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.

(Yahoo)   Authorities report widespread not rioting all over the country in the wake of the Zimmerman trial verdict, as many as zero people have been killed or injured in the lack of violence so far   (gma.yahoo.com) divider line 880
    More: Followup, KABC-TV, WABC-TV, marchers, Manhattan neighborhoods, acquittals, verdicts, riots, violence  
•       •       •

2946 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 03:38:35 PM  

Deucednuisance: redmid17: Whether or not it's a reason to be afraid is irrelevant. You don't have a right to assault someone following you.

Not "a reason", a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury".

Then, responding's not assault, it's "self-defense".

And maybe if people would stop confusing "assault" and "battery" we could get somewhere: "Battery" = unwarranted touching.  There need not be physical contact for an "assault" to occur.

You could look it up!


I wasn't using the legal term. Feel free to substitute "assault" for "battery" there. Either way I don't think it would be unreasonable to think a person would be afraid of someone following them. However it still doesn't let them punch them or physically harm them, which was my whole point.
 
2013-07-15 03:39:09 PM  

skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?


Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.
 
2013-07-15 03:41:30 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio:
Mr. Martin physically prevented escape by Mr. Zimmerman while using physical force against him, as confirmed by an eyewitness to the altercation. Even had Mr. Zimmerman initiated the altercation -- and no evidence supports such a claim -- he would have been justified in using deadly force to end the attack upon him due to his inability to retreat.

Now that I have explained the justification for Mr. Zimmerman's use of force, please describe the specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that established legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin.

Martin would have attempted to prevent Zimmerman's escape to attempt to prevent him from discharging his firearm. No evidence supports the claim that Zimmerman initiated the altercation because the only evidence to that is Zimmerman's testimony. He shot and killed the other potential evidence of who started the fight.

Zimmerman had a gun. He fired it while he was being pummeled. Clearly despite the pummeling he still had the capacity to use the gun against Martin. There is your justification for use of force. Perhaps you think Martin should have let Zimmerman up so that he could have a better shot. I would assume a certain level of desperation in someone who is unarmed defending themself against someone who is armed.

Please explain how Mr. Zimmerman's drawing and discharging of his firearm during the physical altercation constitutes legal justification for use of force before the physical altercation. I believe that your suggestion implies a lack of understanding of basic causality, as you are suggesting that a use of force was initially justified by an action that occurred after the force was used.


What I was saying is, his ability to discharge the weapon invalidates the whole "Martin went too far because he restrained him and didn't let him escape" defense since a reasonable person in this scenraio would fear that the other party, once released, would discharge their firearm. I am suggesting that his use of force was not excessive since he was defending himself against an armed opponent. The fact that his armed opponent was able to discharge his weapon in spite of all this, to me, validates this. Martin was pummeling him, but clearly not into submission, since he was still able to get a shot off.
 
2013-07-15 03:41:52 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: theflatline: there had been prior criminal acts committed by black youths fitting trayvons description. iat that point he fit a profile of a known entity.

if you look like a reported suspected there is no racial profiling involved. no matter what color is involved.

fitting a description has nothing to do with race.

George Zimmerman is not a police officer. And for farks sake, descriptions are not as vague as "black guy" for a reason. You're going to need more than "black teenagers did bad shiat once" to justify the profiling that led to murder.

Trayvon Martin to attack and viciously assault a "creepy-ass cracker" that he (stupidly) believed to be unarmed and helpless, resulting in the aggressor's untimely demise.

FYFY, Droxycontin

FYI, the "profiling" of one citizen by another is NOT ILLEGAL.

I repeat: The "profiling" of one citizen by another is NOT ILLEGAL.

It was NOT illegal when George Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon Martin as a "suspicious character" (prompting him to CALL THE POLICE), and it was NOT illegal when Trayvon Martin "profiled"  George Zimmerman  as a "Creepy-ass cracker" (prompting HIM to lie in wait for, and viciously attack George Zimmerman).


Spread the word.

