I H8 Memes
Member
Ya it is a sad day that physical confrontation of any kind leads to justifiable shootings.
It's a really terrible law. "Justifiable" homicides have tripled since it was enacted.
Ya it is a sad day that physical confrontation of any kind leads to justifiable shootings.
What if it was the armed Zimmerman who pushed the kid first? Oh, we'll never know because there is no eyewitness account of the beginning of the fight. But we do know he's already followed him, got out of his car against police advice...I put my money on Zimmerman starting the altercation.
But he can't be racist, he has Bob Marley quote.....Also likes John Coltrane.
What officer?!
The question is, are you willing to risk convicting an innocent man of murder to go with your best bet?What if it was the armed Zimmerman who pushed the kid first? Oh, we'll never know because there is no eyewitness account of the beginning of the fight. But we do know he's already followed him, got out of his car against police advice...I put my money on Zimmerman starting the altercation.
The question is, are you willing to risk convicting an innocent man of murder to go with your best bet?
I can't hang in this thread no mo'. It just keeps getting more stupid.
And I guess call someone the N word and wave a noose in front of him too and if he swings then boom, he's dead :/ I mean if that were the scenario, that's perfectly legal too right?
So you don't think he was racially profiling the boy?
..Okay. So a suspicious individual is spotted -possibly dangerous-, and your options are:
1. Call emergency
2. Get out of the car to assess the situation
3. Stay in car and wait for help
4. Call emergency, ignore advice, and then get out of car to assess situation
And you pick 4? Really? I mean, seems this is pretty simple; the precursor was getting out of the car. Who gets out to confront a person they find suspicious enought to call 911 about anyway? And with a gun ready. Just in case right?
Yeah ... the kid walking home to bring his brother skittles started the fight. It wasn't the man following the kid out of suspision in a car. It wasn't the man getting out of the car to confront the kid. It was clearly the kid.
That's what I'm screaming.
The question is, are you willing to risk convicting an innocent man of murder to go with your best bet?
...how? He was just stating that the other person still has the misconception that it was an officer who shot the teen.
And thats the post that you leave for?
The question is, are you willing to risk convicting an innocent man of murder to go with your best bet?
It's a serious question. I'm asking him if he just thinks he most likely did it or does he also think he should be convicted of murder, which are two truly separate questions. Did you just not understand it?LMAO
He'll give a teary-eyed confession and get off with a slap on the wrist. I'd bet $1000 on it.
What officer?!
You should read my posts. I'm saying the fact that someone actually thinks this guy is an officer now. Just wow. And I'm not talking about Foxy Fox.
The noose would likely constitute a direct threat.
I don't see him as an innocent man. He followed a minor in a car, got out against police advice to confront him and shot him dead. I do not believe it was the minor who started the fight. And if he HAD, I see it as justifiable self-defense. Who the fuck gets out of a car and confronts a person in the middle of the night.
It's a serious question. I'm asking him if he just thinks he most likely did it or does he also think he should be convicted of murder, which are two truly separate questions. Did you just not understand it?
no no no
i understand it perfectly fine
(but if he's innocent of anything... well, he'd have to be arrested before we can even get to that point right? lolololol)
also, the number of innocent minorities that would've been - have been - put under the jailhouse for things much, much foggier than this ordeal.... ooooooooo i drink it up
So does this then go to court for a jury of peers to decide?
Whats the next action on this? Is he scott free?
If 12 of us had to put in verdicts. What would they be? GUILTY.
I guess I did. I am looking through all these stories and I can't find any that say this:
Which is what you said. I'm seriously asking at this point, did I just miss a story?
Well there ya go. I must've missed that.
Although going by the call to 911 that he was tailing the teen, leaving his car to go to him with a loaded gun - I'd say if we were talking about STARTING it, I'd say it was him. But now I think you're kind of in a gray area that I can understand.
Any indication of what started the fight? According to the one who lived? Or eyewitnesses?
Time to bring that av back.
I never said he was a racist... although liking music from black people doesn't mean you're not a racist. Daniel Carver likes Eddie Murphy movies and he was a grand dragon in the Klan.
I cannot imagine any further evidence coming to light which would produce anything other than a guilty verdict for Zimmerman. I don't foresee the 911 audio tape reveling any further details that could possibly incriminate the young man. I could be wrong, I will not be in the jury.
