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.

(KNBC 4 Los Angeles)   LAPD declares citywide tactical alert amid George Zimmerman protests. Link goes to live feed   (nbclosangeles.com) divider line 1083
    More: News, LAPD, Los Angeles, Crenshaw Boulevard  
•       •       •

12967 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1083 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 09:26:03 AM
Thanks MSNBC!
 
2013-07-16 09:26:35 AM
Meanwhile while you are sufficiently distracted/outraged over this some "minor" new:

Feds admit improper scrutiny of candidate, donor tax records-Justice has declined to prosecute any of the cases
 
2013-07-16 09:26:55 AM

eraser8: 1) Lack of evidence isn't proof that an assault didn't happen.

2) I don't know that Martin didn't assault Zimmerman.  I never claimed Martin didn't assault Zimmerman.  Maybe he did.  Maybe he didn't.

I'm just curious how people seem to KNOW what happened even with so little evidence available to them.


1) Yes it does.

2) There is no reasonable claim that Zimmerman was not assaulted by Martin.

There is PLENTY of evidence. If you paid attention, you'd know that.
 
2013-07-16 09:27:15 AM

s2s2s2: Because there is no evidence to support that. If your constant refrain is "well we don't know that" then look at what we do know, and come up with a reasonable explanation other than the one given by the only eyewitness, which is wholly supported by all the facts, and most of the eyewitness testimony, INCLUDING that of Rachel Jeantel.


As I wrote earlier, lack of evidence isn't proof that an assault didn't happen.  Keep in mind, also, that under Florida law, an assault does not require the touching of another person.  An assault is a threat by word or deed to inflict harm coupled with apparent ability to carry out the threat.  Considering what we know, it's perfectly arguable for either of them to have been guilty of assault.  But, since we don't have any reliable evidence on how the encounter began, it's impossible to say which one of them is guilty of it.
 
2013-07-16 09:27:31 AM

s2s2s2: Hell of a way to prove that shady individual that "looked like he was on drugs(he was)" was "up to no good". What good did Martin do, in this situation?


The answer is none good, none good is the answer

Dimensio: Also known as an unusually quiet Monday night in Detroit

I have adjusted your statement to improve its accuracy.


I stand by your correction
 
2013-07-16 09:27:34 AM

skozlaw: Molavian: If you can't see the link between "But I own guns" and "But my friends are black" as it applies to this discourse, well, good luck with the burger flipping.

I just feel like you should know that everything you've posted in this thread has made no sense so far. I don't want you to stop, mind you, I just feel compelled to inform you of the fact that your posts are completely asinine in case you'd like to.


That's mighty white of you, Tex.
 
2013-07-16 09:28:14 AM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 469x539]
Look like Obama's sons?


The media is "ignoring" the incidents that you continually reference because no well-known advocacy groups claim -- rightly or wrongly -- that the crimes demonstrate a problem with race relations in the United States of America.
 
2013-07-16 09:28:17 AM

eraser8: I'm just curious how people seem to KNOW what happened even with so little evidence available to them.


There is no video of the first punch, but there's lots of pieces of evidence from separate sources that all agree that Martin attacked first.  If you don't know this, then you haven't been paying attention.
 
2013-07-16 09:29:48 AM

eraser8: jfivealive: Jenteal's testimony of Martin's aggression with the use of the phrase 'crazy ass cracker'

Not wanting to be followed in the dark by a strange man indicates aggression to you?


No it doesn't.  It indicates fear, nervousness, a feeling of discomfort, among other things.  I believe those emotions then manifested into anger for Martin.  Like, 'how dare he follow me'.  However his use of the derogatory phrase of 'crazy ass cracker' rather than something like 'crazy mother farker', or 'crazy asshole', or 'crazy ass punk'  at least shows some sort of preconceived notion of disdain towards white people.
 
2013-07-16 09:29:50 AM

dr_blasto: Carth: QueenMamaBee: hasty ambush: [muslimsocialservicesagency.org image 850x447]

Really? That happened in 2007. I heard about it, was plenty pissed back then. They've already had their trials and have been sentenced to long prison terms. No injustice there, they all got what they deserved.

