Trayvon Martin: What say y'all?
07-15-2013, 10:28 PM
#561
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
-Zach
Reply
-1
-1
07-15-2013, 10:44 PM
#562
As soon as Martin ran an intelligent person would have realized the situation had escalated beyond verbal inquiry, and if truly concerned about defending themselves, would not have pursued. By pursing Martin, Zimmerman took on risk and crossed the line between concerned citizen and confrontation.
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
-Zach
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
-Zach
Zimmerman had a right to be there. He was within his legal rights to ask Martin a question (no matter how rudely or improperly he posed that question). Martin was not within his legal right to respond by cheap-shotting Zimmerman, and then mounting him and slamming his head into the pavement. When Martin pursued that course of action, Zimmerman had every right to believe his life was within danger and therefore, to use lethal force to defend himself.
If anyone has legal proof that Zimmerman's actions were different, they ought to contact Eric Holder.
Reply
0
0
07-15-2013, 11:14 PM
#565
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
When TM punched him in the nose, he crossed a legal line.
When he grounded and pounded him, he crossed another one. At that point, GZ was in genuine fear for his life and the use of lethal force for defense was justified, under the law.
When he grounded and pounded him, he crossed another one. At that point, GZ was in genuine fear for his life and the use of lethal force for defense was justified, under the law.
Reply
2
2
07-16-2013, 12:21 AM
#566
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
Reply
-2
-2
07-16-2013, 12:25 AM
#567
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DF-DUB
Posts: 625
Total Cats: 21
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News
That wasn't "mis-editing", that was intentional.
The bastards probably don't even feel guilty at formenting the race riots in Oakland et al.
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News
That wasn't "mis-editing", that was intentional.
The bastards probably don't even feel guilty at formenting the race riots in Oakland et al.
I bet it ends up settled out of court with some type of non disclosure clause.
I do hope he makes a huge debacle about it and still gets lots of monies.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 01:00 AM
#568
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
As soon as Martin ran an intelligent person would have realized the situation had escalated beyond verbal inquiry, and if truly concerned about defending themselves, would not have pursued. By pursing Martin, Zimmerman took on risk and crossed the line between concerned citizen and confrontation.
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
-Zach
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
-Zach
Maybe people should think twice before beating on someone, because maybe they have a gun and will take steps to defend themselves.
Whether GZ put himself in a bad position or not, it was TM who ultimately raised the level of confrontation from words to violence.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 01:14 AM
#569
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
CARTMAN comes running up to the bus stop, where STAN, KYLE, and KENNY have been discussing Game of Thrones.
CARTMAN: You guys! You guys! Seriously! You're not going to believe it! You guys!
KYLE: What is it, fatass?
CARTMAN: You guys! Listen! Killing black people is totally legal now!
(There is a pause while this sinks in.)
STAN: Cartman, what the **** are you talking about?!
CARTMAN: I heard it on the news! It's totally okay to kill black people now!
KYLE: What did you hear on the news?
KENNY: Mm-mmf-mm mmm-mmm-mm mmm mm!
STAN: Seriously, Cartman, that just sounds like one of your messed up, racist dreams!
CARTMAN: No, it's real! There's this guy named George Zimmerman, and he totally hunts black people! He killed a black kid named Tray-von Mar-tin, and the courts told him it was okay!
KYLE: That's not what happened, dickwad!
CARTMAN: Shut up, you stupid Jew! How would you know? Jews can't even own guns!
KYLE: Yes we can, fatass!
(TOKEN arrives at the bus stop.)
TOKEN: Hey, guys, what's up?
STAN: Token? What are you doing here? Don't your parents have a chauffeur or something for you?
TOKEN: Yeah, but he's on vacation. I'm stuck riding the bus for a week.
KYLE: ... But don't you live on the other side of town?
TOKEN: For some reason, the bus doesn't stop near my house. I had to take a taxi over here!
CARTMAN: (Interrupting.) Um... Tooookeeeen? Um... are you woooorrieeeed that someone's going to kiiiiiill yooooooou?
TOKEN: What?!
KYLE: Shut up, Cartman! It is not legal to kill black people!
TOKEN: What the hell are you guys talking about?
STAN: Cartman saw the outcome of the Zimmerman trial, and now he thinks it's okay to kill black people.
KENNY: Mmm. Mmm mmm mmm-mmm-mmf mmm mm!
TOKEN: What? That's not what the trial was about!
