What took you so long?

As I said above: stupider and stupider, faster and faster.



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/spike-lee-zimmerman-tweet-567891

Elderly Couple In Fear Over Spike Lee Tweet
Star erroneously linked Floridians to man who killed Trayvon Martin


MARCH 27--With Twitter and Facebook continuing to explode with posts purporting to contain the address of George Zimmerman, property records and interviews reveal that the home is actually the longtime residence of a married Florida couple, both in their 70s, who have no connection to the man who killed Trayvon Martin and are now living in fear due to erroneous reports about their connection to the shooter.
The mass dissemination of the address on Edgewater Circle in Sanford--the Florida city where Martin was shot to death last month--took flight last Friday when director Spike Lee retweeted a tweet containing Zimmerman’s purported address to his 240,000 followers.
The original tweet was sent to Lee (and numerous other celebrities like Will Smith, 50 Cent, and LeBron James) last Friday afternoon by Marcus Davonne Higgins, a 33-year-old Los Angeles man who uses the online handle “maccapone.” Higgins included the direction, “EVERYBODY REPOST THIS.”
Higgins, pictured at right, first began disseminating the Sanford address to his Twitter followers last Wednesday, including the claim that Zimmerman “Like the fat punk he is, he still lives at home with mommie & daddy.” In a simultaneous post to his Facebook wall, Higgins told his 4000 friends, “FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT & TOUCH HIM.” He also claimed in another post that, “REAL TALK MY PEOPLE OUT THERE IN FLORIDA JUST TOLD ME GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS NOT AT HIS HOUSE THEY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.”
………
The man who shot Martin is George Michael Zimmerman. Higgins has repeatedly identified him as “George W. Zimmerman.”
The residence on Edgewater Circle is actually the home of David McClain, 72, and his wife Elaine, 70. The McClains, both of whom work for the Seminole County school system, have lived in the 1310-square-foot lakefront home for about a decade, records show.
In an interview tonight, Elaine McClain told TSG that she and her husband were “afraid” due to the online linking of her address to Zimmerman. “We're keeping everything locked,” she said. McClain added that the couple was particularly unnerved by a letter mailed to them at their home. On the envelope, she said, were printed the words “Taste The Rainbow,” the slogan for Skittles. Martin was carrying a pack of Skittles and a can of ice tea when he was gunned down by Zimmerman.
………
Elaine McClain identified William George Zimmerman as her son, noting that he has not lived at the Edgewater Circle residence for seven years. “He is six-foot-five and thin as a rail,” McClain said of her son, who now lives elsewhere in Seminole County.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

What exactly did I make up? Show me!

Artie60438 wrote:

.... You only posted alleged reports that supported Zimmerman and ignored those that support Martin ....

[b]I ignored nothing; I had not seen those reports, and even if I had, I would have regarded them as entirely irrelevant to the question and would have seen no need to comment on them.

It's a fact that you did not offer any reports that supported Martin. Therefore I made nothing up! I would appreciate if you try to refrain from lying in the future. Thanks

It is a fact that I did not offer any reports that supported Martin.

Ok,we agree. End of story. I win!

Quote :

It is not a fact that I ignored reports that supported Martin, as you claim, only that such reports had nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
Capiche, Liar Boy?

Whether or not it was relevant has nothing to do with it. Better luck next time

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

What exactly did I make up? Show me!

Artie60438 wrote:

.... You only posted alleged reports that supported Zimmerman and ignored those that support Martin ....

[b]I ignored nothing; I had not seen those reports, and even if I had, I would have regarded them as entirely irrelevant to the question and would have seen no need to comment on them.

It's a fact that you did not offer any reports that supported Martin. Therefore I made nothing up! I would appreciate if you try to refrain from lying in the future. Thanks

It is a fact that I did not offer any reports that supported Martin.

Ok,we agree. End of story. I win!

Quote :

It is not a fact that I ignored reports that supported Martin, as you claim, only that such reports had nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
Capiche, Liar Boy?

Whether or not it was relevant has nothing to do with it. Better luck next time

Damned quick on the Boredom/I-Have-My-Tail-Between-My-Legs Card this time. You're not much on perseverance, are you?

