CrazyDogg77
Member
And the thread has become cyclical.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
And the thread has become cyclical.
Fenderputty
Banned
It's been said for sure. The depressing reply has been, "But Florida!"
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
No one under the age of 18 should be able to buy a butterknife
Fenderputty
Banned
The shooter was well over 18?
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Can you prove that this uppity black youth wasn't intending on using these hard-shelled candies as lethal projectiles a la Marvel Comics' Bullseye? Can you? Than you must acquit. /KHarvey
Fenderputty
Banned
But it was a racist remark... nowhere in any of the articles or any information released suggested that this kid was a gangbanger. You pulled that little nugget of bullshit straight out of your ass, based off of nothing other than the fact that the kid was black.
Time after time posters in this thread demonstrate their complete lack of understanding. I'm done here for the time being and will head back when the results of the investigation get passed on to the state, which should be within a week.
Before I go, I'll make my first two assumptions and share them. The first is, if prosecution is not recommended by the investigation the reason given by the majority in this thread will be that everyone involved is racist, stupid or both. The second is that if prosecution is recommended I'll have to experience the mind numbing stupidity of multiple posters telling me how dumb I must feel for being wrong.
ACH1LL3US
Member
Agreed plus 100%.
If it was a white teen, the guy would not have said a thing. What a sad waste of life. I feel so sorry for the family
Yea, probably, considering you spent the better part of two days white-knighting a racist murderer. Amazing the extremes you'll take to play devil's advocate:
Fenderputty
Banned
Ummm ... It's not that you don't make sense. You do. Maybe being followed in a car is worthy of being considered threatening, maybe it's not and the black kid started the fight from a legal standpoint.
I'm personally more upset with the system. If someone can tail a guy at night for no apparent reason, against police recomendation, then confront said person only to shoot them in the chest once they're getting their ass kicked and get off on self defense ... we have a problem.
ironically, this is probably the product of racism.
Reallink
Member
What are you even talking about? I'm not even going to waste time explaining that, as you're clearly just trolling.
Goddamn, you're a racist sonofabitch, motherfucker.
Yea, probably, considering you spent the better part of two days white-knighting a racist murderer. Amazing the extremes you'll take to play devil's advocate:
He does this in literally every thread, I don't know why people still bother responding to him.
Again, a guy rolls up on you in the middle of the night. He tails you for at least two minutes on the way back from a convenience store. He pulls up beside you and approaches you - and the he's the one that gets to claim self-defense?
I don't understand the people that try and go out of their way for this guy. He's a vigilante that has no issue with racial profiling if nothing else.
Well, at least this kind of threads shows the racist fuckers we have in the midst of GAF.
But the black guy was a gangbanger that could have been up to no good!
I love how the subtle racist jabs are beginning to come out.
Thread is still going on over the same thing?
Fact is, there's a dead kid now, by fault of this vigilante Nightwatch captain. Whether or not it was self-defense should be assessed in trial, by a jury, and not by god damn, non-proof of whether or not he can be detained.
Fact: Kid is dead
Fact: Man shot him
Should be tried. If it really is self-defense, then I'm sure a jury of his peers will see it as such. If it isn't, well, there you go. I'm sure a jury of his peers will see it as such. But to let him off, not even on bond? Somethings wrong in Florida.
Fact is, there's a dead kid now, by fault of this vigilante Nightwatch captain. Whether or not it was self-defense should be assessed in trial, by a jury, and not by god damn, non-proof of whether or not he can be detained.
Fact: Kid is dead
Fact: Man shot him
Should be tried. If it really is self-defense, then I'm sure a jury of his peers will see it as such. If it isn't, well, there you go. I'm sure a jury of his peers will see it as such. But to let him off, not even on bond? Somethings wrong in Florida.
Reallink
Member
The reality is, gang related initiations are the only examples I'm familiar with where "kids" will routinely go and beat random adults to death in random locations. Maybe there are others, but those are the only cases I'm familiar with. I was merely providing it as an example of why age is a useless metric in a case like this, and it was directed specifically at Prosthetic's comments and Prosthetic's comments only. I was merely picking apart his weak argument, there was no veiled commentary on this actual case intended. Like I said several times, I have no idea of the specifics involved, no idea the white guy may have followed the black kid for 2 minutes, or any of this other stuff.
