http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-crime-florida-neighborhoodwatch-idUSBRE82709M20120308
Quote(Reuters) - The family of a 17-year-old African-American boy shot to death last month in his gated Florida community by a white Neighborhood Watch captain wants to see the captain arrested, the family's lawyer said on Wednesday.
Well, the kid was legally black in a gated community, so obviously the Neighborhood watch captain had no choice.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 11, 2012, 04:52:45 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-crime-florida-neighborhoodwatch-idUSBRE82709M20120308
Quote(Reuters) - The family of a 17-year-old African-American boy shot to death last month in his gated Florida community by a white Neighborhood Watch captain wants to see the captain arrested, the family's lawyer said on Wednesday.
Well, the kid was legally black in a gated community, so obviously the Neighborhood watch captain had no choice.
Holy fucking shit.
Fuckin' neighborhood watch. That's the worst kind of turkey bacon.
If this guy honestly hasn't been arrested already, I have very little faith left in the world. I mean, does the neighborhood watch have special legal stuff going on? I always thought they were just random schmucks.
Good thing we have all that racism cleaned up, here in America.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2012, 02:29:17 AM
Good thing we have all that racism cleaned up, here in America.
The things you say are like getting fucked in the eyeball with a giant, thick peen. I mean, yeah, it's satisfying and it fills you up and all but dude, it's a peen in the
eyeball.
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 11, 2012, 06:02:36 PM
Fuckin' neighborhood watch. That's the worst kind of turkey bacon.
If this guy honestly hasn't been arrested already, I have very little faith left in the world. I mean, does the neighborhood watch have special legal stuff going on? I always thought they were just random schmucks.
I checked the manual -
http://www.tempe.gov/cpu/docs/NWMANUAL.pdf
and there's no provisions for a license to kill in there.
"On his way home, a Neighborhood Watch loose cannon shot and killed him."Ummm...captain? Do they give them red beret's? What the fuck is an org like this doing handing out ranks?
1. It wasn't in Tempe. Lrn to reading.
2. Since when has that mattered? Kid was legally black, man.
Quote from: navkat on March 12, 2012, 04:13:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2012, 02:29:17 AM
Good thing we have all that racism cleaned up, here in America.
The things you say are like getting fucked in the eyeball with a giant, thick peen. I mean, yeah, it's satisfying and it fills you up and all but dude, it's a peen in the eyeball.
SCIENCE!
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 12, 2012, 05:50:41 AM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 11, 2012, 06:02:36 PM
Fuckin' neighborhood watch. That's the worst kind of turkey bacon.
If this guy honestly hasn't been arrested already, I have very little faith left in the world. I mean, does the neighborhood watch have special legal stuff going on? I always thought they were just random schmucks.
I checked the manual -
http://www.tempe.gov/cpu/docs/NWMANUAL.pdf
and there's no provisions for a license to kill in there.
"On his way home, a Neighborhood Watch loose cannon shot and killed him."
Ummm...captain? Do they give them red beret's? What the fuck is an org like this doing handing out ranks?
"That's it! This is the last time. Hand over your badge and gun."
"Dammit Captain, these streets might be deadly, but they're mine. And somebody has to clean up the scum. Also, I brought the gun from home."
Yeah, I didn't particularly feel like Neighborhood watch could just shoot somebody and go home. I mean, obviously I was wrong, but still. Maybe Captain Zimmerman has a long, prestigious history of domestic bullshittery, so they give him more leeway.
That's completely absurd. What possible defense could this guy have? And why the hell wasn't he arrested at the scene?!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 12, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
That's completely absurd. What possible defense could this guy have? And why the hell wasn't he arrested at the scene?!
A gated community in Florida? I'm surprised the locals didn't pin a medal on him.
Florida, I believe, has the honor of the last public lynching of a Black man.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2012, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 12, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
That's completely absurd. What possible defense could this guy have? And why the hell wasn't he arrested at the scene?!
A gated community in Florida? I'm surprised the locals didn't pin a medal on him.
Florida, I believe, has the honor of the last public lynching of a Black man.
... and still having the death penalty for first degree murder.
Plus we actually voted Rick Scott into office.
AGH, what kind of idiots?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2012, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 12, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
That's completely absurd. What possible defense could this guy have? And why the hell wasn't he arrested at the scene?!
A gated community in Florida? I'm surprised the locals didn't pin a medal on him.
Florida, I believe, has the honor of the last public lynching of a Black man.
Nope. That honour is allllll ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Donald
So this was the kid's own neighborhood where he lived?
Yup.
Or where his dad lived, and I guess he was visiting. Equally as ridiculous.
WTF difference does that make? Don't kill people unless they come in your house and try to kill you first. Simple.
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 01:40:07 AM
WTF difference does that make? Don't kill people unless they come in your house and try to kill you first. Simple.
It's Florida.
Texas was still dragging people behind pickups in 1998, and Florida makes Texas look liberal.
Dammit...does this mean I have to stop feeling superior to Alabama? As a state, that's really all we have left.
Alabama isn't as metropolitan or diverse as Florida, so they have an excuse...
No, scratch that. There's NO fucking excuse.
"Neighbourhood Watch" in teh UK means residents peeking out from behind their curtains and noting down anything unusual. In this instance does "Neighbourhood Watch" mean the same thing or is it more like a private security firm?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2012, 10:58:19 AM
"Neighbourhood Watch" in teh UK means residents peeking out from behind their curtains and noting down anything unusual. In this instance does "Neighbourhood Watch" mean the same thing or is it more like a private security firm?
Means pretty much the same thing. Except for the cultural differences...
Neighborhood watches do not have the right to kill people. They, like any American have a right to self defense; but on a street, versus a guy with candy and iced tea... hell no.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 13, 2012, 11:36:04 AM
Neighborhood watches do not have the right to kill people. They, like any American have a right to self defense; but on a street, versus a guy with candy and iced tea... hell no.
This is going to get real dicey, I think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html)
Quote"In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self defense," Lee said. "Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don't have the grounds to arrest him."
Huh? Presumption of innocence has downed some fucking steroids since my last ride in a squad car.
"I was at the movies when that liquor store was robbed."
"Can you prove it?"
"Can you prove I wasn't?"
(took me a couple reads to get why that seemed
off)
More facts here. Still no idea how this spells self defense...
http://www.wdbo.com/news/news/local/sanford-police-hand-over-teens-shooting-death-case/nLRZZ/ (http://www.wdbo.com/news/news/local/sanford-police-hand-over-teens-shooting-death-case/nLRZZ/)
QuoteSo far, 28-year-old George Zimmerman has not been charged in the death. Police reported he was bloody and appeared to have been on the ground before he fired on the teen.
Zimmerman said he was acting as a community patrol in the neighborhood and he'd just called 911 to report a suspicious person.
When police arrived the teen had been shot after neighbors called again to report some sort of fight.
They're turning it over to state investigators now.
So this guy had a gun, initiated conversation with a minor, and calls it self-defense?
It sounds pretty close. Amazing he got out of there without some serious injury.
Well...or he's a trigger happy wannabe cop who just happened to emulate his heroes a little too closely.
Actually, that second one sounds better.
a-ha
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/ (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/)
Quote...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."
...even if the shooter initiated the contact?
This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat?
Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.
--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2012, 10:58:19 AM
"Neighbourhood Watch" in teh UK means residents peeking out from behind their curtains and noting down anything unusual. In this instance does "Neighbourhood Watch" mean the same thing or is it more like a private security firm?
Here it often (not always, but often) means guys who would really like the power trip that being a cop would give them, but are far too stupid/out of shape/psychologically unbalanced to actually make it through police training.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 13, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
a-ha
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/ (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/)
Quote...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."
...even if the shooter initiated the contact?
This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat? Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.
--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?
So all you have to do is have a concealed firearm, start a fight with someone, and you can get away with as many murders as you want?
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on March 13, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 13, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
a-ha
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/ (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/)
Quote...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."
...even if the shooter initiated the contact?
This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat? Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.
--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?
So all you have to do is have a concealed firearm, start a fight with someone, and you can get away with as many murders as you want?
If you're a white guy in a gated community in a red state, yeah.
:/
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on March 13, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 13, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
a-ha
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/ (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/)
Quote...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."
...even if the shooter initiated the contact?
This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat? Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.
--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?
So all you have to do is have a concealed firearm, start a fight with someone, and you can get away with as many murders as you want?
When I read stories like this my first reaction is always, "There's got to be more to this story." Usually there is. Sometimes it's -- :horrormirth:
And it just keeps getting better:
http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html)
:horrormirth: sounds like a sad duck call in my head. "HWWWWaaaah"
Quote from: kingyak on March 13, 2012, 05:14:08 PM
And it just keeps getting better:
http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html)
QuoteAccording to law enforcement sources who heard Zimmerman's call to a non-emergency police number, he told a dispatcher "these a..holes always get away."
Zimmerman described Martin as suspicious because he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and walking slowly in the rain, police later told residents at a town hall.
A dispatcher told him to wait for a police cruiser, and not leave his vehicle.
But about a minute later, Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going.
Lee said Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin did not of itself constitute a crime.
Well if that doesn't scream self-defense, I don't know what does.
The procedural fuckery kinda makes me wonder if the PD isn't interested in highlighting this law as much as anything. That's the kind of shit they'd do around here, anyways.
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on March 13, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on March 13, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 13, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
a-ha
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/ (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/)
Quote...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."
...even if the shooter initiated the contact?
This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat? Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.
--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?
So all you have to do is have a concealed firearm, start a fight with someone, and you can get away with as many murders as you want?
If you're a white guy in a gated community in a red state, yeah.
I came here to say this.
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
Sad but true.
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
There are two kinds of government:
1. This is how people are. What do we do about it?
2. This is how things should be. How do we change human nature to make it so?
Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 13, 2012, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
There are two kinds of government:
1. This is how people are. What do we do about it?
2. This is how things should be. How do we change human nature to make it so?
Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.
Very well put.
ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to
you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.
The problem is that every time we've tried anarchism/socialism/objectivism [circle one], it's been in a watered down form. As soon as we implement it in the pure form as the unicorns from Xanos explained it to us, everyone will shit rainbows.
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 13, 2012, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
There are two kinds of government:
1. This is how people are. What do we do about it?
2. This is how things should be. How do we change human nature to make it so?
Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.
Very well put.
ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.
#1 is more realistic, because it says "Act within these constraints, or we'll fucking shoot you." Perfection is not required; force is. This is the language monkeys understand.
What varies is the constraints. They may be as simple as "Don't murder people and don't take their shit", or it may be "Speak not against the Holy State
TM. Obviously, some are more desirable than others, but no significant society that doesn't rely on force has ever survived.
Incidentally, as given in the "farmer's account" in
The Federalist Papers, if you take that threat away, people will instantly obtain or create a new one, because most people have at least some idea of how primate politics function.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 13, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 13, 2012, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
There are two kinds of government:
1. This is how people are. What do we do about it?
2. This is how things should be. How do we change human nature to make it so?
Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.
Very well put.
ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.
#1 is more realistic, because it says "Act within these constraints, or we'll fucking shoot you." Perfection is not required; force is. This is the language monkeys understand.
What varies is the constraints. They may be as simple as "Don't murder people and don't take their shit", or it may be "Speak not against the Holy StateTM. Obviously, some are more desirable than others, but no significant society that doesn't rely on force has ever survived.
Incidentally, as given in the "farmer's account" in The Federalist Papers, if you take that threat away, people will instantly obtain or create a new one, because most people have at least some idea of how primate politics function.
I want to say that one of the founding fathers said something along the lines of that if people sacrifice freedom for security then they'll have neither. It probably works the other way around, too.
Had to bump when I came across this here:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/florida-teen-killed-by-community-watch-member-28656689.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fnews-26797925%252Fflorida-teen-killed-by-community-watch-member-28656689.html
I wasn't aware there was this much of a public outcry. Everyone I've asked about it had no idea what was happening. But it's good to know the Miami PD is being looked at for what is obiously some bullshit. Although I doubt much will come out of that.
Also, his family says he isn't racist. That's hilarious. Do you figure they really believe that and, beyond that, is that the allegation they really want to be tackling?
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 08:12:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 13, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 13, 2012, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on March 13, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 13, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.
Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.
That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).
There are two kinds of government:
1. This is how people are. What do we do about it?
2. This is how things should be. How do we change human nature to make it so?
Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.
Very well put.
ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.
#1 is more realistic, because it says "Act within these constraints, or we'll fucking shoot you." Perfection is not required; force is. This is the language monkeys understand.
What varies is the constraints. They may be as simple as "Don't murder people and don't take their shit", or it may be "Speak not against the Holy StateTM. Obviously, some are more desirable than others, but no significant society that doesn't rely on force has ever survived.
Incidentally, as given in the "farmer's account" in The Federalist Papers, if you take that threat away, people will instantly obtain or create a new one, because most people have at least some idea of how primate politics function.
I want to say that one of the founding fathers said something along the lines of that if people sacrifice freedom for security then they'll have neither. It probably works the other way around, too.
That was actually an English guy named Lord Acton. Ben Franklin just yoinked it.
The 911 recordings have his "self defense" hanging
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html
In eight chilling recordings, made the night of February 26, listeners can hear the frightened voices of neighbors calling to report screams for help, gunfire and then that someone was dead.
In perhaps the most disturbing of the recordings, a frightened voice in the background cries out for help and pleads "No! No!" and then continues to wail.
I predict he'll still beat the charge. It's FLORIDA.
Yep. And you don't actually *have* to prove it was self defense there. Just that maybe it was.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 19, 2012, 09:08:47 PM
Yep. And you don't actually *have* to prove it was self defense there. Just that maybe it was.
Well, yeah. Innocent of murder until proven guilty, remember.
But there's not much doubt here, though that won't stop a Florida jury from acquiting him.
This expresses it better than I do:
QuoteMany readers have asked whether, given the 911 recordings, a case against Zimmerman would be easier than most homicides in which "self-defense" is cited by a defendant. In Florida, the answer probably is no: The courts' interpretation of the stand-your-ground law has been extremely broad—so broad that, to win an acquittal, a defendant doesn't even have to prove self-defense, only argue for it, while to win a conviction the prosecution has to prove that self-defense was impossible.
Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the law "does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.
This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time.
One of those defendants ended up receiving a conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter for an unrelated case, in which he shot indiscriminately at two people in a car.
From here (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained)
This kind of thing makes me feel ill. :(
I'd suggest all the good people in FL move and let the people like Zimerman wipe each other out, since you can basically kill anybody just because you feel like it there.
This ought to make things more interesting:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html)
However:
Quote
"Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."
So.... they're giving themselves an easy out on this one?
Quote from: !rB>C on March 20, 2012, 03:29:52 AM
This ought to make things more interesting:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html)
However:
Quote
"Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."
So.... they're giving themselves an easy out on this one?
Godammit...
I'm gonna go drink for a while.
Quote from: !rB>C on March 20, 2012, 03:29:52 AM
This ought to make things more interesting:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html)
However:
Quote
"Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."
So.... they're giving themselves an easy out on this one?
I'm getting the urge to dance...you know, for SCIENCE.
What I don't get is how the COPS can determine if its self-defense... isn't that the job of juries?
Also:
"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life."
What kind of obvious bullshit claim is that? Who needs to exit a vehicle to read a street sign? What kid with candy and tea is gonna attack a much larger person randomly on the street?
It's entirely absurd.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 03:59:09 PM
What I don't get is how the COPS can determine if its self-defense... isn't that the job of juries?
Initially, it's supposed to be the grand jury. If they have questions, then it goes to a jury.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 04:02:24 PM
Also:
"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life."
What kind of obvious bullshit claim is that? Who needs to exit a vehicle to read a street sign? What kid with candy and tea is gonna attack a much larger person randomly on the street?
It's entirely absurd.
Of course it's absurd. Also, if he fired at that range, the kid would have burns on his chest...Which would make it obvious.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 20, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 04:02:24 PM
Also:
"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life."
What kind of obvious bullshit claim is that? Who needs to exit a vehicle to read a street sign? What kid with candy and tea is gonna attack a much larger person randomly on the street?
It's entirely absurd.
Of course it's absurd. Also, if he fired at that range, the kid would have burns on his chest...Which would make it obvious.
Everyone knows gunpowder burns don't show up on black people... :horrormirth:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 04:20:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 20, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 04:02:24 PM
Also:
"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life."
What kind of obvious bullshit claim is that? Who needs to exit a vehicle to read a street sign? What kid with candy and tea is gonna attack a much larger person randomly on the street?
It's entirely absurd.
Of course it's absurd. Also, if he fired at that range, the kid would have burns on his chest...Which would make it obvious.
Everyone knows gunpowder burns don't show up on black people... :horrormirth:
No, that's frostbite.
If I was in Florida right now I wouldnt think twice about hunting down this guy and defending myself from him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17452878
QuoteAccording to Mr Crump, Martin was on the phone with his 16-year-old girlfriend moments before he was shot. She said Martin was followed by Mr Zimmerman and she heard the beginning of the confrontation, Mr Crump said.
"She blows Zimmerman's absurd self-defence claim out of the water," Mr Crump said.
Mr Crump played a recorded affidavit from the young woman in which she describes Martin's last phone call. She spoke with him repeatedly while he visited Sanford, the Orlando suburb where he died.
According to the affidavit, Martin was walking back from a shop with his phone in his pocket connected to a headset earphone.
He ran to a nearby building to take shelter from the rain and then pulled up his hoodie before he walked the rest of the way back. He then realised that someone was following him.
"I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run," ABC News quoted the 16-year-old as saying.
He eventually ran, but Mr Zimmerman caught up with him.
The young woman heard Martin ask Mr Zimmerman repeatedly why he was following him and then heard his headset falling, losing contact with him.
There is so much damning evidence coming out against Zimmerman. . . And it won't mean a damn thing ultimately. God fucking forbid Florida puts a murderer behind bars.
"I'm gonna self-defend the shit out of you!"
/
:chickenhawk:
The best defence is a good offence?
Turns out the bastard followed the kid for quite some time before killing him.
Also, 911 recordings have him *chasing* the kid, with the 911 operator telling him to desist.
So They're basically hoping for riots when they don't do anything to this dickweed so They can bring in more martial law?
Now they're dicking around arguing whether an actual racial slur was said. Even though the kid was obviously shot for walking while black.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_t2
Whether Zimmerman used such language prior to shooting Martin is key, according to CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "It's extremely, extremely significant because the federal government is not allowed to prosecute just your ordinary, everyday murder. Two people fighting on the street is not a federal crime. However, if one person shoots another based on racial hostility, racial animus, that does become a federal crime."
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 06:03:23 PM
Now they're dicking around arguing whether an actual racial slur was said. Even though the kid was obviously shot for walking while black.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_t2
Whether Zimmerman used such language prior to shooting Martin is key, according to CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "It's extremely, extremely significant because the federal government is not allowed to prosecute just your ordinary, everyday murder. Two people fighting on the street is not a federal crime. However, if one person shoots another based on racial hostility, racial animus, that does become a federal crime."
This...is just insane. And pathetic excuses. If this turns out to be a "hate crime" and the federal government needs to get involved, so be it. But that's no excuse as to why he shouldn't be arrested at the local level now. I know this is Florida, but that's been my understanding of how things work here going from State>Federal. Guy's arrested > case goes to District Courts; more serious offense > Superior Court; it becomes a federal matter > U.S. Courts. Unless I'm completely missing something in the State > Federal transfer.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on March 22, 2012, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 06:03:23 PM
Now they're dicking around arguing whether an actual racial slur was said. Even though the kid was obviously shot for walking while black.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_t2
Whether Zimmerman used such language prior to shooting Martin is key, according to CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "It's extremely, extremely significant because the federal government is not allowed to prosecute just your ordinary, everyday murder. Two people fighting on the street is not a federal crime. However, if one person shoots another based on racial hostility, racial animus, that does become a federal crime."
This...is just insane. And pathetic excuses. If this turns out to be a "hate crime" and the federal government needs to get involved, so be it. But that's no excuse as to why he shouldn't be arrested at the local level now. I know this is Florida, but that's been my understanding of how things work here going from State>Federal. Guy's arrested > case goes to District Courts; more serious offense > Superior Court; it becomes a federal matter > U.S. Courts. Unless I'm completely missing something in the State > Federal transfer.
I'm starting to think there's no more legal protocol, they just make shit up as they go along.
Well, it is Florida...
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
I think the best way to determine if something is self defense is the grand jury process. It's used every day, and it works.
Being able to stalk down and murder someone, then go home at night, means you have a bad law.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2012, 11:10:22 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
I think the best way to determine if something is self defense is the grand jury process. It's used every day, and it works.
Being able to stalk down and murder someone, then go home at night, means you have a bad law.
The problem is there hasn't been a grand jury convened to hear the facts yet. The outrage comes from him not being held in custody until that happens, with good reason.
If he's found innocent then well.. I'll have to agree with you.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
The problem is there hasn't been a grand jury convened to hear the facts yet. The outrage comes from him not being held in custody until that happens, with good reason.
There was more than enough probable cause to make an arrest.
The police have no intention of arresting this bastard. Why?
Black kid shot in Florida. That's why.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 21, 2012, 01:12:25 PM
"I'm gonna self-defend the shit out of you!"
/
:chickenhawk:
:lulz: This is my new favorite saying of 2012...along with "I DIDN'T FIGHT IN THE NAVY SO THESE FUCKS COULD _____!"
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2012, 11:17:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
The problem is there hasn't been a grand jury convened to hear the facts yet. The outrage comes from him not being held in custody until that happens, with good reason.
There was more than enough probable cause to make an arrest.
The police have no intention of arresting this bastard. Why?
Black kid shot in Florida. That's why.
Given Sanford's history with the black community, yeah. More than likely.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.
The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.
The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.
I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".
And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.
The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.
I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".
And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMBut there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
:cn:
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMHow is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law. That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended. That still doesn't make it a bad law. It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.
QuoteOh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone.
God dammit Pickle. You never learn, do you?
YOU misread what she wrote, YOU are being a dick, and YOU said something fucking stupid in the first place, and now YOU are digging in your heels.
How many times do we have to go through this? I mean, come on.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.
The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.
I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".
And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone.
I'm being "facetious and condescending" because I asked you to point out where I said something that I never said and you didn't do it? OK, yeah, whatever.
Now, would you show me where I supposedly cited a reason for the law being validly used?????
Quote
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMBut there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
:cn:
"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html
The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-minneapolis/the-first-thing-you-do-is-drag-him-inside), where it
doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.
There's a disturbingly large faction of
people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.
QuoteQuote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMHow is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law. That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended. That still doesn't make it a bad law. It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.
Uhhh...by the time it gets to the jury, the guy is DEAD.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 23, 2012, 01:59:18 AM
QuoteOh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone.
God dammit Pickle. You never learn, do you?
YOU misread what she wrote, YOU are being a dick, and YOU said something fucking stupid in the first place, and now YOU are digging in your heels.
How many times do we have to go through this? I mean, come on.
And I said I misread what she said. I said it in a very dickish tone. I don't see where I said something stupid in the first place.
Not worried. Just saying as much as Castle Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori) gets abused for all kinds of stupid racist reasons, how much stupider is THIS law?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 02:02:38 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.
The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.
I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".
And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone.
I'm being "facetious and condescending" because I asked you to point out where I said something that I never said and you didn't do it? OK, yeah, whatever.
Now, would you show me where I supposedly cited a reason for the law being validly used?????
Quote
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMBut there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
:cn:
"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html
The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-minneapolis/the-first-thing-you-do-is-drag-him-inside), where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.
There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.
QuoteQuote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMHow is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law. That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended. That still doesn't make it a bad law. It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.
Uhhh...by the time it gets to the jury, the guy is DEAD.
What I meant by being validly used was when someone breaks into your home. The reason the law was passed. I thought this point was clear in the previous posts. I'll reiterate that IMHO, that is a good law and a very good reason to have it, as people have been prosecuted for doing so when, before the law was passed, doing so would get you arrested, tried and convicted.
Quote"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html
The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.
There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.
And there are a disturbingly large faction of people who become victims of violent, sometimes deadly crimes, who have the need to defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force, without the ADDED fear of prosecution and incarceration.
What about them?
My internets are being stupid and I can't seem to get to the link but giving you the benefit of the doubt, that means that what you're saying is there is a problem with the enforcement, investigation and prosecution of the law. I don't think that makes it a bad law.
Yes, by the time it gets to jury the guy is dead. When the law is used improperly, (and humans are notorious for this, finding ways around laws) people sometimes die. People also die when people break laws that are very clear cut: home invasion followed by murder of the person or people. Are you saying it's better for those people to die and possibly never have the attacker brought to justice? That was the intention of the law as written. You mentioned this yourself. Is that supposed to be thrown under the bus because the law is being abused in some cases? Or should there be a more strict interpretation of the law?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 02:26:42 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 02:02:38 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 22, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one.
It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law.
And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this. We were just the first.
I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.
I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
THIS fucker has it coming to him, though. He was the instigator.
Fucking sad story.
It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused.
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".
So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?
I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.
The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.
I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".
And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone.
I'm being "facetious and condescending" because I asked you to point out where I said something that I never said and you didn't do it? OK, yeah, whatever.
Now, would you show me where I supposedly cited a reason for the law being validly used?????
Quote
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMBut there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.
:cn:
"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html
The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-minneapolis/the-first-thing-you-do-is-drag-him-inside), where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.
There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.
QuoteQuote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 23, 2012, 12:21:21 AMHow is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?
That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law. That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended. That still doesn't make it a bad law. It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.
Uhhh...by the time it gets to the jury, the guy is DEAD.
What I meant by being validly used was when someone breaks into your home. The reason the law was passed. I thought this point was clear in the previous posts. I'll reiterate that IMHO, that is a good law and a very good reason to have it, as people have been prosecuted for doing so when, before the law was passed, doing so would get you arrested, tried and convicted.
No, I used the Castle Law as an example of a similar law that gets abused. I meant the law in Florida that lets people say it was "self defense" when they kill somebody ANY TIME, ANY PLACE WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVE ANYTHING is a bad law.
Did you listen to the tape of Zimerman's 911 call? He was setting the whole thing up ahead of time, and if everybody hadn't made a big stink, that would have been the end of it. That law is a license to hunt people.
QuoteQuote"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html
The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.
There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.
And there are a disturbingly large faction of people who become victims of violent, sometimes deadly crimes, who have the need to defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force, without the ADDED fear of prosecution and incarceration.
What about them?
My internets are being stupid and I can't seem to get to the link but giving you the benefit of the doubt, that means that what you're saying is there is a problem with the enforcement, investigation and prosecution of the law. I don't think that makes it a bad law.
Yes, by the time it gets to jury the guy is dead. When the law is used improperly, (and humans are notorious for this, finding ways around laws) people sometimes die. People also die when people break laws that are very clear cut: home invasion followed by murder of the person or people. Are you saying it's better for those people to die and possibly never have the attacker brought to justice? That was the intention of the law as written. You mentioned this yourself. Is that supposed to be thrown under the bus because the law is being abused in some cases? Or should there be a more strict interpretation of the law?
Again, I'm not talking about home invasion. I'm talking about a kid walking back from the store.
With a law like that, you can be walking on any quiet street and you're fair game. It's a stupid law that was possibly even designed to enable racists exactly like Zimmerman (meh, Florida) and he knew it.
Thank you, PD.com.
Without you I sometimes start falling under the delusion that the world around me is Pretty Okay.
the law isn't a license to hunt people, it's being misused by people with a propensity toward violence to justify homicide and or murder.
I think we're crossing each other up a bit. At times we seem to agree (this was a case of someone hunting someone down he thought was "suspecious", getting his ass beat by that person, and killing him. Really it becomes a question of homicide or murder.) and yet disagree (Castle Law as applied to home invasion or armed robbery means use of lethal force cannot send the victim to jail, or subject them to prosecution for unresonable use of force (in the case of injury but not death))
I think this guy was clearly in the wrong for pursuing the kid, antagonizing him into being defensive, then shooting him when things didn't go his way.
IMO, clear cut, dumb ass should go to jail.
The link you posted, that I've had a chance to read now, should not have resulted in any charges against the person defending their home. No, he shouldn't have moved the body. Never move a body. But if it's 2:30 in the morning and there's someone in my kitchen I do not know I won't wait to see if they're friendly. That's how cold cases are created.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 03:51:06 AM
the law isn't a license to hunt people, it's being misused by people with a propensity toward violence to justify homicide and or murder.
I think we're crossing each other up a bit. At times we seem to agree (this was a case of someone hunting someone down he thought was "suspecious", getting his ass beat by that person,
There was no ass beating. Just killing.
Quote
and killing him. Really it becomes a question of homicide or murder.) and yet disagree (Castle Law as applied to home invasion or armed robbery means use of lethal force cannot send the victim to jail, or subject them to prosecution for unresonable use of force (in the case of injury but not death))
I think this guy was clearly in the wrong for pursuing the kid, antagonizing him into being defensive,
"Defensive" as far as yelling for help. Listen to the tapes.
Quotethen shooting him when things didn't go his way.
IMO, clear cut, dumb ass should go to jail.
Yep. For a lonnnnngass time.
QuoteThe link you posted, that I've had a chance to read now, should not have resulted in any charges against the person defending their home. No, he shouldn't have moved the body. Never move a body. But if it's 2:30 in the morning and there's someone in my kitchen I do not know I won't wait to see if they're friendly. That's how cold cases are created.
It's dicey. The guy he shot was running away and wasn't a threat at that point. OTOH, his place had been broken into not long before and I can see how he just wanted it to stop.
If it's 2:30 in the morning and there's somebody in the kitchen, they could be there to kill you. Or they could be some fifteen year old coming to steal the DVD player. I'd personally feel horrible if I shot a kid like that. That's why I keep dogs. So far, they've kept people from breaking in and my neighborhood is pretty high theft.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2012, 11:17:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 22, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
The problem is there hasn't been a grand jury convened to hear the facts yet. The outrage comes from him not being held in custody until that happens, with good reason.
There was more than enough probable cause to make an arrest.
The police have no intention of arresting this bastard. Why?
Black kid shot in Florida. That's why.
Agreed, its not the law thats completely flawed, its the implementation and interpretation of the law that the Florida cops seems to be using. Its not a cops job to interpret the law. He can gather evidence and hold the suspected individuals... but we have judges, grand juries and that whole thing called "due process" that can provide a far less biased decision on guilt or innocence.
Supposedly neutral law interpreted and enforced in selective and biased manner according to ingrained prejudices, historical aminosity and ethnic power relations! More at 11!
Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2012, 09:16:45 AM
Supposedly neutral law interpreted and enforced in selective and biased manner according to ingrained prejudices, historical aminosity and ethnic power relations! More at 11!
:horrormirth:
Richard Seymour, yesterday, had this to say concerning the rule of law in the UK:
QuoteWhat is the law? We are all obliged to know it; ignorance is no excuse. Yet, we are never taught anything about it at school. Only a professional minority, of solicitors, state administrators, judges, police and so on, actually know what is involved. Protesters, campaigners, occupiers and strikers are often obliged to undertake a crash course in specialized fields of the law in order to fight on its terms.
What we understand about law is overwhelmingly derived from popular culture, which is to say that our understanding of law is intensely ideological.
And that applies to how the law is enforced, too.
Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2012, 09:29:45 AM
Richard Seymour, yesterday, had this to say concerning the rule of law in the UK:
QuoteWhat is the law? We are all obliged to know it; ignorance is no excuse. Yet, we are never taught anything about it at school. Only a professional minority, of solicitors, state administrators, judges, police and so on, actually know what is involved. Protesters, campaigners, occupiers and strikers are often obliged to undertake a crash course in specialized fields of the law in order to fight on its terms.
What we understand about law is overwhelmingly derived from popular culture, which is to say that our understanding of law is intensely ideological.
And that applies to how the law is enforced, too.
This is a very good point that I'd never considered. I wouldn't even know where to begin trying to research all the laws which apply to me. I guess there has to be some sort of internet reference for them, but the entire body of law is so obscenely huge that you'd have to dedicate years to learning it.
And yet we're all expected to know it.
In reality I suspect Prachett is closer to the truth than we'd like to believe.
Everyone is guilty of something, so your best defence is to simply try not to come to the notice of the police in the first place.
Not to mention how easy it is to simply manufacture a crime if one isn't immediately apparent, especially as we've lost the right to know what we're being accused of if it is
convenient a matter of national security.
Hmm... The thought of local national and international law being taught from first grade to senior year is an interesting one. It would essentially make everyone a lawyer.
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
Quite a bit of stink over that here. On the one hand, he beat his 2 year old brother to death. On the other, he's only fucking 12.
Youngest person to be charged as an adult in a murder trial. Nothing to brag about, being from the city that sent a 12 year old up for life. Have to see what the jury decides. It's a case being watched very closely.
Back to the OP, I just read an interesting table-turning quote:
Quote"Trayvon saw someone following him, felt threatened, retreated, was still followed, and then was approached by an armed man who had 100 lbs on him. ... Because Zimmerman was acting as an aggressor, Trayvon had the right to defend himself by punching, kicking, tackling, etc. Because Zimmerman was acting as the aggressor, his actions cannot be considered self-defense: you can't initiate and then claim self-defense. The evidence for initiation is there on the 911 tape. ... Why is it that a black man cannot be afraid of a white man who follows and approaches him on a street at night?"
If I'm walking down the street, and an armed stranger starts following me, damn right I'm going to feel threatened.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
Quite a bit of stink over that here. On the one hand, he beat his 2 year old brother to death. On the other, he's only fucking 12.
Severity of the crime doesn't make him older, or have better judgement.
A 12 year old is not an adult, no matter what he is accused of.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 23, 2012, 02:44:28 PM
Back to the OP, I just read an interesting table-turning quote:
Quote"Trayvon saw someone following him, felt threatened, retreated, was still followed, and then was approached by an armed man who had 100 lbs on him. ... Because Zimmerman was acting as an aggressor, Trayvon had the right to defend himself by punching, kicking, tackling, etc. Because Zimmerman was acting as the aggressor, his actions cannot be considered self-defense: you can't initiate and then claim self-defense. The evidence for initiation is there on the 911 tape. ... Why is it that a black man cannot be afraid of a white man who follows and approaches him on a street at night?"
If I'm walking down the street, and an armed stranger starts following me, damn right I'm going to feel threatened.
Tangent: Imagine what would have happened if Martin had killed Zimmerman while defending himself?
:argh!:
LoLaldo Rivera:
Quote from: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/03/geraldo-rivera-wearing-a-hoodie-while-black-is-asking-for-it.html
" am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was."
:ohnotache:
ETA: My GOD there's so many wonderful emoticons
WHAT
Unfuckingreal.
More!
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1d1r6xkDK1rqsdhro1_500.png)
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Don't you understand Nigel? He was wearing a
hoodie, he was
asking for it.
ohgodIfeelsickjusttypingthat
Sounds like the "don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to be raped" thing.
MORE FUN: (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/lawyer-girl-on-phone-with-trayvon-martin-moments-before-he-was-shot/1220972)
QuoteZimmerman, who was born in Virginia and studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate and his wife, a longtime clerk of courts, according to his application to the citizen's academy.
This is making the rounds on facebok
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/farksuckerberg.jpg)
Guns don't kill people, hoodies kill people.
http://geraldoinahoodie.tumblr.com
I'm kind of surprised Obama's comments on the subject today haven't been posted here yet:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-trayvon-martin-20120323,0,2436446.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29 (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-trayvon-martin-20120323,0,2436446.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29)
QuoteReporting from Washington—
Declaring that "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," President Obama chose a highly personal way to join the heated national debate over the death of Trayvon Martin, the black teenager fatally shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida.
Obama took care to voice no opinion on the conduct of the shooter, George Zimmerman, or any legal aspect of the case beyond a call for a thorough investigation. "The attorney general reports to me so I've got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing any investigation," he said.
I was going to post the Obama thing earlier, but this place was down for me for awhile and I forgot afterwards. :|
But yeah, how can he NOT think that. About time he said something.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 24, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Don't you understand Nigel? He was wearing a hoodie, he was asking for it.
ohgodIfeelsickjusttypingthat
Are we finally seeing a reversal in the transatlantic trade in Shitty Conservative Memes?
For a long time, the UK has been importing American memes, but the idea that wearing a hoodie is signifying potential involvement in gang culture is definitely a British trope.
I lived in one of the least urban, most white areas of the country, and I'd had a number of hoodies since about the age of 12 because, I don't know, sometimes it gets windy outside or you get unexpected showers?
Thug lyfe 4 realz. man.
Quote from: Cain on March 24, 2012, 04:22:31 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 24, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Don't you understand Nigel? He was wearing a hoodie, he was asking for it.
ohgodIfeelsickjusttypingthat
Are we finally seeing a reversal in the transatlantic trade in Shitty Conservative Memes?
For a long time, the UK has been importing American memes, but the idea that wearing a hoodie is signifying potential involvement in gang culture is definitely a British trope.
I lived in one of the least urban, most white areas of the country, and I'd had a number of hoodies since about the age of 12 because, I don't know, sometimes it gets windy outside or you get unexpected showers?
Thug lyfe 4 realz. man.
Is that where it came from? Because it seriously had me mystified. For the last few decades here, hoodies have signified one of two things... "Dock worker" or "Hipster". For them to suddenly mean "gangster" just seemed so out of the blue.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 24, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Don't you understand Nigel? He was wearing a hoodie, he was asking for it.
ohgodIfeelsickjusttypingthat
:lol:
A nice white lady posted on my FB wall that black kids grow up learning not to do certain things because it makes them seem threatening. Like wearing hoodies, or running.
:x
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 04:28:31 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 24, 2012, 04:22:31 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 24, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Don't you understand Nigel? He was wearing a hoodie, he was asking for it.
ohgodIfeelsickjusttypingthat
Are we finally seeing a reversal in the transatlantic trade in Shitty Conservative Memes?
For a long time, the UK has been importing American memes, but the idea that wearing a hoodie is signifying potential involvement in gang culture is definitely a British trope.
I lived in one of the least urban, most white areas of the country, and I'd had a number of hoodies since about the age of 12 because, I don't know, sometimes it gets windy outside or you get unexpected showers?
Thug lyfe 4 realz. man.
Is that where it came from? Because it seriously had me mystified. For the last few decades here, hoodies have signified one of two things... "Dock worker" or "Hipster". For them to suddenly mean "gangster" just seemed so out of the blue.
It's the only explanation I can think of. Here are two typical examples of the genre:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-553633/Guilty-The-hoodie-gang-stabbed-boy-14-death-initiation-ritual.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/boy-18-stabbed-in-gang-brawl-with-50-hoodies-6725199.html
"Kids, rather than a hoodie like everyone else wears, I have bought you these nice argyle cardigans. Now, remember; when you're outside and a scary stranger accosts you, whatever you do, DON'T RUN. That's practically an invitation to be shot".
Yeah, I'm going to chalk that up under "conversations no one ever anticipates with their children".
Matches some of what I've heard - this tumblr talks about it sometimes (http://newwavefeminism.tumblr.com/). She says she's known Black guys who wear suits all the time so as to avoid the "thug" association our culture makes with Black men in casual clothing.
Quote from: Cain on March 24, 2012, 04:34:31 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 04:28:31 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 24, 2012, 04:22:31 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 24, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
WHAT THE FUCK DOES GERALDO HAVE AGAINST HOODIES???
Does he even know what the word means? It's a fucking SWEATSHIRT with a HOOD. Everybody wears them. Since when are hoodies "gangster"??
Don't you understand Nigel? He was wearing a hoodie, he was asking for it.
ohgodIfeelsickjusttypingthat
Are we finally seeing a reversal in the transatlantic trade in Shitty Conservative Memes?
For a long time, the UK has been importing American memes, but the idea that wearing a hoodie is signifying potential involvement in gang culture is definitely a British trope.
I lived in one of the least urban, most white areas of the country, and I'd had a number of hoodies since about the age of 12 because, I don't know, sometimes it gets windy outside or you get unexpected showers?
Thug lyfe 4 realz. man.
Is that where it came from? Because it seriously had me mystified. For the last few decades here, hoodies have signified one of two things... "Dock worker" or "Hipster". For them to suddenly mean "gangster" just seemed so out of the blue.
It's the only explanation I can think of. Here are two typical examples of the genre:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-553633/Guilty-The-hoodie-gang-stabbed-boy-14-death-initiation-ritual.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/boy-18-stabbed-in-gang-brawl-with-50-hoodies-6725199.html
Oh, god, THAT'S SOME FUCKED-UP SHIT. :(
But yeah, it makes the hoodie thing make a little more sense. It also, however, makes me think that Geraldo just now became aware of that connotation of "hoodies" in the UK and thinks he's being all pop-culture.
Seriously? Hoodies?
The alternative school here has a strict "no gang stuff" dress code. No red, no blue and if it's winter and your kid has a coat in one of those colors, you have to get them a different one. But they never had a problem with hoodies if they weren't red or blue, so yeah, it's an import.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 24, 2012, 04:36:35 AM
Matches some of what I've heard - this tumblr talks about it sometimes (http://newwavefeminism.tumblr.com/). She says she's known Black guys who wear suits all the time so as to avoid the "thug" association our culture makes with Black men in casual clothing.
Yeah, you see that a lot among Black Muslims too. But "thug" wear in America has been shit like track suits, baggy pants and poofy jackets. The idea that hoodies are thug wear is totally new for us as far as I know.
A quick google search on "thug hoodie" turned up one hoodie printed with brass knucks and a bunch of UK stuff.
Oh, and some people protesting Geraldo.
The police chief and the DA involved in the local end of things have been shitcanned.
Well, the police chief was given a vote of no confidence at 3-2, and forced out of office, and the DA "stepped aside" and "has been assigned to other duties".
HAR HAR :lol:
Looks like someone is about to have a rather awkward date with Mikhail Muhammad.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2012, 05:25:55 AM
The police chief and the DA involved in the local end of things have been shitcanned.
Well, the police chief was given a vote of no confidence at 3-2, and forced out of office, and the DA "stepped aside" and "has been assigned to other duties".
Interesting developments!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2012, 05:25:55 AM
The police chief and the DA involved in the local end of things have been shitcanned.
Well, the police chief was given a vote of no confidence at 3-2, and forced out of office, and the DA "stepped aside" and "has been assigned to other duties".
The last police chief was canned after he let the son of an officer off for beating the shit out of a homeless dude on cam. I dont think its a sign of actual change, its more a sacrificial lamb to quell the bad media.
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2012, 04:52:50 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 24, 2012, 04:36:35 AM
Matches some of what I've heard - this tumblr talks about it sometimes (http://newwavefeminism.tumblr.com/). She says she's known Black guys who wear suits all the time so as to avoid the "thug" association our culture makes with Black men in casual clothing.
Yeah, you see that a lot among Black Muslims too. But "thug" wear in America has been shit like track suits, baggy pants and poofy jackets. The idea that hoodies are thug wear is totally new for us as far as I know.
I suspect in the UK the criminal connotation is that it is very hard to identify someone via CCTV footage if they have a hood up.
Never mind most of the people who whine about hoodies also whine about CCTV, but that is part of where it stems from, other than white, suburban fear of Da Yoof.
I saw an ad on the paper once with a pic of a guy in with his hood up from CCTV, between that and the lousy quality of newsprint you couldn't see his face AT ALL. "Wanted for robbery black male if you have information call..."
:lol: but :horrormirth:
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on March 24, 2012, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2012, 05:25:55 AM
The police chief and the DA involved in the local end of things have been shitcanned.
Well, the police chief was given a vote of no confidence at 3-2, and forced out of office, and the DA "stepped aside" and "has been assigned to other duties".
The last police chief was canned after he let the son of an officer off for beating the shit out of a homeless dude on cam. I dont think its a sign of actual change, its more a sacrificial lamb to quell the bad media.
Good enough is good enough.
Now they prosecute the guy.
Nothing will change in the long run, but they'll hopefully at least be forced to deal with this particular pile of shit.
I was reading with interest that there was an incident at another Florida gated community not too far from this one, where a black man was shot while in a car. Neighbourhood Watch types, who did the shooting, claimed he was trying to run them down, yet he was shot in the back. The judge dismissed the case against the shooters based on lack of evidence.
No doubt, this gave Zimmerman, who was in constant contact with the local police, and was known to be nearly paranoid about "suspicious blacks" near the gated community, reason to believe he could kill a black kid with impunity.
At least in this case, the public outcry means justice may still yet be done.
There's no justice quite like publicly mandated justice. Call 0800 HANG EM to cast your vote now.......
You may mock but justice via a phone vote is probably closer than you think. If not the verdict then certainly the punishment.
Memo - Make public access TV show, get premium rate phone line and do this.
And the Persecuted Rich Honky Faction (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/newt-gingrich-trayvon-martin-barack-obama_n_1376659.html) weighs in.
Oh God, I just had the most tasteless thought ever:
When will Obama be inviting George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin to the White House for a beer?
QuoteGingrich responded to Obama's remarks during a "Hannity Radio" interview:
What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It's not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.
Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn't look like him. That's just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he'd been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.
I suspect this guy did not get the memo saying that white people still aren't allowed to say "get over it" about slavery and such. I also suspect that ethnic minorities are not the demographic he is very concerned about reaching. Ironically this tends to lead to further divides, the opposite of the apparent stated goal.
It certainly seems racially motivated. The victim lived there and given the shooter's neighbourhood watch antics, are we suggesting he did not know who lived in the place he was watching?
And could someone please explain this "stand your ground" law because I am struggling to fathom it. It sounds and seems like some kind of old-wild-west-never-repealed-thing?
Stand your ground is a newer law pushed forward by NRA types. The intention is to allow people who are assaulted the legal protection to actually deal with the problem at hand instead of obligating them to retreat. Personally, I don't know enough about the nuance of the law to understand what situations are covered by stand your ground that aren't covered by the normal self defense rules (other than the kinds of things that shouldn't be legal in the first place).
Thanks. I have bizzare moments where I struggle to understand how it's an acceptable force response to shoot an unarmed person.
Given the association with NRA types, would the implication be that because the assailant is armed he assumes the victim/everyone else is? Reading back through the thread it sounds like he knew the exact law to spout right away. That leads me to think he's either well educated on gun law or was being prepared for possibly being caught. Probably both?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 24, 2012, 10:57:34 PM
And the Persecuted Rich Honky Faction (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/newt-gingrich-trayvon-martin-barack-obama_n_1376659.html) weighs in.
Oh, my god. Talk about epic "not getting it". The President's statement was intended to counter the dehumanizing effect of racism on white people toward "black kids"... that statement was meant to evoke empathy and understanding in people who may not have personalized Trayvon until they saw a man who is in a position of great influence saying something directly evocative like that.
For a lot of people, it's abstract until it's humanized to that degree... in my class when we were discussing it, I got choked up when I said it scares me because I have a son... Trayvon was only a few years older than my son. Some of the people in my class, you could see a switch flip over when it went from "black teenager" in their heads to "a beloved young son". It makes it real.
I hear a lot of white people saying things like "There's a black man at the door" when "There's a man at the door" would suffice. I don't like it, there's a "not like us" subtext even if they don't consciously mean anything by it. A lot of fucked up thinking seems to be just ground into people and they don't realize it.
That Gingrich called Trayvon an "it" bothers me intensely.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 25, 2012, 12:15:01 AM
I hear a lot of white people saying things like "There's a black man at the door" when "There's a man at the door" would suffice. I don't like it, there's a "not like us" subtext even if they don't consciously mean anything by it. A lot of fucked up thinking seems to be just ground into people and they don't realize it.
It takes a lot of self-reflection to realize that sort of thing. Most people aren't very good at that or even willing to try.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 25, 2012, 12:20:46 AM
That Gingrich called Trayvon an "it" bothers me intensely.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 25, 2012, 12:15:01 AM
I hear a lot of white people saying things like "There's a black man at the door" when "There's a man at the door" would suffice. I don't like it, there's a "not like us" subtext even if they don't consciously mean anything by it. A lot of fucked up thinking seems to be just ground into people and they don't realize it.
It takes a lot of self-reflection to realize that sort of thing. Most people aren't very good at that or even willing to try.
Slightly off-topic, but this particular corner of Hades, UK I've felt like there's been a growing acceptance of casual racism building for quite a few years. It tends to get a veneer of "workplace taking the piss", but the frequency in which I encounter it is disturbing. It'd be almost funny if it wasn't invariably serious and later involved a variation of XXX are stealing our jobs.
Eventually people may realise that the problem is any ethnic group, the problem is fucking idiots. They're everywhere. And practically everyone.
There's a book in there. "Everyone is a fucking Idiot. Volume #1/Infinity"
Yeah, I'm seeing that here a little, too.
Also, apparently the new Black Panther party is offering a $10k bounty for the capture of Zimmerman. (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-panther-rage-10g-capture-trayvon-killer-article-1.1050370)
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 25, 2012, 12:20:46 AM
That Gingrich called Trayvon an "it" bothers me intensely.
HELLO.
"REPUBLICAN".
STILL!
Now THIS is interesting...
http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/
Zimmerman's lawyer is setting up to defend his scumbag under straight up self defense, not trying to rely on the stand your ground law.
Apparently, they're going to try to argue that a 140 pound kid armed with Skittles and iced tea jumped a 240 pound man who was chasing him down... Nevermind the fact that the kid was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time, and there are 911 calls from the neighbors where you can hear the kid begging for his life...
Makes me ill.
Even if he did jump him and attack first, as this eyewitness is saying, it shouldn't matter.
He was being followed in public by an armed, threatening, adult man. If he struck first, it was because Trayvon Martin was exercising his right to self-defense.
Of course, I don't expect a court, nor the gaggles of wingnuts currently carrying water for Zimmerman to see it that way, but any normal person would probably concede in the case that Martin did attack first, he was justifiably concerned about his safety, and that Zimmerman shot him after being told to withdraw by the police and confronting him cannot be considered justifiable in any way.
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2012, 01:54:18 PM
Even if he did jump him and attack first, as this eyewitness is saying, it shouldn't matter.
He was being followed in public by an armed, threatening, adult man. If he struck first, it was because Trayvon Martin was exercising his right to self-defense.
Of course, I don't expect a court, nor the gaggles of wingnuts currently carrying water for Zimmerman to see it that way, but any normal person would probably concede in the case that Martin did attack first, he was justifiably concerned about his safety, and that Zimmerman shot him after being told to withdraw by the police and confronting him cannot be considered justifiable in any way.
Eyewitness? This is just Zimmerman's story, I am unaware of any eyewitnesses... though, apparently, Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend at the beginning of the confrontation.
Quote"Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."
After that, the line went dead, she said. According to ABC News, other than screams on 911 calls as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words Martin said.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10774247-trayvon-martins-final-phone-call-he-said-this-man-was-watching-him
An eyewitness is claiming that he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
QuoteAn alleged eyewitness is backing the 28-year-old gunman at the center of a national firestorm.
A person named "John" told a Fox affiliate in Orlando that he saw an altercation unfold between George Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom he shot and killed on Feb. 26.
Police said Zimmerman called 911 and described Martin as "suspicious." The two scuffled, and Trayvon wound up dead from a single bullet from Zimmerman's licensed 9mm semiautomatic, authorities say.
"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help, help.' I told him to stop, I was calling 911," John told the TV station. Zimmerman was wearing red.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was laying in the grass. And I believe he was dead at that point," the eyewitness claimed.
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
An eyewitness is claiming that he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
QuoteAn alleged eyewitness is backing the 28-year-old gunman at the center of a national firestorm.
A person named "John" told a Fox affiliate in Orlando that he saw an altercation unfold between George Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom he shot and killed on Feb. 26.
Police said Zimmerman called 911 and described Martin as "suspicious." The two scuffled, and Trayvon wound up dead from a single bullet from Zimmerman's licensed 9mm semiautomatic, authorities say.
"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help, help.' I told him to stop, I was calling 911," John told the TV station. Zimmerman was wearing red.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was laying in the grass. And I believe he was dead at that point," the eyewitness claimed.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one. How much credibility I'd give to somebody identifying himself by his first name only, reporting what happened to Fox News rather than the police, though...
Probably not much. And I think all the other testimony/evidence would outweigh it anyway, on a purely logical level.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 25, 2012, 07:22:39 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 25, 2012, 07:14:42 AM
STILL!
You're so 2006. :lol:
What?
Which is not necessarily applicable when the victim is Black and the defendant is white.
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
An eyewitness is claiming that he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
QuoteAn alleged eyewitness is backing the 28-year-old gunman at the center of a national firestorm.
A person named "John" told a Fox affiliate in Orlando that he saw an altercation unfold between George Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom he shot and killed on Feb. 26.
Police said Zimmerman called 911 and described Martin as "suspicious." The two scuffled, and Trayvon wound up dead from a single bullet from Zimmerman's licensed 9mm semiautomatic, authorities say.
"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help, help.' I told him to stop, I was calling 911," John told the TV station. Zimmerman was wearing red.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was laying in the grass. And I believe he was dead at that point," the eyewitness claimed.
Oh man, that reeks of bullshit.
REEKS.
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
An eyewitness is claiming that he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
QuoteAn alleged eyewitness is backing the 28-year-old gunman at the center of a national firestorm.
A person named "John" told a Fox affiliate in Orlando that he saw an altercation unfold between George Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom he shot and killed on Feb. 26.
Police said Zimmerman called 911 and described Martin as "suspicious." The two scuffled, and Trayvon wound up dead from a single bullet from Zimmerman's licensed 9mm semiautomatic, authorities say.
"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help, help.' I told him to stop, I was calling 911," John told the TV station. Zimmerman was wearing red.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was laying in the grass. And I believe he was dead at that point," the eyewitness claimed.
Oh man, that reeks of bullshit.
REEKS.
It's FOX. Of course they're going to find phantom "eyewitnesses".
http://www.pdx.edu/events d=0 :fnord: (http://www.pdx.edu/events/blackout-park-blocks?delta=0)
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
An eyewitness is claiming
QuoteAn alleged eyewitness
REEKS.
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
An eyewitness is claiming that he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
QuoteAn alleged eyewitness is backing the 28-year-old gunman at the center of a national firestorm.
A person named "John" told a Fox affiliate in Orlando that he saw an altercation unfold between George Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom he shot and killed on Feb. 26.
Police said Zimmerman called 911 and described Martin as "suspicious." The two scuffled, and Trayvon wound up dead from a single bullet from Zimmerman's licensed 9mm semiautomatic, authorities say.
"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help, help.' I told him to stop, I was calling 911," John told the TV station. Zimmerman was wearing red.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was laying in the grass. And I believe he was dead at that point," the eyewitness claimed.
Oh man, that reeks of bullshit.
REEKS.
My tennesseean father spouted this to me as factual troof on the phone earlier. :kingmeh:
Spike Lee tweeted Zimmerman's address.
Which is terrible. Worse than shooting an unarmed black kid, even.
I don't see it...either he deleted it or it's sunk into oblivion under a ton of fan tweets.
More bullshit and wagon circling. If Zimmerman was beat all to hell, why aren't there pics?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-police-report-details-alleged-attack-on-zimmerman
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 26, 2012, 09:18:08 PM
More bullshit and wagon circling. If Zimmerman was beat all to hell, why aren't there pics?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-police-report-details-alleged-attack-on-zimmerman
Meh. The only thing that matters is that he kept following the kid after the 911 operator told him not to continue.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 26, 2012, 09:19:27 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 26, 2012, 09:18:08 PM
More bullshit and wagon circling. If Zimmerman was beat all to hell, why aren't there pics?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-police-report-details-alleged-attack-on-zimmerman
Meh. The only thing that matters is that he kept following the kid after the 911 operator told him not to continue.
Yeah. If I could get a lick in on somebody that was about to blow my shit away, I'd do it.
So, we know for a fact that Zimmerman purposely approached the kid with an armed, semi-automatic weapon. I fail to see how anything between that moment and kid dying is relevant. We know Martin didn't have a weapon on him, so people who stick up for Zimmerman are saying, essentially:
"Zimmerman just walked up to Martin, while holding a weapon, trying to protect his neighborhood, and was violently attacked! This Martin kid is clearly a thug! Only low-class criminals are seen in compromising photos! Obviously none of this would have happened if Martin wasn't so damn black suspicious!"
Alright, that interpretation might be biased, because fuck those people. But it can't be too far off, honestly. the 911 tapes are pretty conclusive.
Haven't verified the family part yet, it just popped up on facebook
Quote
Tay Diosa Caliente-roja SimmonsNews Channel 3 Official Fan Page
4 hours ago via mobile ·
Maybe why George Zimmerman didnt get arrested....True or False?
According to court records: George Zimmerman is the son of retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate Judge Robert J. Zimmerman, his mother Gladys Zimmerman is a court clerk....He has three closed arrests:
1) 7/18/05 for resisting an officer w/violence, and battery on a law enforcement Officer div 10...
2) 8/9/05 for domestic violence div 44...
3) 8/10/05 for domestic violence div 46...
This much is verified, though
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1335984.html
ETA: http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5782626
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 25, 2012, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 25, 2012, 07:22:39 AM
You're so 2006. :lol:
What?
You and your "all people are equal" thing. This is the New America, which is a whole lot like the Old America.
Ah. Well, that makes more sense.
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
I suspect they have been doing what's worked just fine for them for generations. They just weren't expecting it to stop working.
I fear that if he does get arrested and goes to trial, he'll be aquitted, for some technicality or other.
Then again, the subsequent riots might actually destroy parts of Florida, so there will be some benefit.
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
OH HO, look at this...no blood, no bruising, no swelling, no black eyes, no fat lip...
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10915887-police-video-shows-george-zimmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting
155: March 25, 2012, 10:11:33
Quote from: hirley0 on March 25, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
http://www.pdx.edu/events d=0 :fnord: (http://www.pdx.edu/events/blackout-park-blocks?delta=0)
/ 9:11 Knock on the "DOOR"
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 29, 2012, 04:48:51 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
OH HO, look at this...no blood, no bruising, no swelling, no black eyes, no fat lip...
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10915887-police-video-shows-george-zimmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting
Reposted at Capitol Grilling for the lulz.
If he'd had the back of his head smacked in, he'd be pale as hell, and with a broken nose he'd also have black bags under his eyes, or at the very least extreme puffiness by this stage.
I fought in enough kickboxing and Tae Kwon Do tournaments to recognise both of those symptoms, and regardless of the quality of the footage, he has neither.
Err...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17548011
QuoteAdverts for the new Ben Stiller film Neighborhood Watch have been pulled in the US over fears they are insensitive.
It comes after the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida, last month.
He was killed by neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who said he was acting in "self defence" after the 17-year-old looked "suspicious".
Twentieth Century Fox has withdrawn its ads, saying the film was made "before this incident ever came to light".
It was feared that one scene in particular could be misconstrued.
It showed actor Jonah Hill making a gun gesture with his fingers, then pretending to shoot at a suburban neighbourhood, where children were playing in their gardens.
The tone of the whole article is confusing. It makes mention of several key points and issues but completely fails to mention that Ben Stiller has never made a good film, and is, in fact, an odious piece of shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 29, 2012, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 29, 2012, 04:48:51 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
OH HO, look at this...no blood, no bruising, no swelling, no black eyes, no fat lip...
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10915887-police-video-shows-george-zimmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting
Reposted at Capitol Grilling for the lulz.
*shakes popcorn pot* :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
WOOOOOW.
I really, really wanted to believe that the only reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested immediately was because a bunch of neighbors helped him deceive the cops.
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
This is getting interesting.
To summarize:
- the police coached witnessess to say they heard Zimmerman calling for help
- information was systematically leaked from the Sanford PD designed to smear Trayvon Martin's character
- Martin's body does not show the typical signs of someone involved in a fight (broken skin around the knuckles)
- The morgue identified his body immediately, but the police filed him as a John Doe
- the police report says Zimmerman had a broken nose and was covered in blood, but video footage acquired by ABC proves this to be categorically false. The police were not wearing gloves while escorting him into the station, which they would need to do if he was covered in blood/
Sanford city council also had to pass over complaints about police racism to the DOJ, they were so overwhelmed by them.
This isn't just about one racist gun-nut anymore.
:facepalm:
That's just...yeah. More terrible than I had hoped, but not nearly suprising enough.
Y they believe whats on TV is B.yawned Me
the back ground has changed | no color ? }}John in Maroon /BBC
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
The world has gone vengence-crazy and no one sees it bcause we have a tidy, little justice system to handle the mess and a fuckton of prison subcontractors happy to scrape up our nickles and dimes and send lobbyists to congress to help us get moar bigger justice.
I actually got kicked out of the raep survivors club for having the stones to get up and say "well I think the death penalty for convicted raepisses may be just a little unreasonable, no?"
I got the UCMJ thrown at me too. Don't throw the UCMJ at me until you can point to the part of the constitution where it says we can pick and choose martial law for convicts where it suits us, you tripe-fucking neocon.
Yeah, it's bullshit. That's our beautiful little culture though.
Even in everyday life people are more inclined to have the last word or inact some kind of revenge than to walk away from a bad situation.
And now of course the other person has to have the last word or get some revenge, too.
And now that first person is like "what the fuck? I just gave them what they deserved!" and they need to get some more payment.
And then we all explode.
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/page_2
This is basically where all the "shame about Trayvon Martin but NIGGERS ARE DANGEROUS" pieces in conservative magazines of late are heading. Derbs is British, IIRC, but normally writes for National Review. I've linked to page two for the most odious pieces. Start at 10.
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2012, 12:01:00 AM
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/page_2
This is basically where all the "shame about Trayvon Martin but NIGGERS ARE DANGEROUS" pieces in conservative magazines of late are heading. Derbs is British, IIRC, but normally writes for National Review. I've linked to page two for the most odious pieces. Start at 10.
It reads like a Klan pamphlet. And he ends with "TELL YUOR KIDS IT COULD SAVE THEIR LIVES".
These assholes seem to be getting more overt lately. It doesn't bode well.
Yes indeed.
What:
QuoteThere is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.
Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous.
Because people are status symbols and objects to be collected like
toys. :eek: :vom:
Also, history is rhyming again. (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php)
QuoteNeo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."
Because nothing diffuses racial tension like gun-toting racial separatists patrolling an already on-edge community.
Schoep, whose neo-Nazi group is based in Detroit, tells Riptide the patrols are a response to white residents' fears of a race riot.
A group called the New Black Panther Party recently offered $10,000 for a citizens' arrest of George Zimmerman, Martin's shooter. Schoep said the bounty is a sign that "the possibility of further racial violence... is brimming over like a powder keg ready to explode into the streets."
The patrols are comprised of between 10 and 20 locals and "volunteers" from across the state, including some from Miami, he added. He couldn't go into specifics on what kind of firepower, exactly, the patrols had with them.
Great. Sounds more than a bit like white militias running around during and well after Reconstruction. How many people are they going to assault and/or intimidate?
QuoteTakimag is a Libertarian webzine. We believe the best stories are smart, cheeky, and culturally relevant. We take our politics like we take life—lightly.
Gee, a libertarian magazine and the top 5 or so stories are all about how much you shouldnt trust black people.
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2012, 12:01:00 AM
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/page_2
This is basically where all the "shame about Trayvon Martin but NIGGERS ARE DANGEROUS" pieces in conservative magazines of late are heading. Derbs is British, IIRC, but normally writes for National Review. I've linked to page two for the most odious pieces. Start at 10.
Oh sweet merciful fuck, I can't take any more... :vom:
NRO has disavowed Derb's comments, which is a welcome change for them
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295506/derbs-screed-rich-lowry
Comments are not allowed on Lowry's article, but the previous article, well, that has no such restrictions
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295500/shameless-politicians-contd-mark-krikorian?toggle=y#comment-bar
The consensus seems to be that Derbyshire is right, and that Lowry is a PC coward for selling him out.
For those wondering what "The Talk" in Derb's title, referred to, please read this (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/04/07/in_light_of_trayvon_martin_case_black_fathers_in_boston_are_scrambling_to_have_safety_talk_with_sons/).
QuoteHistorians and African-American culture experts say "the talk'' dates back to 1863, following the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves living in still-rebellious states.
Encounters between freed slaves and whites were fraught, and Charles Stith, director of Boston University's African Presidential Archives and Research Center, said black parents made it a point to caution their sons who had been slaves that if they celebrated their freedom too publicly, they could trigger an angry and potentially lethal reaction.
From emancipation, to the US Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 that upheld the legality of the "separate but equal'' segregation doctrine, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, to the war on drugs of the 1980s that included police profiling that snagged noncriminals who happened to share skin color with criminal suspects, the essence of the talk has remained.
"The talk,'' Stith said, has always ranged from the simple - maintain eye contact, no back talk, and the like - to more complex concerns, such as how to maintain a sense of identity when authority figures are perceived to be intimidating.
"The shame of this is that no proud father wants to have to tell his son to humble himself in a way that is demeaning,'' said Stith, who got his version of the talk from his mother.
"But there has been such justifiable fear over the years that a cross look, an outfit, even a shade of skin could be enough to get one's child hurt or killed, that that pride has been swallowed in a way that . . . white fathers, collectively, have never felt, because it has not occurred to them collectively that their sons could land in serious trouble for a look or a tone.''
Claytor said the talk he gave his son Richard went like this: "Watch yourself. Know your surroundings. Mind your manners. Be respectful of official authority figures like police. Don't let yourself be drawn into arguments or fights. That's something every concerned parent tells his children. But I need you to do it with this thought in mind: 'At any time, I could encounter a stranger who believes he knows me, knows my character, and my motives, based on my appearance alone.' ''
It's faintly hilarious that Derbs is apparently jealous of the ongoing nature of black repression. But only faintly. It's mostly sickening.
Quote from: navkat on April 06, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
The world has gone vengence-crazy and no one sees it bcause we have a tidy, little justice system to handle the mess and a fuckton of prison subcontractors happy to scrape up our nickles and dimes and send lobbyists to congress to help us get moar bigger justice.
I actually got kicked out of the raep survivors club for having the stones to get up and say "well I think the death penalty for convicted raepisses may be just a little unreasonable, no?"
I got the UCMJ thrown at me too. Don't throw the UCMJ at me until you can point to the part of the constitution where it says we can pick and choose martial law for convicts where it suits us, you tripe-fucking neocon.
:horrormirth: One of the reasons Khara hates me is because I disagreed with her sentiment that accused child molesters should be tortured and lynched without a trial.
Apparently there are a lot of people who think that kind of backwards reactionary shit is A-OK, as long as we're talking about waiving justice for
people we don't like.
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2012, 12:01:00 AM
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/page_2
This is basically where all the "shame about Trayvon Martin but NIGGERS ARE DANGEROUS" pieces in conservative magazines of late are heading. Derbs is British, IIRC, but normally writes for National Review. I've linked to page two for the most odious pieces. Start at 10.
fuck those people.
Well, I would agree except that never in the history of mankind has someone been unfairly accused of child molestation. So it's all cool.
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on April 07, 2012, 03:40:02 AM
QuoteTakimag is a Libertarian webzine. We believe the best stories are smart, cheeky, and culturally relevant. We take our politics like we take life—lightly.
Gee, a libertarian magazine and the top 5 or so stories are all about how much you shouldnt trust black people.
I like how "Libertarian" is increasingly a euphemism for "Racist".
Taki is in particular a paleocon magazine - so yeah, they're all about Lew Rockwell and Pat Buchanan and, as it turns out, John Derbyshire.
In some ways, I'm relieved we unload our worst cockmonglers to the US journalism industry.
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2012, 06:25:25 PM
Well, I would agree except that never in the history of mankind has someone been unfairly accused of child molestation. So it's all cool.
Yeah, it's not like anyone would take advantage of such a situation to falsely accuse people they didn't like. It certainly in no way resembles the situation in the South 50 years ago when if you were a black man you could be lynched for being accused of looking at a white woman lasciviously. For "eyeball rape".
I'm sure no one in our fine States would falsely accuse men and women of any color of being child molesters just to have an excuse to torture and lynch them, though, so such a policy would be totally reasonable and just. And I'm clearly in favor of child abuse for suggesting otherwise.
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 06, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
The world has gone vengence-crazy and no one sees it bcause we have a tidy, little justice system to handle the mess and a fuckton of prison subcontractors happy to scrape up our nickles and dimes and send lobbyists to congress to help us get moar bigger justice.
I actually got kicked out of the raep survivors club for having the stones to get up and say "well I think the death penalty for convicted raepisses may be just a little unreasonable, no?"
I got the UCMJ thrown at me too. Don't throw the UCMJ at me until you can point to the part of the constitution where it says we can pick and choose martial law for convicts where it suits us, you tripe-fucking neocon.
:horrormirth: One of the reasons Khara hates me is because I disagreed with her sentiment that accused child molesters should be tortured and lynched without a trial.
Apparently there are a lot of people who think that kind of backwards reactionary shit is A-OK, as long as we're talking about waiving justice for people we don't like.
Everybody who's been through a bullshit investigation because somebody wanted to fling false accusations would be dead.
That actually sums up Khara's motives nicely. A miserable disordered cunt who's frustrated at not being able to fry everybody.
O HAI KHARA :wave:
She must be a terribly unhappy person to contain so much hatred and bile, and to think that everyone who disagrees with her about anything hates her guts and is out to get her. That's no kind of way to live.
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2012, 08:58:27 PM
She must be a terribly unhappy person to contain so much hatred and bile, and to think that everyone who disagrees with her about anything hates her guts and is out to get her. That's no kind of way to live.
Actually, she's undead. So it works out pretty well.
See, I had no idea about "the talk." This is why censorship and repressing free speech is so poisonous and talking about it frankly with no pussy footing or fear is so fucking important. We need to be able to call the thing a name and validate its existence so we can look it in its ugly face and say "that's fucked up."
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 07, 2012, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 06, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
The world has gone vengence-crazy and no one sees it bcause we have a tidy, little justice system to handle the mess and a fuckton of prison subcontractors happy to scrape up our nickles and dimes and send lobbyists to congress to help us get moar bigger justice.
I actually got kicked out of the raep survivors club for having the stones to get up and say "well I think the death penalty for convicted raepisses may be just a little unreasonable, no?"
I got the UCMJ thrown at me too. Don't throw the UCMJ at me until you can point to the part of the constitution where it says we can pick and choose martial law for convicts where it suits us, you tripe-fucking neocon.
:horrormirth: One of the reasons Khara hates me is because I disagreed with her sentiment that accused child molesters should be tortured and lynched without a trial.
Apparently there are a lot of people who think that kind of backwards reactionary shit is A-OK, as long as we're talking about waiving justice for people we don't like.
Everybody who's been through a bullshit investigation because somebody wanted to fling false accusations would be dead.
That actually sums up Khara's motives nicely. A miserable disordered cunt who's frustrated at not being able to fry everybody.
O HAI KHARA :wave:
I heard she molested her kids (that means now she's morally obligated to lynch herself right?)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 07, 2012, 10:42:35 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 07, 2012, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 06, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
The world has gone vengence-crazy and no one sees it bcause we have a tidy, little justice system to handle the mess and a fuckton of prison subcontractors happy to scrape up our nickles and dimes and send lobbyists to congress to help us get moar bigger justice.
I actually got kicked out of the raep survivors club for having the stones to get up and say "well I think the death penalty for convicted raepisses may be just a little unreasonable, no?"
I got the UCMJ thrown at me too. Don't throw the UCMJ at me until you can point to the part of the constitution where it says we can pick and choose martial law for convicts where it suits us, you tripe-fucking neocon.
:horrormirth: One of the reasons Khara hates me is because I disagreed with her sentiment that accused child molesters should be tortured and lynched without a trial.
Apparently there are a lot of people who think that kind of backwards reactionary shit is A-OK, as long as we're talking about waiving justice for people we don't like.
Everybody who's been through a bullshit investigation because somebody wanted to fling false accusations would be dead.
That actually sums up Khara's motives nicely. A miserable disordered cunt who's frustrated at not being able to fry everybody.
O HAI KHARA :wave:
I heard she molested her kids (that means now she's morally obligated to lynch herself right?)
That's not cool, asshole.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 07, 2012, 10:42:35 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 07, 2012, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 06, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on March 23, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Angela Corey, State Attorney for the 4th Circuit (which is basically my home town) has been assigned as State Attorney for the case.
She's been getting a lot of shit lately from the local Dems for being a hard ass prosecutor with a high conviction rate. (and for having what seems like a bit too cozy a relationship with the Public Defender's Office) She's the one prosecuting Christian Fernandez (the 12 year old who beat his 2 year old brother to death) as an adult murder case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A 12 year old is now an adult?
The world has gone vengence-crazy and no one sees it bcause we have a tidy, little justice system to handle the mess and a fuckton of prison subcontractors happy to scrape up our nickles and dimes and send lobbyists to congress to help us get moar bigger justice.
I actually got kicked out of the raep survivors club for having the stones to get up and say "well I think the death penalty for convicted raepisses may be just a little unreasonable, no?"
I got the UCMJ thrown at me too. Don't throw the UCMJ at me until you can point to the part of the constitution where it says we can pick and choose martial law for convicts where it suits us, you tripe-fucking neocon.
:horrormirth: One of the reasons Khara hates me is because I disagreed with her sentiment that accused child molesters should be tortured and lynched without a trial.
Apparently there are a lot of people who think that kind of backwards reactionary shit is A-OK, as long as we're talking about waiving justice for people we don't like.
Everybody who's been through a bullshit investigation because somebody wanted to fling false accusations would be dead.
That actually sums up Khara's motives nicely. A miserable disordered cunt who's frustrated at not being able to fry everybody.
O HAI KHARA :wave:
I heard she molested her kids (that means now she's morally obligated to lynch herself right?)
Jesus H Christ. Fuck off and die, you fucking asshole. Seriously. Go the fuck away.
If it was just me, I'd ban your ass, you miserable fucking creep.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-legal-team-calls-quits/story?id=16110510#.T4SkKNXCbTo
QuoteIn a hastily convened news conference, George Zimmerman's legal team said today they would no longer represent the man who fatally shot unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman's lawyers said they are withdrawing from the case because they have lost contact with Zimmerman, who is refusing to answer their calls, texts and emails.
Is he disappeared?
Ofuk!
Quote from: navkat on April 10, 2012, 11:16:58 PM
Is he disappeared?
Ofuk!
Apparently, he fled the state. He at some point called in to Sean Hannity.
Yeah, this is not going to end well.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on April 10, 2012, 11:32:23 PM
Yeah, this is not going to end well.
HAR! I beg to differ! This is gonna be AMAZING!
How much you wanna bet they didn't help him skip out?
Probably in Cuba.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 10, 2012, 11:33:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on April 10, 2012, 11:32:23 PM
Yeah, this is not going to end well.
HAR! I beg to differ! This is gonna be AMAZING!
For you and I, Dok. Maybe not so much for the innocent bystanders and guilty parties. :lulz:
I didn't say it wasn't going to be funny ('cause it will), but it's still going to be kinda ugly.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on April 10, 2012, 11:39:44 PM
I didn't say it wasn't going to be funny ('cause it will), but it's still going to be kinda ugly.
Ugly can be good.
The POS has been soliciting travel expenses http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/
This story gets even more bizarre. He's got a website up collecting donations from his "supporters" with pictures of a vandalized Black Cultural center and a Q'ran burner on it.
Anyone who still defends this guy as not racially motivated is a retard.
He posted at 1:30 today. They could find him if they felt like it.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/
Quote from: navkat on April 11, 2012, 12:06:12 AM
This story gets even more bizarre. He's got a website up collecting donations from his "supporters" with pictures of a vandalized Black Cultural center and a Q'ran burner on it.
Anyone who still defends this guy as not racially motivated is a retard.
I don't see the pictures...it it the same website?
He has a contact form if anybody wants to ream his ass.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/Contact.html
Do a google search about it. I'm sure he's taken them down.
I will say it certainly does NOT look like he's run in the strictest sense of the word. I will also say that my divorce atty withdrew after not getting an email from me. She didn't phone me, she didn't write me. She claimed she could not reach me and it was all over before I'd been notified. Mind you: I'm in a pretty unpermanent situtation right now and she knows it. Lawyers seem to be exempt from things like law and truth and contractural agreements. I think that's one of the requirements, in fact: to see all these matters as open to interpretation.
Quote from: navkat on April 11, 2012, 12:54:24 AM
Do a google search about it. I'm sure he's taken them down.
Yep. he took the pics down today:
http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/special-prosecutor-says-george-zimmerman-will-not-face-grand-jury
And it looks like somebody got to the prosecutor. This is fishy as fuck.
Quote
I will say it certainly does NOT look like he's run in the strictest sense of the word. I will also say that my divorce atty withdrew after not getting an email from me. She didn't phone me, she didn't write me. She claimed she could not reach me and it was all over before I'd been notified. Mind you: I'm in a pretty unpermanent situtation right now and she knows it. Lawyers seem to be exempt from things like law and truth and contractural agreements. I think that's one of the requirements, in fact: to see all these matters as open to interpretation.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-legal-team-calls-quits/story?id=16110510#.T4SkKNXCbTo
"He can't go out to a 7/11 to buy a Diet Coke. There's a bounty out there," Uhrig said.
The lawyer suggested that Zimmerman was probably suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
"Perhaps the pressure has pushed him over the edge," Uhrig said. The attorney suggested Zimmerman may not be handling the pressure and has lost weight.
He also said that Zimmerman was not in Florida, saying, "You can stop looking for him in Florida. Look much further than that."He's whereabouts unknown for the time being but some people apparently know he's "not in Florida". People who allegedly have been unable to contact him.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but as he's not been formally charged or pre-indicted or taken into custody or whatever the first step into the legal system is - it's not actually against the law for him to flee to wherever he can get away to, correct? The only thing standing between him and a flight to who knows where is that secret terrorist no-fly list?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on April 11, 2012, 04:38:12 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong - but as he's not been formally charged or pre-indicted or taken into custody or whatever the first step into the legal system is - it's not actually against the law for him to flee to wherever he can get away to, correct? The only thing standing between him and a flight to who knows where is that secret terrorist no-fly list?
At this point I don't think there is anything binding to make him stay. Which I'm sure he was coached about.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: navkat on April 11, 2012, 12:06:12 AM
This story gets even more bizarre. He's got a website up collecting donations from his "supporters" with pictures of a vandalized Black Cultural center and a Q'ran burner on it.
Anyone who still defends this guy as not racially motivated is a retard.
I don't see the pictures...it it the same website?
He has a contact form if anybody wants to ream his ass.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/Contact.html
By Buddha that is a strange website. Most pages are a single line quote, and this is on every page:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke."
This can't actually be him. He wouldn't be stupid enough to actually do this, would he?
Oh shit, it's really him.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 11, 2012, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: navkat on April 11, 2012, 12:06:12 AM
This story gets even more bizarre. He's got a website up collecting donations from his "supporters" with pictures of a vandalized Black Cultural center and a Q'ran burner on it.
Anyone who still defends this guy as not racially motivated is a retard.
I don't see the pictures...it it the same website?
He has a contact form if anybody wants to ream his ass.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/Contact.html
By Buddha that is a strange website. Most pages are a single line quote, and this is on every page:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke."
This can't actually be him. He wouldn't be stupid enough to actually do this, would he?
Oh shit, it's really him.
And "evil" can be defined as having a can of Arizona Ice Tea in one jacket pocket, and Skittles in the other.
Well I, for one, have never met an ice-tea drinker who isn't not up to no good.
Yeah.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 11, 2012, 06:17:38 PM
Well I, for one, have never met an ice-tea drinker who isn't not up to no good.
Yeah.
Ice tea IS the work of the devil, come to think of it. Take a nasty-tasting drink, and let it get cold, just to see who will drink it.
Trayvon Martin - Known Satanist.
More at 11
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
He posted at 1:30 today. They could find him if they felt like it.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/
What evidence do we have that this is him?
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on April 11, 2012, 06:31:05 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
He posted at 1:30 today. They could find him if they felt like it.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/
What evidence do we have that this is him?
Not sure. His lawyer mentioned it, I think.
Alty has some webspace. We should start noimtherealgeorgezimmerman.com.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 11, 2012, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on April 11, 2012, 06:31:05 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
He posted at 1:30 today. They could find him if they felt like it.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/
What evidence do we have that this is him?
Not sure. His lawyer mentioned it, I think.
Alty has some webspace. We should start noimtherealgeorgezimmerman.com.
YES. THIS. NOW.
Well if it's not him I'm glad I don't have to deal with the coming e-mail flood. When I first saw it the view count was around 2000, it's now passed 6000. 4000+ views in the past half hour-ish. Expect this to be viral and probably the talk of reddit etc within the day.
Also, yes. Someone make that site.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 11, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
Well if it's not him I'm glad I don't have to deal with the coming e-mail flood. When I first saw it the view count was around 2000, it's now passed 6000. 4000+ views in the past half hour-ish. Expect this to be viral and probably the talk of reddit etc within the day.
Also, yes. Someone make that site.
What must REALLY suck is for
other George Zimmermans to check their email each day.
"LISTEN YOU PEOPLE! I'M JUST A GARBAGE MAN IN GENEVA, ILLINOIS! I'VE NEVER EVEN BEEN TO FLORIDA!"
Related...
Spike Lee twitters incorrect address for Zimmerman (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57405929-501465/spike-lee-retweets-incorrect-address-of-george-zimmerman-violates-twitter-rules/).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 11, 2012, 06:41:00 PM
Related...
Spike Lee twitters incorrect address for Zimmerman (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57405929-501465/spike-lee-retweets-incorrect-address-of-george-zimmerman-violates-twitter-rules/).
Yeah, I saw that. Some retired couple is still getting hate mail.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 11, 2012, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 11, 2012, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: navkat on April 11, 2012, 12:06:12 AM
This story gets even more bizarre. He's got a website up collecting donations from his "supporters" with pictures of a vandalized Black Cultural center and a Q'ran burner on it.
Anyone who still defends this guy as not racially motivated is a retard.
I don't see the pictures...it it the same website?
He has a contact form if anybody wants to ream his ass.
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/Contact.html
By Buddha that is a strange website. Most pages are a single line quote, and this is on every page:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke."
This can't actually be him. He wouldn't be stupid enough to actually do this, would he?
Oh shit, it's really him.
And "evil" can be defined as having a can of Arizona Ice Tea in one jacket pocket, and Skittles in the other.
I don't know that I'd call that
evil. Maybe a little cruel to your dentist...but there was absolutely no evidence he wasn't going
straight home to brush his teeth! None!
They're finally going to charge his ass http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_story.html
Right after he goes AWOL of course. :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on April 11, 2012, 09:44:51 PM
Right after he goes AWOL of course. :lulz:
Well, there's been noise about charging him for two days.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 11, 2012, 09:57:00 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on April 11, 2012, 09:44:51 PM
Right after he goes AWOL of course. :lulz:
Well, there's been noise about charging him for two days.
Gave him a head start.
They got his ass. http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-charged-second-degree-murder-arrested-details
The main thing I got out of that was he wasn't in Florida. Is there any kind of legal benefit to that? I'm guessing there's got to be.
I don't know if he really left Florida or they lied about that. It doesn't say where they have him in custody either.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 10:50:36 PM
They got his ass. http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-charged-second-degree-murder-arrested-details
No bond? Not disclosing his location?
Am I reading this right? He's
not being held on bail? Or without bail? No way he's not a flight risk and drug dealers are held on thousands without needing to kill anyone.
Or is it that he IS being held, but there is no bail, and they're not disclosing what facility he's at, "for his own safety"?
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on April 12, 2012, 05:40:13 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 11, 2012, 10:50:36 PM
They got his ass. http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-charged-second-degree-murder-arrested-details
No bond? Not disclosing his location?
Am I reading this right? He's not being held on bail? Or without bail? No way he's not a flight risk and drug dealers are held on thousands without needing to kill anyone.
Or is it that he IS being held, but there is no bail, and they're not disclosing what facility he's at, "for his own safety"?
More info, buy nothing about bond. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/11/150449405/zimmerman-arrested-on-murder-charge-in-martin-case
Bond hearing...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/04/20/george-zimmerman-apologizes-to-trayvon-s-family.html
"Oh I blew your kid away but I said I was sorry CAN I HAZ BOND?" :x
Shouldn't the issue be WHETHER THIS ASSHOLE SHOULD BE WALKING AROUND OR NOT? Oh, and whether he's a flight risk...he tends to drop out of sight.
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If Zimmerman's story is true, I'll eat my own spleen.
Quote from: Cainad on April 21, 2012, 11:43:58 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I'll eat my own spleen.
Sooooooo.....THIS.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-bail-arrested-set-free-bond-hearing-details-photos
Of course. :x :x :x :x :x
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 22, 2012, 04:06:43 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
Waterboard Zimmerman 2012!
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
You think that someone should be able to come at you with a gun while you're walking around your own neighborhood, and if you try to defend yourself, they should be able to shoot you, with no consequences?
Can you explain your reasoning?
Because even if Zimmerman's story is true, he was in the wrong.
You're walking down the street talking to your girlfriend on the phone. Some guy starts following you. He gets closer and pulls a gun, telling you to stop.
Now, if this happened to me, I would think, holy shit, I'm about to get abducted and raped and murdered! At that point, my options are to scream and run, or to attack and try to disarm my assailant. He's right on top of me and has a gun, so screaming and running sounds like a poor option.
Pulling a gun on someone is assault. From the moment he pulled that gun, Trayvon was justified in anything he felt was necessary to save his life. If he had been armed, he would have been justified in killing Zimmerman... and you better believe that if he did, he would be in jail right now.
That's not his story as I understand it. My understanding is that, according to him, the gun didn't come out until Martin attacked him for simply following him.
If he was brandishing his weapon then yeah, Martin's "attack" was self defense, and Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:31:30 PM
That's not his story as I understand it. My understanding is that, according to him, the gun didn't come out until Martin attacked him for simply following him.
If he was brandishing his weapon then yeah, Martin's "attack" was self defense, and Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter.
There's a lot of "understandings" like that. Here's a bloody head photo that magically materialized just two days ago. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/new-photo-george-zimmerman%E2%80%99s-bloody-head-complicates-trayvon-martin-shooting-case
I guess there's not much to do in jail but claw your head and get somebody to take a pic*.
But even assuming ANY of this is real, ZIMMERMAN WAS TOLD BY THE POLICE DISPATCHER NOT TO FOLLOW TRAYVON. Which he agreed not to do, and did anyway.
*ETA: I'm sure they don't have their precious with the general population since he wouldn't last two days, so this almost has to be self-inflicted.
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
While true, it really does not seem to help the case. Despite what he was/was not told by the operator, Zimmerman was armed, followed and shot an unarmed individual. Taking this as the bare facts it is something of a challenge to me to understand how this cannot end in a jail sentence.
When this becomes the full-on trial circus Zimmerman's evidence is (probably) going to be fully scrutinised. He better have a really good story if he wants to save his hide.
It could be argued that at best Zimmerman appeared to be a mugger. Obviously neither of them knew each other and he (Zimmerman) has not appeared to state his role,what he was doing or why he was doing it to the victim.
On a lighter note, that "headwound" is almost certainly bullshit.
Two small cuts?
Someone
slammed his head
repeatedly into
concrete and he has
two small cuts?
I've had more severe head wounds from my fucking couch.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2012, 11:25:58 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
While true, it really does not seem to help the case. Despite what he was/was not told by the operator, Zimmerman was armed, followed and shot an unarmed individual. Taking this as the bare facts it is something of a challenge to me to understand how this cannot end in a jail sentence.
True.
"Standing your ground" implies that you were minding your own business and somebody came after you, and you did what you had to do. NOT that you pursued THEM.
QuoteWhen this becomes the full-on trial circus Zimmerman's evidence is (probably) going to be fully scrutinised. He better have a really good story if he wants to save his hide.
It could be argued that at best Zimmerman appeared to be a mugger. Obviously neither of them knew each other and he (Zimmerman) has not appeared to state his role,what he was doing or why he was doing it to the victim.
On a lighter note, that "headwound" is almost certainly bullshit.
Two small cuts?
Someone slammed his head repeatedly into concrete and he has two small cuts?
I've had more severe head wounds from my fucking couch.
And he didn't even start bleeding until two days ago!
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 04:56:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 22, 2012, 04:06:43 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
Waterboard Zimmerman 2012!
How about a jury trial?
Is that too much to ask?
Or should we just let him go?
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Doesn't matter. He, knowing the cops were on the way, escalated the conflict.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Doesn't matter. He, knowing the cops were on the way, escalated the conflict.
But I would wonder if (i don't know how US law differs from Aus) if the charge could conceivably be dropped to manslaughter.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 23, 2012, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Doesn't matter. He, knowing the cops were on the way, escalated the conflict.
But I would wonder if (i don't know how US law differs from Aus) if the charge could conceivably be dropped to manslaughter.
That part depends, largely, on intent.
My bet is, the jury drops murder 2 and convicts on manslaughter 1.
Personally, I don't think - for several reasons - that race was (overtly) involved. I think he was a dumbass who had been a hero once already for catching a burglar at gun point, and wanted to do it again, so he waded in with disregard for the potential consequences for the victim.
And that's murder 2. But it's Florida, so it's gonna come back manslaughter 1 at most.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 04:56:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 22, 2012, 04:06:43 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
Waterboard Zimmerman 2012!
:horrormirth:
Quote from: navkat on April 23, 2012, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 04:56:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 22, 2012, 04:06:43 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
Waterboard Zimmerman 2012!
:horrormirth:
BECAUSE ASKING FOR DUE PROCESS IS JUST LIKE TORTURE!
UNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 04:56:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 22, 2012, 04:06:43 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
Waterboard Zimmerman 2012!
How about a jury trial?
Is that too much to ask?
Or should we just let him go?
That would be fine.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:08:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 04:56:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 22, 2012, 04:06:43 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he deserves any jail time.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the lack of witnesses.
If monkeys ride out of my asshole on unicycles, I may have to rethink my religious views.
I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of repeatability.
Waterboard Zimmerman 2012!
How about a jury trial?
Is that too much to ask?
Or should we just let him go?
That would be fine.
Are you sure? We don't want to violate anyone's civil rights, now.
As long as the jury is impartial. From what I've seen so far, that's not going to be easy.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:20:07 PM
As long as the jury is impartial. From what I've seen so far, that's not going to be easy.
So if a case becomes famous, we should just drop it?
Note to self: When I finally go berserk, make sure there are reporters around.
Note to self: Do not kill reporters until they file their story.
I never said I was against a jury trial.
We could waterboard him at the trial!
From what i understand even if this case didnt become famous it would be an unfair trial on the grounds of it being florida. Trial by jurys the best thing we can implement here though so...
Remember- sometimes unfair works in the defendants interest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Doesn't matter. He, knowing the cops were on the way, escalated created the conflict.
Fixed.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Doesn't matter. He, knowing the cops were on the way, escalated created the conflict.
Fixed.
I say "escalated", because the conflict was already taking place (and yes, Zimmerman started it) but did not have the potential for anyone getting killed until he escalated it by stalking Martin.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:26:09 PM
I never said I was against a jury trial.
We could waterboard him at the trial!
I think it's really interesting that you seem to be under the impression that this man is being unfairly accused of pursuing, assaulting, and killing a person who was walking through his own neighborhood, talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone and minding his own business.
We know that he pursued him.
We know that there was a scuffle.
We know that he shot and killed him.
What planet are you on where in some way the fact that the evidence leans badly against Zimmerman presents some kind of inequity of fairness?
The only thing in question is the degree of the crime, not whether one was committed. Even in Florida, it's illegal to initiate a conflict and shoot someone because you think they look suspicious on a public street.
As far as the racism element, I have no idea whether Zimmerman perceived Martin as being more suspicious because he was black, but that's really a moot point. The fact that the local cops didn't take him in, tried to protect him, and have a lengthy history of racism is pretty damning of the police department there, and people are not erroneously outraged about the racism of that situation. People need to stop conflating the outrage about the police department's blatant racism with the motivations of Zimmerman in going after Martin.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 22, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
I'm not convinced he was obligated to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if he were, "We don't need you to do that." is not the same as "Do not do that."
Doesn't matter. He, knowing the cops were on the way, escalated created the conflict.
Fixed.
I say "escalated", because the conflict was already taking place (and yes, Zimmerman started it) but did not have the potential for anyone getting killed until he escalated it by stalking Martin.
Oh, I gotcha. He called the cops after he started chasing Martin.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
As far as the racism element, I have no idea whether Zimmerman perceived Martin as being more suspicious because he was black, but that's really a moot point.
Moot, yes, but I don't think he perceived him as a threat at all.
I'm guessing that Zimmerman knew about the Stand Your Ground law, and when he saw a Black kid in a gated community, he saw a chance to hunt down a human, kill him and GET AWAY WITH IT. Hence the scenario he painted for the 911 operator: "He looks like he's on drugs...he's looking in windows...he looks like he has a gun" etc. */subjective*
QuoteThe fact that the local cops didn't take him in, tried to protect him, and have a lengthy history of racism is pretty damning of the police department there, and people are not erroneously outraged about the racism of that situation. People need to stop conflating the outrage about the police department's blatant racism with the motivations of Zimmerman in going after Martin.
Yep. They had a big hand in creating the conditions for this to happen, since it looks like they've been like this for a long time. They're probably surprised to be under scrutiny THIS time.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:26:09 PM
I never said I was against a jury trial.
We could waterboard him at the trial!
I think it's really interesting that you seem to be under the impression that this man is being unfairly accused of pursuing, assaulting, and killing a person who was walking through his own neighborhood, talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone and minding his own business.
We know that he pursued him.
We know that there was a scuffle.
We know that he shot and killed him.
What planet are you on where in some way the fact that the evidence leans badly against Zimmerman presents some kind of inequity of fairness?
The only thing in question is the degree of the crime, not whether one was committed. Even in Florida, it's illegal to initiate a conflict and shoot someone because you think they look suspicious on a public street.
As far as the racism element, I have no idea whether Zimmerman perceived Martin as being more suspicious because he was black, but that's really a moot point. The fact that the local cops didn't take him in, tried to protect him, and have a lengthy history of racism is pretty damning of the police department there, and people are not erroneously outraged about the racism of that situation. People need to stop conflating the outrage about the police department's blatant racism with the motivations of Zimmerman in going after Martin.
I'm not saying it's unfair to accuse him of all that, I'm just saying maybe he didn't do all that. Under the circumstances, I'd say it's fair to consider it a possibility that he did.
Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
I think the question of whether or not a crime was committed is still open.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:27:57 PM
Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Well, sure. After all, he wasn't the Black guy.
QuoteIs it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Given there is no broken skin on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, or indeed any indications that he had been involved in a physical fight, yes, it is.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
QuoteIs it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Given there is no broken skin on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, or indeed any indications that he had been involved in a physical fight, yes, it is.
I have to admit, I'm not exactly up to date with the latest evidence.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:27:57 PM
I think the question of whether or not a crime was committed is still open.
Considering a minor was shot and killed, I'm pretty sure some crime/s were committed.
Just a hunch.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
QuoteIs it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Given there is no broken skin on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, or indeed any indications that he had been involved in a physical fight, yes, it is.
I have to admit, I'm not exactly up to date with the latest evidence.
Well, that's certainly a good reason to make an argument in the face of the facts.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
QuoteIs it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Given there is no broken skin on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, or indeed any indications that he had been involved in a physical fight, yes, it is.
I have to admit, I'm not exactly up to date with the latest evidence.
Well, that's certainly a good reason to make an argument in the face of the facts.
What's the worst that could happen?
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:26:09 PM
I never said I was against a jury trial.
We could waterboard him at the trial!
I think it's really interesting that you seem to be under the impression that this man is being unfairly accused of pursuing, assaulting, and killing a person who was walking through his own neighborhood, talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone and minding his own business.
We know that he pursued him.
We know that there was a scuffle.
We know that he shot and killed him.
What planet are you on where in some way the fact that the evidence leans badly against Zimmerman presents some kind of inequity of fairness?
The only thing in question is the degree of the crime, not whether one was committed. Even in Florida, it's illegal to initiate a conflict and shoot someone because you think they look suspicious on a public street.
As far as the racism element, I have no idea whether Zimmerman perceived Martin as being more suspicious because he was black, but that's really a moot point. The fact that the local cops didn't take him in, tried to protect him, and have a lengthy history of racism is pretty damning of the police department there, and people are not erroneously outraged about the racism of that situation. People need to stop conflating the outrage about the police department's blatant racism with the motivations of Zimmerman in going after Martin.
I'm not saying it's unfair to accuse him of all that, I'm just saying maybe he didn't do all that. Under the circumstances, I'd say it's fair to consider it a possibility that he did.
Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
I think the question of whether or not a crime was committed is still open.
What the fuck
Why don't you go read an article about it, and THEN open your clamhole. Because discussing something with someone who can't be bothered to learn
anything about the case,
but still for some reason wants to have an opinion about it, is about as gratifying as arguing politics with a three-year-old.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
QuoteIs it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Given there is no broken skin on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, or indeed any indications that he had been involved in a physical fight, yes, it is.
I have to admit, I'm not exactly up to date with the latest evidence.
Well, that's certainly a good reason to make an argument in the face of the facts.
What's the worst that could happen?
Well, you could have a family from the Congo try to move into their new house, and get jacked by two wannabe-Zimmerman yahoos with assault rifles for the crime of being suspiciously Black in their neighborhood.
Naw, that's not really likely.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 08:58:59 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:26:09 PM
I never said I was against a jury trial.
We could waterboard him at the trial!
I think it's really interesting that you seem to be under the impression that this man is being unfairly accused of pursuing, assaulting, and killing a person who was walking through his own neighborhood, talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone and minding his own business.
We know that he pursued him.
We know that there was a scuffle.
We know that he shot and killed him.
What planet are you on where in some way the fact that the evidence leans badly against Zimmerman presents some kind of inequity of fairness?
The only thing in question is the degree of the crime, not whether one was committed. Even in Florida, it's illegal to initiate a conflict and shoot someone because you think they look suspicious on a public street.
As far as the racism element, I have no idea whether Zimmerman perceived Martin as being more suspicious because he was black, but that's really a moot point. The fact that the local cops didn't take him in, tried to protect him, and have a lengthy history of racism is pretty damning of the police department there, and people are not erroneously outraged about the racism of that situation. People need to stop conflating the outrage about the police department's blatant racism with the motivations of Zimmerman in going after Martin.
I'm not saying it's unfair to accuse him of all that, I'm just saying maybe he didn't do all that. Under the circumstances, I'd say it's fair to consider it a possibility that he did.
Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
I think the question of whether or not a crime was committed is still open.
What the fuck
Why don't you go read an article about it, and THEN open your clamhole. Because discussing something with someone who can't be bothered to learn anything about the case, but still for some reason wants to have an opinion about it, is about as gratifying as arguing politics with a three-year-old.
Sounds like Emo Howard found religion during his absence.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
QuoteIs it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
Given there is no broken skin on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, or indeed any indications that he had been involved in a physical fight, yes, it is.
I have to admit, I'm not exactly up to date with the latest evidence.
Well, that's certainly a good reason to make an argument in the face of the facts.
What's the worst that could happen?
You annoy people, they decide you're an idiot not worth their time, they put you on ignore or refuse to engage in reasonable conversation with you, eventually the board stops being a fun place. For you.
Seriously, if you don't have enough respect for the people you're talking to to at least have some knowledge of the topic you're wasting their time arguing about, there's no reason whatsoever for anyone to have any respect for you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 08:58:59 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 24, 2012, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 23, 2012, 08:26:09 PM
I never said I was against a jury trial.
We could waterboard him at the trial!
I think it's really interesting that you seem to be under the impression that this man is being unfairly accused of pursuing, assaulting, and killing a person who was walking through his own neighborhood, talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone and minding his own business.
We know that he pursued him.
We know that there was a scuffle.
We know that he shot and killed him.
What planet are you on where in some way the fact that the evidence leans badly against Zimmerman presents some kind of inequity of fairness?
The only thing in question is the degree of the crime, not whether one was committed. Even in Florida, it's illegal to initiate a conflict and shoot someone because you think they look suspicious on a public street.
As far as the racism element, I have no idea whether Zimmerman perceived Martin as being more suspicious because he was black, but that's really a moot point. The fact that the local cops didn't take him in, tried to protect him, and have a lengthy history of racism is pretty damning of the police department there, and people are not erroneously outraged about the racism of that situation. People need to stop conflating the outrage about the police department's blatant racism with the motivations of Zimmerman in going after Martin.
I'm not saying it's unfair to accuse him of all that, I'm just saying maybe he didn't do all that. Under the circumstances, I'd say it's fair to consider it a possibility that he did.
Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he just wanted to talk, and got jumped from behind?
I think the question of whether or not a crime was committed is still open.
What the fuck
Why don't you go read an article about it, and THEN open your clamhole. Because discussing something with someone who can't be bothered to learn anything about the case, but still for some reason wants to have an opinion about it, is about as gratifying as arguing politics with a three-year-old.
Sounds like Emo Howard found religion during his absence.
Apparently so.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:11:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:03:26 PM
Apparently so.
:teabagger1:
Hey, notice something about that pic?
Besides the fact that everybody's white?
Well, I was gonna say, "They could all make it from one side of Sanford, FL, to the other without being shot", but yeah.
Ouch.
:horrormirth:
They're also all very, very ugly.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
They're also all very, very ugly.
There's probably some sort of link, there.
Generally speaking killing an unarmed minor is considered a crime. Just saying.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
They're also all very, very ugly.
I wasn't gonna say it. :lulz:
is the guy on the front left wearing a three wolf moon shirt??
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 11:38:04 PM
is the guy on the front left wearing a three wolf moon shirt??
Worse, it looks like a 9-11 shirt.
Statue of Liberty head and the words "ALL GAVE..." with the rest obscured by his Bubba Hat
TM.
I'm guessing the bottom line of text is "SOME GAVE ALL".
:puke:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:29:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
They're also all very, very ugly.
I wasn't gonna say it. :lulz:
It's OK to say it, they're ugly by CHOICE. They're EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO BE UGLY.
MORE QUARTER POUNDERS WITH "CHEESE", SUPERCUTS AND WALMART CLOTHES!
HAY! SOME OF THE NICEST PEOPLE ARE UGLY AND MY EX-BOYFRIEND DIED FROM QUARTER POUNDERS WITH CHEESE OF THE ASS.
Quote from: navkat on April 25, 2012, 09:20:44 AM
HAY! SOME OF THE NICEST PEOPLE ARE UGLY AND MY EX-BOYFRIEND DIED FROM QUARTER POUNDERS WITH CHEESE OF THE ASS.
I think you accidentally swapped the N and I in your fifth word, there.
MY EX BOYFRIEND WAS OUR MOM SO YEAH.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 25, 2012, 11:44:02 AM
Quote from: navkat on April 25, 2012, 09:20:44 AM
HAY! SOME OF THE NICEST PEOPLE ARE UGLY AND MY EX-BOYFRIEND DIED FROM QUARTER POUNDERS WITH CHEESE OF THE ASS.
I think you accidentally swapped the N and I in your fifth word, there.
I DON'T KNOW NOTHIN BOUT WUT THAT'S SPOASTA MEAN BUT BUT YOU BETTER QUIT TALKIN ABOUT QUARTER POUNDERS
/
(http://www.spfxmasks.com/images/bobby-the-inbred.jpg)
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 25, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 25, 2012, 11:44:02 AM
Quote from: navkat on April 25, 2012, 09:20:44 AM
HAY! SOME OF THE NICEST PEOPLE ARE UGLY AND MY EX-BOYFRIEND DIED FROM QUARTER POUNDERS WITH CHEESE OF THE ASS.
I think you accidentally swapped the N and I in your fifth word, there.
I DON'T KNOW NOTHIN BOUT WUT THAT'S SPOASTA MEAN BUT BUT YOU BETTER QUIT TALKIN ABOUT QUARTER POUNDERS
/
(http://www.spfxmasks.com/images/bobby-the-inbred.jpg)
:spittake:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:12:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:11:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:03:26 PM
Apparently so.
:teabagger1:
Hey, notice something about that pic?
Besides the fact that everybody's white?
Well, I was gonna say, "They could all make it from one side of Sanford, FL, to the other without being shot", but yeah.
The guy in the top left corner is looking to his left as if he just heard the most shocking thing in the world, somebody there is making up his own lyrics.
And the girl in the bottom right is thinking up various ways of getting back at her mom for dragging her to this retard convention.
Look at that face. If that isn't a 'i'm going to kill a motherfucker' face then i don't know anything anymore.
Quote from: :regret: on April 25, 2012, 10:12:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:12:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:11:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 09:03:26 PM
Apparently so.
:teabagger1:
Hey, notice something about that pic?
Besides the fact that everybody's white?
Well, I was gonna say, "They could all make it from one side of Sanford, FL, to the other without being shot", but yeah.
The guy in the top left corner is looking to his left as if he just heard the most shocking thing in the world, somebody there is making up his own lyrics.
And the girl in the bottom right is thinking up various ways of getting back at her mom for dragging her to this retard convention.
Look at that face. If that isn't a 'i'm going to kill a motherfucker' face then i don't know anything anymore.
Don't be such a Pollyanna. She could be JUST LIKE THEM BEFORE SHE GETS OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL.
Apparently, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law doesn't apply if the shooter is Black.
Quote(http://jax-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/11107174_1.jpg)
The NAACP's Jacksonville chapter has thrown its support behind a woman who will be sentenced Monday in a shooting where she claimed self-defense against an abusive husband under the state's Stand Your Ground law.
Marissa Danielle Alexander, 31, was charged with three counts of aggravated assault in August 2010 after she fired a single shot into the ceiling of her home during a dispute that somehow turned physical.
A judge denied her immunity in a Stand Your Ground hearing. And after a jury found her guilty, she faces a mandatory term of 20 years in prison.
"This is a clear case of domestic violence against Marissa," branch President Isaiah Rumlin said Friday. "After looking into it and studying the case, this is a clear case of Stand Your Ground as it relates to what she had to do on the date that she did it."
Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, 36, was arrested in 2006 and 2009 on misdemeanor charges of domestic battery. Charges were dropped in one case and he was given probation in the other. Alexander had an injunction for protection against domestic violence against Gray following his 2009 arrest. Police have withheld Alexander's address and it is unclear if the couple were living together.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-04-21/story/naacp-weighs-what-they-say-stand-your-ground-case-against-jacksonville-0#ixzz1to1roXYX
Zimmerman stalks and murders a kid, and he's a hero.
This woman showed enough restraint to not kill an actual attacker, and she's going to prison for 20 years.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
Apparently, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law doesn't apply if the shooter is Black.
Quote(http://jax-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/11107174_1.jpg)
The NAACP's Jacksonville chapter has thrown its support behind a woman who will be sentenced Monday in a shooting where she claimed self-defense against an abusive husband under the state's Stand Your Ground law.
Marissa Danielle Alexander, 31, was charged with three counts of aggravated assault in August 2010 after she fired a single shot into the ceiling of her home during a dispute that somehow turned physical.
A judge denied her immunity in a Stand Your Ground hearing. And after a jury found her guilty, she faces a mandatory term of 20 years in prison.
"This is a clear case of domestic violence against Marissa," branch President Isaiah Rumlin said Friday. "After looking into it and studying the case, this is a clear case of Stand Your Ground as it relates to what she had to do on the date that she did it."
Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, 36, was arrested in 2006 and 2009 on misdemeanor charges of domestic battery. Charges were dropped in one case and he was given probation in the other. Alexander had an injunction for protection against domestic violence against Gray following his 2009 arrest. Police have withheld Alexander's address and it is unclear if the couple were living together.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-04-21/story/naacp-weighs-what-they-say-stand-your-ground-case-against-jacksonville-0#ixzz1to1roXYX
Zimmerman stalks and murders a kid, and he's a hero.
This woman showed enough restraint to not kill an actual attacker, and she's going to prison for 20 years.
Alex was just an innocent man trying to discipline his wife. Trayvon was suspended from school, and he talked about smoking weed on facebook, he clearly had it coming to him.
well how else they supposed to keep those uppity colored women under control.
Called it back on page 7.
Black people don't get to stand their ground. They're automatically the aggressors in any situation.
Quote from: Cain on May 03, 2012, 07:09:49 PM
Called it back on page 7.
Black people don't get to stand their ground. They're automatically the aggressors in any situation.
Which is why in Alabama if he hits her and she calls the police, they both go to jail for assault. I think it's her voice or something. A black bitch running her mouth after she's already been told to shut it by her husband is an
assault on the policeman's ears.
Sweet jesus.
IN OTHER NEWS:
White supremacists accused of planning for 'race war' in Florida
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120508-osceola-suspects-mugs-11a.photoblog500.jpg)
Clockwise from top right: Christopher Brooks, Marcus Faella, Patricia Faella, Paul Jackson, Jennifer McGowan, Mark McGowan, Kent McLellan, Dustin Perry, Diane Steven, Richard Stockdale
I love how every time you see pictures of XXX supremacists, they are pretty much always the worst possible example of XXX.
How anyone with spiderweb tattoos around the face can consider themselves to be somehow supreme is a mystery for the ages.
Incidentally, these all look like "before" pictures from "faces of meth".
I hope this isn't the extent of their "warriors".
Because 8 people isn't a war. 8 people doesn't even qualify as a gang. What if they called it a "race scuffle" instead? I can live with that.
At least a couple of them look like they might not be 100% caucasian.
Dumbasses. :lulz:
Top left and bottom right, yeah.
And Faella's an Italian name. More than a few Saracens passed through Sicily, if you know what I mean.
LOL, CNN
QuoteIt is there, authorities say, that Marcus, his wife and eight other members of American Front -- a down-on-its-luck white supremacist group -- trained in hand-to-hand combat, drilled in breaking down weapons and practiced shooting them, imagining their targets weren't merely water jugs, but rather the exploding heads of people they hated.
Well surely that will be a match for anyone trained in small unit tactics! BOOM, HEADSHOT! is not a viable strategy, sorry. Not even on most modern video games, let alone reality.
There should be the new way of dealing with white supremacists - DNA test tracing their origins. Then make the findings public. To other white supremacists.
"Sez here that yoo got sum turkish in yoo. Git em!"
More seriously, if you actually are 100% pure whatever then the chances are by now you've got webbed toes and more teeth than the average shark.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 10, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
IN OTHER NEWS:
White supremacists accused of planning for 'race war' in Florida
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120508-osceola-suspects-mugs-11a.photoblog500.jpg)
Clockwise from top right: Christopher Brooks, Marcus Faella, Patricia Faella, Paul Jackson, Jennifer McGowan, Mark McGowan, Kent McLellan, Dustin Perry, Diane Steven, Richard Stockdale
For a second I thought the guy in the upper corner had tattooed on hair. :lulz:
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 10, 2012, 02:09:07 AM
There should be the new way of dealing with white supremacists - DNA test tracing their origins. Then make the findings public. To other white supremacists.
"Sez here that yoo got sum turkish in yoo. Git em!"
More seriously, if you actually are 100% pure whatever then the chances are by now you've got webbed toes and more teeth than the average shark.
True.
But they'd probably just say DNA testing is part of a big plot by TEH J00S.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 10, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
IN OTHER NEWS:
White supremacists accused of planning for 'race war' in Florida
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120508-osceola-suspects-mugs-11a.photoblog500.jpg)
Clockwise from top right: Christopher Brooks, Marcus Faella, Patricia Faella, Paul Jackson, Jennifer McGowan, Mark McGowan, Kent McLellan, Dustin Perry, Diane Steven, Richard Stockdale
:lulz: Wow, it's like a tiny festival of inbreeding.
Holy fuck, the distance between all of their eyes, added together is still less than that of your average baby :eek:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 10, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
Holy fuck, the distance between all of their eyes, added together is still less than that of your average baby :eek:
:spittake:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: FUCK OFF on May 10, 2012, 05:55:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 10, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
Holy fuck, the distance between all of their eyes, added together is still less than that of your average baby :eek:
:spittake:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
FAS would almost be an improvement here.
:horrormirth:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/george-zimmerman-lawyer-outraged-trayvon-martin-shooting-target-hoodie-prints-article-1.1076865?localLinksEnabled=false
What's fascinating is that the seller's statement is completely at odds with the image. The image, much like the "Recreational Hoodie Wearer, Please Don't Shoot" hoodie, carries the strong implication (with the inclusion of the Skittles and iced tea) that the crosshairs are trained on an innocent kid by a gunman itching to shoot.
yeah.
it's kinda bizarre, right?
like, it seems like it would be inherently mindfucking (or just fucked, i guess) to buy and shoot one, huh?
Yeah, the statement
QuoteIn the ad, the seller states that "obviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/george-zimmerman-lawyer-outraged-trayvon-martin-shooting-target-hoodie-prints-article-1.1076865#ixzz1uimSiU00
is so at odds with the image itself that it sounds like deep sarcasm.
Good thing that having a black president means racial hatred is over.
Right? Right?
I'm not sure how to feel. Our response to the photo of the 8 accused disturbs me. We immediately honed in on appearance and nationality in response to our disgust at their alleged conspiracy to organize themselves into a sect advocating violence based on appearance.
I did it too. Those tattooed motherfuckers are creepin, yo. I mean, what kind of character does someone possess who'd tattoo their FAYCE?
AOT.
Quote from: navkat on May 13, 2012, 11:09:57 AM
I'm not sure how to feel. Our response to the photo of the 8 accused disturbs me. We immediately honed in on appearance and nationality in response to our disgust at their alleged conspiracy to organize themselves into a sect advocating violence based on appearance.
I did it too. Those tattooed motherfuckers are creepin, yo. I mean, what kind of character does someone possess who'd tattoo their FAYCE?
AOT.
Aini. And she hates Blacks, too.
Quote from: navkat on May 13, 2012, 11:09:57 AM
I'm not sure how to feel. Our response to the photo of the 8 accused disturbs me. We immediately honed in on appearance and nationality in response to our disgust at their alleged conspiracy to organize themselves into a sect advocating violence based on appearance.
No, they
defined themselves by race, appearance and nationality, and we mocked them for it.
But please continue with the equation of our posters with white supremacists. Did you know white supremacists sometimes drink coffee? And a lot of PDers drink coffee too. Someone should investigate these disturbing links between the worldview of PDers and white supremacy.
Quote from: Cain on May 14, 2012, 06:07:09 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 13, 2012, 11:09:57 AM
I'm not sure how to feel. Our response to the photo of the 8 accused disturbs me. We immediately honed in on appearance and nationality in response to our disgust at their alleged conspiracy to organize themselves into a sect advocating violence based on appearance.
No, they defined themselves by race, appearance and nationality, and we mocked them for it.
But please continue with the equation of our moral posters with white supremacists. Did you know white supremacists sometimes drink coffee? And a lot of PDers drink coffee too. Someone should investigate these disturbing links between the worldview of PDers and white supremacy.
We can't be right. We must always take the side of the slack-jawed Nazis as a matter of fairness. Or we're bad people.
Yeah. My reaction to the above post was pretty :| initially, but the more I thought about it, the more it annoyed me.
I mean, is pointing out a hypothetical Nazi has a Jewish background, for example, anti-Semitism? No, it's pointing out an incongruence between his ideology and his reality. Equally, pointing out a bunch of white supremacists aren't really looking like all that pure specimens of the Aryan race is not endorsing the ideology of White Supremacy, as much as it is poking fun at those who claim it without thinking through how it applies to them personally.
I'll accept I sometimes overthink things, but this strikes me as fairly obvious, right?
Quote from: Cain on May 14, 2012, 06:22:07 PM
Yeah. My reaction to the above post was pretty :| initially, but the more I thought about it, the more it annoyed me.
I mean, is pointing out a hypothetical Nazi has a Jewish background, for example, anti-Semitism? No, it's pointing out an incongruence between his ideology and his reality. Equally, pointing out a bunch of white supremacists aren't really looking like all that pure specimens of the Aryan race is not endorsing the ideology of White Supremacy, as much as it is poking fun at those who claim it without thinking through how it applies to them personally.
I'll accept I sometimes overthink things, but this strikes me as fairly obvious, right?
Hey, someone has to be the morality cop, right? We can't say anything BAD about bad people, because that makes us bad.
Using that logic, everyone who fought the Nazis in WWII was nothing more than a murderer.
As always, when people decide to play this game when it comes to making fun of people, I direct them to this post:
hxxp://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/28/go-fuck-yourself/
The OP misses the point entirely, and "Sadly, No! Investor Services" in the comments makes all the points I am too bored with repeating to make again. In fact, if you replace "being fat" with "making fun of NeoNazis for a lack of racial purity", you pretty much exactly the same argument.
Quote from: Cain on May 14, 2012, 06:31:58 PM
As always, when people decide to play this game when it comes to making fun of people, I direct them to this post:
hxxp://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/28/go-fuck-yourself/
The OP misses the point entirely, and "Sadly, No! Investor Services" in the comments makes all the points I am too bored with repeating to make again. In fact, if you replace "being fat" with "making fun of NeoNazis for a lack of racial purity", you pretty much exactly the same argument.
I don't even go that far.
Some people are simply worthless shitheads. Nazis are a good example. I make fun of them, and I don't need to justify it at all. I mean, they're fucking
Nazis, right? In my eyes they don't get any consideration at all, and none of the normal rules I impose on myself apply. And if that bothers some people or makes them think that I am acting badly or that I am in fact a Bad Person™, well, I won't lose any sleep over it.
I'd also like to point out that I have people tell me how to act, each and every day, IRL.
I don't listen to them, either.
Yep.
The rules went out the window when they decided they were superior because of their cracker ancestry and therefore had some innate right to lord it over everybody else.
Besides, they're fugly. :lol:
This case is twister than a bag of snakes.
QuoteFlorida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range," according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
Separately, a medical report on Martin's alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin's shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40362_Trayvon_Martin_Autopsy-_Knuckle_Injury_Was_Tiny_but_Gunshot_Was_at_Intermediate_Range
The tales of Martin's hands being all busted up appear to have been gross exaggeration.
Either Trayvon Martin was a ninja, or Zimmerman didn't get those wounds from fighting him.
Quote from: Cain on May 17, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Either Trayvon Martin was a ninja, or Zimmerman didn't get those wounds from fighting him.
Also, Zimmerman seems to have shot Martin from a bit of a distance.
That too. Clearly what happened was Zimmerman heroically fought off a vicious ninja beatdown at the hands of Martin, pushing him away, ran back and then took his gun out for the shot. Ninjas have throwing stars, after all, so it's not like distance meant the threat had diminished.
So that pretty much blows the "raining down blows on him MMA style" testimony. Unless he threw 20 and only landed one.
You know, at this point I am kind of hoping that as evidence mounts, Zimmerman will have a crisis of conscience and confess, because those cops need to be investigated.
Of course, protecting the cops who protected him might at this point be the only "honor" he's got to hang on to.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Previously unreleased pics made public.
Also, I don't consider 1" - 36" to be "distance" when shooting a gun, but maybe that's ME speak for just over point blank range (or just over close enough to burn skin or leave powder marks?)
"ultimately avoidable"
WELL, YEAH. Since all the guy had to do to avoid it was NOT TAKE HIS GUN AND USE IT TO ACCOST A STRANGER WALKING DOWN THE STREET.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 18, 2012, 04:41:35 PM
"ultimately avoidable"
WELL, YEAH. Since all the guy had to do to avoid it was NOT TAKE HIS GUN AND USE IT TO ACCOST A STRANGER WALKING DOWN THE STREET.
"
Not... take my gun?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question."
/
:chickenhawk:
Quote from: Luna on May 17, 2012, 02:24:21 PM
This case is twister than a bag of snakes.
QuoteFlorida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range," according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
Separately, a medical report on Martin's alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin's shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40362_Trayvon_Martin_Autopsy-_Knuckle_Injury_Was_Tiny_but_Gunshot_Was_at_Intermediate_Range
The tales of Martin's hands being all busted up appear to have been gross exaggeration.
My local news so far has reported on the fact that Zimmerman had injuries and has ignored the report about the distance of the shot.
The CNN article links a PDF in which the filenames of the recorded 911 calls are mentioned, googling those turns up one of them, which is apparently Zimmerman's initial call to 911: http://soundcloud.com/geedee215/20120571656-s13pir
I couldn't find the other one, this one's before any shooting occurs, but includes Zimmerman complaining about how these fuckers always get away, and the 911 guy telling him he shouldn't follow him.
WHO CALLED IT?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816588-newspaper-4-witnesses-change-stories-in-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite
DOK, YOU SAY?
:hammer:
*cheers* :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2012, 02:34:17 AM
WHO CALLED IT?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816588-newspaper-4-witnesses-change-stories-in-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite
DOK, YOU SAY?
:hammer:
I don't understand...Witnesses 12 & 13 seem to favor the prosecution where Witness 6 seems to favor the defense and Witness 2 is simply wanking.
Where does this lead? A hung jury?
QuoteMartin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing down punches mixed martial arts style.
Maybe I'm just derping, but I literally have no clue what this means. Does MMA have a special "get on top of someone and punch them" technique and style? How does this differ from the normal way of getting on top of someone and punching the shit out of them?
Quote from: Cain on May 23, 2012, 07:53:08 AM
QuoteMartin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing down punches mixed martial arts style.
Maybe I'm just derping, but I literally have no clue what this means. Does MMA have a special "get on top of someone and punch them" technique and style? How does this differ from the normal way of getting on top of someone and punching the shit out of them?
It implies that its more vicious and intended for harm than normal?
Quote from: Cain on May 23, 2012, 07:53:08 AM
QuoteMartin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing down punches mixed martial arts style.
Maybe I'm just derping, but I literally have no clue what this means. Does MMA have a special "get on top of someone and punch them" technique and style? How does this differ from the normal way of getting on top of someone and punching the shit out of them?
In MMA getting on top of someone and beating the shit out of them is a common occurrence, he was probably just referencing MMA because thats the only place he had seen it before.
Down here we get a lot of broadcasts of the Free Style Fighting League or however its called (basically a tournament with people from all over the world that get put in a cage 2 at a time, and can use any fighting style, martial arts or grappling techniques), and i guess in USA its the same? Maybe from there comes the vague knowledge of it? Eh
When someone says MMA, USA people think of UFC (http://http://www.ufc.com/), which probably explains what he meant.
Yes, exactly, that thing, didnt remember what it was called.
What was Trayvon planning to do with that beverage and those skittles?
Why, make drugs, of course, duh. What else?
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/23/update-26-part-1-trayvon-martin-what-were-the-last-18-months-like-for-him/
Also, any right thinking person can clearly tell by the 7-11 security cam footage that Trayvon is three fucking sheets to the wind!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rPOXuw9va6E
[/sarcasm]
While I'm still holding my neutral position, and believe it's plausible that Martin overreacted to an overzealous Zimmerman, and initiated violence, the shitnuts going around calling Martin "thug", "goon", "etc." are really starting to grate my cheese.
Call me silly, but if I were walking home, minding my own business, and some guy started following me in his car, then got out and tried to stop me from getting home, I might overreact, myself. If he started waving a gun around or thinking he had any right to keep me from walking away, I would bloody damn well overreact.
If they can prove that the gun came out before he says it did, then he's fucked, and rightfully so.
Quote from: Emo Howard on May 29, 2012, 08:55:58 PM
While I'm still holding my neutral position, and believe it's plausible that Martin overreacted to an overzealous Zimmerman, and initiated violence, the shitnuts going around calling Martin "thug", "goon", "etc." are really starting to grate my cheese.
How do you overreact to being stalked by someone with a gun?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2012, 02:29:17 AM
Good thing we have all that racism cleaned up, here in America.
You know, when I was in elementary school, I distinctly remember asking my sister when she was writing some paper on racism, "Wait, but people aren't racist
now, right?" :horrormirth:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 29, 2012, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on May 29, 2012, 08:55:58 PM
While I'm still holding my neutral position, and believe it's plausible that Martin overreacted to an overzealous Zimmerman, and initiated violence, the shitnuts going around calling Martin "thug", "goon", "etc." are really starting to grate my cheese.
How do you overreact to being stalked by someone with a gun?
Depends on what you mean by "with a gun" and what, exactly, makes it "stalking".
If he was carrying the gun legally, not brandishing it, then attacking him because he wanted to talk was not the right thing to do.
IIRC, Zimmerman was in casual clothing, not a uniform. Whether "carrying it legally" or "brandishing it" (whatever the difference is), as long as it's visible (or even if it's not), the target (apologies for that term) would feel in danger, no?
Here's a definition of stalking: continuing to follow Martin once ordered not to by the police dispatcher.
Quote from: Cain on May 30, 2012, 09:26:16 AM
Here's a definition of stalking: continuing to follow Martin once ordered not to by the police dispatcher.
The dispatcher tells him "we don't need you to do that.", and he replies "ok" at about 2 minutes in to the call.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-20/justice/us_florida-zimmerman-timeline_1_gated-community-gunshot-martin-punches?_s=PM:JUSTICE
To me, it sounds like he continued following him for about 10-15 seconds after that, and it doesn't sound like he was running at full sprint.
How far do you think he followed him after that point?
Well, that's not what Martin's girlfriend says (http://when%20police%20arrived%20a%20minute%20later,%20at%207.17pm,%20martin%20was%20lying%20dead%20in%20the%20street.).
QuoteCrump said that during the final phone call with his girlfriend, who was back home in Miami, Martin told her that a stranger was following him, according to an affidavit she recorded. Martin had then tried unsuccessfully to get away from the stranger.
"He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me" and another voice saying "What are you doing here?" She told Crump they both repeated themselves, and then she thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin "because his voice changes, like something interrupted his speech." She heard an altercation and then the phone call was cut off, Crump said.
When police arrived a minute later, at 7.17pm, Martin was lying dead in the street.
I mean, gosh, who would consider that to be stalking behaviour?
Have you actually done any research at all into this case? Or are you just spouting stupid contrarianism here to seem edgy?
Even if we discount the girlfriend's testimony (and a court won't) as biased...
Just look at a map of the area.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-09/trayvon-martin-timeline-florida-shooting/54129274/1
Zimmerman had to follow Martin up the sidewalk between the houses in order for the shooting to occur where it did.
I haven't found enough information to come to a conclusion, no, but I am leaning mostly in the general direction of Zimmerman being responsible to some degree.
I mean, that is the side I want to be on, anyway. I just have this nagging sense of some obligation to try to be all impartial and junk until I see something more conclusive than anything I've seen so far. Maybe I'm trying too hard on that. I don't know.
I can tell from his voice that Zimmerman's demeanor isn't that of a friendly neighbor, waving and smiling. I'm sure he was giving Martin the stink eye. To which a natural response would be "What the fuck do you want, asshole?" or something like it.
If Zimmerman did shove Martin, then I have no doubt that he is culpable for creating the situation.
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 11:01:00 AM
Even if we discount the girlfriend's testimony (and a court won't) as biased...
Just look at a map of the area.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-09/trayvon-martin-timeline-florida-shooting/54129274/1
Zimmerman had to follow Martin up the sidewalk between the houses in order for the shooting to occur where it did.
Thanks. I could use some good sources like that.
I've spent most of my time devoted this issue, so far, to trolling pro-Zimmerman douchebags rather than doing actual research. That's mainly consisted of sarcastically concocting terrible arguments to their terrible arguments, which was fun, but didn't make me any smarter.
That map may be what convicts Zimmerman... along with the bit of Zimmerman's story that "he tried to take my gun, so I had to shoot him." IF Martin DID try to take the gun... how did he know it was there? Zimmerman had a Kal-Tec PF9.
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/
That isn't a cannon, thing weighs less than a pound. I haven't seen any reports on how Zimmerman was carrying it, but if he had it "concealed," I don't see how, in any scuffle that was over in minutes, Martin could have found it and atempted to take it.
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 02:05:12 PM
That map may be what convicts Zimmerman... along with the bit of Zimmerman's story that "he tried to take my gun, so I had to shoot him." IF Martin DID try to take the gun... how did he know it was there? Zimmerman had a Kal-Tec PF9.
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/
That isn't a cannon, thing weighs less than a pound. I haven't seen any reports on how Zimmerman was carrying it, but if he had it "concealed," I don't see how, in any scuffle that was over in minutes, Martin could have found it and atempted to take it.
that gun is specifically made for concealed carry with its small frame, light weight, and single stack magazine.
even though it is good for this, and doesn't print as easily as a larger gun, i can see how its presence would become quickly obvious in a close scuffle.
on the other hand, i would imagine if i got in a close scuffle with an unknown 'assailant', i would quickly (attempt to) draw anyways.
If i ever shot someone, there are stock phrases that i would stick to. "i feared for my life" (or the life of a loved one) and "i shot in order to stop the attack"
although "he tried to take my gun" seems unnecessarily specific and likely to be refuted if not true, it seems like the same type of statement.
ETA: also, if i was in a scuffle with someone that had a pistol, i would certainly try to take it as well!
Quote from: Cain on May 30, 2012, 09:26:16 AM
Here's a definition of stalking: continuing to follow Martin once ordered not to by the police dispatcher.
which can be heard in this recording of the 911 call:
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 18, 2012, 07:55:37 PMThe CNN article links a PDF in which the filenames of the recorded 911 calls are mentioned, googling those turns up one of them, which is apparently Zimmerman's initial call to 911: http://soundcloud.com/geedee215/20120571656-s13pir
I couldn't find the other one, this one's before any shooting occurs, but includes Zimmerman complaining about how these fuckers always get away, and the 911 guy telling him he shouldn't follow him.
unfortunately I haven't been able to locate any recordings of things that happened after. I'm not sure if they're made public, even.
I don't even know what to think anymore. All I can hope for is a smart Jury.
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
That's how I see it. I just hope that fact isn't obfuscated by the creation of "reasonable doubt" with regards to provocation.
Quote from: navkat on May 30, 2012, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
That's how I see it. I just hope that fact isn't obfuscated by the creation of "reasonable doubt" with regards to provocation.
If the prosecutor has a hair on his ass, that won't happen.
The real worry here is getting a jury that hasn't already made up its mind one way or the other. I am currently of the opinion that it's an open & shut murder case, but if I was on the jury, I'd listen to what was said...If some outrageous and unknown information was released, I could conceivably change my mind.
But the stand your ground shit? Balls. Doesn't count if you CHASE someone.
And if it didn't work for Marissa Alexander, it shouldn't work for George Zimmerman.
A self-defense story - or ANY story explaining the moment of violence - doesn't justify anything, for the very reason that he was
following Martin - against protocol, as stated.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:26:59 PM
But the stand your ground shit? Balls. Doesn't count if you CHASE someone.
damn, beat me to it. posting anyway. :p
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
Bing bang boom. I don't know how people find this confusing in the least.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
And/Or they are gun nuts having a knee-jerk OH FUCK THEY'RE GONNA USE THIS TO TAKE MY GUNZ reaction.
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
And/Or they are gun nuts having a knee-jerk OH FUCK THEY'RE GONNA USE THIS TO TAKE MY GUNZ reaction.
HOW CAN WE HAVE AMERICA
(tm) WITHOUT ARMED MORONS?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
And/Or they are gun nuts having a knee-jerk OH FUCK THEY'RE GONNA USE THIS TO TAKE MY GUNZ reaction.
HOW CAN WE HAVE AMERICA (tm) WITHOUT ARMED MORONS?
Is it wrong that I'm in a mood to round up every moron I can find and have them branded so they can be identified easily?
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
And/Or they are gun nuts having a knee-jerk OH FUCK THEY'RE GONNA USE THIS TO TAKE MY GUNZ reaction.
Well, as a gun nut, i can say that stories like this make me cringe... so i can empathise.
but if you're willing to throw an innocent under the bus to preserve your 'right' then you don't really deserve it now, do you?
Morons with guns, EI. Like Zimmerman.
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:54:48 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
And/Or they are gun nuts having a knee-jerk OH FUCK THEY'RE GONNA USE THIS TO TAKE MY GUNZ reaction.
HOW CAN WE HAVE AMERICA (tm) WITHOUT ARMED MORONS?
Is it wrong that I'm in a mood to round up every moron I can find and have them branded so they can be identified easily?
Just make them sew a big yellow
star of David "I" to their shirts. :)
Roger come on man, this isn't the 20th century anymore, you can't just make people sew patches to their shirts ...
You advertise and sell them the patches.
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE STOCKHOLDERS?!!!
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 01, 2012, 07:15:23 PM
Roger come on man, this isn't the 20th century anymore, you can't just make people sew patches to their shirts ...
You advertise and sell them the patches.
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE STOCKHOLDERS?!!!
It should be legal to, in the case of confirmed idiocy, just save everyone trouble and staple their tongues to their noses. Televise it weekly, with the Litany of Stupidity, and there's your happy stockholders... And you can skim next weeks stars from your viewers.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
This.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 01, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:54:48 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 30, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
People are over-analyzing this shit.
Zimmerman created and then escalated - against police advice - a dangerous and unnecessary situation with reckless disregard for life. A life was lost.
It's a murder.
True enough.
I've just been exposed to a number of fucking morons who are trying to justify what happened as some sort of twisted self defense case to let Zimmerman go. It's made me a bit itchy on the points of the case.
Said morons are probably rooting against Black folks. They don't get the difference between race and team sports.
And/Or they are gun nuts having a knee-jerk OH FUCK THEY'RE GONNA USE THIS TO TAKE MY GUNZ reaction.
HOW CAN WE HAVE AMERICA (tm) WITHOUT ARMED MORONS?
Is it wrong that I'm in a mood to round up every moron I can find and have them branded so they can be identified easily?
Just make them sew a big yellow star of David "I" to their shirts. :)
Nice.
Unfortunately, I probably would not be surprised by the number of people who would read that and still come to the conclusion that that's an ok thing to do.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 01, 2012, 07:15:23 PM
Roger come on man, this isn't the 20th century anymore, you can't just make people sew patches to their shirts ...
You advertise and sell them the patches.
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE STOCKHOLDERS?!!!
POST OF THE MILLENIUM!
:mittens:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 01, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
Nice.
Unfortunately, I probably would not be surprised by the number of people who would read that and still come to the conclusion that that's an ok thing to do.
I KNOW fuckers are like that. How do I know this?
Because my house is in what is now a gated community. Thing is, they don't realize that they themselves would be wearing a patch. Because I would staple it to thier face.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 01, 2012, 08:37:39 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 01, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
Nice.
Unfortunately, I probably would not be surprised by the number of people who would read that and still come to the conclusion that that's an ok thing to do.
I KNOW fuckers are like that. How do I know this?
Because my house is in what is now a gated community. Thing is, they don't realize that they themselves would be wearing a patch. Because I would staple it to thier face.
:golfclap:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/01/trayvon-martin-murderer-george-zimmerman-ordered-to-surrender-in-48-hours-for-lying-to-court/
Zimmerman's bond was revoked, because it was proven he and his wife lied to the court about the donations from the website and failed to reveal $135,000... Not helping was that he failed to reveal and hand in a second passport.
He has 48 hours to turn himself in.
Bets?
Quote from: Luna on June 01, 2012, 11:59:23 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/01/trayvon-martin-murderer-george-zimmerman-ordered-to-surrender-in-48-hours-for-lying-to-court/
Zimmerman's bond was revoked, because it was proven he and his wife lied to the court about the donations from the website and failed to reveal $135,000... Not helping was that he failed to reveal and hand in a second passport.
He has 48 hours to turn himself in.
Bets?
OH HO HO
Heating up a bit for ol' Zimmerman!
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Maybe the money snuck up on him while he was walking back to his truck.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Last I knew, he was still hoping to convince a judge to toss the whole case. You know, the judge he lied to...
Quote from: Emo Howard on June 02, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Maybe the money snuck up on him while he was walking back to his truck.
:awesome:
Quote from: Luna on June 02, 2012, 08:16:39 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Last I knew, he was still hoping to convince a judge to toss the whole case. You know, the judge he lied to...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Emo Howard on June 02, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Maybe the money snuck up on him while he was walking back to his truck.
Zimmerman: "I'mma set up a donation fund!"
Lawyer: "We don't need you to do that."
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 02, 2012, 08:56:32 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on June 02, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 02, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
If your whole case lies in getting the jury to believe your version of events as truth... this is a bang up way to start.
Maybe the money snuck up on him while he was walking back to his truck.
Zimmerman: "I'mma set up a donation fund!"
Lawyer: "We don't need you to do that."
Something's definitely wrong with The System.
It looks like it's up to no good, or it's on drugs or something.
Bedamned, Zimmerman actually turned himself it. I half expected the cops to have to go fetch him, only to find his electronic ankle bracelet strapped on to the dog.
Quote from: Luna on June 04, 2012, 12:15:08 PM
Bedamned, Zimmerman actually turned himself it. I half expected the cops to have to go fetch him, only to find his electronic ankle bracelet strapped on to the dog.
Nah, I suspect the guy actually believes that he is innocent. There are cops that have killed innocent people and felt they were innocent of any wrongdoing. There are soldiers that have committed war crimes and believed they were innocent. I think poor Zimmerman has swallowed so much of the 'ethics' popular among some of the gun toting crowd that he sees the action as justifiable.
Zimmerman's wife has just been arrested for perjury.
I do not approve. I don't want to share a country with people who WOULDN'T lie like a mad bastard to keep their spouse out of jail.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:19:56 PM
Zimmerman's wife has just been arrested for perjury.
I do not approve. I don't want to share a country with people who WOULDN'T lie like a mad bastard to keep their spouse out of jail.
Damn right. And I hate Zimmerman.
At one time I don't even think they could even subpoena family members.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:19:56 PM
Zimmerman's wife has just been arrested for perjury.
I do not approve. I don't want to share a country with people who WOULDN'T lie like a mad bastard to keep their spouse out of jail.
Damn right. And I hate Zimmerman.
At one time I don't even think they could even subpoena family members.
She lied about their financial status to get him out on bond instead of bail. Looks like they MIGHT have been able to manage the bail, but not without destroying them financially, even with the support he gets from the Yahoo Nation. Still, it would have meant a while longer in the pokey...
...And all I can say is that I would lie like a fucking politician to spare my wife ONE day in jail.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:19:56 PM
Zimmerman's wife has just been arrested for perjury.
I do not approve. I don't want to share a country with people who WOULDN'T lie like a mad bastard to keep their spouse out of jail.
Damn right. And I hate Zimmerman.
At one time I don't even think they could even subpoena family members.
She lied about their financial status to get him out on bond instead of bail. Looks like they MIGHT have been able to manage the bail, but not without destroying them financially, even with the support he gets from the Yahoo Nation. Still, it would have meant a while longer in the pokey...
...And all I can say is that I would lie like a fucking politician to spare my wife ONE day in jail.
Well yeah. People who wouldn't do things like that are spineless.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:31:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:19:56 PM
Zimmerman's wife has just been arrested for perjury.
I do not approve. I don't want to share a country with people who WOULDN'T lie like a mad bastard to keep their spouse out of jail.
Damn right. And I hate Zimmerman.
At one time I don't even think they could even subpoena family members.
She lied about their financial status to get him out on bond instead of bail. Looks like they MIGHT have been able to manage the bail, but not without destroying them financially, even with the support he gets from the Yahoo Nation. Still, it would have meant a while longer in the pokey...
...And all I can say is that I would lie like a fucking politician to spare my wife ONE day in jail.
Well yeah. People who wouldn't do things like that are spineless.
Sure.
Thing is, they went from a DA who wanted to sweep things under the rug, to a kill-crazy monster.
It's the same lady that put that Black woman in prison for 20 years for a warning shot.
:x :x :x
And she has to use it on everybody who was metaphorically standing around and got splattered.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/06/18/george-zimmermans-calls-to-wife-reveal-alleged-plan-to-hide-funds/
QuoteIn a half dozen phone calls between a locked-up George Zimmerman and his wife, the couple talk about their love for each other, buying bulletproof vests and how to move a flood of donations into their personal accounts, recordings released Monday reveal.
Prosecutors allege the six phone calls prove that Shellie Zimmerman lied when she told a judge that the couple was broke before her husband was granted bail in April.
Well colour me shocked.
QuoteThe couple spoke in code, according to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. In the calls Zimmerman makes repeated reference to "Peter Pan," an apparent reference to PayPal.
And neither Zimmerman or his wife ever refer to more than $100,000, talking instead about amounts generally totaling "10 dollars" and "20 dollars." Prosecutors say those were references to $10,000 and $20,000.
This is shocking. If that's the best you can do with codewords and secrecy you deserve twice the sentence for being such a retard.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 12, 2012, 10:19:56 PM
Zimmerman's wife has just been arrested for perjury.
I do not approve. I don't want to share a country with people who WOULDN'T lie like a mad bastard to keep their spouse out of jail.
Damn right. And I hate Zimmerman.
At one time I don't even think they could even subpoena family members.
They can subpoena family members, just not your spouse (depending on the nature of the case/state, even if you've divorced them, and some states allow the other spouse to waive that depending, again, the nature of the case). But I just took a quick look at Florida law regarding martial privileged communication (aka, husband-wife privilege), and, while obviously not a lawyer, I'm inclined to think it's technically MPC:
Quote90.504 Husband-wife privilege (http://199.44.254.204/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.504.html).—
(1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
(3) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.
(b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either.
(c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made.
I haven't read
too much beyond that, aside from looking over some briefs discussing a parent-child privilege from, like, 1999 (HWP is the most similar, after all), and it looks like the Zimmermans' chat is covered by the statute. Federal law would further support this and there's further precedence for this in a semi-similar case in California (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1264406.html), where marital privilege specifically trumped attorney-client privileged communication.
But that's, you know, federal law and California law, and they'd really only come into play if the Zimmermans challenged it and Florida's fucking weird. So I dunno.
This fills me with great rage.
Earlier in the interview, when Hannity asked Zimmerman if he regretted the specific actions of carrying a gun or getting out of his car to follow Martin that February night, the neighborhood watchman said that he didn't.
"I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it," he said, trailing off.
Asked, "Is there anything you might do differently?" Zimmerman said, "No, sir." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-wishes-kill-trayvon-martin-gods-plan/story?id=16807202)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 19, 2012, 04:20:02 PM
This fills me with great rage.
Earlier in the interview, when Hannity asked Zimmerman if he regretted the specific actions of carrying a gun or getting out of his car to follow Martin that February night, the neighborhood watchman said that he didn't.
"I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it," he said, trailing off.
Asked, "Is there anything you might do differently?" Zimmerman said, "No, sir." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-wishes-kill-trayvon-martin-gods-plan/story?id=16807202)
That needs to be brought up in court. No remorse.
THROW AWAY THE FUCKING KEY.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 19, 2012, 04:20:02 PM
This fills me with great rage.
Earlier in the interview, when Hannity asked Zimmerman if he regretted the specific actions of carrying a gun or getting out of his car to follow Martin that February night, the neighborhood watchman said that he didn't.
"I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it," he said, trailing off.
Asked, "Is there anything you might do differently?" Zimmerman said, "No, sir." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-wishes-kill-trayvon-martin-gods-plan/story?id=16807202)
HAW HAW! Zimmerman is now a tool of the RWNs...Who will NOT save him. He is about to learn what happens to tools when they're no longer of use.
They get hung up.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 19, 2012, 04:20:02 PM
This fills me with great rage.
Earlier in the interview, when Hannity asked Zimmerman if he regretted the specific actions of carrying a gun or getting out of his car to follow Martin that February night, the neighborhood watchman said that he didn't.
"I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it," he said, trailing off.
Asked, "Is there anything you might do differently?" Zimmerman said, "No, sir." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-wishes-kill-trayvon-martin-gods-plan/story?id=16807202)
HAW HAW! Zimmerman is now a tool of the RWNs...Who will NOT save him. He is about to learn what happens to tools when they're no longer of use.
They get hung up.
Ah, there's a ray of sunshine in this after all. :lol:
Fucking hell...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
A relative of Zimmerman (exact relationship redacted from public records) has come forward to state that he molested her from the age of six for a decade. She says that he's in jail, so now is the first time she's not afraid of him.
Quote from: Luna on July 31, 2012, 10:07:33 PM
Fucking hell...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
A relative of Zimmerman (exact relationship redacted from public records) has come forward to state that he molested her from the age of six for a decade. She says that he's in jail, so now is the first time she's not afraid of him.
Wow.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: Luna on July 31, 2012, 10:07:33 PM
Fucking hell...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
A relative of Zimmerman (exact relationship redacted from public records) has come forward to state that he molested her from the age of six for a decade. She says that he's in jail, so now is the first time she's not afraid of him.
Wow.
Zimmerman's lawyer is shitting himself to say that her accusations have nothing to do with his case, which is correct, other than it speaks to him being a fucked up bastard.
Quote from: Luna on July 31, 2012, 10:14:04 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: Luna on July 31, 2012, 10:07:33 PM
Fucking hell...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
A relative of Zimmerman (exact relationship redacted from public records) has come forward to state that he molested her from the age of six for a decade. She says that he's in jail, so now is the first time she's not afraid of him.
Wow.
Zimmerman's lawyer is shitting himself to say that her accusations have nothing to do with his case, which is correct, other than it speaks to him being a fucked up bastard.
FACEBOOKING! :
I think these have to be prosecuted in the state where they happened. Was just the last time in FL? Will Zimmerpedo be going on tour?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/trayvon-martins-dna-george-zimmerman-gun_n_1897356.html
Apparently, they couldn't find any of Martin's DNA on the grip of the pistol.
Quote from: Luna on September 20, 2012, 12:04:20 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/trayvon-martins-dna-george-zimmerman-gun_n_1897356.html
Apparently, they couldn't find any of Martin's DNA on the grip of the pistol.
[/obvious]
Following up on a red herring like that does make it sound like they might actually be trying to get a conviction, though.
As evidence mounts that Zimmerman is a BIG FAT LIAR I am leaning toward the likelihood that he will end up convicted.
Well, nothing like both cashing in AND leaping to the defense of your friend, right?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/21/3545938/george-zimmermans-friends-book.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/trayvon-martin-wrongful-death-suit_n_3022300.html
Annnnd jury selection.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-jury-selection-jurors-race-focus/story?id=19360931
Yeah, slate. However:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/stand_your_ground_law_helps_white_defendants_a_lot_more_than_black_ones/?standonthis
QuoteThe disparity between these outcomes should be shocking. But, sadly, it's not, once you take into account the fact that Wald is white and Alexander is black. The "stand your ground" law is notorious for being applied in a biased and inconsistent way. The Tampa Bay Times found that defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more successful if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty. Only 59 percent of those who killed a white person got off. The Urban Institute determined that in "stand your ground" states, when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable. When black shooters kill white victims only 3 percent of the deaths are ruled justifiable.
Some of the quotes from jury selection are worth a look. Looks like a mistrial waiting to happen.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 12, 2013, 09:35:23 AM
Yeah, slate. However:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/stand_your_ground_law_helps_white_defendants_a_lot_more_than_black_ones/?standonthis
QuoteThe disparity between these outcomes should be shocking. But, sadly, it's not, once you take into account the fact that Wald is white and Alexander is black. The "stand your ground" law is notorious for being applied in a biased and inconsistent way. The Tampa Bay Times found that defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more successful if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty. Only 59 percent of those who killed a white person got off. The Urban Institute determined that in "stand your ground" states, when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable. When black shooters kill white victims only 3 percent of the deaths are ruled justifiable.
Some of the quotes from jury selection are worth a look. Looks like a mistrial waiting to happen.
Those are some dismal and highly revealing statistics. :sad:
I'm really outraged on the behalf of Marissa Alexander...
He admitted he was going to assault her.
She was not ABLE to get away.
Discharging the gun into the ceiling stopped a crime from being committed.
I think the worst she ought to have gotten have been convicted of, if anything, was improper discharge of a firearm, class A misdemeanor. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/790.15
WTF was the jury thinking?
"Well, we were gonna acquit her, but she's black."
:argh!:
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 16, 2013, 06:41:31 AM
I'm really outraged on the behalf of Marissa Alexander...
He admitted he was going to assault her.
She was not ABLE to get away.
Discharging the gun into the ceiling stopped a crime from being committed.
I think the worst she ought to have gotten have been convicted of, if anything, was improper discharge of a firearm, class A misdemeanor. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/790.15
WTF was the jury thinking?
"Well, we were gonna acquit her, but she's black."
:argh!:
Bingo.
George Zimmerman Gets All Female Jury (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-female-jury/story?id=19437833)
Plea bargain immient, surely?
All women is a pretty good bet at negating the chance of the death penalty from what I can remember of lawyers rules to jury selection.
I doubt either side is going to take the chance of letting this run all the way to the end. It looks to me like both sides have agreed he's going to jail, the question is what for and for how long.
From the article:
"In a case that has had racial overtones since Martin's death in February 2012, the ethnic makeup of the panel comes as a surprise. Five members of the panel are white and one is Hispanic."
Not surprised.
Florida. :x
Quote from: Luna on September 20, 2012, 12:04:20 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/trayvon-martins-dna-george-zimmerman-gun_n_1897356.html
Apparently, they couldn't find any of Martin's DNA on the grip of the pistol.
According to the testimony on latent fingerprints "It was raining off and on, so its possible that the rain ruined the evidence"
I mean, obviously it SHOULD BE THERE... IF ITS NOT THERE IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE RAIN!!!
:horrormirth:
not guilty. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
See? No crime here. The people have spoken.
Everybody forget this ever happened.
Quote from: V3X on July 14, 2013, 03:28:48 AM
not guilty. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
See? No crime here. The people have spoken.
Everybody forget this ever happened.
:pissed:
Where do I sign up for the riots?
Honestly? There wasn't a single part of me that thought Zimmerman would be found guilty. It's just not what Florida does.
I really wish they'd prove me wrong one day though...
I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Never saw that coming.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 14, 2013, 04:23:08 AM
I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Well yeah, I knew they'd fuck it up.
But not THIS royally.
Go home Texas you're drunk!
Comment of the day from someone on Facebook.
"Go to Florida, find Zimmerman, start a fight, when he retaliates, kill him and claim I was standing my ground".
Quote from: /b/earman on July 14, 2013, 05:22:19 AM
Comment of the day from someone on Facebook.
"Go to Florida, find Zimmerman, start a fight, when he retaliates, kill him and claim I was standing my ground".
Right on.
I'm not too surprised. I was hoping for at least manslaughter but didn't really expect we'd get it. The prosecution put on a terrible case, I'm not sure if they are just stupid or they threw it on purpose. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 14, 2013, 05:22:19 AM
Comment of the day from someone on Facebook.
"Go to Florida, find Zimmerman, start a fight, when he retaliates, kill him and claim I was standing my ground".
I Like this.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 14, 2013, 05:22:19 AM
Comment of the day from someone on Facebook.
"Go to Florida, find Zimmerman, start a fight, when he retaliates, kill him and claim I was standing my ground".
Yes, because clearly we need MOAR vigillante justice.
It boils down to reasonable doubt, the prosecution sucked... so I don't blame the jury. There is little doubt that he racially profiled and stalked... but the case was about the confrontation and I don't think the prosecution could nail the case.
:sad:
This is why juries need to be educated about juror nullification. Zimmerman doesn't deny that he killed the kid, if the "stand your ground" law is wrong in this instance than the jury can just say that and, well, probably result in an appeal or mistrial because the fucking justice system hates that shit.
Seriously, everyone on that jury and prosecution needs to be slapped in the face just once.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 14, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
This is why juries need to be educated about juror nullification. Zimmerman doesn't deny that he killed the kid, if the "stand your ground" law is wrong in this instance than the jury can just say that and, well, probably result in an appeal or mistrial because the fucking justice system hates that shit.
Seriously, everyone on that jury and prosecution needs to be slapped in the face just once.
Even without "stand your ground" I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was false. Of course, thats based on what I've read in the reports, rather than first hand knowledge. However, if they couldn't disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him, beating him, then I don't see how the jury could have found otherwise in the claim of second degree, manslaughter on the other hand would have been possible, but still...
I think the killer evidence was that the defense had expert testimony which said the forensic evidence was in-line with Zimmerman's claims and the prosecution didn't have any experts that claimed otherwise. So I'd agree the prosecution needs slapped, but I dunno about the jury.
On the other hand, I doubt it will be difficult for the Martins to win the civil cases thatr are sure to come.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 14, 2013, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 14, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
This is why juries need to be educated about juror nullification. Zimmerman doesn't deny that he killed the kid, if the "stand your ground" law is wrong in this instance than the jury can just say that and, well, probably result in an appeal or mistrial because the fucking justice system hates that shit.
Seriously, everyone on that jury and prosecution needs to be slapped in the face just once.
Even without "stand your ground" I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was false. Of course, thats based on what I've read in the reports, rather than first hand knowledge. However, if they couldn't disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him, beating him, then I don't see how the jury could have found otherwise in the claim of second degree, manslaughter on the other hand would have been possible, but still...
I think the killer evidence was that the defense had expert testimony which said the forensic evidence was in-line with Zimmerman's claims and the prosecution didn't have any experts that claimed otherwise. So I'd agree the prosecution needs slapped, but I dunno about the jury.
On the other hand, I doubt it will be difficult for the Martins to win the civil cases thatr are sure to come.
One of the links I saw last night said that part of SYG is immunity to civil suits.
OTOH the NAACP is petitioning the DOJ. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/naacp_urges_doj_to_press_federal_civil_rights_charges_against_george_zimmerman/singleton/
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html
QuoteVideos of rioting in Miami began circulating quickly after last night's not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial....Except there was no riot in Miami. The video was from the 2011 Stanley Cup Riot in Vancouver, Canada.
Nice try, fuckfaces. :lulz:
Quote from: stelz on July 14, 2013, 06:12:49 PM
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html
QuoteVideos of rioting in Miami began circulating quickly after last night's not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial....Except there was no riot in Miami. The video was from the 2011 Stanley Cup Riot in Vancouver, Canada.
Nice try, fuckfaces. :lulz:
I think everyone's just too fucking depressed to riot.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 14, 2013, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: stelz on July 14, 2013, 06:12:49 PM
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html
QuoteVideos of rioting in Miami began circulating quickly after last night's not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial....Except there was no riot in Miami. The video was from the 2011 Stanley Cup Riot in Vancouver, Canada.
Nice try, fuckfaces. :lulz:
I think everyone's just too fucking depressed to riot.
Yeah. It's like Civil Rights never happened.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 14, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
It boils down to reasonable doubt, the prosecution sucked... so I don't blame the jury. There is little doubt that he racially profiled and stalked... but the case was about the confrontation and I don't think the prosecution could nail the case.
:sad:
What I don't get is... if you stalk somebody and they
do confront you, aren't you the aggressor for stalking them in the first place? What was Trayvon supposed to do, outrun him and a bullet? If you put someone into a fight-or-flight situation, and then deny them the opportunity for flight, you can't very well complain if they choose to fight.
Especcially when you compare that to this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Apparently you are only allowed to stand your ground when shooting at black people.
Quote from: Pergamos on July 14, 2013, 08:01:15 PM
Especcially when you compare that to this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Apparently you are only allowed to stand your ground when shooting at black people.
