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.

(CBS News) NewsFlash Zimmerman found not guilty, let's talk about pancakes   (cbsnews.com) divider line 2644
    More: NewsFlash, Mark O'Mara, florida, neighborhood watch, Skittles, teen Trayvon, concrete masonry unit, verdicts, Rionda  
•       •       •

13053 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2013 at 10:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

2644 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | » | Last
 
2013-07-14 04:00:52 AM  

Southern100: though, the Federal Govt. could possibly charge him with a federal "hate crime".  They'd have one hell of a time proving it though.


They could, yeah. Wouldn't be an appeal, though.
 
2013-07-14 04:01:27 AM  

s2s2s2: EbolaNYC: Boojum2k: EbolaNYC: Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have faced charges for murder 2 and been convicted, as there is no right to beatdown and kill someone for looking at you. And we'd never have heard of it, as it would have been a strictly local story.

Silly rabbit. History is written by the victorious. There were no witnesses remember?

When the police arrived to find a completely injury free Martin, there wouldn't need to be(but just so you know, there were).


Would not the police have found injuries to Mr. Martin's knuckles?
 
2013-07-14 04:01:37 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: tollbooth_willy: Nope.  Try again.  You left off after trying to claim that only the husband had 1) a restraining order against him, 2) a criminal record, and 3) a history of domestic abuse.

I was incorrect that she didn't have a domestic abuse charge, but it was from the same abusive relationship in which she was also abused. He had prior convictions for domestic abuse against other women before her. Within their relationship, they had both abused each other. But he was the one with the longer history of violence.


And she's the one with the history of going after him with a gun.  I think that trumps his longer rap sheet, especially since it's the focus of the trial.
 
2013-07-14 04:01:41 AM  

s2s2s2: oregon fubaralas: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?

I believe the only time you can appeal a "not guilty" verdict is when the jury convicts and the judge decides to set aside the conviction and issue a bench verdict of "not guilty".

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

Not proven guilty = innocent.


My bad. I wasn't clear. I agree. The title of innocence is given back after the jury reads the verdict, at the STATE LEVEL.
 
2013-07-14 04:02:40 AM  

tollbooth_willy: Elegy: shower_in_my_socks: tollbooth_willy: Debate?  It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."

No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.

I'm actually less interested in arguing the merits of the Marissa Alexander case over and over and over, and more about celebrating the fact that a man saw justice and a fair trial despite intense political pressure to throw him in jail for no other reason than outrage.

You did mention you had listened to the 911 call. Can you give me a link? I'll be happy to pick this argument up the next time there's a Marissa Alexander thread (and you know there'll be one sooner or later, it's the latest racial narrative du jour)

https://soundcloud.com/rippa-2/marissa-alexanders-husband
It is after the fact (hadn't listened to it before), but honestly after listening it sounds fairly convincing.  Not sure a guy that had a criminal record and had just beaten his woman would call the cops in that situation.


Thanks! Will listen to it in the morning. For now, its finally off to bed.

Night everyone!
 
2013-07-14 04:03:35 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.


zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.
 
2013-07-14 04:04:20 AM  

Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.


Listen, you obviously didn't read the second title.
 
2013-07-14 04:05:06 AM  

Curious: zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.


None of those things are illegal, or make him an aggressor. You are simply wrong.
 
2013-07-14 04:05:08 AM  

dchurch0: I just finished setting up a couple new servers and a SAN, and then migrating all my VM's to the new hardware. So I crack open a beer and open Fark, only to see this thread. Now I'm gonna be up all night reading everything here. Thanks Farkers!

I think I'll wake the wife up early and go have some pancakes.


I have still not properly begun my exercise routine.

/It will be done eventually.
//Probably by 0600EDT.
 
2013-07-14 04:05:18 AM  

Dimensio: EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: 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.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?


Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.
 
2013-07-14 04:05:32 AM  

Tellingthem: Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.

Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".


Again, he's half white. For some reason, white people keep trying to label him as solely "Hispanic."
 
2013-07-14 04:06:01 AM  
Curious

zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

He wasn't on patrol. He was on his way to Target.
 
2013-07-14 04:06:22 AM  

Elegy: You can't fix 'em all, man.


I know, it's just pretty damn frustrating when you see people parroting the same bullshiat misinformation that was debunked over a year ago.
 
2013-07-14 04:06:59 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: Curious

zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

He wasn't on patrol. He was on his way to Target.


Looks like he found one.
 
2013-07-14 04:07:04 AM  

Curious: Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.


He might have been, but nothing in the events that happened last night was illegal until the moment someone started the fight. Zimmerman said it was Martin. With a lack of proof to the contrary, the jury had no other choice but to absolve him. Martin's death, while tragic and avoidable, was not necessarily illegal.
 
2013-07-14 04:07:18 AM  

Dimensio: Speculating, without basis, on actions that Mr. Zimmerman "could" have taken does not constitute an explanation of the specific actions that Mr. Zimmerman did take.


My apologies, I thought the "Could" was implied, since the facts of the this particular case has already proven that he performed no specific actions that would have justified the use of deadly force by TM.
 
2013-07-14 04:07:31 AM  
Lorelle

Again, he's half white. For some reason, white people keep trying to label him as solely "Hispanic."

"Hispanic" isn't a term descriptive of race.

Half-white isn't white. If it were, we'd just say "white."
 
2013-07-14 04:07:49 AM  

EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: 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.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.


Turn off the Fox News and think for yourself.
 
2013-07-14 04:08:03 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: Facetious_Speciest: Curious

zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

He wasn't on patrol. He was on his way to Target.

Looks like he found one.


ok, you owe me a knew keyboard.
 
2013-07-14 04:08:09 AM  

Curious: Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.


That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.
 
2013-07-14 04:08:23 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Aren't those the same thing? I have never seen an "innocent" verdict.


Bet you've never seen a "We find the defendant is a cocker spaniel" verdict, either.

Wanna know why?
 
2013-07-14 04:08:52 AM  

Southern100: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Aren't those the same thing? I have never seen an "innocent" verdict.

Bet you've never seen a "We find the defendant is a cocker spaniel" verdict, either.

Wanna know why?


But was he found "not gilcup?"
 
2013-07-14 04:08:55 AM  
RT tweet ""BREAKING: LAPD declares tactical alert citywide afterZimmerman verdict, reports of shooting, street fights ""


any confirmation?
 
2013-07-14 04:09:08 AM  

Southern100: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Aren't those the same thing? I have never seen an "innocent" verdict.

Bet you've never seen a "We find the defendant is a cocker spaniel" verdict, either.

Wanna know why?


I do.
 
2013-07-14 04:09:12 AM  

oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.

Listen, you obviously didn't read the second title.


My question remains unanswered. I still do not know whether you are "trolling" or whether you are willfully ignorant of established law.
 
2013-07-14 04:09:21 AM  

Lorelle: Tellingthem: Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.

Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".

Again, he's half white. For some reason, white people keep trying to label him as solely "Hispanic."


Feels his pain:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-14 04:09:31 AM  
It's not illegal under Florida law, but in most places it would be described as aggressive behavior.
 
2013-07-14 04:09:38 AM  

Lorelle: That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.


Oh look. Another race-baiter.

Southern100: Bet you've never seen a "We find the defendant is a cocker spaniel" verdict, either.

Wanna know why?


Because cocker spaniels are criminal geniuses.
 
2013-07-14 04:10:20 AM  

Dimensio: s2s2s2: EbolaNYC: Boojum2k: EbolaNYC: Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have faced charges for murder 2 and been convicted, as there is no right to beatdown and kill someone for looking at you. And we'd never have heard of it, as it would have been a strictly local story.

Silly rabbit. History is written by the victorious. There were no witnesses remember?

When the police arrived to find a completely injury free Martin, there wouldn't need to be(but just so you know, there were).

Would not the police have found injuries to Mr. Martin's knuckles?


I meant injuries he hadn't caused himself in the process of the assault.
 
2013-07-14 04:10:24 AM  

Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.

Listen, you obviously didn't read the second title.

My question remains unanswered. I still do not know whether you are "trolling" or whether you are willfully ignorant of established law.


Really?

And you're doing it on your PHONE! LOLOLOLOL
 
2013-07-14 04:10:42 AM  
Well, before I go off to bed, here's one more funny pic.
i.imgur.com
Funny how the media called this one wrong, too.

Night all.
 
2013-07-14 04:10:47 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: This is awesome. All these rioters think it's going to be Rodney King all over. This is post 9/11 chumps. You're all going away for terrorism.


You're so cute when you think you can read people's minds.
 
2013-07-14 04:10:53 AM  

Lorelle: Tellingthem: Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.

Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".

Again, he's half white. For some reason, white people keep trying to label him as solely "Hispanic."


So what? He supposedly identifies himself as Hispanic. So who are we to say "nope you are wrong, you are half white and have a white name so you are white." Why do you get to decide what race he is over him?
 
2013-07-14 04:11:23 AM  
Meow says the  oregon fubaralas?
 
2013-07-14 04:11:53 AM  

EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: 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.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.


You have not identified any specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin. You therefore did not address my question. Your claim that "He felt threatened and feared for his safety." does not constitute a description of any specific action of Mr. Zimmerman.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?
 
2013-07-14 04:11:53 AM  

EbolaNYC: It's not illegal under Florida law, but in most places it would be described as aggressive behavior.


Fortunately for Mr. Zimmerman he was in a trial where people want proof of actions in a scenario, rather in a Fark thread where you can claim anything you want until you get tired of people proving you wrong.
 
2013-07-14 04:12:07 AM  
As usual, reruns on Fox and CNN.
 
2013-07-14 04:12:36 AM  
Things I learned in this thread-

Those who are outraged know nothing about the case or the trial other than what the media told them they should know.

I still can't decide whether I like pancakes or waffles better.
 
