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 2645
    More: NewsFlash, Mark O'Mara, florida, neighborhood watch, Skittles, teen Trayvon, concrete masonry unit, verdicts, Rionda  
•       •       •

13039 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2013 at 10:38 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

2645 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | » | Last
 
2013-07-14 03:53:06 PM

The Muthaship: Wessoman: It's like racist Christmas.

But, the racists didn't get what they wanted!

Poor racists.....


So I haven't been paying attention to this thread, but . . what?

Is that really the line that Fox news or Limbaugh are selling, that the racists are the ones that wanted him to be found guilty? Is this bizarro world?
 
2013-07-14 03:58:14 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Wessoman: It's like racist Christmas.

I know, now the racists on TV, Twitter and Facebook can keep screaming about how Zimmerman got away with murder.


You don't know what "racists" means. Here's what actual racists think, and they aren't disappointed at all in fact they're using words like "hero" which is saying something since zimmerman isn't even white.

My apologies if linking these two threads makes it harder to remember which account name to use where.
 
2013-07-14 04:03:04 PM
Interesting, it dropped my link, let's just paste it:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t979609/
 
2013-07-14 04:07:06 PM
The South will never change.
 
2013-07-14 04:10:37 PM

Somacandra: I'll just leave this here for thought. We need some goddamn common sense.


Oh really? When the 14 yo was approached, did he throw punches with the strength of a 17yo football player? Did he slam the guy's head into the concrete? If not, I can see why he was returned home safely to his family. He's right, he not Trayvon Martin. TM had bloody knuckles (and no other sign of assault on his body until the gun was fired to stop his attack).
 
2013-07-14 04:23:46 PM

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.  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.
 
2013-07-14 04:23:57 PM
If anyone even remembers my last post at this point- apologies. Failed to do the research, and assumed the US had 'not proven' as well. Kinda matters as I live here now. *facepalm*

That said, I'm still given to understand that any court case can be taken to federal appeals, without it qualifying under double-jeopardy... or seek conviction of a lesser offense... or be taken to civil court for any number of things related... and on those, I can't seem to find anything explicitly saying otherwise (such as with OJ's wrongful death suit he lost IMMEDIATELY after being found not guilty of murder).

My point being that this still isn't over, per se...

Also, that given innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt AND the case the defense put forward AND the lack of a real case/evidence by the prosecution proving intent or malice on the part of the defendant.... this seems like a legit ruling. The man should still be held responsible to some degree- either wrongful death or for a lesser crime perhaps, as the situation could've most easily been avoided by him listening to the police... but even with the self-defense issue completely put aside, lack of intent pretty well clears him of murder charges at least... and reasonable doubt of the manslaughter.

Not trying to be a troll- just trying to be a moderate voice. Quite dumb of me I'm sure, but... still.
 
2013-07-14 04:27:23 PM

thornhill: Lem Motlow: thornhill: SunsetLament: thornhill:

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

At the very least, can we retire this incorrect statement of fact before this thread ends.  The 911 dispatcher testified in court that he absolutely could not, did not and would not order George Zimmerman to do anything.  He further stated that he is instructed not to order anyone on the other end of the line to do anything because that would potentially make the municipal government liable if the order caused the person to be harmed.  He stated that he is allowed to make suggestions only; which is what he did in this instance.

HE SAID THIS IN COURT.  NOBODY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS FACT.  PLEASE STOP WRONGLY ASSERTING THE OPPOSITE.

The Muthaship: thornhill: The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police

It actually boggles my mind that there are idiots STILL saying this.

911 transcript:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Exactly. Don't need you to and I command that you don't are not the same.

You're disingenuously playing semantics. In the heat of the moment when an authority figure says, "we don't need you to do that," that's going to be interpreted as, "don't do it," not, "this person is only phrasing it this way because of liability reason."

Further, however Zimmerman may have interpreted or understood what the dispatcher said, he was still following Martin. However dangerous he thought Martin could be, obviously not too dangerous to follow him and potentially be discovered.


Know how I know you didn't watch the trial? And further, are you suggesting that GZ had an obligation to misunderstand the operator's level of authority and act on the operator's "order" as if it had the force of law? And whether he returned to his car at that time or not, he did say "ok."
 
2013-07-14 04:58:07 PM

WillofJ2: Can someone explain the pancake thing?


Someone felt it would lighten the mood, because we're not adults that can handle intense, serious debate. So you get to spend time scrolling through a bunch of crap you're not interested in, resulting in even more eye strain. But I did learn a lot about breakfast breadstuffs today, so there is that.
 
2013-07-14 05:15:08 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: mikeray: 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.

That is well a thought out response, maybe they were both defending themselves and if that is the case then I guess GM did the better job.

Just maybe TM thought like you did and was going to punch until GZ was dead, hopefully you will be a little more successful.

The fact is, no one knows the truth of what happened except for Zimmerman and Martin. Martin had just as much legal right to be there as Zimmerman did. He was committing no crime. If some random dude is stalking me in the night, I'd stand my ground too. However, now knowing how this shiat works, I'll stand my ground to the death. Martin should've killed him.

Oh, wait, then he'd be charged with and convicted of murder.


Wow you should have contacted the prosecution with that thought I'm sure they would have been just excited with your knowledge and got you a seat right up front.

Yea you would have nailed the closing of that trial.
 
2013-07-14 05:24:04 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.


TM was defending himself from what, exactly? A creepy ass-cracker with a question?

You carry out your plan, and let us know how it goes when you are found with no signs of assault on your body, just the bloody knuckles from beating your victim to a pulp.

TM had no signs of assault on his body-just the bullet wound that stopped it.
 
2013-07-14 05:24:12 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: mikeray: 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.

