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
    More: News, LAPD, Los Angeles, Crenshaw Boulevard  
•       •       •

12984 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1077 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

 
2013-07-16 10:34:05 AM  

Dimensio: 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?


So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?
 
2013-07-16 10:36:27 AM  

RussianPooper: As a dedicated watcher, that was painful to watch.


Agreed. John Fugelsang is normally an awesome, reasonable guy. He has a piece that is nearly fact free about this thing. Makes me sad.

The same logic that took me from being a Rush Limbaugh listening welfare queen hater to a damned near socialist is the same logic by which I came to the conclusion that George Zimmerman never should have been arrested, or charged.

The truth doesn't lie. BDLR, on the other hand...
 
2013-07-16 10:36:37 AM  

eraser8: 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.


While some of the events are in fact muddled, GZ was clearly acting in self-defense. I think that has been proven to the point where it can be counted as a fact. If this was not the case, manslaughter would at the very least still be on the table. GZ clearly killed TM. In order for that to be justified, self-defense would need to be established which it was.

Also, please show where Zimmerman had such bad judgment? Are you referring to the inconclusive belief that he continued to follow TM after he was told "he did not need to do that," which is highly different than "don't do that"? What other bad judgment did he use specifically? That seems to be the ONLY thing people are referencing as fact when that cannot be definitively proven. Even if it was, that isn't bad judgment. Had he had his weapon drawn telling TM to stop or firing shots in the air, or tackling TM. That is a different story. None of that happened.
 
2013-07-16 10:37:33 AM  
How come media is always allowed to say "violence mars protest"? Isn't "mars" an opinion?  It's no less of an opinion to say a stupid candlelight vigil marred the far more effective riot. Let me know when any policy changes because of a candlelight vigil... but burn a few blocks down and all of a sudden they're pulling out the stops to make people less angry.
 
2013-07-16 10:37:46 AM  

enry: I haven't gotten a good answer on this. Zimmerman is getting the crap beat out of him but doesn't land a single punch but is able to reach behind his nack, unholster his penis compensator, and immediately plugs Martin. Doesn't wave it in his face or use it as a way of getting out of the situation, just *blam".


Because if you have enough time to draw a firearm and wave it at someone, your life isn't in enough danger and therefor you shouldn't be drawing your gun. A self defense firearm isn't there to pull out every time you think you might be in trouble. In fact it's illegal to do so. (called 'brandishing' and can net you jail time). If you have time to shoot to wound, your life wasn't in enough danger to warrent shooting in the first place. The ONLY time you should ever draw a weapon is if your life is in such danger that you need to shoot RIGHT FARKING NOW. Not fire a warning shot, not wave your gun around, not shoot them in the shoulder. If you do any of those things, the law generally frowns quite heavily on it.

As far as how he was able to get his gun? You can still move your hands whilst being punched in the face. It wouldn't be hard all all to try and shield yourself with one arm while grabbing your sidearm with the other. I don't know where Zimmerman kept his, but MOST people carry their weapon on their hip. But even behind him, it wouldn't be that hard to reach behind him.

Hopefully this answers your questions.
 
2013-07-16 10:38:00 AM  

ferg4096: Why would they riot in LA over this?


It's LA.  Why wouldn't they riot over this?  Or anything else, really?

If I ever get to be world dictator, my solution will be to build an impenetrable dome over LA.  Nobody gets in or out.  Let the problems solve themselves.

/that means all of LA
//yes, including that part
///and that one too
////maybe not the porn part
 
2013-07-16 10:38:05 AM  

RussianPooper: 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.


Back in the Bush years, you could count on TDS to cut through a lot of the bullshiat, now they're helping to manufacture it.
 
2013-07-16 10:42:03 AM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: Gyrfalcon: SubBass49: NEW LIVE FEED (KTLA)

Well, that takes care of that.

Clearly, the LAPD did learn a lesson from that clusterf*ck in 1992: Close it down fast with no violence and maximum presence. And don't wait for Chief Gates to get back from telling everyone how there isn't going to be a riot.


Don't kid yourself.

They WANT a riot.

They're just waiting for the critical mass.

Sounds like YOU want a riot, too. Are you typing this one-handed?


No, I don't want riots, vyrgramul.

I'm watching the bone-headed, befuddled masses being manipulated by the sinister puppet masters - using their emotionally charged tricks to con us into fighting one another.

It makes me sick.


You should probably sound less excited about the rioting, then.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't even make sense.
 
2013-07-16 10:42:17 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?


A verbal threat does establish further context. Whether it, combined with a "balled up fist", are contributing factors to a justification for the use of deadly force requires analysis of the entirety of the situation.
 
2013-07-16 10:43:37 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?


other contextual circumstances
Amongst two able bodies males, a balled up fist does not justify lethal force
An able bodies male vs a smaller female, a balled up fist and threat can justify lethal force due to disparity of force.

For the example you keep tirelessly bringing up, no, a balled fist on its own does not justify use of lethal force.
 
2013-07-16 10:45:40 AM  

over_and_done: ferg4096: Why would they riot in LA over this?

It's LA.  Why wouldn't they riot over this?  Or anything else, really?

If I ever get to be world dictator, my solution will be to build an impenetrable dome over LA.  Nobody gets in or out.  Let the problems solve themselves.

/that means all of LA
//yes, including that part
///and that one too
////maybe not the porn part


www.empireonline.com

Challenge accepted.
 
2013-07-16 10:47:42 AM  
Funny last time I posted Photos of the riot with people smashing windows, the mods deleted my post and said I was trying to incite a flamewar, sounds like someone was simply butthurt over the not guilty plea.
 
2013-07-16 10:51:35 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?

other contextual circumstances
Amongst two able bodies males, a balled up fist does not justify lethal force
An able bodies male vs a smaller female, a balled up fist and threat can justify lethal force due to disparity of force.


What is the legal definition of "able bodied"? What if it's a male vs. smaller male?

For the example you keep tirelessly bringing up, no, a balled fist on its own does not justify use of lethal force.

Except for when it does, as you just pointed out.
 
2013-07-16 10:54:08 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?

other contextual circumstances
Amongst two able bodies males, a balled up fist does not justify lethal force
An able bodies male vs a smaller female, a balled up fist and threat can justify lethal force due to disparity of force.

What is the legal definition of "able bodied"? What if it's a male vs. smaller male?

For the example you keep tirelessly bringing up, no, a balled fist on its own does not justify use of lethal force.

Except for when it does, as you just pointed out.


Absolutely no rational nor honest interpretation of ChaosStar's statement could allow for such a conclusion.
 
2013-07-16 10:54:12 AM  

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


Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza stole those guns after killing his mother.
Virginia Tech. Had the state of Virginia properly reported Cho's adjudicated psychological treatment, he would've failed NICS.
Aurora. James Holmes was noted to be a potential threat to safety by mental health services at his college, but he quit so they never followed up.

All of those are cases in which more laws would have done fark-all.
 
2013-07-16 10:55:12 AM  

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


Did these guys get acquitted?
 
2013-07-16 10:55:17 AM  

hasty ambush: [muslimsocialservicesagency.org image 850x447]


Odd - how did I know about it?

/Boy, that really WAS gruesome.
//Made the news and a special feature
///Weren't the perps caught and convicted? Kinda makes the point, well, without relevance.
 
2013-07-16 10:55:37 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?

other contextual circumstances
Amongst two able bodies males, a balled up fist does not justify lethal force
An able bodies male vs a smaller female, a balled up fist and threat can justify lethal force due to disparity of force.

What is the legal definition of "able bodied"? What if it's a male vs. smaller male?

For the example you keep tirelessly bringing up, no, a balled fist on its own does not justify use of lethal force.

Except for when it does, as you just pointed out.


