It's ok to shoot people in the chest if you think they might be dangerous.

/Judge Dredd

3/21/2012 3:36:28 PM

Quote :

"So in the eyes of the law, it didn't happen."

3/21/2012 3:38:08 PM

Quote :

"[quote]^it amazes me how many sleuths come out with their expert opinions in message boards when there is a media sensationalized court case"

It's not an opinion, its a fact that every phone call made is not recorded and stored for the cops to access whenever it's needed.[/quote]

As I stated, this is just basic common sense.

It's not me trying to be a lawyer.

3/21/2012 3:39:56 PM

Guys I think yall are missing the whole problem with this case. Martin's dad needs to grow some balls and shoot Zimmerman.

3/21/2012 3:40:47 PM

Quote :

"Exactly my point. So when there are no witnesses they just can't arrest the guy for what the think might have happened. They really can't prove that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense, as he claims, at this point."

This has already been discussed, and you're assumption has already been debunked just a few pages ago.

3/21/2012 3:40:58 PM

^^^ good going, you represent the intelligence ideal we all hope to achieve in our lives. congrats.



[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ^^^]

3/21/2012 3:41:35 PM

Quote :

"This has already been discussed, and you're assumption has already been debunked just a few pages ago."

My bad, I must have overlooked it.

What did it say?

3/21/2012 3:42:35 PM

EYE for an eye. Watch what the muslims do to the massacre dude when we ship him back.

3/21/2012 3:42:37 PM

^You're insane if you think they're ever sending the massacre guy back overseas, or if you think he gets the death penalty.

3/21/2012 3:46:52 PM

I think the confusion about the girlfriend's phone call being recorded might be from the fact that at yesterday's press conference the family's lawyer was talking and holding up a handheld mini tape recorder that was playing a woman's voice saying the words the girl said she spoke on the phone call that night Trayvon died.

3/21/2012 3:47:53 PM

Either way, its basic common sense for 99% of people that all phone calls aren't recorded.

Some people watch too much CSI.

3/21/2012 3:51:11 PM

enhance.

enhance.

enhance.

3/21/2012 3:52:57 PM

now google chat on the other hand records everythign

try to figure out how to delete your google chat logs

your head will explode

3/21/2012 4:09:04 PM

Off the Record?

3/21/2012 4:14:09 PM

Yeah, my google chats don't record on my computer. However, they are probably kept on the other person's computer and at the very least google servers.

3/21/2012 4:17:21 PM

Obviously you trolls don't really read what I post.

Anyways, the discussion is boring and not worth the time if all you have is calling me names and posting personal attacks. When you're ready to have a real discussion, then let me know.

3/21/2012 5:04:22 PM

Don't let your whiny, drippy vagina leak on the carpet on your way out.

3/21/2012 5:24:11 PM

My point indeed.

3/21/2012 6:59:53 PM

Don't be Black walking in a White high crime community.

3/21/2012 7:07:17 PM

***News***
-Commissioners give a vote (3-2) of no confidence in the police chief. One commissioner moves to fire him.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-21/news/os-trayvon-martin-sanford-commission-20120321_1_chief-bill-lee-patty-mahany-commissioners-randy-jones

-wdprice3 shoots at the sidewalk while he's out walking. When asked about this incident, he replied "I thought my shadow was a negro, so I discharged my weapon all willy nilly. Wut?"
http://mclc.osu.edu/rc/pubs/lee/shadow.jpg

***News***

3/21/2012 7:27:04 PM

someone itt doesn't understand the difference between trolling and satire.

3/21/2012 8:24:42 PM

Here's how much justification, misunderstanding or not, there is for shooting a kid carrying around skittles and iced tea on his way home:

0

There's no justifying this. Zimmerman was an idiot for getting himself into this situation, whatever his motivation, and he deserves to be punished for it. With great power comes great responsibility... if you are going to carry around a gun, you can't be as dumb as Zimmerman was in this case.

3/21/2012 10:47:15 PM

[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 11:00 PM. Reason : m]

3/21/2012 10:48:54 PM

So, if this guy actually gets convicted and sentenced to death... will any one show up to protest the execution??

3/21/2012 11:43:06 PM

absurd that people are trying to label this as a "hate crime," especially since they are saying it's one because he said a racial slur on the 911 call.

3/22/2012 12:36:32 AM

No it's because he chased down an unarmed Black kid and murdered him.