CARTMAN: Psh. You would say that, Token. You're black.
KYLE: That has nothing to do with it, Cartman!
CARTMAN: Oh yeah?! (He points an accusing finger at Kyle.) How about you shut your Jew mouth before I jam a pistol down your throat?
TOKEN: You have a gun?!
STAN: No, he doesn't.
CARTMAN: Wait. Token! You have a gun! Give it to me!
TOKEN: No I don't!
CARTMAN: Token, you're black, you have a ******* gun!
TOKEN: That does it, I'm taking the taxi to school!
(TOKEN leaves.)
KYLE: Nice going, fatass!
CARTMAN: Oh, you are so lucky he didn't give me his gun!
STAN: Token doesn't have a gun! Not all black people carry guns! That's racist, Cartman!
CARTMAN: Oh yeah? Well, if... black people... if they don't carry guns... Travyon Martin attacked George Zimmerman!
KYLE: What does that have to do with anything?!
CARTMAN: Duh! It's why hunting black people is legal now!
STAN: Jesus, Cartman, this is messed up, even for you!
CARTMAN: I'm not the one who said it!
KYLE: Yes, you are! There is no way that anyone would go on national television and say that it's legal to hunt black people!
CARTMAN: Shows what you know, you stupid Jew! It just so happens that someone did go on national television and say that it was legal to hunt black people.
KENNY: Mmf?
CARTMAN: His name was Al Sharpton.
STAN: Jesus Christ...
CARTMAN: HEY! You know what? I'm going to prove it! I'm going to get on the phone to Al Sharpton and tell him to come to South Park.
KYLE: Al Sharpton wouldn't come to South Park, dipshit.
CARTMAN: Oh, he will... I'll make him an offer... he can't refuse...
CARTMAN: You guys! You guys! Seriously! You're not going to believe it! You guys!
KYLE: What is it, fatass?
CARTMAN: You guys! Listen! Killing black people is totally legal now!
(There is a pause while this sinks in.)
STAN: Cartman, what the **** are you talking about?!
CARTMAN: I heard it on the news! It's totally okay to kill black people now!
KYLE: What did you hear on the news?
KENNY: Mm-mmf-mm mmm-mmm-mm mmm mm!
STAN: Seriously, Cartman, that just sounds like one of your messed up, racist dreams!
CARTMAN: No, it's real! There's this guy named George Zimmerman, and he totally hunts black people! He killed a black kid named Tray-von Mar-tin, and the courts told him it was okay!
KYLE: That's not what happened, dickwad!
CARTMAN: Shut up, you stupid Jew! How would you know? Jews can't even own guns!
KYLE: Yes we can, fatass!
(TOKEN arrives at the bus stop.)
TOKEN: Hey, guys, what's up?
STAN: Token? What are you doing here? Don't your parents have a chauffeur or something for you?
TOKEN: Yeah, but he's on vacation. I'm stuck riding the bus for a week.
KYLE: ... But don't you live on the other side of town?
TOKEN: For some reason, the bus doesn't stop near my house. I had to take a taxi over here!
CARTMAN: (Interrupting.) Um... Tooookeeeen? Um... are you woooorrieeeed that someone's going to kiiiiiill yooooooou?
TOKEN: What?!
KYLE: Shut up, Cartman! It is not legal to kill black people!
TOKEN: What the hell are you guys talking about?
STAN: Cartman saw the outcome of the Zimmerman trial, and now he thinks it's okay to kill black people.
KENNY: Mmm. Mmm mmm mmm-mmm-mmf mmm mm!
TOKEN: What? That's not what the trial was about!
CARTMAN: Psh. You would say that, Token. You're black.
KYLE: That has nothing to do with it, Cartman!
CARTMAN: Oh yeah?! (He points an accusing finger at Kyle.) How about you shut your Jew mouth before I jam a pistol down your throat?
TOKEN: You have a gun?!
STAN: No, he doesn't.
CARTMAN: Wait. Token! You have a gun! Give it to me!
TOKEN: No I don't!
CARTMAN: Token, you're black, you have a ******* gun!
TOKEN: That does it, I'm taking the taxi to school!
(TOKEN leaves.)
KYLE: Nice going, fatass!
CARTMAN: Oh, you are so lucky he didn't give me his gun!
STAN: Token doesn't have a gun! Not all black people carry guns! That's racist, Cartman!
