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.

(CNN)   Apparently, waving your arms in the direction of a guy who nearly runs you over is grounds for getting shot under the "Stand your ground" law in Arizona   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Scary, emergency vehicle lighting, Laurie Levenson, drive-through, American Life, stand your ground, deadly force, martin case, Wesson  
•       •       •

9361 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-04-30 12:34:50 AM  
5 votes:
Ironic thing is the people who lobby for and support these laws are the same ones that complain about the 'pussification of America'

"Remember the old days when Men were Men? I miss those days...what happened to this country? Also, I piss myself when another guy looks at me. Uh-oh, somebody on the internet is typing in all caps! I'm going to get my gun and hide under the bed. Vote Republican"
2012-04-30 12:53:42 AM  
4 votes:
1. Go to Arizona gun show with shiatloads of weapons.

2. Burn flag in parking lot.

3. Gun down hundreds of rednecks who come after you.

4. Repeat until the country regains sanity.
2012-04-29 11:19:03 PM  
4 votes:

Weaver95: doglover: Weaver95: probably the dead body.


I don't think the dead guy thought it was very funny.

I dunno, you could say the joke

puts on glasses


2012-04-29 09:50:45 PM  
4 votes:
CNN was unable to locate the shooter but spoke with a man who identified himself as his father. The man didn't want to be named and stood behind the door of his home, warning that he had a gun in his hand. He defended his son's right to use deadly force.

That CNN reporter is lucky he wasn't killed in self-defense. He should have fired a few shots through the door just for safety's sake.
2012-04-29 10:46:41 PM  
3 votes:
I feel threatened by this thread, i'm gonna shoot it!
2012-04-29 09:29:48 PM  
3 votes:

I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.

DID YOU ALL SEE THAT? SkinnyHead just threatened my life!
2012-04-30 09:04:45 PM  
2 votes:
If only the dog had been armed.
2012-04-30 02:08:15 PM  
2 votes:

EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: You mean that world where you ignore reality?

.....egads. i say feh upon you.

I notice you just went ahead and ignored those inconvenient facts that followed this statement.

you've shown no capacity to distinguish between instigation and aggression, nor any capacity to recognize that one can be both the victim of aggression and the person who committed a crime. it isn't ignoring anything to have had my fill of that - i've had deeper conversations with housepets.
2012-04-30 09:03:53 AM  
2 votes:
I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws. Here's how this would play out up here:

Fiancée: "Oh my God, that guy is waving his arms at us and shouting obscenities"

Shooter: "Just a second honey..." (rolls down window)

"Hey, I'm sorry about that. I didn't see you there. It's my fault, I shouldn't be driving so quickly in an area where there may be pedestrians. I'll be more careful."

(Rolls up window, drives away)

Angry Pedestrian: (waves, makes frowny face)

I guess we're doing it wrong?
2012-04-30 05:11:31 AM  
2 votes:
Paranoia will destroy ya.

Anyone who isn't in law enforcement that thinks they need to carry a loaded weapon at all times is probably mentally unfit to actually carry a weapon. There's a certain mindset it seems amongst some of these people that everyone is out to get them. that everyone is a potential threat. you know the type. those who can't sleep without their gun within arm's reach at all times. who jump at every bump in the night. bed-wetters who front with a false bravado with their phallic substitute in hand. Rambo wannabes. You know. Republicans.
2012-04-30 03:22:11 AM  
2 votes:

calm like a bomb: eraser8: For some reason -- I'm not sure what it is -- you seem AWFULLY eager to believe Zimmerman's version of events.

Zimmerman is less brown.

bitlogic.comView Full Size
2012-04-30 01:35:08 AM  
2 votes:

Dimensio: Having never experienced imminent violent attack

Surprise, surprise, surprise.
2012-04-30 01:28:01 AM  
2 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Dimensio: Pincy: calm like a bomb: Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

Truer words have not been spoken in a Fark thread in quite a long time.

I am certain, then, that actual data in support of the claim may be directly referenced. Please do so.

How do you prove stupidity?

x + goose - 11 = retard.

/University of Phoenix ftw
2012-04-30 12:49:06 AM  
2 votes:

Mikey1969: I would have to say that I have NO "duty" to retreat if my life is in danger.

Mikey1969: If the dead kid had no ranged weapon, I see no claim of "self defense" on the part of the shooter, but I'm sorry, a "duty" to retreat is just bullshiat.

