Is Punching A Nazi OK?

Are you saying the present natives or the early native 1400 were do you draw your line .
Bering the death of worshiping nature is not part of religion ? Have you watched channel FNX it is interesting about different customs of different tribes

How do you think Germans treated other ethnic groups . Even now in Europe how do you think they treat refugee. Tray to see news in other country beside the local, you might see other picture, the mistreatment is more based on religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Much better than we do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, when it comes to picking a fight and then killing someone in self-defense, do you recommend targeting Negroes exclusively, or do you think a person of color could do the same to a white person?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes now to address your biased defense of his thug murderer

Martin was in no way acting suspiciously. walking home in the rain while wearing a hoody is not sucpicious. your argument fails here with this.

who had no right to stop him and in doing so threatened him. we train our children to not stop for strangers zimmerman had no right to stop and despite all the racists claiming other wise he was not an authorized neighborhood watch person just an asshole with a gun

irrelevant as for the refutation of the first 2 points. also given the standford pd's long standing issues with dealing with blacks

its perfectly normal for people to resist when accosted in the dark by strangers., had zimmerman not stalked and attacked him he would have never gotten his ass beet to feel the need to shot his prey.

yes cause had he been white he would not have been viewed as suspicious thats the thing your racist little mind can't handle. but than again you've shown your self small minded and narsiccistic in the extreme so you'll probably through a temper tantrum at having your shoddy logic shot through.

you can't your to biased your entire argument is based on twisting everything to favor zimmerman so he comes out looking ok. zimmerman basicly hunted down a kid, provoked a fight with him and than killed him when he lost said fight.

 

You are funny, I am surprised, but perhaps if you went there as a tourist or n business,
We lived in Austria Germany as refugees, The words fardamte auslender are still with me.
I went there 25 years after, I was not the Fardamte auslander , but Herr.
I will suggest you to visit http://www.thelocal.it/
There are about 10 country to visit , you might learn something about EUropean.

 

Great! While Austria was accepting them (fortunately for you) we think of new ways to reject them.

 

Austria was was first to set fence on borders.
What do you mean . new ways to reject them . Who is them

 

Refugees. There's a big court case over it right now; perhaps you've heard of it.

 

See, this is the problem: Why do you want people to waste time on your racist make believe?

 

Stumpy is one of the least racist people I know, Tiassa. Where do you come up with this shit? Oh, wait: Knee-jerk SJW fertilizer...

 

So, what is that story he's telling, then, alt-ster?

 

He can share his story with you if he wishes.

You're sure quick to label other people according to your superior judgment. How are you so gifted with true vision that you choose to judge blindly?

And, what the hell is an alt-ster? How do you presume to prejudge anyone you don't know, simply from a few sentences? Sounds like a problem for you..

 

not drawing any "line"

not necessarily - it could be a part of a culture that is not based in religion but yet carries over from generation to generation, such as the necessity to not show fear when captured or tortured in a warrior culture

nope. don't watch tv, normally - but i do have family living on the reservation being Lakota and all - think that counts for anything?

well, when i lived in Kaiserslautern, Wurzburg and Otterbach they were a mite irritated at immigrants taking their jobs, but i don't see how that applies to your religion argument because they weren't making an issue of their religion. there may have been grumblings about Muslims, but i also heard grumblings about americans being in Germany and that had nothing to do with religion at all...

so you seem a mite confused and your argument isn't all that cogent

@T
so, when it comes to targeting people on the internet to flame, troll or simply denigrate due to their not having the same delusional beliefs as yours do you target the people who own guns or just any person who seems to be at odds with your beliefs?

considering you're not actually posting any real supporting evidence for your claims and you listed 3 blatantly false claims to support your beliefs....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

calling bullsh*t on this one, @pj

1- not my argument, but what was passed on as a detail
2- suspicious is not just what you want it to be: police (as well as community watch, etc) all tend to "profile"

LMFAO
i'm racist?
ok then!
i gotta remember to let my family know about that one...

