BREAKING SHIT! New 911 call, Trayvon screaming in terror for 30 seconds, "HELP! HELP ME! NOOOOO! and the BANG!

flashlv: Why? Because the evidence doesn't show reasonable doubt. You can't arrest people because of public outrage.

How do you think this story would have played out if Zimmerman had obeyed instructions GIVEN TO HIM BY POLICE?

flashlv: Why? Because the evidence doesn't show reasonable doubt.

You can't arrest people because of public outrage.

you can when they shoot someone.

if you have shot someone, you have broken a law, you then go to court to prove extenuating circumstances, like self defense.

this is the reason it will be taken out of the local laws hands, as they were so inept to let the guy walk.

kswheels: Nosir. That's Sheldon Cooper. Bazinga is his go-to line when he thinks he's pwned someone.

he's wearing a flash shirt

czarangelus: YES.

STAND YOUR GROUND.

NOT MOVE YOUR GROUND AFTER SOMEBODY.

IT'S EVEN IN THE GODDAMN WORDS FLASH


You are allowed to chase someone.

flashlv: It hasn't been proved that he didn't fear for his life either.

If he didn't fear for his life, why did he get out of his car and go after the kid? Someone who is afraid for their life hears the 911 dispatcher tell them to not follow, and they don't follow.

flashlv: Quite possibly, but the investigation isn't done yet.

When has that stopped speculation on bN?

I've seen nothing so far that is exculpatory for the shooter.

czarangelus: How do you think this story would have played out if Zimmerman had obeyed instructions GIVEN TO HIM BY POLICE?

Wat?

czarangelus: How do you think this story would have played out if Zimmerman had obeyed instructions GIVEN TO HIM BY POLICE?

i'll betcha a 17yr old black kid minding his own business would still be alive

Well with a name like Trayvon, you just know he was guilty of something.

czarangelus: How do you think this story would have played out if Zimmerman had obeyed instructions GIVEN TO HIM BY POLICE?

911 operators are not the police.

baron muchhumpin: he's wearing a flash shirt

Oh god...Hadn't noticed.

quick1: If he didn't fear for his life, why did he get out of his car and go after the kid? Someone who is afraid for their life hears the 911 dispatcher tell them to not follow, and they don't follow.

Sort of like all the people in the transcripts saying "fuck no, I'm not going out there?"

it's a flashtard thread!!!

flashlv: You are allowed to chase someone.

No. The only difference between Florida's self-defence laws and most other places, is that you are not required to attempt a retreat first. That doesn't enable you to actively seek out trouble.

libs keep banning me: Well with a name like Trayvon, you just know he was guilty of something.



Hopefully they have a backup of him.

flashlv: 911 operators are not the police.

911 dispatchers are official organs of dissemination of the law. That's why THEY can call YOU and order you out of your house in a natural disaster.

One thing I've gotta thank flash for is getting the bN libs, czar, and pherp all to agree on an issue. Even if it's just thinking flash is a dumbass.

flashlv: 911 operators are not the police.

quick1: No. The only difference between Florida's self-defence laws and most other places, is that you are not required to attempt a retreat first. That doesn't enable you to actively seek out trouble.

If this guy walks, you know flash will move to Florida to murder black folks. This is why he's defending this thing hard core.

osirisothedead: One thing I've gotta thank flash for is getting the bN libs, czar, and pherp all to agree on an issue. Even if it's just thinking flash is a dumbass.

osirisothedead: One thing I've gotta thank flash for is getting the bN libs, czar, and pherp all to agree on an issue. Even if it's just thinking flash is a dumbass.

OMG flash is jesus.

The guy was wrong to shoot, but the law says otherwise.

Too bad others feel the law doesn't apply to this guy :/

osirisothedead: One thing I've gotta thank flash for is getting the bN libs, czar, and pherp all to agree on an issue. Even if it's just thinking flash is a dumbass.

flashlv is a uniter!!!

flashlv: Fail

So you have nothing to respond with?

little hands of concrete: flashlv is a uniter!!!

But is he The Decider?

So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?

flashlv: The guy was wrong to shoot, but the law says otherwise.

Too bad others feel the law doesn't apply to this guy :/

Actually, the legality of this shooting has not been determined yet. I'm surprised, in your interest of fairness and the law, that you keep spouting this sentiment.

quick1: So you have nothing to respond with?

Why should I reply to your trolling?

brazil: So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?

Retarded law is retarded.

brazil: So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?

I believe flashlv believes so. If you are in fear for your life, fire away.

flashlv: It's not, why do you feel it's illegal to go on a walk?

Ask Zimmerman.

This might be useful.

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.

little hands of concrete: Actually, the legality of this shooting has not been determined yet. I'm surprised, in your interest of fairness and the law, that you keep spouting this sentiment.

Everyone else said it was an illegal shooting, ask them the same question.

flashlv: Why should I reply to your trolling?

with THAT logic no one would EVER respond to you

flashlv: Why should I reply to your trolling?

A legitimate and factual response is trolling now?

brazil: So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?

From what flash is saying...yes.

I don't think I want to step foot into Florida ever again...

kswheels: Retarded law is retarded.

Has anyone read the law, or are we just speculating?

I bet that there is a reasonableness test that goes with that clause.

brazil: So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

twitch osx: What was the kid doing behind peoples houses?

Talking to his girlfriend on the phone and trying to find some shelter from the rain.

quick1: This might be useful.

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.>>>>

is that the Florida law?

mike.refreshment: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

And it Florida, you can get them first.

quick1: This might be useful.

776.013 Home protection;

Florida law, I presume?

quick1: A legitimate and factual response is trolling now?

When I do it that's what you say I'm doing :/

flashlv: >>>>

is that the Florida law?

I can't respond to you, it would be trolling.

intentionally left blank: Florida law, I presume?

Of course.

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.

from the law^

meet force with force, including deadly force...

MEET force with force, meaning as soon as the kids started running, or retreating in anyway, you are no longer meeting force with force, you are no longer practicing self defense.

flashlv: Everyone else said it was an illegal shooting, ask them the same question.

Actually, everyone else has not said it was an illegal shooting.

flashlv: When I do it that's what you say I'm doing :/

Feel free to link when I have said that.

quick1: I can't respond to you, it would be trolling.

Keep, so it's not.

And he shall kill Trayvon

And he shall be a dead man

And he shall kill Trayvon

In tradition with the 'hood watch plan

And he shall kill Trayvon

And he shall be a dead man

He shall kill Trayvon

Keep = k

flashlv: Keep, so it's not.

the other big one is REASONABLY believes.

little hands of concrete: Actually, everyone else has not said it was an illegal shooting.

Bullshit.

quick1: A legitimate and factual response FACTS and LINKS is trolling now?

gahbroned that for you

quick1: Feel free to link when I have said that.

They are calling for his arrest.

So that fact the shooter hasn't been charged at the state level is pretty much a flaming bag of poo left on the doorstep of Equal Protection Under the Law, right?

flashlv: They are calling for his arrest.

Ok, so when have I said you were trolling after you made a legitimate and factual post?

kswheels: Nosir. That's Sheldon Cooper. Bazinga is his go-to line when he thinks he's pwned someone.

But he is wearing a Flash outfit. Was that intentional?

valaru: MEET force with force, meaning as soon as the kids started running, or retreating in anyway, you are no longer meeting force with force, you are no longer practicing self defense.

Pretty much. Corner someone, illegally detain them, prevent them from getting the hell away from you and then shooting them... that's not exactly self-defense.

flashlv: They are calling for his arrest.

Yes, so he can be tried in a court of law.

supergrover: But he is wearing a Flash outfit. Was that intentional?

Yep. Didn't even see it. It was just the first one I found.

osirisothedead: Corner someone, illegally detain them, prevent them from getting the hell away from you and then shooting them... that's not exactly self-defense.

His history of 911 calls also shows a pattern of animus and instigation.

osirisothedead: Pretty much. Corner someone, illegally detain them, prevent them from getting the hell away from you and then shooting them... that's not exactly self-defense.

My bloody mary last weekend came with a beer Stand Your Grounder.

From my Communist BFF:

Why is it appropriate for Obama to get involved when a rich black Harvard professor is racially profiled, but not okay when a poor black child is murdered? Nevermind. Answered my own question.

sabine: His history of 911 calls also shows a pattern of animus and instigation.

I see an insanity defense on the horizon.

brazil: Has anyone read the law, or are we just speculating?

I bet that there is a reasonableness test that goes with that clause.

There is. And the author of the law says this guy is a douche and doesn't deserve protection under it. The author also called FlashLV a "fuckhole with a gaping anal fissure shaped like a gang sign", completely remarkable anus.

valaru: 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.

from the law^

meet force with force, including deadly force...

MEET force with force, meaning as soon as the kids started running, or retreating in anyway, you are no longer meeting force with force, you are no longer practicing self defense.

The section you cited sure reads to me like it was the kid who had the right to stand his ground.

kswheels: Yep. Didn't even see it. It was just the first one I found.

I guess you don't know what "intentional" means.

brazil: Has anyone read the law, or are we just speculating?

I bet that there is a reasonableness test that goes with that clause.

"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."

flashlv: Bullshit.

Huh? Everyone else has not said this shooting was illegal.

finnley wren: "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."

So it would have been legal for the kid to kill Zimmerman.

osirisothedead: So it would have been legal for the kid to kill Zimmerman.