And gangbangers would be the ones to initiate the conflict, not the other way round. I don't even know why him being a gangbanger is even being brought up.
EDIT: saw your edit, okay this makes more sense, but equating him as a gangbanger as your first response is still pretty fucked.
Get your sense-talking out of this thread! I prefer to be sensationalist and tell people that I KNOW things I couldn't possibly actually have known!
Picking apart a weak argument by inserting gangbanging into the mix out of fucking nowhere?
Oh, right. Black + young + male x night time ^# of gunshots = "don't count out gang activity... im jus sayin"
Fenderputty
Banned
So then stop posting and read some details? He was alone and minding his own business. He was on the way home from picking up candy for his brother. He was confronted by a man who tailed him while on the way back. The man tailed him for several minutes. We know the man went against police recomendation. He's on a recording saying "they always get away". Who started the physical fight is unknown. What is known is that this asshole shot a kid after getting his ass kicked. His claim is self defense. Harvey has been white knighting up the thread stating that none of the above matters legally and that if the black kid started the fight then the self defense claim should stick. You see in Florida getting your ass kicked is grounds for shooting someone in the chest. We're all stating that being tailed at night by a man with a gun is grounds to feel threatened and that had this man not wanted to pay super hero a 17 year old would be alive today.
Souldriver
Member
Sorry for not reading this whole thread, but will some justice come from this? Is there a likely arrest in the near future, or is this basically a "case closed" where a murderer goes free and everyone knows it?
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Quite a limb you're going out on there with those assumptions. It's not like either of those scenarios would not be deserved.
This is depressing. Maybe it should be an IQ test. Reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
Fenderputty
Banned
Please explain to me which part of your argument I'm missing. I believe I got this gist of what you're saying just fine.
No, the idea that I'm defending a person means you don't understand a damn thing I'm saying or why I'm saying it. I'm not advocating for anyone or arguing for the innocence or guilt of anyone. Why is this so hard to understand? I'm sure that I'm writing in English. You and the two others being so intent on dismissing my position while simultaneously failing to grasp it on the most basic level is a shame and as I said, depressing. My argument is not complicated.
marathonfool
Member
I'm glad you decided to gracefully exit this way.
Sorry, the blatant personal attacks inspired me to return. Once we clear these up I'll go back to waiting for the results.
Fenderputty
Banned
I don't think you're defending him him. Just his possible legal right to shoot someone in the chest.
Saying you're a white knight or that you're playing devil's advocate is not on par with calling people children and fucking morons.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
It's not like you didn't take shots at the people posting in this thread in your goodbye post (which turned out to be.. not so much of a goodbye).
Pointing out the possibility that he may have had a legal right to do so, depending on the details we have yet to hear. That you or anyone else would characterize that dismissively as white knighting is beneath you. Don't fall into that shit.
You didn't actually think he would stop posting did you
But why? I mean, it would be one thing to just say that he might have a legal right to do so and leave it at that, but for the past 130+ posts of yours in this thread alone(that already says something) you have been 100% on the defensive about the guys right to shoot this person, while actively dismissing any other possibility. You claim indifference and only wanting to see the facts, but yet have only been consistent in defending one party. Either state your intentions or cut the bullshit because frankly it just seems like you have an agenda.
CrazyDogg77
Member
And yet I'm trolling.
Fenderputty
Banned
But we're never going to hear the details of how the fight started. At least not from the standpoint of the dead child. Based on the details we DO know, I believe the shooter has SOME fault in the death of this child. Whether the system fails to find any fault isn't known yet, but I'm sure not gonna defend the possible legality for him to shoot someone and get away with it while he was clearly acting recklessly.
You read what you want to read. I have consistently outlined scenarios and answered questions regarding when the man would be considered guilty of murder or having used the right to defend himself. I even pointed out the key issues that could alone decide his fate. I've made it as clear as I can possibly make it. As you point out, there is no shortage of posts outlining my position and I have never been the only one saying these things either.
