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.

(USA Today)   The audio "expert" who claims it was Trayvon and not Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 tape will not be allowed to testify at trial   (usatoday.com) divider line 687
    More: Obvious, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, the weekend, jury, screaming  
•       •       •

6082 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2013 at 7:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 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 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-22 11:10:59 PM

whatshisname: Oh_Enough_Already: whatshisname: I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.

Maybe, and his Thug Life course trajectory would have inevitably seen him getting killed days or weeks or months later and not one single fark would have been given by you or anybody else.

Why does anybody care now?

Oh, that's right, we can magically whiten up the Hispanic guy and "Blame Whitey" for this because not one single black person has ever been killed by another black person in the whole entire history of black people, right?

You've just made a great argument as to why everyone should care about this case.


The only thing fueling any interest in this case is the fact that it's a pleasant distraction from the incurable dysfunction destroying the black community and any whites that have the misfortune if getting exposed to it.

Man bites dog instead of dog bites man.

Nobody loves it more than the mainstream media as it allows them a nice bit of sleight-of-hand to prop up their absurd narrative about "racist whites" (even if the white guy really isn't) when, in fact, the number of violent crimes committed by whites against blacks is less than 12% of inter-racial crime, black on white crime accounting for the remaining 85%.

But shhh! Don't mention that! That would be racist!!!
 
2013-06-22 11:14:29 PM
Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.
 
2013-06-22 11:14:51 PM

Popcorn Johnny: He's a 17 year old with a history and currently serving a suspension from school. His ass should have been sitting in his room staring at the walls.


Now there's a well-reasoned opinion, sticking to the facts of the incident!
 
2013-06-22 11:17:36 PM

jaytkay: The_Six_Fingered_Man: marijuana

"Black people smoke marijuana. Case closed, not guilty!"

Thanks, Mr. Legal Expert!


I have no idea what this means, so I'll just say *plonk* and thank my stars that I don't have to read your inane drivel any longer.
 
2013-06-22 11:18:35 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


See, this is how ignorant one side is.
 
2013-06-22 11:19:29 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.
 
2013-06-22 11:21:02 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground in a flurry of blows and Martin comes out on top, sitting astride Zim repeatedly punching him in the face, his head hitting the pavement with every blow. Zimmerman's life is now in danger and he cannot escape by reasonable means. He can now legally use deadly force.
To add on, according to his testimony Zimmerman said Martin saw his ccw, presumably still holstered, and went for it. Zimmerman now has reasonable fear for his life, as his weapon can be taken and used on him. He draws before Martin can get to it and fires. Legal self defense under Florida law.
 
2013-06-22 11:22:10 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.


It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.
 
2013-06-22 11:22:39 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.
 
2013-06-22 11:24:37 PM

ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.

It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.


I just meant in general.
 
2013-06-22 11:25:17 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.

It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.

I just meant in general.


Ah ok, my apologies.
 
2013-06-22 11:25:51 PM
Chaos Star
He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground


I think you skipped the part of the story that leads up to "Zim punches Martin"

This case will pivot on the "how did that proximity happen"
 
2013-06-22 11:26:05 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

Friend, a random citizen took it upon himself to follow a kid around in armed pursuit in a vehicle and then on foot.  The target didn't know if he was going to be raped or kidnapped or stabbed or shot in the chest from a few inches away.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

no, i wouldnt be wearing a goddamn hoody slinking through a rich neighbourhood at night IN THE SUMMER. that spells disaster, always has, always will.


Moral of the story is...

Next time you go walking through a rich neighborhood; don't dress up like a gunshot victim.

Good thing he wasn't wearing a slutty red dress.
 
2013-06-22 11:26:05 PM
Somebody certainly got told.
 
2013-06-22 11:27:42 PM

ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.

It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.

I just meant in general.

Ah ok, my apologies.


It's all good man, I appreciate the clarification anyway.
 
2013-06-22 11:27:45 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.



http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.ht ml776.041Use of force by aggressor.-
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:


(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.


Obviously the testimony is one-sided since there is only one witness who was there the entire time, but given the injuries and that some witnesses and forensics support (gun shot wound) that Martin was on top of Zimmerman it would seem an arguably proper use of the law.
 
