anymore. At which point the conversation ended.
4) This means that you can't even prove manslaughter because now you can't prove who confronted who first (Which isn't even illegal by itself), but nor can you prove who threw the first punch starting the fight.
5) Carrying a gun isn't illegal. Nor did he use it until 40 seconds into the fight while he was on his back getting beaten.
6) It wasn't classified as SYG. It was defended as classical self-defense which exists in every state. All SYG does is remedy a previous problem of obligated an attack victim to run away before fighting back. Because as we all know, the law should really protect the person starting the assault, right?
At 7/14/13 01:45 AM, stevenman36 wrote:
Lol
Lol indeed. A fucking moron coming to join us in the political forum. I wonder how long you'll last.
At 7/14/13 12:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Because... Fuck the fact that this is an issue involving the current and future health of women and only women.
Non slave owners shouldn't have a say in a slave owner's property.
Gee, I wonder which is more scientific route...
Basing our policy on abortion just on who it ultimately effects "more"
or...
The biological aspects of a fetus and whether or not that demonstrates an independent entity capable of being provided lawful protection.
But FUCK THAT! It's all about how we FEEL!
I bet you're one of those people who would count killing a pregnant woman as a double homicide despite just telling everyone that a fetus isn't a person.
Oh right... it's about how she "feels" cuz fuck science!
It's all about completely unsubstantiated religious "psy-ense".
Right.
Because if there's one thing I'm known for around here, it's my unbridled adherence to religious thought, what with my positions on supporting gay marriage, legalizing all drugs and prostitution.
At 7/13/13 06:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Personally I do believe there is a case to be made where no one but women should be involved in the debate & the decision.
This subject IMO is completely outside of a man ( men's) right to have any say.
Because... fuck fetal biology.
It's all about how a woman "feels."
At 7/13/13 08:10 PM, Korriken wrote:At 7/13/13 07:40 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:
Something I was thinking about: Again, I'm stupid when it comes to legal affairs, but the original charge was second-degree murder. They added manslaughter towards the end of the trial. Could that be considered double jeopardy?no, in florida manslaughter is always tacked on as a lesser offense to murder. double jeopardy is when a person is tried again for the same offense, typically after being found innocent, or if found guilty and served their sentence.
I would consider it a lighter form of double jeopardy.
It's basically the prosecution's way of saying "We couldn't nail you on what we did charge you, so we're tacking on this extra bit which the defense didn't spend their time defending against."
It allows prosecutors to over-charge to make headlines while making it easier to get a lesser conviction since it's allowing the jury to compromise rather than base it on evidence.
As if to say "Well, they couldn't prove 2nd degree, but we can't just let him go free."
At 7/12/13 01:19 PM, Feoric wrote:
You...didn't look through that pdf. Second degree (depraved mind) murder includes manslaughter.
The judge still has to allow it. It's not automatic.
Many good reasons. But this is Florida.
That excuse didn't seem to fly for you when people pointed out that following Treyvon wasn't "illegal."
At 7/12/13 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote:At 7/12/13 01:07 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: The fucking Prosecutors managed to get Manslaughter on the options of possible convictions. FUCK.Manslaughter is a mandatory lesser offense.
It's not mandatory.
It has to be asked by the prosecution and then allowed by the Judge.
There's also a reason why many states don't allow it.
At 7/11/13 12:46 AM, Feoric wrote:
Read the law. Assault is causing apprehension of danger in someone. If the jury agrees that Zimmerman assaulted Martin by pursuing him, then Zimmerman's self-defense argument won't matter.
A lot of husbands and wives have a potential lawsuit on their hands towards that Cheaters show then.
At 6/27/13 10:24 AM, Feoric wrote:
During the audio you can hear the dinging his truck makes when the door opens when he chose to chase after Martin. How come we don't hear that noise again? Why don't you hear any noises that resemble a car door being open and closed shut? What's your evidence he returned back to his car?
I love how you didn't notice that the dispatcher telling Zimmerman he didn't have to follow came AFTER that.
Or how you didn't listen to the part of the audio where Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he lost him during the same moment.
Let's go over this again...
Treyvon runs.
Zimmerman follows.
Dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn't need to do that.
Zimmerman says "ok."
Dispatcher asks Zimmerman what his address is so he can meet with police.
Zimmerman says he doesn't want to say because he doesn't know where Treyvon is.
At 6/27/13 09:42 AM, Feoric wrote:At 6/27/13 08:58 AM, Memorize wrote: I still love how you refer to the dispatcher telling someone to keep an eye on someone for when the police arrive as "stalking."Thanks for making it clear that you don't understand the difference between "keeping an eye on someone" and "actively pursuing somebody on foot" after being advised that the latter is something you don't need to be doing.