I made it nice, big, and bold for you.
There is no circumstance, at all, period, where a balled up fist ON ITS OWN justifies lethal force, and I never said it did.
Ever

If you want the answer to your other questions,  do your own homework go read up on disparity of force.
 
2013-07-16 10:58:03 AM  

TheJoe03: darwin


I'd argue with you, but it's hard to argue with someone with the IQ of a potato.
 
2013-07-16 10:58:05 AM  

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


Let the record show that Hasty Ambush is defending a crip.
 
2013-07-16 10:58:55 AM  

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?

A verbal threat does establish further context. Whether it, combined with a "balled up fist", are contributing factors to a justification for the use of deadly force requires analysis of the entirety of the situation.


So it's just back to whether or not the armed individual feels threatened. Their analysis will be final for the other party.
 
2013-07-16 11:00:31 AM  

ChaosStar: There is no circumstance, at all, period, where a balled up fist ON ITS OWN justifies lethal force, and I never said it did.
Ever


Oh man, you should tell Popcorn that. He says it's legal in Florida.
 
2013-07-16 11:00:47 AM  

Cobblestone Flag: equate Not Guilty with Completely Absolved from Wrongdoing in the Court of Public Opinion


And you people think Zimmerman played judge and jury....try looking in the mirror once in a while.
 
2013-07-16 11:02:56 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: There is no circumstance, at all, period, where a balled up fist ON ITS OWN justifies lethal force, and I never said it did.
Ever

Oh man, you should tell Popcorn that. He says it's legal in Florida.


I would be willing to bet that if you cited the post, that's not at all what he said and that you're just purposely misinterpreting what he did say to be a troll.
 
2013-07-16 11:03:19 AM  

vygramul: hasty ambush: [muslimsocialservicesagency.org image 850x447]

Odd - how did I know about it?

/Boy, that really WAS gruesome.
//Made the news and a special feature
///Weren't the perps caught and convicted? Kinda makes the point, well, without relevance.


I'm assuming the perps weren't even charged with a crime, otherwise the comparison wouldn't make sense.
 
2013-07-16 11:03:51 AM  

ChaosStar: If you want the answer to your other questions, do your own homework go read up on disparity of force.


You cannot have honest discourse with dishonest people.
 
2013-07-16 11:04:44 AM  

colonel.locke: I still remember all the riots that started after OJ was acquitted...  oh, wait...




Too bad I remember the last Florida riot in 1996.
 
2013-07-16 11:05:15 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.


This is oddly smelling like a rational discussion on gun control/ownership on fark (take it where you can get it).  I don't believe there is anything that should have kept Zimmerman from owning or carrying a firearm, nor should there be.  I feel the same about all of the "responsible" gun owners who shoot themselves or someone else with unloaded firearms every year.  And to be honest, after the fact yeah -- sure as shiat the world would be a better place if those people had never been allowed to own a firearm.

There's the rub for me.  I truly do not believe in prematurely limiting a person's rights because of their perceived potential for doing something horrible.  However I have to admit that such a policy will result in the death and/or injury of many people.  And so for me it comes down to the question of whether or not the right is worth the cost...and I believe it is.  I feel that question is at the root of many of our beliefs on the subject -- and I'll openly admit that I'm not 100% comfortable with my position.  As the Dude says, there's a lot of ins and outs, a lot of whathaveyou's.  Anyway, my 3 cents.
 
2013-07-16 11:05:22 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: There is no circumstance, at all, period, where a balled up fist ON ITS OWN justifies lethal force, and I never said it did.
Ever

Oh man, you should tell Popcorn that. He says it's legal in Florida.

I would be willing to bet that if you cited the post, that's not at all what he said and that you're just purposely misinterpreting what he did say to be a troll.


I'm just hoping you legal scholars can hash this out. My plate is full with the gun banning and such.
 
2013-07-16 11:07:06 AM  

heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: If you want the answer to your other questions, do your own homework go read up on disparity of force.

You cannot have honest discourse with dishonest people.


I'm a paragon of truth.
 
