Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KNBC 4 Los Angeles)   LAPD declares citywide tactical alert amid George Zimmerman protests. Link goes to live feed   (nbclosangeles.com) divider line 1077
    More: News, LAPD, Los Angeles, Crenshaw Boulevard  
•       •       •

12977 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»



1077 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 09:59:57 AM  

eraser8: 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.


Defendant's multiple, and consistent statements.
Jenteal's statement that Martin was concerned he was being followed by a "nubian" and a "creepy ass cracka".
Jenteal's statement that Martin went home, then went back outside.
Jenteal's statement that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first, "Why you following me?"
Jenteal's statement that Zimmerman said something like , "What are you doing? " (Not sure this is correct)
Jenteal's statement that Martin refused to run when she suggested it.
The 911 call which is consistent with Zimmerman's statement including (keep an eye on him, and 'we don't need you to do that').  And which is consistent with Zimmerman's statement that when he lost Martin, he told the operator that and was heading back (very plausible considering the recording), hung up the phone.

But I'll give you that we don't have an eyewitness to the start of the altercation.  At best we have an ear witness to part of it, who says Martin left the safety of his home, and went back out to talk to Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-16 10:00:20 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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.

Well the one punch can kill meme isn't mine, it comes from GZim supporters. They use it as a justification if you state that you don't feel a gun is a proper response to losing a fight.

So given that one punch is a grave, deadly threat, why can you not defend yourself before you're even struck?


The sight of a "balled up fist", absent any other context, is not sufficient to demonstrate an imminent threat of a punch. Therefore, deadly force is not justified merely based upon a sight.
 
2013-07-16 10:00:31 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: why can you not defend yourself before you're even struck?


Um, you can. That point was brought up numerous times during the trial, the closing arguments and by the talking heads on TV.

You know absolutely nothing about this case and are only here to call people racists, go away troll.
 
2013-07-16 10:00:35 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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.

Well the one punch can kill meme isn't mine, it comes from GZim supporters. They use it as a justification if you state that you don't feel a gun is a proper response to losing a fight.

So given that one punch is a grave, deadly threat, why can you not defend yourself before you're even struck?


BTW, I'm not being jerky, and you're actually the one person that might have a straight answer on this.

Take this particular trial out of the equation. Just two hot heads on the street.
 
2013-07-16 10:01:04 AM  

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


Because Americans don't care about hockey.  Canadians on the other hand...
 
2013-07-16 10:01:36 AM  
god damn it people let it go already.
 
2013-07-16 10:01:50 AM  

jfivealive: 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.


Does every threat allow you to kill someone?  Of course not.  The threat can't be idle or conditional.  It has to be imminent.
 
2013-07-16 10:02:25 AM  

Dimensio: The sight of a "balled up fist", absent any other context, is not sufficient to demonstrate an imminent threat of a punch. Therefore, deadly force is not justified merely based upon a sight.


It would depend.

Is the balled up fist from Mike Tyson after I insulted his lisp?
 
2013-07-16 10:02:47 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: HotWingConspiracy: why can you not defend yourself before you're even struck?

Um, you can. That point was brought up numerous times during the trial, the closing arguments and by the talking heads on TV.


Dimensio disagrees, perhaps you two can hash it out.

You know absolutely nothing about this case and are only here to call people racists, go away troll.

Shut up racist.
 
2013-07-16 10:03:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


The shooting was justified because Zimmerman was on his back with Martin on top of him raining down blows and striking his head with concrete.
 
2013-07-16 10:03:21 AM  

eraser8: The relevant Florida statute:


So you cite Florida Law to support Martin, but when the law goes on to say "if you become the aggressor, after the initial 'assault', you open the other party to killing you." You go back to some other irrelevant point.

If you want to argue the law, there is no way you come out with "Zimmerman is a murderer."

If Zimmerman can be attacked for a verbal assault, then Zimmerman can kill when the other person takes such offense that he very nearly kills someone.