2013-07-14 04:12:58 AM  

Treygreen13: Lorelle: That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.

Oh look. Another race-baiter.


You mean Zimmerman, don't you? I merely paraphrased what he said to the 911 dispatcher the night he stalked and killed Martin.
 
2013-07-14 04:14:05 AM  

Curious: Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.


Let me put this in simple terms for you.  For Zimmerman to have been the aggressor, he would have had to:

1)  Physically assault Trayvon *FIRST*
2)  Use "fighting words" against Trayvon to provoke a fight

That's pretty much it.  Following him around, calling the police, etc. do not make him the aggressor.  Neither does pulling out his pistol and shooting the guy currently beating the crap out of him.  There was no evidence of either of those events occurring.  Regardless of the public opinion, the lack of evidence means there is just gobs of room for reasonable doubt, especially with the injuries that Zimmerman suffered.  Reasonable doubt means no conviction if the jury is doing their job.
 
2013-07-14 04:14:16 AM  

Southern100: Dimensio: Speculating, without basis, on actions that Mr. Zimmerman "could" have taken does not constitute an explanation of the specific actions that Mr. Zimmerman did take.

My apologies, I thought the "Could" was implied, since the facts of the this particular case has already proven that he performed no specific actions that would have justified the use of deadly force by TM.


EbolaNYC disagrees with your assessment, though as yet EbolaNYC has not identified the specific actions through which such justification would have existed.
 
2013-07-14 04:14:21 AM  

phygz: Things I learned in this thread-

Those who are outraged know nothing about the case or the trial other than what the media told them they should know.

I still can't decide whether I like pancakes or waffles better.


When in doubt, choose tacos.
 
2013-07-14 04:14:31 AM  
Oh god, and go check out Salon.com for some post J4T commentary.
 
2013-07-14 04:14:36 AM  

Lorelle: Treygreen13: Lorelle: That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.

Oh look. Another race-baiter.

You mean Zimmerman, don't you? I merely paraphrased what he said to the 911 dispatcher the night he stalked and killed Martin.


Edited for content, based on what was proven to be true about that night.
 
2013-07-14 04:14:55 AM  

Elegy: You did mention you had listened to the 911 call. Can you give me a link?


Link.

Several people here misread a paragraph from an article that mentioned the 911 call. They thought what they were reading was a quote taken from the wife's voice on the call threatening the guy, but in fact the article was just saying that that's what the husband TOLD the 911 operator she'd said, because the shooting happened before he called the police. He was already outside and down the street when he called 911, so his wife's voice isn't on that call. Although I couldn't even locate the part on the 911 tape where he talks about what she said, but I was skipping around after a couple of minutes, so maybe I missed it. Maybe that claim came out later at trial.
 
2013-07-14 04:15:05 AM  

Tellingthem: Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.

Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".


"Zimmerman" is German, like his father. His mother is Peruvian, from the Spanish settlements. He was raised

Lorelle: Tellingthem: Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.

Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".

Again, he's half white. For some reason, white people keep trying to label him as solely "Hispanic."


So why aren't we calling President Obama "White"?
 
2013-07-14 04:15:11 AM  
i1203.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-14 04:15:22 AM  
Curious:
and it's a disservice to deliberately misquote someone.
i notice that you didn't refute any of my points however ignorant you perceived them.


I don't usually fully quote posts in large threads. They're already painful enough to navigate.
What am I supposed to refute?
You said you watch daily summaries on TV and have seen some stuff online, then you gave your interpretation of the law based on limited information about the case.

I'm not calling you stupid or anything. It's just tiring to see so many people upset after the narrative they were fed to maximize ratings isn't admissible in court.
It's not a good situation when anyone is killed, but it'd be worse to set precedent by letting social media determine a person's guilt.
 
2013-07-14 04:15:31 AM  

Lorelle: Treygreen13: Lorelle: That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.

Oh look. Another race-baiter.

You mean Zimmerman, don't you? I merely paraphrased what he said to the 911 dispatcher the night he stalked and killed Martin.


Nice try. I've swatted enough of your ilk down tonight. Welcome to the ignore list.
 
2013-07-14 04:15:41 AM  

Dimensio: Mentat: Dimensio: Is an alternative available other than legally prohibiting individuals from using force if they are in fact threatened by a violent attacker?

What if they are threatened by that violent attacker because they provoked the confrontation by chasing him down?  You shouldn't be able to escalate a situation and/or provoke a fight and then claim self-defense when the fight turns against you.  It's nothing more than a grown-up version of the "He hit me first!" defense.

In most states, if police or prosecution are able to prove that the user of deadly force initiated the confrontation by "chasing down" the deceased, then self-defense laws are not applicable.


Actually, it depends. If you start a fistfight, you generally can't claim self-defense unless certain things happen, such as attempting to break contact by "retreating to the wall." Once you retreat to the wall, you MAY possibly be able to claim self defense if you reasonably believe that you face lethal force.
 
Displayed 50 of 2644 comments

First | « | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report