The kid DID have a weapon, in the mind of the guy who was making a point to exercise his god-given right of self-defense. He felt in danger, so he started shooting like an idiot.

Now, he had every ability to not piss his pants when inside a 2 ton truck because a retard with a dog had a lead pipe, but he did the patented Mikey1969 hardcore tough guy maneuver and chose not to retreat, didn't he? You say he has no duty to retreat. His path is moving foward. Someone is in the way. So he does what any wannabe cowboy would do: fight perceived aggression with superior force to defend his freedoms to not give in to the mean guy waving his hands in the air.

And now we have a dead retard on our hands because some guy got scared like a little biatch when someone bumbled across his path. He will get away with it because of laws that folks like you support, and because of the way these laws MUST be applied, the burden of proof falls on the state to prove the guy wasn't defending himself. If the law instead said, "hey, you feel in farking danger and there is an escape? Try leaving first please, call the cops, go home safe to your children and let someone else go home to theirs. If that fails, then defend yourself from the actual attack taking place". Your obligation, the one that gives you the right to defend yourself, is your safety. You playing at cowboy is endangering yourself, and flies in the very face of any claims that you were actually concerned for your life.

Gtfo of my society please. fark you, and everyone else who can't be patient for all of a damn minute when your bubble of freedom bumps into somebody else's and you end up at a standstill. You jackoffs try to turn everything into a goddamn Mexican standoff.

/shooting your computer won't get the bullet to me. You have to fire it into your modem directly.
2012-04-29 11:43:16 PM  
2 votes:
Does this mean that gays can start unloading on christians, because they feel threatened? I mean, if I was gay, I'd feel threatened by just going outside of my house.
2012-04-29 10:48:45 PM  
2 votes:
never bring a yellow lab to a gunfight
2012-04-29 10:25:39 PM  
2 votes:

GleeUnit: I perceive you to be a f*cking retard.

That's an insult to all mentally disabled people.
2012-04-29 09:43:50 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.

no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.

I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.

I perceive you to be a f*cking retard.
2012-04-29 09:31:40 PM  
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

I'm sorry we made fun of you :(

[i47.tinypic.com image 532x501]

my potato has a sad

img.photobucket.comView Full Size
2012-04-29 06:21:48 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

He could have just shot the dog. But he probably would have gone to jail for that.
2012-04-29 06:13:52 PM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.

look at it this way - all you have to do is find a way to lure rich bankers into your front lawn and then BAM! social change!
2012-04-30 10:58:45 PM  
1 vote:

HeWhoHasNoName: balloot:

I didn't ask you to link to some random 70 minute long video from a wingnut conference.

I asked you to name one single real event that has happened in a non ...

Ayoob lists quite a few, in detail, in that video. The fact that you are too lazy and myopic to even skim through what I posted does not reduce the credibility or validity of it. All it proves is that you listen solely to what you want to hear.

God damn are you an autistic piece of shiat. Having the same problem myself, I can state that definitively.
2012-04-30 04:20:15 PM  
1 vote:

lennavan: Depends on how you asked him. If he felt threatened by you, absolutely. Brings up a funny situation, if he attacks you in self defense, and you pull your gun, no matter what happens, you both were just defending yourself and no one is at fault. Sweet!

That is a good point. An armed Mexican-looking guy driving up to you and shouting questions at you. Sounds like a pretty open and shut SYG defence to me.
2012-04-30 04:17:57 PM  
1 vote:

Smackledorfer: Guy across the room pulls a knife, or fark it, a sword, and slowly walks towards you with bloodlust in his eyes and saying "I'll kill you" over and over. You've got a gun. You also have a car in the parking lot and you are at the door. Three options: leave, wait, shoot. Without SYG laws, you can't ignore the option to leave (if its an obviously viable option) and still claim 'zomg he was gonna kill me, I HAD to do something'. With SYG laws, you can ignore fleeing, it can't be held against you that you deliberately didn't flee. I personally think its absurd to tell you in this case that you have to wait until he gets X feet away to shoot him then.

Right. You have three options, leave, wait, shoot. You find the "wait" option absurd, while we find anything other than the "leave" option absurd. You do get that, right? You could just hop in your car and leave, no bigs. But here you are, saying not being allowed to shoot him right away is the absurd thing. Nice.
2012-04-30 03:57:23 PM  
1 vote:

lennavan: "The law," said Judge Terry Lewis, "would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the state's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."