actually, i am looking at this coming from:
a- a former investigator
b- a former resident of South Miami (low income, not nice areas like you live in)

then it really should be easy for you to provide something other than an opinion or article supporting your beliefs... you know, like DOJ memorandums or some investigative or forensic report of the encounter

thanks

BETTER QUESTION
why do you want everyone to spend time on your crank bullsh*t posts when you have absolutely no evidence at all, whatsoever, that is not subjective or opinion?
that was a major point i made when i proved you wrong about the 3 false claims you used above...

why should anyone take you seriously?

and i aint racist... well, maybe against white folk and texans, but don't tell Dr_Toad that cause i want him to send me large sums of $$$

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ROTFLMFAO

toad
apparently she has a limited attention span or memory because she's read it before (here at this site)

and there isn't a need to share it with someone who is seeking bias confirmation anyway... it will not conform to her delusions and beliefs

as i've noted time and again, we agree on a lot of things but we will never agree on 2nd amendment issues because T uses emotional stupidity to argue about non-relative points while ignoring the core problem of violence. a gun is an inert object that has no capability to do anything without a user, and this is unfamiliar to T as she has assigned malignancy to the tool rather than to the criminals who use them...

and don't get her started with responsibility or she will drone on for ages with a mishmash delusional rant about "but what happens when they're NOT responsible" and then label anyone who had a weapon irresponsible because the legal system failed to meet her expectations with a small number of cases... it's a religious like fanaticism that can't be reasoned with because it has no basis in logic, evidence or reality

Meh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

call it all you want your still wrong as all hell and ignorant as all hell.

so your admitting to not being able to think for yourself than?

hmm and what part of that profile would have made him suspicious oh thats right cause he was fucking black. are you really that slow on the uptake?

i'm sure they all ready know.

no your looking at as a typical right wing thug gun owner. and you know nothing of the area i live in. still showing your ego and narcissism. the temper tantrum should be coming soon. you gonna claim any more superhuman powers clark kent?

your links prove my point. just because you lack the wit to see outside your own small minded views doesn't make you right.

 

Dude, y'know, check yourself.

Go look at that post↑ and explain to me what it has to do with Trayvon Martin.

Because the way it looks―

―that's his description of what happened to Trayvon Martin.

And it is a racist fiction.

Or else it's trolling irrelevance.

So check yourself, dude. Like your testament to Stumpy―

―that is actually a straw man. Indeed―

―you're completely full of shit. Where do I come up with it? From Stumpy's post, dude.

So, yeah, you know, check yourself, dude.

You walk the walk and talk the talk, you get called out for it.

Don't like it? Check yourself, dude. Look, you want to go throwing that clueless #GamerGate brand of shade, it's entirely your own damn choice to so denigrate yourself.

So c'mon, dude, get all huffy about "superior judgment". Get all worked up about, "How are you so gifted with true vision that you choose to judge blindly?"

And my only question to you is what's wrong with assessing the posts he puts on record?

 

@pj
wow... all that great evidence. i don't know where to start [@T - that was sarcasm and hyperbole]

so you admit that you can't actually provide evidence to support your conclusions then?
(imagine that)

wow... so you don't know what "profiling" is!
if only there was a place you could go to search for an explanation or definition ...

[@T - that was sarcasm and hyperbole with a touch of mockery]

what is a "ready know"?
a new dance?
[@T - that was sarcasm and hyperbole while mocking his literacy skills]

i see... so you can't prove your point, therefore i am a thug
gotcha! LMFAO
[@T - that was mockery]

you mean here?
just outside of atlanta?
who cares?

and yes, i've been through there. my daughter used to live in marietta

why are you going to throw a temper tantrum?
LOL

haven't yet, so why start now?
or are you going to start with your own super power?
LMFAO

ah, so you're illiterate? try this link: http://www.readingbear.org/
good luck with that one. you'll need it

.