He wasn't killed but I'd like at least a real investigation on who beat the bicyclist near my house too. Or at the very least a reason why he was targeted. It was daylight and he was just riding home.

Go on any bicycle-related thread on Fark and see how many people hate bicyclists.


So what you're saying is it was a hate crime.

/if only cyclists were a protected class.
 
2013-07-16 09:30:04 AM
Wow guys, "riots" usually indicate anger, and anger doesn't mean 'waiting 4 days'. Either these "rioters" need to show a sense of urgency, or someone is blowing things out of proportion.
 
2013-07-16 09:31:08 AM

eraser8: How do you know Zimmerman didn't assault Martin?


For me, its simple.  The evidence at trial supported Zimmerman's claims a lot more than it supported the State's claims.  And by evidence, I mean the State's own witnesses.  By the time it got to the Defense turn to present evidence, there was already ample proof supporting George Zimmerman's version...provided by the very people who were supposed to convict him.

That evidence...the police officer who believed Zimmerman, Jenteal, Zimmerman's various statements, the ME on his injuries, the police officer explaining self-defense.  Nothing in those was inconsistent with Zimmerman's statement as to how it went down.

It was enough for me to form a belief as to how it occurred.  And nothing presented fit any scenario that was different.  At best we were left with "what if Zimmerman started it".  Wishes is not evidence, nor is it argument, nor is it a plausible scenario.
 
2013-07-16 09:31:21 AM

eraser8: s2s2s2: Because there is no evidence to support that. If your constant refrain is "well we don't know that" then look at what we do know, and come up with a reasonable explanation other than the one given by the only eyewitness, which is wholly supported by all the facts, and most of the eyewitness testimony, INCLUDING that of Rachel Jeantel.

As I wrote earlier, lack of evidence isn't proof that an assault didn't happen.  Keep in mind, also, that under Florida law, an assault does not require the touching of another person.  An assault is a threat by word or deed to inflict harm coupled with apparent ability to carry out the threat.  Considering what we know, it's perfectly arguable for either of them to have been guilty of assault.  But, since we don't have any reliable evidence on how the encounter began, it's impossible to say which one of them is guilty of it.


You do know TM was on the phone the whole time right? Sooooo, yes... we know he started it and said as much to jaba
 
2013-07-16 09:31:32 AM

Dimensio: hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 469x539]
Look like Obama's sons?

The media is "ignoring" the incidents that you continually reference because no well-known advocacy groups claim -- rightly or wrongly -- that the crimes demonstrate a problem with race relations in the United States of America.


That's a good synopsis.  I've been seeing that meme for years, and apparently I'm supposed to read it and think that I'm oppressed, but I don't really, I just see it as a horrible isolated crime.

I wonder what hasty ambush really wants to get out that.  Is there an idealized future where every news broadcast starts off with "Day 23,862:  black people are still bad."
 
2013-07-16 09:32:21 AM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 625x352]


can we come up with a fund to have this put on billboards in LA and FL
 
2013-07-16 09:32:31 AM

hasty ambush: Meanwhile while you are sufficiently distracted/outraged over this some "minor" new:

Feds admit improper scrutiny of candidate, donor tax records-Justice has declined to prosecute any of the cases


Do you think there will be a tax accountant riot?
 
2013-07-16 09:34:01 AM
hasty ambush:
25.media.tumblr.com

Look like Obama's sons?

Maybe they were the Neighborhood Watch and they suspected Chellew was driving drunk? Again:

www.justmugshots.com
Arrest Date:2012-09-08
Ocga40-6-72 Misdemeanor Unindi Running A Stop Sign (misdemeanor)
Ocga40-6-391(a)(1) Misdemeanor Unindi Driving Under The Influence Of Alcohol (misdemeanor)
http://www.justmugshots.com/georgia/mableton/3726626
 
2013-07-16 09:34:16 AM

jfivealive: eraser8: jfivealive: Jenteal's testimony of Martin's aggression with the use of the phrase 'crazy ass cracker'

Not wanting to be followed in the dark by a strange man indicates aggression to you?

