ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 If Martin shot and killed Zimmerman because he was being followed, won't he have been standing his ground according to Flordia? Yes. Totally agree! That's the problem. Kill first and YOU win. Totally agree... Like a jump ball... Martin lost... Given the law... The first one to kill is the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yes. Totally agree! That's the problem. Kill first and YOU win. Totally agree... Like a jump ball... Martin lost... Given the law... The first one to kill is the winner. Are you mentally retarded? Serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You guys are wasting your time. C.Biscuit just saw: unarmed 17 year old black...shot by white...skittles, and he knew all he'd ever need to know to run with his opinion. The fact that he doesn't understand the situation or the law isn't going to keep him from the righteous indignation and racial outrage he so desperately desires. Come on! You sound like my 78 year old dad who came of age during the civil rights movement... He thinks that Trayvon was shot in cold blood. You really think that he was shot in cold blood? IMO, it is somewhere in the middle... Sure Trayvon is dead and can't tell his side of the story... I don't think he was killed in cold blood... I think Trayvon got proactive with Zimmerman following him and Zimmerman trumped Martin's move with a gun. Martin should still do under 10 years prison stime for the choice he chose to resolve the conflict and the way he pursued Martin. I don't get this at all. Self-defense is a complete defense. If Martin did circle back and physically attacked GZ for nothing more than following him & Zimmerman reasonably feared death or great bodily harm (both are reasonable results of having one's head slammed repeatedly against concrete) then there are no grounds for him to spend any time in jail. What would the message be? That if your lawful conduct provokes someone to attack you you must take the beating and hope he decides to stop before caving in your skull? If Martin shot and killed Zimmerman because he was being followed, won't he have been standing his ground according to Flordia? Let me translate what everyone else read here: I haven't the foggiest idea what "stand your ground" is or how it applies to this case, but I'm not going to let that stop me from citing it in ironically condescending posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I don't get this at all. Self-defense is a complete defense. If Martin did circle back and physically attacked GZ for nothing more than following him & Zimmerman reasonably feared death or great bodily harm (both are reasonable results of having one's head slammed repeatedly against concrete) then there are no grounds for him to spend any time in jail. What would the message be? That if your lawful conduct provokes someone to attack you you must take the beating and hope he decides to stop before caving in your skull? I do think that if the whole thing ended with Martin's attack of Zimmerman and it was Martin on trial for assault, he'd be able to claim that same self-defense angle. He'd probably walk on the charge because of it. This whole thing is another one of those cases where I wish we could go back and see the whole thing just to find out that both guys were idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I'm pretty sure they were both idiots. My only beef in this case is the one idiot being portrayed as an angel by the media, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Are you mentally retarded? Serious question. The laws and underlying theory of stand your ground is flawed... There have been a number of incidents where the killer is rewarded and given total benefit of doubt... The key is to make sure the other person can't tell their side of the story. You know, silence them first... The law is in the shooter's favor. You don't see this as being tragically flawed? If Martin was the shooter... It can easily be argued that he was standing his ground. The mistake Martin made was bringing his fists to a gun fight... He should have been packing. Fastest man wins! Then the law is on your side. YES... Very retarded nation (well at least in stand your ground states) we have become to pass these assbackwards laws. Edited June 21, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The laws and underlying theory of stand your ground is flawed... There have been a number of incidents where the killer is rewarded and given total benefit of doubt... The key is to make sure the other person can't tell their side of the story. You know, silence them first... The law is in the shooter's favor. You don't see this as being tragically flawed? If Martin was the shooter... It can easily be argued that he was standing his ground. The mistake Martin made was bringing his fists to a gun fight... He should have been packing. Fastest man wins! Then the law is on your side. YES... Very retarded nation (well at least in stand your ground states) we have become to pass these assbackwards laws. You really don't understand the law. It only means you aren't obligated to retreat. You still have to reasonably fear for your safety. You can't just claim this guy was following you/looking suspicious, and shoot. This is a terribly contrived argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/documents-tell-zimmermans-side-in-martin-shooting.html?pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You really don't understand the law. It only means you aren't obligated to retreat. You still have to reasonably fear for your safety. You can't just claim this guy was following you/looking suspicious, and shoot. This is a terribly contrived argument. Has there not been situations in FLA where what I say actually happened. What about the guy that got off the rap of shooting his neighbor over a garbage can dispute. The law promotes, shoot first, ask questions later... And if one does shoot, make it count. Martin can't exactly comment, can he know? Winner Zimmerman... The only reason he will sorts swing a few years is that there has been so much outrage. Appease the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Has there not been situations in FLA where what I say actually happened. What about the guy that got off the rap of shooting his neighbor over a garbage can dispute. The law promotes, shoot first, ask questions later... And if one does shoot, make it count. Martin can't exactly comment, can he know? Winner Zimmerman... The only reason he will sorts swing a few years is that there has been so much outrage. Appease the masses. I don't know anything about the mailbox dispute, but if this story went down the way GZ says it did he walks regardless of "stand your ground." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I don't know anything about the mailbox dispute, but if this story went down the way GZ says it did he walks regardless of "stand your ground." Really. No !@#$ing way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Advice: When sitting at doctor surrounded by an two elderly white couples, a black family, another black elderly couple... When you sit down and look around after 5 minutes and see the People Magazine that has "Trayvon Martin - An American Tragedy" with a picture of him at 14...do not start laughing uncontrollably. Then do not pick up the magazine laughing and see if the article is in there only to find it was ripped out and then put it down laughing. People do not like it. I forgot just how crazy this whole event was...until today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 This was all just a hoax to sell more Skittles. Best product placement ever. It would really be interesting to see if this event has effected their sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 This was all just a hoax to sell more Skittles. Best product placement ever. It would really be interesting to see if this event has effected their sales. Have they started to market the skittles hoodie yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Lie detector test results. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/george-zimmerman-lie-detector-421395 Though these cant be used in court, I believe. Whatever, there it is................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Lie detector test results. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/george-zimmerman-lie-detector-421395 Though these cant be used in court, I believe. Whatever, there it is................... Lie Detector tests are racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Lie Detector tests are racist! Tests are racist because they're hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Tests are racist because they're hard. I heard the state of Florida recently reduced the requirements so more people can pass polygraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Tests are racist because they're hard. You don't even know how much your satire lines up with real leftist arguments, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 You don't even know how much your satire lines up with real leftist arguments, do you? Of course I do. I live in SF remember. That was my whole point. I heard the state of Florida recently reduced the requirements so more people can pass polygraphs. When I moved to FL many years ago after college I had to retake my written driver's test. I had a very dark tan at the time and the woman looked at me and asked if I'd like my test in English. I said "no, give it to me in Spanish, I like a challenge." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts