Pages: 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 69

 

2013-07-11 04:13:16
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
just because the florida podunk court agrees with you, doesn't mean it's any less bigoted. you are both rednecks enforcing a southern sense of justice. the rest of the states (and world, perhaps) takes an interest because it's like watching a freak-show from the middle-ages.

and anyway, what's new, no one is really surprised. it's not like some great victory for your minority and strange argument. a black kid gets shot in the states and the white man walks after a lengthy show-trial establishing the black kid's innate bad character. breaking news shocker.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-11 04:14:27)

2013-07-11 04:14:15
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5395|Sydney

Extra Medium wrote:

It's very satisfying to watch this trial and see the things I said would happen.....happen even after all you faggots told me I was a bigot and an idiot for have saying they would happen.  Also, fuck all you idiots that argued with me for pages about whose fault it was.  I fucking told you it would be irrelevant and it was, all they've been concerned with is the actual fight.

Riots are next people, bet your fucking ass.  Suck my balls,  O'Doyle rules.
https://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/tumblr_md42dow0sv1r5x5zu.gif
2013-07-11 04:56:41
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5802

They might not find him guilty of second degree murder but get him on manslaughter. Prosecution asked the judge to include that and aggravated assault on the list of things the jury could convict him on. A manslaughter charge is much more fitting.
2013-07-11 05:00:04
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
a murder charge is most fitting in any modern state that doesn't have vigilante justice.
2013-07-11 12:55:21
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
her problem isn't any of her racial phenotypes - her facial features are all pretty normal - her problem is that she's american, i.e. she's fat as fuck. if she was a regular weight you wouldn't be making derogatory racist comments. ironic.
2013-07-11 14:11:59
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4411|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

just because the florida podunk court........
Let me stop you there.  What you meant to say was "just because the only court that matters in this trial..........."

And yeah, it does make a difference, simply because I fucking told you idiots what the issues in the trial were going to be and you all said I was fucking stupid and my argument was wrong.  The court argued EXACTLY what I said they would.  The trial will end exactly as I said it would.  The repercussions will be exactly as I said they would be.  Eat a fat dick and wash it down with some white creamy humility gravy you bastards.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

and anyway, what's new, no one is really surprised. it's not like some great victory for your minority and strange argument. a black kid gets shot in the states and the white man walks after a lengthy show-trial establishing the black kid's innate bad character. breaking news shocker.
It is a great victory!  It shows that stand your ground and self defense laws WORK.  Regardless of what you think of them someone smarter and more successful than yourself thought them up and got them put into place.  Take you Eurovision ideals and get a room with Piers Morgan.  The only reason you even know who the hell Trayvon Martin is, is because he is:

a. black
b. a kid
c. happened to get murdered during the beginning of the anti-gun bullshit
d. got killed by a guy with a white sounding name (whom everyone thought was white and with whom everyone seemed disappointed wasn't white)

Ask yourself this:  Would you know Trayvon Martin's name if he had been murdered in 2009 by a guy named Montel Jackson under the same conditions?  Would you give a shit? 

Doubt it.  Enough said.

Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-07-11 14:12:42)

2013-07-11 14:30:42
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6906|Tampa Bay Florida
Montel Jackson would be serving time in prison by now.  nuff said.

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-07-11 14:30:53)

2013-07-11 15:04:09
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+691|6507|Washington St.

Extra Medium wrote:

d. got killed by a guy with a white sounding name (whom everyone thought was white and with whom everyone seemed disappointed wasn't white)
Are only white people allowed to be racist towards black people?
2013-07-12 00:25:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6322|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

zimmerman was never attacked by an angry stoner, anyway, so it's irrelevant. more like he stalked and harassed a kid who may have been stoned as he was walking along. trayvon was not the original 'aggressor' here, as much as dilbert likes to occlude the simple circumstances of the case with anti-drug rhetoric.
You don't know that Zimmerman was or wasn't attacked, you don't know that Zimmerman did or didn't stalk Martin.
That Martin was an illegal and behaviour altering drug user is just one apparently relevant factor the jury can use in coming to an opinion about whether its proven that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

The question that should be asked here is not one of someone who irregularly smokes pot may become aggressive on the odd occasion, it should be if someone is moderately stoned, at night, in a bad neighbourhood, is stalked and then approached by someone with a gun, would they react out of fear they might be killed?
The question is whether someone who may have been a regular or irregular user, who may have been stoned or not at the time, might have reacted irrationally and violently to being followed or challenged by someone who claims they didn't have a gun drawn at the time.
Fuck Israel
2013-07-12 00:57:39
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6369|what

You do know Zimmerman stalked Martin.