The wild west wasn't even as wild west as these laws are.

Men that couldn't read and who wiped their asses with their own hands had more sense than the people writing and defending these laws.
2012-04-30 02:54:04 PM  
1 vote:

EWreckedSean: I love that you are so afraid of people with different opinions than you that you have to resort to crying troll and name calling. I'm not sure if it is sad, pathetic or just funny. Maybe a combination of the three.

The only thing I'm afraid of here is a system that confuses a right to bear arms with a right to use them.

As for name calling, do you read your own posts before you hit enter or do..... aaaand I've been trolled again haven't I? Yup.
2012-04-30 02:31:31 PM  
1 vote:
The guy kept his gun in his sweatpants. I'm sure Darwin will be around soon enough.
2012-04-30 01:38:05 PM  
1 vote:

Salt Lick Steady: I'm saying you're wrong in principle, yes. I could cite 2d amendment jurisprudence or other basic constitutional principles, but that's not my battle until you actually figure a way to write such a thing.

Yeah, actually that is your battle. Instead you chose a stupid pedantic argument "I cannot imagine" and pretended that was your reason. It's seriously pathetic. Your big reason is "I cannot imagine a way to enforce it." Not only does that mean you're too stupid to imagine it, you're too ignorant of the current laws that could be applied here. You think regulating guns is a new thing? You think enforcing gun laws and regulations is a new idea? It's wrong, you're wrong and you should feel bad about yourself for being so stupid.

What's more, you chose this argument, over other much stronger arguments? That's stupid, and you should feel really bad about yourself for being so stupid.
2012-04-30 01:32:24 PM  
1 vote:

mrshowrules: AdmirableSnackbar: mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

I'd call it the wild west but that's not fair because, shooting an unarmed person would get you hung back then. Mad Max had the Thunderdome. Other era had duels. Is there any time or place in history that you were allowed to kill based on fear alone?

Thankfully, though, most media outlets are cultivating a culture completely free from fear, where you don't have to be fearful of your neighbor or anyone you don't know.
2012-04-30 01:22:27 PM  
1 vote:

Salt Lick Steady: I know how horrific prison is. It is hell on earth. My fight or flight definitely takes that into account, and if you find that to be non-reflexive, I doubt you've had any experience with it.

I have come up with a great way for you to know, for sure, whether or not you're in a situation where you're firmly under the protections of "self defense" and can pull the trigger without having to worry about whether or not you'll be sent to prison.

If you're in a situation where you are afraid of a dangerous looking person and thinking to yourself that you're really scared of this person and want to shoot them, except there is nothing that you hate more than prison and you are scared that you could possibly be charged with murder and have to spend the rest of your life in such a terrible, disgusting, place, then IT IS NOT OK TO KILL THIS PERSON!!!

If you are in a situation where you are afraid of a dangerous looking person and the only thoughts going through your head, "OH MY GOD, THEY'RE GOING TO KILL ME!!! SHOOT THEM!" and the thought of prison never enters your mind, then it is legitimate self defense and you don't have to worry about going to prison.

So, you should be good to go. Just keep telling yourself that you would rather die than risk possibly being sent to prison and no one will have to worry about you pulling a gun out at someone and shooting for being yelling at by them or other stupid shiat. Plus, if a situation ever arises where you actually do need to use deadly force to protect yourself, you will have done it before the word prison ever enters your head.
2012-04-30 12:29:25 PM  
1 vote:

lennavan: technicolor-misfit: farking CNN is on his doorstep to ask about his son, and he's crapping his pants, warning about how he's brandishing a weapon.

I don't know that you're using the right example. It's his house, I got no beef with him not wanting to back down at his own house. People should back down when they are out and about, you can always retreat to your house. But at your house, where are you going to retreat to?

It's fully possible the dude has been crapping his pants since the story came out because a lot of people are really upset his kid killed someone. It's not beyond reason to imagine people have been threatening him and calling and whatnot.

I'm not suggesting he needs to back down, or questioning his right to brandish a weapon inside his own home. I'm just pointing out what a blubbering terrified mouse he is.

If you're behind a locked door talking to a news crew from one of the largest networks in the world, and STILL feel you need to shout "I've got a gun!!!!" You are engaging in hysteria, I don't care how many threats you may have received. You can be reasonably certain the CNN reporter isn't going to kick down your door, pull out a 9mm and perforate your innards.
2012-04-30 12:16:17 PM  
1 vote:
So by the standards in Florida, if someone aggressively cuts me off in traffic or tailgates at freeway speeds, do I have the right to put a bullet in their head? A speeding multi-ton vehicle is just as dangerous as a pipe, bat or knife after all.
2012-04-30 12:09:59 PM  
1 vote:

EWreckedSean: theknuckler_33: EWreckedSean: Granted you gotta feel bad for the guy with the skull fracture, but there is no way the 77 year old guy who shot him could have reasonably known the person who rushed into his home with his elderly wife was injured.


"Sorry I shot and killed you for no reason whatsoever, but hey, them's the breaks!"

I mean, it's almost like shooting first and asking questions later is a bad idea.

Amazing. You in your wife are in your late 70s, it's 2am, and some 35 year old pushes passed you into your house with your wife and gets into a physical struggle with you. Obviously you should stop and talk for a bit to figure out what is going on. Darwin isn't your friend.


Fail. Nobody is arguing against Castle doctrine. If someone invades your house, you get to defend it by any means necessary. We are arguing against legally being able to shoot and kill anyone who you get into an argument with.

These SYG laws are so incredibly broken. It amazes me that people even attempt to defend them. There is quite literally no other law anywhere that makes an illegal act legal based on the subjective opinion of the perpetrator. This isn't an oversight, because it's completely retarded to let people use an opinion to legally justify crimes.

While we're at it, we should pass a "She totally wanted me" law that cancels out rape if you claim the girl in question was giving you sexy vibes. Also, a "greedy douchebag" law that lets you rob someone as long as you perceive them as being not generous enough.
2012-04-30 11:45:36 AM  
1 vote:

qorkfiend: Big_Fat_Liar: Stand your ground is just a re-affirmation of a very basic constitutional right. No wonder so many people oppose it.

The constitutional right to shoot other people because you're a pants-wetting coward? Which amendment is that?

Dude, he had a rational point and you were harsh to ignore it. The second amendment affirms the right to keep a trained, well regulated and armed militia. Now people here usually focus on the armed part, not so much the regulated or militia part, or even the "security of a free state" part. But I digress. Stand your ground just re-affirms your well regulated armed militia does not have to retreat if it does not want to. Why is that so bad? Do you want our army forced to retreat?

See, Zimmerman, acting as a trained militiaman, was protecting the country from the invasion of Trayvon Martin. He did not retreat, he reloaded. Thank God for heroes like that.
2012-04-30 11:33:28 AM  
1 vote:
Considering the direction this country has gone since 9/12/2001, I have a feeling that 2022 will make Robocop seem like a wistful look back at a happier, gentler age.

Protect the zygotes for they are holy. Once they're out, gun those motherfarkers down. Who knows what they plan to do to you, they might scratch your Hoveround.
2012-04-30 11:00:45 AM  
1 vote:

qorkfiend: Chimperror2: Lenny_da_Hog: BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?

Violent crime, Way down since enacted.

Please to have citation?

Well, now many violent - even deadly - acts are no longer a crime. Problem solved!
2012-04-30 10:50:21 AM  
1 vote:
Zimmerman and this other guy are now qualified to be decorated police officers.
2012-04-30 09:54:53 AM  
1 vote:

doglover: UCFRoadWarrior: At least this time they admit the person shot was 29...but of course, we are reminded that he "had the mentality of a 13 yr old"

There's also a witness this time, who agrees the guy started hitting the car.

She probably felt threatened, prompting the boyfriend to shoot the guy.

Did the car survive?

Won't someone think of the car?
2012-04-30 09:39:32 AM  
1 vote:

Turbo Cojones: SkinnyHead: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

//pull the other one

Running over things to escape an assailant is not a reasonably safe alternative. The driver had his pregnant fiancée to think about. Since there was no clear path of safe retreat, he would not be required to retreat, even in a "retreat to the wall" state. He was already at the wall.

If only there were a way to make a car back up.....

