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.

(The Daily Beast)   The lawyer for the ex-cop who shot and killed a man in a Florida movie theater may use the Stand Your Ground defense because the victim "threw an unknown object" at the defendant. That "object?" It was likely popcorn   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 1007
    More: Followup, Chad Oulson, florida, Case CRC1400216CFA, Busch Gardens  
•       •       •

6568 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 11:31 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1007 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-15 05:15:29 PM  

i.cdn.turner.com

 
2014-01-15 05:18:31 PM  

Phinn: SuperNinjaToad: The argument about good guys having guns to prevent bad guys pretty much went down the drain after this incident. I mean until this incident this douche for all intent and purpose would be considered a 'good guy with a gun'.

Not among people who know what cops are really like, and therefore resist the urge of people like you to give cops (and government generally) more and more power, under the ridiculously false assumption they are "good."

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-- Rand Paul


let's not be intellectually dishonest here shall we... while I understand cop hate and in many cases justifieably so.. generally speaking cops, at least viewed by the society would not be consider 'bad guys'.
 
2014-01-15 05:22:58 PM  

scroufus: You are telling me a kid didnt make the right choice? Like that never happens? He was a kid after all. You can say full grown man sized all you want but he was still a kid. He wasnt old enough to enlist not old enough to vote not old enough to date a woman that is past 20. That makes him a kid. You putting responsibility on a 17 year old is not only dumb but just plain retarded. Very few teenagers are responsible. Would you run if someone kept messing with you? He was probably taught to handle your business if someone if messing with you. And you handle it with your fist not a gun. I like how people say about him being grown man sized. Well Zimzam is a grown man and he should have been able to fight some one who is grown man sized and if you lose you lose. I highly doubt a 17 year old kid could beat a man to death bare handed. Yea any person that clocks you right in the face you are gonna feel it. You can say oh he should have just went home same goes for zimzam he should have just stayed in his car. Zimzam is an Adult and should have known better. That was not his job to go and follow someone that he suspect is a criminal because you are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. Was zimzam in his mind in fear of his life during that fight? Yea possibly but he should have at least got manslaughter because if he would have never got out his car it would have never happened. He started it not the kid. The judge even strongly hinted at that.


This is one of the best Poe's laws I've ever seen. The blissfully unaware irony is my absolute favorite.

What you have here is a list of entirely irrelevant, hindsight focused, moral and ethical opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with factual law regarding self defense.

I'm sorry your opinions don't match reality, but I say with absolute honesty that if we based our laws around the subjective crap you listed here, we would have nothing but chaos. For example, that you made the argument that since someone is 17, they are therefore a child, who is not responsible for any of their own actions. That can't be anymore false. And dangerously stupid.

If you're trolling, bravo, 10/10. If you're serious, please don't post again until you've actually considered your thoughts a few times first. You just look really stupid when you say stuff like this.
 
2014-01-15 05:23:31 PM  

walktoanarcade: Jim from Saint Paul: walktoanarcade: redmid17: walktoanarcade: Not making excuses for super cop, but now that we're on the subject, there's no reason you should be texting in a theater.
And yes, previews count.  The previews are part of the experience, that's why they dim the lights at that time.

The necessity of your texts in the daylight are questionable as it is, and activating the bright lights inside a darkened theater is rude and inconsiderate to others trying to lose themselves in the experience.  Traditionally previews provide the first glimpses of films that may later become cherished classics, and scores of people still enjoy them.

You think you're so important that you can't put away your phone for 1 1/2 to 2 hours?

8/10. Loved the use of cherished and scores of people.

I meant every word. And yes, some people still cherish the little things in life, like previews of new movies without some dolt shining distracting lights in their peripheral vision or worse, loudly obnoxious ring tones stomping on the soundtrack.

I'll say it again:

Is there NO OTHER place you can try and make this point? Because this thread is about a guy who murdered another dude in a movie theater. Not about whether you think using your phone in a movie theater is cool or not.

What the hell is your problem?  My posts aren't dramatically different in terms of commenting on tangential than anyone else in this thread, and I already was on topic earlier in the thread multiple times.

Got a problem with me?


Know how I can tell you're the kind of psychopath that'd kill someone for texting in a theater?
 
2014-01-15 05:26:03 PM  

Pangea: crzybtch: Who the fark still goes to the movies in this modern day and age?

Well now that you so KINDLY asked, the only time I do go to a movie is to take a 9 year old kid whose mom died of ovarian cancer.  But since you are adamant about things, why not go out and punch an old lady for no reason then go home and kick your dog Mr. Sunshine..

Did you pick you own screen name or did someone in a thread pick it out for you?


Actually that is one of my best friends common responses to things I say:

"You crazy biatch"

Only ever said in fun and amazement though.
 
