Devil's Advocate Re: Zimmerman not-guilty decision by chrisisall

America loves a winner!

I have to chuckle at the reports that Trayvon was armed ONLY with a bag of skittles.

As Spike said.. " YOU are the weapon. "

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 1:30 PM

MAL4PREZ

And then there's this:

"Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

...

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

Gray testified that he saw Alexander point the gun at him and looked away before she fired the shot. He claims she was the aggressor, and he had begged her to put away the weapon.

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1
530035.html

So a black woman walks into a dangerous situation with a gun and hurts no one and she gets 20 years in prison. GZ? Murders a teenager and gets sent home with the same gun in his hand.

This law and the morons who support it are seriously messed up.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 1:48 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
So a black woman walks into a dangerous situation with a gun and hurts no one and she gets 20 years in prison. GZ? Murders a teenager and gets sent home with the same gun in his hand.

Zimmerman didn't know it was a 'dangerous situation', until a cheap shot broke his nose.

While her case may be wrong, it bears no connection to the Zimmerman case.

She brandished the weapon,and pointed it at her ex. It wasn't even HER home, at the time, as she was there picking up things. She had no right to re enter the residence if it wasn't her home.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 2:41 PM

I do see the point of those who support & probably admire Zimmerman.

But prove it! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
How about you all get out there on your own streets with a loaded
gun and do patrols. Start following the people who are up to no good.
Let 'em know that you won't be trifled with.

Protect your turf as George did!!
(Be sure to wear your George Zimmerman T-shirt.)

==================================
A man's gotta know & protect his neighbors.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 3:25 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

This law and the morons who support it are seriously messed up.

No judge is required to obey an illegal law.

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 3:42 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

found this over on slate.com

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/florida/features/2013/oh_florida/zi
mmerman_reaction_in_florida_history_of_shameful_jury_decisions.html

The tag or headline says enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 5:17 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Supposedly this was a simple 'self-defense' defense. But the 'stand your ground' laws moved the goalposts for defense. You are allowed to use deadly force if you can claim 'fear'. And you are allowed to use deadly force EVEN IF YOU ARE THE ASSAILANT, as long as the person who is defending themself FROM YOU has put you in fear of your life.

How messed up is that?

BTW, I think it was NOB who suggested a critical question that the prosecution failed to ask - when did Zimmerman take the gun off safety? I think it would have made all the difference.

The full text is below:

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI

CRIMES

Chapter 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of UNLAWFUL force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 5:41 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And you are allowed to use deadly force EVEN IF YOU ARE THE ASSAILANT, as long as the person who is defending themself FROM YOU has put you if fear of your life.

I cry for the human race.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 8:47 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Zimmerman will spend the rest of his (probably short) days in fear. He'll get to feel what it's like to be a black youth in America, having a target painted on your back by so many of the people you encounter during your day.

Every black person who encounters Zimmerman is legally justified in shooting him dead, because they have a reasonable fear for their life and are allowed to stand their ground, and he has a proven history of killing unarmed black people.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 8:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Every black person who encounters Zimmerman is legally justified in shooting him dead, because they have a reasonable fear for their life and are allowed to stand their ground, and he has a proven history of killing unarmed black people.

True that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
So a black woman walks into a dangerous situation with a gun and hurts no one and she gets 20 years in prison. GZ? Murders a teenager and gets sent home with the same gun in his hand.

Zimmerman didn't know it was a 'dangerous situation', until a cheap shot broke his nose.

Then why did he call 911?

Quote:

While her case may be wrong, it bears no connection to the Zimmerman case.

She brandished the weapon,and pointed it at her ex. It wasn't even HER home, at the time, as she was there picking up things. She had no right to re enter the residence if it wasn't her home.

There is no requirement that you be in your home in order to "stand your ground".

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 15, 2013 10:25 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zimmerman will spend the rest of his (probably short) days in fear. He'll get to feel what it's like to be a black youth in America, having a target painted on your back by so many of the people you encounter during your day.

Every black person who encounters Zimmerman is legally justified in shooting him dead, because they have a reasonable fear for their life and are allowed to stand their ground, and he has a proven history of killing unarmed black people.

No no no silly. You don't get it. When black people end up dead at the hands of non-blacks Stand Your Ground protects the killer because hey, black people are scary and any sensible non-black person *should* pull a gun and start shooting as soon as they see that black person in their path. Especially if it's a black person in a hoodie.

Now if Black folk do something silly like think they're in danger (as if anyone ever would ever unjustly threaten a black person, right? *facepalm*) and the black person pulls a gun, SYG doesn't protect the Black person because--duh--black folk are SCARY. They aren't SCARED. Ever. No. Can't happen. Only the fair skinned are allowed to be scared.

Even if the dark skinned person in question is a teen being stacked or a woman who's taken out a restraining order on her scary ex: only non-blacks are allowed to be scared and have a Right to protect the Ground on which they Stand.

Blacks, no.

Clearer now?

If anyone does not see that this post is 100% sarcastic, I have failed.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:49 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zimmerman will spend the rest of his (probably short) days in fear. He'll get to feel what it's like to be a black youth in America, having a target painted on your back by so many of the people you encounter during your day.

Every black person who encounters Zimmerman is legally justified in shooting him dead, because they have a reasonable fear for their life and are allowed to stand their ground, and he has a proven history of killing unarmed black people.

And there we have it.

Crassic.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:53 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
So a black woman walks into a dangerous situation with a gun and hurts no one and she gets 20 years in prison. GZ? Murders a teenager and gets sent home with the same gun in his hand.

Zimmerman didn't know it was a 'dangerous situation', until a cheap shot broke his nose.

Then why did he call 911?

He didn't. He called the non-emergency dispatcher. As he was on neighborhood watch. and there had been recent break ins, it was perfectly normal to call in when seeing an unknown individual acting suspicious.

Quote:

While her case may be wrong, it bears no connection to the Zimmerman case.

She brandished the weapon,and pointed it at her ex. It wasn't even HER home, at the time, as she was there picking up things. She had no right to re enter the residence if it wasn't her home.

There is no requirement that you be in your home in order to "stand your ground".

She didn't stand her ground. She retreated , got the gun,and then advanced. She SHOULD have called 9-1-1, if the situation were getting out of hand, or just left.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:00 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zimmerman will spend the rest of his (probably short) days in fear. He'll get to feel what it's like to be a black youth in America, having a target painted on your back by so many of the people you encounter during your day.

Every black person who encounters Zimmerman is legally justified in shooting him dead, because they have a reasonable fear for their life and are allowed to stand their ground, and he has a proven history of killing unarmed black people.

For one you don't know for certain what happened that night. You don't know that Zimmerman is a racist. A jury just aquitted Zimmerman of wrong doing. Perhaps just for a moment you should considar that Zimmerman may have did nothing wrong.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:04 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Supposedly this was a simple 'self-defense' defense. But the 'stand your ground' laws moved the goalposts for defense. You are allowed to use deadly force if you can claim 'fear'. And you are allowed to use deadly force EVEN IF YOU ARE THE ASSAILANT, as long as the person who is defending themself FROM YOU has put you in fear of your life.

How messed up is that?

BTW, I think it was NOB who suggested a critical question that the prosecution failed to ask - when did Zimmerman take the gun off safety? I think it would have made all the difference.

The gun Zimmerman used does not have an external saftey.

Plus right in the statute it says "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity..." so if the defence could have proved Zimmerman started the physical confrontation in any way or that Zimmerman threatened Martin with harm the law would not have covered him. Unfortunatly the state could not do that.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zimmerman will spend the rest of his (probably short) days in fear. He'll get to feel what it's like to be a black youth in America, having a target painted on your back by so many of the people you encounter during your day.

Every black person who encounters Zimmerman is legally justified in shooting him dead, because they have a reasonable fear for their life and are allowed to stand their ground, and he has a proven history of killing unarmed black people.

For one you don't know for certain what happened that night. You don't know that Zimmerman is a racist. A jury just aquitted Zimmerman of wrong doing. Perhaps just for a moment you should considar that Zimmerman may have did nothing wrong.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Any chance you can show me where I ever claimed Z is a racist?