2013-06-22 11:28:55 PM

parasol: Chaos Star
He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground

I think you skipped the part of the story that leads up to "Zim punches Martin"

This case will pivot on the "how did that proximity happen"


I think you skipped past the word "example" in my post friend.
It was a hypothetical scenario to prove that even if Zim did attack Martin the lethal force could be justified.
 
2013-06-22 11:30:17 PM

parasol: Chaos Star
He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground

I think you skipped the part of the story that leads up to "Zim punches Martin"

This case will pivot on the "how did that proximity happen"


Eh not so much.

Check out the Greyston Garcia case:  http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133
 
2013-06-22 11:30:30 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.


Re: This.

Every state I've lived in has a "you can start a fight, but if you back away and the other guy keeps after you, he's the aggressor" law.

It isn't bad law, it isn't odd law, it just recognizes bad decisions get made, and trying to rectify it doesn't always work.
 
2013-06-22 11:30:41 PM
Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?
 
2013-06-22 11:31:27 PM

jaytkay: Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?


Your vivid imagination?
 
2013-06-22 11:32:18 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: jaytkay: Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?

Your vivid imagination?


I like you
 
2013-06-22 11:33:30 PM

jaytkay: Can we all just laugh and point at the gun wankers who will be "armed 24/7", anticipating a race war when the trial is over?

LOL

"I got my CCW and I'm gonna be PACKIN!!!"

While they waddle around.

In the Walmart parking lot.

In some all-white suburb.


Gonna be almost as awesome as the "Kill whitey" crowd burning down black neighborhoods. *

*please note, I don't actually believe this happens, but I felt the need to do a color swap to point out the idiocy of the above statement.
 
2013-06-22 11:37:00 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.


So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.
 
2013-06-22 11:39:33 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

Friend, a random citizen took it upon himself to follow a kid around in armed pursuit in a vehicle and then on foot.  The target didn't know if he was going to be raped or kidnapped or stabbed or shot in the chest from a few inches away.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.


That's not what happened at all. Do you even look at the evidence? Trayvon doubled back to teach this white guy a lesson. Normal Timmy tough nuts attitude that gets guys killed everyday.
 
2013-06-22 11:41:38 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: fredklein: If he was so terrifies of Trayvon, why was he following him? Why not just stay in his car, or not even follow Trayvon at all??

There is no evidence that he continued to follow Martin after being advised that the dispatcher did not need him to do that


So, Zimmerman's fear only started once he was advised that the dispatcher did not need him to follow Trayvon?

Zimmerman
"Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] "

The conversation that you point to is because he does not know where around the clubhouse he will be, whether at his truck or by the mailboxes.


... or whether he'll be near the clubhouse at all.

There's a world of difference between 'I don't know if I'll be here or there' and 'have them call when they arrive [because I have no idea at all where I'll be then]'

So you are saying that Zimmerman wanted to get into a potentially lethal confrontation (knowing he was carrying a firearm) with the full knowledge that the police were not only on their way, but knew his name and phone number and were on their way to meet him?

No, I'm saying he wanted to confront one of 'these assholes' who 'always get away', and deliberately did not tell the cops where he'd be because he was still following Trayvon.

Is this part of a somewhat prevalent conspiracy theory that Zimmerman called the police in order to give himself an alibi in order to shoot Martin in cold blood?

I don't think that's true at all. At most, I think he decided to be vague about his location 'just in case' something happened. Maybe he hoped to detain Trayvon, and be a hero when the cops arrived. Who knows?

The fact that Zimmerman was involved in an altercation has no bearing on whether or not he wanted police to handle the situation.

Yes it does. If I want YOU to do a job, I DON'T DO IT FOR YOU. If he wanted the POLICE to follow and catch Trayvon, HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF. It's quite obvious he Wanted to catch Trayvon. He followed him, by vehicle and on foot. He made sure the police didn't know where he was. He didn't listen when the police dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", because he wasn't doing what he "needed" to do, he was doing what he WANTED to do- following Trayvon. Now, why would he want to follow one of "these assholes" who "always get away"? Perhaps to make sure this one ...didn't get away?

It could be that Martin was the First Aggressor and therefore the choice to confront was not in Zimmerman's hands. But again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher told him that they did not need him to.

As I said before, there is one theory that fits everything, including Zimmerman's (highly questionable, considering the source) statement that he turned around at that point to return to his truck. And that theory is that Trayvon had hidden (so as not to lead the crazy armed guy following him right to his doorstep). Zimmerman passed him, then turned back at that point to return to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy armed guy suddenly turn around and head back toward him, assumes the worst- he's been discovered! So he jumps out and confronts Zimmerman. The rest plays out pretty much as it has been pieced together- Trayvon, fearing for his life, tries to take the gun. Failing that, he tries to knock Zimmerman unconscious. (Those being the only 2 ways to be safe from an attacker with a gun- take the gun, or make it so they cannot pull the trigger. Running only works of they can't shoot you in the back before you find cover.) Zimmerman, now fearing for his life, kills Trayvon.
 
2013-06-22 11:42:00 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: jaytkay: Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?

Your vivid imagination?


Did you vote for Obama?
 
2013-06-22 11:42:21 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conjecture that Martin was the aggressor, seeing as how Zim was the one on a lengthy armed pursuit (that seems pretty aggressive to me!), but I can at least hold the ideas you're saying in my head.

This is intelligence: being able to hold conflicting ideas in one's head.

We don't know who started the fight, I've said that many times in these threads. You keep saying "armed pursuit" and that's not what happened. Zimmerman was never perusing Martin, he briefly followed him around a corner. You seem to want to make it out as if Zimmerman was running through the neighborhood, gun drawn, in pursuit of Trayvon. The reality is that he ran for less than 10 seconds after exiting his vehicle when Trayvon took off running and disappeared around the side of one of the buildings. After that, there's no evidence that Zimmerman regained sight of Trayvon and followed, or chased after him.


Do yourself a favor. Open google.com and search "define:pursuit". You might learn something.
 
2013-06-22 11:42:44 PM
When Team Trayvon can't convince anybody based on wild speculation, they bring out their ace in the hole, "you're racist".
 
2013-06-22 11:43:02 PM

Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.


You're ignoring the reasonable escape part (like everyone else)
You're ignoring the about to die or great bodily harm part (like everyone else)
 
2013-06-22 11:44:13 PM
img.fark.net
Um, no. "Everyday" means "ordinary". "Every day" means "daily.
 
2013-06-22 11:47:59 PM

ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.



So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.
 
2013-06-22 11:50:14 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?
 
2013-06-22 11:51:36 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: 776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.


ONLY IF you have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger".

Did Zimmerman say "I give up"?

Or, how about not putting oneself into such a position to begin with? I'd say that's a very reasonable way to escape danger- not get into dangerous situations to begin with. Gee, if only Zimmerman had done that....
 
2013-06-22 11:52:34 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


In your scenario? Yes, if you stop after the single punch.
You are in fear for your life as he has now drawn his weapon without just cause.
 
2013-06-22 11:53:02 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme:
As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.


I enjoy them because I get to add a bunch of racists to my ignore list.
 
2013-06-22 11:53:56 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


In some state, I haven't followed up on it, they may have even made it legal to shoot a cop in self defense in certain situations by now.
 
2013-06-22 11:54:23 PM

Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.


This!No duty to retreat isn't the same as no duty to not start shiat. These idoits are claiming I can go around punching random people in the face, and if one of them starts beating my ass I can just shoot them.And I'm guessing that Zimmerman had PLENTY of opportunites to avoid a conflict.
 
2013-06-22 11:55:07 PM

Forecaster18: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme:
As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I enjoy them because I get to add a bunch of racists to my ignore list.


You are SO BRAVE.
 
2013-06-22 11:55:14 PM

Thingster: Every state I've lived in has a "you can start a fight, but if you back away and the other guy keeps after you, he's the aggressor" law.


So, I can slap you, then quickly step back. And if you hit me back, you are the aggressor.
Cool. So, I step forward and punch you, and quickly step back, and if you hit me back, you are the aggressor.
I step forward and shoot you, and quickly step back, and if you shoot me back, you are the aggressor.

