Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: NewsFlash, Mark O'Mara, florida, neighborhood watch, Skittles, teen Trayvon, concrete masonry unit, verdicts, Rionda  
•       •       •

13072 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2013 at 10:38 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

2629 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | » | Newest

 
2013-07-14 06:06:01 PM  
 
2013-07-14 06:12:23 PM  

Matthew Keene: THIS IS NOW A RIOT PORN THREAD

[latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com image 850x570][cdn.breitbart.com image 475x356][a.scpr.org image 324x232][www.onthisdeity.com image 512x408][farm9.staticflickr.com image 612x612]


"Riot porn" is a thing?  There are people who ENJOY looking at pictures of riots?

And, if there are, are you mocking such people or declaring yourself to be one of them?
 
2013-07-14 06:13:52 PM  

Tatsuma: Mentat: Hashtags don't constitute rioting.

Yeahh, and a stream of black people on twitter saying they should burn shiat down or kill Zimmerman certainly do not represent African-Americans as a whole either.

....

Did you just ignore the part where I said racists would have a field day with those tweets?


Gah, I'm agreeing with Tatsum about something.  I feel dirty.
 
2013-07-14 06:17:13 PM  

tirob: Sniper061: tirob: Here in Pennsylvania we still have a duty to retreat and the sky hasn't fallen on us yet.

Wrong.   As a PA resident who has carefully followed the law on this point, let me enlighten you:

18 Pa CS 505(b)(2.3)

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:
(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or
(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.
.


(2.4)  The exception to the duty to retreat set forth under paragraph (2.3)....

---

(2)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i)  the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii)  the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005..HTM

Emphasis added by me.  Yes, there are exceptions ...


Be happy to point them out for you but would like to point out that we are both basically saying the same thing.  Someone comes after you with fists, you have to run away.  Someone comes at you with a weapon or even something you construe as a weapon, then you can stand your ground.

Also, somewhat related but not too well known by other PA residents, your car is considered an extension of your dwelling so the castle doctrine applies while you are in your car.

As for weapons:

"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. "Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed- off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

 The key thing to note in this paragraph is the catch-all at the end "or other implement for the infliction...".  This is the thing I like about PA law unlike a lot of other states.  It is very clear cut, easy to read, and easy to find what you are looking for.

As for a specific example, PA really hasn't had much case law yet in regards to either the castle doctrine or the SYG exemptions.  They've been out for a few years but I only know of two cases where it has been argued.  Guess that just goes to show you that even up here in PA where our gun laws are extremely loose we just don't go around randomly killing people for shiggles.

One example of the castle doctrine was in Somerset a few years ago shortly after the new Castle Doctrine law was signed in.  Jealous lover went to go confront the husband of the girl he was banging.  Thing is, he went to the guys house carrying a baseball bat and brought along his brothers.  Husband told the guy to leave, guy refused and the husband shot him with an arrow and killed him.  Prosecutors refused to charge the husband because it was clear the dead guy was the instigator.

Linky to story:
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_773916.html#axz z2 Z3nt3REQ
 
2013-07-14 06:26:28 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I agree with Tatsuma?
.
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x300]/that's it I'm out of here


I know that feel, bro.

Tatsuma's surprisingly sane and mellow so long as you avoid mentioning certain topics.
 
2013-07-14 06:38:40 PM  

ciberido: StreetlightInTheGhetto: I agree with Tatsuma?
.
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x300]/that's it I'm out of here

I know that feel, bro.

Tatsuma's surprisingly sane and mellow so long as you avoid mentioning certain topics.


Well Zimmerman was half jewish right?

/just kidding Tats
 
2013-07-14 06:40:52 PM  

Sniper061: we are both basically saying the same thing


We are now, but I understood you to say that I was wrong when I asserted that the duty to retreat is still on the books here.

Sniper061: other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.


