Tom_Slick: [i.imgur.com image 560x446]
Treygreen13: skinink: Oh well. On to the civil suit to sue him for what little he has. I hope at least his gun permit was yanked.How many times can this be brought up and shot down?/probably a lot more//read about the things you post about
Sbdolan: So what is up with people saying they cannot file for civil in florida? any one have a link?
Elegy: MelGoesOnTour: Riots have startedLink?
The Stealth Hippopotamus: I prefer waffles
Amos Quito: johnnyrocket: Simple question: if you claim self defense, you need scant proof that it was self defense?Very scary verdict, seems like open season for shooting people for no reason at all. And getting away with it.[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 446x240]What "no reason at all' might look like.
Supercampion: Thanks a lot ox45tallboy jeez
bigsteve3OOO: IAmTheTagTeamChampions: Skittles-Covered Three-Hoodied Stand Your Gredunzawinner
Tatsuma: skullkrusher: what they're not missing is delicious, delicious baconYeah trust me, bacon is worth giving up over Shabbat. You have no idea what you are missing out on.
Penman: Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.
ontariolightning: @911BUFF: NBC REPORTS ANTI WAR AND ANTI RACISM ACTIVIST GROUPS CALLS FOR EMERGENCY RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO TONIGHT TO PROTEST GEORGE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT
Facetious_Speciest: StreetlightInTheGhettoF--k it, let's talk about stir fry.Honestly, I think it's pretty mediocre, but the wife loves it. Rice noodles, beef, eggs, veggies (carrots, green beans, lima beans, peas, diced potatoes, corn), soy sauce and spices (garlic, pepper). I dice up the beef, cook it up with eggs, then put it together with the noodles and veggies. Soy to taste. Fast, simple, easy.Nothing to riot over.
Altitude5280: I couldn't bring myself to watch Don West's presser. But it sounds like it was horrible. [img.photobucket.com image 800x600]
Amos Quito: What "no reason at all' might look like.
my lip balm addiction: bigsteve3OOO: IAmTheTagTeamChampions: Skittles-Covered Three-Hoodied Stand Your GredunzawinnerIt was a botch in real time - there has to have been a couple of posts deleted since.
iq_in_binary: In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.
Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why are so many of you so CERTAIN Zim randomly decided that night was the night he was going to murder a defenseless black kid? What possible reason do you have to make you believe that?
Tatsuma: Did you just ignore the part where I said racists would have a field day with those tweets?
sjcousins: lantawa: sjcousins: Full Metal Retard: sjcousins: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.According to the man who shot him you mean?As opposed to the fantasy stories made up by the race industry? Yes. Sad to say, but they went by the evidence presented in a court of law.So you accept unquestioningly that Martin started the fight despite the fact that the only evidence comes from the man who shot him, whos freedom relies on claiming self defense, but everything else is 'fantasy' made up by the 'race industry'. Yep, you sound like a reasonable individual sound of mind. What the fark is the race industry anyway?herpa derpa doo?I'm going to assume that's your idea of refutation not imitation and dismiss you as a complete and utter moron.
ChaosStar: Sbdolan: So what is up with people saying they cannot file for civil in florida? any one have a link?Justified self defense means he is immune to civil action stemming from the event.It's in the 776 chapter of Florida law
NorCalLos: I don't mean to incite a riot here, but if I think rioting right now is a pretty rational thing to do.
Somacandra: Prussian_Roulette: Nancy Grace has gone from near-aneurysm to blubbering about how this all should've been "black and white." Good choice of words, Nancy.If Nancy Grace were to die of a massive stroke right there on live TV and shiat her drawers as she spun down and ended on the floor ass-up to the camera, at least SOME good would have come from this.
YouPeopleAreCrazy: Penman: Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.And you know this how?
Heathen: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Waffles!!agreed
LemSkroob: "here comes the civil suit"
YouPeopleAreCrazy: And you know this how?
ontariolightning: @911BUFF: NBC REPORTS ANTI WAR AND ANTI RACISM ACTIVIST GROUPS CALLS FOR EMERGENCY RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO TONIGHT TO PROTEST GEORGE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT.
ChaosStar: Elegy: ChaosStar: Even going out and getting her gun from the car wasn't against the law if it was her place.It technically wasn't her home. Her and her SO had separated, and she was living elsewhere, and she had a restraining order taken out against him. She went over there thinking he wasn't home, and he was.And you can't leave a confrontation, grab a gun, and return with it. That is not "standing your ground" under any definition of the term, or the self-defense laws of any state. The fact that she was able to get away and returned with a firearm, and the fact that the 911 call her SO was on where she could clearly be heard saying "I got something for you" and then shooting.....Like the Zimmerman case, this is not the civil rights case people are looking for.If she was still considered an owner of the property, she had a right to be there.She could also go and get her gun, as it's still her property, and return to collect her things. Doesn't even need a ccp, as it's her property. This isn't leaving a confrontation then returning, it's leaving a confrontation and going back to her original purpose. A new confrontation, legally speaking, would have began once she returned to the house.He came at her, size being taken into account of disparity of force, she could have shot him to protect herself from potential lethal force.She didn't though, she fired a warning shot, that's illegal.Again, this is all assuming she was still an owner of the property or had a legal right to be there. I don't know all the facts in the case so I'm only giving out information on one potential scenario.
Gyrfalcon: iq_in_binary: In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.Well, it wasn't a "ruling" it was a "verdict"; but either way, as in any court of law, the decision hinges on the way the argument was framed. The issue, as I mentioned above, hinged here on when the incident started. If it began when Zimmerman got out of his car, then a case could have been made for following, menacing, the whole thing as you said; but it did not, at least not for the purposes of the jury's verdict. The only thing they were deciding was whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Anything that led up to that is pretty much irrelevant except to excluding 2d degree murder (malice). Once it was established Zimmerman had no specific intent to kill Trayvon Martin, then whether he was following or menacing or whatever would make no difference.That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 20 2017 04:42:36
Runtime: 0.615 sec (614 ms)