No it doesn't.  It indicates fear, nervousness, a feeling of discomfort, among other things.  I believe those emotions then manifested into anger for Martin.  Like, 'how dare he follow me'.  However his use of the derogatory phrase of 'crazy ass cracker' rather than something like 'crazy mother farker', or 'crazy asshole', or 'crazy ass punk'  at least shows some sort of preconceived notion of disdain towards white people.


Silly rabbit, only white people are racist
 
2013-07-16 09:34:21 AM

I_C_Weener: .

It was enough for me to form a belief as to how it occurred. And nothing presented fit any scenario that was different. At best we were left with "what if Zimmerman started it". Wishes is not evidence, nor is it argument, nor is it a plausible scenario.


It's almost as if this trial was really a farce so that the prosecution could throw the game and was only put on to satisfy the blood lust of a particular set of people.

Say it isn't so, my government doesn't lie to me!
 
2013-07-16 09:34:31 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Well there is a recording of him telling a dispatcher what he was thinking.


There's also the fact that Martin's only injuries were a scratch on his knuckle and a gunshot wound.

s2s2s2: eraser8: How do you know Zimmerman didn't assault Martin?

Because there is no evidence to support that. If your constant refrain is "well we don't know that" then look at what we do know, and come up with a reasonable explanation other than the one given by the only eyewitness, which is wholly supported by all the facts, and most of the eyewitness testimony, INCLUDING that of Rachel Jeantel.

"You don't get your own facts." - Every liberal ever.


The only person who clearly had injuries from being punched or struck was ...

George Zimmmerman

But the Martin supporters ignore those facts.
 
2013-07-16 09:35:26 AM

eraser8: under Florida law


You can assault someone in the petty, verbal way you mentioned, and if that person starts to beat you in a potentially harmful assault, and you can't retreat, you can defend yourself using lethal force. Does the fact that Zimmerman was legally a child mean he couldn't have been a legitimate threat to George's life?

Considering what we know, where is the reason for outrage?

A: As I expect you will demonstrate, it is a field of moving goal posts.

Are you suggesting that it should be ok to potentially kill someone for shouting mean things at you?
 
2013-07-16 09:35:39 AM

Rapmaster2000: Dimensio: hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 469x539]
Look like Obama's sons?

The media is "ignoring" the incidents that you continually reference because no well-known advocacy groups claim -- rightly or wrongly -- that the crimes demonstrate a problem with race relations in the United States of America.

That's a good synopsis.  I've been seeing that meme for years, and apparently I'm supposed to read it and think that I'm oppressed, but I don't really, I just see it as a horrible isolated crime.

I wonder what hasty ambush really wants to get out that.  Is there an idealized future where every news broadcast starts off with "Day 23,862:  black people are still bad."


You should move to Chicago if you wanna hear those news broadcasts. "Another violent weekend in the city's south and west sides as 7 people were murdered and another 42 injured in gun violence." Of course its minority on minority violence so no one cares.
 
2013-07-16 09:35:40 AM

jfivealive: Was it a poor judgment call for him to exit the vehicle, while carrying his weapon, instead of just sitting tight and waiting for the police?  Yes I believe so, but not as poor of a judgment as Martin, to turn back and confront Zimmerman.


Zimmerman's poor judgment in following Martin is undisputed.  Martin's decisions and actions are a lot less clear.

So, yes, I find it easier to condemn someone when I KNOW he did something stupid than to condemn someone because I ASSUME he did something stupid.
 
2013-07-16 09:36:48 AM

LasersHurt: jfivealive: LasersHurt: jfivealive: use of the phrase 'crazy ass cracker'

Zimmerman: farking punks, assholes
Martin: crazy ass cracker

Yeah, I can see where this is more a Martin thing, yep.