That's the way I see it.

czarangelus: From my Communist BFF:

Why is it appropriate for Obama to get involved when a rich black Harvard professor is racially profiled, but not okay when a poor black child is murdered? Nevermind. Answered my own question.

Oh, stifle it, will ye heeehhh?

supergrover: I guess you don't know what "intentional" means.

... I was agreeing with your assessment. Sorry. Yeah. It was unintentional.

osirisothedead: So it would have been legal for the kid to kill Zimmerman.

Girl says she heard kid get pushed/grabbed by Zimmerman even as he was telling her that he was trying to get away from Whitey McPsychoson. If that can be collaborated Zimmerman is gonna go to jail.

polydactylkatze: The section you cited sure reads to me like it was the kid who had the right to stand his ground.

yep.

finnley wren: "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."

So chasing a guy down the street just because you don't like how he looks doesn't get covered.

Really, no surprise there.

czarangelus: Girl says she heard kid get pushed/grabbed by Zimmerman even as he was telling her that he was trying to get away from Whitey McPsychoson. If that can be collaborated Zimmerman is gonna go to jail.

If it gets collaborated, there might be a conspiracy going on.

czarangelus: Girl says she heard kid get pushed/grabbed by Zimmerman even as he was telling her that he was trying to get away from Whitey McPsychoson. If that can be collaborated Zimmerman is gonna go to jail.


He should get old sparky.

brazil: So chasing a guy down the street just because you don't like how he looks doesn't get covered.

Really, no surprise there.

yeah, he's confusing me. He keeps making these statements defending Trayvon Martin from an unknown pursuer, but then saying Zimmerman is a swell cat.

brazil: He should get old sparky.

[Liberal]No. I'm against the death penalty. [/Liberal]

Life in prison will do.

czarangelus: Why is it appropriate for Obama to get involved when a rich black Harvard professor is racially profiled, but not okay when a poor black child is murdered? Nevermind. Answered my own question.

He doesn't care about minority on minority violence?

The law is horribly written, and I know law, I am a jew.

Actually I think the law is stupid, there should always be a duty to retreat.

And this kid is not the first person killed in an unjust manner, with people using this law as an excuse.

kswheels: [Liberal]No. I'm against the death penalty. [/Liberal]

Life in prison will do.

I`m liberal too, but really...fry him.

supergrover: yeah, he's confusing me. He keeps making these statements defending Trayvon Martin from an unknown pursuer, but then saying Zimmerman is a swell cat.

Zimmerman sounds like he has a low IQ and finds it difficult to separate threads of reality.

So draws conclusions that "some crimes in the past" are somehow magically connected to "people i see now and assume are skulking so they must be guilty, I'M CHARGING MY POWDER!!! BANG! BANG! BANG!"

valaru: I`m liberal too, but really...fry him.

See if Joe Arpaio has room in one of his jails. That's worse than death.

kswheels: [Liberal]No. I'm against the death penalty. [/Liberal]

Life in prison will do.

I believe in personal responsibility and fiscal conservative in relation to government.

Give him the hot squat early and save money.

valaru: I see an insanity defense on the horizon.

I would be really surprised at that. The court didn't declare any sort of mental health issue when dealing with his previous charges.

I'd put a higher probability on a successful justifiable homicide defense, a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court, and a reluctant realization on the part of Florida lawmakers that they've created a monster.

brazil: Zimmerman sounds like he has a low IQ and finds it difficult to separate threads of reality.So draws conclusions that "some crimes in the past" are somehow magically connected to "people i see now and assume are skulking so they must be guilty, I'M CHARGING MY POWDER!!! BANG! BANG! BANG!"

You misunderstand. Trayvon was black.

osirisothedead: See if Joe Arpaio has room in one of his jails. That's worse than death.

Death isn't punishment, it's just getting those people out of the way, like mouse traps, or taking out the trash.

You can't function in our society, goodbye.

brazil: I believe in personal responsibility and fiscal conservative in relation to government.

Give him the hot squat early and save money.

With the appeals process, the death penalty costs more.

And I swear to god if you go on the "get rid of the appeals..." rant.

valaru: there should always be a duty to retreat.

Wait, what?

valaru: I`m liberal too, but really...fry him.

Well there's no question he did it. Not like he's innocent of the killing. Or even intent, only if it were self defense or murder.

And frankly, he went bug fuck when he followed him, never saw a crime committed, his own life or property were threatened, and the killed him.

That's a deathing right there.

kswheels: With the appeals process, the death penalty costs more.

And I swear to god if you go on the "get rid of the appeals..." rant.

That's why I just moved over brazil's original 2 comments about him getting the chair. Didn't want this to go from the merits of this particular case down a death penalty bunny trail.