That is well a thought out response, maybe they were both defending themselves and if that is the case then I guess GM did the better job.

Just maybe TM thought like you did and was going to punch until GZ was dead, hopefully you will be a little more successful.

The fact is, no one knows the truth of what happened except for Zimmerman and Martin. Martin had just as much legal right to be there as Zimmerman did. He was committing no crime. If some random dude is stalking me in the night, I'd stand my ground too. However, now knowing how this shiat works, I'll stand my ground to the death. Martin should've killed him.

Oh, wait, then he'd be charged with and convicted of murder.


You realize that is pretty much exactly what the defense claims got Martin shot right? He was upset Zimmerman was following him so he "stood his ground" and started a fight. He was beating zimmerman on the ground as Zimmerman was screaming for help. When Martin didn't stop hitting him Zimmerman shot him.

Not saying that is what happened but a jury who heard the case decided it was a reasonable theory.
 
2013-07-14 05:32:07 PM

ARedthorn: If anyone even remembers my last post at this point- apologies. Failed to do the research, and assumed the US had 'not proven' as well. Kinda matters as I live here now. *facepalm*

That said, I'm still given to understand that any court case can be taken to federal appeals, without it qualifying under double-jeopardy... or seek conviction of a lesser offense... or be taken to civil court for any number of things related... and on those, I can't seem to find anything explicitly saying otherwise (such as with OJ's wrongful death suit he lost IMMEDIATELY after being found not guilty of murder).

My point being that this still isn't over, per se...

Not trying to be a troll- just trying to be a moderate voice. Quite dumb of me I'm sure, but... still.


Zimmerman can still theoretically be prosecuted under Federal law for violating Martin's civil rights--it would be in a court of first instance, not an appeals court.  It is my understanding that Florida state law would preclude a civil lawsuit by Martin's estate against Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-14 05:41:50 PM

Wessoman: The Muthaship: Wessoman: Yeah, black people didn't riot as advertised.

Just a little riot, in a few places.  I am glad of that.  Seems no one's been hurt.  Very good news, that.

Still, only racists thought Zimmerman was guilty unless they never listened to anything after the initial NBC report.

Still, only racists thought Zimmerman was innocent unless they never listened to anything after the initial NBC report.

The racists in America were people who had made up their minds before the trial and evidence. Saying that only Trayvon supporters are racist is simply wrong. There are a terribly large amount of racist Zimmerman supporters, a lot of which in this very thread.

Look, I am happy for the verdict, but it's no secret why I have been trolling Zimmerman supporters. Just because the law favors your line of thinking does not excuse them from racism. In contrast, had this been a black man shooting a white teen, many Zimmerman supporters, and Trayvon supporters, would be flipped flopped.

That's my point. The only thing that matters is law, and common sense. Both the law, and the black community showed lots of common sense. Most of the posters here are not.


I disagree. Most "Zimmerman supporters" are in fact United States legal system supporters who appreciate the fact that jurors did not make a decision based on bias and sensationalism (which the rest of the network watching world was subject to). The law was correctly applied, and if Trayvon had been Terry the white meth head, the same rules would apply.

Persecution mindset can make you see things that aren't really there. GZ was the opposite of racist. Check out his history, if you care.
 
2013-07-14 05:52:04 PM

Mentat: But they can have whatever field day they want, because at the moment all they have are mean hashtags and unruly tampon mobs.


Unruly Tampon Mobsis definitely going to be the name of my new ska band.
 
2013-07-14 05:55:07 PM

ARedthorn: If anyone even remembers my last post at this point- apologies. Failed to do the research, and assumed the US had 'not proven' as well. Kinda matters as I live here now. *facepalm*

That said, I'm still given to understand that any court case can be taken to federal appeals, without it qualifying under double-jeopardy... or seek conviction of a lesser offense... or be taken to civil court for any number of things related... and on those, I can't seem to find anything explicitly saying otherwise (such as with OJ's wrongful death suit he lost IMMEDIATELY after being found not guilty of murder).

My point being that this still isn't over, per se...

Also, that given innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt AND the case the defense put forward AND the lack of a real case/evidence by the prosecution proving intent or malice on the part of the defendant.... this seems like a legit ruling. The man should still be held responsible to some degree- either wrongful death or for a lesser crime perhaps, as the situation could've most easily been avoided by him listening to the police... but even with the self-defense issue completely put aside, lack of intent pretty well clears him of murder charges at least... and reasonable doubt of the manslaughter.

Not trying to be a troll- just trying to be a moderate voice. Quite dumb of me I'm sure, but... still.


There are a few distinctions here.  First off, the only way the prosecution can really appeal the ruling is if they can somehow prove the jury was tampered with.  Granted, they could try to appeal it anyways just because they want to but anything short of jury tampering will almost be guaranteed to be thrown out of court under the "double-jeopardy" clause.  The American justice system was built that way specifically to prevent the state or federal government from continuously going after a person until they secure a conviction.  In a nutshell, once you are proven not-guilty or acquitted or a crime then you cannot and will not have that charge brought against you again.

Now onto the civil matter.  First off, the OJ case and this case are two completely different animals because they occurred in two different states with different laws.  OJ, even though he was found not-guilty, could still be held liable to civil damages under California law.  Zimmerman, on the other hand, is protected from civil damages because he claimed self defense AND was found not-guilty of any wrong doing.  It doesn't matter that he made a dumb decision or even a whole string of dumb decisions.  The self defense + not guilty of wrongdoing charges brought by the state means he cannot be sued.

As for a wrongful death charge, that is a tort law, not criminal law in Florida.  That means that my entire previous paragraph applies.  Zimmerman cannot be sued in relation to this incident.
 
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 45 of 2645 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report