3/22/2012 1:17:31 AM

I have a feeling Zimmerman is embellishing what lead up to the confrontation and his "injury", I really hope the truth comes out.

3/22/2012 1:23:03 AM

^^ which would still be an absurd way to rationalize the claim of a hate crime. He didn't say "i'm gonna go kill this nigger." He said "I'm gonna follow this nigger." One is a "hate crime," as bullshit of a notion as it is, the other is not a "hate crime."

3/22/2012 2:40:09 AM

Shit... now they got Mos Def involved

3/22/2012 3:28:00 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/

Quote :

"The tragic story of Trayvon Martin's death in Sanford, Florida has ignited a great deal of passion and concern regarding the circumstances of his death and the defense applied by the attacker, George Zimmerman. The fact that Trayvon Martin unnecessarily lost his life is troubling and an investigation into the surrounding circumstances is certainly warranted. First of all I'd like to extend my condolences to the Martin family. I have been in the funeral services profession for over 40 years; I've walked with families through many tragic circumstances and I know how difficult it is. I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served. During the debate concerning this incident, some have brought into question the "Stand Your Ground" law, more commonly referred to as the "castle doctrine," which has been used by the attacker to pardon his actions. As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense. When the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" legislation passed in 2005, the catalytic event that brought the issue to the attention of the Florida Legislature was the looting of property in the aftermath of hurricanes. Specifically, there was a situation in the panhandle of Florida where a citizen moved an RV onto his property, to protect the remains of his home from being looted. One evening, a perpetrator broke into the RV and attacked the property owner. The property owner, acting in self-defense in his home, shot and killed the perpetrator. It was months before the property owner knew if he would be charged with a crime because of the lack of concrete definition in the statutes regarding self-defense and a perceived duty to retreat by the potential victim. Until 2005, the castle doctrine had never been canonized into Florida law, but had been used with differing definition and application to the concept of self-defense. The focus of the law was to provide clear definition to acts of self-defense. The facets of the castle doctrine deal with using force to meet force as an act of self-defense when in your home, in your car, on your property, or anywhere you are legally able to be. The law also protects property owners and their homeowner's insurance from being wrongfully sued by perpetrators who claim to be harmed while committing a crime. The castle doctrine as passed, clarified that individuals are lawfully able to defend themselves when attacked and there is no duty to retreat when an individual is attacked on their property. Since the passage of this law in Florida, 26 other states have implemented similar statues. Additionally, the American Legislative Exchange Council used the Florida version of the castle doctrine as model legislation for other states. Quite simply the castle doctrine is a good law which now protects individuals in a majority of states. However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford. The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman. Media stories sharing the transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin. Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. I have great sympathy for the family of Trayvon Martin and am grateful that things are finally moving in the right direction to further explore what actually happened on that night in Sanford, Florida. Awaiting the convening of the grand jury, I trust that justice will be served and healing will begin for all of those affected. Republican Dennis Baxley represents the 24th district in Florida's House of Representatives. He was the prime sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005. He is the principal owner and vice president of Hiers-Baxley Funeral Services. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1pqQoLkIR "

3/22/2012 7:36:35 AM

It's a bad law if it is so ambiguous that it leads to a situation like this. I understand the clarification put forth there, and think it's necessary; however it's much too late and sounds like someone is trying to save face. The law needs to be revised.

3/22/2012 7:50:06 AM

Quote :

"It's a bad law if it is so ambiguous that it leads to a situation like this. I understand the clarification put forth there, and think it's necessary; however it's much too late and sounds like someone is trying to save face. The law needs to be revised."

Bull fucking shit. Tons are laws are ambiguous and lead to varying interpretations; you just particularly hate this one because it serves to protect firearm owners. And while I haven't read the text of the law, most castle doctrine laws are much less ambiguous than other firearm laws. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 9:00:13 AM

Quote :

" you just particularly hate this one because it serves to protect firearm owners."

LOL

IGNORE THE UNJUST MURDER.

It's the firearm owners that need protecting…

haha

EMCE isnt even anti-gun AFAIK (he's black, i bet he shoots people all the time, right?).



[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 9:05:47 AM

castle doctrine has nothing to do with this case, but continue to spew your bullshit.

3/22/2012 9:06:35 AM

Except the police have practically stated this law is why they didn't charge at first.

cognitive dissonance ITT

Seriously, you can have/shoot guns and still be against laws that allow for this kind of murder. It's not either/or.