2014-01-15 05:26:52 PM  

scroufus: Once again he called the police no need to get out the car. The police were notified. Yes there had been some burglaries in the area but that is not Zimzams job. That is the police's job.


Still irrelevant. You honestly should just stop. You're going to be made a fool of and get angry if you continue.
 
2014-01-15 05:28:33 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Phinn: SuperNinjaToad: The argument about good guys having guns to prevent bad guys pretty much went down the drain after this incident. I mean until this incident this douche for all intent and purpose would be considered a 'good guy with a gun'.

Not among people who know what cops are really like, and therefore resist the urge of people like you to give cops (and government generally) more and more power, under the ridiculously false assumption they are "good."

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-- Rand Paul

let's not be intellectually dishonest here shall we... while I understand cop hate and in many cases justifieably so.. generally speaking cops, at least viewed by the society would not be consider 'bad guys'.


Theater was apparently a "gun free zone", so going into it with the gun makes the guy a bad guy with a gun in my opinion.
I doubt a good guy with a gun would have been able to do anything in this case though.

/ The only references I've seen to it being a gun free zone are articles repeating the theater's website's list of banned items.  I know in most places you're legally required to post signs banning the guns, but not sure if this theater had one or not.
 
2014-01-15 05:28:53 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: scroufus: lennavan: Nutsac_Jim: Yawn. 60% of the population of Wyoming is armed, vs Gun free Maryland at 22%.

Yet gun murders are 6x higher in Maryland. Apparently, simply possessing guns doesn't cause people to just shoot their fellow man.

I for one can't think of any other relevant differences between Wyoming and Maryland.  Baltimore and Cheyenne are like, IDENTICAL and stuff.

That and the population of Maryland is 5,928,814  and Wyoming is 582,658  with little to no racial diversity.

Nobody uses raw numbers except for liars and politicians.

The 6x number is the murder RATE per 100,000 people.


His point, that you seemed to have missed is that population density is the #1 indicator of crime rate.

I mean, you really didn't get that?

More broadly his point was that guns aren't the only factor that goes into crime, but that doesn't mean guns aren't a factor.
 
2014-01-15 05:30:24 PM  
justtray:
This is one of the best Poe's laws I've ever seen. The blissfully unaware irony is my absolute favorite.
What you have here is a list of entirely irrelevant, hindsight focused, moral and ethical opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with factual law regarding self defense.
I'm sorry your opinions don't match reality, but I say with absolute honesty that if we based our laws around the subjective crap you listed here, we would have nothing but chaos. For example, that you made the argument that since someone is 17, they are therefore a child, who is not responsible for any of their own actions. That can't be anymore false. And dangerously stupid.
If you're trolling, bravo, 10/10. If you're serious, please don't post again until you've actually considered your thoughts a few times first. You just look really stupid when you say stuff like this.



Reality is Zimzam made the first choice to get out and follow that kid.  I never said a child is not responsible for their actions. I said that if you think a child will make rational choices you are an idiot.   You cherry picked my statement to fit your narrative.  I did also include hindsight for both parties.  The fact is Zimzam did act first he did pursue not the other way around.  As the example I laid out earlier about drinking and driving.  If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk.  Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed.  Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.  That is manslaughter.   Regardless of him being in fear for his life.   It wasnt murder it was a clear case of manslaughter.
 
2014-01-15 05:30:24 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Phinn: SuperNinjaToad: The argument about good guys having guns to prevent bad guys pretty much went down the drain after this incident. I mean until this incident this douche for all intent and purpose would be considered a 'good guy with a gun'.

Not among people who know what cops are really like, and therefore resist the urge of people like you to give cops (and government generally) more and more power, under the ridiculously false assumption they are "good."

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-- Rand Paul

let's not be intellectually dishonest here shall we... while I understand cop hate and in many cases justifieably so.. generally speaking cops, at least viewed by the society would not be consider 'bad guys'.


I don't know what "intellectual honesty" means or how it differs from regular honesty.

That said, having had some experience with cops, they are slightly more prone to crime, aggression and dishonesty than the general population.

Also, what some trigger-happy murderer does in some far away town has absolutely no bearing on me or my rights to self- defense.
 
2014-01-15 05:31:17 PM  

Begoggle: farking_texan: 1.  Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.
2.  Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.
3.  Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people.  Take it outside.
4.  Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.
5.  A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place?  Douchenozzle.  Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.
6.  A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place.  Douchenozzle.

Texan you say?
Florida would have been my first guess.


There are exceptions to everything, and the goddamned babysitter for your two year old constitutes one of them, you maggot.
fark you and your trolling texan bullshiat.

Especially during previews, Something people will come late for to avoid, and go buy concessions during, so don't even farking start.
 
