Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NPR)   What happens when a black man shoots a white man under questionable circumstances in Florida and claims self defense?   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Florida, Mr. James, Courts of Florida, black man  
•       •       •

32595 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2012 at 2:58 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-03 07:14:48 PM  

lennavan: CadX: The events leading up to Zimmerman shooting Martin are "evidenced" in some detail. The tapes illustrate that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin perhaps legitimately so.

Everything that happened after this point was Zimmerman taking the place of a trained police officer. That's why what he did was wrong. We train police officers to handle these situations. Private citizens should not be getting themselves in these situations. If not for the actions of Zimmerman, a 17 year old kid would not be dead right now. That's why he should be brought up on at least manslaughter.


I have been saying this from the beginning. You have to wonder IF George had actually been a cop or even a security guard, Trayvon would have at least known who the hell he was and what his intentions were. Even Dog the Bounty Hunter wears a badge.
 
2012-04-03 07:22:04 PM  

Danger Mouse: I don't know. Did the white guy go up tp the black guy and ask if he had a problem and start wailing on the guy?


let's pretend that's what actually happened in the Martin case, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Taking Zimmerman's own words ONLY as evidence we know he A) Called 911 to report Martin "looked drunk" B) That Martin noticed Zimmerman and was sufficiently spooked by him that he began to run away (the 911 tape) C) That Zimmerman, against police advice, pursued Martin after he attempted to run away. D) the Zimmerman was so obviously armed that in thier scuffle, Martin knew where his gun was and tried to reach for it.

ERGO by Zimmerman's OWN WORDS he, while clearly armed, and without legal justification, chased after someone who was trying to get away from him.

In legal terms he therefore committed "assault" (putting another person in reasonable fear of imminent harmful contact) and therefore Martin had every right to "stand his ground" and attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no right of self defense since he initiated the fight by assaulting Martin. There is no right of self defense for "biting off more than I can chew"
.
 
2012-04-03 07:24:37 PM  

Yogimus: probesport: Darth_Lukecash: A gun is a weapon designed to kill. That it's sole purpose.

You sound like someone who has dozens of kids, dislikes good food and has a terrible car.

Or is it only guns that you have a myopic view on?

No really. A gun is designed to kill. It is a tool specifically designed for that purpose. I am as pro gun nut as you can get, and I assure you, if you own a gun, someone put time and effort into designing it to kill.


Thus the term "weapon" which is what a gun is

weap·on/ˈwepən/
Noun:
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
 
2012-04-03 07:28:34 PM  

Kit Fister: Gyrfalcon: The real issue should be: Is "Stand Your Ground" the stupidest law ever created by human beings since time began?

Nope, just that every possible loophole and weasel lawyer is going to find any possible means of forcing the law to apply where it really doesn't. Happens all the time with all sorts of laws.

Then again, if people were logical and sane, we wouldn't need warning labels on hot coffee, and we wouldn't need to spell out the terms of reasonable self defense. Contrary to popular belief, each and every individual has the right to protect him or herself from great bodily harm/death.

Humans are also always going to be violent. You have bans on guns in many places, and that doesn't stop it. It just changes the method.

In a perfect world, we'd all get along with each other, and we'd only need weapons for hunting. That ain't going to happen. Until then, I won't trust anyone until I see both hands and their prehensile penis on the table.


restricting everyone to a 300 baud modem wouldn't stop people from downloading Internet porn, it would just make it a hell of a lot harder to do. Countries with strict gun laws still have murders, just not nearly so many.
 
2012-04-03 07:29:04 PM  

Zizzowop: lennavan: CadX: The events leading up to Zimmerman shooting Martin are "evidenced" in some detail. The tapes illustrate that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin perhaps legitimately so.

Everything that happened after this point was Zimmerman taking the place of a trained police officer. That's why what he did was wrong. We train police officers to handle these situations. Private citizens should not be getting themselves in these situations. If not for the actions of Zimmerman, a 17 year old kid would not be dead right now. That's why he should be brought up on at least manslaughter.

I have been saying this from the beginning. You have to wonder IF George had actually been a cop or even a security guard, Trayvon would have at least known who the hell he was and what his intentions were. Even Dog the Bounty Hunter wears a badge.


I don't think Dog carries lethal weapons either. I've only seen the show like twice though.
 
2012-04-03 07:30:42 PM  

Magorn: Kit Fister: Gyrfalcon: The real issue should be: Is "Stand Your Ground" the stupidest law ever created by human beings since time began?