I said black people have valid reasons to fear him, given his history.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

She didn't stand her ground. She retreated , got the gun,and then advanced. She SHOULD have called 9-1-1, if the situation were getting out of hand, or just left.

I have to ask: Why do you hold a black woman to a different standard than you hold a white man?

Zimmerman got his gun, got out of his car AFTER being told not to, chased Trayvon down (not retreating, advancing), and as you say, DIDN'T call 911, or just leave.

So why should she be in prison and he be free?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Any chance you can show me where I ever claimed Z is a racist?

I said black people have valid reasons to fear him, given his history.

I think you were inferring it with your comments. If not I stand corrected.

I also think that black people have a reason to fear him if they punch him in the face and than mount him. Of course that is ridiculous, just as your statement is.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:21 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I have to ask: Why do you hold a black woman to a different standard than you hold a white man?

Zimmerman got his gun, got out of his car AFTER being told not to, chased Trayvon down (not retreating, advancing), and as you say, DIDN'T call 911, or just leave.

So why should she be in prison and he be free?

Zimmerman was already out of his car when he was asked if he was following Martin. When he was told not to do that he said okay and than stated he was going to look for a street sign. Indicating that he was not looking for Martin. Take that for what you will, but that is different from leaving a situation, arming yourself and than returning. More so in the eyes of the law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mal4, I, too cry for the human race, especially in my own country. We move forward, but oh, so slowly, and we've still got far too long a ways to go.

The mentality of those applauding Zimmerman, given his actions, his lying under oath, and everything else, show clearly how far we still have to go.

Quote:
Viewpoint: Was Zimmerman Telling the Truth?

(W)e still will never know the truth about this key question: Who instigated the scuffle that led Zimmerman to pull out his gun? According to the taped account Zimmerman gave to police that was played in court, after just following Trayvon Martin some, Zimmerman was on his way back to his car when Martin popped up and sucker punched him, soon saying “You’re gonna die tonight.” Along those lines, a verdict that Zimmerman fired in justifiable self-defense makes what anybody could see as at least the beginning of sense. But I think that Zimmerman almost certainly lied about this. I think it for three reasons.

One: Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel recounted Martin’s describing a verbal encounter, with Martin asking Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman asking why he was there, and Martin soon saying “Get off, get off.” Jeantel, although linguistically coherent, was not the most gracious interviewee — but her account of this exchange was straightforward.

Two: For all the coverage of Jeantel’s dissimulations designed to keep herself out of the spotlight, Zimmerman himself has lied repeatedly — about his finances and about not knowing about Florida’s “Stand your ground” law when he had taken a criminal-law course that treated it extensively.

Three: His version simply doesn’t make human sense. Being followed makes Martin so angry he jumps the man and tries to beat him to a pulp? Concocted for a novel, play or film, such a scene would be ridiculed as hopelessly contrived. It sounds like something a desperate, unimaginative man makes up to keep himself out of prison. http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/15/viewpoint-was-zimmerman-telling-the-t
ruth/#ixzz2ZDt7gf00

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 7:23 AM

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 7:48 AM

America loves a winner!

Chris Rock is an idiot.

Fools can be funny, but should not be taken seriously.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The takeaway? When confronted by a stalker, DO NOT choose violence as your first response. ASSUME the nut will have a legally issued & licensed gat.
Instead, choose... SARCASM.

That is very good advice.

Right up there with 'don't follow the guy in the hoodie cause he's gonna kick your ass'.

Instead, ignore him and go for beer.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:51 PM

America loves a winner!

Anyone buying this one ?

In a completely disgraceful display of glorifying the nearly illiterate star witness for the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel, CNN's Piers Morgan paraded the Honey Boo Boo wanna be in front of a live audience. But it only got worse.

Asked to explain how 'cracker' isn't a racial term, Rachel said that it's actually " cracka ", with an " a ", not " er ". So, butchering the language, in her mind, some how makes it o.k. to be racist.

Fine.

Quote:
" She said it referred to a person who’s like a police officer or a security guard."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502851/rachel-jeantel-on-cnn-ta
lks-about.html#storylink=cpy

So, apparently Trayvon KNEW or at least suspected that Zimmerman might be some sort of guard or law enforcement.