I still love how you didn't listen to the audio of when Treyvon ran and Zimmerman was told he didn't have to follow and responded with "ok" and headed back to his car.
At 6/27/13 07:21 AM, Feoric wrote:
And then I was calling, 'Trayvon, Trayvon.' And then I started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off.'"
That is all that matters here since there are no provisions which grant you the right to stalk and shoot somebody who referred to you as a racial slur to somebody on the phone without you even knowing it.
I still love how you refer to the dispatcher telling someone to keep an eye on someone for when the police arrive as "stalking."
At 6/26/13 04:40 PM, Gramiscus wrote: What is really weird is that they force ultrasounds for people getting abortions.
Transvaginal ultrasounds require a practitioner to shove a transducer up into a woman's body. Ultrasound also can cause brain damage.
Even though I'm against forced ultrasounds, I've always considered it rather funny that the same people who are going in for an abortion procedure are going to simultaneously complain about the "Invasive-ness" of an ultrasound.
At 6/26/13 02:29 PM, Profanity wrote: I fought hard not to smile, and it turned into a devil's grin..
Because it's just so unreasonable to ban abortions at a point where individuals have been born and survive.
How dare viability which is determined by medical technology actually shift with that technology.
Typical western cry baby bullshit, lol
At 6/23/13 10:27 PM, Profanity wrote: Trayvon Martin screaming for help as the incompetent fool with the firearm, truck, flashlight, and cellphone hunts down and victimizes the bright young black boy.
At 6/23/13 09:01 AM, Feoric wrote:
You're conveniently leaving out a few key facts to this case that put this narrative on its head: Zimmerman pursued Martin, after being advised that he didn't need to do such a thing. This greatly changes the circumstances.
After being told to keep an eye on Treyvon...
Zimmerman: "He's running."
Dispatcher: "Which way is he running?"
Zimmerman: "The back entrance."
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yes."
Dispatcher: "You don't need to do that."
Zimmerman: "Ok."
According to what we know so far, Zimmerman lost Treyvon right after that and was heading back which is when the altercation took place.
Turns out, Zimmerman actually did follow instructions.
At 6/23/13 01:46 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 6/22/13 03:40 PM, Memorize wrote: Although I do love the end result: "Oh, you were the victim of an attacker and decided to defend yourself.... PRISON!"Wow, what a privilege and honor to be able to talk someone who knows exactly what happened. Why didn't you go to the FBI investigators and tell them that you're omniscient and that you know exactly how the events played out that night instead of being an incessant dickhead on a forum on the NGBBS only 20 people on earth give a shit about?
It wasn't a statement about Treyvon or Zimmerman.
I have no idea what happened between them or who initiated the attack. So you won't find me defending Zimmerman.
My problem is that you idiots are so over-zealous in your defense of Treyvon (despite not knowing who started the fight), that you people actually go out of your way to claim that even IF Treyvon threw the first punch and started the fight, Zimmerman is still guilty because he "didn't try to first run away."
What kind of bullshit is that? That you would actually demand laws that would put the victim of an attack in prison?
All I'm saying is, if someone decides to attack someone else; if someone decides to physically assault another person, then the person they're attacking shouldn't be the ones bearing responsibility for what happens afterwards.
The victim of an assault shouldn't be told "Oh. You were attacked? Then it was YOUR duty to run away before fighting back against the aggressor; and since you didn't, you're now going to jail... even though you didn't start the fight."
I don't care if someone is 5 feet away from you or 10 feet away from you. If they threaten you with violence and then rush towards you, it should then be perfectly acceptable for you to even shoot the asshole well before he's within punching distance.
At 6/22/13 03:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Actually, the goal of the retreat doctrine is to lower the amount of death that occurs. If you force a defender to try to retreat before they are allowed to take a life you are (thoeretically) more likely to have less deaths overall.
The goal of Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban was to lower the obesity rate. If you force people to buy smaller drinks you are (theoretically) more likely to have a lower obesity rate.
And apply to drugs... bailouts... ect..
Although I do love the end result: "Oh, you were the victim of an attacker and decided to defend yourself.... PRISON!"
At 6/22/13 05:43 AM, Feoric wrote:
Legally, no, that's not true at all. He's not arguing stand your ground, he's claiming self defense. Zimmerman had no legal right to use deadly force unless he tried to disengage from the area, such as trying to run away. If Martin prevented him from doing so while escalating the situation to the point that it's reasonable to believe grievous bodily harm or loss of life could happen, only then would deadly force be valid. That is going to be a very hard thing to prove given the evidence.
Modern day liberal logic: The law should exist to protect those who initiate force rather than those on the receiving end.
At 6/21/13 01:19 AM, Feoric wrote:At 6/21/13 01:17 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: allegedly and has nothing to do with the trial.The same goes for everything else mentioned, including Trayvon smoking pot and "looking hard" on Facebook.