A baseball bat?  A tire iron?  They serve can lawful purposes, but people have also used such implements to kill.  It looks to me as if the current law was only adopted ~three years ago; query whether according to the law there is a duty to retreat from someone carrying a bat.  I know of no case law that exists on the subject.

Section 505 says "weapon" rather than "offensive weapon."  I would surmise that all "offensive weapons" are "weapons" for the purposes of the section, but that "weapon" probably includes other potentially lethal devices as well.

Sniper061: Jealous lover went to go confront the husband of the girl he was banging. Thing is, he went to the guys house carrying a baseball bat and brought along his brothers. Husband told the guy to leave, guy refused and the husband shot him with an arrow and killed him. Prosecutors refused to charge the husband because it was clear the dead guy was the instigator.


This scenario, where the person who used deadly force did so while on his own property, fits into a long-recognized exception to the duty to retreat.
 
2013-07-14 06:45:27 PM  
Well, at least the armchair quarterbacks will have to retire now.

Seems like half of fark was wrong about this case.  I wonder if it will humble some people, but I doubt it.
 
2013-07-14 06:52:52 PM  

Raiden333: My personal opinion:

Before the trial, I did no research, I only heard what the mainstream media reported, including the chopped up 911 call NBC played.

When the trial started, I listened to it every day at work, starting out rooting for the prosecution.

As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.


THIS.  I had posted this this morning but it didn't work.  I had said that all we have is Zimmerman's recount of what happened, and the evidence supports him.

CASE.  farkING.  CLOSED.
 
2013-07-14 07:28:26 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: shower_in_my_socks: EvilRacistNaziFascist: I'll tell you something, and this goes for 99.9% of the people like me who you probably despise: no matter what your racial background might be, if you are trying to beat us to death we will resist you using any means necessary; and if we are armed and can save our lives by shooting your thug ass dead, we will do it. Consider yourselves forewarned.

And if you stalk me at night and then accost me, I'm going to get punchy. And if you respond by shooting me point-blank in the heart, and then get away with it, my friends and family will hunt you down like a dog. Consider yourself forewarned.

This is how I see it. Apparently it was ok for Zimmerman to defend himself, but not Martin. That's cool. Next time I won't stop punching until they're dead. You know, standing my ground and all.



Not if the other guy is armed.
 
2013-07-14 08:05:31 PM  

Skeptigal: You stupid FLORIDIOTS! Too bad "stand your ground" is only a defense if you're white. A woman who fired warning shots at her husband who was coming at her (she had a protective order against him), was just sentenced to 20 yrs in prison. For attempted manslaughter. In Florida. Guess what color she is?


who's the idiot now? she left the situation, went to her car, and retrieved a gun.  went BACK into the home, and pointed it in the direction of her husband/ex or whatever AND her kids.  plus most everyone knows if you can pop off a warning shot, a shot wasnt needed in the first place and its NOT a life threatening situation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-De fe ndants-Motion-for-Immunity

thanks, but try again
 
2013-07-14 08:43:34 PM  

Treygreen13: Third Day Mark: And he's not guilty of premeditated murder?   Lol yeah ok.

Seems like the people actually watching the trial (the jury) saw it differently. Which turns out to be all that matters.

But thanks for the update on your perspective.


If that's really "all that matters," then why are you in this thread at all?  Merely to gloat?  Are you really that petty?
 
2013-07-14 08:46:11 PM  
...They *can serve* lawful purposes...

/&%$#!
 
2013-07-14 08:56:50 PM  

HBK: Giltric: steak (well done, smothered in katsup) and eggs(Fried so the yolk is solid).

fark bread like substances.

Your opinion is invalid. You may as well eat a piece of cardboard.


Because of cooking the steak well done, smothering it in ketchup, or both?
 
2013-07-14 08:57:59 PM  

Mudwhistle62: Hey guys! How're things? Haven't been here in a bit, anything special going on?