Nope, just that every possible loophole and weasel lawyer is going to find any possible means of forcing the law to apply where it really doesn't. Happens all the time with all sorts of laws.

Then again, if people were logical and sane, we wouldn't need warning labels on hot coffee, and we wouldn't need to spell out the terms of reasonable self defense. Contrary to popular belief, each and every individual has the right to protect him or herself from great bodily harm/death.

Humans are also always going to be violent. You have bans on guns in many places, and that doesn't stop it. It just changes the method.

In a perfect world, we'd all get along with each other, and we'd only need weapons for hunting. That ain't going to happen. Until then, I won't trust anyone until I see both hands and their prehensile penis on the table.

restricting everyone to a 300 baud modem wouldn't stop people from downloading Internet porn, it would just make it a hell of a lot harder to do. Countries with strict gun laws still have murders, just not nearly so many.


I prefer to think that Americans are inherently more homicidal.
 
2012-04-03 07:36:14 PM  

9beers: Brainsick: And I'm going to call you a racist for your repeated use of "the blacks", specifically

Saying black is quicker than African Americans. I'd go with coon but it's not worth the hassle for one less letter.


It wasn't that you said 'black' it was that you said 'the blacks'. More than once.


/I somehow doubt you were referring to the rugby team
img.freebase.com
 
2012-04-03 07:43:03 PM  

Famous Thamas:

Take note Floridians: Anyone messes with you, just kill them, because if you don't, they'll kill you and the law will simply stand on the sidelines.


This sort-of seems like the net effect of the law: make sure the other guy is dead so there's only one side of the story.
 
2012-04-03 07:54:21 PM  

lennavan: Zizzowop: lennavan: CadX: The events leading up to Zimmerman shooting Martin are "evidenced" in some detail. The tapes illustrate that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin perhaps legitimately so.

Everything that happened after this point was Zimmerman taking the place of a trained police officer. That's why what he did was wrong. We train police officers to handle these situations. Private citizens should not be getting themselves in these situations. If not for the actions of Zimmerman, a 17 year old kid would not be dead right now. That's why he should be brought up on at least manslaughter.

I have been saying this from the beginning. You have to wonder IF George had actually been a cop or even a security guard, Trayvon would have at least known who the hell he was and what his intentions were. Even Dog the Bounty Hunter wears a badge.

I don't think Dog carries lethal weapons either. I've only seen the show like twice though.


I think Dog would disagree with you, kissing his biceps (lethal weapons one and two) to emphasize his lethalness.
 
2012-04-03 08:02:15 PM  

Magorn: Danger Mouse: I don't know. Did the white guy go up tp the black guy and ask if he had a problem and start wailing on the guy?

let's pretend that's what actually happened in the Martin case, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Taking Zimmerman's own words ONLY as evidence we know he A) Called 911 to report Martin "looked drunk" B) That Martin noticed Zimmerman and was sufficiently spooked by him that he began to run away (the 911 tape) C) That Zimmerman, against police advice, pursued Martin after he attempted to run away. D) the Zimmerman was so obviously armed that in thier scuffle, Martin knew where his gun was and tried to reach for it.

ERGO by Zimmerman's OWN WORDS he, while clearly armed, and without legal justification, chased after someone who was trying to get away from him.

In legal terms he therefore committed "assault" (putting another person in reasonable fear of imminent harmful contact) and therefore Martin had every right to "stand his ground" and attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no right of self defense since he initiated the fight by assaulting Martin. There is no right of self defense for "biting off more than I can chew"
.


This is the only chase that we have evidence of:

img526.imageshack.us

Full Size (new window)

Zimmerman followed Martin around the housing complex to observe his location for the 911 dispatch, that's the exactly the conversation you hear on the 911 call. The 911 dispatch even told him twice "let me know if he does anything else" and asks "which way is he headed". He had reason to believe he was justified in walking about 10-15 meters to observe a suspect's location for the police, who were on the phone with him at the time. Yes, they advise against following, but at no point did they order him to return, or that it was illegal to follow, or that Martin would have right to attack him. They said "we don't need you to do that", likely because they were primarily fearing he would be attacked by Martin if he got too close.

There is simply no evidence that a chase occurred after the phone call, and looking at the map and where he was likely positioned during the 911 call, it is simply impossible that a chase occurred as he is standing at least within a couple meters of where the altercation occurred. There is no evidence that his gun was visible prior to the altercation and is laughable to assume 45 seconds or more of getting attacked he found his gun holstered under his clothing indicates it was visible prior to the attack.

