nocamo and another example of Team Skittles Amnesia

nocamo replied to Dolphintam

The only proof you have T attacked Zimmerman was Zimmermans own words, if I have to explain to you why no ‘reasonable’ person should believe his word, I have truly wasted my time. And yet you so confidently assert Trayvon was a thug…

you replied to nocamo

Really?

What about Zimmerman’s broken nose, the blood on the back of his head, the testimony of his doctor, the EMT who treated him, the cops that questioned him and took photos of his injuries and the eyewitness testimony of the guy that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him?

Why do folks “confidently assert” Trayvon was a thug?

Trayvon had been suspended three times, for truancy, vandalism, and drugs. He was caught with stolen jewelry and burglar’s tools.

How many times SHOULD he have been suspended?

Juvenile delinquent, check.

He used pot, he’s a pothead. There’s also reason to believe he was a petty dealer, as well as a user.

How much pot SHOULD a teenager be smoking? Or DEALING?

Trayvon attacked a man who was doing nothing violent or illegal. That, not to mention such charming data points as his punching a bus driver and engaging in street fighting indicates clearly he’s a thug.

Trayvon Martin was a juvenile delinquent pothead thug.

Advertisements

Nocamo trots out the bogus “Zimmerman should have identified himself” argument

nocamo replied to you

Because NOT identifying himself after pursuing the kid with agun at night created fear of imminent harm in Trayvon. Fear that would have been allayed had Zimmerman answered Trayvon with, no I don’t have a problem, I AM NHW, and concerned you are out of place, do you know someone here. Your premise that Tray “chimped”is baseless. As Serino asked, “what do you think you did to cause a non-violent kid to act that way”?

you replied to nocamo

Why does Zimmerman have a duty to identify himself, but Trayvon doesn’t have the duty to NOT CHIMP OUT ON SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING VIOLENT OR ILLEGAL?

Following someone is LEGAL.

Getting out of your car is LEGAL.

Talking to someone, or NOT talking to someone is LEGAL.

Chimping out on a man who has done nothing illegal or violent IS ILLEGAL.

You morons just don’t seem to get it:

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY USING VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE WHO IS DOING NOTHING VIOLENT OR ILLEGAL.

Thanos769 tried this similar argument out, and I “ditto” my response to you:

[Thanos769]”If a man, woman, or child follows anyone around in the dark while they’re walking home minding their own business and then confronts them; they should be considered a threat.”

Fine. Consider them a threat. Of course, since they’ve done nothing illegal or violent, you have no justification to instigate violence on your part.

No comprehendo the above paragraph? Allow me to make it clearer for you:

YOU DO NOT GET TO CHIMP OUT ON SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. IF YOU DO, EXPECT TO GET SHOT.

You know the authority and responsibility that’s placed upon a Neighborhood watch captain, versus an ordinary citizen? NONE, MORON. You know the badge and ID they carry? NONE, MORON. You know the duty that someone has to identify themselves to a fellow citizen on the street? NONE, MORON.

How do we know that one random person on the street isn’t a violent criminal, just waiting for the least opportunity to pounce upon us? WE DO NOT KNOW.

WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. THAT MEANS THAT WE CANNOT INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE WITHOUT JUST PROVOCATION.

The fact you think that someone who had broken no laws and committed no acts of violence had some duty to bend over backwards and reassure a suspicious stranger BUT a juvenile delinquent pothead thug has no duty to restrain his violent impulse to beat down on someone who’s “dissed” him, is PROOF YOU ARE A THUG.

We know that Trayvon wasn’t “running scared”, because if he’d been running away, he’d have GOT AWAY.

Zimmerman didn’t break any laws by not identifying himself, nor did he have any obligation to do so.

Trayvon broke the law when he chimped out on Zimmerman, and he certainly had an obligation not to attack a man who had done nothing violent or illegal.

intelligentLife…

intelligentLife replied to puckman

You idiots always say that, but they’re more and more people armed every day and yet none of your armed citizen patriots ever seem to stop one of these shooting sprees.

No, none, never.

Churchgoer with concealed carry permit stops man with shotgun.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8290

How about stopping a STABBING spree?

Man uses concealed weapon to stop stabbing spree, police say he likely saved lives

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Man-uses-concealed-weapon-to-stop-stabbing-spree/zdZzsT6hNk2Q9tJtkKq3VA.cspx

How about just stopping a robbery?

Man credits concealed carry weapon for saving two lives.

http://fox6now.com/2012/03/25/man-credits-concealed-carry-weapon-for-saving-two-lives/

Why is it stupid to blame lawful gun owners for the actions of nutjobs.

“Nationwide, there have been no law enforcement officials shot by any person with a CCW, no school or church shootings by any person with a CCW, no “blood on the streets”, no “Dodge City shootouts”, no instances of the guns being taken away and used by the badguys, no rise in accident levels, no prisons full of untrained CCW holders who shot otherwise innocent people willy-nilly, and no examples of children shot dead by CCW holders.”

http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public

I’ve gotten tired of the strange amnesia that effects Team Skittles when it comes to posts that crush your stupid premises.

I can’t even keep track of how many threads you Team Skittles morons let drop, JUST TO RETURN WITH THE SAME LAME AND BOGUS IDIOCY AS BEFORE.

So, rather than watch as you go skipping merrily from LIES TO LIES TO LIES, I’m maintaining an ARCHIVE OF THE LIES OF TEAM SKITTLES.

https://teamskittleslies.wordpress.com/

Enjoy.

nointelligentLife demonstrates hypocrisy and lack of common sense

You replied to intelligentLife

“Because the bus driver does not exist.”

I’ve seen no proof either way.

Why is it OK for you to claim it doesn’t exist without proof,  but saying it does is lying?

“Check out idiot Pelham below discussing a fictitious Miami Police Report, when Trayvon lived in Miami Gardens, miles outside Miami city limits.”

MILES OUTSIDE?

Maybe he.. um… TOOK A  BUS?

“How do you know when a right wing monkey is lying?”

Are you really going to make a joke about lying… YOU ARE THE JOKE ABOUT LYING.

“Old joke I know”

Yeah, you’re getting real old, SOCK PUPPET.

nointelligentLife Lies Again

“You make no sense, LOL”

LYING SOCK-PUPPET.

The timeline is taken directly from THIS WEB SITE [Miami Herald], and corresponds with the 911 call transcripts.

“The witness on the phone heard the confrontation”

DeeDee, you mean?  The one that remained SILENT and went about her normal routine after HER FRIEND WAS “MURDERED”, AFTER TELLING HER HE WAS BEING CHASED BY SOME GUY?

“that evidence is much better than you’re silly attempt at timelining.”

The phone call to Trayvon dropped at 7:16 (rounded to minutes in phone records)…  WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TIMELINE I HAVE CITED.

This is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of why you expend so much effort to AVOID BEING SPECIFIC… Every time you do, you get your azz handed to you.

LIAR.  LIAR.  LIAR.