@T
actually it was a parodic and satirical look at the comical and racist post of PJ

i'll use specific nomenclature to designate that in the future (like i did above) so that you're not confused...

nope

you are on a hair-trigger response with a set delusional argument of anti-firearm propaganda churned out by irresponsible and ignorant fanatics attempting to disarm the law abiding citizen because criminals don't, by definition, obey the law

never once have you ever actually stuck to the topic and discussed the core problem of violence in humans as i've tried to get you to open up about
you instead choose to regurgitate rhetoric that is driven by your belief and your very, very specific failure to comprehend that the legal system is not the same thing as the criminal

 

Read your own link, section 12 - starting of course with this:

Even Wilson - and mind, Wilson is giving this later and court-bound account after consulting with lawyers over the variations in his other versions, and much of his account is very unlikely given the physical evidence - states clearly that he drove some distance away after the initial confrontation

(in which black teenagers walking away from a crime scene for which they matched the perp description, that he claimed to be aware of, swore at him and refused to cooperate)
without any but the most polite response,

and then returned for a second confrontation (that proved lethal to the unarmed teenager he was by then, as per his own account, duty bound to handle as a likely suspect in a violent crime.)

You do that. You're the guy making the opinion based claims that don't add up.
Until then we're looking at the same evidence - there's nothing special about your opinion of it, over mine. In fact, since you're sliding over the fact that Martin was shot by an ordinary guy (not a police officer), bringing in all this irrelevant stuff about whether of not the victims were "thugs", talking about me reading nothing but posts from gun foes, etc, there's visible reason to doubt your evaluation. They seem to be based on political opinions extraneous to the events.

The claim is that a, b, and c don't happen if he's white, and d is a lie that only sells because he was black:
If he were white, he was assaulted by an adult man with a gun, who had been following him down the street as he walked home in the dark; and fought back.

I'll be my own authority on what I've been reading, which is not confined to anti-gun missives, and your guesses and speculations will be corrected accordingly, how about.

It may well mean that to anyone taking a reasonable account of the record of events, instead of pretending that what obviously happened can be legally defined not to have occurred.
It's not that it "can be said to justify", it's that it did in fact justify, and almost certainly will again unless something changes.

Every time you brought up their character or past behaviors as a reason for their shootings being declared legal.

That's irrelevant.
That's a central problem here - what makes a shooting "legal" is the official determination. That's what's being discussed in this thread. Not an abstract legality up for discussion, but the fact of declared legality by a court or official law enforcement agency: the fact that those three already declared legal - and the fourth in suspense, which may very well be declared legal (so it's easily possible, right?) - shootings were of black males whose threat consisted largely or entirely of the fact that they were black.

 

i did, and i quoted from page 5 Section II. A (II.Summary of the Evidence, Investigation, and Applicable Law - A.Summary of the Evidence)

there is no "section 12" at that link, and i quoted directly from II.A

the quote you used comes from section III Summary of the evidence
if you look at section III. B. 4 (page 21, continued on to 22) you will see that the physical evidence is confirmed by the dispatch statements and findings

actually, you are the one making the claim
i challenged your claim and asked for you to produce evidence that was not subjective and opinion

extraordinary evidence, and all that, eh?

re-read that again: i didn't state anything about them being thugs
in fact, you attributed someone else to me and now you're reiterating that one as me

kinda speaks to delusional (or illiterate) behaviour IMHO

false claim - for starters, you have yet to provide evidence that is not subjective (other than your questionable attempt to read the DOJ document above)
strawman as well ... let me reiterate a post i made to you already once

perhaps you would like to try that one again?

except your demonstrations thus far have been reference to subjective opinion and articles, not factual or evidenciary links (excepting the DOJ reference you have problems with above)... so, in your own words:

care to try that again without the subjectivity and with something other than mis-attributed statements?
thanks

so you're pissed at the US Legal system like @T is?
just say so... don't attempt to strawman, redirect, mis-attribute and BS it

when a cop gets a call of a criminal act, he doesn't stop the offender and attempt high tea with a parental invitation for introduction - they have only the working history of the offender, well known or not.