I think he should be charged, as simply locking the door would protect him, not to mention he is in an SUV. A guy with a dog isn't an obstacle to escape. Backing up though probably wasn't an option in the drive thru. You also have to wonder a bit if these parents cared so much about their son, why in the hell did they let a mentally handicap guy wander un-escorted around an area like that?
2012-04-30 09:11:11 AM  
1 vote:
tnation.t-nation.comView Full Size

How could it possible be misconstrued.
2012-04-30 09:10:08 AM  
1 vote:
This is a horrible story that can only be made better by watching racist gun nuts from White Arizona stand up side by side with Gangtsah G and Cold Piece Ro'Nisha to defend his right to whip his gat from his sweatpants (near his knees), take aim from under his sideways hat, and straight shoot a punk ass biatch.
2012-04-30 09:02:02 AM  
1 vote:

way south: LordJiro: Yes, actually. We CAN say it was entirely unjustified, and we can, in fact, say that someone as panicky as that should not be a gun owner.

No, we can't. Not with the evidence provided being only for the victim and no rebuttal from the shooter.
Taking away someones constitutional right requires more than supposition.

Protip: Talking on a messageboard rarely, if ever, takes away someone's Constitutional rights.
2012-04-30 08:55:47 AM  
1 vote:

vudukungfu: Is this the gun nut thread?
Anyone got any pop corn?
Oh, that's right no popcorn, no sudden noises.
*Backs slowly away. *

Backing away is so last week....just open fire!
2012-04-30 08:41:01 AM  
1 vote:

Jake Havechek: I'm waiting for the "that guy was looking at me funny" law.

It'll be attached to the "he needed killin'" law of 2013 in half a dozen southern states
2012-04-30 08:38:48 AM  
1 vote:
Is this the gun nut thread?
Anyone got any pop corn?
Oh, that's right no popcorn, no sudden noises.
*Backs slowly away. *
2012-04-30 08:22:34 AM  
1 vote:
I think we're all missing the real issue here: A Taco Bell in Arizona?

Did the state send all its taquerias back to Mexico or something?
2012-04-30 08:18:13 AM  
1 vote:
2012-04-30 07:32:02 AM  
1 vote:

stoli n coke: Typical libtard. You don't get it. Not everybody is a big show-off with a four inch penis. That's where carrying a gun everywhere comes in. It makes you feel like a big man.

I am a big man
(Yes I am)
And I have a big gun
Got me a big old dick and I
I like to have fun
Held against your forehead
I'll make you suck it
Maybe I'll put a hole in your head
You know, just for the fark of it

I can reduce you if I want
I can devour
I'm hard as farking steel, and I've got the power
I'm every inch a man, and I'll show you somehow
Me and my farking gun
Nothing can stop me now

Shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot
I'm going to come all over you

Me and my farking gun
Me and my farking gun

/pretty much covers it.
2012-04-30 07:23:58 AM  
1 vote:

LordJiro: way south: UCFRoadWarrior: Although this story sounds sad....it looks like another one of those Gun Control Nazi hit-pieces.

What gave it away?
The fact that the author spent most of it trumping up sob stories and didn't elaborate on the actual cases?

If someone gets away with murder by using SYG as an excuse, you've only got the DA to thank for that. It is not a get out of jail free card and when the state doesn't bother to prosecute a shooting. Its either a sign of them not being able to make a case or the shooter having some very powerful friends.
That the author somehow restrained themselves from giving the name and race of the shooter might be a hint.

/A man with his pregnant wife in the car is probably not going to wait for the punches to connect before using a ranged weapon.
/When people say "an armed society is a polite society", you have to presume there will be a few Darwin moments.

So, in your mind, if I almost run you over and you get upset about it, I'm perfectly justified in killing you?

Typical libtard. You don't get it. Not everybody is a big show-off with a four inch penis. That's where carrying a gun everywhere comes in. It makes you feel like a big man.

Now, if he hadn't shot the person he almost hit, his baby momma may have thought he caught teh homoghey, so he really didn't have a choice.
2012-04-30 02:54:48 AM  
1 vote:
The Rules of Engagement (Military)
10: Is the subject a threat?
20: IF YES GOTO 40
30: IF NO GOTO 100
40: Is the subject armed?
50: IF YES GOTO 70
60: IF NO GOTO 110
70: Is the subject attacking or preparing for imminent attack?
80: IF YES GOTO 120
90: IF NO GOTO 110
100: Continue monitoring subject. END.
110: Apply protective posture and maintain distance to subject. END.
120: Use of deadly force at your discretion. END.