Not much.  Have some pancakes.  I made yours extra-fluffy :)
 
2013-07-14 09:18:03 PM  

tirob: (ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005..HTM

Emphasis added by me. Yes, there are exceptions. But the duty to retreat is still on the books, and it applies unless one of the exceptions does. I don't know the case law as regards to what constitutes a weapon "readily or apparently capable of lethal use;" perhaps you could enlighten me.


Not trying to shoot you down, but the bolded "with complete safety" disclaimer means that if the threatening actor represented ANY continuing threat while you retreated you're still allowed to use lethal force.

In Zimmerman's case, if Martin was indeed on top of him beating him when he fired, he'd still be good because, well, at that point he couldn't retreat 'with complete safety'
 
2013-07-14 09:25:53 PM  
ARedthorn: Perhaps time for a clinical approach, and some extra, not-very-well-known info:

When someone is acquitted, it can fall under one of two cases:
Not Guilty, in which case the defendant is free from ANY further prosecution.
Not Proven, in which case the case can be revisited later, given further evidence.


The Only Jeff:I'm not sure if you're trolling or Canadian, but Americans don't have "not proven" in their criminal trials.


There's a difference?
 
2013-07-14 09:38:41 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Ooba Tooba: I will be shocked if there is peace on the streets tonight, although I feel the right verdict was rendered. Can't they have a "quit acting like a cop" law that gives 3-5?

In NY, or self defense law states that the act must have been in no way occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor. Why? Because no one wants a truck-sized loophole for the buyers to exploit.


IANAL or any other kind of expert, but based on what I've heard in this and other Zimmerman threads, it seems like self-defense laws NEED to have a "it's not self-defense if you started the fight" clause.
 
2013-07-14 10:01:44 PM  

Firethorn: tirob: (ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005..HTM

Emphasis added by me. Yes, there are exceptions. But the duty to retreat is still on the books, and it applies unless one of the exceptions does. I don't know the case law as regards to what constitutes a weapon "readily or apparently capable of lethal use;" perhaps you could enlighten me.

Not trying to shoot you down, but the bolded "with complete safety" disclaimer means that if the threatening actor represented ANY continuing threat while you retreated you're still allowed to use lethal force.

In Zimmerman's case, if Martin was indeed on top of him beating him when he fired, he'd still be good because, well, at that point he couldn't retreat 'with complete safety'


Yes.  My point was that the duty to retreat is still on the books here in PA.  There are exceptions to it, including the one you cite.
 
2013-07-14 10:14:35 PM  

ciberido: Treygreen13: Third Day Mark: And he's not guilty of premeditated murder?   Lol yeah ok.

Seems like the people actually watching the trial (the jury) saw it differently. Which turns out to be all that matters.

But thanks for the update on your perspective.

If that's really "all that matters," then why are you in this thread at all?  Merely to gloat?  Are you really that petty?


A little bit of gloating, yeah. I've been in these threads for most of the trial. The guys I should be gloating at won't show their faces in here anymore though.
 
2013-07-14 10:16:05 PM  

ciberido: PC LOAD LETTER: Ooba Tooba: I will be shocked if there is peace on the streets tonight, although I feel the right verdict was rendered. Can't they have a "quit acting like a cop" law that gives 3-5?

In NY, or self defense law states that the act must have been in no way occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor. Why? Because no one wants a truck-sized loophole for the buyers to exploit.

IANAL or any other kind of expert, but based on what I've heard in this and other Zimmerman threads, it seems like self-defense laws NEED to have a "it's not self-defense if you started the fight" clause.


I think that's a great thought.  Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle, against the advice of the police dispatcher, and inserted himself into a situation that could have otherwise been completely avoided.  In this specific case I don't really have any opinion as to who was "right".  Martin was apparently not a "good kid" at a minimum and Zimmerman was apparently a wannabe cop who had an extra testicle in the form of a pistol.  I honestly feel that Zimmerman deserves some kind of punishment for escalating a situation that in this case should have been left to the police.  I get the whole "the police are only minutes away when you need help now" thing but this was not the case here.  I'm not surprised the jury came back with the verdict they did and based on what the jurors were presented with I can't say that they made the wrong decision.  It's a mess and I'm glad this portion is over with.  I am however curious as to what comes next.  A civil suit seems to face significant hurdles and who knows if the feds will come forward with a civil rights prosecution.  At this point I'd be happy to just see this fade away but I don't think that's likely.  The media would certainly be happy to get some more miles out it...
 