ignoring the facts will not win you any prizes for accuracy, let alone brownie points (except from the fanatical fringe to which you seem to be attempting to support at this point)

are you going to tell me that criminals deserve to be released into the public regardless of their crime because incarceration is also a bad thing and no one took into account their good deeds in kindergarten when they helped jimmie-joe-crotchrot out of a tree when their leg got stuck?
how altruistic of you... perhaps the past is irrelevant and we should fire all the cops for doing their job
lets start with your own home town, eh?
[@T - sarc/hyperbole intended - just in case it wasn't bloody obvious]

it's irrelevant that there was no trial to seek to adjudicate whether a shooting is justified or not?
really?

what planet do you live on?
you can't call something "a "legal" shooting" without adjudication or justification legally rendered. if you do, it's called opinion, not fact. until it's adjudicated it is simply a shooting. period. full stop.

to be official it must be adjudicated or investigated for review, and that is standard for all LE shootings, especially for fatal shootings

and the thread is not about shooting at all, but about punching (battery) a nazi. it was simply hijacked into the shooting by false claims.

for starters, if it is adjudicated as a legal shooting then it was found to be justified, regardless of race, so it's not about it being legal to shoot black people as the claim was made: it is about being able to use deadly force in defense of your life or in defense of the law. maybe that doesn't mean a whole lot to you but it is orders of magnitude different than the "claim" of it being legal to shoot black people, which is a direct false statement

how do i know it's a false statement?
because homicide is illegal unless you're acting upon specific justifiable instinct (like to preserve life or family, etc) as stated by law

now, if you want to state that the justified shooting of a criminal (or threat) is proof that shooting blacks is legal, that makes you a complete idiot who can't see for the arse cheeks in the way because that is blatantly false, by law and by direct evidence above.
period.
full stop.

care to re-word that?

 

Page 12, sorry.

My claim, that you challenged, was that the initial brief encounter was as described by Wilson, in the summary there - rather than as you described, as involving Wilson's prior recognition of Brown as a robbery suspect. I used your link as my evidence, because it summarizes Wilson's description. Note that I am taking Wilson's word, completely, despite its dubious nature.

No, what I quoted from you is irrelevant - you seeing the evidence, to decide whether something was legal or not.
There's going to be a trial, apparently, in the Castile case - an actual prosecution, which is what you might have based an objection to my claims on if you were making sense. But the uncertainty of the outcome of the trial makes my point anyway - it's quite possible that the shooting of Castile will be declared legal, based as it was on perceived threat, in turn obviously based on his race. That is a possible legal justification, that has held up in court in many other similar circumstances elsewhere.

Well that's the issue, isn't it - whether it was found to be justified "regardless of race".

It clearly wasn't, in those various examples.

That begs the question. The entire issue is what legally justifies acting on such "instincts" - in these examples, perceiving black men as threatening because they are black was legally established justification for ending up shooting them.

It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black; and we see demonstration (by those examples, and dozens of others) that it is often - in standard circumstances such as police traffic stops, or seeing somebody walk down the street - legal to shoot them if you feel sufficiently threatened for that reason.

So we ignore the Martin example again. OK.
They don't even have that, unless they have apprehended someone whose history they know, in the act of committing a crime.
They do, however, have the visible race of the person they are confronting. And we see that this racial appearance makes a significant difference in what they are legally allowed to regard as a "threat", and how they are legally allowed to respond.

And what this has to do with legitimate "nazi" punching is getting less clear. The observation that identifying oneself as a "nazi" automatically bumps a threat level, leaving less to go before reaching punch level, seems accepted, but now what? Is anyone arguing that black "nazis" can be punched on less provocation than white ones, or vice versa?

 

So ... it seems worth noting that―

―racist trolling was the answer.

And you, dude. C'mon―

―like I said, from his posts. Were you not paying attention?

So he wanted to troll PJ in defense of white supremacism as disruption to a discussion about punching Nazis. I'm just going to go with: Yeah, Cap'n, we read you loud and clear.