Does this make any sense?
 
2013-06-22 11:56:11 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


You are saying that you do not agree with a law that permits you to use force that is equal to the force that is being used against you. You would prefer to be shot and killed for simply punching someone in the face rather than have the ability to meet force with equal force.
 
2013-06-22 11:56:54 PM

Shaddup: Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.

This!No duty to retreat isn't the same as no duty to not start shiat. These idoits are claiming I can go around punching random people in the face, and if one of them starts ...


Your reading comprehension skill really needs some buffing.
No duty to retreat is part of the stand your ground law, this is not about the stand your ground law.
It's even in the post that you replied to, yet you can't read it and comprehend.
 
2013-06-22 11:57:39 PM

Forecaster18: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme:
As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I enjoy them because I get to add a bunch of racists to my ignore list.


Let me guess, you either think Zimmerman is a murderer or you're racist, right?
 
2013-06-22 11:57:46 PM

bugontherug: Here, there is a mountain of indirect evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman's anger, desire to confront, belief in Trayvon's criminality, and possession of a lethal weapon are all but indisputable. Just as are Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation


You mean like Trayvon telling his girlfriend that he was not going to avoid confrontation?  Yeah, real indisputable....

Well, I suppose his girlfriend could be lying about it.. so it is (allegedly) telling her that.
 
2013-06-22 11:58:18 PM

Shaddup: Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.

This!No duty to retreat isn't the same as no duty to not start shiat. These idoits are claiming I can go around punching random people in the face, and if one of them starts beating my ass I can just shoot them.And I'm guessing that Zimmerman had PLENTY of opportunites to avoid a conflict.


Well no, nobody did.
 
2013-06-22 11:59:47 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?


Should I NOT have to consider or deal with the consequences of my actions?

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losing, what is my disincentive to start fights? I'll either win, or... win.

If I start a fight and CANNOT simply kill the other guy when I start losing... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.
 
2013-06-23 12:01:07 AM

ChaosStar: Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.

You're ignoring the reasonable escape part (like everyone else)
You're ignoring the about to die or great bodily harm part (like everyone else)



This. Again.
 
2013-06-23 12:01:26 AM

fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?

Should I NOT have to consider or deal with the consequences of my actions?

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losing, what is my disincentive to start fights? I'll either win, or... win.

If I start a fight and CANNOT simply kill the other guy when I start losing... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.


That's not exactly how it goes. While flawed, the law was obviously written so a person couldn't kill somebody for shoving them.
 
2013-06-23 12:02:13 AM

fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?

Should I NOT have to consider or deal with the consequences of my actions?

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losing, what is my disincentive to start fights? I'll either win, or... win.

If I start a fight and CANNOT simply kill the other guy when I start losing... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.


Except that's not the scenario you brought up. Stop trying to move the target and be consistent.
You said when the other person draws their gun, not when you start losing the fight, there's a big difference.
I know, you're still not going to understand and I really can't break it down to Sesame Street level explanation without puppets.
 
2013-06-23 12:02:42 AM

fredklein: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

ONLY IF you have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger".


You are forgetting that at the moment that Zimmerman would have been in fear of death or great bodily harm, it is alleged that Martin was on top of him, slamming his head into the pavement. What reasonable measure of escape was there available to Zimmerman other than the use of force that he believed was equal in nature to the force being applied to him?

Did Zimmerman say "I give up"?

If it was in fact his voice on the tape saying "stop," then he satisfies 2(b) of that statute: (b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Or, how about not putting oneself into such a position to begin with? I'd say that's a very reasonable way to escape danger- not get into dangerous situations to begin with. Gee, if only Zimmerman had done that....


There is no indication that Zimmerman put himself in any position to warrant deadly force being used against him. There is every indication that he had lost sight of Martin at the time that he hung up the phone with the police dispatcher. He was asked by the dispatcher to relay information about Martin, information that required that he exit his vehicle to provide. For everyone clamoring about Zimmerman not listening to the dispatcher, they conveniently forget that he was doing as he was asked and there is no indication that he continued to pursue Martin after being advised that the police did not need him to do that.
 
Displayed 50 of 687 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report