Please stop cherry picking phrases from my replies.  Again, I did not say that Martin was solely responsible for the confrontation, just more responsible.  Did Zimmerman use derogatory language?  Yes, but we can hear the inflection in his voice.  To me that doesn't sound like an angry man out for vigilante justice.

I'm not cherry-picking, I'm quoting the relevant parts that I am responding to.

Now: how is he "more" responsible? Are his words more "telling" to you?

Inflection? Really? He sounded less punchy?


Are you telling me that there is not a noticeable difference in someone's voice for the different emotions they are feeling?  He didn't sound angry.  You must be awfully lucky to have never had anyone be angry with you, since you have no idea how the inflection in their voice can be telling.

I explained earlier, many times, the reasons for my belief of Martin being more responsible.  You may read them if you'd like, or you may continue to ignore them.
 
2013-07-16 09:38:54 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is no video of the first punch, but there's lots of pieces of evidence from separate sources that all agree that Martin attacked first.  If you don't know this, then you haven't been paying attention.


I admit I haven't been paying very close attention.  But, other than the defendant's statement, I don't see any good evidence of who assaulted whom.

There's certainly reasonable evidence that Zimmerman was on the losing end of a fight..but, that doesn't help with the question of assault.
 
2013-07-16 09:39:54 AM

SwingingJohnson: Thanks MSNBC!


Meanwhile some team wins some championship, drunk bros riot.

Thanks ESPN!
 
2013-07-16 09:40:03 AM

heili skrimsli: HotWingConspiracy: Well there is a recording of him telling a dispatcher what he was thinking.

There's also the fact that Martin's only injuries were a scratch on his knuckle and a gunshot wound.


Hey since one punch can potentially kill, should you be able to shoot anyone that balls their fists near you?
 
2013-07-16 09:40:24 AM

I_C_Weener: eraser8: How do you know Zimmerman didn't assault Martin?

For me, its simple.  The evidence at trial supported Zimmerman's claims a lot more than it supported the State's claims.  And by evidence, I mean the State's own witnesses.  By the time it got to the Defense turn to present evidence, there was already ample proof supporting George Zimmerman's version...provided by the very people who were supposed to convict him.

That evidence...the police officer who believed Zimmerman, Jenteal, Zimmerman's various statements, the ME on his injuries,

the lack of injuries on Martin, and the police officer explaining self-defense.  Nothing in those was inconsistent with Zimmerman's statement as to how it went down.

It was enough for me to form a belief as to how it occurred.  And nothing presented fit any scenario that was different.  At best we were left with "what if Zimmerman started it".  Wishes is not evidence, nor is it argument, nor is it a plausible scenario
supported by evidence.

FTFM.
 
2013-07-16 09:41:54 AM

eraser8: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is no video of the first punch, but there's lots of pieces of evidence from separate sources that all agree that Martin attacked first.  If you don't know this, then you haven't been paying attention.

I admit I haven't been paying very close attention.  But, other than the defendant's statement, I don't see any good evidence of who assaulted whom.

There's certainly reasonable evidence that Zimmerman was on the losing end of a fight..but, that doesn't help with the question of assault.


There is not one bit of physical evidence or witness testimony whatsoever that Zimmerman ever struck Martin at all. The only person with injuries consistent with a physical assault/beating was Zimmerman.

So yes, we do have 'good evidence of who assaulted whom'.
 
2013-07-16 09:42:04 AM

Rapmaster2000: Coastalgrl


Ah ha! Thanks.

Ive always been attracted to odd blends. Fell in love with a man Irish + India. Beautiful Skin tone.

Here is the article in question which I thought was a fascinating read.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23305076
 
2013-07-16 09:42:13 AM

eraser8: So, yes, I find it easier to condemn someone when I KNOW he did something stupid than to condemn someone because I ASSUME he did something stupid.


Pretty stupid to assault someone in a state where people have CCW*. Did you know that Florida used to have open carry? If you carried a firearm, it had to be visible. That made people nervous, so that changed it to concealed carry, only. If Florida hadn't changed the law, Trayvon might have made a better decision.