If the personal attacks and blatant misrepresentations are over with I'm gonna go back to waiting. Disagree with me as much as you like, please!, but just do me a favor and disagree with things I've actually said.
echoshifting
Banned
Honestly, one thing I do agree with kharvey on is that we don't have enough information to make a definitive statement one way or the other yet. That recording is going to be pretty damn important, and it doesn't sound like they're releasing it anytime soon.
Big Baybee
Member
You are the one defending a murderer. You continue to defend this man, even with every new piece of evidence confirming that he acted recklessly.
The only info that can come out for this case are the 911 call and maybe the shooter talking about the incident to friends afterward.
KHarvey16 is playing the position he is simply because it's advantageous. A corpse can't testify. The shooter can make up any story he wants outside of the content of the 911 call, and KHarvey16 can do the same and dream up any scenario he wants.
And whatever the result, KHarvey16 will agree with it and say "Whelp, those were the facts!".
Pointing out the possibility that the shooter was acting in self defense isn't absurd. It's certainly possible he acted in self defense after (stupidly) engaging the kid.
Posting over 10% of the posts in the thread and calling people fucking morons for not blindly subscribing to one hypothetical over another is absurd.
KHarvey16 is playing the position he is simply because it's advantageous. A corpse can't testify. The shooter can make up any story he wants outside of the content of the 911 call, and KHarvey16 can do the same and dream up any scenario he wants.
And whatever the result, KHarvey16 will agree with it and say "Whelp, those were the facts!".
Pointing out the possibility that the shooter was acting in self defense isn't absurd. It's certainly possible he acted in self defense after (stupidly) engaging the kid.
Posting over 10% of the posts in the thread and calling people fucking morons for not blindly subscribing to one hypothetical over another is absurd.
Fenderputty
Banned
He's not defending him. He's defending the system that may or may not find him responsibile / partially responsible for the shooting. Whether one is better than the other is up to you.
cut the bullshit. If you were truly indifferent you would have just said that you would need to see the tapes like many in the first post stated and not gone beyond that or simply not posted in here at all. But yet not only did you not come in here with a statement of indifference on either side, you started out with this :
Are you really willing to say that this is a post of someone that really isn't taking sides with either party? Because for a post stating your position,(your second post for that matter) it doesn't come across as such at all. You instead state that there must be more to the story and use any info that would lead credence to the mans self defense theory that he claimed. I'm not saying you didn't state situations that would land the man in jail, but they are all based off of your initial perceptions that there is more to the story and the man was acting in self defense. If you don't believe the dude that shot the kid did anything wrong say so, but don't try to fool us into thinking that you're some sort of levelheaded and balanced dude that has no bias towards one particular party. It honestly comes off as far worse than you just saying the former.
EDIT: And based on Fenderputtys analysis, I'd still chalk it up as being the same
I don't understand why the fuck this guy isn't in police custody. He's a fucking murderer. I don't know if I would be able to restrain myself if I was this kid's family members living right down the road from the murderer who's getting off without a slap on the wrist so far.
fucking racist murdering piece of shit. ugh. Lock him up for life.
fucking racist murdering piece of shit. ugh. Lock him up for life.
PROSTHETIC
Neo Member
Ok, you just said it was STUPID of me to assume an older guy had a size and strength advantage over someone who was 17. You know what, you're right that it was an assumption and a very important one. If I am wrong AND their sizes are equal or Martin was infact larger/stronger, then Zimmerman's chances in front of a jury look very good. That was pretty much my whole argument. Zimmerman has to convince a jury that he was going to die or suffer greatly at the hands of Martin. Unless they have some quality witnesses, it's his word against a dead kids reputation.
Oh, and yes they were in a fight. Someone has also mentioned the 17 kid was 140lbs as reported by the Miami Herald. My assumption isn't looking as incredbily stupid as you once thought. BUT you're right, we don't know enough yet.
@everyone else: if you're just going to make sarcastic remarks based on your understandably emotional response to this story, we get it, you're mad and you should be. It simply doesn't need to be repeated over and over.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked