If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Think a pack of Skittles looks like a gun? If you're holding a gun, probably   (newsinfo.nd.edu) divider line 1323
    More: Interesting, University of Notre Dame, Journal of Experimental Psychology  
•       •       •

22824 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2012 at 4:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-23 07:18:34 PM  

The_Sponge: Oh...and it was definitely a bonus when you went full tough guy and said "you're barking up the wrong tree".


That's 'tough guy' speak to you? Really?

The_Sponge: People like are the one who are hurting the pro-gun argument because you're more than willing to compromise your rights after they have already been infringed upon, and you fail to realize that when governments (state and federal) pass gun control laws, they'll keep doing it


What the fark are you babbling about? There's English words in here, but it's not a sentence.
 
2012-03-23 07:34:22 PM  

9beers: I have made up my mind, given the evidence we have now, he's innocent. I've also said 20 farking times that it could change if new evidence comes to light. Stop being willfully ignorant in order to argue a point.


Yes, I forgot, when you labeled the girlfriend's testimony as "obvious bias" you were objectively open to new evidence.

You still haven't answered the question about why you're so eager to defend this law.
 
2012-03-23 07:41:32 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Yes, I forgot, when you labeled the girlfriend's testimony as "obvious bias" you were objectively open to new evidence.


Yes, it is obviously biased but as I said, lets go ahead and take it at face value. What in her account of the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman's claims?
 
2012-03-23 07:50:52 PM  

9beers: Yes, it is obviously biased but as I said, lets go ahead and take it at face value. What in her account of the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman's claims?


If nothing in the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman, then what's the point of calling her biased? All it does is show your willingness to discount anything that doesn't fit the conclusion you reached a long time ago.

Earlier you said you'd answer any question thrown at you - why do you keep ducking mine? Why are you so eager to defend this law?
 
2012-03-23 07:58:29 PM  

9beers: tirob: Forgive me for believing that you not only think that Zimmerman isn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there isn't even probable cause to arrest him--which is a much more difficult proposition to defend, IMHO, given the facts and the law in this case.

With the evidence we know so far, there is no cause to arrest and charge him. As has been stated, it's actually illegal under Florida law to arrest him. Now if some other evidence comes out that discredits Zimmerman's claims, they can arrest him and then charge him with a crime. To this point, that hasn't occurred. The fact that you say "the law in this case" shows that you still don't get it. The laws in this case are exactly why Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged.


Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged because the local police are incompetent & racist. Soon Zimmerman will be charged in federal court for the murder of Trayvon Martin and he will be convicted. Zimmerman was the aggressor in this case & stand your ground will not be aloud as a defence.
 
2012-03-23 08:03:24 PM  

ImpendingCynic: If nothing in the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman


Lets hear how.
 
2012-03-23 08:25:14 PM  

9beers: What in her account of the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman's claims?


Zimmerman's statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.


http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/327316-zimmerman-martin-shooti n g.html#document/p2/a49588 (new window)
 
2012-03-23 08:31:38 PM  

HighOnCraic: Zimmerman's statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.


Yes, and that he was attacked by Martin while doing so.

The 16 year old girl says that Martin can be heard asking Zimmerman "why are you following me". To me, that means that after Zimmerman had lost site of Martin, Martin then finds and confronts Zimmerman.
 
2012-03-23 08:41:32 PM  
Here's what I read:

Man kills kid with 9mm w/o talking much.

You are unsuccessful in yer role as house-biatch b/c you killed a kid.

Prosecute the Mother-farker (aka mtf), NOW, please.

That is all.

Don't?

And you have a problem.

;)
 
2012-03-23 08:46:01 PM  

9beers: HighOnCraic: Zimmerman's statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

Yes, and that he was attacked by Martin while doing so.

The 16 year old girl says that Martin can be heard asking Zimmerman "why are you following me". To me, that means that after Zimmerman had lost site of Martin, Martin then finds and confronts Zimmerman.


Really? Reed Richards would be incapable of stretching like that.

Why would Martin ask, "Why are you following me?" if Zimmerman was actually walking back to his car? In the 911 transcripts, Zimmerman claims that the kid is walking away from him. What leads you believe that the kid would start off by trying to walk away, lose Zimmerman, then suddenly attack?
 
2012-03-23 08:52:09 PM  

9beers: ImpendingCynic: If nothing in the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman

Lets hear how.


I didn't say it, you did:

"What in her account of the phone conversation contradicts Zimmerman's claims?"

Any reasonable person would look at that statement and interpret it to mean you've looked at the phone conversation transcript and determined that nothing contradicts Zimmerman, and you're inviting someone to prove you wrong.

Are you claiming that's not what you meant?

You're still dodging my original question, proving you have no interest in an open discussion. I'm done with you.
 
2012-03-23 09:03:01 PM  

9beers: Mike Chewbacca: 9beers
Account created: 2011-12-25 13:36:40
Submitted links approved: 4

Any chance this dude's a mod? The thread slows down and 9beers shows up trolling and suddenly it's alive again.

No dude, you're trolling. I'm discussing a case, you're being an idiot calling people liars and trolls when you can't dispute their claims with facts of your own.


Yes, yes, I'm the one that's trolling. Uh huh. Oh, and I'm not one of the people calling you a liar. I'm just calling you you out as the troll that you are. Bye bye.
 
2012-03-23 09:12:54 PM  

HighOnCraic: Why would Martin ask, "Why are you following me?" if Zimmerman was actually walking back to his car?


Because Zimmerman had been following Martin but had lost site of him according to Zimmerman. It's not unreasonable that Martin sought out Zimmerman to ask why he had been following him.
 
2012-03-23 09:17:08 PM  

9beers: HighOnCraic: Why would Martin ask, "Why are you following me?" if Zimmerman was actually walking back to his car?

Because Zimmerman had been following Martin but had lost site of him according to Zimmerman. It's not unreasonable that Martin sought out Zimmerman to ask why he had been following him.


You're over-analyzing.

Man killed kid.

Look, yer tough, is this right, ever?

Answer carefully, black-belt.

;)
 
2012-03-23 09:25:24 PM  

Indubitably: Man legally killed kid.


FTFY
 
2012-03-23 09:30:51 PM  

9beers: HighOnCraic: Why would Martin ask, "Why are you following me?" if Zimmerman was actually walking back to his car?

Because Zimmerman had been following Martin but had lost site of him according to Zimmerman. It's not unreasonable that Martin sought out Zimmerman to ask why he had been following him.


Prior to that, Martin had been walking quickly away from Zimmerman. Why would Martin seek out the person he had previously been trying to avoid? That sounds very unreasonable, and very implausible.
 
2012-03-23 09:33:52 PM  

9beers: Indubitably: Man legally killed kid.

FTFY


You don't get it, man, and whoever awarded you your black belt failed you.

That is all.
 
2012-03-23 09:35:09 PM  

Indubitably: 9beers: Indubitably: Man legally killed kid.

FTFY

You don't get it, man, and whoever awarded you your black belt failed you.

That is all.


"With power comes responsibility"...
 
2012-03-23 09:44:55 PM  

borg: 9beers: tirob: Forgive me for believing that you not only think that Zimmerman isn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there isn't even probable cause to arrest him--which is a much more difficult proposition to defend, IMHO, given the facts and the law in this case.

With the evidence we know so far, there is no cause to arrest and charge him. As has been stated, it's actually illegal under Florida law to arrest him. Now if some other evidence comes out that discredits Zimmerman's claims, they can arrest him and then charge him with a crime. To this point, that hasn't occurred. The fact that you say "the law in this case" shows that you still don't get it. The laws in this case are exactly why Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged.

Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged because the local police are incompetent & racist. Soon Zimmerman will be charged in federal court for the murder of Trayvon Martin and he will be convicted. Zimmerman was the aggressor in this case & stand your ground will not be aloud as a defence.


I think that a federal charge would have to come under a violation of (Martin's) civil rights, and to get a conviction prosecutors would have to prove that Zimmerman intended to violate Martin's civil rights by killing or injuring him with his pistol. Since there is no evidence that I have seen that would tend to suggest that Zimmerman *had it in his mind* to shoot Martin before the confrontation occurred, I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to get a federal conviction. Better IMHO to try to persuade a Seminole County prosecutor that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is bogus--and at least some of the evidence suggests to me that he was the aggressor--and to see if you can't convince a jury that it was *Martin* who was legitimately defending himself under the Stand Your Ground law when Zimmerman shot him.
 
2012-03-23 10:05:51 PM  
Guess this is a bad time to cash in on my patent for the gun shaped skittle dispenser.
 
2012-03-24 02:35:05 AM  

9beers: With the evidence we know so far, there is no cause to arrest and charge him.


What a convincing argument you have there. We have a man holding a smoking gun, we have a dead body lying on the ground next to him. We have the shooter recorded on the phone as saying that the guy is black, and running away from him, so he's going to follow.

He admits he shot the unarmed kid.

You're right. Nothing suspicious there. Screw the usual investigation bullshiat, let him go, blame the kid. Who the fark did he think he was, carrying skittles home at 7:15 PM. He farking deserved to die.

You got it. I'm on your side. Send me whatever info I need to get my hood, I'm in.
 
2012-03-24 02:19:06 PM  

sprawl15: The_Sponge: Oh...and it was definitely a bonus when you went full tough guy and said "you're barking up the wrong tree".

That's 'tough guy' speak to you? Really?

The_Sponge: People like are the one who are hurting the pro-gun argument because you're more than willing to compromise your rights after they have already been infringed upon, and you fail to realize that when governments (state and federal) pass gun control laws, they'll keep doing it

What the fark are you babbling about? There's English words in here, but it's not a sentence.


Answer: Typos from using my phone.
 
2012-03-25 11:58:59 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Brainsick: The_Sponge: Brainsick: States' rights?


States don't have the right to go against the Bill of Rights.

Yet they have the right to pass laws that allow this (new window)to happen; what an interesting world you must live in...

/you can't have your cake and shoot it too

Don't worry, when you are old and feeble you will have the right to call the police if attacked.


I will also have and use the right to own a gun. Because I would rather die than live afraid OR without my rights. Can you say the same?

/Nobody is 'going against' the bill of rights here, the shooting was manslaughter at best and this is a badly written law
 
Displayed 23 of 1323 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report