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 tries to piss off his judge. Again   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 737
    More: Dumbass, image file, martin case, Seminole County, recusals, NBC News, Dean Martin, legal risk  
•       •       •

21761 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-14 02:47:56 PM  

Tourney3p0: To be fair, things would have gone down entirely differently if it were actually the Rock instead of Zimmerman.

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.


FTFY
 
2012-07-14 02:48:20 PM  

Mrbogey:

Zimmerman followed, shot point blank, and killed a 17 year old child. Not a 12 year old child. This is an extremely important distinction to some people.

Yes, everyone is aware that when you omit facts and context you can make something look bad. A 17yr old is much larger and more threatening than a 12yr old.

Remember when police opened fire on that fellow on bath salts trying to assist that homeless man?


Zimmerman followed, shot point blank, and killed someone who was more threatening than someone else.

You're right. That changes it completely.
 
2012-07-14 02:48:35 PM  

chewielouie: Yes, Zimmerman is a dumbass but the judge has made some comments that would make anyone feel they would not be able to get a fair trial in front of him. The judge's colorful commentary regarding the bond hearing simply wasn't necessary. Some people just can't keep their mouths shut, and even judge's make stupid decisions. He should recuse himself, and if he doesn't, Zimmerman's lawyer will no doubt appeal.


Judge's what?
 
2012-07-14 02:50:56 PM  

cretinbob: Thunderpipes: CliChe Guevara: cretinbob: I think the judge has been quite fair with Zimmerman and is making sure he goes through the process just like everyone else.

That's the point. He has tried to play the system at every turn. He feels he shouldn't have to go through the process like everyone else, and that treating him like a normal person -IS- discriminatory and degrading to him.

Everyone else never would have had charges filed against them, because George did nothing but defend himself against a gangster thug. Then the media stepped in, lied blatantly, President stepped in, every other racist liberal in the country.

See if you like it when some black dude is railroaded for something he clearly did not do....

You guys are really sick. Hitler could have used you guys.

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

You're doing it right.
Any person who kills another in that manner should be arrested, charged, and have their day in court in front of a jury. If they aren't guilty, then they walk.

I do like how the Zimmerman supporters keep clinging to debunked evidence and myths.


1. The U.S. legal system doesn't work that way. You don't get put on trial when there is no evidence that you've committed a crime. The prosecution has already admitted that they don't know who started the fight...the entire case relies on that fact and they can't refute Zimmerman's account of what happened.
2. Please cite some debunked evidence and myths.
 
2012-07-14 02:51:01 PM  

Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

 
2012-07-14 02:53:06 PM  

gimmegimme: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Which is why he deserved to get shot.

He deserved to get shot because he was punching someone in the face that he had pinned to the ground.


Hey, genius. Isn't this basically your justification for Martin killing Zimmerman? He deserved to get his brains bashed in because he started a physical altercation with someone he tried to pin to the ground.

//Stand Your Ground works both ways, duder.


I have to admit, you are amazing at this. You've had me going for quite awhile.

11/10!
 
2012-07-14 02:53:16 PM  

Mrbogey: cretinbob: I do like how the Zimmerman supporters keep clinging to debunked evidence and myths.

Again. Citation needed.

Lots of claims of debunking and evidence but none presented.


I'm still waiting for proof that Facebook screencap is legit but I guess I shouldn't hold my breath huh?
 
2012-07-14 02:54:12 PM  

gimmegimme: Benjimin_Dover: I never said I cared one way or the other what either of these guys were doing that night. Reading comprehension failure is fail. The current point of discussion (if you read the bit the you even quoted) is not the shooting. In fact, when I go back and read it, I find nothing at all about the shooting. The point being discussed and specifically addressed is that a person bought some but not all the ingredients of some concoction that I have never heard of before. So to answer your question (as incompetent or misleading as it is): it has nothing to do with the shooting. It has to do with the discussion clearly racist justification for the shooting.