CARTMAN: Oh yeah? Well, if... black people... if they don't carry guns... Travyon Martin attacked George Zimmerman!
KYLE: What does that have to do with anything?!
CARTMAN: Duh! It's why hunting black people is legal now!
STAN: Jesus, Cartman, this is messed up, even for you!
CARTMAN: I'm not the one who said it!
KYLE: Yes, you are! There is no way that anyone would go on national television and say that it's legal to hunt black people!
CARTMAN: Shows what you know, you stupid Jew! It just so happens that someone did go on national television and say that it was legal to hunt black people.
KENNY: Mmf?
CARTMAN: His name was Al Sharpton.
STAN: Jesus Christ...
CARTMAN: HEY! You know what? I'm going to prove it! I'm going to get on the phone to Al Sharpton and tell him to come to South Park.
KYLE: Al Sharpton wouldn't come to South Park, dipshit.
CARTMAN: Oh, he will... I'll make him an offer... he can't refuse...
As the episode progresses, CARTMAN manages to convince AL SHARPTON to visit South Park. AL SHARPTON mistakenly thinks that South Park has - in light of the Zimmerman verdict - made it legal to hunt black people. He decides to use the town as an example of how racist and terrible the country has become. CARTMAN, realizing that AL SHARPTON is black, decides to plan a hunt of his own. He asks JIMBO and NED to help, but they are understandably appalled, and decide to follow AL SHARPTON around town to keep him from being attacked. They dub themselves "The Neighborhood Watchmen," and call themselves "THE SPARROW" and "FREUD," respectively.
Meanwhile, KYLE and STAN decide to find out what the trial was actually about (and what its outcome implies), only to discover that everyone in town has a different opinion. OFFICER BARBRADY - having noticed that TOKEN is not following his usual routine - starts following TOKEN around town, and GERALD BROFLOVSKI starts following OFFICER BARBRADY, intent on being the star lawyer in the inevitable trial of BARBRADY VS COMMON SENSE. Eventually, everyone gets sick of following everyone else around, and they all independently decide to go to 7-11 for some M&Ms. They all arrive at once, and they all accuse one another of things. AL SHARPTON decides, for some reason, that the best course of action is to take himself hostage. The situation escalates until KYLE and STAN arrive and inform everyone that although nobody really knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin, the legal system did its job. They also comment on the absurdity of having the trial televised in the first place, and how turning it into a media circus just wound up creating dissenting opinions and tension.
At that moment, CARTMAN manages to track down AL SHARPTON, whom he attacks. Somehow or other, this is seen as a heroic act, and everyone (save for STAN and KYLE) praises CARTMAN for defusing the hostage situation. AL SHARPTON drops his gun, which goes off and kills KENNY.
ROLL CREDITS.
Meanwhile, KYLE and STAN decide to find out what the trial was actually about (and what its outcome implies), only to discover that everyone in town has a different opinion. OFFICER BARBRADY - having noticed that TOKEN is not following his usual routine - starts following TOKEN around town, and GERALD BROFLOVSKI starts following OFFICER BARBRADY, intent on being the star lawyer in the inevitable trial of BARBRADY VS COMMON SENSE. Eventually, everyone gets sick of following everyone else around, and they all independently decide to go to 7-11 for some M&Ms. They all arrive at once, and they all accuse one another of things. AL SHARPTON decides, for some reason, that the best course of action is to take himself hostage. The situation escalates until KYLE and STAN arrive and inform everyone that although nobody really knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin, the legal system did its job. They also comment on the absurdity of having the trial televised in the first place, and how turning it into a media circus just wound up creating dissenting opinions and tension.
At that moment, CARTMAN manages to track down AL SHARPTON, whom he attacks. Somehow or other, this is seen as a heroic act, and everyone (save for STAN and KYLE) praises CARTMAN for defusing the hostage situation. AL SHARPTON drops his gun, which goes off and kills KENNY.
ROLL CREDITS.
Reply
5
5
07-16-2013, 02:50 AM
#570
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Hmm, the alleged political movers and shakers that created the media frenzy. Goes up all the way to Eric Holder.
A Nation of George Zimmermans Awakened – Understand The Fraud – Post Verdict of Acquittal …. | The Last Refuge
A Nation of George Zimmermans Awakened – Understand The Fraud – Post Verdict of Acquittal …. | The Last Refuge
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 03:01 AM
#571
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,590
It's at times like this that I wish I had admin access to the Props system so that I could award more than one to a single post.