The only "chase" (or "persue" or "following" or whatever term you want to use) that occurs in this situation is the appropriate and legally justified movement Zimmerman makes on a 911 phone call, that we can actually hear every second of, where he is clearly attempting to relay Martin's position for the 911 dispatch, who asked him which way he was headed, and he remained in that position for over a minute while still on the phone talking with the police (and could likely be heard by Martin).

If Martin interpreted that as a justified cause to assault him for a long duration, with 45 seconds of Zimmerman screaming for his life, then he is a thug. Simple as that.
 
2012-04-03 08:09:22 PM  

lennavan: Zizzowop: lennavan: CadX: The events leading up to Zimmerman shooting Martin are "evidenced" in some detail. The tapes illustrate that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin perhaps legitimately so.

Everything that happened after this point was Zimmerman taking the place of a trained police officer. That's why what he did was wrong. We train police officers to handle these situations. Private citizens should not be getting themselves in these situations. If not for the actions of Zimmerman, a 17 year old kid would not be dead right now. That's why he should be brought up on at least manslaughter.

I have been saying this from the beginning. You have to wonder IF George had actually been a cop or even a security guard, Trayvon would have at least known who the hell he was and what his intentions were. Even Dog the Bounty Hunter wears a badge.

I don't think Dog carries lethal weapons either. I've only seen the show like twice though.


That's because he's a felon.
 
2012-04-03 08:11:25 PM  
Oh man, I remember this story. I always assumed the old dude was white. Tragic story, killing a guy in front of his daughter over a verbal dispute. Ugh.
 
2012-04-03 08:19:17 PM  

beta_plus: Wow, already a lot of racist liberals in this thread who want a black man to go to jail for defending himself.

/or is he a White African American?


That's called an "oreo."

It's hilarious how the lynch mob doesn't realize that every single one of them, whether black, white, oriental, hispanic, or "white hispanic," will eventually be put in the same place Zimmerman is, as the moral high ground shrinks from the flood of reality pouring into the leftist revolutionary utopia. Sooner or later, someone more attractive and successful than themselves will punch them in the face, and no matter how they respond, they will instantly be dubbed a racist or race traitor, depending on their skin color. Even if you spent your whole life organizing and rallying for justice for black victims of police brutality, it doesn't matter... get hit, you're a racist.

/unless you help the race hustlers... then you're a victim of historical racism
//just don't you farking dare blame the person who actually attacked you
 
2012-04-03 08:34:51 PM  
Handguns really should be illegal. What is their purpose other than killing people (or shooting at targets in preparation for killing people)?

I my experience, the best way to predict whether someone will end up getting shot is their owning of a pistol.
 
2012-04-03 08:40:08 PM  

ChuDogg: Magorn: Danger Mouse: I don't know. Did the white guy go up tp the black guy and ask if he had a problem and start wailing on the guy?

let's pretend that's what actually happened in the Martin case, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Taking Zimmerman's own words ONLY as evidence we know he A) Called 911 to report Martin "looked drunk" B) That Martin noticed Zimmerman and was sufficiently spooked by him that he began to run away (the 911 tape) C) That Zimmerman, against police advice, pursued Martin after he attempted to run away. D) the Zimmerman was so obviously armed that in thier scuffle, Martin knew where his gun was and tried to reach for it.

ERGO by Zimmerman's OWN WORDS he, while clearly armed, and without legal justification, chased after someone who was trying to get away from him.

In legal terms he therefore committed "assault" (putting another person in reasonable fear of imminent harmful contact) and therefore Martin had every right to "stand his ground" and attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no right of self defense since he initiated the fight by assaulting Martin. There is no right of self defense for "biting off more than I can chew"
.

This is the only chase that we have evidence of:

[img526.imageshack.us image 640x306]

Full Size (new window)

Zimmerman followed Martin around the housing complex to observe his location for the 911 dispatch, that's the exactly the conversation you hear on the 911 call. The 911 dispatch even told him twice "let me know if he does anything else" and asks "which way is he headed". He had reason to believe he was justified in walking about 10-15 meters to observe a suspect's location for the police, who were on the phone with him at the time. Yes, they advise against following, but at no point did they order him to return, or that it was illegal to follow, or that Martin would have right to attack him. They said "we don't need you to do that", likely because they were primarily fearing he would be attacke ...


beg to differ: (new window)


Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn and make a left.