Stop the violence.
 
2013-07-15 03:43:51 PM  

UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.


Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.
 
2013-07-15 03:46:01 PM  

CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.


His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.
 
2013-07-15 03:46:54 PM  
CPennypacker

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

If you dismiss his story, we're left with nothing to suggest who initiated the altercation, only Martin beating on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shooting Martin (neither of which are in serious doubt). In such a scenario, how could one justify imprisoning Zimmerman for murder?
 
2013-07-15 03:47:17 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.


Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point
 
2013-07-15 03:48:54 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: And for farks sake, descriptions are not as vague as "black guy" for a reason.


+ "wearing a hood, between 5'9" and 6'3", between ages 20-40."

That's the standard mugging/robbery description around here, applicable to around 75% of the report descriptions. (and of 75% of the homicides, oddly)
 
2013-07-15 03:49:02 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point


Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.
 
2013-07-15 03:49:59 PM  

Magorn: The Muthaship: FTA-   "In what universe does it make any sense, could it be considered legal, to stalk, confront, and murder a completely innocent teenager?" Stark asked a vocal, yet peaceful crowd.

I don't know, Mr. Stark.  What universe did that happen in?

this one.  Trayvon Martin is dead.   Trayvon Martin was legally and innocently walking from a store to his home when he was killed.  But for George Zimmerman's actions on that night Martin would still be alive.  Fact are facts.  The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.  But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin


It's almost like you don't know what half the words you typed mean.
 
2013-07-15 03:51:14 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.


I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?
 
2013-07-15 03:51:49 PM  

Amos Quito: DROxINxTHExWIND: theflatline: there had been prior criminal acts committed by black youths fitting trayvons description. iat that point he fit a profile of a known entity.

if you look like a reported suspected there is no racial profiling involved. no matter what color is involved.

fitting a description has nothing to do with race.

George Zimmerman is not a police officer. And for farks sake, descriptions are not as vague as "black guy" for a reason. You're going to need more than "black teenagers did bad shiat once" to justify the profiling that led to murder. Trayvon Martin to attack and viciously assault a "creepy-ass cracker" that he (stupidly) believed to be unarmed and helpless, resulting in the aggressor's untimely demise.

FYFY, Droxycontin

FYI, the "profiling" of one citizen by another is NOT ILLEGAL.

I repeat: The "profiling" of one citizen by another is NOT ILLEGAL.

It was NOT illegal when George Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon Martin as a "suspicious character" (prompting him to CALL THE POLICE), and it was NOT illegal when Trayvon Martin "profiled"  George Zimmerman  as a "Creepy-ass cracker" (prompting HIM to lie in wait for, and viciously attack George Zimmerman).


Spread the word.

Stop the violence.



Oh, so now it WAS racially motivated. I'm trying to keep up.
 
2013-07-15 03:54:40 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?


Because Zimmerman had not given him reason for escalating force, even if Zimmerman did start the fight. Swinging and missing does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.
 
2013-07-15 03:56:47 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Facetious_Speciest: DROxINxTHExWIND

On behalf of the black people who were convicted on shoddy evidence, but whose plight was never a consideration until Zimmerman got arrested, I say, "lick balls".

I'm sure the unjustly imprisoned would appreciate your dismissal of injustice.

You really have issues with reading comprehension or you really are willing to reach as far as neccesary to make your point. The statement is directed at those wo only now are finding fault with the justice system. That has nothing at all to do with your commet.


Who, in your mind, fits the description of being a black man railroaded by a systematic politically-motivated attack in an attempt to frame him for a crime he did not commit?

I mean, OJ was probably railroaded for the hotel break-in in Vegas, but he also probably got away with murder. Chris Dorner? But he seemed to have a lot of white supporters here, and that was primarily a cop-cop thing. Mumia Abu-Jamal? There was no controversy that he shot Faulkner, and his case is primarily about his "sovereign citizen"-like delusions. So what case comes to mind, specifically, for you?
 