2013-07-16 11:07:33 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: There is no circumstance, at all, period, where a balled up fist ON ITS OWN justifies lethal force, and I never said it did.
Ever

Oh man, you should tell Popcorn that. He says it's legal in Florida.

I would be willing to bet that if you cited the post, that's not at all what he said and that you're just purposely misinterpreting what he did say to be a troll.

I'm just hoping you legal scholars can hash this out. My plate is full with the gun banning and such.


That's what I thought, goodbye troll.
 
2013-07-16 11:08:03 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: There is no circumstance, at all, period, where a balled up fist ON ITS OWN justifies lethal force, and I never said it did.
Ever

Oh man, you should tell Popcorn that. He says it's legal in Florida.

I would be willing to bet that if you cited the post, that's not at all what he said and that you're just purposely misinterpreting what he did say to be a troll.


I don't think anyone will bet against you.  Not unless they handle money like Gomez Addams.
 
2013-07-16 11:09:18 AM  

Wise_Guy: It's getting serious:

[i.imgur.com image 636x450]


Oh, yes.  Yes. it is.

madeup.lv
 
2013-07-16 11:17:33 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: 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?

So a verbal threat doesn't qualify as a contextual circumstance?

A verbal threat does establish further context. Whether it, combined with a "balled up fist", are contributing factors to a justification for the use of deadly force requires analysis of the entirety of the situation.

So it's just back to whether or not the armed individual feels threatened. Their analysis will be final for the other party.


Your conclusion is neither an honest nor a logical derivation of my statements.
 
2013-07-16 11:30:01 AM  

MythDragon: enry: I haven't gotten a good answer on this. Zimmerman is getting the crap beat out of him but doesn't land a single punch but is able to reach behind his nack, unholster his penis compensator, and immediately plugs Martin. Doesn't wave it in his face or use it as a way of getting out of the situation, just *blam".

Because if you have enough time to draw a firearm and wave it at someone, your life isn't in enough danger and therefor you shouldn't be drawing your gun. A self defense firearm isn't there to pull out every time you think you might be in trouble. In fact it's illegal to do so. (called 'brandishing' and can net you jail time). If you have time to shoot to wound, your life wasn't in enough danger to warrent shooting in the first place. The ONLY time you should ever draw a weapon is if your life is in such danger that you need to shoot RIGHT FARKING NOW. Not fire a warning shot, not wave your gun around, not shoot them in the shoulder. If you do any of those things, the law generally frowns quite heavily on it.

As far as how he was able to get his gun? You can still move your hands whilst being punched in the face. It wouldn't be hard all all to try and shield yourself with one arm while grabbing your sidearm with the other. I don't know where Zimmerman kept his, but MOST people carry their weapon on their hip. But even behind him, it wouldn't be that hard to reach behind him.

Hopefully this answers your questions.


Zimmerman was on his back with Martin sitting on top of him.  My guess (based on arm reach) would be that Martin would have to be sitting on Zimmerman's stomach or upper pelvis, making it hard to reach underneath his back to unholster and draw since it was pinned by both his own weight and Martin's weight.  Yet in all that time Zimmerman didn't hit back once.  None of Zimmerman's DNA was on Martin.
 
2013-07-16 11:37:14 AM  

enry: MythDragon: enry: I haven't gotten a good answer on this. Zimmerman is getting the crap beat out of him but doesn't land a single punch but is able to reach behind his nack, unholster his penis compensator, and immediately plugs Martin. Doesn't wave it in his face or use it as a way of getting out of the situation, just *blam".

Because if you have enough time to draw a firearm and wave it at someone, your life isn't in enough danger and therefor you shouldn't be drawing your gun. A self defense firearm isn't there to pull out every time you think you might be in trouble. In fact it's illegal to do so. (called 'brandishing' and can net you jail time). If you have time to shoot to wound, your life wasn't in enough danger to warrent shooting in the first place. The ONLY time you should ever draw a weapon is if your life is in such danger that you need to shoot RIGHT FARKING NOW. Not fire a warning shot, not wave your gun around, not shoot them in the shoulder. If you do any of those things, the law generally frowns quite heavily on it.