I think I should get an av of a white player next time so I don't look as suspicious while I post
Considering my time on a jury, and seeing how most jury members think - ie: like KHarvey. I'd say he'll get away without even a slap on the wrist to show for it. He will get away with murder.
If Zimmerman gets away scot free, there is an important lesson to learn. If you want someone dead, especially if they are black, just fucking follow them in your car, call the police to warn them of a suspicious person, get out and confront said person against police advice, start a fight, then fucking shoot him. Tada.
And following someone in a car, and getting out to confront when this person has done nothing isn't? I see it as a direct threat. I can easily see how the boy could have seen his life in direct danger. If he had a gun and shot Zimmerman right then and there, I wouldn't be surprised if he got away scot free by arguing he truly felt endangered.
Considering my time on a jury, and seeing how most jury members think - ie: like KHarvey. I'd say he'll get away without even a slap on the wrist to show for it. He will get away with murder.
Driving behind someone and then getting out to speak to them or walk over to them doesn't alone constitute a threat. Do you think that would justify you punching someone in the nose for doing that? I don't think you do. Did he approach with his gun out? Did he drive onto the sidewalk and slam on his brakes? Did he get out and scream at him to get on the ground? All of those could potentially be seen as threats that justified some kind of response. But we don't know what happened there.
Who had more logical reason to perceive they were in danger? The man in the car, with the gun, or the young boy being followed?
Driving behind someone and then getting out to speak to them or walk over to them doesn't alone constitute a threat. Do you think that would justify you punching someone in the nose for doing that? I don't think you do. Did he approach with his gun out? Did he drive onto the sidewalk and slam on his brakes? Did he get out and scream at him to get on the ground? All of those could potentially be seen as threats that justified some kind of response. But we don't know what happened there.
Did you just not understand it?
The fuck?
Driving behind someone and then getting out to speak to them or walk over to them doesn't alone constitute a threat. Do you think that would justify you punching someone in the nose for doing that? I don't think you do. Did he approach with his gun out? Did he drive onto the sidewalk and slam on his brakes? Did he get out and scream at him to get on the ground? All of those could potentially be seen as threats that justified some kind of response. But we don't know what happened there.
It didn't start when he left his car.
The kid was walking, while he followed him in his car, which the dispatcher recommended he not do. This is straight from the police.
So the boy was being followed by a strange man in a car, who then left his car and approached. WITH A GUN. Holstered or not, does it matter to the perception of threat?
I'd rather ask if the dead boy acted in self defense!
It didn't start when he left his car.
The kid was walking, while he followed him in his car, which the dispatcher recommended he not do. This is straight from the police.
So the boy was being followed by a strange man in a car, who then left his car and approached. WITH A GUN. Holstered or not, does it matter to the perception of threat?
I'd rather ask if the dead boy acted in self defense.
Who had more logical reason to perceive they were in danger? The man in the car, with the gun, or the young boy being followed?
The fuck?
I think I'm taking a similar stance. Sure, tailing a person in the middle of the night isn't considered a threat. Walking up to said person isn't a threat. But tailing someone and then walking up to them with a gun (holstered or not)- IS a threat (as long as you're not a cop).
Ya this is quite shocking. I know that I would definitely feel threatened by that and demand that the person say what the fuck they are doing and to fuck off.
You believe that legally that is a threatening act? Can you cite a law for me?
You believe that legally that is a threatening act? Can you cite a law for me?
You believe that legally that is a threatening act? Can you cite a law for me?
You believe that legally that is a threatening act? Can you cite a law for me?
You believe that legally that is a threatening act? Can you cite a law for me?
You believe that legally that is a threatening act? Can you cite a law for me?
It is absolutely true that minorities get convicted on shaky evidence much more often, but that wouldn't excuse to any degree the same kind of injustice happening to a non-minority. I simply want him to be convicted or acquitted based on a solid idea of burden of proof.no no no
i understand it perfectly fine
(but if he's innocent of anything... well, he'd have to be arrested before we can even get to that point right? lolololol)
also, the number of innocent minorities that would've been - have been - put under the jailhouse for things much, much foggier than this ordeal.... ooooooooo i drink it up
No, the whole thing seems to have happened inside this gated development, which the kid had re-entered after leaving the grocery store.And correct me if I'm wrong, but the guy tailed the kid after he left a grocery store right? What exactly would you buy in a grocery store that will make you look suspicious afterward.
It is absolutely true that minorities get convicted on shaky evidence much more often, but that wouldn't excuse to any degree the same kind of injustice happening to a non-minority.