2013-07-15 03:58:04 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?

Because Zimmerman had not given him reason for escalating force, even if Zimmerman did start the fight. Swinging and missing does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.


The gun was the reason
 
2013-07-15 03:58:24 PM  

CPennypacker: I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?


I'm sure a reasonable person like yourself, when unarmed, hears a third person yell at you to stop, but you can't because the guy below you is armed, would yell back "he's got a gun!"
 
2013-07-15 03:59:25 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?

Because Zimmerman had not given him reason for escalating force, even if Zimmerman did start the fight. Swinging and missing does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.

The gun was the reason


Unless Zimmerman was brandishing it or pointing it at Martin, it doesn't matter. Merely seeing a concealed weapon on someone does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.
 
2013-07-15 04:00:08 PM  

This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: And for farks sake, descriptions are not as vague as "black guy" for a reason.

+ "wearing a hood, between 5'9" and 6'3", between ages 20-40."

That's the standard mugging/robbery description around here, applicable to around 75% of the report descriptions. (and of 75% of the homicides, oddly)


What the fark are you tlking about, now? So basically, every black man who is not a midget or a small forward is a suspect? Smh that you see nothing wrong with this. But, none of you are racist. Its me.
 
2013-07-15 04:00:56 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?

Because Zimmerman had not given him reason for escalating force, even if Zimmerman did start the fight. Swinging and missing does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.

The gun was the reason

Unless Zimmerman was brandishing it or pointing it at Martin, it doesn't matter. Merely seeing a concealed weapon on someone does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.


Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?
 
2013-07-15 04:01:09 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: If you dismiss his story, we're left with nothing to suggest who initiated the altercation, only Martin beating on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shooting Martin (neither of which are in serious doubt). In such a scenario, how could one justify imprisoning Zimmerman for murder?


Because GUN VIOLENCE.
 
2013-07-15 04:01:41 PM  
I find black midgets particularly suspect. YMMV.
 
2013-07-15 04:02:54 PM  

CPennypacker: What I was saying is, his ability to discharge the weapon invalidates the whole "Martin went too far because he restrained him and didn't let him escape" defense since a reasonable person in this scenraio would fear that the other party, once released, would discharge their firearm. I am suggesting that his use of force was not excessive since he was defending himself against an armed opponent. The fact that his armed opponent was able to discharge his weapon in spite of all this, to me, validates this. Martin was pummeling him, but clearly not into submission, since he was still able to get a shot off.


My question relates to your assertion that Mr. Martin was acting in self-defense against Mr. Zimmerman. I am requesting an explanation of the actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that justified Mr. Martin's use of force against him. To be justifiably defending himself against an opponent, armed or not, Mr. Zimmerman must have engaged in some action that justified Mr. Martin's initial use of force against him or Mr. Martin, after unjustifiably initiating the attack, must have attempted and failed to retreat from the confrontation.
 
2013-07-15 04:04:56 PM  

QueenMamaBee: redmid17: QueenMamaBee: Joe Blowme: All bluster... when was last time Beyonce or any of the J4T tards came out like this for the 40 -50 kids shot every week in Chicago? AW-ing at its finest. If Zimmerman was black, this would not have been a story

So unless someone is outraged all the time, they can't be outraged any of the time?

By the way, I'm not sure where this "40-50 kids shot each day" is coming from... but the average I've seen is about 1 a day (32 a month). Yes, this greatly pisses me off too. If thugs are killing thugs, regardless of their ethnicity, I don't really give a flying fark. You choose the gang life, then you choose the consequences. If you're out shooting randomly and hitting kids, then yes, I'm pissed. I find it hard to believe a competent police force couldn't cut down on those shootings. If the current force isn't doing it, then fark them and start all over.

There were 70+ people shot in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend and 21 were shot this weekend in Chicago alone. Vast majority of those shootings involved a young black male shooting another young black male, but some of those involve a small child getting shot. A 5 year old was shot on July 4th in an attempted gang shooting. 40-50 is far too many AFAIK but one a day is not even close for Chicago.