As far as how he was able to get his gun? You can still move your hands whilst being punched in the face. It wouldn't be hard all all to try and shield yourself with one arm while grabbing your sidearm with the other. I don't know where Zimmerman kept his, but MOST people carry their weapon on their hip. But even behind him, it wouldn't be that hard to reach behind him.

Hopefully this answers your questions.

Zimmerman was on his back with Martin sitting on top of him.  My guess (based on arm reach) would be that Martin would have to be sitting on Zimmerman's stomach or upper pelvis, making it hard to reach underneath his back to unholster and draw since it was pinned by both his own weight and Martin's weight.  Yet in all that time Zimmerman didn't hit back once.  None of Zimmerman's DNA was on Martin.


GZ carried his ccw at his side, on his hip, with a in the waistband (IWB) holster, which was nylon and had no retention device. It was not on his back.
GZ's DNA, in the form of blood, was found on TM's shirt.
 
2013-07-16 11:49:33 AM  
 
2013-07-16 11:51:06 AM  

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


That's called protesting. Also rioting is hard. You might trip on the sidewalk and bruise your knees.
 
2013-07-16 11:51:08 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.


Hey, I'm with you, brother.  I don't see race.  People tell me I'm white and I believe them because I like Dave Matthews Band.
 
2013-07-16 11:54:22 AM  

heili skrimsli: Meanwhile, in PIttsburgh:

"I'm not going to make excuses. It was not right for him to reach for the gun, but it was not right for a cop to do what he did to my son. He's only 6. He didn't have to do that," said Ramey's mother, Lisa Miller.


That kid probably terrorizes the kids at his school.
 
2013-07-16 12:12:03 PM  
Fark it...let's go for page 3...
 
2013-07-16 12:15:09 PM  

iq_in_binary: Kittypie070: iq_in_binary: Kittypie070: Amos Quito: Hi Kittypie070!

You stay @ home tonight, ya hear?

Rumor has it that there's a batch of BAD CATNIP on the streets.

The Tomcats are acting like assholes. Not their fault, really, their masters are just dickwads, that's all.

You find yourself a comfy spot and curl up, all snuggly.

Sweet dreams!

I have a good deadbolt and a very large hammer.

Thanks :)

Also, it's astoundingly quiet here where I'm at.

Why not a gun?

Just curious.

There's a slight bit of tippy-toeing around with the Sheriff's Department I'd need to deal with before getting specifically a handgun permit. They don't just hand out those particular ones like Crackerjack prizes despite this being a very red county.

A long gun would be easier as far as permits go, but I haven't been in the market for one yet.

Nuff said :)

Nuff said.

Hey you're talking to the liberal gunsmith, my stance on guns has walked pretty far to the left since I've been on fark ;)

I'd totally help you out with a shotgun, let me know if you're ever in the market. Better for home defense too, I can get a hold of slugs used by the marines specifically designed to not overpenetrate (still pissed you can't get them on the market, you'd think a safety slug that effective wouldn't at least be available for LEOs too). Gotta worry about the people you AREN'T shooting at too ya know ;)


i would be interested in your products and would like to become a member

/current shotgun is a .45
 
2013-07-16 12:16:54 PM  

iq_in_binary: tbeatty: Taylor Mental: Jurors are now saying they knew Zimmerman was wrong and should have been punished but didn't have evidence to overcome reasonable doubt.

Where'd you make that up from?  Most everyone is upset that a teenager died.  Even in Chicago they get upset when black unarned teens are killed.  It makes people angry and it should.  But the single juror you are talking about said the evidence and law was on Zimmerman's side, not that he was wrong and should be punished.  The juror said they believed it was Zimmerman screaming for help and Trayvon punched first and then followed up with more strikes.  It's straight up self-defense.  Nobody did anything wrong or illegal until Trayvon threw that first punch.   A single punch would have been a misdemeanor.  He followed that up with more strikes while on top of Zimmerman (again, this is what the jurors believed and was proven in court).  So now, with all that going on (broke nose, blood running down throat so it's hard to breathe  and in eyes so it's hard to see) and 5'11", 160 lb man experienced in fighting is banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete, did zimmerman reasonably fear for his life or that he might be seriously injured?  The juror says that the law and the facts said 'yes'.  It was not illegal for zimmerman to follow Trayvon and call police.  It was not illegal for Trayvon to be out walking the neighborhood.  It was not illegal for zimmerman to get out of the car.  The crime began with Trayvon's punch.  Zimmerman would not be justified in shooting him over a single punch.  Trayvon's follow-up though, made it reasonable to fear for zimmermans life.  Zimmerman did not land a single blow to Trayvon and the beating ended only when Trayvon was shot.  The beating lasted 40 seconds.  That's what the jury saw and heard and believed.  There's a ton of "if only's" on both sides but that didn't happen so the jury made their decision on the evidence and the law.

Ok, fine.

But they were on CNN and Fox tryin ...


did i also mention that your newsletter is appealing & i look forward to my subscription
 
2013-07-16 12:18:45 PM  
1000
 
2013-07-16 12:20:43 PM  

snochick: 1000


This tells me there are over 50 posts by people I have on ignore.
 
2013-07-16 12:21:32 PM  
I've been lurking for a while now, but this is getting so stupid, I would like an answer on this:

On what planet does a fat, 5'7", unathletic, Peruvian start a physical altercation with a 6' black man in the dark? I am not saying GZ following him didn't make TM nervous and that he didn't deserve the first punch, there are factors we don't know, but give me a break. Gun or not, no way GZ swings first. You can debate as to whether or not TM should have, but that would like be a function of distance, manner, and the resulting conversation, which again, we don't know. I can't see GZ walking up and hitting a guy bigger than him. That doesn't happen in the real world. No 5'7" guy who cant fight is walking up to a 6'+ black man and popping him. Not happening.

I would bet my left nut that Precious is lying about the phone going dead. I think they need to pull that call. I will wager she heard more than she let on.

Finally, with the one drop rule, Zimm is black, but if you want to move the goalposts and say it is about appearance and your place in society, he is the most hispanic (and in this case I mean amer-indian/"Mexican") looking guy I have ever seen. He may have some white blood, but no more than Obama or TM. He isn't white. I managed to bait a few idiots the other day to attempt to resolve this, saw their response and just laughed. It was pathetic. Stop pounding the square peg to make it fit your round hole. It isn't working. The kid is dead, that is sad, and he brought it on himself. it sucks. Read the wikipedia article on this case. It is quite enlightening.
 
2013-07-16 12:41:36 PM  
whistles and walks along lazily
 
2013-07-16 12:42:11 PM  
Well, that was a lot of nothing last night. Most action was the fence banging around.

/mcthfg
 
2013-07-16 01:23:15 PM  
With apologies to the Beatles:

I read the news today oh boy
About a black boy in eleventh grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh
I saw the aftermath.

George blew his mind out on the sidewalk
He didn't notice the Skittles and tea
A crowd of police stood and stared
They'd seen his face before
Nobody was really sure
If he was white or Latino.

I saw a film today oh boy
The pundit Army had just gone to war
A crowd of people turned away
but I just had to look
Having read facebook.

I hate seeing this go on

Protests, it went to trial,
Dragged on for quite some while
Found a way to fark it up,
The defense went and claimed that it was fate.
Then the jury, thought 'bout that
They came back in two days flat
Found not guilty of a crime,
Then the jury spoke and some people began to scream

I read the news today oh boy
Four thousand protests across the land
And though the riots were rather small
Fox had to count them all
Now they know how many riots it takes to fill the news cycle.

I hate seeing this go on
 
2013-07-16 01:52:12 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 1077 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report