The Rules of Engagement (Civilian)
10: Is the subject scary?
20: IF YES GOTO 40
30: IF NO GOTO 70
40: Do you have a gun?
50: IF YES GOTO 80
60: IF NO GOTO 90
70: Threaten them. END.
80: Blast them. Pow pow! END.
90: Get raped, libtard. END.
2012-04-30 02:07:36 AM  
1 vote:
Next time some Jehovah Witness' or Mormons come to my door threatening me with their religious beliefs, I'll just shoot them in self defense. Nothing is more valauble to me than my soul and they are coming to my door to take my soul. I will stand my ground and blow them all away.

If I have a gun I can rationalize anything.

/never met someone who carried a gun for "self-protection" who wasn't a coward and a pussy

This is one thing that gets me about people who hold their weapon sideways. That has got to be one of the best ways to miss your target.

That's so they can spin around after the shot and catch the brass behind their back so the last words their victim hears is "Tah dah!"
2012-04-30 01:15:00 AM  
1 vote:
If only the other guy had had a gun, he could have shot the driver who threatened his life with his vehicle.
2012-04-30 01:14:13 AM  
1 vote:

doglover: Did you not hear the 911 call. Zimmerman was crying for help for a LONG time. At any time Treyvon could have stopped hitting him. He'd won.

Or, it wasn't him screaming at all. Whatever. Totally makes no difference- dude was armed with Skittles. Being forced to taste the rainbow against your will is grounds for dismissal of charges.
2012-04-30 12:50:25 AM  
1 vote:

ongbok: bugontherug: Sabyen91: bugontherug: George was on his back, with Trayvon on top of him.

This is what you believe.

That's what Zimmerman and his own apologists claim.

And they seem to have missed the fact that several voice analyzes have been done on the 911 tape that Zimmerman claimed that it was him screaming for help, and all of them concluded that it wasn't his voice screaming for help.

First, vigilante justice. Then, vigilante forensics.
2012-04-30 12:28:25 AM  
1 vote:

NewportBarGuy: SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

I'm sorry we made fun of you :(

[i47.tinypic.com image 532x501]

i1.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
2012-04-30 12:17:30 AM  
1 vote:

Gyrfalcon: So anyone up there defending this freak because he felt "threatened"? Yeah, he was only worried this guy "might" be "trying" to hurt him. Even Zimmerman had a better claim than that. This asshole just wanted to kill somebody and get away with it. This is what you've stooped to defending. Someone who flat admits he wasn't worried about being killed.

Not to defend Deep Thinker or anything, but what's your line in the sand? Not getting killed, but raped? Losing an eye, but living? Is hospitalization with a pronounced limp a-ok?
2012-04-30 12:12:22 AM  
1 vote:

doglover: The real travesty here is that the families of the victims are upset at the killers as opposed to the people who let them walk, ie the DAs who are the real societal problem.

Ding ding ding

/F*cking hate prosecutors
2012-04-29 11:51:53 PM  
1 vote:

Spartapuss: So is this Zimmerman trial supposed to be some sort of ruling on SYG? I was under the impression that SYG wasn't the case for him and the DA said as much. All my right wing accqaintances tell me that if the verdict favors Zimmerman that's actually defence of SYG. All I see from news sources is he's on bail. What is this supposed to determine?

If it has to do with Zimmerman, he's automatically guilty. No matter what.
2012-04-29 11:42:22 PM  
1 vote:
Gotta make room for all the unaborted fetuses that will repopulate the earth.
2012-04-29 11:32:01 PM  
1 vote:
I'm glad to see we're teaching those brown folk to stop being so scary.
2012-04-29 11:30:00 PM  
1 vote:
*place car in reverse, back up six inches*

*let guy walking his dog pass*
2012-04-29 10:37:49 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: probably the dead body.

2012-04-29 10:20:25 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: witnesses also said the shooter appeared to act aggressively.


What was their first clue?
2012-04-29 09:59:49 PM  
1 vote:

doglover: However, legally, you CAN shoot down a lunatic swinging a pipe or bat at you.

i'm sure you could...if that had been what happened here, then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

however...the dead guy had no weapon on him, nor was any weapon found in the area. witnesses also said the shooter appeared to act aggressively.
2012-04-29 09:24:55 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.

no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.

I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.
2012-04-29 08:02:30 PM  
1 vote:

SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

I'm sorry we made fun of you :(

i47.tinypic.comView Full Size
2012-04-29 06:37:48 PM  
1 vote:
Well, why bother carrying a gun if you can't shoot anyone?

These laws are great!

I've popped 12 people who were "threatening" me this year already!
2012-04-29 05:53:21 PM  
1 vote:
These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.