If you'd like an explanation of what I mean by very nearly killed, I can tell you about the time I fell down, bumped my head, and nearly bled out through a wound about the same size(and in the same area) as one of the ones on Zimmerman's head. If no one had found me, I would be dead.
 
2013-07-16 10:04:42 AM  

Rapmaster2000: way south: Rapmaster2000: Why are people completely mystified by the idea of a white hispanic?

Because its a racist subdivision with no real meaning.
It only serves to separate some Hispanics from the blacks and the whites of similar ethnicity.

Well, I'm sorry, Moonbeam, but for the purposes of accuracy, people with significantly more expertise in this field have chosen to subdivide groups of Americans.  You may be shocked to find out that they also measure income.  I'm sure Karl Marx wouldn't approve, but here we are.


There isn't anything accurate about the race baiting that's been going on in regards to this trial.
Especially for the purposes of claiming the law did Zimmerman favors due to his whiteness. He won't be getting a KKK membership card with his bloodline being among the most often profiled in the southern US.

Alot of what changes income between ethnicity has to do cultural differences rather than whitey accepting  you into his club.  Its clear that We have a very serious cultural problem rather than a racism problem when the vast majority of black killed are killed by black men.

Resolve the culture issue and you save thousands of lives a year.
Ignore it and every trial becomes an eyesore.
 
2013-07-16 10:07:19 AM  

I_C_Weener: Dimensio: The sight of a "balled up fist", absent any other context, is not sufficient to demonstrate an imminent threat of a punch. Therefore, deadly force is not justified merely based upon a sight.

It would depend.

Is the balled up fist from Mike Tyson after I insulted his lisp?


Your statement implies specific context. HotWingConspiracy's question did not. A "balled up fist", combined with other contextual circumstances, may justify the use of deadly force. A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.
 
2013-07-16 10:11:40 AM  

s2s2s2: While you and I differ on this case, I might think we'd both like to live in a country that could reasonably eliminate handguns.


I'm actually a gun owner.  I keep mine locked up at home.  I've never fired a gun at another human being and I don't ever expect to.

I'm not so much a fan of gun banning.  As far as we're able, I think we should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.   Zimmerman strikes me as just the sort of numskull who should never have had a gun.
 
2013-07-16 10:11:51 AM  

way south: Rapmaster2000: way south: Rapmaster2000: Why are people completely mystified by the idea of a white hispanic?

Because its a racist subdivision with no real meaning.
It only serves to separate some Hispanics from the blacks and the whites of similar ethnicity.

Well, I'm sorry, Moonbeam, but for the purposes of accuracy, people with significantly more expertise in this field have chosen to subdivide groups of Americans.  You may be shocked to find out that they also measure income.  I'm sure Karl Marx wouldn't approve, but here we are.

There isn't anything accurate about the race baiting that's been going on in regards to this trial.
Especially for the purposes of claiming the law did Zimmerman favors due to his whiteness. He won't be getting a KKK membership card with his bloodline being among the most often profiled in the southern US.

Alot of what changes income between ethnicity has to do cultural differences rather than whitey accepting  you into his club.  Its clear that We have a very serious cultural problem rather than a racism problem when the vast majority of black killed are killed by black men.

Resolve the culture issue and you save thousands of lives a year.
Ignore it and every trial becomes an eyesore.


i grew up in south louisiana, have lived in texas, georgia, and currently hang my hat in florida.

i have never been profiled for being hispanic.

however in san francisco, new york, philadelphia, and rhode island i was...
 
2013-07-16 10:14:12 AM  

Dimensio: Your statement implies specific context. HotWingConspiracy's question did not. A "balled up fist", combined with other contextual circumstances, may justify the use of deadly force. A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.


My favorite part of BDLR's closing was when he said that Trayvon would have been justified in his attack, because George reached toward his waistband. This means that George would have been justified in shooting Trayvon when Trayvon reached into his waistband, 4 minutes earlier. If George HAD been a cop, there would have been several more bullet holes.

