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.

(MSNBC)   Zimmerman takes the law into his own hands. Again   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 1081
    More: News, George Zimmerman, Greg Sonner, martin case, law license, Dean Martin, United States Department of Justice, special prosecutor  
•       •       •

48973 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2012 at 7:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1081 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-11 12:48:12 AM

Komplex: Ender's: In the court of public opinion he's guilty. In a court of law, he isn't even on trial. People need to disassociate their feelings for a couple of minutes to think it over like rational sane people before firing up the torches.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY CIVILIZED PEOPLE ARE UPSET!!!

If he was arrested for murder/manslaughter/reckless disregard for human life, there wouldn't be this big fuss at all.


Note that he was arrested (he was taken to the police station in police custody, arrested and being charged are two separate things), but he was released without charges because they did not have enough evidence. They would not have let him go if they didn't have to, but they would risk their only shot at him for jumping the gun.

The cops have to let him go if there isn't enough evidence to justify the charge. They are still investigating him, but if they charge him they have to move forward. If they don't have enough evidence to convict, he will go free and they will lose their chance at ever convicting him. They cannot just arrest him and then hold until they're ready to go to trial.

We can all 'DEMAND JUSTICE' all we want, but they cannot go any faster without risking their case against him.
 
2012-04-11 12:48:13 AM

Hickory-smoked: tenpoundsofcheese: NYT referred to him as a "White Hispanic".
Odd that they rarely use that descriptor.

It's a conspiracy.


unfortunately I think it is a business decision.

it isn't about race, it is about controversy. controversy sells.

story one: one person killed another person and is claiming it was self defense.
story two: white hispanic person killed a black child and is claiming Florida's controversial stand your ground law as his defense.
 
2012-04-11 12:49:17 AM

sseye: ensign_noname: Does that mean you wont be visiting Florida?

I would say that based on the understanding that local police have of the Stand Your Ground law, one could make a decent argument that it's only safe to visit Florida with a concealed weapon and an itchy trigger finger.tenpoundsofcheese: sseye:

1) Kid walking with skittles.
2) Guy with gun calls 911 and follows kid. Warned not to by 911 dispatcher.
3) Kid dead.

Do you live in some other universe where those aren't the facts?

He was "warned not to"? That is the fact in your universe? What exactly was the "warning".
Interesting.

Wake us up when you learn English and something about American social customs and until then stop wasting our time.


so your answer is no, he wasn't "warned".
thank you.
 
2012-04-11 12:49:43 AM

rufus-t-firefly: nickerj1: Bf+: Diodorus: How ambiguous is the "Stand your Ground" law?

Waaaay to ambiguous.

Can I pick a fight and when my victim "stands his ground" and starts beating me up, can I "Stand my ground" and shoot him?

Looks like it... It will take a couple more deaths / trails to work that out... all in good time.


The problem is Florida

THIS.

and its farked up society which says its ok for someone to do what Zimmerman did.

The NRA is the group that pushed for this crap.
Florida society (and it's heightened racism) is as much as fault for buying into it.

It's not a terribly written law. It's perfectly fine.

First off, half the GED lawyers in here don't even recognize the "initial aggressor" exception to self defense exceptions, INCLUDING Florida's explicit recitation of it within the "stand-your-ground" statute.

Florida's statute doesn't explicitly define conditions for being considered "initial aggressor", it's more of a generic reference to it. But no state really defines "initial aggressor" with statute. It's more been determined by common law.

The initial aggressor clause makes sense in theory. If I notice you messing with my car, walk up to you, push you and ask you what you're doing, you retaliate with beating me with a tire iron, and I fear for my life, then "duty to retreat" kicks in before I can use lethal force in self defense legally.

If you're actually curious in educating yourself, read this piece: Link (new window)

The problem with the Trayvon Martin case is that no one knows the exact fact situation of what happened, and we can't determine who the initial aggressor is.

It's a terribly written law.

