The Zimmerman case?

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:11 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:00 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 8:58 PM, luke viia said:

looool, collecting money to purchase him firearms? how many are they going to get him?

 

I've seen two separate pools so at least two

 

 

Thank you for your 5 awesome posts. Your work is done on this forum.

 

Let's all give Carlos a round of applause for contributing to the forum.

 

Anyway, the door is behind the Luke Vibert subforum. Take care, now.

 

Are you threatened by my posting here?

it's not the posting he's threatened by, it's the size of your weiner.

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:26 PM, olo said:

it's not the posting he's threatened by, it's the size of your weiner.

You mean the size of my danger

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:30 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:26 PM, olo said:

it's not the posting he's threatened by, it's the size of your weiner.

 

You mean the size of my danger

 

fixt

got any wikipedia links to bombard us with lately?

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:31 PM, olo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:30 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:26 PM, olo said:

.

 

 

 

 

 

fixt

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:45 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:31 PM, olo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:30 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:26 PM, olo said:

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

dix

 

fixt

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:46 PM, olo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:45 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:31 PM, olo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:30 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:26 PM, olo said:

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

dix

 

 

fixt

 

you shut up

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:46 PM, olo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:45 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:31 PM, olo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:30 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 9:26 PM, olo said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

dix

 

 

fixt

 

got in an argument with the in-laws about the Zimmerman case, they repeated all the familiar talking points, pretty much verbatim the way tighty-whitie boner guy laid them out.

anyways, when i told them that if Zimmerman was armed, why didn't he threaten Trayvon or let him know he was armed to scare him away first they said 'well then trayvon would have shot him if he had a gun'. What i don't understand about that counter argument, let's say it was a possibility that Trayvon could have been armed and shot back, wouldn't approaching him in the first place be equally as dangerous? Like if you were to approach a burglar in any situation, that person could shoot at you. It still doesn't make any sense to me why the retarded / autistic/ or just stupid Zimmerman would carry around a gun and act like a neighborhood watch guy but not use it as a visual threat before any physical confrontation took place. My personal belief is that more than a racist, Zimmerman was one of these people who was fantasizing about the day when he'd have the opportunity to be in a gun fight or kill someone. I know a local sheriff (correction: I try not to know him, he's my 'step brother' ) who actually has openly spoken about how one day he hopes to be in a situation where he gets to kill someone, he's essentially a functioning sociopath. I would suspect Zimmerman is just one of these guys. A situation that he almost entirely created himself so that he could have an excuse to know what it's like to kill someone and get away with it under the law.

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:12 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

not use it as a visual threat before any physical confrontation took place.

Because this is actually illegal in the context of concealed carry handguns. 'Brandishing a weapon' is not allowed.

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:18 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:12 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

not use it as a visual threat before any physical confrontation took place.

 

Because this is actually illegal in the context of concealed carry handguns. 'Brandishing a weapon' is not allowed.

 

12 posts in and you are the most annoying fuck on the internet.

he has posted here many times before.

Instead of getting in a peeing match with Carlos, do you guys have any thoughts on the link he posted? Or any response to the lawfulness of brandishing weapons?

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:46 PM, DerWaschbar said:

Instead of getting in a peeing match with Carlos, do you guys have any thoughts on the link he posted? Or any response to the lawfulness of brandishing weapons?

Most of the things on that website are not in dispute, however they aren't relevant to the trial. Zimmerman claimed he fired the gun in self-defense, anything outside of what immediately happened that night is inconsequential. There was no way of Zimmerman knowing that Martin had engaged in fighting, smoked weed, or robbed anyone else before. Zimmerman was certainly acting on different impulses or information (whether you want to believe its racism or because of the frequent breakins is up to you) I find it ridiculous but sadly par for the course for Zimmerman supporters to condemn the Martin-supporters for using conjectural evidence to support their position, and then immediately do the same for themselves.