He's running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, 'F-ing coons' at 2:22]

NOTE:

[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN's edited frame]
911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]


proof of a chase, in Zimmerman's own words
 
2012-04-03 08:44:31 PM  
Shouldn't have brought a fist to a gun fight a hole
 
2012-04-03 08:46:12 PM  

Magorn: .


That's exactly what my showed. You can look at the original to see more why it is narrowed down to that location. Link

So, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with it, or what that was meant to highlight, so I'll say again:

The only "chase" (or "persue" or "following" or whatever term you want to use) that occurs in this situation is the appropriate and legally justified movement Zimmerman makes on a 911 phone call, that we can actually hear every second of, where he is clearly attempting to relay Martin's position for the 911 dispatch, who asked him which way he was headed, and he remained in that position for over a minute while still on the phone talking with the police (and could likely be heard by Martin).

If Martin interpreted that as a justified cause to assault him for a long duration, with 45 seconds of Zimmerman screaming for his life, then he is a thug. Simple as that.
 
2012-04-03 09:05:31 PM  

ChuDogg: Magorn: .

That's exactly what my showed. You can look at the original to see more why it is narrowed down to that location. Link

So, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with it, or what that was meant to highlight, so I'll say again:

The only "chase" (or "persue" or "following" or whatever term you want to use) that occurs in this situation is the appropriate and legally justified movement Zimmerman makes on a 911 phone call, that we can actually hear every second of, where he is clearly attempting to relay Martin's position for the 911 dispatch, who asked him which way he was headed, and he remained in that position for over a minute while still on the phone talking with the police (and could likely be heard by Martin).

If Martin interpreted that as a justified cause to assault him for a long duration, with 45 seconds of Zimmerman screaming for his life, then he is a thug. Simple as that.


an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault. Period. If Martin beat him to death, it would have been within his rights. And BTW According to forensics experts, using the same standards applied in courts at trial the voice on the tape screaming for help is NOT Zimmerman
 
2012-04-03 09:12:06 PM  

Magorn: an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault. Period.


When did that happen?
 
2012-04-03 09:14:42 PM  

Magorn: an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault. Period. If Martin beat him to death, it would have been within his rights


no. Zimmerman followed on the phone with police to observe his direction, as he was asked to do by the 911 dispatch. There is no evidence that he was was "run down". And being armed is irrelevant, it's perfectly legal to carry a firearm with you at all times. If Martin "beat him up", it's evidence that's he's a deranged thug.

And BTW According to forensics experts, using the same standards applied in courts at trial the voice on the tape screaming for help is NOT Zimmerman

One random person with a brand new, untested software that was recently released said that it was a 48% match and he would expect it to be higher. We already had an article on here saying that to do voice analysis the Court, or Defense team, would likely have to have a special witness arrange for Zimmerman to scream in a similar manner to the calls, and match the two. Nobody has done a voice analysis on a conversational voice to a scream before.

BTW. the only eyewitness in the case says it was Zimmerman screaming, and is supported by at least one other eyewitness.
 
2012-04-03 09:14:52 PM  
Stand your ground is one of those retarded right-wing notions about confrontation. In practice alot more cases like this will appear where someone goes in with the intent to kill someone, pick a fight, shoot and claim self-defense.

If you kill someone over the usage of a recreational park in my opinion you shouldn't even get a trial, just a nice shock in a comfy chair.
 
2012-04-03 09:17:46 PM  

ChuDogg: the only eyewitness in the case says it was Zimmerman screaming, and is supported by at least one other eyewitness.


So wait, how many eyewitnesses are there? Just "the only one" or "at least one other?"
 
2012-04-03 09:27:42 PM  

KidneyStone: ChuDogg: the only eyewitness in the case says it was Zimmerman screaming, and is supported by at least one other eyewitness.

So wait, how many eyewitnesses are there? Just "the only one" or "at least one other?"


"John" is the main eyewitness who saw the fight behind his house, ran to the door and says Zimmerman was screaming to him to help, he told Martin to Stop, then ran inside to call the police. Before he got there, he hears the gun shot and looks outside and see Zimmerman get on top of Martin.


The supporting witness is the kid walking his dog who says he heard the screaming and saw a guy with a red jacket (zimmermans) on the ground getting attacked. But his dog ran away and he chased after it before he saw anything else.

Nobody saw Zimmerman attacking Martin or saw Martin screaming. Cutcher, the Anderson Cooper witness has assumed that but she admits she did not see anything one way or the other. She was behind closed doors at the time.
 