Link (new window)

Back in January, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck, which was parked outside Garcia's Miami apartment. Garcia grabbed a large knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta for at least a block. The incident was caught on tape and showed that Garcia stabbed Roteta to death. At the time Roteta was carrying a bag with stolen radios "but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished."

The Herald reports that a judge threw out the charges against Garcia, citing the state's "stand your ground" law. As we reported earlier this week, the law did away with "the English Law concept of 'duty to retreat' from a situation that is dangerous outside your home." The Florida Supreme Court also decided that it should be a judge, not a jury, who decides whether to grant a suspect immunity based on the law.

That bit about "English law?" Yeah, that's your common law being thrown out with this incredibly stupid statute.

This law allowed a man to go free, immune from any prosecution (remember - the law prevents civil penalties as well), for chasing down a fleeing man and stabbing him to death over a farking radio.


He knew what he was getting into.

I say let him get stabbed.
i895.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-11 12:50:20 AM

keithgabryelski: s2s2s2:
Yet proximity doesn't grant him the right to lay one finger on George.

the "stand your ground" law disagrees.


Actually, you are right.
It first grants it to Trayvon, to stop an imminent attack. Then it grants George the right to shoot him, fearing bodily harm.

Link (new window)

Weill isn't that a pickle.
 
2012-04-11 12:50:48 AM

s2s2s2: Was Trayvon pretending he had a gun?


Personally I think its the only explanation that makes sense.
Zimmerman doesn't seem to be a card carrying racist. I also doubt that Martin was the innocent child he's been eulogized as. Somewhere in the middle is the truth, and it suggests that two wanna-be tough guys crossed paths with tragic results.

I'm sorry for Trayvon and his family, but demanding vigilante justice against a vigilante will backfire in disastrous ways. If the AG rushes in there to attack Zimmerman with contradicting witnesses and a victim found to have drugs in his system (people don't buy weed baggies pre-emptied) then its a lost cause with no possible retrial.
They'll have to be patient and build their case.

If Sharpton cared about Black people, he should have spent his time bringing attention to the dozen or so men that have probably died in drug related incidents in the last month. Rather than trying to muck up an already complicated trial by turning it into a circus of media attention whores.
 
2012-04-11 12:51:51 AM

sseye: ensign_noname: Does that mean you wont be visiting Florida?

I would say that based on the understanding that local police have of the Stand Your Ground law, one could make a decent argument that it's only safe to visit Florida with a concealed weapon and an itchy trigger finger.tenpoundsofcheese: sseye:

1) Kid walking with skittles.
2) Guy with gun calls 911 and follows kid. Warned not to by 911 dispatcher.
3) Kid dead.

Do you live in some other universe where those aren't the facts?

He was "warned not to"? That is the fact in your universe? What exactly was the "warning".
Interesting.

Wake us up when you learn English and something about American social customs and until then stop wasting our time.


Okay, I'll play along.
Do you know if Zimmerman, a "White Hispanic" would know of these "American social customs" that you speak of?
What "American social customs" are you even referring to?

or are you making shiat up again?
 
2012-04-11 12:54:06 AM

Ender's: In the court of public opinion he's guilty. In a court of law, he isn't even on trial. People need to disassociate their feelings for a couple of minutes to think it over like rational sane people before firing up the torches.


Hehe, tell that to the people that wanna lynch him.

/LA Riots II: Electric Boogaloo?
 
2012-04-11 12:54:28 AM

way south: s2s2s2: Was Trayvon pretending he had a gun?

Personally I think its the only explanation that makes sense.
Zimmerman doesn't seem to be a card carrying racist. I also doubt that Martin was the innocent child he's been eulogized as. Somewhere in the middle is the truth, and it suggests that two wanna-be tough guys crossed paths with tragic results.

I'm sorry for Trayvon and his family, but demanding vigilante justice against a vigilante will backfire in disastrous ways. If the AG rushes in there to attack Zimmerman with contradicting witnesses and a victim found to have drugs in his system (people don't buy weed baggies pre-emptied) then its a lost cause with no possible retrial.
They'll have to be patient and build their case.