*young being 25 and under

I just googled "teens" and several blogs and stories I read (including an educational-based site), said 508 were shot in 16 months, which came down to 32 a month, slightly more than one a day. One innocent child is far too many. One innocent adult is too many. I've found several mentioning how many homicides in Chicago each year, but not how many get shot and survive.


Only about 1/20 of gunshot victims die.  There's a whole lot of lead flying around.
 
2013-07-15 04:05:13 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?

Because Zimmerman had not given him reason for escalating force, even if Zimmerman did start the fight. Swinging and missing does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.

The gun was the reason

Unless Zimmerman was brandishing it or pointing it at Martin, it doesn't matter. Merely seeing a concealed weapon on someone does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.

Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?


Because it's illegal. If Zimmerman had brandished the weapon or purposely lifted his shirt or said "I'm packing you punk" or whatever Dirty Harry scenario you can imagine, then Martin could have done that. Until he was threatened he had no cause for danger. Florida has issued over a million CC permits. Merely seeing someone's gun is not a cause for self-defense. There has to be an intent to use it.
 
2013-07-15 04:06:58 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: But, none of you are racist. Its me.


Now you're beginning to understand.
 
2013-07-15 04:08:23 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?


The evidence of Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and of the testimony of an eyewitness affirms Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

What demonstrably extant evidence affirms a hypothetical claim of self-defense by Mr. Martin? What is the basis of your belief that Mr. Martin was engaged in self-defense?
 
2013-07-15 04:09:40 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?

Because Zimmerman had not given him reason for escalating force, even if Zimmerman did start the fight. Swinging and missing does not allow you to pin someone on the ground, punch them, and slam their head into the sidewalk.

The gun was the reason


You should be able to demonstrate, then, that Mr. Zimmerman used his firearm to instigate the physical confrontation. Please do so.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:02 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Amos Quito: DROxINxTHExWIND: theflatline: there had been prior criminal acts committed by black youths fitting trayvons description. iat that point he fit a profile of a known entity.

if you look like a reported suspected there is no racial profiling involved. no matter what color is involved.

fitting a description has nothing to do with race.

George Zimmerman is not a police officer. And for farks sake, descriptions are not as vague as "black guy" for a reason. You're going to need more than "black teenagers did bad shiat once" to justify the profiling that led to murder. Trayvon Martin to attack and viciously assault a "creepy-ass cracker" that he (stupidly) believed to be unarmed and helpless, resulting in the aggressor's untimely demise.

FYFY, Droxycontin

FYI, the "profiling" of one citizen by another is NOT ILLEGAL.

I repeat: The "profiling" of one citizen by another is NOT ILLEGAL.

It was NOT illegal when George Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon Martin as a "suspicious character" (prompting him to CALL THE POLICE), and it was NOT illegal when Trayvon Martin "profiled"  George Zimmerman  as a "Creepy-ass cracker" (prompting HIM to lie in wait for, and viciously attack George Zimmerman).


Spread the word.

Stop the violence.


Oh, so now it WAS racially motivated. I'm trying to keep up.



The only person who testified that the attack was racially motivated was Trayvon's Girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, who, when asked by attorneys whether SHE thought the incident was racially motivated answered "yes".

When aswked WHY she thought the incident wasracially motivated, she testified that she thought it was because Trayvon told her that he was being watched by a "creepy-ass cracker".

So while there IS evidence that Trayvon's actions were racially motivated, there is NO evidence that Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated.

See?
 
2013-07-15 04:11:33 PM  

CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?


A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.
 
2013-07-15 04:12:02 PM  

omeganuepsilon: DROxINxTHExWIND: But, none of you are racist. Its me.

Now you're beginning to understand.


Best thing I ever did was putting that guy on ignore.  Stupidest thing I ever did was not going into my settings and making sure that I can't see his posts when others quote him.
 