The law clearly allows violent, vicious people to get away with murder. It doesn't take much to reword it, whilst also maintaing the spirit of the law.

3/22/2012 9:08:49 AM

Quote :

"to get away with murder."

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.



At this point, all Zimmerman has gotten is not arrested and put in jail on the spot.

3/22/2012 9:16:37 AM

wdprice3, it seems as if you're being willfully ignorant.
Clearly, as that law is written, it allows for a loose interpretation of self-defense by getting rid of the previously held requirement of "duty to retreat". It has everything to do with the castle doctrine because it extends the previous exemption of "duty to retreat....except in your own home" ( castle doctrine) to not only include the home, but also any public place that you have a legal right to be in (newer 2005 florida law, a.k.a. "murderer's safe haven, and Judge Dredd motherfuker law"). The problem with that is other peopke have a right to be in public places too.


It looks a lot like YOU don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:23 AM. Reason : l]

3/22/2012 9:21:10 AM

We just don't have enough strict laws, we need more

3/22/2012 9:21:21 AM

wdprick3 admitting that he didn't read the law, then going on to say EMCE doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't think he's worth responding to.

3/22/2012 9:26:47 AM

^clever!

^^^the duty to retreat doesn't change the requirements to use self defense. even before this law, the standard was threat of death or serious injury, and it still is. Just because one isn't obligated to attempt to run away doesn't mean murderer's have a haven now. You're just spewing more bullshit.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 9:31:29 AM

I have nothing against firearm owners. I do have something against irresponsible people with firearms, as well as irresponsible/poorly written laws.


^ but you had to try to retreat and avoid the conflict FIRST. Do you understand that? If Zimmerman had tried to avoid the conflict BEFORE reaching for his gun, he probably wouldn't have hopped out of his car with a loaded weapn in order to chase down an innocent boy in the first place.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:39 AM. Reason : l]

3/22/2012 9:35:01 AM

it's not poorly written. the standard is the same and it is a good standard.

3/22/2012 9:35:38 AM

Ok, let's try it this way..... I know what the laws said...and what they say now. Obviously uou don't. Here's an exercise for you.... Go find the previous florida law, and the current one. Then post them both here. Then let's contrast the two.

Agreed?

3/22/2012 9:41:57 AM

^^It's a stupid law written by the NRA to increase gun sales, and the "standard" that you are referring to isn't even in controversy here... so why do you keep bringing it up? The controversy is a law stripping a duty that would avoid "justified killings"... yet for some reason you keep trying to make this about an unquestioned standard. You're an idiot.



[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM. Reason : Notice wdidiot3 is the only person raising the "stadard" as an issue.]

3/22/2012 9:45:18 AM

wdprice3, you're trying to reason with two people that will not listen objectively. All EMCE and turdball know is that some black kid got killed by a non-black man therefore the non-black man must be racist and punished. They'll bend any reasoning to get to the that conclusion too. You're better off just ignoring them both.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:52 AM. Reason : t]

3/22/2012 9:47:04 AM

Yeah, that makes sense unless you read the actual words that I typed and not listen to the silly voices in your head

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 9:48:26 AM

^^


LOL at saying since the duty to retreat is gone that murderers are now justified in their killings. Such liberal spin.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 10:12:25 AM

indicating the need for the reform of a law that allows a situation to exist where one can pursue and murder an innocent child in the street and then claim self-defense = liberal spin.
Got it.


I swear to God, you manage to shovel another heaping load of shit onto yourself every day ITT.


[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM. Reason : K]

3/22/2012 10:36:04 AM

^^It is a killing, justified in the eyes of the law if they aren't prosecuted. You're an idiot.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 10:36:54 AM

Quote :

"^ but you had to try to retreat and avoid the conflict FIRST. Do you understand that? If Zimmerman had tried to avoid the conflict BEFORE reaching for his gun, he probably wouldn't have hopped out of his car with a loaded weapn in order to chase down an innocent boy in the first place."

I think the law just needs to define threat as a physical attack on you. Because if someone jumped me and I had a gun, I would shoot them before running. However, on the flipside if this law helps cases like Zimmerman's I would prefer the law return to it's prior state before any person is murdered for "looking" like a threat. It boggles my mind how this kids appearance led to his death.

3/22/2012 10:41:38 AM