2012-04-03 09:30:27 PM  

ChuDogg: no. Zimmerman followed on the phone with police to observe his direction, as he was asked to do by the 911 dispatch. There is no evidence that he was was "run down". And being armed is irrelevant, it's perfectly legal to carry a firearm with you at all times. If Martin "beat him up", it's evidence that's he's a deranged thug.


You sure about that? Because on the 911 tape (new window) I heard on March 7th 2012, it's pretty clear dispatch is telling him the exact opposite. As to the relevance of Zimmerman's being armed, you may think you have a point, but the fact is, Martin was shot dead (for whatever reason) and that makes it pretty f*cking relevant that Zimmerman was carrying that particular night.
 
2012-04-03 09:32:27 PM  
Rachel Maddow climaxes so hard her glasses break. That's what happens.
 
2012-04-03 09:48:49 PM  
chasing and standing are now the exact same thing. who would've thought.
 
2012-04-03 09:52:02 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: It's all about keepin the white man down.


Thank You for making the white man looking ignorant
 
2012-04-03 09:56:02 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: A gun is a weapon designed to kill. That it's sole purpose.


I feel the same way about knives. Knives exist to stab people. They have no other use.
 
2012-04-03 09:58:05 PM  

Brainsick: You sure about that? Because on the 911 tape (new window) I heard on March 7th 2012, it's pretty clear dispatch is telling him the exact opposite.


911 dispatcher: Let me know if he does anything, OK?

911 dispatcher: We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

911 dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

911 dispatcher: OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?

All of this is in my original post. I just ask you to read it if you want to comment on the truth or veracity.

As to the relevance of Zimmerman's being armed, you may think you have a point, but the fact is, Martin was shot dead (for whatever reason) and that makes it pretty f*cking relevant that Zimmerman was carrying that particular night.

Carry and using a firearm in self defense is legal. You'll get over it.
 
2012-04-03 09:58:19 PM  

3dougnight: Darth_Lukecash: A gun is a weapon designed to kill. That it's sole purpose.

I feel the same way about knives. Knives exist to stab people. They have no other use.


You're wrong, then.
 
2012-04-03 10:02:52 PM  

ChuDogg: Brainsick: You sure about that? Because on the 911 tape (new window) I heard on March 7th 2012, it's pretty clear dispatch is telling him the exact opposite.

911 dispatcher: Let me know if he does anything, OK?

911 dispatcher: We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

911 dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

911 dispatcher: OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?

All of this is in my original post. I just ask you to read it if you want to comment on the truth or veracity.

As to the relevance of Zimmerman's being armed, you may think you have a point, but the fact is, Martin was shot dead (for whatever reason) and that makes it pretty f*cking relevant that Zimmerman was carrying that particular night.

Carry and using a firearm in self defense is legal. You'll get over it.


911 Dispatch: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
911 Dispatch: OK, we don't need you to do that

All of THAT is in the recording I linked to. I just ask you to listen to it if you want to comment on the truth or veracity.

And I know carrying is legal, what I SAID was it was RELEVANT after you claimed it was irrelevant that Zimmerman was armed


/you are still wrong and ill-informed
//you probably wont get over that
 
2012-04-03 10:17:13 PM  

Brainsick: 911 Dispatch: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
911 Dispatch: OK, we don't need you to do that

All of THAT is in the recording I linked to


Uh, dude. This was the image that was posted:

img690.imageshack.us

Take a look a good look at it. Look at the characters that form words, and the words that form sentences. Take a good long look and ask yourself if any of that looks familiar to you. And prior to this, as the transcript (new window) shows, he was asked at least 4 times to keep an eye on Martin.

And I know carrying is legal, what I SAID was it was RELEVANT after you claimed it was irrelevant that Zimmerman was armed

And the person that I was responding to said: "an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault."

Besides the fact that "run down" is patently false from the information we have. The fact that he was armed is irrelevent. You probably meet armed people every day and never know it. And none of them are "assaulting" you.

So yes, that is irrelevant in determining if Martin was using self defense, as the previous poster seemed to indicate.
 
2012-04-03 10:19:23 PM  
I heard they banned guns in jail and it's now really safe.
 
2012-04-03 10:22:22 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I really don't see what's keeping anyone from just killing whomever they want. As long as there are no witnesses outside of the murderer, they get to walk.

-"I was scared and done standed mah ground."

--"Sir, you just killed two elderly women."

-"Exactly, I was outnumbered."


Southern hospitality stops most blood baths.
 