And people are surprised that the jury rendered an acquittal. :I
 
2013-07-16 10:14:17 AM  

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


Don't have time, they have jobs they have to be at and taxes to pay.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-16 10:14:49 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's the entire timeline which shows that TM was long gone, then returned to the area where Zimmerman was staying relatively still.  There's the fact that TM has zero injuries aside from his knuckles and bullet wound.  There's the witness who said she believed someone quickly went from TM's house to where the shooting happened.  There's the fact that there is zero evidence that GZ was ever on top of TM.  TM had a history of fighting, TM was attempting to buy an illegal gun.  There's more, but the items in Zimmerman's column are far fewer in number, and rely solely on speculation.
 
2013-07-16 10:14:56 AM  

I_C_Weener: Defendant's multiple, and consistent statements.


Again, none of that is actual evidence of who assaulted whom.
 
2013-07-16 10:15:13 AM  

eraser8: Zimmerman strikes me as just the sort of numskull who should never have had a gun.


Interesting question...given everything we know about him right up to using that gun...what about him would you say would be a basis to keep a gun from him?  In other words, what criteria would have prevented him from being a gun owner?  Mental illness?  Prior felony conviction?  Lack of insurance?

Not trying to argue 2d amendment has not restrictions, just what restrictions would have worked here other than banning gun ownership for white Hispanics, or Jewish Hispanics, or 28 year old males, or what?
 
2013-07-16 10:16:13 AM  

Dimensio: I_C_Weener: Dimensio: The sight of a "balled up fist", absent any other context, is not sufficient to demonstrate an imminent threat of a punch. Therefore, deadly force is not justified merely based upon a sight.

It would depend.

Is the balled up fist from Mike Tyson after I insulted his lisp?

Your statement implies specific context. HotWingConspiracy's question did not. A "balled up fist", combined with other contextual circumstances, may justify the use of deadly force. A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.


So you can indeed simply shoot an unarmed person and claim self defense. Just need what, a verbal threat? The ol "knife across the throat with my index finger" gimmick?
 
2013-07-16 10:16:37 AM  

eraser8: I think we should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.   Zimmerman strikes me as just the sort of numskull who should never have had a gun.


I agree that the 2nd amendment supports your right to keep and bear that firearm. I have no huge problem with that, and I also have no problem with people thinking George shouldn't have a gun.

I don't necessarily agree, as it might have saved his life.
 
2013-07-16 10:17:17 AM  

Dimensio: A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.


It certainly is when you've already suffered a broken nose, head lacerations and have taken numerous other shots from an attacker who is showing no signs of stopping, even after knowing that his violent attack is being witnessed by a third party.
 
2013-07-16 10:18:04 AM  

eraser8: I_C_Weener: Defendant's multiple, and consistent statements.

Again, none of that is actual evidence of who assaulted whom.


It is evidence that Zimmerman's version can be believed. And his statement is that he was sucker punched.
 
2013-07-16 10:18:24 AM  

I_C_Weener: eraser8: Zimmerman strikes me as just the sort of numskull who should never have had a gun.

Interesting question...given everything we know about him right up to using that gun...what about him would you say would be a basis to keep a gun from him?  In other words, what criteria would have prevented him from being a gun owner?  Mental illness?  Prior felony conviction?  Lack of insurance?

Not trying to argue 2d amendment has not restrictions, just what restrictions would have worked here other than banning gun ownership for white Hispanics, or Jewish Hispanics, or 28 year old males, or what?



There is a big difference between "its probably a bad idea for this guy to have a gun" and "the law should prohibit this guy from owning a gun".
 
2013-07-16 10:19:26 AM  

s2s2s2: So you cite Florida Law to support Martin...


I cited the law to make it clear that assault is a matter of threat.  That isn't necessarily in support of Martin.  I was just pointing out, due to the nature of assault, we cannot know with any reliability who assaulted whom.

s2s2s2: If Zimmerman can be attacked for a verbal assault, then Zimmerman can kill when the other person takes such offense that he very nearly kills someone.


Did you miss the part where I said, "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. "?
 
2013-07-16 10:20:45 AM  

eraser8: s2s2s2: While you and I differ on this case, I might think we'd both like to live in a country that could reasonably eliminate handguns.

I'm actually a gun owner.  I keep mine locked up at home.  I've never fired a gun at another human being and I don't ever expect to.

I'm not so much a fan of gun banning.  As far as we're able, I think we should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.   Zimmerman strikes me as just the sort of numskull who should never have had a gun.


Because he has a history of brandishing his weapon?
Because he has a history of discharging his weapon?
Because he has a history of violence?

Outside of the fact that he shot Martin, which the case was clearly in self-defense and not murder, how does he strike you as an irresponsible gun owner? He had the gun on him? No one should carry a firearm with them ever?
 
2013-07-16 10:21:07 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: I_C_Weener: Dimensio: The sight of a "balled up fist", absent any other context, is not sufficient to demonstrate an imminent threat of a punch. Therefore, deadly force is not justified merely based upon a sight.

It would depend.

Is the balled up fist from Mike Tyson after I insulted his lisp?

Your statement implies specific context. HotWingConspiracy's question did not. A "balled up fist", combined with other contextual circumstances, may justify the use of deadly force. A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.

So you can indeed simply shoot an unarmed person and claim self defense. Just need what, a verbal threat? The ol "knife across the throat with my index finger" gimmick?


No possible rational nor honest interpretation of my statement allows for the conclusion that you have derived. How, then, did you arrive at it?
 
2013-07-16 10:22:14 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Just need what, a verbal threat?


Yet J4T thinks that's all that's required to justify a pretty intense assault. But yeah, the other side is just a bunch of dumb racists!
 
2013-07-16 10:22:50 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.

It certainly is when you've already suffered a broken nose, head lacerations and have taken numerous other shots from an attacker who is showing no signs of stopping, even after knowing that his violent attack is being witnessed by a third party.


I agree. However, in that situation contextual data besides the "balled up fist" establishes justification for the use of force. Had Mr. Zimmerman observed Mr. Martin's fists balling up while Mr. Martin was standing with his arms to his sides, the use of deadly force would not have been justified.
 
2013-07-16 10:23:24 AM  

I_C_Weener: eraser8: Zimmerman strikes me as just the sort of numskull who should never have had a gun.

Interesting question...given everything we know about him right up to using that gun...what about him would you say would be a basis to keep a gun from him?  In other words, what criteria would have prevented him from being a gun owner?  Mental illness?  Prior felony conviction?  Lack of insurance?

Not trying to argue 2d amendment has not restrictions, just what restrictions would have worked here other than banning gun ownership for white Hispanics, or Jewish Hispanics, or 28 year old males, or what?


Maybe people who don't use first line self defense tactics when they're armed. Like conflict avoidance, in Zimmermans case, when he knew he was a giant wuss and was concerned someone was participatin and perpetratin in the neighborhood.

If you're going to carry, you ought to ensure you're mentally prepared and mentally ready to defend.

My opinion, and it's just a feeling about the guy, is that Zimmerman is the kind of guy that thought that carrying his pistol would keep him safe. That is absolutely the wrong mentality to have. That's also, in my opinion, why he got his ass kicked.
 
2013-07-16 10:23:47 AM  

the money is in the banana stand: Outside of the fact that he shot Martin, which the case was clearly in self-defense and not murder, how does he strike you as an irresponsible gun owner? He had the gun on him? No one should carry a firearm with them ever?


Well clearly using a firearm in self defense is evidence that a person should not have a firearm to begin with.
 
2013-07-16 10:25:10 AM  

s2s2s2: HotWingConspiracy: Just need what, a verbal threat?

Yet J4T thinks that's all that's required to justify a pretty intense assault. But yeah, the other side is just a bunch of dumb racists!


In her interview with Piers Morgan, Jenteal clearly said that if Martin felt threatened he would put the beatdown on someone.  She's really Zimmerman's best defense.
 