2014-01-15 05:31:57 PM  

scroufus: Yea he should have gotten manslaughter. If I go out drinking get in a car and kill someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices. Zimzam made poor choices that ended in the death of a kid. The Judge was strongly hinting to the Jury about manslaughter chargers. I just dont think they understood them.


Wouldnt work, self defense is an absolute defense. Manslaugher wouldn't have stuck either, by definition.

The prosecution had to prove it wasn't self defense, and that wasn't possible.

I know the, "shoulda just gone for manslaughter" is the face-saving BS that gets touted out, but it wouldn't have been anymore effective. I should correct that, it shouldn't have been more effective, but ultimately human juries decide.
 
2014-01-15 05:32:07 PM  

scroufus: justtray:
This is one of the best Poe's laws I've ever seen. The blissfully unaware irony is my absolute favorite.
What you have here is a list of entirely irrelevant, hindsight focused, moral and ethical opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with factual law regarding self defense.
I'm sorry your opinions don't match reality, but I say with absolute honesty that if we based our laws around the subjective crap you listed here, we would have nothing but chaos. For example, that you made the argument that since someone is 17, they are therefore a child, who is not responsible for any of their own actions. That can't be anymore false. And dangerously stupid.
If you're trolling, bravo, 10/10. If you're serious, please don't post again until you've actually considered your thoughts a few times first. You just look really stupid when you say stuff like this.


Reality is Zimzam made the first choice to get out and follow that kid.  I never said a child is not responsible for their actions. I said that if you think a child will make rational choices you are an idiot.   You cherry picked my statement to fit your narrative.  I did also include hindsight for both parties.  The fact is Zimzam did act first he did pursue not the other way around.  As the example I laid out earlier about drinking and driving.  If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk.  Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed.  Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.  That is manslaughter.   Regardless of him being in fear for his life.   It wasnt murder it was a clear case of manslaughter.


That's all completely wrong.
 
2014-01-15 05:32:33 PM  
scroufus

If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk. Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed. Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.

You're ignoring the fact that Martin chose to assault someone. That led to his death at least as much (if not more so) than anything Zimmerman did prior to Martin confronting him.
 
2014-01-15 05:33:13 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Fark It: CrazyCracka420: Generation_D: It appears if you are a cop, or a wannabe cop, Florida is your paradise these days.

All you need is

1) A gun

2) An attitude

The shooting gallery is open, time to go hunting!

Note: fans of civilization that doesn't resemble Beirut in the 1980s, Somalia today or perhaps a very populated Old West, might want to just skip Florida entirely.

Let the inbreds and the senile battle it out.

Actually the "Wild West" had stricter gun control laws, and a lot less firearm deaths (at least that they documented, I suspect some people get killed and were buried in the desert without a trace...so the numbers may be skewed).  I read that the most firearm deaths in any year, was 4 in Tombstone, the year of the OK Corral gun fight.  Most frontier towns averaged 2 firearm deaths a year (again, this is something I read, so take with a grain of salt unless you want to do your own research).

How big was the average frontier town?

Good point, even when Tombstone was at it's most populist of 15,000-20,000 people (which looks like one of the bigger frontier towns), 2 murders would be about .0001% of the population.  When Murderapolis had it's most murders (97 in 1995) if it had a population of 370,000, it would have been .0002% of the population.  So very similar, however most frontier towns it looks like had under 2000 people, so 2 murders a year would be a lot more (per capita) than what we have now in most places.

My point was that there was rampant murders with firearms in the Wild West like some people have been led to believe.


Yet the frontier towns in Canada didn't have the same levels of gun violence, even though the guns were still there. The difference as I understand it was that in Canada, law enforcement wasn't left to the local population, but was the first institution to arrive in the frontier towns alongside with banks.

The point being, the idea that the US culture of gun violence originated in the Wild West is a myth, it wasn't as violent or unpredictable as popular fiction would have you believe.

/still a cowboy at heart
 
2014-01-15 05:35:17 PM  

scroufus: You putting responsibility on a 17 year old is not only dumb but just plain retarded. Very few teenagers are responsible.


How is this direct quote NOT you saying that 17 year olds are not responsible for their actions?

You're going on ignore now...... bye.
 
2014-01-15 05:37:02 PM  

moike: crzybtch:   Well now that you so KINDLY asked, the only time I do go to a movie is to take a 9 year old kid whose mom died of ovarian cancer.  But since you are adamant about things, why not go out and punch an old lady for no reason then go home and kick your dog Mr. Sunshine..

I might just do that...

But you should say positive, just think of all the money you're saving not buying that third ticket and extra crap at the concession stand.


I sincerely wish you were here to say that to my face.  But at least it shows the fark world the content of your character, or should I say the lack of it.   What a bitter petty person you are to feel the need to poke fun at someone who watched someone they love being destroyed by cancer.  Nice work douchebag.
 