If Sharpton cared about Black people, he should have spent his time bringing attention to the dozen or so men that have probably died in drug related incidents in the last month. Rather than trying to muck up an already complicated trial by turning it into a circus of media attention whores.


I think George wins a criminal case, and loses a civil case. This is the OJ trial of our time. Or it could be.
 
2012-04-11 12:54:48 AM

s2s2s2: keithgabryelski: s2s2s2:
Yet proximity doesn't grant him the right to lay one finger on George.

the "stand your ground" law disagrees.

Actually, you are right.
It first grants it to Trayvon, to stop an imminent attack. Then it grants George the right to shoot him, fearing bodily harm.

Link (new window)

Weill isn't that a pickle.


sure, that is the best possible case for george zimmerman.

It's not obvious to me that the spirit of the law allows for the initial agressor to fall back to the defensive position and "stand your ground". I wouldn't think that is reasonable.

but, i think it's worthy of a trial.

don't you?
 
2012-04-11 12:54:55 AM

Ford Perfect: Seems like a majority of the opinion here is that if you are on the fence about zimmerman until all the facts are heard, and that he is innocent of murder 2 until proven guilty you are a Zimmerman supporter? A racist?


It seems like you've already made up your mind as to the answer to these questions. No doubt someone as determined to assess all evidence as yourself counted all the posts that give you this impression just to make sure that they comprise more than 50% of the stated opinions in the thread.
 
2012-04-11 12:58:57 AM

People_are_Idiots: Ender's: In the court of public opinion he's guilty. In a court of law, he isn't even on trial. People need to disassociate their feelings for a couple of minutes to think it over like rational sane people before firing up the torches.

Hehe, tell that to the people that wanna lynch him.

/LA Riots II: Electric Boogaloo?


demanding a trial is a lynching?

You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that black people will riot about this. That seems pretty presumptive -- and pretty shiatty.
 
2012-04-11 12:59:03 AM

keithgabryelski: s2s2s2: keithgabryelski: s2s2s2:
Yet proximity doesn't grant him the right to lay one finger on George.

the "stand your ground" law disagrees.

Actually, you are right.
It first grants it to Trayvon, to stop an imminent attack. Then it grants George the right to shoot him, fearing bodily harm.

Link (new window)

Weill isn't that a pickle.

sure, that is the best possible case for george zimmerman.

It's not obvious to me that the spirit of the law allows for the initial agressor to fall back to the defensive position and "stand your ground". I wouldn't think that is reasonable.

but, i think it's worthy of a trial.

don't you?


Well, we have good reason to believe George wasn't trying to perp a crime. He has a record of actually stopping a crime and assisting in an arrest.
So yeah, he gets protection. Much of the law rests on perception.

Definitely think a trial is needed.
 
2012-04-11 12:59:30 AM

s2s2s2: way south: s2s2s2: Was Trayvon pretending he had a gun?

Personally I think its the only explanation that makes sense.
Zimmerman doesn't seem to be a card carrying racist. I also doubt that Martin was the innocent child he's been eulogized as. Somewhere in the middle is the truth, and it suggests that two wanna-be tough guys crossed paths with tragic results.

I'm sorry for Trayvon and his family, but demanding vigilante justice against a vigilante will backfire in disastrous ways. If the AG rushes in there to attack Zimmerman with contradicting witnesses and a victim found to have drugs in his system (people don't buy weed baggies pre-emptied) then its a lost cause with no possible retrial.
They'll have to be patient and build their case.

If Sharpton cared about Black people, he should have spent his time bringing attention to the dozen or so men that have probably died in drug related incidents in the last month. Rather than trying to muck up an already complicated trial by turning it into a circus of media attention whores.

I think George wins a criminal case, and loses a civil case. This is the OJ trial of our time. Or it could be.


Florida law will give him civil immunity if he wins the criminal case. It's a component of either Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, I forget which.
 
2012-04-11 12:59:36 AM

s2s2s2: If it was fighting back, and that can be proven, then George would have failed to warrant the protection of SYG, and likely be convicted.