2012-04-03 10:27:37 PM  

ChuDogg: Brainsick: 911 Dispatch: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
911 Dispatch: OK, we don't need you to do that

All of THAT is in the recording I linked to

Uh, dude. This was the image that was posted:

[img690.imageshack.us image 640x551]

Take a look a good look at it. Look at the characters that form words, and the words that form sentences. Take a good long look and ask yourself if any of that looks familiar to you. And prior to this, as the transcript (new window) shows, he was asked at least 4 times to keep an eye on Martin.

And I know carrying is legal, what I SAID was it was RELEVANT after you claimed it was irrelevant that Zimmerman was armed

And the person that I was responding to said: "an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault."

Besides the fact that "run down" is patently false from the information we have. The fact that he was armed is irrelevent. You probably meet armed people every day and never know it. And none of them are "assaulting" you.

So yes, that is irrelevant in determining if Martin was using self defense, as the previous poster seemed to indicate.


Dogg, put the bong down and back away slowly, you're making less and less sense with each post. A man being armed (legally or otherwise) is CERTAINLY relevant to an investigation into a shooting. As for your 'transcript', the dispatcher is saying 'let me know if he does anything' because Zimmerman said Martin was walking toward him, he does NOT say 'keep an eye on him for us' and in fact, as I posted above, tells Zimmerman 'we don't need you to do that' regarding Zimmerman following Martin. Have you actually LISTENED to the recording??
 
2012-04-03 10:37:45 PM  

Voiceofreason01: probesport: I understand it's original design, but really it's too blanket of statement that guns are designed to kill. I have specifically designed target weapons and at this point I have spent 100% more time killing targets than people - as is probably the case with most gun owners. My kids don't know guns are designed to kill they know they are designed for sport and some people use them to kill.


so you're the guy who's going to get all butthurt and start suing people when one of your kids shoots himself because you didn't teach them proper firearm safety, after all your gun isn't dangerous, it's only a .22 designed for plinking.


Guns are... Schizophrenic in how they kill. A 22 can kill, even from one shot. It is known. But it can also bounce off a persons skull. The odds of that are not bad.

If youre going to be shot ask for a 22 round. Or even better, a .410 number 12 shot shell.

Saying it can kill is a stupid statement. So can the fists of a seventeen year old. So can making your own candles. It's about the relative risks.

I actually know more people alive after being shot by a twenty two than any caliber. Yes, it can kill, but you have to try or be really unlucky.

And this person youre chastising, why wont you defer to him? I assume that gun enthusiasts would teach their own children about gun safety,as I'm sure you would for your own issue.

And your criticisms suggest that you do not know how tiny a 22 is. Once again acknowledging that they can kill and should be treated as such.

What I'm trying to say is

YOU ARE THE REASON LEFT WING GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES LOOK STUPID.
 
2012-04-03 10:41:10 PM  

paygun: jafiwam: And, many many people have been killed with one punch either outright, or knocked out and then due to the blow the head takes when an unconscious body hits the ground.

Yep, I understand that. If Mike Tyson comes at me with his arm cocked I'm probably going to shoot him. If a 75 pound little old lady swats me with a newspaper I'm thinking I'm probably going to prison for murder if I shoot her.

But hey, if you want to be be the test case then go ahead.


You are astute in your examples, but sloppy in your analysis. The examples you provide show the reasonableness requirement in the statute. We shall see if it was.
 
2012-04-03 10:42:00 PM  

Brainsick: A man being armed (legally or otherwise) is CERTAINLY relevant to an investigation into a shooting.


A second time, the post I was responding to: "an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault."

Being armed =! Assault.

Pretty cut n dry on this.

As for your 'transcript', the dispatcher is saying 'let me know if he does anything' because Zimmerman said Martin was walking toward him, he does NOT say 'keep an eye on him for us' and in fact, as I posted above, tells Zimmerman 'we don't need you to do that' regarding Zimmerman following Martin.

A second time:

The only "chase" (or "persue" or "following" or whatever term you want to use) that occurs in this situation is the appropriate and legally justified movement Zimmerman makes on a 911 phone call, that we can actually hear every second of, where he is clearly attempting to relay Martin's position for the 911 dispatch, who asked him which way he was headed, and he remained in that position for over a minute while still on the phone talking with the police (and could likely be heard by Martin).

A second time:

The dispatchers suggestion "we don't need you to do that" is labeled quite clearly in the map and where it occurred and explained thoroughly in the original post. Right along with the dispatcher asking him twice which way Martin was headed, prompting Martin to exit his vehicle so he could observe and direct the 911 dispatch.