2013-07-16 10:25:22 AM  

I_C_Weener: Interesting question...given everything we know about him right up to using that gun...what about him would you say would be a basis to keep a gun from him?


As the law is now written?  Nothing.

Psychological testing isn't a requirement to purchase a handgun.  But, perhaps it should be.
 
2013-07-16 10:26:04 AM  
just imagine if everybody went ballistic everytime a wrongful death happened

society would collapse
 
2013-07-16 10:28:07 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: I_C_Weener: Dimensio: The sight of a "balled up fist", absent any other context, is not sufficient to demonstrate an imminent threat of a punch. Therefore, deadly force is not justified merely based upon a sight.

It would depend.

Is the balled up fist from Mike Tyson after I insulted his lisp?

Your statement implies specific context. HotWingConspiracy's question did not. A "balled up fist", combined with other contextual circumstances, may justify the use of deadly force. A "balled up first" is not, however, justification for use of deadly force under all possible circumstances.

So you can indeed simply shoot an unarmed person and claim self defense. Just need what, a verbal threat? The ol "knife across the throat with my index finger" gimmick?


How about this. You shoot an unarmed person anytime you think the threat is credible and imminent. You'll have a trial and if the jury agrees you won't go to jail. Since there are countless possibilities where shooting an unarmed person  unjustified and justified that seems like he best rule.
 
2013-07-16 10:28:42 AM  
"The rights of the many have been abused by the actions of a few," said LAPD Chief Charlie Beck.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-16 10:28:59 AM  

skinink: 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 image 556x371]


There's a non race related distinction there.  If you are taking food, or medicine, you have an argument for surviving.  When you are taking DVDs, TVs, and Heineken... LOOTING.
 
2013-07-16 10:29:13 AM  

eraser8: I_C_Weener: Interesting question...given everything we know about him right up to using that gun...what about him would you say would be a basis to keep a gun from him?

As the law is now written?  Nothing.

Psychological testing isn't a requirement to purchase a handgun.  But, perhaps it should be.


Sandy Hook/Virginia Tech/Aurora are arguments for psychological testing

this is more of an adrenaline-fueled shooting, i don't think psychological testing would do anything here, in fact i wouldn't be surprised if GZ would pass the test if the test existed
 
2013-07-16 10:29:31 AM  

dittybopper: enry: /seriously, you're scared of a 17 year old?

What is the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?


Barring direct evidence to the contrary, there shouldn't be a reason to be scared of someone if they're 14, 17, 18, 29, or 50.  I'm not scared of my fellow man, so I don't feel a need to be armed.

If you want to go through your life being afraid, that's okay.  Just admit it and move on.  Try not to shoot anyone in the parking lot.
 
2013-07-16 10:29:47 AM  

Dimensio: Had Mr. Zimmerman observed Mr. Martin's fists balling up while Mr. Martin was standing with his arms to his sides, the use of deadly force would not have been justified.


If you're going to claim self defense in a situation like that, you better have a few eyewitnesses that will testify that the guy was also making threats against your life.
 
2013-07-16 10:30:00 AM  

s2s2s2: HA, God punished the Daily Show for reporting two fact free stories, last night.


As a dedicated watcher, that was painful to watch. Whenever someone starts talking about the stand your ground defense like it was relevant to the actual trial, I know immediately their knowledge of the events pretty much comes from what they heard from friends.
 
2013-07-16 10:30:16 AM  

the money is in the banana stand: Outside of the fact that he shot Martin, which the case was clearly in self-defense and not murder, how does he strike you as an irresponsible gun owner? He had the gun on him? No one should carry a firearm with them ever?


The case was neither clearly self-defense nor clearly murder.  It was a muddle.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted.

My point is that it's a bit unnerving that people with such bad judgment as Zimmerman are legally in possession of firearms.
 
2013-07-16 10:31:17 AM  

way south: Alot of what changes income between ethnicity has to do cultural differences rather than whitey accepting you into his club. Its clear that We have a very serious cultural problem rather than a racism problem when the vast majority of black killed are killed by black men.