2014-01-15 05:41:12 PM  
Pitabred:
Know how I can tell you're the kind of psychopath that'd kill someone for texting in a theater?


Are you a child?  If so, Fark is not a website that you should go to, little one.

You're saying that to someone who earlier in the thread illustrated with a short story how I am the exact opposite kind of person you're calling me.  And I've already condemned his stupid, violent actions.

Now, I can understand that with poor reading comprehension one might accidentally confuse my distaste for texting in theaters for advocating murder, but I assure you it's possible to hold such opinion and not advocate or commit murder.


tl;dr If you can't tell the difference between "Got a problem? Ignore me." and someone sending pieces of metal at a high velocity to break your skin and cause enough yet more damage meant to kill you, then I feel sorry for you.
 
2014-01-15 05:41:13 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk. Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed. Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.

You're ignoring the fact that Martin chose to assault someone. That led to his death at least as much (if not more so) than anything Zimmerman did prior to Martin confronting him.


I am not ignoring it.  I am saying that if Zimzam never got out his car and followed someone running in the dark with a hood and just reported it like a neighbor hood watch is suppose then Martin wouldnt have ever assaulted him that night.    Clearly from the 911 call the kid did not start running till Zimzam got out of his car.  Thats when he reported that he is running and you can hear the door alarm go off and zimzam started to pursue.  That is when the 911 dispatcher told zimzam dont do that.  Which he did but he should have never pursued him in the first place.   It was not warranted for him to pursue.  There were  no gunshots heard nor evidence of a crime being committed.  I dont know why he pursued but he shouldnt have and yes that is hindsight but because of his actions it lead to that confrontation that ended in a kids death.   His actions started it not the other way around.   It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on  on a friday night.  Even children know that.
 
2014-01-15 05:44:46 PM  

Phinn: scroufus: justtray:
This is one of the best Poe's laws I've ever seen. The blissfully unaware irony is my absolute favorite.
What you have here is a list of entirely irrelevant, hindsight focused, moral and ethical opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with factual law regarding self defense.
I'm sorry your opinions don't match reality, but I say with absolute honesty that if we based our laws around the subjective crap you listed here, we would have nothing but chaos. For example, that you made the argument that since someone is 17, they are therefore a child, who is not responsible for any of their own actions. That can't be anymore false. And dangerously stupid.
If you're trolling, bravo, 10/10. If you're serious, please don't post again until you've actually considered your thoughts a few times first. You just look really stupid when you say stuff like this.


Reality is Zimzam made the first choice to get out and follow that kid.  I never said a child is not responsible for their actions. I said that if you think a child will make rational choices you are an idiot.   You cherry picked my statement to fit your narrative.  I did also include hindsight for both parties.  The fact is Zimzam did act first he did pursue not the other way around.  As the example I laid out earlier about drinking and driving.  If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk.  Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed.  Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.  That is manslaughter.   Regardless of him being in fear for his life.   It wasnt murder it was a clear case of manslaughter.

That's all completely wrong.


Explain how its wrong?
Voluntary manslaughter

Provocation
: A killing which occurs after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. There must not be a cooling off period negating provocation. If there is an interval between the provocation and killing sufficient to allow the passion of a reasonable person to cool, the homicide is not manslaughter, but murder.

thats just one of the many types of manslaughter but fits the bill for the zimzam
 
2014-01-15 05:44:51 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Phinn: SuperNinjaToad: The argument about good guys having guns to prevent bad guys pretty much went down the drain after this incident. I mean until this incident this douche for all intent and purpose would be considered a 'good guy with a gun'.

Not among people who know what cops are really like, and therefore resist the urge of people like you to give cops (and government generally) more and more power, under the ridiculously false assumption they are "good."

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-- Rand Paul

let's not be intellectually dishonest here shall we... while I understand cop hate and in many cases justifieably so.. generally speaking cops,  at least viewed by the society would not be consider 'bad guys'.


This, however, is Fark. The opposite is true here.
 
2014-01-15 05:47:28 PM  

scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk. Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed. Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.

You're ignoring the fact that Martin chose to assault someone. That led to his death at least as much (if not more so) than anything Zimmerman did prior to Martin confronting him.

I am not ignoring it.  I am saying that if Zimzam never got out his car and followed someone running in the dark with a hood and just reported it like a neighbor hood watch is suppose then Martin wouldnt have ever assaulted him that night.    Clearly from the 911 call the kid did not start running till Zimzam got out of his car.  Thats when he reported that he is running and you can hear the door alarm go off and zimzam started to pursue.  That is when the 911 dispatcher told zimzam dont do that.  Which he did but he should have never pursued him in the first place.   It was not warranted for him to pursue.  There were  no gunshots heard nor evidence of a crime being committed.  I dont know why he pursued but he shouldnt have and yes that is hindsight but because of his actions it lead to that confrontation that ended in a kids death.   His actions started it not the other way around.   It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on  on a friday night.  Even children know that.