Have you actually LISTENED to the recording??

You can look at the entire transcript here: Link (new window)

I suggest you read every word of it. You are literally the stupidest person I have interacted with on this subject. If you're not trolling at this point, you might as well start
 
2012-04-03 10:49:43 PM  
Minority goes missing, nobody cares. Pretty white girl? It's every hour, of every day, coverage. The Ramsey murder probably still takes the cake on coverage but dammit, the Holloway murder tried hard.

Aarone Thompson anyone? Anyone? I only know about that one because somebody else brought her up while complaining about the lack of coverage for any child who isn't female, pretty, and white.

In exchange, when a minority is the victim of a crime perpetuated with any kind of racial angle, it's important and gets coverage, when a while person is the victim of a crime with any kind of racial angle, it never gets reported on.

Why are missing/murdered minority kids not worth the coverage? Why are racial crimes committed by minorities not worth the coverage? I have no idea.
 
2012-04-03 10:52:49 PM  

ChuDogg: A second time, the post I was responding to: "an armed man runs down a teen at night, that's assault."

Being armed =! Assault.

Pretty cut n dry on this.


From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person.

Someone following me, at night, in a car, then on foot, would induce apprehension in a reasonable person. Therefore, assault. The gun just sweetens the deal.

ChuDogg: Have you actually LISTENED to the recording??

You can look at the entire transcript here: Link (new window)

I suggest you read every word of it. You are literally the stupidest person I have interacted with on this subject. If you're not trolling at this point, you might as well start


I suggest you listen to the recording rather than reading someone's blog. I already posted the link, but here it is again (new window).


/and I didn't even call you a moron that time
//oops
 
2012-04-03 11:02:39 PM  
FTA:
"But in practice, Florida courts have allowed a Stand Your Ground defense in cases where there have been chases and pursuits."

Some farkers are going to be pissed thier pursuit clause is shot all to hell.
 
2012-04-03 11:18:48 PM  

Brainsick: Someone following me, at night, in a car, then on foot, would induce apprehension in a reasonable person. Therefore, assault. The gun just sweetens the deal.


Unfortunately the 911 dispatch Zimmerman was on the phone with would indicate you are wrong.

He says "we don't need you to do that". Not "turn around sir, you are committing assault". And legally carrying a firearm changes nothing as far as the legal standing. Not sure what statute "sweetens the deal" falls under.


I suggest you listen to the recording rather than reading someone's blog. I already posted the link, but here it is again

Everything you have written that Zimmerman said was contained in my original post. You have added nothing with this back n forth exchange. While I have corrected you numerous times and you have learned where the dispatcher told him to keep an eye on Martin and asked him twice which direction he was running to. I'm happy you learned something. But you're not exactly in a position to tell me what i need to read or listen to in regards to the facts of the case.

Now you just need to put two and two together.

The only "chase" (or "pursue" or "following", "run down" or whatever term you want to use) that occurs in this situation is the appropriate and legally justified movement Zimmerman makes on a 911 phone call, that we can actually hear every second of, where he is clearly attempting to relay Martin's position for the 911 dispatch, who asked him which way Martin was headed, twice, and he remained in that position for over a minute while still on the phone talking with the police (and could likely be heard by Martin).

One for time for you cupcake:

img690.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-03 11:19:07 PM  

mytdawg: thecpt: Why is this a liberals vs conservative argument again? Please explain without trying to justify your with being right.

Because EVERYTHING is liberals vs conservative now. Doesn't matter if it's pink slime or transformer beauty contests or people gunning mofo's down in the street. All you gotta do is look at any Yahoo article and it always always degrades into name calling left vs right even if it's about friggin ice cream.

People are stupid. Basically. Doesn't get much simpler than that.


Because they are too stoopid to see the fact that those labels are merely a tool to divide them?
 
2012-04-03 11:57:46 PM  

ChuDogg: [image]


I find it amusing that you were especially careful to have the dots match the stereotypical colors of the respective ethnicity.

I would've taken that image more seriously if it was red vs blue or pink vs green. The choice for colors that does a poor job grabbing attention must've been chosen for a different reason than to simply show where the locations are; In addition, you demonstrated the knowledge how to use colors for attention, or otherwise, you would not have used red for the exclamation or where the altercation occurs.
 
2012-04-03 11:59:41 PM  

ChuDogg: KidneyStone: ChuDogg: the only eyewitness in the case says it was Zimmerman screaming, and is supported by at least one other eyewitness.