So, the young thug decided to circle back around and go MMA on this 'cracka', knowing full well he MAY be some sort of law enforcement or guard, instead of politely asking is something wrong, or better still, going straight home.

No one can say Trayvon had it comin', or that he deserved to die, but he sure as hell made the wrong choices. He was FAR from 'innocent' himself.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:36 PM

Vigilantism: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism

"Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body."

USA has a long history of vigilantism. The Boston Tea Party, for example.
Indeed, I imagine tales of this type of "heroism" are popular in most cultures
& thruout legend and literature. When the official cops can't or won't protect
the people, a vigilante is just the cure.

My country, with the help of hundreds of pulp fiction writers and the full
force of Hollywood movies, has romanticized the vigilate to the max. In any
movie with a vigilante hero, the local cops tend to be quite ineffective.

Vigilante = Hero.

What's the reality?

1. A vigilante often punishes/kills the wrong suspect.

2. A vigilante as judge, jury & executioner deprives the suspect of due
process.

Fictional vigilantism worked much better when I was a kid. Back then, the
Hero-Vigilante rarely killed the suspect, but shot him in the hand & brought
him in to be jailed. The Hero was a great athlete & rarely got beat up.

The Hero was an excellent tracker (stalker), after a crime was committed,
he'd find the culprit. But he was not a prowler-predator, looking for trouble,
looking for someone to accuse.

===========================
A man's gotta know his motivations.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

M52N

You're wrong. Here is the text of the law, with inapplicable parts removed for clarity. If you want to read the ENTIRE law, scroll up to my previous post:

The (stand your ground) justification ... is not available to a person who is committing a felony or initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, .UNLESS:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; OR

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The stand your ground defense is available to someone who is acting illegally and/ or provokes an attack.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I have to ask: Why do you hold a black woman to a different standard than you hold a white man?

Because ignorant stupid sh*theels like AU say so in jurys, Kwick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:37 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

She didn't stand her ground. She retreated , got the gun,and then advanced. She SHOULD have called 9-1-1, if the situation were getting out of hand, or just left.

I have to ask: Why do you hold a black woman to a different standard than you hold a white man?

If you look at the FACTS, and ignore color/ gender, then you may understand. I was quite clear in explaining how the two situations are not alike.

Quote:

Zimmerman got his gun, got out of his car AFTER being told not to, chased Trayvon down (not retreating, advancing), and as you say, DIDN'T call 911, or just leave.

So why should she be in prison and he be free?

Your contortion of the facts makes it hard to have a serious discussion on the matter.

And Chrissy ? I'm not taking your quote from my sig, so you can stop pretending now.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HERO:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The takeaway? When confronted by a stalker, DO NOT choose violence as your first response. ASSUME the nut will have a legally issued & licensed gat.
Instead, choose... SARCASM.

That is very good advice.

Right up there with 'don't follow the guy in the hoodie cause he's gonna kick your ass'.

Instead, ignore him and go for beer.

Hero, are we agreeing on some strange level here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Your contortion of the facts makes it hard to have a serious discussion on the matter.

I must apologise in that I'd always assumed there was a person behind this AU façade, but so many others saw far quicker than I did that you are merely a fucking asshole. Quote THAT, you sad little fascist biological reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:59 PM

^^ Chris, it is possible that Au is adopted -- like Loki.
Too bad he lacks the charm.

=========================================:-
All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:01 PM

The Whole System Failed Trayvon Martin by Charles M. Blow
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html
?_r=0

"... The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is
what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must
constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-
and-frisk, and in this case neighborhood watch — regardless of the
collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like
burning down a house to rid it of mice.

As a parent, particularly a parent of black teenage boys, I am left
with the question, “Now, what do I tell my boys?”

We used to say not to run in public because that might be seen as
suspicious, like they’d stolen something. But according to Zimmerman,
Martin drew his suspicion at least in part because he was walking
too slowly.

So what do I tell my boys now? At what precise pace should a black
man walk to avoid suspicion? ..."

Oonj: I undertand his paranoia. I have no answer for him.
"It shouldn't be this way!" is simply inadequate.

===========================
How can anyone possibly have enough patience?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:38 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Sad but heartwarming note to all this.
Our resident population is approx 50/40/10% dark/light/asian, and their universal response to this whole mess, besides frustration and sadness is...
"Damn I'm glad YOU are our security."

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:46 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Your contortion of the facts makes it hard to have a serious discussion on the matter.
I must apologise in that I'd always assumed there was a person behind this AU façade, but so many others saw far quicker than I did that you are merely a fucking asshole. Quote THAT, you sad little fascist biological reality.

And you hurl silly insults which don't even make any sense. Fascist ? Where in the hell are you getting that ? It so doesn't apply, it's almost comical.

And what's w/ the anger, pal ? Seriously, I thought you were some devote to far eastern concepts of peace and tranquility. You mad ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

So what do I tell my boys now? At what precise pace should a black
man walk to avoid suspicion? ..."

How about don't hit a man who hasn't provoked you ? You know, show a bit of civility,and stop acting like a dirt bag street thug ? That's usually a nice start.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:44 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
M52N

Plus right in the statute it says "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity..." so if the defence could have proved Zimmerman started the physical confrontation in any way or that Zimmerman threatened Martin with harm the law would not have covered him. Unfortunatly the state could not do that.

You're wrong. Here is the text of the law, with inapplicable parts removed for clarity. If you want to read the ENTIRE law, scroll up to my previous post:

The (stand your ground) justification ... is not available to a person who is committing a felony or initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, .UNLESS:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; OR

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The stand your ground defense is available to someone who is acting illegally and/ or provokes an attack.

Read the whole last section again...

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

(a) and (b) only apply to paragraph 2, which is provoking force but excludes paragraph 1 which talks about forcible felonies.

Florida law on forcible felonies is found here...

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/776.08

This means that Zimmerman would not be protected under the law if he started the fight.

It also means that Zimmerman approching Martin maybe seen as provocation, but Zimmerman would still be covered by the law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 3:05 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

How about you read MY post again. I didn't say ZIMMERMAN was covered, I said A PERSON who was committing a felony OR who had provoked an attack was covered, if the situation was as described under the law. It looks like said person has the duty to retreat and/ or to use proportional response first, OR to clearly indicate they no longer are continuing to fight in order to be allowed the syg defense. But they do have it.

So let's assume I'm a rapist. I corner a woman in an alley and she puts up a good fight so I shoot her dead. Under the law, I'm allowed to say I TRIED to stop fighting with her but she continued to kick me in the balls and put me in fear of great bodily harm - so I defended myself. Under the law, assuming there are no witnesses to contradict me, I could walk.

Or say I follow some guy at night, perhaps even brandish my gun menacingly ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:03 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How about you read MY post again. I didn't say ZIMMERMAN was covered, I said A PERSON who was committing a felony OR who had provoked an attack was covered, if the situation was as described under the law. It looks like said person has the duty to retreat and/ or to use proportional response first, OR to clearly indicate they no longer are continuing to fight in order to be allowed the syg defense. But they do have it.

So let's assume I'm a rapist. I corner a woman in an alley and she puts up a good fight so I shoot her dead. Under the law, I'm allowed to say I TRIED to stop fighting with her but she continued to kick me in the balls and put me in fear of great bodily harm - so I defended myself. Under the law, assuming there are no witnesses to contradict me, I could walk.

Or say I follow some guy at night, perhaps even brandish my gun menacingly ...

You are reading the law wrong.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

You are not covered by the law if you are committing a forcible felony, such as rape. There are no addendums to this paragraph. If a person is committing a forcible felony they are not covered by the law, period. Remember a ; is used to connected closely joining but independent clauses.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

This paragraphs and sub-paragraphs state that a person is not covered if they provoke an attack unless (a) or (b). This would any type of provocation that would not be a forcible felony. Forcible felonies also include a threat of violence, so showing you gun and making a threat would fall under the first part and not be covered at all.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:06 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I suppose the issue is, if you shoot someone dead, and unless witnesses are present, no can accuse you of breaking the law in the first place.