FTFY


That very well may be. I don't really know one way or the other. I don't know either of these people. I suspect that neither do you or anybody else in this thread. I will say that I am conflicted as I have dated a Hispanic and served with dozens of Hispanics in the Army. I have witnessed the depth of the bigotry that they are capable of. At the same time the leaders of minority communities tell us that minorities are incapable of racism. So which to believe...

But that all gets away from what was being talked about which was why somebody would not buy all the ingredients to some drink at the same location. That somebody doesn't have to be Martin.

I commend you on your attempt to divert me off point. Nice try. I don't hold it against you.
 
2012-07-14 02:55:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus:

[frommetoworld.files.wordpress.com image 295x468]

[chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com image 475x356]

How do you explain the striking similarities between Zimmerman and The Rock?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 338x407]


The Black Panthers came to Sanford

www.trbimg.com

Because of their sons had been shot. Sanford and Son was a TV show

www.insidesocal.com

In which Redd Foxx would feign heart attacks and call for his wife Elizabeth

www.royal.gov.uk

Also the name of the current British Queen

www.inthestudio.net

Queen. The rock band. Had a song: "Another One Bites the Dust."

I can see it now. This has been in the planning for so long.
 
2012-07-14 02:55:19 PM  

Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.


SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.
 
2012-07-14 02:56:25 PM  

Mrbogey: Why delete it? I know several people who've died and their accounts are still there.


Did they die of boredom or resignation?
 
2012-07-14 02:58:27 PM  

Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.


Does SYG mean you can kill someone you're looking at?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-14 02:58:48 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: gimmegimme: Benjimin_Dover: I never said I cared one way or the other what either of these guys were doing that night. Reading comprehension failure is fail. The current point of discussion (if you read the bit the you even quoted) is not the shooting. In fact, when I go back and read it, I find nothing at all about the shooting. The point being discussed and specifically addressed is that a person bought some but not all the ingredients of some concoction that I have never heard of before. So to answer your question (as incompetent or misleading as it is): it has nothing to do with the shooting. It has to do with the discussion clearly racist justification for the shooting.

FTFY

That very well may be. I don't really know one way or the other. I don't know either of these people. I suspect that neither do you or anybody else in this thread. I will say that I am conflicted as I have dated a Hispanic and served with dozens of Hispanics in the Army. I have witnessed the depth of the bigotry that they are capable of. At the same time the leaders of minority communities tell us that minorities are incapable of racism. So which to believe...

But that all gets away from what was being talked about which was why somebody would not buy all the ingredients to some drink at the same location. That somebody doesn't have to be Martin.

I commend you on your attempt to divert me off point. Nice try. I don't hold it against you.


This is a really hard example...so be careful in following along.

I was making a cake one day. I looked in the kitchen and had all of the ingredients except for butter and eggs. I went to the store and bought butter and eggs, and when I got home I combined them with my other ingredients and baked a cake. You may ask, how in the world did you bake that cake when you didn't buy all of the ingredients at the same time and at the same location, I would say to you, it is the magic of cabinets and leftover items from previous usage.
 
2012-07-14 02:58:51 PM  

Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.


It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.
 
2012-07-14 03:00:58 PM  

Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.


Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.
 
2012-07-14 03:04:07 PM  

gimmegimme: He deserved to get his brains bashed in because he started a physical altercation with someone he tried to pin to the ground.


No injuries were found on Martin. Your assertion that Zimmerman started the fight is absurd as Martin is the one who came back to confront Zimmerman.

Mrtraveler01: I'm still waiting for proof that Facebook screencap is legit but I guess I shouldn't hold my breath huh?


I stated that it may not be legit. There's no evidence either way. But there's been no debunking of it either despite the ease. Ergo I should review it suspiciously but not discount it.
 
2012-07-14 03:04:16 PM  

Silly Jesus:

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.


So why misrepresent? You clearly know that he was being followed. A guy with a gun in an SUV followed a kid around on his way back from the store. The kid then entered an area that couldn't be followed in the SUV, be it on purpose or otherwise, and the guy with the gun got out and continued the pursuit. And you describe this as "looking at". You're dishonest and you know it.
 
2012-07-14 03:04:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.


Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."
 
2012-07-14 03:04:30 PM  

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

Does SYG mean you can kill someone you're looking at?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x165]


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-07-14 03:05:18 PM  
I've said it before: Subtract the gun from the equation, and you would have two guys who were immediately arrested and jailed, followed by both of them facing charges of aggravated assault. If anything is outrageous about this case, it's the fact that a dead body almost made the case a non-issue before the press and public picked up on it.
 
2012-07-14 03:05:51 PM  

Mrbogey: gimmegimme: He deserved to get his brains bashed in because he started a physical altercation with someone he tried to pin to the ground.

No injuries were found on Martin. Your assertion that Zimmerman started the fight is absurd as Martin is the one who came back to confront Zimmerman.


Are you aware that Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range"? Does that count as an injury?
 
2012-07-14 03:06:17 PM  

gimmegimme: Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."


So the legal resource to "I'm not touching you" is assault.
 
2012-07-14 03:07:01 PM  

Mrbogey: I stated that it may not be legit. There's no evidence either way. But there's been no debunking of it either despite the ease. Ergo I should review it suspiciously but not discount it.


What kind of logic is that.

If you don't have proof of something, then obviously there's no need to believe it.

So in this case, unless you have proof that this is more than a photoshop from a white supremecist blog, then there's no reason for me to believe it.
 
2012-07-14 03:07:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

Does SYG mean you can kill someone you're looking at?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x165]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 496x368]


Is that a yes?

collider.com
 
2012-07-14 03:10:19 PM  

Mrbogey: gimmegimme: Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."

So the legal resource to "I'm not touching you" is assault.


I'm agreeing with you. In fact, this very night, I'm going to wait until someone passes my house and then I'm going to follow them in my car. If they go to a place where I can't drive, I am going to get out of my car and follow them on foot. The person won't feel threatened at all. If they do, that's their problem. I just declared myself a neighborhood watch Kommandant with all of the powers of the position.
 
2012-07-14 03:10:27 PM  

gimmegimme: Are you aware that Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range"? Does that count as an injury?


That's from after Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Stop trying to be obtuse. There were no injuries found on Martin consistent with Zimmerman assaulting him, trying to pin him, or anything of that sort. There were no grass stains on Martins clothes. There was no bruising to his face. Nothing. Nothing supports your assertion that Zimmerman asdsaulted Martin.

thamike: I've said it before: Subtract the gun from the equation, and you would have two guys who were immediately arrested and jailed, followed by both of them facing charges of aggravated assault. If anything is outrageous about this case, it's the fact that a dead body almost made the case a non-issue before the press and public picked up on it.


Actually, in all likelihood, they'd both be detained. Statements taken and then released. Martin would likely be brought back in on assault charges and Zimmerman would be walking the street telling people about the time he got assaulted in his neighborhood for following a suspicious kid.
 
2012-07-14 03:13:03 PM  

Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.

So why misrepresent? You clearly know that he was being followed. A guy with a gun in an SUV followed a kid around on his way back from the store. The kid then entered an area that couldn't be followed in the SUV, be it on purpose or otherwise, and the guy with the gun got out and continued the pursuit. And you describe this as "looking at". You're dishonest and you know it.


Repeatedly mentioning the presence of the gun is disingenuous, and you know it. If he had it out and pointed at Martin, that's one thing, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever. You are implying, by saying it repeatedly, that anyone who carries a concealed weapon is inherently a danger to everyone yadda yadda yadda. It weakens your entire argument. Also, your repeated use of the word "pursuit" implies that he was attempting to catch Martin, which there is no evidence of. Words have meanings. You are dishonest and you know it.

