Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • BREAKING SHIT! New 911 call, Trayvon screaming in terror for 30 seconds, "HELP! HELP ME! NOOOOO! and the BANG!



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : 8 seconds , coilence begets violence , flashshit , mrotal danger , red hot nuts , shitflash , voilence begets violence , whitey mcpsychoson

    What are tags?
    Comments 101 through 200 of 413 shown. Page 1 2 3 4
    czarangelus 646 2012-03-20 12:09:22.0 login to vote score 2
    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?
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:09:23.0 login to vote score 1
    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.


    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-03-20 12:09:59.0 login to vote score 0
    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

    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:10:00.0 login to vote score 0
    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.

    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:10:03.0 login to vote score 1
    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.
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:10:14.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:10:17.0 login to vote score 0
    czarangelus: How do you think this story would have played out if Zimmerman had obeyed instructions GIVEN TO HIM BY POLICE?

    Wat?
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-03-20 12:10:24.0 login to vote score 3
    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

    libs keep banning me 9992 2012-03-20 12:10:29.0 login to vote score 0
    Well with a name like Trayvon, you just know he was guilty of something.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:10:46.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:10:51.0 login to vote score 1
    baron muchhumpin: he's wearing a flash shirt

    Oh god...Hadn't noticed.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:11:01.0 login to vote score -4
    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.

    Fail.
    mike.refreshment 6827 2012-03-20 12:11:08.0 login to vote score 4
    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?"
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-03-20 12:11:14.0 login to vote score 8
    it's a flashtard thread!!!


    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:11:26.0 login to vote score 4
    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.
    impasse 820 2012-03-20 12:11:46.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    czarangelus 646 2012-03-20 12:11:57.0 login to vote score 1
    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.
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-03-20 12:11:59.0 login to vote score 10
    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 1657 2012-03-20 12:12:00.0 login to vote score 0
    brazil: When has that stopped speculation on bN?

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


    When I do that I am told I'm not allowed. Don't act like that hasn't happened.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:12:41.0 login to vote score -3
    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.

    Fail
    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:13:05.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: 911 operators are not the police.


    clifton 1850 2012-03-20 12:13:11.0 login to vote score 3
    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.
    czarangelus 646 2012-03-20 12:13:16.0 login to vote score 4
    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.


    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:13:44.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:13:50.0 login to vote score 0
    The guy was wrong to shoot, but the law says otherwise.

    Too bad others feel the law doesn't apply to this guy :/
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:14:03.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: When I do that I am told I'm not allowed. Don't act like that hasn't happened.

    Honestly, I don't read most threads closely enough to say one way or the other.

    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-03-20 12:14:27.0 login to vote score 2
    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!!!


    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:14:54.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: Fail

    So you have nothing to respond with?
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:15:02.0 login to vote score 0
    I can tell you that it does happen like that. Like usual.

    brazil: Honestly, I don't read most threads closely enough to say one way or the other.


    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:15:22.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: flashlv is a uniter!!!

    But is he The Decider?
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:15:36.0 login to vote score 0
    So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-03-20 12:15:36.0 login to vote score 2
    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.


    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:15:48.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: So you have nothing to respond with?

    Why should I reply to your trolling?
    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:16:09.0 login to vote score 1
    brazil: So can a paranoid person shoot whoever they want legally in Floridia?

    Retarded law is retarded.
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-03-20 12:16:21.0 login to vote score 1
    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.


    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:16:23.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: It's not, why do you feel it's illegal to go on a walk?

    Ask Zimmerman.
    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:16:47.0 login to vote score 3
    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.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:16:57.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-03-20 12:16:59.0 login to vote score 3
    flashlv: Why should I reply to your trolling?

    with THAT logic no one would EVER respond to you

    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:17:11.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: Why should I reply to your trolling?

    A legitimate and factual response is trolling now?
    clifton 1850 2012-03-20 12:17:16.0 login to vote score 2
    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...
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:17:20.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    mike.refreshment 6827 2012-03-20 12:17:31.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    sabine 745 2012-03-20 12:17:47.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:17:54.0 login to vote score 0
    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?


    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:18:24.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    intentionally left blank 2011 2012-03-20 12:18:26.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: This might be useful.

    776.013 Home protection;


    Florida law, I presume?
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:18:36.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: A legitimate and factual response is trolling now?

    When I do it that's what you say I'm doing :/
    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:18:38.0 login to vote score 4
    flashlv: >>>>

    is that the Florida law?


    I can't respond to you, it would be trolling.
    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:18:48.0 login to vote score 1
    intentionally left blank: Florida law, I presume?