Yes you are

At no point are you allowed to continue to physically assault somebody who has yielded even if they started the fight.  The second they give up you are now the instigator in a separate incident if you choice to continue the fight.
 
2014-01-15 05:47:43 PM  

scroufus: justtray:
This is one of the best Poe's laws I've ever seen. The blissfully unaware irony is my absolute favorite.
What you have here is a list of entirely irrelevant, hindsight focused, moral and ethical opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with factual law regarding self defense.
I'm sorry your opinions don't match reality, but I say with absolute honesty that if we based our laws around the subjective crap you listed here, we would have nothing but chaos. For example, that you made the argument that since someone is 17, they are therefore a child, who is not responsible for any of their own actions. That can't be anymore false. And dangerously stupid.
If you're trolling, bravo, 10/10. If you're serious, please don't post again until you've actually considered your thoughts a few times first. You just look really stupid when you say stuff like this.


Reality is Zimzam made the first choice to get out and follow that kid.  I never said a child is not responsible for their actions. I said that if you think a child will make rational choices you are an idiot.   You cherry picked my statement to fit your narrative.  I did also include hindsight for both parties.  The fact is Zimzam did act first he did pursue not the other way around.  As the example I laid out earlier about drinking and driving.  If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk.  Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed.  Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.  That is manslaughter.   Regardless of him being in fear for his life.   It wasnt murder it was a clear case of manslaughter.


Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.
 
2014-01-15 05:50:27 PM  

justtray: scroufus: You putting responsibility on a 17 year old is not only dumb but just plain retarded. Very few teenagers are responsible.

How is this direct quote NOT you saying that 17 year olds are not responsible for their actions?

You're going on ignore now...... bye.


I really dont get what you are getting at?  Where is it that I said that 17 year olds are not responsible for their actions.  Clearly it says that if you believe a 17 is going to be responsible then you are retarded because very few of them are responsible.  That does not mean they arent going to be responsible for their actions.  They just make poor choices for the most part.  If you can not get that from what I wrote then I apologize clearly I must spell it out for you word for word and with smaller words.  If you think a teenager will make good choices then you are an idiot because very few of them make good choices.
 
2014-01-15 05:56:17 PM  

ShadowKamui: scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk. Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed. Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.

You're ignoring the fact that Martin chose to assault someone. That led to his death at least as much (if not more so) than anything Zimmerman did prior to Martin confronting him.

I am not ignoring it.  I am saying that if Zimzam never got out his car and followed someone running in the dark with a hood and just reported it like a neighbor hood watch is suppose then Martin wouldnt have ever assaulted him that night.    Clearly from the 911 call the kid did not start running till Zimzam got out of his car.  Thats when he reported that he is running and you can hear the door alarm go off and zimzam started to pursue.  That is when the 911 dispatcher told zimzam dont do that.  Which he did but he should have never pursued him in the first place.   It was not warranted for him to pursue.  There were  no gunshots heard nor evidence of a crime being committed.  I dont know why he pursued but he shouldnt have and yes that is hindsight but because of his actions it lead to that confrontation that ended in a kids death.   His actions started it not the other way around.   It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on  on a friday night.  Even children know that.

Yes you are

At no point are you allowed to continue to physically assault somebody who has yielded even if they started the fight.  The second they give up you are now the instigator in a separate incident if you choice to continue the fight.


You are speaking in hindsight.  How the hell would a kid know that?   Zimzam would have never been in that situation if he had stayed in his car and reported it instead of getting out of his car and then chasing after him.  But because he did that event happened.  That is manslaughter.  He probably didnt want to kill the kid but he did because of his actions.
 
2014-01-15 05:58:30 PM  

Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.


you mean like chasing after him?
 
2014-01-15 06:02:23 PM  
scroufus

It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on on a friday night. Even children know that.

So we agree, no crime was committed until Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

He really shouldn't have done that. It got him killed.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:18 PM  
Soundless texting during the commercials.  OMFG!

I understand the theater had clear rules:
Telephones off during the show and no guns in the building.
The one breaking the rules was not the popcorn chucker.
 
2014-01-15 06:06:35 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on on a friday night. Even children know that.

So we agree, no crime was committed until Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

He really shouldn't have done that. It got him killed.


That is why I said it was manslaughter.  Not murder.   Zimzams actions led to that altercation.   He got the car he pursued Martin.
 
2014-01-15 06:06:44 PM  

scroufus: Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

you mean like chasing after him?


Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had a "right to be" outdoors in the neighborhood. As such, Mr. Zimmerman's act of following Mr. Martin (which was not known to be occurring at the time of Mr. Martin's attack) was not itself justification for a physical attack.
 