2013-07-15 04:12:56 PM  

This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: Facetious_Speciest: DROxINxTHExWIND

On behalf of the black people who were convicted on shoddy evidence, but whose plight was never a consideration until Zimmerman got arrested, I say, "lick balls".

I'm sure the unjustly imprisoned would appreciate your dismissal of injustice.

You really have issues with reading comprehension or you really are willing to reach as far as neccesary to make your point. The statement is directed at those wo only now are finding fault with the justice system. That has nothing at all to do with your commet.

Who, in your mind, fits the description of being a black man railroaded by a systematic politically-motivated attack in an attempt to frame him for a crime he did not commit?

I mean, OJ was probably railroaded for the hotel break-in in Vegas, but he also probably got away with murder. Chris Dorner? But he seemed to have a lot of white supporters here, and that was primarily a cop-cop thing. Mumia Abu-Jamal? There was no controversy that he shot Faulkner, and his case is primarily about his "sovereign citizen"-like delusions. So what case comes to mind, specifically, for you?



Fair question. Most of the cases are not high profile. And its not just people who were "wrongly convicted". Its also about people who are punished more severely for commiting crimes than white defendents
 
2013-07-15 04:13:59 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.


Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.
 
2013-07-15 04:14:52 PM  
All this talk of Cracker makes me hungry. So this Cracker is currently spreading peanut butter on Ritz crackers. They're cracking good.
 
2013-07-15 04:16:32 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.


Then you will likely be arrested or shot. Good luck with that. It helps to know the law.
 
2013-07-15 04:17:09 PM  

cwolf20: All this talk of Cracker makes me hungry. So this Cracker is currently spreading peanut butter on Ritz crackers. They're cracking good.


static.someecards.com
/explains Drox's behavior
 
2013-07-15 04:17:10 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.


I stated that observation of a firearm, absent any aggressive behaviour, does not establish a reasonable fear. "Starting shiat" implies aggressive behaviour, and, combined with observation of a firearm, likely does establish reasonable fear. You are attaching additional qualifiers not present in your initial statement.

You have not, however, defined the specific behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.
 
2013-07-15 04:17:52 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point

Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.

I'm sure a reasonable person, like yourself, when unarmed, would let their armed attacker get up. Why is it Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself but Martin is not?


Martin did defend himself.
He just didn't do as good a job at it as George did.
 
2013-07-15 04:18:13 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.

Then you will likely be arrested or shot. Good luck with that. It helps to know the law.


That's fine, that's a problem, and I'd rather be arrested than shot, and its infuriatingly disingenous that you assert otherwise for yourself.
 
2013-07-15 04:20:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon.


Any chance I can take out a short term life insurance policy on you?

I'd love to get in on that action, it seems like a good bet.
 
2013-07-15 04:21:02 PM  

Abuse Liability: omeganuepsilon: DROxINxTHExWIND: But, none of you are racist. Its me.

Now you're beginning to understand.

Best thing I ever did was putting that guy on ignore.  Stupidest thing I ever did was not going into my settings and making sure that I can't see his posts when others quote him.


And he still can't stop talking about me. I must have hurt him pretty badly. Thing is, I rarely resort to any type of personal attack so I don't even know why he doesn't like me. Lol. Notice, h knows he didn't chng his settings, but hd's not goin to do it because he reall wants to see what I post.


/creepy
 
2013-07-15 04:21:12 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.

I stated that observation of a firearm, absent any aggressive behaviour, does not establish a reasonable fear. "Starting shiat" implies aggressive behaviour, and, combined with observation of a firearm, likely does establish reasonable fear. You are attaching additional qualifiers not present in your initial statement.

You have not, however, defined the specific behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.


I can't define specific behavior and neither can you. We're both operating on what we think likely happened, because the only clear testimony of the entire altercation is given by the party facing a murder charge based on how the scenario unfolded. The only other person who could have given a similar testimony is dead.
 
2013-07-15 04:23:02 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.

Then you will likely be arrested or shot. Good luck with that. It helps to know the law.