So wait, how many eyewitnesses are there? Just "the only one" or "at least one other?"

"John" is the main eyewitness who saw the fight behind his house, ran to the door and says Zimmerman was screaming to him to help, he told Martin to Stop, then ran inside to call the police. Before he got there, he hears the gun shot and looks outside and see Zimmerman get on top of Martin.


The supporting witness is the kid walking his dog who says he heard the screaming and saw a guy with a red jacket (zimmermans) on the ground getting attacked. But his dog ran away and he chased after it before he saw anything else.

Nobody saw Zimmerman attacking Martin or saw Martin screaming. Cutcher, the Anderson Cooper witness has assumed that but she admits she did not see anything one way or the other. She was behind closed doors at the time.


"only eyewitness" means there's only one. Then you say "at least one other eyewitness." How can you expect any credibility if you make a statement then flat out change it?

How do you know all of this? Are you leaking Sanford Police investigation information or are you George Zimmerman with a shade account?
 
2012-04-04 12:05:47 AM  

lennavan: Xenomech: Darth_Lukecash: If you feel the need to take a gun to have an argument with someone, then I suggest you really not go to the arguement. Call the police if there is something illegal going on.

A gun is a weapon designed to kill. That it's sole purpose.

I don't care what color you are. This 71 year old man is just as guilty as Zimmerman. By him carrying a gun into a hostile situation is bad and should be charged with manslaughter.

10/10

I believed it for a bit, but then realized no one could be this stupid.

I am swayed by the overwhelming logic and evidence in your counter argument.


There, I underlined the important snerk-worthy part for you. Can you see it now?
 
2012-04-04 12:10:17 AM  
A NC State Highway Patrol Trooper pulled over a little old lady for a faulty taillight.

When the officer approached the driver, she handed the officer her drivers license, insurance card and Concealed Carry Permit.

The officer took all the documents, looked them over and said. "Mrs. Smith, I see you have a CCP. Do you have any weapons with you?"

*The little old lady replied, "Yes sir, I have a .357 handgun in a hip holster, a .45 in the glove box and a .22 derringer in my boot."

"The officer looked at her and asked, "Anything else?"

"Yes sir, I have a Mossberg 500 12-gauge and an AR-15 in the trunk."

The officer asked if she was driving to or from a shooting range and the little old lady said she wasn't, so the officer bent over and looked into the her face and said,

"Mrs. Smith, you're carrying quite a few guns. May I ask what you are afraid of?"

The little old lady locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered,"Not a damn thing!"
 
2012-04-04 12:12:40 AM  

JackieRabbit: Gyrfalcon: The real issue should be: Is "Stand Your Ground" the stupidest law ever created by human beings since time began?

THIS! It stands in contradiction to over 800 years of common law (not to mention common sense). But this is Florida, where redneck Republican legislators stoke the balls of redneck voters. Common sense never entered into the equation. And you know what? Opponents of this absurd law predicted these sorts of problems with 100% accuracy. What you want to bet that there's already an appeal in the works? If people are afraid to come to Florida on vacation because they might be killed by some vigilante whack-job, who has the full force of the law behind him, they stand to lose a lot of money. Money talks and bullshiat walks.


Citation Needed
 
2012-04-04 12:18:50 AM  

ensign_noname: JackieRabbit: Gyrfalcon: The real issue should be: Is "Stand Your Ground" the stupidest law ever created by human beings since time began?

THIS! It stands in contradiction to over 800 years of common law (not to mention common sense). But this is Florida, where redneck Republican legislators stoke the balls of redneck voters. Common sense never entered into the equation. And you know what? Opponents of this absurd law predicted these sorts of problems with 100% accuracy. What you want to bet that there's already an appeal in the works? If people are afraid to come to Florida on vacation because they might be killed by some vigilante whack-job, who has the full force of the law behind him, they stand to lose a lot of money. Money talks and bullshiat walks.

Citation Needed


You know, you do citation needed per claim, not the entire paragraph. It's bad form.
What did you need proven, common law, republican legislators, predictions or the potential loss of money?

I'm not the guy that made the claims, I just felt that I needed to point out that you misused the term.
 
2012-04-04 12:26:08 AM  
OK, morons, one last time. Initiating a confrontation and then shiatting your pants in fear is NOT self-defense. YOU started it. You are NOT defending yourself. Don't start anything you can't finish, chickenshiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 457 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report