HBK
2013-07-14 11:13:14 PM  

ciberido: HBK: Giltric: steak (well done, smothered in katsup) and eggs(Fried so the yolk is solid).

fark bread like substances.

Your opinion is invalid. You may as well eat a piece of cardboard.

Because of cooking the steak well done, smothering it in ketchup, or both?


Both.

A well done steak is dry and has no flavor. A steak with ketchup on it? Sacrilege. But I guess if you're going to have a flavorless steak, smothering ketchup on it at least gives it the flavor of ketchup. But at that point you may as well eat a rice cake with hot sauce on it or something, rather than wasting a perfectly good piece of meat.
 
2013-07-15 12:47:36 AM  

oregon fubaralas: NorCalLos: oregon fubaralas: Popcorn Johnny: Couple hundred people marching through the streets of Oakland with a banner reading fark THE POLICE

Stream

I'm glad they all seem to have appropriate safety lighting on their bikes.

Failure to do so is an invitation for cops to f with you out here.

It just doesn't seem very hardcore to get the firehose on your fixy.


Got no gears so you best not dis me (NSFW lyrics).
 
2013-07-15 12:51:38 AM  

sethen320: Therion: Live feed of the Oakland "riot" shows about 80 people milling about in an intersection.

boring riots are good riots.

So it was a quiet riot?


Pity.  I wanted to feel the noize.
 
2013-07-15 12:55:48 AM  

Livingroom: thats how this gun works. if you think you or any human being can bend the barrel of ANY gun, especially a 9mm which is built to withstand 60,000 PSI, then i have a bridge and some swampland for sale that i think you'd like to buy.


affordablehousinginstitute.org
We could always build another castle.
 
2013-07-15 12:58:45 AM  

Full Metal Retard: ciberido: Full Metal Retard: Utter Genius: Now sue NBC and get your ruined life back, George Zimmerman.

No, no, no.   the next step will be Obama instructing the "Justice" Department to go after him on Federal Charges.  Obama will want as much race hatred as possible to increase black turnout in 2014.  I bet they even time the arrest to be just about 2 months before the election.

Sure, I mean, the presidential election will be very close in 2014 and Obama needs to do everything he can if he hopes to get reelected.  I can see your point.


I guess you didn't know that there are elections every 2 years.  Governors, Senators, Mayors and Congressmen.  That effects the balance of power in Washington.



Yes, that's exactly it.  I didn't know that there are elections every 2 years.  That explains my comment.
 
2013-07-15 02:30:27 AM  
So I read every comment in this thread. Here are my unsolicited observations.

IQ_in_binary is the latest incarnation of the mall ninja.

People need to understand we have a legal not a justice system.

There is a mutli-faceted division in the United States which will worsen over time. There will be a blending of all these groups but it will never be a homogeneous society. There will always be hatred between pancake, waffle, and crepe groups.
 
2013-07-15 07:15:28 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: What white people think is going to happen now:
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x341]


But in White People's defense, that is an average night in Chicago.
 
2013-07-15 09:29:42 AM  
This doesn't bother me at all.

When O.J. Simpson's verdict was read the racial split at my office (at the time) was bizarre.  Every white person gasped and every black person cheered for a split second--then it got creepily quiet.  We all realized for the first time white people want the truth, and black people want their skin color to stay out of jail.

The racial split that we all thought was fading away instantly got deeper and will always be there in a culture of "no snitching" and thuggery.
 
Displayed 29 of 2629 comments


Oldest | « | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | » | Newest


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