Close gunshot to his chest. Self defense. I'm satisfied.

happy jack wrote:

I hope you understand that I am the one who is withholding judgment until some actual facts are established. You see, I’m not sure what exactly happened, and I’m not afraid to say so, unlike …..[/b]

Heretic wrote:

His only real crime is that he may have been winning a fight Zimmerman started, and a simple ass-kicking doesn't have an NRA-like lobby to support it.

…. who has clearly made up his mind, and who apparently is privy to more of the ‘facts’ in this case than am I.

While I can't vouch for your research skills since I've not seen them firsthand, I was merely making an assessment based on the evidence thus far. And I'm not calling for a public hanging, just an actual arrest and trial. I still agree with the lead investigator and an arrest was warranted. Murder? No. Manslaughter? Yes. My guess is the cops gave the buddy Zimmerman a pass and didn't treat the incident as seriously as they should, not expecting Martin to be a local armed with nothing more than Skittles. We do know for sure that Zimmerman's story is contradicted by the evidence and the police didn't do their due diligence in the case.

"Self-defense" just doesn't fly with me... You can't start a street fight and shoot the other guy just because you start to lose. That shouldn't absolve you from any and all criminal liability, should it?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

And I'm not calling for a public hanging, just an actual arrest and trial.

[b]Why would you ask for an arrest and trial before anyone is even sure that a crime has been committed?

The lead investigator thought a crime had been committed and wanted to charge him with manslaughter.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

And I'm not calling for a public hanging, just an actual arrest and trial.

[b]Why would you ask for an arrest and trial before anyone is even sure that a crime has been committed?

The lead investigator thought a crime had been committed and wanted to charge him with manslaughter.

The lead investigator cannot charge anyone with anything.
The lead investigator must produce sufficient reasonable evidence to satisfy those who do have the power to charge Zimmerman (i.e., the prosecuting attorneys who are presumably well-versed in the law, and who would bear the burden of proving their case based upon the investigator's evidence).
So, here we stand.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

... You can't start a street fight and shoot the other guy just because you start to lose. That shouldn't absolve you from any and all criminal liability, should it?

No, of course not.
But I don’t know with any certainty that that is what happened in this case.

But would we know otherwise? Start a fight sans any witnesses, kill the individual, claim self defense later, and let the court prove otherwise. They'll have a remarkably difficult time doing so now that the only other witness is dead, even more so if the soon-to-be victim actually lands a few punches before being murdered. I imagine this is why the prosecutor said there isn't enough evidence to make a conviction. A hasty decision, IMHO, because the investigation was still a rather poor one and they hadn't talked to the witness Trayvon was on the phone with at the time of the incident.

But you're right, I don't know "with any certainty". But thankfully, criminal cases only need to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", and I think there's more than enough probable cause to charge Zimmerman, as did the lead investigator.

happy jack wrote:

Why would you ask for an arrest and trial before anyone is even sure that a crime has been committed?

Once again, I believe there was probable cause to make an arrest. That leads to a trial where ultimately the jury decides what, if any, crimes were committed.

happy jack wrote:

Here ya go, Artie - just for you:

Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?

When and where did I allegedly "suggest" that?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

But thankfully, criminal cases only need to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", and I think there's more than enough probable cause to charge Zimmerman, as did the lead investigator.

The lead investigator may have thought so, and you may think so (for whatever that is worth), but you and the lead investigator are not the ones who have to stand in a courtroom with your pants around your ankles as your case collapses – that fate, unfortunately, falls upon the prosecutor, who, I presume, has a much firmer handle on whether the opinions, assessments, and evidence presented by the lead investigator (and you, of course) will stand up in court.

Which is why I asked...

Quote :

But would we know otherwise? Start a fight sans any witnesses, kill the individual, claim self defense later, and let the court prove otherwise. They'll have a remarkably difficult time doing so now that the only other witness is dead, even more so if the soon-to-be victim actually lands a few punches before being murdered. I imagine this is why the prosecutor said there isn't enough evidence to make a conviction. A hasty decision, IMHO, because the investigation was still a rather poor one and they hadn't talked to the witness Trayvon was on the phone with at the time of the incident.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Here ya go, Artie - just for you:

Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?

When and where did I allegedly "suggest" that?

I never said that you suggested that.
I simply asked ….

Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?


[b]…. which was a question, not a statement. I thought that the squiggly line with the dot underneath it (?) at the end of the sentence would have been a dead giveaway. I was mistaken.
So let me rephrase: Do you or do you not believe that by creatively editing the 911 call, NBC misled it’s viewing public?

I believe you just might be attempting to put words in my mouth. Show me the exact statement I made that caused you to reply to me with that question.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I believe you just might be attempting to put words in my mouth. Show me the exact statement I made that caused you to reply to me with that question.

[b]I don't believe I am.
I believe I am asking for a simple answer to a simple question:
Do you or do you not believe that by creatively editing the 911 call, NBC misled it’s viewing public?

Good. Then you won't mind first showing me the statement that I made that was the catalyst for your "question" Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I believe you just might be attempting to put words in my mouth. Show me the exact statement I made that caused you to reply to me with that question.

[b]I don't believe I am.
I believe I am asking for a simple answer to a simple question:
Do you or do you not believe that by creatively editing the 911 call, NBC misled it’s viewing public?

Good. Then you won't mind first showing me the statement that I made that was the catalyst for your "question" Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?

No, I don't mind at all.
The catalyst was in this post ….


Re: Trayvon Martin Death Investigation Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:02 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

Ha! I see your also a fan of that race baiting Dan Riehl and the rest of the scum over at Breitbart.

…. when you reflexively and immediately attacked the source I used when bringing up the topic of NBC’s dirty dealings. It got me to thinking that you were not at all happy about having the spotlight shone on NBC's fraud and, being unable to refute it, you attacked the messenger.
Any other questions from you?
If not, are there any answers from you?
Specifically, an answer to this question:

Do you or do you not believe that by creatively editing the 911 call, NBC misled it’s viewing public?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Good. Then you won't mind first showing me the statement that I made that was the catalyst for your "question" Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?

No, I don't mind at all.
The catalyst was in this post ….


Re: Trayvon Martin Death Investigation Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:02 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

Ha! I see your also a fan of that race baiting Dan Riehl and the rest of the scum over at Breitbart.

…. when you reflexively and immediately attacked the source I used when bringing up the topic of NBC’s dirty dealings. It got me to thinking that you were not at all happy about having the spotlight shone on NBC's fraud and, being unable to refute it, you attacked the messenger.

The fact is that I never even mentioned NBC,yet you immediately claimed that I "suggested" something I didn't. So you were in fact attempting to put words in my mouth.

Quote :

Any other questions from you?

Nope

Quote :

If not, are there any answers from you?

Sure

Quote :

Specifically, an answer to this question:
Do you or do you not believe that by creatively editing the 911 call, NBC misled it’s viewing public?

[/quote] Since I wasn't part of the production process I have no idea what NBC's intentions were.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Good. Then you won't mind first showing me the statement that I made that was the catalyst for your "question" Are you suggesting that NBC did not deliberately mislead by running the edited version of the 911 call?

No, I don't mind at all.
The catalyst was in this post ….


Re: Trayvon Martin Death Investigation Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:02 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

Ha! I see your also a fan of that race baiting Dan Riehl and the rest of the scum over at Breitbart.

…. when you reflexively and immediately attacked the source I used when bringing up the topic of NBC’s dirty dealings. It got me to thinking that you were not at all happy about having the spotlight shone on NBC's fraud and, being unable to refute it, you attacked the messenger.

The fact is that I never even mentioned NBC,yet you immediately claimed that I "suggested" something I didn't. So you were in fact attempting to put words in my mouth.

Quote :

Any other questions from you?

Nope

Quote :

If not, are there any answers from you?

Sure

Quote :

Specifically, an answer to this question:
Do you or do you not believe that by creatively editing the 911 call, NBC misled it’s viewing public?

Since I wasn't part of the production process I have no idea what NBC's intentions were.[/quote]


I guess a weasel-like answer is better than no answer at all.

Oh, God. Thought I would find some interesting opinions from both sides. Too much bickering; makes the reader just click away.

Now, what's your opinion on the hot-shot First (FLOTUS) wearing inappropriate age-related clothing?

Like, that has no bearing of being disgusted, and wish them farewell? That lard-butt still fries her crap in Lard.