Martin was not on trial. Martin was shot dead. What was regarded by the court during the trial was the claim of self-defense, and the prosecution's evidence was inconsequential in challenging this claim. Why people on either side of this case can't seem to accept that is beyond me.

As for brandishing weapons, I think it would have been within the boundaries of Florida law for Zimmerman to inform Martin that he had a concealed weapon on his person. But once again, we don't know if that happened or not.

i think it's pretty obvious that what people can't accept is the burden of proof being on the person who is dead and not the person who shot and killed him.

then the laws need to be changed to reflect that.

edit: you should also consider blaming the prosecution for listening more to the media outlets and activists than trying to nail Zimmerman with a charge they had a better shot at (manslaughter, negligent homicide).

we'll get right on that

  On 7/25/2013 at 12:10 AM, zaphod said:

we'll get right on that

i know it's frustrating. I get the sarcastic response. But we can't ignore the law.

This is indicative of the overall American condition. Don't attempt to fix the systemic problems, they are too big. Instead let's focus all of our efforts on one particular pariah, and go home feeling satisfied until the next time people need to conveniently avoid realistically looking at the situation.

So the logic is:

You can kill whomever you like, and then say it's self-defense

And then if the prosecution can demonstrate that you did indeed kill the person but can't disprove your self-defense claim, then you are in the clear...?

  On 7/25/2013 at 12:17 AM, LimpyLoo said:

So the logic is:

 

You can kill whomever you like, and then say it's self-defense

 

And then if the prosecution can demonstrate that you did indeed kill the person but can't disprove your self-defense claim, then you are in the clear...?

According to the law and the specific set of circumstances, yes. And the prosecution didn't have to prove the killing. That was already admitted.

i don't think people are "going home satisfied". i think the overall feeling is one of defeat. the american condition, if that exists, and i don't think it does, is more one of perpetual scarification with no time given to heal.

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:37 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:18 PM, Carlos Danger said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:12 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

not use it as a visual threat before any physical confrontation took place.

 

Because this is actually illegal in the context of concealed carry handguns. 'Brandishing a weapon' is not allowed.

 

 

12 posts in and you are the most annoying fuck on the internet.

 

if that's actually true then it's a law seemingly invented by a sociopath who wants to find excuses to murder other humans for pleasure.

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:54 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 7/24/2013 at 11:46 PM, DerWaschbar said:

Instead of getting in a peeing match with Carlos, do you guys have any thoughts on the link he posted? Or any response to the lawfulness of brandishing weapons?

 

I find it ridiculous but sadly par for the course for Zimmerman supporters to condemn the Martin-supporters for using conjectural evidence to support their position, and then immediately do the same for themselves.

 

to me what you just said is the crux of this entire manufactured discussion. It just illustrates how irrationally polarized it is. It's extremely bizarre to me that people believe 100% Zimmerman's account of events. Do they not realize that anyone being charged with murder with the help of lawyers will come up with the best possible defense to get off said charges regardless of it's factualness? The whole 'conservative' perspective on this seems to be a do-gooder saint who is incapable of lying VS a drug addled thug. IT's just crazy in the first place how absurd it is that there is a built in liberal or conservative position on this at all. It reminds me of the Rodney King trial how you will still find plenty of conservative folk out there who don't deny Rodney King was horribly beaten but will still say 'but he was on PCP and he was REALLY violent when he got out of the car, they werent just beating him for no reason, he started it' <--- beyond tragic that people actually say this shit

definitely. but it's beyond dispute that there were deliberate tactics from certain media networks to presuppose a racial narrative.

the frustration is that you have to take the side of either

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS A RACIST MURDERER

or

TRAYVON MARTIN IS A DRUG ADDICT MASTER THIEF BOXING CHAMPION

and if you fall outside of either of those distinctions, you clearly aren't supporting the obviously "right" side. and this is absolutely manufactured. The sad part is that both sides of dialogue so eagerly perpetuate the manufactured positions.