That's the whole point of SYG.
The story behind that woman's case is her ex forced his way into her home, she then went to get her gun. She then had the encounter with him, still inside her house, in which she fired the warning shot. They used the fact that she went to get her gun after the initial confrontation to say that it wasn't self defense.
I guess Florida law would be okay though if she kept in on her at all times then pulled it out and blasted him a few times in the chest when he first came in. That seems to be what they are saying.
Quote from: Durivan on July 14, 2013, 10:19:34 PM
The story behind that woman's case is her ex forced his way into her home, she then went to get her gun. She then had the encounter with him, still inside her house, in which she fired the warning shot. They used the fact that she went to get her gun after the initial confrontation to say that it wasn't self defense.
I guess Florida law would be okay though if she kept in on her at all times then pulled it out and blasted him a few times in the chest when he first came in. That seems to be what they are saying.
Nah, they'd have been ok with it if she wasn't black.
Probably. I was just stating what the prosecutors used to claim she wasn't entitled to self defense. A claim that I think is ridiculous by itself.
In FL, it appears your right to self defense is determined by your lack of pigment relative to the other person's. That's why Zimmerman is "white" in this instance. If he'd shot an actual white guy, even one that broke in his house, there's be an outcry about "illegals" and he'd be in prison already.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 14, 2013, 08:00:31 PM
What I don't get is... if you stalk somebody and they do confront you, aren't you the aggressor for stalking them in the first place?
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT TOO! :argh!:
Zimmerman chased the kid down!
Zimmerman started the fight. Even if he was getting his ass kicked, he STILL started the confrontation.
If I as a guard did that shit?
I would expect to bloody well go to jail! ...Except I'm not a stupid bigot, so I wouldn't do that.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 14, 2013, 11:17:03 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 14, 2013, 08:00:31 PM
What I don't get is... if you stalk somebody and they do confront you, aren't you the aggressor for stalking them in the first place?
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT TOO! :argh!:
Zimmerman chased the kid down!
Zimmerman started the fight. Even if he was getting his ass kicked, he STILL started the confrontation.
If I as a guard did that shit? I would expect to bloody well go to jail!
...Except I'm not a stupid bigot, so I wouldn't do that.
We're about where Germany was in 1939, aren't we?
Quote from: Pergamos on July 14, 2013, 08:01:15 PM
Especcially when you compare that to this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Apparently you are only allowed to stand your ground when shooting at black people.
:pissed:
Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23309534Jorge Rodriguez, a friend of Mr Zimmerman's, said he had told him of his relief. He told Reuters he did not understand the anger at the verdict.
"Everybody asked for justice, and they got it. Everybody asked for George to be arrested, and they got it. Everybody asked for George to be tried, and they got it. Everybody asked for a fair trial, and they got it."
"It was nothing about racism. It was about the community being robbed and broken into, and one man stood up," he said. "The state should be giving this man an award, and instead they took him to trial."
I get defending your friend, but
really? Zimmerman should get an award for shooting an unarmed, innocent teen because he
was black looked suspicious?
Uncle Tom weighs in...
http://www.tpnn.com/project-21-black-conservatives-analyze-aftermath-of-zimmerman-case/
Quote from: Pergamos on July 15, 2013, 02:07:37 AM
Uncle Tom weighs in...
http://www.tpnn.com/project-21-black-conservatives-analyze-aftermath-of-zimmerman-case/
Do I even WANT to click that link and read? Or have I had enough homicidal ratbag stupidity for the day?
OK, OK, Horrible Truth
(TM) and all that...
QuoteMcClendon is a Project 21 member and tea party activist.
*closes window*
Internalized oppression, anyone? :sad:
This made me feel a little better. It won't fix it, but it was good to see. Travon Martin March, San Francisco
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/1016353_10201104109021294_48855762_n.jpg)
Quote from: stelz on July 15, 2013, 06:05:39 AM
This made me feel a little better. It won't fix it, but it was good to see. Travon Martin March, San Francisco
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/1016353_10201104109021294_48855762_n.jpg)
wow
im a bit mad, cause i discussed it with a RL friend from here and he defaulted to "he had it coming, I know how blacks are, starting shit and then falling back to calling <<racism>> if it doesnt work"
Quote from: The Johnny on July 15, 2013, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: stelz on July 15, 2013, 06:05:39 AM
This made me feel a little better. It won't fix it, but it was good to see. Travon Martin March, San Francisco
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/1016353_10201104109021294_48855762_n.jpg)
wow
im a bit mad, cause i discussed it with a RL friend from here and he defaulted to "he had it coming, I know how blacks are, starting shit and then falling back to calling <<racism>> if it doesnt work"
I'll be mad for a good while, from all the willful STUPID.
And Obama pussied out ROYALLY, called for "calm reflection" and tried to make it a gun thing, when it's a race thing. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/politics/obama-zimmerman/index.html
But there's protests going on in Times Square, in LA, Oakland...it's happening. There's still people out there besides us who know how utterly fucked this is.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 14, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
It boils down to reasonable doubt, the prosecution sucked... so I don't blame the jury. There is little doubt that he racially profiled and stalked... but the case was about the confrontation and I don't think the prosecution could nail the case.
:sad:
And the case being about the confrontation is where it turned to stupid. Racially profiled + stalked + packing = manslaughter, at least. What I'm hearing a lot is that stalking is not an initiation of force...you know...because there's no touching. It's like telepathic adrenal stimulation, and who believes in that shit.
Also the especially favorites I've heard is that Zimmerman's suspicion negates a claim of stalking at all. Also cute. Because you know, it's not what you do, it's what you THINK you do...just ask every rapist who never raped anyone.
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/zimmerman-found-not-guilty-technically-but-cmon,33124/
QuoteSANFORD, FL—More than 16 months after he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in an altercation at a Florida condominium development, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was found, technically speaking, not guilty of murder Saturday, but c'mon.
Following two days of intense deliberations, a six-member jury determined that Zimmerman had, from a purely legal standpoint, not murdered Martin, a black teenager, in February 2012. According to jurors, Zimmerman lawfully acted in self-defense—but let's be serious here, shall we?—when he shot Martin at point-blank range in the chest, leaving him dead within minutes.
"The jury acted within the letter of the law, I guess, if you want to be official about it, and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter charges," said legal scholar Jeffrey Frazier about Zimmerman's culpability in the events of February 26, 2012, which, trial or no trial, have been pretty clear all along, right? "Mr. Zimmerman did not violate any Florida state laws—although, please, give me a break—and is an innocent man, I suppose, if you're sticking to the strict legal definition of that word."
"And thus, this trial was properly conducted in full accordance with the U.S. justice system," Frazier added. "For whatever that's worth."
The highly anticipated verdict was announced late Saturday evening, when the jury's foreman informed the dozens gathered in the packed courtroom that, in purely technical terms, mind you, Zimmerman had been cleared of wrongdoing, using her middle and forefingers on both hands to pantomime quotation marks while stating the words "not guilty."
"Is George Zimmerman, juridically speaking, guilty of a crime? Under the precise stipulations of this particular law, no, he wasn't," said the foreman, adding, "Although, I think we all know what happened here, don't we? Seriously, don't we? And so we the jury find the defendant, George Zimmerman, you know, Christ, I guess I have to say not guilty? Do I really have to say that?"
The trial, which gripped the nation for three weeks, was particularly notable for Judge Debra B. Nelson's order barring any discussion of race, which she stated had no bearing on the case, but, again, let's be serious here for a second, as the victim was a black teenager.
In the wake of the verdict, large protests are confirmed to have erupted in cities throughout the country, which, frankly, is pretty understandable because, Christ, did you watch this fucking trial? In response to the nationwide outrage over Zimmerman's innocence, and, boy, we're using the term "innocence" pretty goddamned loosely here, President Barack Obama urged calm.
"I ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son," said Obama in an address Sunday, sighing. "We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."
"But c'mon," added Obama.
Magically, the technicalities always favour certain groups while punishing others. Wonder why that happens?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Girlfriendo and I were pissed, but we're also kind of evilly happy that things are actually worse for Zimmerman this way than if he pleaded guilty.
If he'd done some time, the whole country wouldn't have been outraged this way...he probably wouldn't have got a stiff enough sentence, but there wouldn't be this collective outrage, he would have done his time and it would be over for him in a few years.
This way...for the rest of his life he's gonna have to watch his back. He's a marked man, pretty much...
That gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
:evil:
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 16, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
Girlfriendo and I were pissed, but we're also kind of evilly happy that things are actually worse for Zimmerman this way than if he pleaded guilty.
If he'd done some time, the whole country wouldn't have been outraged this way...he probably wouldn't have got a stiff enough sentence, but there wouldn't be this collective outrage, he would have done his time and it would be over for him in a few years.
This way...for the rest of his life he's gonna have to watch his back. He's a marked man, pretty much...
That gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
:evil:
I'd love to think for the rest of his life people will shout "I'm standing my ground" whenever he walks towards them. Unlikely, but it would be amusing.
Can't shake the feeling he's going to be able to turn this into a sack of cash somehow.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 16, 2013, 01:06:18 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 16, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
Girlfriendo and I were pissed, but we're also kind of evilly happy that things are actually worse for Zimmerman this way than if he pleaded guilty.
If he'd done some time, the whole country wouldn't have been outraged this way...he probably wouldn't have got a stiff enough sentence, but there wouldn't be this collective outrage, he would have done his time and it would be over for him in a few years.
This way...for the rest of his life he's gonna have to watch his back. He's a marked man, pretty much...
That gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
:evil:
I'd love to think for the rest of his life people will shout "I'm standing my ground" whenever he walks towards them. Unlikely, but it would be amusing.
Can't shake the feeling he's going to be able to turn this into a sack of cash somehow.
Yeah, disgusting SELLS. Octomom, Honey Boo Boo and Bobbittpr0n, MOVE OVER. :x
Talk show circuit anyone?
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 16, 2013, 08:34:05 AM
Magically, the technicalities always favour certain groups while punishing others. Wonder why that happens?
Well, protests have worked in the past to pressure legislators to change bad laws.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
That's not a bad idea.
How about "Florida doesn't get to have a court system. They and Texas must hire other states, chosen by lottery, to try all cases."?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 05:20:42 PM
How about "Florida doesn't get to have a court system. They and Texas must hire other states, chosen by lottery, to try all cases."?
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
And have to be real firm in defining what constitutes escalation...or aggression. Still several people that claimed that following Martin after he had made it very clear that he was not okay with continuing to be followed, was perfectly okay. Well, not okay, per se, but a sort of "not really the best judgement, but his heart was in the right place" sorta deal.
The one thing that this has illuminated for me most of all is how few people realize that "creepy" is often just a somewhat polite way of saying "terrifying."
Also: "Any act taken in response to actions that
a reasonable person would perceive as a threat to their safety, shall be called 'self defense'. Further, both parties to a conflict cannot be acting in self-defense simultaneously."
Maybe with some caveat for a cooling off period for adrenaline. Can't ambush your stalker 2 years after they've stopped, but if the adrenal gland they milked is still squirting...game on.
Call it the "Playing with fire" law, or something catchy. People would jump on board. It would be both just and extremely fucking messy (for a while). Best of both worlds.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 16, 2013, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
And have to be real firm in defining what constitutes escalation...or aggression. Still several people that claimed that following Martin after he had made it very clear that he was not okay with continuing to be followed, was perfectly okay. Well, not okay, per se, but a sort of "not really the best judgement, but his heart was in the right place" sorta deal.
The one thing that this has illuminated for me most of all is how few people realize that "creepy" is often just a somewhat polite way of saying "terrifying."
I keep seeing the po'bucker faction saying "It's not illegal to follow somebody".
Well no, if you're not hunting them down with a firearm. I mean, that should have factored in SOMEWHERE.
Does anybody remember "premeditated murder"?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
I like this a lot.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 05:20:42 PM
How about "Florida doesn't get to have a court system. They and Texas must hire other states, chosen by lottery, to try all cases."?
Also this.
"No escalation" is one of those things that's supposed to be common sense, that proves that "common sense" doesn't really exist, right? :x
Quote from: stelz on July 16, 2013, 05:30:47 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 16, 2013, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
And have to be real firm in defining what constitutes escalation...or aggression. Still several people that claimed that following Martin after he had made it very clear that he was not okay with continuing to be followed, was perfectly okay. Well, not okay, per se, but a sort of "not really the best judgement, but his heart was in the right place" sorta deal.
The one thing that this has illuminated for me most of all is how few people realize that "creepy" is often just a somewhat polite way of saying "terrifying."
I keep seeing the po'bucker faction saying "It's not illegal to follow somebody".
Well no, if you're not hunting them down with a firearm. I mean, that should have factored in SOMEWHERE.
Even without the firearm, isn't there a point at which a person should be able to withhold their consent to be followed, and have that fucking respected? People keep bringing up the paparazzi and I'm like...
A: Horrible fucking example. Half the shit they get away with, a reasonable culture would call harassment and prosecute accordingly.
and
B: You know who the fuck the paparazzi are. They're not some unknown entity that just happens to be shadowing your movements. We're hardwired to respond to that situation in a very specific way, and unless you've undergone some serious training to decondition that very basic animal response, you're going to go into fight or flight and that may be a fun place to be for plenty of us, but it's not that safe a place to be for anybody.
Furthermore it kind of violates cognitive liberty: "Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men."
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/cbc95eccc92bef96278b27ee1f0d1b4a/tumblr_mpxpeer3tT1soedeyo1_r1_1280.jpg)
Hopefully, most of them will cross the street towards him, then follow him for hours.
If people didn't have memories like goldfish.
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 08:45:54 PM
Hopefully, most of them will cross the street towards him, then follow him for hours.
He needs to be followed by a large group of people ALL THE TIME to make sure he doesn't kill anybody else.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 05:20:42 PM
How about "Florida doesn't get to have a court system. They and Texas must hire other states, chosen by lottery, to try all cases."?
Cool by me.
Oh, in what might be a merging of topic issue:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-zimmerman-verdict-city-leaders-urge-calm-20130715,0,1546139.story
Protesters apparently broke away and attempted to do some looting of Walmart. :evil:
Quote from: stelz on July 16, 2013, 03:09:06 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 16, 2013, 01:06:18 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 16, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
Girlfriendo and I were pissed, but we're also kind of evilly happy that things are actually worse for Zimmerman this way than if he pleaded guilty.
If he'd done some time, the whole country wouldn't have been outraged this way...he probably wouldn't have got a stiff enough sentence, but there wouldn't be this collective outrage, he would have done his time and it would be over for him in a few years.
This way...for the rest of his life he's gonna have to watch his back. He's a marked man, pretty much...
That gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
:evil:
I'd love to think for the rest of his life people will shout "I'm standing my ground" whenever he walks towards them. Unlikely, but it would be amusing.
Can't shake the feeling he's going to be able to turn this into a sack of cash somehow.
Yeah, disgusting SELLS. Octomom, Honey Boo Boo and Bobbittpr0n, MOVE OVER. :x
I dunno, they're revolting without being evil (well, with the possible exception of Bobbit, I heard he was abusive, but it's not the abuse that sold, it's the fact his cock got cut off)
Quote from: Pergamos on July 16, 2013, 10:27:10 PM
Quote from: stelz on July 16, 2013, 03:09:06 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 16, 2013, 01:06:18 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 16, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
Girlfriendo and I were pissed, but we're also kind of evilly happy that things are actually worse for Zimmerman this way than if he pleaded guilty.
If he'd done some time, the whole country wouldn't have been outraged this way...he probably wouldn't have got a stiff enough sentence, but there wouldn't be this collective outrage, he would have done his time and it would be over for him in a few years.
This way...for the rest of his life he's gonna have to watch his back. He's a marked man, pretty much...
That gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
:evil:
I'd love to think for the rest of his life people will shout "I'm standing my ground" whenever he walks towards them. Unlikely, but it would be amusing.
Can't shake the feeling he's going to be able to turn this into a sack of cash somehow.
Yeah, disgusting SELLS. Octomom, Honey Boo Boo and Bobbittpr0n, MOVE OVER. :x
I dunno, they're revolting without being evil (well, with the possible exception of Bobbit, I heard he was abusive, but it's not the abuse that sold, it's the fact his cock got cut off)
Wasn't abuse, it was catting around what done him in.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 16, 2013, 05:41:08 PM
Quote from: stelz on July 16, 2013, 05:30:47 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 16, 2013, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 16, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 16, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
It may have been the right verdict according to the law... but the law is wrong, if that was the right verdict.
I think there should be some obligation, if you're carrying a firearm, not to be creepy.
Or a "no escalation" law that states that if a person in possession of a firearm escalates a confrontation, they cannot claim self-defense if they use it to kill their opponent.
And have to be real firm in defining what constitutes escalation...or aggression. Still several people that claimed that following Martin after he had made it very clear that he was not okay with continuing to be followed, was perfectly okay. Well, not okay, per se, but a sort of "not really the best judgement, but his heart was in the right place" sorta deal.
The one thing that this has illuminated for me most of all is how few people realize that "creepy" is often just a somewhat polite way of saying "terrifying."
I keep seeing the po'bucker faction saying "It's not illegal to follow somebody".
Well no, if you're not hunting them down with a firearm. I mean, that should have factored in SOMEWHERE.
Even without the firearm, isn't there a point at which a person should be able to withhold their consent to be followed, and have that fucking respected? People keep bringing up the paparazzi and I'm like...
A: Horrible fucking example. Half the shit they get away with, a reasonable culture would call harassment and prosecute accordingly.
and
B: You know who the fuck the paparazzi are. They're not some unknown entity that just happens to be shadowing your movements. We're hardwired to respond to that situation in a very specific way, and unless you've undergone some serious training to decondition that very basic animal response, you're going to go into fight or flight and that may be a fun place to be for plenty of us, but it's not that safe a place to be for anybody.
Furthermore it kind of violates cognitive liberty: "Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men."
Following someone with a camera is also very different from following them with a gun.
I think people should follow Zimmerman around with a gun.
Forever.
Interesting linkspam on the Martin verdict.
http://feministing.com/2013/07/16/white-womanhood-protectionism-and-complicity-in-injustice-for-trayvon/
This one was interesting as it asks "why the fuck did we expect 6 white women who would have unconsciously clutched their purses when Trayvon or any other teen black boy to give any kind of justice"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/works-of-art-paying-tribute-to-trayvon-martin
My prediction is that Zimmerman will be dead by his own hand or someone elses, or be back in the clink, before this time next year.
I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that it's going to happen.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 10:28:12 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 16, 2013, 10:27:10 PM
Quote from: stelz on July 16, 2013, 03:09:06 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 16, 2013, 01:06:18 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 16, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
Girlfriendo and I were pissed, but we're also kind of evilly happy that things are actually worse for Zimmerman this way than if he pleaded guilty.
If he'd done some time, the whole country wouldn't have been outraged this way...he probably wouldn't have got a stiff enough sentence, but there wouldn't be this collective outrage, he would have done his time and it would be over for him in a few years.
This way...for the rest of his life he's gonna have to watch his back. He's a marked man, pretty much...
That gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
:evil:
I'd love to think for the rest of his life people will shout "I'm standing my ground" whenever he walks towards them. Unlikely, but it would be amusing.
Can't shake the feeling he's going to be able to turn this into a sack of cash somehow.
Yeah, disgusting SELLS. Octomom, Honey Boo Boo and Bobbittpr0n, MOVE OVER. :x
I dunno, they're revolting without being evil (well, with the possible exception of Bobbit, I heard he was abusive, but it's not the abuse that sold, it's the fact his cock got cut off)
Wasn't abuse, it was catting around what done him in.
good, cheaters deserve unfavorable divorce proceedings, not castration. I'm glad they sewed his wang back on. When I thought he was abusive I wasn't glad.
Quote from: Pergamos on July 16, 2013, 10:33:04 PM
good, cheaters deserve unfavorable divorce proceedings, not castration. I'm glad they sewed his wang back on. When I thought he was abusive I wasn't glad.
I'm not certain I like the idea of whacking anyone's bits off for perceived crimes or wrongdoings. Under any circumstances.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 10:34:40 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 16, 2013, 10:33:04 PM
good, cheaters deserve unfavorable divorce proceedings, not castration. I'm glad they sewed his wang back on. When I thought he was abusive I wasn't glad.
I'm not certain I like the idea of whacking anyone's bits off for perceived crimes or wrongdoings. Under any circumstances.
THIS.
unless someone is attempting to injure you with cock, to not lop off.
Cheating can involve emotional abuse (gaslighting, lying, ect) tho.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 10:34:40 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 16, 2013, 10:33:04 PM
good, cheaters deserve unfavorable divorce proceedings, not castration. I'm glad they sewed his wang back on. When I thought he was abusive I wasn't glad.
I'm not certain I like the idea of whacking anyone's bits off for perceived crimes or wrongdoings. Under any circumstances.
Yeah. Higgamus hoggamus, that's a big pile of wangs.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 10:31:59 PM
My prediction is that Zimmerman will be dead by his own hand or someone elses, or be back in the clink, before this time next year.
I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that it's going to happen.
You've been right about everything so far. Can't say I'll be sorry when it happens.
Curious how you get "by his own hand", though? He strikes me as the kind of ratbag who would off everybody ELSE.
Quote from: stelz on July 16, 2013, 10:41:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 10:34:40 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 16, 2013, 10:33:04 PM
good, cheaters deserve unfavorable divorce proceedings, not castration. I'm glad they sewed his wang back on. When I thought he was abusive I wasn't glad.
I'm not certain I like the idea of whacking anyone's bits off for perceived crimes or wrongdoings. Under any circumstances.
Yeah. Higgamus hoggamus, that's a big pile of wangs.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2013, 10:31:59 PM
My prediction is that Zimmerman will be dead by his own hand or someone elses, or be back in the clink, before this time next year.
I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that it's going to happen.
You've been right about everything so far. Can't say I'll be sorry when it happens.
Curious how you get "by his own hand", though? He strikes me as the kind of ratbag who would off everybody ELSE.
Nope. He's a chickenshit. He will fold up like a house of cards when he finally realizes that this is never going to be over...I'd say about a month after the talk-show backlash kicks in.
Paranoia will do things to a man. Even if it's reasonable-ish:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/zimmermans-brother-we-have-concerns-of-having-our-phones-tapped-by-the-administration/ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/zimmermans-brother-we-have-concerns-of-having-our-phones-tapped-by-the-administration/)
QuoteWe do have concerns and always have of having our phones tapped, having our phones listened to by the administration or whomever," Zimmerman said. "A lot of the things that we do are connecting in person—that's how we've managed to stay hidden for so long. It's kind of old school, but it works...We're back to what we were doing in March of 2012, because it's right in everybody's mind right now."
Edit: Quote is from his brother. Zimmerman hasn't left his house.
A chickenshit recluse. At least Howard Hughes had a sack.
Yeah, I can see it.
Aaaand juror B37 has a book deal already. Don't know which news article to link to, but she's all the hits for B37 right now. Apparently the whole video of her jury selection thing is published somewhere.
Quote from: Pixie on July 16, 2013, 07:52:45 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/cbc95eccc92bef96278b27ee1f0d1b4a/tumblr_mpxpeer3tT1soedeyo1_r1_1280.jpg)
A lot of people don't seem to get this, at all. They think that the reaction of widespread outrage is to a single incident, a single trial. It's not. It's a reaction to decades of systemic racism that systematically treats a certain group of people worse on all fronts, long after the courts declared black people equal.
If this was an isolated incident, people wouldn't be on the streets. It's not. Serious racial injustice happens every day, constantly, in every city in the US.
The death of Trayvon Martin, the police failure to properly investigate it, and the subsequent acquittal of his killer was merely the last straw for a lot of people. Underlying that last straw is ubiquitous racial profiling, traffic stops, harassment and violence, black men convicted on circumstantial evidence, blacks convicted at rates far outstripping any plausible explanation that does not include discrimination, ample evidence that blacks are denied housing and employment when they are equally qualified with whites, black convicts being sterilized against their will and without their knowledge in prison, and the sheer stunning disgrace of the school-to-prison pipeline, which black children as young as five are victimized by in stunning disproportion.
Unless you take all of this into consideration when looking at the massive reaction to Zimmerman's acquittal, you have your head up your ass and are crawling around on all fours. For fuck's sake, people need to pull it out and STAND UP so they can see the whole social injustice landscape, and not just this one, relatively tiny, element that has dominated the mainstream press.
Every few decades, we have to do this.
It isn't like Medgar Evers was the only Black person murdered in his time, either. Trayvon wasn't a Medgar Evers, of course, he was a kid. But this also isn't 1965.
And when I say "we", I mean "America", and when I say "do this", I mean "wallow in our guilt and sin".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 17, 2013, 02:08:53 AM
A lot of people don't seem to get this, at all. They think that the reaction of widespread outrage is to a single incident, a single trial. It's not. It's a reaction to decades of systemic racism that systematically treats a certain group of people worse on all fronts, long after the courts declared black people equal.
Since we're not a racist society anymore, it MUST be an isolated incident.
I suspect the statistics, they must be manipulated.
I don't see that kind of racism, it can't possibly be true.
All these black people are just overreacting because they hate white people; it's reverse racism, of course, they all just need to go get jobs and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
After all, none of us have it easy.
They just want to sit on their ass, smoke pot and collect welfare...all the women are welfare queens and all the men are thugs who deserve what they get.
...There, did I miss any racist bullshit excuses? :argh!:
Yes, some whitefolks are that dense. Fucking nauseating.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/trayvon-martin-merchandise-is-for-sale
QuoteThe merchandising of this particular incident goes beyond the protest environment. Pro-Trayvon merchandise is all over the internet, but unfortunately there's also a plethora of pro-George Zimmerman gear for the discerning, fashion-forward racist.
(http://assets.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/8b1a8901ae7234abca3c9c6846337fab.jpg)
The circus has taken a rest, please take this opportunity to make money from the event.
It'd be nice to think that all proceeds are going to some kind of fund or something, but I'm not that hopeful.