That's what disturbs me, the difficulty to prove what happened. I wonder if murder rates in Florida would rise or not due to the now-prolific nature of the affirmative defense of the SYG law.
 
2012-04-11 01:00:54 AM
I think that the problem here is that we want to believe that straight up killing someone has consequences, and this guy isn't facing any consequences. We want to believe that human life is worth something, so we rage. I'd like to see this at least go to trial-let him speak for himself under oath.
 
2012-04-11 01:01:11 AM

Fista-Phobia: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: theflatline: Zimmerman was the guy who was an active member helping the black community... But you know I guess that news doesnt float up to the land of the buffalo wings.

Yeah, calling the police 41 times on suspicious black kids really does help them.

oh look you are lying again.

Zimmerman made 46 calls over a period of 11 years to 911, not the police. Are you saying that 41 of them were about suspicious black kids? Are you just being a racist again or do you have a citation?

The City of Sanford posted a "George Zimmerman 911 Call History" listing 46 event reports naming George Zimmerman as the caller between 2004 and the night of the shooting (pop n' lock)


1. I asked about whether 41 calls are about "suspicious black kids". Your link doesn't say anything about that.
2. Secondly, that PDF doesn't seem to be available anymore.
3. third, there is this: The date range of Zimmerman's calls, they say, evidently is 2001-2012, not 2011-2012, which means his 46 calls came over a 10- to 11-year period -- roughly four calls per year -- and not four calls per month as the initial police statistics revealed. (new window)
 
2012-04-11 01:01:46 AM

s2s2s2: I think George wins a criminal case, and loses a civil case. This is the OJ trial of our time. Or it could be.


Actually, if he qualified under the SYG law, he's immune from civil lawsuits relating to the incident.
 
2012-04-11 01:03:55 AM
What must it feel like to have everyone despise you? Would you be peer pressured into killing yourself? This guy must feel some guilt, right?
 
2012-04-11 01:05:11 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: third, there is this: The date range of Zimmerman's calls, they say, evidently is 2001-2012, not 2011-2012, which means his 46 calls came over a 10- to 11-year period -- roughly four calls per year -- and not four calls per month as the initial police statistics revealed. (new window)


I've maybe called 911 twice during that time.
 
2012-04-11 01:05:18 AM

CrispFlows: s2s2s2: I think George wins a criminal case, and loses a civil case. This is the OJ trial of our time. Or it could be.

Actually, if he qualified under the SYG law, he's immune from civil lawsuits relating to the incident.


Booooooring!

It's wrong, but I don't want this to end. It's like the smar tfarkers, and us trolls have switched brains on this one. I can damned near understand climate science, now!
 
2012-04-11 01:06:54 AM

s2s2s2: Well, we have good reason to believe George wasn't trying to perp a crime.


that seems to be the consensus of thread -- i haven't heard anyone saying this was premeditated in any way.

so, i guess we agree.

He has a record of actually stopping a crime and assisting in an arrest.

this had been fuzzy -- mainly because of a mistype on the police report the elevated that number of 911 calls and bad reporting about the "coon" being mistaken for "cold".

But, sure -- that seems correct.

So yeah, he gets protection. Much of the law rests on perception.

Definitely think a trial is needed.


i think you and I and pretty much everyone in this thread agree on all points.
 
2012-04-11 01:07:32 AM

Confabulat: tenpoundsofcheese: third, there is this: The date range of Zimmerman's calls, they say, evidently is 2001-2012, not 2011-2012, which means his 46 calls came over a 10- to 11-year period -- roughly four calls per year -- and not four calls per month as the initial police statistics revealed. (new window)

I've maybe called 911 twice during that time.


I haven't called once, nor has my neighborhood elect me watch coordinator. I haven't stopped any homes from being robbed, nor assisted in the arrest of the robbers. I guess that makes us guilty of aiding crime in our neighborhoods.

That was your point, right?
 
