Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

God I hate New York fucks


So smarmy

you sad fat bastard

you can't say you won a "debate" when you refuse to answer the only questions i posed. that would be hilarious if that was how debates worked

Yeah I'm fat and slow and all that.

I offered to meet you at Buckets and you ducked out.

Now it's gotta be a fistfight

and i offered to play you in one on one at crestmont and you dived out bitch

hahaaha

everyone's friends again, yay.

Busted for lying in court, not good
linc

am i missing something?

How is this relevant to the actual case?

His wife lied about a cache of money? So?

Just sayin- you be grippin at straws homie

this has no bearing on the case and dont worry- evil Z will do time.

It's a bizarre side story...not even sure why they spent so much energy lying.

In terms of the case, the impact would be how the jury members weigh the lying. The context of the case is Zimmerman's word against nothing, so it might matter (not sure).

I went through the past couple pages and saw Seth declared KB the winner over me in some fight, though, I'm reflexively against Seth.

The only reason it's relevant is that Zimmerman got caught lying to the judge- it's evidence towards his character, which may or may not be able to be brought up by the prosecution... I don't know, have to ask Flesh about that

I went through the past couple pages and saw Seth declared KB the winner over me in some fight, though, I'm reflexively against Seth.



ntff

i think it was remarkable cos normally i find you to be the winner whenever you debate someone.


and we agree on this case- Z is guilty and he was racially motivated and will serve time for his crime as he should.


FB conveniently ignores my consistent stance on this case since day 1

Likely story...we're now enemies.

In the memory of Dor Wokron, I will avenge this attack on my character.

On a serious note, I'm not sure the incident was overtly racially motivated. He may not have followed the kid if he was white, but I don't think there's any evidence he had a bone to pick with black folk. If there was a latent racial motivation, I don't think it was the PRIMARY motivation. He should be prosecuted on the facts they uncover and I think a larger conversation about the laws (and circumstances they created) is appropriate.

i (imo only) think theres no way the kid even registers on his radar if he were white

I agree, but I don't know if that counts as a racial motivation in the actual crime. I'm more concerned with the totality of his actions that his motivation, anyway.

FB conveniently ignores my consistent stance on this case since day 1


huh?


I haven't said anything antagonistic "about your stance on this case since Day 1", so I'm not sure what you are fishing for with that statement.



"Victim"

Seth in 736

RE: Trayvon vs. Zimmerman

Reply

4/17/2012 4:46 PM





"To me, it's a clear cut case of telling the police you are going to stalk someone, and then 10 mins later you end up killing them." -FB


Yes, this is correct. Very to the point but correct.



Who said race is NOT involved here?
Honestly did I miss somethin?






Fred_Barnett

RE: Trayvon vs. Zimmerman

Reply

4/17/2012 4:54 PM





Who said race is NOT involved here?


Oh my bad- I thought that's what you were doing when you defended Sarge's posting of totally irrelevant statistics that had no bearing on the case whatsoever


-----------------------------------------

Fred_Barnett

RE: Trayvon vs. Zimmerman

Reply

4/17/2012 6:06 PM





And there you (( Sarge)) go again with the unmarried mothers stats.

Dude, the kid was walking to the house of his dad's fiancee. (Yes black people live in gated communities, and just because the kid's parents aren't married, doesn't mean they sell crack for a living)

You throwing these stats out there when they obviously don't apply is sad and shameful.

Maybe Seth and others fall for the smokescreen of "black on black crime" but to me it's apologist of what the police dept. did and didn't do. It's about an obvious miscarriage of justice. Not about whether black mothers are unmarried or not."
------------------------------------------------

Seth in 736

RE: Trayvon vs. Zimmerman

Reply

4/17/2012 9:36 PM





FB-- why cite me as one fooled by Sarges stats?

I already have repeatedly said here that RACE WAS INVOLVED and Z is guilty and should go away.


WHen he posted, all i did was ask if you dispute the stats, say why, or at least not try to tag him with a "Tray deserved it" label when he didnt say that.


then i said again, race was clearly involved and said that your terse summation of the case WAS correct.

yet you still try to lump me in w/ this phantom group of those who are either Z sympathizers or ignorant buffoons easily distracted by irrelevant stats.
what gives?
--------------------------------------------
Fred_Barnett

RE: Trayvon vs. Zimmerman

Reply

4/17/2012 9:58 PM





why cite me as one fooled by Sarges stats?

Because after I questioned why even post those stats in this thread, you implicitly agreed with his post by asking if I disputed his stats

all i did was ask if you dispute the stats, say why

If I disputed the stats, that would suggest that I implicitly agreed they had any relevance to this case, which they do not.

----------------------------------------------
Seth in 736

RE: Trayvon vs. Zimmerman

Reply

4/17/2012 10:25 PM





FB i never agreed w/ his stats, implicitly or otherwise.
Fact is they're irrelevant as KB pointed out

all i said was if you dont agree w. em, take the STATS on or dispute their relevancy here, but dont take his posting of those stats and use that as justification to put words in his mouth as you did there.

See what im sayin?

You cant pt to anything i said as agreeing with his stats or their relevancy.

-------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I reread that- and I still have no idea what you are complaining about. If anything I was giving Sarge a hard time, not you. If you kept on reading after the posts you pasted, I think I pretty much explained how I felt, so again, not sure what your beef is

On a serious note, I'm not sure the incident was overtly racially motivated. He may not have followed the kid if he was white...

Way to contradict yourself in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE!!

NTFF.

It's not a contradiction...when I say "overtly", I mean I don't think there's any evidence he was looking for black kids to harass because he hates black people.

He may have reacted the same way to a white kid walking around that night, he might have been using some profiling, or there might have been some latent racism in his thought process, but it's impossible to tell and not really important.

When the story first broke, it wasn't totally clear what role race had to play in it, but there were definitely questions that needed to be answered. The biggest issue then and now, though, still appears to be the circumstances of the incident and the larger discussion of how those circumstances were created.

I do not think, however, that this issue will be remembered years from now as a racially charged murder the white cops ignored because the victim was just some black kid.

At the risk of getting involved in an overtly stupid argument - fuck it, it's the level.

Your statement does contradict itself.

"I'm not sure the incident was overtly racially motivated. He may not have followed the kid if he was white"

The premise that he may not have followed the kid if he was white makes the fact that he did follow the black kid overtly (openly; publicly) racist.

That said, I agree with the rest of your 9:11 AM post.

If we're changing the definitions of "overtly" and "may", you might have a point.

I'm saying I don't know if he would have followed the kid if he was white. I have no idea. He may have and may not have.

When the story first broke, there was some question as to whether he said "coon" during the 911, which would indicate some overt racial motivation.

I just don't think there's any evidence at this point that race had a thing to do with this.

O'Mara has done a pretty fantastic job so far. But as I've said before, ultimately this case will come down to jury selection. Prosecution will try to load the jury with blacks and women. O'Mara needs Anglo and Hispanic males. Whoever wins the jury race war wins the case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13