There is no indication, whatsoever, that Zimmerman intended to do anything other than observe Martin from a distance. He was on the phone with 911 the whole time...he knew the police were on the way...and there is no indication that he attempted to close the distance between he and Martin or to make physical contact with him. Both men were in a public place and one was following and viewing the other from a distance and relaying that information to the police. Those actions do not at all approach anything that would justify a beating...much less a beating of the severity of the one that occurred. Furthermore, all evidence and logic point to Martin initiating the contact (if he'd continued running he would have easily been home...he either circled back or was hiding and came out to confront Zimmerman)...the prosecution has admitted that there is no evidence indicating that Martin did not initiate the physical contact and the physical evidence (lack of any signs of Martin being punched / beaten etc.) backs up Zimmerman's story that he was attacked.
 
2012-07-14 03:13:15 PM  

gimmegimme: If they do, that's their problem. I just declared myself a neighborhood watch Kommandant with all of the powers of the position.


Odds are they'll call the cops on you for following them. Not double back and assault you. The cops would then take a statement and advise you to leave before they find some reason to get you and then advise the followee to seek a restraint order.

You do realize police don't arrest people because they're following you in public places, right? You actually need to build a case of harassment and get a judicial order against them.
 
2012-07-14 03:13:16 PM  

Mrbogey: gimmegimme: Are you aware that Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range"? Does that count as an injury?

That's from after Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Stop trying to be obtuse. There were no injuries found on Martin consistent with Zimmerman assaulting him, trying to pin him, or anything of that sort. There were no grass stains on Martins clothes. There was no bruising to his face. Nothing. Nothing supports your assertion that Zimmerman asdsaulted Martin.


I'm planning on starting a barfight after I stalk my prey. I'm going to find the biggest guy in the biker bar and tell him that I just kicked over his Harley. How much injury must I sustain before I am allowed to shoot him in the chest from intermediate range?
 
2012-07-14 03:14:26 PM  

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.

Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."


And then the kid that had the finger in his face tried to kill the pointer because SYG.

amidoinitright?
 
2012-07-14 03:14:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.


You must be taking Viagra. It's the only way you could fark that chicken so long and hard. Yet, you know for a fact:

Silly Jesus: The prosecution has already admitted that they don't know who started the fight


...that there is no proof who started the fight. You do not know why Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass. Zimmerman may very well have assaulted Martin first, and you know it. Please stop with the "you can assault someone for watching you from a distance". It would be pretty damn hard to assault someone from a distance. They came together at some point.
 
2012-07-14 03:14:35 PM  

Mrbogey: gimmegimme: If they do, that's their problem. I just declared myself a neighborhood watch Kommandant with all of the powers of the position.

Odds are they'll call the cops on you for following them. Not double back and assault you. The cops would then take a statement and advise you to leave before they find some reason to get you and then advise the followee to seek a restraint order.

You do realize police don't arrest people because they're following you in public places, right? You actually need to build a case of harassment and get a judicial order against them.


What if I ignore the officials who tell me to fark off and keep following the person? What do I deserve in that case?
 
2012-07-14 03:15:18 PM  

gimmegimme: Mrbogey: gimmegimme: Are you aware that Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range"? Does that count as an injury?

That's from after Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Stop trying to be obtuse. There were no injuries found on Martin consistent with Zimmerman assaulting him, trying to pin him, or anything of that sort. There were no grass stains on Martins clothes. There was no bruising to his face. Nothing. Nothing supports your assertion that Zimmerman asdsaulted Martin.

I'm planning on starting a barfight after I stalk my prey. I'm going to find the biggest guy in the biker bar and tell him that I just kicked over his Harley. How much injury must I sustain before I am allowed to shoot him in the chest from intermediate range?


There's just something wrong with you.
 
2012-07-14 03:16:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.

Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."

And then the kid that had the finger in his face tried to kill the pointer because SYG.

amidoinitright?


