whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.

Because he's implying that no matter what, Obama will make him get convicted.

He's saying that Obama has power over the end result of this trial and presumably the jury.

That is tinfoil hat insane.

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.

Anything to throw Zimmerman into the fire seems acceptable but anything to prove Martin was a scumbag is thrown out or suppressed. If Zimmerman gets less than 20 I'll be surprised.

Relapse wrote:

It's tinfoil hat insane to think otherwise if you take into account all the outside pressure on this case and Obama's little speech indicating his want of a conviction and all the justice department scandals.

 d-usa wrote:
M can be the biggest scumbag that ever walked the face of the earth. But if Z didn't know that when he shot him then it has absolutely feth to do with the decisions Z made and has nothing to do with the trial.

Did Z think "oh my God, a scumbag wannabe thug who can't spell and things he is a gangster who has skittles to flavor his cough syrup and got expelled from school and smoked some weed at some point is siting on top of my, I better kill him before he remembers those texts he send last month about being a thug"?

It is not relevant in this trial because it was not anything Z knew when he decided that he felt like he had no other choice but to pull the trigger.

But let the foaming at the mouth continue.

 d-usa wrote:
And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.

If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.

 d-usa wrote:
And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.

If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.

If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.

What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?

Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.

Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.

Because he's implying that no matter what, Obama will make him get convicted.

He's saying that Obama has power over the end result of this trial and presumably the jury.

That is tinfoil hat insane.

 Easy E wrote:
This whole thread needs to be covered in tinfoil and put in the oven to bake.

 Frazzled wrote:
Tinfoil hat was only insane until they came true.

 Frazzled wrote:

Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.

This could get sticky.

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.

If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.

What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.

So its like arguing that because Z had a gun and took fighting lessons and criminal justice lessons he was prepared to kill somebody in a fight and was aware of how he could get away with it?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.

This could get sticky.

So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?

Relapse wrote:
There was a lot of evidence about Martin that was not allowed that proved him violent and willing to hurt people.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.

This could get sticky.

So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?

What does "covering" mean in this post? What exactly is it that you think they did with that 860 someodd dollars?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
There was a lot of evidence about Martin that was not allowed that proved him violent and willing to hurt people.

You're saying there was evidence that proved that Martin was an INHERENTLY violent person who was ALWAYS willing to hurt people to the extent that it literally tells us what he would do in a particular situation?

Again, that's some minority report gak.

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.

If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.

What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.

So its like arguing that because Z had a gun and took fighting lessons and criminal justice lessons he was prepared to kill somebody in a fight and was aware of how he could get away with it?

Relapse wrote:


Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?

No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.

To be clear, he did attack first. Zimmerman is going to be acquitted. But saying that we know he attacked first because he talked about fighting at some point is presuming pre-crimes. It's supposing that we can tell what he did later by who he was as a person. That is an idea that our entire justice system rejects. That kind of evidence can be used for MOTIVE, but it cannot be used for "did it happen".

Relapse wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?

No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.

To be clear, he did attack first. Zimmerman is going to be acquitted. But saying that we know he attacked first because he talked about fighting at some point is presuming pre-crimes. It's supposing that we can tell what he did later by who he was as a person. That is an idea that our entire justice system rejects. That kind of evidence can be used for MOTIVE, but it cannot be used for "did it happen".

What I am saying is that the evidence thrown out by the judge, including the lead investigator's statement about Zimmerman's statment that Martin attacked is credible, proves that Martin is quite possibly not the innocent victim he is portrayed as by the prosecution.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.

This could get sticky.

So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?

No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.

This could get sticky.

So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?

This.

No I am not saying Obama controls the jury. I think pressure from a variety of sources did get us here though, including by Obama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?

No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.

No it establishes mental state and prediliction to be aggressive.

If TM had a previous history of being Buddhist Monk morally opposed to violence in all its forms that would help establish he would have been less likely to ambush Z.

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal foundation, has used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover documents that show Eric Holder’s Justice Department used a “community relations” unit to support and stage-manage public protests in Florida against George Zimmerman after his controversial February 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Justice’s Community Relations Service (CRS) even helped organize a meeting between Sanford, Fla., public officials and the local NAACP. The result was the resignation of police chief Bill Lee over his handling of the Martin case. While his resignation was rescinded after a few weeks by local officials, Chief Lee faced further pressure to leave his job and ultimately quit for good two months later. Valerie Houston, one of the pastors leading the protests against Zimmerman and Lee, praised the Community Relations Service as being “there for us.”

The website for the CRS claims it “does not take sides among disputing parties” and only provides “impartial conciliation and mediation services.” But the evidence of its activities in Sanford shows that it placed a large thumb on the scales of justice in the Zimmerman case. What can providing support for a “March for Trayvon Martin” rally headlined by the rabble-rousing Reverend Al Sharpton have to do with “conciliation and mediation”?

From top to bottom, the handling of the Zimmerman case was marinated in racial political correctness. Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public. “It was [relayed] to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,” he said. “You don’t do that.” Lee told CNN that arresting Zimmerman based on the evidence he had collected would have violated Zimmerman’s Fourth Amendment rights. But he said political influence “forced a change in the course of the normal criminal-justice process. . . . That investigation was taken away from us. We weren’t able to complete it.”

It looks as if the trial of George Zimmerman on second-degree-murder charges will go to the jury today, but regardless of the verdict, the Justice Department has some questions to answer about its role in the pressure campaign leading up to his indictment. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially charged demonstrations,” says Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, in a statement on the group’s website.

Sadly, I am not surprised that Eric Holder’s Justice Department engaged in suspect activity in the Trayvon Martin case. Barack Obama frequently touted his experience as a “community organizer” during his 2008 campaign. The media gave him almost a complete pass on the more controversial parts of his record, especially his role as a top trainer and lawyer for the infamous Saul Alinsky–inspired group ACORN, which by 2008 had had many of its employees convicted of voter fraud. After Obama’s election, the Justice Department dropped any pending investigations of ACORN. Congress finally revoked the group’s federal funding in 2010 after filmmaker James O’Keefe’s hidden cameras caught its employees giving advice on how to conceal money gained from a fictional teenage prostitution ring. It soon declared bankruptcy, and some of its affiliates continued operations under new mismanagement.

I wondered back in 2008 how the federal government’s focus would change with a left-wing “community organizer” installed as president. We now have a partial answer. It appears that some of the tactics and approaches ACORN used have been moved into the Justice Department and other federal agencies. In the old days, when individual appropriations bills for federal agencies were still passed by Congress, it was possible to defund groups like ACORN. But now, with congressional gridlock ensuring that federal agencies are financed by dubious annual spending resolutions that simply continue existing program funding, any effective oversight by Congress is a dead letter. The question now isn’t really how many other left-wing “community organizing” projects like the one at Justice are being subsidized by the Obama administration. The real issue is whether the entire Obama administration has basically become an enabler and cheerleader for every Saul Alinsky tactic its radical appointees want to embrace — from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s bullying local officials over public-housing construction demands to the Environmental Protection Agency’s colluding with environmentalist groups to lose lawsuits the groups file against the EPA in court.