Including his penchant for regularly getting into fights?
At 6/21/13 12:55 AM, Feoric wrote:At 6/21/13 12:45 AM, Memorize wrote: So if the prosecution charges 2nd degree murder, they don't have to prove that?Sure they do, but he's not talking about the prosecution. The word 'defense' is mentioned 10 times in his post. The defense has to prove that Zimmerman acted lawfully in according to Florida's self defense laws. The prosecution will make the argument that he did not.
So what happens if neither side can prove their case?
Do you go with "better safe than sorry" or "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
At 6/20/13 11:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Self defense is NOT a negative defense. A negative defense to murder would be that the killer either did not kill or did not have the intent to kill (at the time of the act, not before unless required).
So if the prosecution charges 2nd degree murder, they don't have to prove that?
At 6/20/13 02:09 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:
If you have a big ceremony and after party but don't actually file the proper paperwork, then technically you aren't married.
Based on whose definition?
Personally I think it'd make more sense to refer to the ceremonial, not-legally-binding event as 'the marriage', and call the governmental, contractual aspect of it a 'civil union' regardless of what gender the two people are. Basically it'd be handled like a dual-proprietorship type of business partnership.
How is it that you can agree with me while thinking that you don't?
At 6/20/13 11:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
True, marriage is a personal decision. But it's also a legal one. Things we tke for granted in marriage, such as the combination of property, child custody, intestate rights, medical rights, and so on are all legal issues that are extremely intertwined with marriage. To remove the government would essentially remove ALL of these benefits that we consider integral parts of marriage.
Because obviously those things can't be settled through contracts, right?
No, it HAS to be that ONE and ONLY PARTICULAR word... whose definition frequently changes throughout history and culture.
At 6/6/13 09:35 PM, Psycho666 wrote:
Actually, you would have seemed more on center if you had recognized that Obama is not personally in charge of the organizations doing the actual tapping. He only chooses who is in charge of those offices. He doesn't get to tell them what to do.
Yes... this wonderful world where employees don't follow the rules of employers.
I suppose Obama isn't at fault for extending the Patriot Act 3 times or demanding indefinite detentions of American citizens in the NDAA either, right?
At 6/9/13 11:02 PM, Feoric wrote: He's a snake oil salesman.
He's been saying the economy will collapse any day now for how long now? Economic catastrophe is always 6-12 months away. He's fodder for the conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones fans and doomsday preppers. For everyone else he's full of shit.
heh, over-react much, dipshit?
At 6/4/13 10:41 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Like? He's actually done a LOT of what he's promised. Honest fact checking sites have been cited again and again here to point out what he has, and has not done, based on campaign promises. Obama has always been in line with Bush when it comes to terror. The biggest broken promise I can think of immediately is Gitmo.
Against Patriot Act until he extended it several times.
Against FISA until he voted for it.
Said he wouldn't go after marijuana where it was legal... only to commit almost 3x as many raids as Bush in just 1 term.
Stated he was against unilateral attacks... until Libya, Syria, Yemen...
Said he would withdraw from Iraq day 1, but then tried to set up an agreement to stay until 2020 until the Iraqi Government rejected it and stuck to Bush's withdrawal plan.
And let's not forget "No mandates" when it comes to healthcare!
Where is the selective outrage here?
The tone.
It's what I see out of leftists all the time.
Point out the very same things that both Bush and Obama do. When it comes to Bush, there's no issue condemning his actions and not believing he official story...
But when it comes to Obama, you know.... "I don't personally support EVERYTHING he does... and, we should give him the benefit of the doubt..."
That is not why you get banned. I've explained quite clearly I feel what gets you banned. I won't go into it any more in public because it's not fair to either of us.
Insults are insults. It really shouldn't matter if I call someone an idiot or a bitch. lolztastic!
Yes, sometimes they tell the truth too.
There's no river long enough that doesn't contain a bend.
What more can he really say? It's a tough proposition, and he's damned if he says it was wrong, because then he'll get attacked for feeling bad about killing terrorists and then he's soft on terror.
Then he's nothing more than a coward, isn't he?
What can he honestly do except try the middle road on the issue?
If "middle of the road" means lying...
But then I looked back at the original article that has the two weeks date, realized my error, and am definitely troubled by that.
Apparently not troubled enough since you still believe his bullshit.
Sounds like trying to bait me into a fight. No thanks. If you want to trade ideas about this, we can. If you just want to insult me some and try and pick a fight, I'll pass thanks.
Just returning a favor you gave to another guy.
At 6/4/13 07:00 PM, Warforger wrote:
I mean this is coming from the same person whose solution to humanitarian crises is to let them starve.
Nothing says humanitarian like air raids.