2014-01-15 06:13:04 PM  
scroufus

That is why I said it was manslaughter. Not murder. Zimzams actions led to that altercation. He got the car he pursued Martin.

But anyone has the right to walk around at seven in the evening. You said so yourself.

It's not at all like your drunk driving comparison, because that's illegal. Zimmerman did nothing illegal, by your own reasoning. The first illegal act that night was Martin assaulting Zimmerman. Martin's friend said he wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman, only give him "whoop-ass," but Zimmerman had no way of knowing that the guy who attacked him would stop at a beating. He was entirely justified in defending himself.

If you think you shouldn't follow people for just walking around the neighborhood, surely you can see how attacking someone walking around the same neighborhood is wrong.
 
2014-01-15 06:15:16 PM  

scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on on a friday night. Even children know that.

So we agree, no crime was committed until Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

He really shouldn't have done that. It got him killed.

That is why I said it was manslaughter.  Not murder.   Zimzams actions led to that altercation.   He got the car he pursued Martin.


And he yielded and was forced to use deadly force in order to stop a continued assault, that's called self defense (though in some states there are still civil liabilities)

And if you wanna play the if and buts game, if the resource officer had actually done his job rather than falsifying police reports; Martin would simply be prisoner XXXXX for possession of stolen property.   Assuming of course he didn't start a fight w/ a bunch of Hispanics and get shanked in shower
 
2014-01-15 06:15:35 PM  

Dimensio: scroufus: Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

you mean like chasing after him?

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had a "right to be" outdoors in the neighborhood. As such, Mr. Zimmerman's act of following Mr. Martin (which was not known to be occurring at the time of Mr. Martin's attack) was not itself justification for a physical attack.


So someone following you wouldnt freak you out?  So people  will run to  safe place if they think some one is chasing after them  some will stand and fight.  Yes they both had a right to be outside but soon as he pursued after Martin it changed things.   That action right there is where it all changed.    We can go back and forth on what ifs but that single factual  event of him leaving his car and going towards martin is what changed it all.

In my opinion Zimzam should be behind bars for manslaughter.  In my opinion justice failed that kid and his family.   And its my opinion, just like assholes, everyone gots them and everyone is entitled to them. You dont have to agree with it and I dont have to agree with people thinking zimzam did nothing wrong.  Its as simple as that.
 
2014-01-15 06:20:44 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

That is why I said it was manslaughter. Not murder. Zimzams actions led to that altercation. He got the car he pursued Martin.

But anyone has the right to walk around at seven in the evening. You said so yourself.

It's not at all like your drunk driving comparison, because that's illegal. Zimmerman did nothing illegal, by your own reasoning. The first illegal act that night was Martin assaulting Zimmerman. Martin's friend said he wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman, only give him "whoop-ass," but Zimmerman had no way of knowing that the guy who attacked him would stop at a beating. He was entirely justified in defending himself.

If you think you shouldn't follow people for just walking around the neighborhood, surely you can see how attacking someone walking around the same neighborhood is wrong.


While ill give you my drunk driving comparison as flaky.  I can not agree with you on the latter.  He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal.  Its on the 911 calls.    So to that kid it could have been fight or flight.  I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.
 
2014-01-15 06:23:49 PM  

ShadowKamui: scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on on a friday night. Even children know that.

So we agree, no crime was committed until Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

He really shouldn't have done that. It got him killed.

That is why I said it was manslaughter.  Not murder.   Zimzams actions led to that altercation.   He got the car he pursued Martin.

And he yielded and was forced to use deadly force in order to stop a continued assault, that's called self defense (though in some states there are still civil liabilities)

And if you wanna play the if and buts game, if the resource officer had actually done his job rather than falsifying police reports; Martin would simply be prisoner XXXXX for possession of stolen property.   Assuming of course he didn't start a fight w/ a bunch of Hispanics and get shanked in shower


The cop had nothing to do with this.  It is not Zimzams job to pursue people he thinks committed a crime. That is not how neighborhood watches work.
 
2014-01-15 06:23:50 PM  

scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

That is why I said it was manslaughter. Not murder. Zimzams actions led to that altercation. He got the car he pursued Martin.

But anyone has the right to walk around at seven in the evening. You said so yourself.

It's not at all like your drunk driving comparison, because that's illegal. Zimmerman did nothing illegal, by your own reasoning. The first illegal act that night was Martin assaulting Zimmerman. Martin's friend said he wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman, only give him "whoop-ass," but Zimmerman had no way of knowing that the guy who attacked him would stop at a beating. He was entirely justified in defending himself.

If you think you shouldn't follow people for just walking around the neighborhood, surely you can see how attacking someone walking around the same neighborhood is wrong.

While ill give you my drunk driving comparison as flaky.  I can not agree with you on the latter.  He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal.  Its on the 911 calls.    So to that kid it could have been fight or flight.  I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.