Resolve the culture issue and you save thousands of lives a year.
Ignore it and every trial becomes an eyesore.




www.blackyouthproject.com

speakoutlistenup.files.wordpress.com

abww.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-16 10:31:51 AM  

eraser8: I_C_Weener: Interesting question...given everything we know about him right up to using that gun...what about him would you say would be a basis to keep a gun from him?

As the law is now written?  Nothing.

Psychological testing isn't a requirement to purchase a handgun.  But, perhaps it should be.


Please, describe to me what psychological test should be performed before purchasing a handgun? People who knowingly take certain medications or have been diagnosed with certain mental illnesses should be disallowed from gun ownership however. I will take a lot of flack over this, but I would say this would constitute people suffering from PTSD as well. I know quite a few folks that went on a couple of tours to the Middle East, came back and contract for Black Water et. al., and they probably should not have firearms here. They will argue they have a right to it, especially after fighting for us. To an extent they would be correct, but we need to look at the collective welfare and see if that is really a good idea. These are dangerous, aggressive people, who know no other life and no matter how hard they try to reintroduce themselves into society, fall back into the same pattern.
 
2013-07-16 10:31:57 AM  

eraser8: I_C_Weener: Defendant's multiple, and consistent statements.

Again, none of that is actual evidence of who assaulted whom.


Ok, how about the eye witnesses that saw TM on top of GZ pounding on him?
 
2013-07-16 10:32:17 AM  

eraser8: Did you miss the part where I said


It's cool. You are at least a little more reasonable, and I respect your intentions. I can't fault people for being upset about this, and if it had been a more comprehensive, fact finding cause by most of the media speaking on it, I would have likely joined in the chorus of "this is what's wrong with the law". I can't abide the racial divisiveness of people who claimed it was about race, then that it wasn't, then that they'd accept a verdict, then moved to accusing a non-racist of racism.

I started being horrified by George's actions. The case didn't allow me to hold that view, in light of the evidence. I really just wish it was a racist hunting a black kid(so I could have kept hating George). I can't see how a reasonable person still thinks that, if they were really paying attention.

Why aren't more people relieved that this wasn't a case of a racist murder? Horrible tragedy, yes.
Race motivated hate crime? Not even close.
 
2013-07-16 10:32:21 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Had Mr. Zimmerman observed Mr. Martin's fists balling up while Mr. Martin was standing with his arms to his sides, the use of deadly force would not have been justified.

If you're going to claim self defense in a situation like that, you better have a few eyewitnesses that will testify that the guy was also making threats against your life.


Even verbal threats, corroborated by witnesses, may be insufficient to justify deadly force if the balled fists are not accompanied by any other aggressive movements.

However, as Mr. Martin was shot and killed while actively engaged in physical attacks, the issue is academic.
 
2013-07-16 10:32:21 AM  

eraser8: The case was neither clearly self-defense nor clearly murder. It was a muddle. That's why Zimmerman was acquitted.

My point is that it's a bit unnerving that people with such bad judgment as Zimmerman are legally in possession of firearms.


i209.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-16 10:33:43 AM  

eraser8: 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.


Not quite
784.011Assault.-
(1)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.
Simply talking trash is not assault.
For GZ to have "assaulted" TM, he would have had to make a credible threat in the form of words or action and displayed the ability to carry out the threat, creating fear in TM that violence was about to occur.
For example, had the altercation gone like this:
GZ: "I'm gonna kill you you trespassing SOB!" *drops comfortably into a fighting stance and advances on TM*
That's assault.

At no time was it ever stipulated by anyone that GZ said anything threatening, by either side.
He made no actions that would put a "well-founded fear" in TM.

So you can logically deduce that GZ did not assault TM.

It was stipulated that TM assaulted GZ when he asked GZ "Do you have a problem?", GZ replied "No", then TM said "Well you do now" and swung.
Threat by word, coupled with ability, then act.
Assault, then battery when the swing connects with GZ's nose.
 
Displayed 50 of 1077 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report