2012-04-11 01:09:08 AM

s2s2s2: I haven't called once, nor has my neighborhood elect me watch coordinator. I haven't stopped any homes from being robbed, nor assisted in the arrest of the robbers. I guess that makes us guilty of aiding crime in our neighborhoods.


Ha, if there have been 46 attempts at robbery in your gated community over the past decade that you personally have witnessed, YOU NEED TO MOVE.
 
2012-04-11 01:09:26 AM

keithgabryelski: s2s2s2: Well, we have good reason to believe George wasn't trying to perp a crime.

that seems to be the consensus of thread -- i haven't heard anyone saying this was premeditated in any way.

so, i guess we agree.

He has a record of actually stopping a crime and assisting in an arrest.

this had been fuzzy -- mainly because of a mistype on the police report the elevated that number of 911 calls and bad reporting about the "coon" being mistaken for "cold".

But, sure -- that seems correct.

So yeah, he gets protection. Much of the law rests on perception.

Definitely think a trial is needed.

i think you and I and pretty much everyone in this thread agree on all points.


Been a pleasure.
 
2012-04-11 01:09:49 AM

Confabulat: tenpoundsofcheese: third, there is this: The date range of Zimmerman's calls, they say, evidently is 2001-2012, not 2011-2012, which means his 46 calls came over a 10- to 11-year period -- roughly four calls per year -- and not four calls per month as the initial police statistics revealed. (new window)

I've maybe called 911 twice during that time.


do you do neighborhood watch patrols?
 
2012-04-11 01:10:19 AM

s2s2s2: I haven't called once, nor has my neighborhood elect me watch coordinator


You know, that's not an official title in real life. That's like your buddies electing you Grand Poobah and expecting to be treated seriously.
 
2012-04-11 01:11:14 AM

Confabulat: s2s2s2: I haven't called once, nor has my neighborhood elect me watch coordinator. I haven't stopped any homes from being robbed, nor assisted in the arrest of the robbers. I guess that makes us guilty of aiding crime in our neighborhoods.

Ha, if there have been 46 attempts at robbery in your gated community over the past decade that you personally have witnessed, YOU NEED TO MOVE.


Or at least find out who the neighborhood watch captain batman is. I like tea and candy.
 
2012-04-11 01:11:35 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Confabulat: tenpoundsofcheese: third, there is this: The date range of Zimmerman's calls, they say, evidently is 2001-2012, not 2011-2012, which means his 46 calls came over a 10- to 11-year period -- roughly four calls per year -- and not four calls per month as the initial police statistics revealed. (new window)

I've maybe called 911 twice during that time.

do you do neighborhood watch patrols?


Again, if you've personally witnessed FORTY-SIX robbery attempts in your gated community over one decade, you live in one hell of a terrifying neighborhood, or you're abusing the system. Guess which one I think this guy is guilty of?
 
2012-04-11 01:12:09 AM

culebra: Ford Perfect: Seems like a majority of the opinion here is that if you are on the fence about zimmerman until all the facts are heard, and that he is innocent of murder 2 until proven guilty you are a Zimmerman supporter? A racist?

It seems like you've already made up your mind as to the answer to these questions. No doubt someone as determined to assess all evidence as yourself counted all the posts that give you this impression just to make sure that they comprise more than 50% of the stated opinions in the thread.


"Seems" indicates that it was my impression, as I didn't go through and read all the posts...

Be a dear and count them for me, would you? Thanks!

/jk
/cba, going to bed
 
2012-04-11 01:12:51 AM
And 911 is only for emergencies, so I assume these calls were all him witnessing actual crimes-in-progress.
 
2012-04-11 01:13:52 AM

Confabulat: s2s2s2: I haven't called once, nor has my neighborhood elect me watch coordinator

You know, that's not an official title in real life. That's like your buddies electing you Grand Poobah and expecting to be treated seriously.


Aaay!
\mm mm/
 
2012-04-11 01:16:01 AM

Confabulat: And 911 is only for emergencies, so I assume these calls were all him witnessing actual crimes-in-progress.