No matter how many times you try to say, your completely wrong interpretation of the law does not become fact.
 
2014-01-15 06:23:51 PM  

Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.


students.umf.maine.edu

You know the shooter was a retired cop right...
 
2014-01-15 06:24:50 PM  

TwoHead: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

I'd buy you a frosty beverage for that effort.


Earned yourself a double...
 
2014-01-15 06:26:19 PM  

scroufus: Dimensio: scroufus: Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

you mean like chasing after him?

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had a "right to be" outdoors in the neighborhood. As such, Mr. Zimmerman's act of following Mr. Martin (which was not known to be occurring at the time of Mr. Martin's attack) was not itself justification for a physical attack.

So someone following you wouldnt freak you out?  So people  will run to  safe place if they think some one is chasing after them  some will stand and fight.  Yes they both had a right to be outside but soon as he pursued after Martin it changed things.   That action right there is where it all changed.    We can go back and forth on what ifs but that single factual  event of him leaving his car and going towards martin is what changed it all.


An individual following me in a public space, or in a private space in which both I and my follower are legally present, does not justify my use of force against that individual even if the act of following causes me to become "freaked out".

Even under the hypothetical premise that such an act of following itself justification for a use of force, that justification would end should the follower break contact and cease following me, and therefore my act of seeking out and physically attacking the follower would still not be justified. In such a confrontation, I would be the aggressor, and a use of force to stop my attack would be legally justified.

Being followed by an individual who is not trespassing, absent any other context, is never itself a justification for the use of physical force. Using physical force in response to being followed in public, absent any other context, causes the attacker to be the aggressor and justifies the use of deadly force by the follower.



In my opinion Zimzam should be behind bars for manslaughter.  In my opinion justice failed that kid and his family.   And its my opinion, just like assholes, everyone gots them and everyone is entitled to them. You dont have to agree with it and I dont have to agree with people thinking zimzam did nothing wrong.  Its as simple as that.


Your "opinion" is not law in any legal jurisdiction in the United States of America.
 
2014-01-15 06:27:03 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: He had no choice.

The retired cop was only a captain, he was forced into shooting by a Colonel.

/It doesn't translate as well in print.


I just got here, and I am not going to read eleventy billion posts to see if this was already said, but I like it as is. Spelling it kernel would have been fine, too, but it made me smile either way.
 
2014-01-15 06:27:58 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

[students.umf.maine.edu image 400x300]

You know the shooter was a retired cop right...


Even after 886 posts?
 
2014-01-15 06:28:23 PM  
scroufus

He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal. Its on the 911 calls. So to that kid it could have been fight or flight. I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.

In general, I agree. But I also think assaulting someone is a bad idea. They might just shoot you.

On the idea of it being "fight or flight," though, Martin's friend stated that Martin indicated he wasn't going to flee, and indeed, intended to give a perceived white homosexual some "whoop-ass." This is not a good idea. Disliking white people and homosexuals (of which Martin's victim was neither) does not excuse violence, even if you think said white homosexual is looking at, cruising or pursuing you. It might end up with your racist, homophobic prejudices leading you into a deadly situation instead of some dubiously righteous "whoop-ass."
 
2014-01-15 06:28:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: farking_texan: 1.  Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.
2.  Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.
3.  Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people.  Take it outside.
4.  Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.
5.  A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place?  Douchenozzle.  Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.
6.  A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place.  Douchenozzle.

Or alternatively, don't bring guns to the theater.


Commie. Why do you hate Jesus?
 
2014-01-15 06:29:39 PM  

Super_pope: Dimensio: As is evident by the fact that no criminal charges have been brought against the former police chief.

The pervasive popular myth emboldens people too stupid to understand it (see: This guy).  It doesn't matter what's really happening, they shoot people thinking they've got carte blanche and then find out later (when the news cycle has moved on) that it doesn't work that way for reasons too subtle to fit into a soundbite.


That "pervasive myth" is perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in having people believe it.  No CPL holder I know has a cavalier attitude or such an irresponsible perspective of self-defense.
 
2014-01-15 06:30:04 PM  

ShadowKamui: scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

That is why I said it was manslaughter. Not murder. Zimzams actions led to that altercation. He got the car he pursued Martin.

But anyone has the right to walk around at seven in the evening. You said so yourself.

It's not at all like your drunk driving comparison, because that's illegal. Zimmerman did nothing illegal, by your own reasoning. The first illegal act that night was Martin assaulting Zimmerman. Martin's friend said he wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman, only give him "whoop-ass," but Zimmerman had no way of knowing that the guy who attacked him would stop at a beating. He was entirely justified in defending himself.

If you think you shouldn't follow people for just walking around the neighborhood, surely you can see how attacking someone walking around the same neighborhood is wrong.

While ill give you my drunk driving comparison as flaky.  I can not agree with you on the latter.  He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal.  Its on the 911 calls.    So to that kid it could have been fight or flight.  I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.

No matter how many times you try to say, your completely wrong interpretation of the law does not become fact.


So thats why that judge didnt strongly hit to the jurors about manslaughter charges?  People interpret laws differently all the time.   As I said before it is my opinion  that zimzam is guilty of manslaughter.  you dont have to agree with it just like I dont agree with his verdict.   You can say I am a moron for my views and I can say the same of yours.  I am not going to agree with you because the way I see it is not the way you see it.   To me he is and was guilty.
 
2014-01-15 06:30:05 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal. Its on the 911 calls. So to that kid it could have been fight or flight. I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.

In general, I agree. But I also think assaulting someone is a bad idea. They might just shoot you.

On the idea of it being "fight or flight," though, Martin's friend stated that Martin indicated he wasn't going to flee, and indeed, intended to give a perceived white homosexual some "whoop-ass." This is not a good idea. Disliking white people and homosexuals (of which Martin's victim was neither) does not excuse violence, even if you think said white homosexual is looking at, cruising or pursuing you. It might end up with your racist, homophobic prejudices leading you into a deadly situation instead of some dubiously righteous "whoop-ass."


Did not the prosecution witness testify a belief that Mr. Martin had in fact arrived at his home, and that he doubled-back in pursuit of Mr. Zimmerman?

/I may be in error in recalling such testimony.
 
2014-01-15 06:31:06 PM  

Dimensio: scroufus: Dimensio: scroufus: Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

you mean like chasing after him?

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had a "right to be" outdoors in the neighborhood. As such, Mr. Zimmerman's act of following Mr. Martin (which was not known to be occurring at the time of Mr. Martin's attack) was not itself justification for a physical attack.

So someone following you wouldnt freak you out?  So people  will run to  safe place if they think some one is chasing after them  some will stand and fight.  Yes they both had a right to be outside but soon as he pursued after Martin it changed things.   That action right there is where it all changed.    We can go back and forth on what ifs but that single factual  event of him leaving his car and going towards martin is what changed it all.

An individual following me in a public space, or in a private space in which both I and my follower are legally present, does not justify my use of force against that individual even if the act of following causes me to become "freaked out".

Even under the hypothetical premise that such an act of following itself justification for a use of force, that justification would end should the follower break contact and cease following me, and therefore my act of seeking out and physically attacking the follower would still not be justified. In such a confrontation, I would be the aggressor, and a use of force to stop my attack would be legally justified.

Being followed by an individual who is not trespassing, absent any other context, is never itself a justification for the use of physical force. Using physical force in response to being followed in public, absent any other context, causes the attacker to be the aggressor and justifies the use of deadly fo ...


when did I say my opinion was law?  I said it was my opinion and you dont have to agree with it just like I dont agree with the verdict.
 
2014-01-15 06:33:33 PM  

scroufus: when did I say my opinion was law?  I said it was my opinion and you dont have to agree with it just like I dont agree with the verdict.


If you are ever selected for jury duty, you should inform during questioning that you prefer to rely upon your opinion, rather than written law, when assessing guilt.
 
2014-01-15 06:36:37 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal. Its on the 911 calls. So to that kid it could have been fight or flight. I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.

In general, I agree. But I also think assaulting someone is a bad idea. They might just shoot you.

On the idea of it being "fight or flight," though, Martin's friend stated that Martin indicated he wasn't going to flee, and indeed, intended to give a perceived white homosexual some "whoop-ass." This is not a good idea. Disliking white people and homosexuals (of which Martin's victim was neither) does not excuse violence, even if you think said white homosexual is looking at, cruising or pursuing you. It might end up with your racist, homophobic prejudices leading you into a deadly situation instead of some dubiously righteous "whoop-ass."


Clearly martin chose fight instead of flight.  That racism is a two way street too. Zimzam also was very prejudice against black folks which were documented in all the 911 calls he made prior to this event.  He 100% of the time described a black male on his calls to 911 about suspicious people.   Martins actions where dumb no doubt but as I said before teenagers arent the brightest for the most part.  Not to say all teenagers are dim but most of the time they make poor judgement calls.
 
2014-01-15 06:42:59 PM  

Dimensio: scroufus: when did I say my opinion was law?  I said it was my opinion and you dont have to agree with it just like I dont agree with the verdict.

If you are ever selected for jury duty, you should inform during questioning that you prefer to rely upon your opinion, rather than written law, when assessing guilt.


I dont even know how you correlated my opinion to jury duty.   I am giving my opinion on the verdict and how I do not agree with it. Jury duty has nothing to do with opinions. Your assumptions that  I would use my opinion instead of using  facts laid out before me while on jury duty is absurd.
 
Displayed 50 of 1007 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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