*Also illegal(to assault someone)
 
2013-07-16 09:42:52 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: I_C_Weener: .

It was enough for me to form a belief as to how it occurred. And nothing presented fit any scenario that was different. At best we were left with "what if Zimmerman started it". Wishes is not evidence, nor is it argument, nor is it a plausible scenario.

It's almost as if this trial was really a farce so that the prosecution could throw the game and was only put on to satisfy the blood lust of a particular set of people.

Say it isn't so, my government doesn't lie to me!


I know too many prosecutors to think they needed to be pushed to do this.
 
2013-07-16 09:43:08 AM

HotWingConspiracy: heili skrimsli: HotWingConspiracy: Well there is a recording of him telling a dispatcher what he was thinking.

There's also the fact that Martin's only injuries were a scratch on his knuckle and a gunshot wound.

Hey since one punch can potentially kill, should you be able to shoot anyone that balls their fists near you?


Just like in every other thread where you made this ridiculous argument the answer is the same.

No.
 
2013-07-16 09:44:27 AM
HA, God punished the Daily Show for reporting two fact free stories, last night.
 
2013-07-16 09:44:28 AM
 
2013-07-16 09:45:07 AM

s2s2s2: You can assault someone in the petty, verbal way you mentioned, and if that person starts to beat you in a potentially harmful assault, and you can't retreat, you can defend yourself using lethal force.


That's one of the major problems with the law.  Zimmerman and Martin could very well be equally justified in using force against the other.  And, by the way, if a person is beating you, it's no longer assault; it's battery.
 
2013-07-16 09:46:32 AM

heili skrimsli: HotWingConspiracy: heili skrimsli: HotWingConspiracy: Well there is a recording of him telling a dispatcher what he was thinking.

There's also the fact that Martin's only injuries were a scratch on his knuckle and a gunshot wound.

Hey since one punch can potentially kill, should you be able to shoot anyone that balls their fists near you?

Just like in every other thread where you made this ridiculous argument the answer is the same.

No.


So then you agree with me that all the attempts to justify the shooting based on "one punch can kill" are completely invalid. I'm glad to have you on board.
 
2013-07-16 09:46:59 AM
When it comes to riots, this thread qualifies quite a bit more than what happened last night in LA.

/ this thread must be full of flatlanders who have never seen more than five people on the street at once, never mind five black people
 
2013-07-16 09:47:32 AM

eraser8: s2s2s2: You can assault someone in the petty, verbal way you mentioned, and if that person starts to beat you in a potentially harmful assault, and you can't retreat, you can defend yourself using lethal force.

That's one of the major problems with the law.  Zimmerman and Martin could very well be equally justified in using force against the other.  And, by the way, if a person is beating you, it's no longer assault; it's battery.


If you are talking about the tort, you are correct. However, many jurisdictions have codified criminal assault to have the same or similar meaning as tortious battery.
 
2013-07-16 09:47:53 AM

dinwv: Hey, why don't white people riot once in awhile?


Because we can afford large screen TVs and don't wear Jordans?

For some people, any excuse to steal  shiat is a good excuse as long as you say it's about 'justice'.


/Why the hell did those two people on the bench get their asses kicked? Just for being white? Like the Trayvon shooting was all part of some white conspiracy? We all know each other or something?
 
2013-07-16 09:48:52 AM

eraser8: jfivealive: Was it a poor judgment call for him to exit the vehicle, while carrying his weapon, instead of just sitting tight and waiting for the police?  Yes I believe so, but not as poor of a judgment as Martin, to turn back and confront Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's poor judgment in following Martin is undisputed.  Martin's decisions and actions are a lot less clear.

So, yes, I find it easier to condemn someone when I KNOW he did something stupid than to condemn someone because I ASSUME he did something stupid.