(slowclap.gif)
This is honestly starting to become sad, and you have my pity.
(slowclap.gif)
Hmm, the alleged political movers and shakers that created the media frenzy. Goes up all the way to Eric Holder.
A Nation of George Zimmermans Awakened – Understand The Fraud – Post Verdict of Acquittal …. | The Last Refuge
A Nation of George Zimmermans Awakened – Understand The Fraud – Post Verdict of Acquittal …. | The Last Refuge
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 03:11 AM
#572
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
JUROR: He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.... I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.
Read more here: Zimmerman juror speaks out: Read full transcript of CNN interview - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 03:36 AM
#573
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
So Trayvon's family contacts an NAACP lawyer who uses the incident to turn it into a big race issue, and hires a PR expert who plays the mass media that laps it up. Another law firm gets involved that is a big Democratic party donor, and connections make it all the way to Eric Holder. What's so incredible about that?
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 07:15 AM
#575
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
So Trayvon's family contacts an NAACP lawyer who uses the incident to turn it into a big race issue, and hires a PR expert who plays the mass media that laps it up. Another law firm gets involved that is a big Democratic party donor, and connections make it all the way to Eric Holder. What's so incredible about that?
Okay guys, I'm ready to get get famous now!
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 08:20 AM
#576
So I was reading up a bit on whether Zimmerman would be liable from a civil stand point and a few people said that Florida has a law on its books that allows someone who successfully used self-defense in court and was found not guilty can apply for civil immunity. I am from Florida but am no legal expert and really have no intention of looking this up but I would find that pretty interesting.
EDIT: **** it. I looked it up. I guess it comes down to whether the Jury decided he was justified or if the prosecution just did not meet its burden of proof. Considering the Jury did not convict him for manslaughter either I imagine they thought the shooting was justified.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
EDIT: **** it. I looked it up. I guess it comes down to whether the Jury decided he was justified or if the prosecution just did not meet its burden of proof. Considering the Jury did not convict him for manslaughter either I imagine they thought the shooting was justified.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 08:24 AM
#577
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
I mean he shouldn't have been charged in the first place according to that statute, so we'll probably see him in civil court very soon. The case will then have to be dismissed based on 776.032, then he'll have to recover his court and attorney fees back from the Martin family...*slap*
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
I mean he shouldn't have been charged in the first place according to that statute, so we'll probably see him in civil court very soon. The case will then have to be dismissed based on 776.032, then he'll have to recover his court and attorney fees back from the Martin family...*slap*
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 08:38 AM
#578
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
RACHEL JEANTEL, FRIEND OF TRAYVON: Well, the jurys, they sees their fact. None offense to the jury, they old, that's old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation.
IE: YOLO.
MORGAN: People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?
RACHEL JEANTEL: No! ...that's a person who act like they're a police.
IE: I'm still a liar.
IE: YOLO.
MORGAN: People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?
RACHEL JEANTEL: No! ...that's a person who act like they're a police.
IE: I'm still a liar.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 08:45 AM
#579
RACHEL JEANTEL, FRIEND OF TRAYVON: Well, the jurys, they sees their fact. None offense to the jury, they old, that's old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation.
IE: YOLO.
MORGAN: People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?
RACHEL JEANTEL: No! ...that's a person who act like they're a police.
IE: I'm still a liar.
IE: YOLO.
MORGAN: People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?
RACHEL JEANTEL: No! ...that's a person who act like they're a police.
IE: I'm still a liar.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2013, 08:49 AM
#580
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I don't even care about that, sure its awful, but I'm looking at the content.
You know what she meant by "their facts" right?
and you know she's lying and has little value to add when she's trying to say that cracka is a term used to describe someone acting like a police officer or security guard. This is her pathetic attempt at a PR spin.
the community as a whole would get a lot more respect if it wasn't such a downward, regressive, self-induced, stockholm-syndrome-victim-based, MLK-rolling-over-in-his-grave, spiral.
You know what she meant by "their facts" right?
and you know she's lying and has little value to add when she's trying to say that cracka is a term used to describe someone acting like a police officer or security guard. This is her pathetic attempt at a PR spin.
the community as a whole would get a lot more respect if it wasn't such a downward, regressive, self-induced, stockholm-syndrome-victim-based, MLK-rolling-over-in-his-grave, spiral.
Reply
0
0