That's fine, that's a problem, and I'd rather be arrested than shot, and its infuriatingly disingenous that you assert otherwise for yourself.


You're only going to be arrested if you're still alive. That was my point. I don't know what I am asserting that's pissing you off. I'm just telling you how the law interprets what you're talking about.
 
2013-07-15 04:23:44 PM  

Elegy: CPennypacker: Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon.

Any chance I can take out a short term life insurance policy on you?

I'd love to get in on that action, it seems like a good bet.


Doesn't seem like a good bet to me. I'm white and I don't wear hoodies.
 
2013-07-15 04:24:39 PM  

MarkEC: There is absolutely no inference anywhere in the evidence that TM knew GZ had a gun


Other than Z's story that M "went for" it, right?

redmid17: I wasn't using the legal term. Feel free to substitute "assault" for "battery" there. Either way I don't think it would be unreasonable to think a person would be afraid of someone following them. However it still doesn't let them punch them or physically harm them, which was my whole point.


Except that it does (so long as the fear of death or bodily harm is reasonable). Which was my whole point.  It's kind of the crux of the biscuit, here.
 
2013-07-15 04:25:45 PM  

Deucednuisance: MarkEC: There is absolutely no inference anywhere in the evidence that TM knew GZ had a gun

Other than Z's story that M "went for" it, right?

redmid17: I wasn't using the legal term. Feel free to substitute "assault" for "battery" there. Either way I don't think it would be unreasonable to think a person would be afraid of someone following them. However it still doesn't let them punch them or physically harm them, which was my whole point.

Except that it does (so long as the fear of death or bodily harm is reasonable). Which was my whole point.  It's kind of the crux of the biscuit, here.


Following someone does not give you justification to physically attack someone. That's not disputable. You cannot attack someone for following you.
 
2013-07-15 04:25:56 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.

Then you will likely be arrested or shot. Good luck with that. It helps to know the law.

That's fine, that's a problem, and I'd rather be arrested than shot, and its infuriatingly disingenous that you assert otherwise for yourself.

You're only going to be arrested if you're still alive. That was my point. I don't know what I am asserting that's pissing you off. I'm just telling you how the law interprets what you're talking about.


I dunno, I guess it depends on what your assumption of reasonable fear is.
 
2013-07-15 04:26:53 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Abuse Liability: omeganuepsilon: DROxINxTHExWIND: But, none of you are racist. Its me.

Now you're beginning to understand.

Best thing I ever did was putting that guy on ignore.  Stupidest thing I ever did was not going into my settings and making sure that I can't see his posts when others quote him.

And he still can't stop talking about me. I must have hurt him pretty badly. Thing is, I rarely resort to any type of personal attack so I don't even know why he doesn't like me. Lol. Notice, h knows he didn't chng his settings, but hd's not goin to do it because he reall wants to see what I post.


/creepy


You did in that post, twice.  Talking about how hurt you made him, and accusation about how he actually still wants to see your posts.

You may not be fairly be up front about it, but you do attack personally.  Tapdancing around the truth doesn't make the truth vanish.  Your argument is consistently the equivalent of a kid screaming, "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU" in order to be as annoying as possible without actually touching.

Grow up.
 
2013-07-15 04:27:34 PM  

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.

Then you will likely be arrested or shot. Good luck with that. It helps to know the law.

That's fine, that's a problem, and I'd rather be arrested than shot, and its infuriatingly disingenous that you assert otherwise for yourself.

You're only going to be arrested if you're still alive. That was my point. I don't know what I am asserting that's pissing you off. I'm just telling you how the law interprets what you're talking about.

I dunno, I guess it depends on what your assumption of reasonable fear is.


If there is no intent and the weapon's lack of concealment is accidental, then there is no reasonable assumption of fear *from the weapon*. If the guy with the gun is kicking the shiat out of you (ala Martin) then you would have a case.
 
2013-07-15 04:28:56 PM  
http://t.imgbox.com
 
Displayed 50 of 880 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report