I don't agree with you that Martin's decisions and actions are a lot less clear.  There is testimony, evidence, that supports Martin had turned around and returned to where he last saw Zimmerman in order to confront him.  There is not evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after he was told not to.
 
2013-07-16 09:49:42 AM
i383.photobucket.com
www.laprogressive.com

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-16 09:50:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: heili skrimsli: HotWingConspiracy: heili skrimsli: HotWingConspiracy: Well there is a recording of him telling a dispatcher what he was thinking.

There's also the fact that Martin's only injuries were a scratch on his knuckle and a gunshot wound.

Hey since one punch can potentially kill, should you be able to shoot anyone that balls their fists near you?

Just like in every other thread where you made this ridiculous argument the answer is the same.

No.

So then you agree with me that all the attempts to justify the shooting based on "one punch can kill" are completely invalid. I'm glad to have you on board.


At the time of the shooting, Mr. Zimmerman had already been punched. That a balled-up fist does not justify deadly force in itself does not demonstrate that the shooting was not justified based upon the reasoning that "one punch can kill". Your conclusion is not supported by the premises.
 
2013-07-16 09:50:43 AM

Matthew Keene: [i383.photobucket.com image 450x288]
[www.laprogressive.com image 350x366]

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 225x225]


ewww ass crackers.
 
2013-07-16 09:51:14 AM

heili skrimsli: There is not one bit of physical evidence or witness testimony whatsoever that Zimmerman ever struck Martin at all.


Physical contact isn't a necessary element of assault.  Assault is the threat of force, not the use of it.

And, once that threat is made, the victim has the right to defend himself.  So, if Zimmerman -- by words or deeds -- threatened bodily injury to Martin, Martin would have the right of self-defense.   The same goes for Zimmerman.  As I said earlier, both may have been legally justified in acting as they did.  We simply don't know because we don't have enough information.
 
2013-07-16 09:52:53 AM

dinwv: Hey, why don't white people riot once in awhile?


But when people start taking stuff from the stores, are they surviving or looting?

static.tvfanatic.com
 
2013-07-16 09:54:15 AM

zeroman987: eraser8: s2s2s2: You can assault someone in the petty, verbal way you mentioned, and if that person starts to beat you in a potentially harmful assault, and you can't retreat, you can defend yourself using lethal force.

That's one of the major problems with the law.  Zimmerman and Martin could very well be equally justified in using force against the other.  And, by the way, if a person is beating you, it's no longer assault; it's battery.

If you are talking about the tort, you are correct. However, many jurisdictions have codified criminal assault to have the same or similar meaning as tortious battery.


Florida is not one of those jurisdictions.  The relevant Florida statute:  An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
 
2013-07-16 09:54:26 AM

eraser8: heili skrimsli: There is not one bit of physical evidence or witness testimony whatsoever that Zimmerman ever struck Martin at all.

Physical contact isn't a necessary element of assault.  Assault is the threat of force, not the use of it.

And, once that threat is made, the victim has the right to defend himself.  So, if Zimmerman -- by words or deeds -- threatened bodily injury to Martin, Martin would have the right of self-defense.   The same goes for Zimmerman.  As I said earlier, both may have been legally justified in acting as they did.  We simply don't know because we don't have enough information.


I don't believe that's true, but correct me if I'm wrong.  If I say I'm going to kick someones ass the next time I see them, and then the next time i see them they strike me without provocation, they can't say they were defending themselves.  If i threaten to knock someone's teeth out at a bar, and they then strike me, they can still be charged.
 
2013-07-16 09:56:15 AM

jfivealive: I don't agree with you that Martin's decisions and actions are a lot less clear.  There is testimony, evidence, that supports Martin had turned around and returned to where he last saw Zimmerman in order to confront him.  There is not evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after he was told not to.


Then we're going to have to agree to disagree.
 
2013-07-16 09:56:17 AM

Joe Blowme: peace for tm

just free speech

proof GZ is a racist


didn't know about Ware's sister trying to burn Zimmerman at the stake.  black peoples be farked up.
 
Displayed 50 of 1083 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report