If you're in Florida, that's perfectly legal so long as you feel threatened, apparently.
 
2012-07-14 03:17:03 PM  

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

Does SYG mean you can kill someone you're looking at?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x165]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 496x368]

Is that a yes?

[collider.com image 339x344]

 
2012-07-14 03:17:52 PM  

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.

Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."

And then the kid that had the finger in his face tried to kill the pointer because SYG.

amidoinitright?

If you're in Florida, that's perfectly legal so long as you feel threatened, apparently.


Apparently you severely misunderstand the law.

The fear for your life has to be REASONABLE.
 
2012-07-14 03:17:59 PM  

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

Does SYG mean you can kill someone you're looking at?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x165]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 496x368]

Is that a yes?

[collider.com image 339x344]


That's the smartest thing you've said in this whole thread.
 
2012-07-14 03:18:12 PM  

NightOwl2255: Zimmerman may very well have assaulted Martin first, and you know it.


Injuries typical of being assaulted were only found on Zimmerman.

What's the argument going to be? Zimmerman convinced Martin to stop running and come out? That he then taunted him by placing his finger an inch from his face and said "I'm not touching you"??
 
2012-07-14 03:23:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.

Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."

And then the kid that had the finger in his face tried to kill the pointer because SYG.

amidoinitright?

If you're in Florida, that's perfectly legal so long as you feel threatened, apparently.

Apparently you severely misunderstand the law.

The fear for your life has to be REASONABLE.


Like, say, if the person stalking and confronting you has a gun and you do not?
 
2012-07-14 03:24:16 PM  

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

You must be taking Viagra. It's the only way you could fark that chicken so long and hard. Yet, you know for a fact:
Silly Jesus: The prosecution has already admitted that they don't know who started the fight

...that there is no proof who started the fight. You do not know why Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass. Zimmerman may very well have assaulted Martin first, and you know it. Please stop with the "you can assault someone for watching you from a distance". It would be pretty damn hard to assault someone from a distance. They came together at some point.


1. So Martin could have been assaulted first by Zimmerman and yet there are no bruises or abrasions or grass stains or black eyes or cuts or scrapes on Martin. Brilliant. Please do expand on this theory of yours...just how did Zimmerman assault Martin to the extent that he feared for his life (necessary to justify the injuries he inflicted on Zimmerman) while at the same time not leaving a single mark on him?
2. All evidence indicates that Martin came back to Zimmerman.
 
2012-07-14 03:26:32 PM  

LordJiro: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus:
SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

It sure doesn't. It could possibly mean you can fight back against someone who is following you in the middle of the night, though. Big difference between "looking at" and "following". They were well away from the SUV during the shooting, which you should know. He was definitely followed. If you disagree, I am sorry. You are wrong.

There are lots of unknowns in this case. We can speculate, and we can argue, but we'll likely never know these things. This is not one of them. If you're not familiar with these facts, you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

Yes, you can fight back against someone who attacks you...there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the prosecution has admitted as much in open court and under oath.

Darn right. It's like when you were a kid and you pointed your index finger in someone's face and said, "I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you...."

And then the kid that had the finger in his face tried to kill the pointer because SYG.

amidoinitright?

If you're in Florida, that's perfectly legal so long as you feel threatened, apparently.

Apparently you severely misunderstand the law.

The fear for your life has to be REASONABLE.

Like, say, if the person stalking and confronting you has a gun and you do not?


1. It wasn't stalking.
2. No evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin...all evidence actually points in the other direction.
3. No evidence that Martin was aware of the gun at any point before the altercation.
 
2012-07-14 03:27:07 PM  

cryinoutloud: If Zimmer-farking-dumbass hadn't gotten out of his car that night, Martin wouldn't have died. That's the bottom line, and the rest of it is just details.


also waaaaay too much information has been given out already. There should have been a gag order slapped on at the beginning of this.
 