    Of course.
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:18:53.0 login to vote score 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.

    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.


    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-03-20 12:18:55.0 login to vote score 1
    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.


    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:19:19.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: When I do it that's what you say I'm doing :/

    Feel free to link when I have said that.
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:19:27.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: I can't respond to you, it would be trolling.

    Keep, so it's not.
    the sonic dildo 11340 2012-03-20 12:19:30.0 login to vote score 1
    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
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:19:50.0 login to vote score 0
    Keep = k

    flashlv: Keep, so it's not.


    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:20:02.0 login to vote score 1
    the other big one is REASONABLY believes.


    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:20:09.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: Actually, everyone else has not said it was an illegal shooting.

    Bullshit.
    grotfabrieken rubbishhausen 561 2012-03-20 12:20:18.0 login to vote score 2
    quick1: A legitimate and factual response FACTS and LINKS is trolling now?

    gahbroned that for you
    flashlv 1657 2012-03-20 12:20:26.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: Feel free to link when I have said that.

    They are calling for his arrest.
    psychonaut 72 2012-03-20 12:21:01.0 login to vote score 1
    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?
    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:21:21.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: They are calling for his arrest.

    Ok, so when have I said you were trolling after you made a legitimate and factual post?
    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:21:21.0 login to vote score 0
    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?
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-03-20 12:21:24.0 login to vote score 4
    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.
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:21:57.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: They are calling for his arrest.

    Yes, so he can be tried in a court of law.
    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:22:08.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    sabine 745 2012-03-20 12:23:13.0 login to vote score 1
    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.
    quick1 501 2012-03-20 12:24:00.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    czarangelus 646 2012-03-20 12:24:03.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:24:13.0 login to vote score 1
    sabine: His history of 911 calls also shows a pattern of animus and instigation.

    I see an insanity defense on the horizon.
    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:25:17.0 login to vote score 3
    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.
    polydactylkatze 641 2012-03-20 12:26:12.0 login to vote score 3
    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.
    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:26:38.0 login to vote score 0
    kswheels: Yep. Didn't even see it. It was just the first one I found.

    I guess you don't know what "intentional" means.
    finnley wren 24 2012-03-20 12:26:47.0 login to vote score 0
    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."
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-03-20 12:27:39.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: Bullshit.

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


    osirisothedead 1858 2012-03-20 12:27:47.0 login to vote score 5
    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.
    finnley wren 24 2012-03-20 12:28:15.0 login to vote score 0
    osirisothedead: So it would have been legal for the kid to kill Zimmerman.

    That's the way I see it.
    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:28:18.0 login to vote score 1
    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?

    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:28:20.0 login to vote score 2
    supergrover: I guess you don't know what "intentional" means.

    ... I was agreeing with your assessment. Sorry. Yeah. It was unintentional.
    czarangelus 646 2012-03-20 12:28:58.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:29:47.0 login to vote score 2
    polydactylkatze: The section you cited sure reads to me like it was the kid who had the right to stand his ground.

    yep.
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:29:56.0 login to vote score 3
    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.

    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:30:15.0 login to vote score 3
    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.
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:31:11.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    supergrover 373 2012-03-20 12:31:27.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:32:21.0 login to vote score 2
    brazil: He should get old sparky.

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

    Life in prison will do.
    sloth 222 2012-03-20 12:32:45.0 login to vote score 0
    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?
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:33:01.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:33:36.0 login to vote score 0
    kswheels: [Liberal]No. I'm against the death penalty. [/Liberal]

    Life in prison will do.


    I`m liberal too, but really...fry him.
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:34:07.0 login to vote score 2
    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!"
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-03-20 12:34:34.0 login to vote score 1
    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.
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:35:03.0 login to vote score 0
    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.


    sabine 745 2012-03-20 12:35:30.0 login to vote score 5
    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.
    czarangelus 646 2012-03-20 12:35:36.0 login to vote score 1
    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.
    valaru 4404 2012-03-20 12:35:50.0 login to vote score 1
    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.
    kswheels 4583 2012-03-20 12:36:05.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    bluegargoyle 635 2012-03-20 12:36:21.0 login to vote score 4

    sloth 222 2012-03-20 12:36:34.0 login to vote score 0
    valaru: there should always be a duty to retreat.

    Wait, what?
    brazil 316 2012-03-20 12:37:05.0 login to vote score 0
    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.
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-03-20 12:37:07.0 login to vote score 2
    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.
    Comments 101 through 200 of 413 shown. Page 1 2 3 4
    If you logged in, you could post here.