calfoxwc Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 I am amazed by what I heard from a Wash. D.C. "detective". Happens to be black. He said you have to look at this outcome of the Zimmerman trial from a "black perspective". Then..... he said, that "Michael Vick shot a dog, and went to prison, then Zimmerman shoots and kills a young black boy, and he gets acquitted". That isn't an exact quote...... but close enough. Freakin Really? Was the pit bull grounding and pounding Vicks' head into a sidewalk til he was afraid of being permanently injured or killed? Tell us more, "detective".... moron. Politics, especially involving race.... is the "god" that liberals worship. It doesn't make sense, isn't rational, it's blind to fact and evidence, and it reeks of dishonesty and entitlement. Entitled to beat the hell out of somebody watching you as you might be getting ready to break the law in their neighborhood (because of white "oppression" and "discrimination")... and that is fine. But let the party they are beating the hell out of, probly' getting close to causing them permanent brain damage, and all they can think of is "poor little innocent black kid". Meanwhile, I wonder how many of the black on black crime individuals looked like they could have been Obamao's "son". There are people - prosecutors, all over this country that think that there was NO EVIDENCE to support the charge. Come on. I wonder is the sidewalk actually did count as a deadly weapon...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Oh, and Zimmerman did screw his life up - all he had to do, is stay in his freakin truck, windows up and doors locked. Then if Martin took out brass knuckles, or a crowbar, and beat his window in (before Martin could start his car and escape to safety)...and opened the truck door and reached in... then Zimmerman shoots him.... that's such a different deal that would have made it far more unlikely that the trial takes place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Why the fuck would Martin break into Zimmermans car to beat him up? Where the fuck would he have a crow bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 This is great news. The justice system did its job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowburn Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 True justice remains blind in Florida despite an attack by "the court of public opinion" and political posturing. 10's of millions of dollars wasted to prosecute and defend the accused who should not have been on trial in the first place. Potential civil payouts to Zimmerman may add to the waste of public tax dollars. So it goes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 True justice remains blind in Florida despite an attack by "the court of public opinion" and political posturing. 10's of millions of dollars wasted to prosecute and defend the accused who should not of been on trial in the first place. Potential civil payouts may add to the waste of public tax dollars True. And old 'Tawana Brawley' Al Sharpton asking DOJ to look into charging him with criminal Civil Rights violations. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 And Obamao and Holder can keep watch over hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 I am amazed by what I heard from a Wash. D.C. "detective". Happens to be black. He said you have to look at this outcome of the Zimmerman trial from a "black perspective". Lol..yeah theirs a lot of "black perspective" going on out there. One black likened the verdict to "old Southern justice". Letting OJ off scott free wasn't good enough a payback I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Why the fuck would Martin break into Zimmermans car to beat him up? Where the fuck would he have a crow bar? Well what do ya know woody, you're right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Now that Zimmerman is not guilty, the black community should apologize to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 A lot of selective morality, selective memory going on in the sports world regarding the Zimmerman verdict: http://deadspin.com/the-zimmerman-verdict-the-world-of-sports-reacts-upda-773603652 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 killing in self defense is the same as murder....because pounding somebody's face in with your fists, and slamming their head until they might pass out and die.... what a bunch of ignorant garbage. Just dishonest feigned victimization all over again. "we are all Trayvon.." bs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 So they werent crying foul when OJ got away with double murder because the state couldn't prove their case. That's totally fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Its a tradgedy on both sides that resulted from a unique and bad situation. One person is dead and the other person likely scarred for life and likely will never have a normal life after this. What needs to be looked at in my opinion is the current state of the "Stand your Ground" there is currently no real limitations to the law and is left with a lot of grey area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 I don't see what it has to do with stand your ground. I realize that's a liberal catch phrase but no one was standing his ground in this situation. and if they were it would have been Martin. if as you say Zimmerman confronted him maybe martin should have run? if martin sucker punched Zimmerman then there was no time to not stand your ground. can you think of a situation or a hypothesis it which stand your ground is relevant? it only means that you arente required to run if you feel endangered. not if you've already been attacked. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 I don't see what it has to do with stand your ground. I realize that's a liberal catch phrase but no one was standing his ground in this situation. and if they were it would have been Martin. if as you say Zimmerman confronted him maybe martin should have run? if martin sucker punched Zimmerman then there was no time to not stand your ground. can you think of a situation or a hypothesis it which stand your ground is relevant? it only means that you arente required to run if you feel endangered. not if you've already been attacked. WSS Stand your ground defence is what Zimmerman claimed he was using, and is the main reason he was found not guilty. Claiming a pure self defence is hard in Zimmerman's case, he had to atleast take steps torwards Trayvon. Its very hard to claim self defence when you put yourself into a situation when the situation got out of control and it was either his life(as he assumed) or Trayvons then he fired his weapon. That is not self defence alone but Stand Your Ground based law. In some states he wouldn't have been able to claim self defence for example in Ohio: "You can use force, with no duty to retreat, in defense of yourself or of another, or defending your residence or vehicle when you are in it and someone is unlawfully entering your vehicle or dwelling. Ohio law does not distinguish between force and deadly force in this area. To use a self-defense claim you cannot have caused the situation and need to have reasonable grounds and an honest belief that you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that your only way to escape that danger is the use of force. You may only use force that is "reasonably necessary" to prevent the attack or danger you face." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Regardless he was found not guilty and it is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 I'm loving these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 You can't corner the Dorner. NSFW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Actually, the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground. ************************************* http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3042982/posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Actually, the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground. ************************************* http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3042982/posts The writer would have to assume that Zimmerman had no chance to avoid any confrontation, not just the point where he was pinned on the ground and unable to retreat. Reading FL's self defence laws the only section that deals with self defence(with lethal force) outside a residence/dwelling/vehicle is what is commonly referred to as the Stand your Ground the key section is the "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force" this would also mean it doesn't matter that you put yourself in that situation, or you could have avoided the situation. I understand that you and a few others feel that Martin just flat out attack Zimmerman in that case Stand your Ground would not be the case since Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run, however I believe that it was more of confrontation/argument that got out of control and ended with a loss of life, and according to stand your ground law Zimmerman wouldn't have the legal need to attempt to avoid that situation. That is why it needs to be clarrified to where that line would be, a simmilar situation like Zimmerman/Martin will happen in the future and without any updates to the law the current line would be if you are on the ground getting beaten up you have the rite to shoot to kill no matter how you ended up in that situation. imo before you can claim self defence you need to show that you had tried options to avoid the conflict that would lead to the shooting, Zimmerman never did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 The writer would have to assume that Zimmerman had no chance to avoid any confrontation, not just the point where he was pinned on the ground and unable to retreat. Reading FL's self defence laws the only section that deals with self defence(with lethal force) outside a residence/dwelling/vehicle is what is commonly referred to as the Stand your Ground the key section is the "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force" this would also mean it doesn't matter that you put yourself in that situation, or you could have avoided the situation. I understand that you and a few others feel that Martin just flat out attack Zimmerman in that case Stand your Ground would not be the case since Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run, however I believe that it was more of confrontation/argument that got out of control and ended with a loss of life, and according to stand your ground law Zimmerman wouldn't have the legal need to attempt to avoid that situation. That is why it needs to be clarrified to where that line would be, a simmilar situation like Zimmerman/Martin will happen in the future and without any updates to the law the current line would be if you are on the ground getting beaten up you have the rite to shoot to kill no matter how you ended up in that situation. imo before you can claim self defence you need to show that you had tried options to avoid the conflict that would lead to the shooting, Zimmerman never did. Your opinion means nothing. He was found not guilty. You can beat a dead horse all you want, he isn't getting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Am I mistaken or did the defense claim that Zimmerman had stopped following martin and was on his way back to his vehicle when martin sucker punched him? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Sad - that's a good point...t - except how would Zimmerman know that he was going to get jumped? After the fact, sure. Somebody takes off, then Zimmerman walks around a different angle to see what was going on, and then quits following him, and all of a sudden, wham, he's sucker punched in the nose by Martin who got to Zimmerman by surprise.. He was doing his "job" - watching. And Martin was acting strangely, looking around. And took off. But I would never have gotten out of my vehicle. To avoid something? happening. He didn't get out of the truck to cause the confrontation - Martin forced the confrontation by surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Whats funny is most of these demonstrations (riots) are happening in LA and Oakland, where they have signs that say being black not a crime but then they go out and beat up people at a bus stop, loot a Walmart and throw rocks. These scum probably couldn't find Florida on a map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 My favorite part of all the posts on here that say what happened that night are the extra little bits they slide in there. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Whats funny is most of these demonstrations (riots) are happening in LA and Oakland, where they have signs that say being black not a crime but then they go out and beat up people at a bus stop, loot a Walmart and throw rocks. These scum probably couldn't find Florida on a map. Funny how they commit crimes to prove they're not criminals. Black people rioting? I'm shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Cal/Steve- It basically boils down to who you believe in this situation, I doubt I would convince you otherwise, if you believe Zimmerman flat out and not Travyon Martins friend http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/star-witness-testify-trayvon-martin-trial-article-1.1383084 then it would be a clear case of self defence. However in my opinion the murder scene seems to agree more with Travyon's friend than Zimmerman DieHard- You are correct at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think or what others think it only matters what those 12 jurors thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 They only use 6 jurors in Florida apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.