2012-07-14 03:27:54 PM  

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: Tourney3p0: Silly Jesus: .

There would be no need to exit the SUV, cross the road, enter a residential pedestrian area, find an unarmed child, who is committing a violent felony by attempting to kill you for looking at him standing his ground and shoot him in the chest. Martin would have simply smelled what the Rock was cooking and naturally gone to the SUV on his own. Just like that, a self defense claim that isn't laughable.

SYG doesn't mean you can kill someone for looking at you.

Does SYG mean you can kill someone you're looking at?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x165]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 496x368]

Is that a yes?

[collider.com image 339x344]

That's the smartest thing you've said in this whole thread.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-14 03:30:56 PM  

DancingElkCondor: Kevin72: Dancingelkcondor, you were making so much sense up until the last paragraph. Next time consider separating the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde into two separate posts so your hate for liberals doesn't besmirch your otherwise intelligent and informative posting.

No apologies for the last line. With all the evidence released the past few days....you have to be a retard to still believe Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down Trayvon Martin. And, yes, pretty much, the only people still supporting Trayvon are Black Racists and White Guilt Liberals

And, Fox News is just as pro Trayvon propaganda than the rest of them....so it is not so much a left-right thing. Also, you have a GOP governor and a GOP Florida atty general pushing the case. I do not want to see an innocent man lynched by a bunch of liars, regardless

And, yes, this judge will be removed. His choice will be: A. On His Own OR B. By law enforcement when he disobeys a higher court order.


The more I see about this, the more it looks like Zimmerman is being Nifonged, except in Zimmerman's case there are a lot more people involved in doing it.
 
2012-07-14 03:33:00 PM  

cryinoutloud: If Zimmer-farking-dumbass hadn't gotten out of his car that night, Martin wouldn't have died. That's the bottom line, and the rest of it is just details.


And if a woman hadn't dressed so provocatively and walked down the street, she'd never have been raped. Quality thinking there.
 
2012-07-14 03:34:43 PM  
I want a new judge
One that does what he should...

{something, something, something to the tune of I Want a New Drug...}
 
2012-07-14 03:35:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: 2. All evidence indicates that Martin came back to Zimmerman.


Actually, compelling evidence of who confronted whom hasn't been found. It's inconclusive, according to the legal parties involved. What the evidence may or may not indicate to you or me is meaningless.
 
2012-07-14 03:38:17 PM  

DancingElkCondor: With the FBI determining that Zimmerman is not a racist...and that black officers were pressuring the Sanford PD investigator to drum up charges....this case has turned 360 in favor of Zimmerman


Really, do I need to tell you what a 360 is?
 
2012-07-14 03:39:39 PM  

thamike: Silly Jesus: 2. All evidence indicates that Martin came back to Zimmerman.

Actually, compelling evidence of who confronted whom hasn't been found. It's inconclusive, according to the legal parties involved. What the evidence may or may not indicate to you or me is meaningless.


They don't know who threw the first punch...however, it's pretty easy to figure out that Zimmerman wasn't the one that closed the distance between the two.

Martin, a fit, high school athlete, took off running around the corner of the building. Zimmerman lost sight of him and ran/jogged to the corner of the building to attempt to regain sight of Martin. If Martin had continued to run to his apartment, which he could have easily reached, they never would have come into contact that night. Zimmerman stayed in the general area of that corner of the building. This is uncontested, from what I've seen. That means that either Martin was hiding in that general vicinity and at some point came out of hiding, or that he circled around the building and came back.
 
2012-07-14 03:40:18 PM  

jjorsett: cryinoutloud: If Zimmer-farking-dumbass hadn't gotten out of his car that night, Martin wouldn't have died. That's the bottom line, and the rest of it is just details.

And if a woman hadn't dressed so provocatively and walked down the street, she'd never have been raped. Quality thinking there.


Did you just compare a murder suspect to a rape victim?
 
Displayed 50 of 737 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | 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