So, as has been pointed out continuously, do these laws encourage shoot to kill responses, as you are more likely to be acquited than if you injury someone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:26 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I suppose the issue is, if you shoot someone dead, and unless witnesses are present, no can accuse you of breaking the law in the first place.

So, as has been pointed out continuously, do these laws encourage shoot to kill responses, as you are more likely to be acquited than if you injury someone.

Assuming the pesky issue of physical evidence contradicts your story.

Oh, and " these laws " actually benefit minorities, counter to what this reckless administration is trying to promote.

Self defense is a basic human right.

Oh, and also, which keeps getting lost in the mindless shouting... 'Stand your ground ' had zero to do w/ this case, what so ever. It didn't come into play. It wasn't an issue here.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Oh, and also, which keeps getting lost in the mindless shouting... 'Stand your ground ' had zero to do w/ this case, what so ever. It didn't come into play. It wasn't an issue here.

ENNHHH! Wrong answer Hans.
Martin was standing his ground, using physical force against a perceived aggressor that he felt threatened by (and he was right, eh? Too bad the kid didn't have a weapon his self.).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Oh, and also, which keeps getting lost in the mindless shouting... 'Stand your ground ' had zero to do w/ this case, what so ever. It didn't come into play. It wasn't an issue here.
ENNHHH! Wrong answer Hans.
Martin was standing his ground, using physical force against a perceived aggressor that he felt threatened by (and he was right, eh? Too bad the kid didn't have a weapon his self.).

Nope. Wrong. He was the attacker. If he was standing his ground, the prosecution would have used it.

And it sure as hell wouldn't be in Obama's and AG Holder's cross hairs to , yet once again, attack the rights of the states.

Seriously, this must be what going crazy feels like.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:34 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Assuming the pesky issue of physical evidence contradicts your story.

Oh, and " these laws " actually benefit minorities, counter to what this reckless administration is trying to promote.

Self defense is a basic human right.

Oh, and also, which keeps getting lost in the mindless shouting... 'Stand your ground ' had zero to do w/ this case, what so ever. It didn't come into play. It wasn't an issue here.

[Thinks to self - shall I attempt a rational conversation with this being]

Sometime physical evidence requires interpretation, or it just isn't sufficient to make a judgement on its own merit. And I suppose that's one of the weaknesses inherent in self defence laws, you may have physical evidence of being attacked, but if you've been in a fight, how do you determine who started it. Not always easy to work out.

Secondly, does physical attack consititute the only threat in a situation. Take ikiki's example, if you threaten someone verbally "i'm going to rape you and then cut out your liver and eat it' or by cornering someone, and they attack you in self defence, and you kill them, how is that going to pan out when self defence laws are broad enough that police might view the scene, say 'meh, you've got some injuries, obviously self defence - see you later pal'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seriously, this must be what going crazy feels like.

Yes.
Absolutely it is.
Seek help ASAP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:30 PM

Since the pro GZ bunch "know" that TM was the aggressor, started
the fight, shall I, as a pro TM, say something just as ... unsupported
by physical evidence? ... OK, I will.

Rachel J says that just before the phone went dead, she heard TM yell,
"Get Off Me!" She said it from the start and has been consistent about it.

That plus the fact that GZ was gung ho the aggressor up to that point
makes me think that he started it. The pro GZ folk have nothing to show
that TM might have started the scuffle; they just assume it, because
it's the only way to cast TM in a bad light. It's a desperate clutching
at straws.

Now ... a minute later or perhaps only seconds, we have TM on top of
GZ beating on him. TM was an athlete; GZ is fat & slow. TM knew he'd
won the fight, but continued the assault. I wonder why? Did he lose
his temper, spot the gun, had GZ insulted him? What?

From the time the phone went dead to the fatal shot, there's a lot of
time that's just dead air for us. We can't know how it got so far out
of hand.

=============================
All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:34 PM

I wanna pet the kitty at the Zoo- WHOAH, it SCRATCHED ME, I gotta shoot it!!!

I have zero tolerance for stupid at this point. Perp, victim, jury....we are being inundated with stupid.
Zimmerman was STUPID.
Martin was STUPID.
The jury was STUPID.

But only poor Trey paid for it. Everyone else gets a free pass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:39 PM