Kinda like paying for one of those "kick me" signs to be stuck to your back.
My mother-in-law cured me of my desire to meet her in person with her reaction to the verdict.
No struggle, no fight.
He never dropped the goddamn bag.
*****possible trigger warning*****
http://www.laprogressive.com/zimmerman-verdict-truth/
Quote from: stelz on July 22, 2013, 02:58:46 AM
No struggle, no fight.
He never dropped the goddamn bag.
*****possible trigger warning*****
http://www.laprogressive.com/zimmerman-verdict-truth/
Oh, wow.
I fucked up, it looks like a rubber glove in this clearer photo
*****trigger warning again*****
http://cdn.mediatakeout.com/63599/mto-super-world-exclusive-we-ve-got-the-trayvon-martin-death-pics-the-poor-boy-was-gunned-down-in-cold-blood.html
Which is fucked up, there's no NEED for the guy who wrote the article in my last post to make shit up and blur the glove so it looks like a bag, everybody heard the 911 calls and KNOWS what happened. Even if they don't want to admit it because they're racist fuckbags.
This just makes us look like we're full of shit. :x
Then suddenly...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/22/sanford-zimmerman-rescue/2575217/
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman, the man whose acquittal on murder and manslaughter charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin set off a wave of protests across the nation, helped rescue a family from an overturned SUV four days after the verdict, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement Monday.
The statement said that on Wednesday, at approximately 5:45 p.m. ET, the sheriff's office responded to a single car accident at an intersection in the Sanford, Fla., area not far from where Zimmerman, 29, shot Trayvon, 17, in February 2012. The statement said a blue Ford Explorer had run off the road and rolled over with a family of four inside.
When a deputy arrived at the scene, two men had already helped the family out of the SUV. One of the men was Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch coordinator in Sanford.
STORY: 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies
"Zimmerman was not a witness to the crash and left after making contact with the deputy," the statement said. "There were no report of injuries."
A jury of six women acquitted Zimmerman, who pleaded self-defense, of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges July 13. That set off protests across the nation, highlighted by "Justice for Trayvon" rallies held Saturday in more than 100 cities.
Caveat: This information is so fresh, it might just be plain wrong, but it's out there.
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 22, 2013, 08:06:22 PM
Then suddenly...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/22/sanford-zimmerman-rescue/2575217/
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman, the man whose acquittal on murder and manslaughter charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin set off a wave of protests across the nation, helped rescue a family from an overturned SUV four days after the verdict, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement Monday.
The statement said that on Wednesday, at approximately 5:45 p.m. ET, the sheriff's office responded to a single car accident at an intersection in the Sanford, Fla., area not far from where Zimmerman, 29, shot Trayvon, 17, in February 2012. The statement said a blue Ford Explorer had run off the road and rolled over with a family of four inside.
When a deputy arrived at the scene, two men had already helped the family out of the SUV. One of the men was Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch coordinator in Sanford.
STORY: 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies
"Zimmerman was not a witness to the crash and left after making contact with the deputy," the statement said. "There were no report of injuries."
A jury of six women acquitted Zimmerman, who pleaded self-defense, of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges July 13. That set off protests across the nation, highlighted by "Justice for Trayvon" rallies held Saturday in more than 100 cities.
Caveat: This information is so fresh, it might just be plain wrong, but it's out there.
Where they white?
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if this was staged. Rollovers always result in injuries.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
Yeah, that strikes me as more accurate, based on what we know of him.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if this was staged. Rollovers always result in injuries.
It definitely set off my fishy alarm, but subtly.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 23, 2013, 08:35:23 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if this was staged. Rollovers always result in injuries.
It definitely set off my fishy alarm, but subtly.
Pathologically extreme racist + Neighborhood Watch wannabe cop = no subtlety for me.
Is it even possible for you to accept the posibility that "pathologically extreme racist" might not be true? Because you're screeching at this point, particularly considering the contents of Dok's post quoted there.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if this was staged. Rollovers always result in injuries.
Yeah, I suspect that unconscious racial profiling played a role but I don't get the impression that he's knowingly or willfully racist. The main area in which blatant racism took place was in the way the local police handled the incident afterward.
And yeah, seems awfully improbable, but then again, how the hell do you stage rolling a Ford Explorer with a family of four inside?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 23, 2013, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if this was staged. Rollovers always result in injuries.
Yeah, I suspect that unconscious racial profiling played a role but I don't get the impression that he's knowingly or willfully racist. The main area in which blatant racism took place was in the way the local police handled the incident afterward.
And yeah, seems awfully improbable, but then again, how the hell do you stage rolling a Ford Explorer with a family of four inside?
If the cops are in on it?
You roll the vehicle, then the family gets in.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2013, 06:11:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 23, 2013, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Zimmerman was the only person to stand up for a Black man beaten by Sanford police for no apparent reason some years ago.
I don't think he's a conscious racist. I just think he's a cop wannabe with a hero complex.
ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if this was staged. Rollovers always result in injuries.
Yeah, I suspect that unconscious racial profiling played a role but I don't get the impression that he's knowingly or willfully racist. The main area in which blatant racism took place was in the way the local police handled the incident afterward.
And yeah, seems awfully improbable, but then again, how the hell do you stage rolling a Ford Explorer with a family of four inside?
If the cops are in on it?
You roll the vehicle, then the family gets in.
I guess that makes sense. Would the family use their own car? Basically, I'm wondering how easily this would fall apart under scrutiny, if there were still such things as investigative reporters and one decided to look into this.
There are no photographs of the vehicle, no mention of the family's name, and no one seems to have tried to track them down and interview them.
Hmmm.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 23, 2013, 05:09:30 PM
Is it even possible for you to accept the posibility that "pathologically extreme racist" might not be true? Because you're screeching at this point, particularly considering the contents of Dok's post quoted there.
Pathologically extreme racists usually
aren't conscious of it. "Some of my best friends...", "I don't see color..." etc.
I really don't see the logic in that. Plenty of subconsciously racist people aren't extreme about it at all; most of the people I know who are more extreme say they ARE racist and the stereotypes fit perfectly most times, thereby excusing them from being non-PC.
"Pathologically extreme racism" sounds like it would be a full-on phobia.
If my thoughts on this are wrong, I would lobe to hear a well-reasoned post that doesn't rely on an argument that they are inferior in some way.
I would suppose his "heroism" trumps everything else, even his racism.
I didn't fucking say that. I think he's a piece of work, and I think Stella is allowing herself to circumvent her brain in this instance.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 24, 2013, 05:54:27 AM
I didn't fucking say that. I think he's a piece of work, and I think Stella is allowing herself to circumvent her brain in this instance.
I know you didn't, I did, it's my opinion.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 24, 2013, 06:45:27 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 24, 2013, 05:54:27 AM
I didn't fucking say that. I think he's a piece of work, and I think Stella is allowing herself to circumvent her brain in this instance.
I know you didn't, I did, it's my opinion.
Ah, shit. I'm sorry, man. :(
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 24, 2013, 07:17:13 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 24, 2013, 06:45:27 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 24, 2013, 05:54:27 AM
I didn't fucking say that. I think he's a piece of work, and I think Stella is allowing herself to circumvent her brain in this instance.
I know you didn't, I did, it's my opinion.
Ah, shit. I'm sorry, man. :(
My argument is basicly that, he is indeed a racist, but nobody is mono-phasic, so to speak, he seems to have a personal "fetish" on being regarded as important or heroic and that seems to be the main thing that flips his cookie while being racist plays a secondary role in the directive of his actions.
Everyone has seemingly contradictory behaviour, but in most cases it can be easily dissected by comparing with other cases to see the hierarchy of goals.
Idk, for example, the Republican NRA people: they appeal to rights and the constitution, but they don't support other "liberal" rights, like choice of maternity or minority rights, and are probably around the range of people that are anti-taxation and pro "smaller government"... so in conclusion, their main-line priority is what they think benefits them personally and that trumps everything else, and appeals to the Constitution just happen to coincide with a type of legitimacy that they don't really support.
I totally agree with that.
His possible desire of wanting to be a hero I sort of understand, too. I mean, I want to be a hero to some people - I love helping people I love if it's within my power to do so, even when it really isn't but I think I can anyway. I think that this kind of sentiment got mixed up with some racism and a penchant for vigilante protection, and that's where the hero complex falls apart or something
Dunno if this was brought up in thread...
I was arguing about it on that other site, and this guy said "Well why didn't Martin call 911, or run for home?"
And it occurred to me...
Trayvon OUGHT to have had a right to "stand HIS ground!"
Trayvon had no duty to retreat!
You only get to stand your ground if you're armed.
He was in the wrong by not carrying a gun.
Clearly the solution is for armed goons to escort everyone, everywhere all the time to ensure no "accidents" happen.
I think Zimmerman gave up his right to presumption of innocence (in social court, not in a legal sense) when he failed to grant Trayvon that same right. You can tell from the 911/whatever call that, for whatever reason, he had convinced himself that trayvon was some kind of culprit. I don't think it ever crossed his mind that it might just be some neighborhood kid.
He refused to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt. I feel no obligation to grant him any.
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 26, 2013, 08:10:43 PM
I think Zimmerman gave up his right to presumption of innocence (in social court, not in a legal sense) when he failed to grant Trayvon that same right.
That's a very smart way of putting it.
http://aattp.org/watch-abcs-full-interview-of-juror-b29-hes-guilty-because-the-evidence-shows-hes-guilty-video/
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on July 24, 2013, 05:35:10 AM
I really don't see the logic in that. Plenty of subconsciously racist people aren't extreme about it at all; most of the people I know who are more extreme say they ARE racist and the stereotypes fit perfectly most times, thereby excusing them from being non-PC.
"Pathologically extreme racism" sounds like it would be a full-on phobia.
If my thoughts on this are wrong, I would lobe to hear a well-reasoned post that doesn't rely on an argument that they are inferior in some way.
"Black guy walking in the neighborhood" = "I'd better trail him with a gun" says "pathologically extreme" to me.
http://resistviolence.com/connect/archives/87
Aaaaand it happened again.
Yep. As expected. :x
That one's a little more complex, from the longer version: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_booked_after.html
Kid was inside a fenced yard, not on a public walkway.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 28, 2013, 02:10:20 AM
That one's a little more complex, from the longer version: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_booked_after.html
Kid was inside a fenced yard, not on a public walkway.
Neighbor apparently turned a video over to police from his cameras. That vid apparently showed the teen in question hopping the fence, while the other teen stood across the street and watched.
Another neighbor said he saw the kid bicycling up and down at approximately 8 pm.
The shooting occurred at 144 am.
(http://imgick.nola.com/home/nola-media/pgmain/img/crime_impact/photo/mandeville-street-housejpeg-82e2ee75e0f7e3bd.jpeg)
This was the "yard" the car was parked in...It's also New Orleans, and that is a baaaad town.
I believe this to be self-defense.
Is trespassing a legal justification for killing someone? I don't know the laws over there.
I mean, a warning shot would seem reasonable if the owner isn't in close range or inminent danger, but who knows the lighting conditions and all the context's details.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 28, 2013, 03:38:05 AM
Is trespassing a legal justification for killing someone? I don't know the laws over there.
I mean, a warning shot would seem reasonable if the owner isn't in close range or inminent danger, but who knows the lighting conditions and all the context's details.
Goes state by state. Louisiana, after dark, I believe so, you can use lethal force to defend life and property-the so-called "castle doctrine".
The kid had already climbed a locked fence to get where he was.
Too...notice how small the yard is?
Barely wide enough to accommodate the car, it's more of a fenced-off driveway.
Housing in lots of New Orleans is pretty tight together. The old houses are wooden-walled, no insulation usually-prior to air conditioning you really wanted that airflow...
A warning shot could take out your neighbor, possibly through their house walls.
One of the reasons a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun is preferable for home defense, IMO...
The sound it makes when you rack in a shell can really make any would-be robbers re-evaluate their current lifestyle choices.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 28, 2013, 03:38:05 AM
Is trespassing a legal justification for killing someone? I don't know the laws over there.
I mean, a warning shot would seem reasonable if the owner isn't in close range or inminent danger, but who knows the lighting conditions and all the context's details.
It's definitely iffy, but this is really not "innocent kid walking down the street gets stalked and killed."
Quote from: The Johnny on July 28, 2013, 03:38:05 AM
Is trespassing a legal justification for killing someone? I don't know the laws over there.
I mean, a warning shot would seem reasonable if the owner isn't in close range or inminent danger, but who knows the lighting conditions and all the context's details.
In Arizona, it seems to be based on the skin color of the people involved.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 28, 2013, 04:54:41 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 28, 2013, 03:38:05 AM
Is trespassing a legal justification for killing someone? I don't know the laws over there.
I mean, a warning shot would seem reasonable if the owner isn't in close range or inminent danger, but who knows the lighting conditions and all the context's details.
In Arizona, it seems to be based on the skin color of the people involved.
Often, in practice, I think it does in a lot of places. :evilmad:
I'm guessing this one should depend on whether the kid was running away or not. The article says the dog started barking, generally burglars will take off when that happens. I can see assuming somebody is armed and/or psycho if the dog doesn't scare them off. But if the kid was running away anyway, there's no reason to shoot.
Quote from: stelz on July 28, 2013, 02:45:05 PM
I'm guessing this one should depend on whether the kid was running away or not. The article says the dog started barking, generally burglars will take off when that happens. I can see assuming somebody is armed and/or psycho if the dog doesn't scare them off. But if the kid was running away anyway, there's no reason to shoot.
Also in most places it's COMPLETELY illegal to shoot a person in the back. Like, no question about it, shooting a person who is running away is FUCKED UP.
This does raise a lot of questions, which hopefully will get sorted. Like, why was the kid in the yard? He was clearly trespassing, and maybe he was planning on committing a burglary. Or, maybe he was just being an idiotic kid, it's hard to know. Climbing a gate to break into a stranger's car seems REALLY exceptionally stupid, even for a 14-year-old. Not trying to leave when the dog barks, also stupid. Did the kid know the guy was there or did he shoot him without warning? I know that if someone was in my house I would probably shoot without giving warning, but not if they were in my driveway. I feel like that's a really important distinction, because if they were in my house I would feel like I was in danger, but if they were in my driveway I could just as easily shout out the window that I had called the cops and they better get the fuck out of there, right from the safety of my own house with locked doors.
Shooting a prowler OUTSIDE is definitely less cut-and-dried than shooting a prowler INSIDE.
A huge issue that concerns me is the growing idea that it's OK to shoot people to defend your property. That's a very dangerous place to go, because it leads directly to a de facto death penalty for thieves, and we should all know the fundamental determining factors behind petty theft. If it becomes OK to shoot car prowlers, how far are we from shooting people going through our recycling for bottles? It just barely falls short of declaring open season on poor and homeless people. "I thought he was stealing, your honor".
Hopefully the kid won't die, and he and his friend will both be able to answer some questions.
Fuck: http://www.kwch.com/kwch-jab-one-killed-one-hurt-in-pratt-shooting-20130725,0,1589065.story
Quote(PRATT, Kan.)—
A pregnant woman was shot to death and a witness says the man who tried to shield her from the bullets is in the hospital. The shooting happened in Pratt Wednesday night near Ninnescah and Blaine.
"The only thing I can think of is sitting there and watching the woman just die. And he was just laying there, I was holding his hand the whole time," said Zachary Wright.
Wright witnessed the shooting. His brother Brandon Wright was shot and he held his hand until help arrived. Wright says his brother Brandon will likely be paralyzed from the waist down.
Wright says he and the two victims were walking in front of a house, where a man was yelling racial slurs. He says the man demanded that they get off his property, but he says they were on the sidewalk. That's when a fight started between his brother and the man.
"They started to scuffle. And then the guy got loose and went inside. When he came back out he had a gun in his hand. I said, 'Run, Brandon, there's a gun. Run.'"
He says Brandon turned to protect the pregnant woman.
"He protected her. Yeah, he didn't want her to get shot. He didn't have a chance to run. And he ended up getting shot four times in the back. And then she got shot in the head, and so she's dead," he said.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 28, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
This does raise a lot of questions, which hopefully will get sorted. Like, why was the kid in the yard? He was clearly trespassing, and maybe he was planning on committing a burglary. Or, maybe he was just being an idiotic kid, it's hard to know. Climbing a gate to break into a stranger's car seems REALLY exceptionally stupid, even for a 14-year-old. Not trying to leave when the dog barks, also stupid. Did the kid know the guy was there or did he shoot him without warning? I know that if someone was in my house I would probably shoot without giving warning, but not if they were in my driveway. I feel like that's a really important distinction, because if they were in my house I would feel like I was in danger, but if they were in my driveway I could just as easily shout out the window that I had called the cops and they better get the fuck out of there, right from the safety of my own house with locked doors.
Shooting a prowler OUTSIDE is definitely less cut-and-dried than shooting a prowler INSIDE.
A huge issue that concerns me is the growing idea that it's OK to shoot people to defend your property. That's a very dangerous place to go, because it leads directly to a de facto death penalty for thieves, and we should all know the fundamental determining factors behind petty theft. If it becomes OK to shoot car prowlers, how far are we from shooting people going through our recycling for bottles? It just barely falls short of declaring open season on poor and homeless people. "I thought he was stealing, your honor".
Hopefully the kid won't die, and he and his friend will both be able to answer some questions.
This is the thing right here. When I was a kid my friends and I would run around the neighborhood busting through people's lawns and shit. We'd never vandalize or had any ill intention. We'd often play capture the flag and wear our BDUs.
Granted, this isn't New Orleans but that's hardly the point. I can't think of any reason why someone would think it's okay to shoot anybody outside unless it's absolutely unambiguous that the person intends harm.
I'm not okay with killing to protect property because the implication then becomes that STUFF is more valuable than LIVES.
And it reminds me of the old joke:
"Would you have sex with someone for $1,000,000?"
"Uh, sure I guess."
"Would you have sex with someone for $1?"
"God, no, what kind of person do you think I am?"
"Well we've established what kind of person you are, now we're just haggling on the price."
What amount of property is worth killing a person over? Your car? How nice of a car? How about your wallet? A bunch of old DVDs?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 28, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
This does raise a lot of questions, which hopefully will get sorted. Like, why was the kid in the yard? He was clearly trespassing, and maybe he was planning on committing a burglary. Or, maybe he was just being an idiotic kid, it's hard to know. Climbing a gate to break into a stranger's car seems REALLY exceptionally stupid, even for a 14-year-old. Not trying to leave when the dog barks, also stupid. Did the kid know the guy was there or did he shoot him without warning? I know that if someone was in my house I would probably shoot without giving warning, but not if they were in my driveway. I feel like that's a really important distinction, because if they were in my house I would feel like I was in danger, but if they were in my driveway I could just as easily shout out the window that I had called the cops and they better get the fuck out of there, right from the safety of my own house with locked doors.
Shooting a prowler OUTSIDE is definitely less cut-and-dried than shooting a prowler INSIDE.
A huge issue that concerns me is the growing idea that it's OK to shoot people to defend your property. That's a very dangerous place to go, because it leads directly to a de facto death penalty for thieves, and we should all know the fundamental determining factors behind petty theft. If it becomes OK to shoot car prowlers, how far are we from shooting people going through our recycling for bottles? It just barely falls short of declaring open season on poor and homeless people. "I thought he was stealing, your honor".
Hopefully the kid won't die, and he and his friend will both be able to answer some questions.
This.
Taking a life to preserve another life, I can see that. Taking a life to preserve a car stereo, FUCK no.
Quote from: stelz on July 28, 2013, 02:45:05 PM
I'm guessing this one should depend on whether the kid was running away or not. The article says the dog started barking, generally burglars will take off when that happens. I can see assuming somebody is armed and/or psycho if the dog doesn't scare them off. But if the kid was running away anyway, there's no reason to shoot.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336
Quote§19. Use of force or violence in defense
A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.
B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.
I think the law allows what he did, if I'm reading it correctly.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 28, 2013, 04:25:39 PM
Fuck: http://www.kwch.com/kwch-jab-one-killed-one-hurt-in-pratt-shooting-20130725,0,1589065.story
Quote(PRATT, Kan.)—
A pregnant woman was shot to death and a witness says the man who tried to shield her from the bullets is in the hospital. The shooting happened in Pratt Wednesday night near Ninnescah and Blaine.
"The only thing I can think of is sitting there and watching the woman just die. And he was just laying there, I was holding his hand the whole time," said Zachary Wright.
Wright witnessed the shooting. His brother Brandon Wright was shot and he held his hand until help arrived. Wright says his brother Brandon will likely be paralyzed from the waist down.
Wright says he and the two victims were walking in front of a house, where a man was yelling racial slurs. He says the man demanded that they get off his property, but he says they were on the sidewalk. That's when a fight started between his brother and the man.
"They started to scuffle. And then the guy got loose and went inside. When he came back out he had a gun in his hand. I said, 'Run, Brandon, there's a gun. Run.'"
He says Brandon turned to protect the pregnant woman.
"He protected her. Yeah, he didn't want her to get shot. He didn't have a chance to run. And he ended up getting shot four times in the back. And then she got shot in the head, and so she's dead," he said.
That's fucked up. Racially-motivated homicide.
Something I learned in Rent-a-cop class: It's not only a horribly shitty thing to do-kill to protect property...it lowers the hell out of your house value.
People are really weirded out if there was a shooting death on the property.
...And I think most states require disclosure to prospective buyers.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 28, 2013, 07:11:02 PM
I'm not okay with killing to protect property because the implication then becomes that STUFF is more valuable than LIVES.
And it reminds me of the old joke:
"Would you have sex with someone for $1,000,000?"
"Uh, sure I guess."
"Would you have sex with someone for $1?"
"God, no, what kind of person do you think I am?"
"Well we've established what kind of person you are, now we're just haggling on the price."
What amount of property is worth killing a person over? Your car? How nice of a car? How about your wallet? A bunch of old DVDs?
So much this.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 29, 2013, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 28, 2013, 07:11:02 PM
I'm not okay with killing to protect property because the implication then becomes that STUFF is more valuable than LIVES.
And it reminds me of the old joke:
"Would you have sex with someone for $1,000,000?"
"Uh, sure I guess."
"Would you have sex with someone for $1?"
"God, no, what kind of person do you think I am?"
"Well we've established what kind of person you are, now we're just haggling on the price."
What amount of property is worth killing a person over? Your car? How nice of a car? How about your wallet? A bunch of old DVDs?
So much this.
:sad: If I don't have a car, I have no job.
Stealing my hoopty would be a direct attack on my livelihood.
No it's not theft insured, because I'm frigging poor.
...I doubt I'd shoot the person, even if I had the gun here.
If I caught them in the act though, I would lose it in rage, and they'd likely wind up in the hospital.
CALLED IT.
http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/george-zimmermans-heroic-car-crash-rescue-appears-to-be-a-fraud/
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2013, 02:06:45 AM
CALLED IT.
http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/george-zimmermans-heroic-car-crash-rescue-appears-to-be-a-fraud/
Yeah, ALLL signs point to fraud. As usual, you were spot-on. :lol:
Unsurprising, yet Jesus Fucking Christ.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2013, 02:06:45 AM
CALLED IT.
http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/george-zimmermans-heroic-car-crash-rescue-appears-to-be-a-fraud/
Damn, what a giant flaming sack of monkey shit Zimmerman is.
Now I've done it.
Spoken prophecy.
Excuse me, I have to go beat someone back into his grave.
QuoteWhat did occur was that an accident occurred where a car slid on it's side into a median. People at the scene called 911, which went to the Sanford office of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. BEFORE responding to the 911 call, News Ball.com reports that Seminole Sheriff's Dept. Officer Patrick Rehder, a self-styled friend and supporter of Zimmerman, contacted Zimmerman by cell phone directing him to go to the accident so as to appear to be a hero.
:x :x :x
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2013, 02:06:45 AM
CALLED IT.
http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/george-zimmermans-heroic-car-crash-rescue-appears-to-be-a-fraud/
Wow. What a piece of shit. :x
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2013, 03:05:37 AM
Now I've done it.
Spoken prophecy.
Excuse me, I have to go beat someone back into his grave.
:lulz:
It's almost like he's trying to get people to hate him. Or his need to be seen as some kind of hero is somewhat pathological.
Stupid question, but would the police officers involved not actually be liable (Criminal or Civil) for something here? No idea what but it seems a lot like some kind of fraud. If the guy is still seeking/taking donations then I'd guess he'd be open to something on that front.
Fucker is still packing.
And he was in Texas, which is ALREADY fucked up and doesn't NEED any fuckbrain backwash out of Florida.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/07/31/george-zimmerman-speeding-traffic-stop-gun-firearm-texas/
Quote from: stelz on July 31, 2013, 09:45:52 PM
Fucker is still packing.
And he was in Texas, which is ALREADY fucked up and doesn't NEED any fuckbrain backwash out of Florida.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/07/31/george-zimmerman-speeding-traffic-stop-gun-firearm-texas/
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? Get away with manslaughter, continue to carry a gun.
Yeah.
It's not like he's a felon or anything like that. :horrormirth:
So are we taking bets on the time lapse until the next incident? For someone apparently terrified for their life, he's not keeping any kind of low profile at all.
Thirty minutes outside Dallas, packing, and a lead foot.
I have a horrible suspicion that this thread has somehow triggered the bots again.
I think there are multiple things going on here, among them a sense of righteous invulnerability combined with suppressed shame and horror at what he did. With this combination, acting out is pretty much inevitable. My guess is that he will attempt to seek more and more situations in which to play hero, until he is either himself killed, or kills someone else in a way that can't be passed off as self-defense.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 31, 2013, 10:07:18 PM
I think there are multiple things going on here, among them a sense of righteous invulnerability combined with suppressed shame and horror at what he did. With this combination, acting out is pretty much inevitable. My guess is that he will attempt to seek more and more situations in which to play hero, until he is either himself killed, or kills someone else in a way that can't be passed off as self-defense.
Oh yes. That fits perfectly. I'd say at least one of those is inevitable.