leh-nerd skin-erd

Well, I think the facts show he was letting the police handle it until TM physically attacked him. You’re justifying assault here, Tibs, and suggesting an individual has no right to defend himself when it occurs.

Interestingly, one of the problems many observers had with the outcome of the OJ trial was that jury members ignored or disregarded important and critical evidence and decided the outcome based on emotion. You’re doing that, here. The tally is showing you’re hyper biased in the Zimmerman model, and you’re following the same path the Simpson jury followed. It’s ok, but Yikes!

Thanks for reminding me—when I initially questioned the guy, he said he knew me from when he used to come over. He then proceeded to call me by the wrong name, which seemed odd to me. On the other hand, if he really thought my name was Marshall Tucker, well, that wouldn’t seem odd to him at all. @Tiberius @Kemp @SUNY_amherst

I understand that perspective and acknowledged as much earlier. That does not change how TM chose to respond, and the rationale as to why Zimmerman was acquitted on the multiple charges the jury considered. A few years ago some friends suffered the very tragic loss of their adult child. While they were off preparing for services and a gathering place for friends and family, I saw a guy approach their house, look in the front window and try the door. I saw him wander around the back, come back around the front and I approached him, asked him who he was and what he was doing there. He stammered a bit, said he was an old friend of the young man who died and just wanted to pay his respects. I continued to ask questions and wanted answers. If he became upset and assaulted me, in the driveway of their home, am I to blame, or is he? Do I defend myself, up to and including seriously injuring him, or allow him to assault me in hopes the police come by? @Kemp what say you?

The facts of the case and the decision of the jury suggest that’s exactly what you are doing.

There you go. It’s contradictory for the leadership of Ukraine to complain about what a company may/may not wish to involve itself with, when in reality true support in the fight for survival looks an awful lot like friendly foreign governments stepping up. It’s interesting, too, that not all that long ago liberals were all about “private companies make their own decisions” but on this case, not so much. Come to think of it, what would stop the Biden admin from issuing an executive order under the Defense Production Act, directing Musk to comply with the US government in its fight against Russian aggression? https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/what-defense-production-act The current version of the law still gives the executive branch substantial powers. It allows the president, largely through executive order, to direct private companies to prioritize orders from the federal government. The president is also empowered to “allocate materials, services, and facilities” for national defense purposes, and take actions to restrict hoarding of needed supplies. To bolster domestic production, the president may also offer loans or loan guarantees to companies, subject to an appropriation by Congress; make purchases or purchase commitments; and install equipment in government or private factories. Companies can also be authorized to coordinate with each other, which might otherwise violate antitrust laws.

Why do you feel compelled to misrepresent the facts here? He didn’t just “confront” him, if he did and Zimmerman assassinated him he would likely have been convicted. TM was beating him up. Zimmerman had a gun. The jury believed he acted reasonably in defending himself.

I don’t know much about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, beyond what I’ve read. I feel like this particular conflict has layers of complexity similar at times to what we see in the Middle East,I support the effort generally, but there is a $&*t ton of money moving internationally and some people are benefitting on a massive scale. With limited oversight and a country with a history of corruption, it would be foolish not to consider how/why this all plays out. All that aside, I’m not advocating for US involvement at all. Still, it seems logical to me that Putin would see US financial and assets support as a major problem to be dealt with and an act of hostility in that regard. It’s been established he’s a crazed murderous dictator who hates both the Ukrainians and the US. From Zelensky’s perspective, facing death, destruction and invasion on a massive scale, it’s odd that massive amounts of money are cool, calling out Musk is fine, but pleading for direct US involvement is a bridge too far.

Now, by this time I'm plenty high You know, when your mouth a-getting dry, you're plenty high Looked down the bar, I say to my bartender I said, "Look, man, come down here" He got down there, "So what you want this time?" I said, "Look, man, a-what time is it?" He said, "The clock on the wall say three o'clock A-last call, for alcohol; so what you need?"

Jesus, John, watch a Schwarzenegger movie once in a while. This is EXACTLY how it happens. Btw, I’m not sure how I feel about all this, but feel like I understand why Musk took the position he did. On the other hand, why is Zelensky not trashing the US Response as being insufficient to assist his country? If it’s truly about turning the tide of war and saving his country, why not take his case for the US and other allies to get involved here?

It doesn’t ever occur to you that when you make a comparison about the other party screaming about the stunts you support, while screaming about stunts you don’t support…that you’re them?

Interesting last couple of posts, B. Thanks for sharing. Given the nature of DC, we’re at the point where you have to question when someone accuses another politician of things like providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

That’s true. There was also the issue of deceptive editing by some major players in the MSM of Zimmerman’s phone call to police. https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/us/florida-zimmerman-nbc-lawsuit/index.html https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/03/ny-times-caught-using-well-known-deceptively-edited-portion-of-george-zimmerman-911-call/amp/

I saw a link on a statement made by the commissioner of the field hockey league that Hillary played in during junior high. They have a lot to say about democracy (and the impact of newly created composite sticks). I’ll post when I find it…stay tuned.

We can agree to disagree on on Zimmerman, that’s what reasonable people do. I can’t help but notice that unlike Kemp, you didn’t use race hustling to buttress your position. I also noticed you didn’t create a fictional narrative and imaginary outcome in support of your argument. Trayvon acted out as young men sometimes do. It happens, in this case, it lead to his demise and a life wasted.

You put forth a question about a scenario that never existed, with parameters that wouldn’t pass muster in a middle school debate, and offer a conclusion as to what the outcome would most definitely be…and think I’m the one detached from reality? Zimmerman’s action were reprehensible, though ironically his decision to view Trayvon Martin through a hyper-biased lens isn’t all that different than what you’re doing here. You’re cut from the same cloth, you and Zimmerman, but you do your work on the internet. Keep hiding in your cave, Kemp, asking your silly, poorly considered questions, creating hypothetical alternate realities that get you all fired up…and keep coming back with complaints about the number of words I use, or my “pomposity” and continue to reveal yourself as a one trick pony. It’s the weakest play on a message board, but you’re really proficient at it. Or, maybe open your mind a bit. Zimmerman walked because of the facts associated with his case. Rittenhouse walked because of the facts associated with his case. I wasn’t on either jury, so if you’ve got issues there, it’s probably best to move on to and offer your astute analysis to the DA in those venues. Maybe next time, they employ Kempian logic and carry the day. 🤫

What's the number, Frankish?

I'm sure this is where Elon Musk wants to be, in the middle between a notoriously corrupt Ukraine and Vlad Putin's Russia, with his old liberal pals suggesting he should take a chance and just roll with it from the safety of their lofty perch. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2022/03/29/putins-poisonous-playbook---before-abramovich-russia-has-a-dark-history-of-reportedly-poisoning-opponents/?sh=6a77b7937368 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11574603/Another-Putin-critic-falls-window-death-Tycoon-plummets-luxury-hotel-India.html

I'm glad you agree that Rittenhouse was not guilty of anything beyond defending himself. It's good to find common ground. I do not agree that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, nor do I believe he should be in prison for that crime. That's based on the facts as presented. From an emotional perspective, if I was his father/brother or friend, I'd want to put a bullet between Zimmerman's eyes and be done with it. As a citizen, if there was a suitable charge that landed Zimmerman in jail, I'd probably support it but the facts are what they are. Trayvon's actions in choosing to get into a physical altercation was his undoing. He acted out as many young men do when in a difficult situation, and when viewed through the lens of growth and maturity, tend not do when they get older. In probably 999/1000 cases, both guys walk away a little worse for wear but no major harm done. I have two sons, and both my sons were taught from a very early age that walking away from an altercation was in their best interest, almost always. I was never worried about a black eye, a few bruises or whatever, it was exactly this type of scenario I was concerned with. You think the worst that will come of it is you get your a** kicked, but life tells us the worst that might happen is you get stabbed, shot, or seriously injured by someone crazier than you ever imagined.

What did I say about the highly trained officer and his right to defend himself in a very hostile situation with respect to shooting Ashlii Babbitt? You need to stop s your f h so much, you're scrambling your Prefrontal Cortex.

What an awkward, silly and cringeworthy question. If an individual attacks another, the person being attacked has a right to defend himself in any neighborhood. Do you disagree with that premise?

Ah, you’re the “certain people can’t go to certain places” guy. I forgot. You’d have thrived in the pre-Civil Rights zone, Bubba. Here’s the deal, son, wherever someone is standing—whether people like you approve or not—when you assault someone, bad things can surely happen. No argument on the officer, we covered that already. Stay current.

I think you wonder why because you're not very bright, generally. I supported the Capitol police officer from the day it happened. I would suggest though, that of the two, Rittenhouse being assaulted by multiple individuals in a very hostile situation exceeds the threat that AB posed to a highly trained officer at that moment in time. By all means though, when the next perp wants to skull you with a skateboard, stand down and yield to your conscience. If you're advocating for law enforcement dispatching anyone in the midst of a mob as a preemptive strike, you're likely standing alone, or maybe with the Kempster.

Tragic story, but a proper outcome. Of course, the officer involved now has a lifetime to contemplate that he/she took the life of a 14 year old child regardless of how unbelievably stupid his actions were.

The narrative is that a guy widely described as a Russian asset, fascist and looking to be king, on his way out the door of the Oval office, was entrusted with all sorts of security and decision-making for the Biden coronation. I'm sure the dem-led 1/6 committee will get to the bottom of it and provide documentation to back up their theory.