They weren't all to the emergency number. I bet he took pride in how many different "narc" numbers he had on speed dial.
 
2012-04-11 01:17:09 AM

Confabulat: tenpoundsofcheese: Confabulat: tenpoundsofcheese: third, there is this: The date range of Zimmerman's calls, they say, evidently is 2001-2012, not 2011-2012, which means his 46 calls came over a 10- to 11-year period -- roughly four calls per year -- and not four calls per month as the initial police statistics revealed. (new window)

I've maybe called 911 twice during that time.

do you do neighborhood watch patrols?

Again, if you've personally witnessed FORTY-SIX robbery attempts in your gated community over one decade, you live in one hell of a terrifying neighborhood, or you're abusing the system. Guess which one I think this guy is guilty of?


does florida have a number to call to report suspicious activity or is it just 911?

as an example if you see a truck parked outside a neighbor's house, but you know your neighbor is on vacation, that is hardly an emergency, but it could mean that someone is getting ready to rip off the house, or it could mean nothing.

so i doubt that every one of the 46 calls was witnessing robbery attempts, since we know the martin call was NOT him calling about a robbery attempt.
 
2012-04-11 01:22:23 AM

Confabulat: And 911 is only for emergencies, so I assume these calls were all him witnessing actual crimes-in-progress.


Prime example: the call he made about Martin. Crime: walking with Skittles.


/also: 9beers - you just need to be farking banned - you are truly an idiot. Same with a few other trolls. Good farking riddance.
 
2012-04-11 01:23:46 AM
It's rather interesting how the White-Power retards in the thread keep using the word "lynch" to describe a few people voicing their opinions on a message board.. It's deeply Freudian.
 
2012-04-11 01:30:51 AM

SkinnyHead: If Zimmerman did contact the prosecutor today, that just shows that he's still being cooperative with authorities. I'm not sure they'll ever bring charges, but if they do, I think he should at least be entitled to OR release. They shouldn't make him sit in jail awaiting trial.


t2.gstatic.com

/oblig
 
2012-04-11 01:35:46 AM

AFKobel: 9beers: NightOwl2255: Your own words have proved beyond any doubt you are a racist. The least you can do it own it.

Where do I mention Martin's race in those posts?

Is that the "Rumpelstiltskin defense"? If you don't mention anyone's race, you can't POSSIBLY be racist....

What kind of argument is that?


I remember one of these Trayvon threads a while back. 9beers was trying to make the argument that Trayvon would've had the upperhand in a fight because blacks are genetically physically superior to whites/hispanics/whoever.

So, just in case you hadn't figured it out yet, he is a racist troll. I'm pretty sure its what he does with all his time. Since he made his account on Christmas, I'm going to go ahead and assume that no one wants anything to do with him in his real life.

/basically, stop feeding him.
 
2012-04-11 01:36:59 AM

Mavent: It's rather interesting how the White-Power retards in the thread keep using the word "lynch" to describe a few people voicing their opinions on a message board.. It's deeply Freudian.


George? Lynch? Freud? I think this sums that up:
neanderpaul.com
 
2012-04-11 01:38:09 AM

SN1987a goes boom: /basically, stop feeding him.


Is it trolling if you feed the trolls?

Or more so, isn't it trolling asking people to stop feeding the trolls so the people would feel like feeding the troll to troll you back?

/ Trolls.
/ Trolling Trolls.
 
2012-04-11 01:41:01 AM

RibbyK: [begin soapbox]
Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime.
Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime.
Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime.
[end soapbox]

/carry on


No thanks to any effort on his part.
 
2012-04-11 01:46:33 AM

9beers: Fista-Phobia: Pure speculation.

Considering that the mob is relying solely on speculations to convict Zimmerman, I figure I'm allowed one.


So you admit to having insufficient evidence to pick a side, and are doing so arbitrarily, ceding the moral high ground for sake of argument. Are you white-knighting for Zimmerman because you simply sense a rush to injustice?
 
2012-04-11 02:23:34 AM
So I guess by your reasoning there is no chance of the two them getting into some sort of disagreement resulting in the death of the kid perhaps by his own undoing if you will?

sseye: "It doesn't farking matter. One of them had a gun and confronted and killed the other one. There is no disagreement that justifies that.

Grow the fark up".


I'm as growed up as one can possibly get & learned enough to know ifn you weren't there to see it yourself you ought not be making assertions you can't factually sustain.
I might make the argument that you are emotionally wrought due to these affairs and unable to mete out an objective opinion due to your hysteria,

This being, you not being a one up and close observer to the happenings that day I avidly support the notion that you stfu until you have an iota of helpful suggestion in this debate you little fukfrrawg,
 
2012-04-11 02:28:01 AM

Amos Quito: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Look, Zimmermang is dead. He died in Tora Bora in 2003.


No, you're thinking of George Zipp.


/Win just one for the Zipper.


Over Macho Grande?
 
2012-04-11 02:32:13 AM

Sabyen91: steamingpile: I think any decent attorney could successfully argue zimmerman would not get a fair trial anywhere in the US.

Sorry, nobody has ever gone free "because they can't get a fair trial".


Not explicitly, but it can and does happen. Jury pools tainted by modern media can and do increase likelihood of mistrial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial#Mistrials

A fun but unrelated case
http://cannabisfantastic.com/2010/12/montana-juror-pool/

Also, Google "unable to find unbiased jury"
Over 6 million results.

Not exactly common, but certainly not the absolute negative that you pretend to have knowledge on.
 
2012-04-11 02:32:51 AM

sseye: 9beers: keithgabryelski: if Martin's reason was that he was legitimately in fear of man following him around with a gun, would that be good enough for you to accept that Martin had cause to attack zimmerman?

Zimmerman's gun was in a holster on the inside of his pants, Martin had no idea he had a gun. He supposedly also told his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run so that tells me he wasn't scared. He didn't dial 911 which tells me he wasn't scared. He didn't run through the complex screaming for help which tells me he wasn't scared. He didn't pound on somebody's door which tells me he wasn't scared. Finally, he didn't run the less than 200 feet home which tells me he wasn't scared. He ran around the corner of a building and then confronted and attacked somebody.

You didn't answer the question. You lose.

/good day s... nah, fark you


You are a little ma....you are a little something.

Short of education would be my first notion.

Plus you are going about trolling at the end of a thread so you fail pretty much on all accounts.
 
2012-04-11 02:37:46 AM

tonguedepressor: end of a thread


Threads stay up for something like 4 days. Many stay active for at least 2.
This thread is like 7 hours old.

Welcome to Fark!
 
2012-04-11 02:39:50 AM

omeganuepsilon: tonguedepressor: end of a thread

Threads stay up for something like 4 days. Many stay active for at least 2.
This thread is like 7 hours old.

Welcome to Fark!


interest wise this thread is dead fred noob.
 
2012-04-11 02:41:56 AM

omeganuepsilon: tonguedepressor: end of a thread

Threads stay up for something like 4 days. Many stay active for at least 2.
This thread is like 7 hours old.

Welcome to Fark!


I was told if it lasts more than 4 hours to seek medical attention.
 
2012-04-11 02:49:25 AM

keithgabryelski: People_are_Idiots: Ender's: In the court of public opinion he's guilty. In a court of law, he isn't even on trial. People need to disassociate their feelings for a couple of minutes to think it over like rational sane people before firing up the torches.

Hehe, tell that to the people that wanna lynch him.

/LA Riots II: Electric Boogaloo?

demanding a trial is a lynching?

You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that black people will riot about this. That seems pretty presumptive -- and pretty shiatty.


Lessee, right now there is no way other than his words that he did something wrong, so the SDA decided not to prosecute. In New York, that's a Tuesday. What's the difference?
People are gonna riot (thanks to the news media) if he isn't tried. Black, White, Purple, Pink with white spots... you yell fire, people run. Simple, and yes stupid.

/wake me when something odd happens.
 
Displayed 50 of 1081 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report