He was asked not to by the emergency responder on the phone.

"Damn punks they always get away".

He was returning from the grocery store with skittles ffs
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-07-12 03:44:15
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

just because the florida podunk court........
Let me stop you there.  What you meant to say was "just because the only court that matters in this trial..........."
how come you americans don't take that attitude to the way muslims run their courts or governments in far-away states? you're always queefing about islamic justice and courts. 6 months ago when the redneck quota was a little bit higher there would always be a remark about the way saudi arabia executes people, or some such.

funny that when it's the redneck christian morality calling the shots, you guys feel all smug and self-satisfied.

and no, dilbert. you still cannot reasonably hold it against a kid for being stoned. he was harassed. he didn't start anything.

if this was any other state in the world zimmerman would go down. stop going on about the guy being stoned ffs.
2013-07-12 03:50:59
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6988|PNW

I guess if you defend yourself against stalkers you'd better win or they'll take up the mantle of self-defense once you're dead.
2013-07-12 05:36:44
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4411|Oklahoma

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I guess if you defend yourself against stalkers you'd better win or they'll take up the mantle of self-defense once you're dead.
It isn't illegal to stalk someone unless they have a restraining order against you.  I can follow anyone I damn well please down the street until they get a court order telling me not too.
2013-07-12 05:45:11
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6906|Tampa Bay Florida
A Tampa Bay Times analysis of stand your ground cases found that it has been people like Moorer — those with records of crime and violence — who have benefited most from the controversial legislation. A review of arrest records for those involved in more than 100 fatal stand your ground cases shows:

• Nearly 60 percent of those who claimed self-defense had been arrested at least once before the day they killed someone.

• More than 30 of those defendants, about one in three, had been accused of violent crimes, including assault, battery or robbery. Dozens had drug offenses on their records.

• Killers have invoked stand your ground even after repeated run-ins with the law. Forty percent had three arrests or more. Dozens had at least four arrests.

• More than a third of the defendants had previously been in trouble for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon.

• In dozens of cases, both the defendant and the victim had criminal records, sometimes related to long-running feuds or criminal enterprises. Of the victims that could be identified in state records, 64 percent had at least one arrest. Several had 20 or more arrests.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/cri … ry/1241378
2013-07-12 05:53:40
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
it is a stupid law. anywhere else in the world the discussion about trayvon's toking would not come up. know why? it wouldn't get to such a spurious stage of 'let's try and dig up any dirt we can'. anywhere else in the world, you wouldn't be able to follow and harass someone and then invoke a self-defense law when you turn around and kill them. it is ludicrous. the partitioning of the causality of the event into two 'mini-episodes', and discounting the former, is mechanistically absurd. obviously the first event and zimmerman's original act determined/caused the second and fateful altercation. discounting that because of the stupid law's interpretation, and then going on about trayvon being stoned... utter bullshit. medieval jurisdiction.

whether you're stoned or not, if you see a guy re-approach you with a gun, you are going to beat him until he is not getting up. heated exchange, huge tension and anger, and a guy waving a gun at you. even a heroin addict blasted out of his head on anesthetizing opiates is going to beat a man into the ground if he's waving a gun around.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-12 05:56:44)

2013-07-12 07:25:00
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4411|Oklahoma
Considering that initially Trayvon was depicted as a sweet innocent little boy, all the news passing around the picture of him with the precious smile and the 12 year old look simply to make Zimmerman look like a monster, I find hilarious that people get upset about the FACTS coming to light now.  6'3, pictures of a muscular kid, smoking pot, talkin gangsta, trying to be a badass on the interwebs.........kinda ruins peoples initial perspective of the sweet innocent little boy that was viciously mowed down for simply wearing a hoody.

FACTS:

1. It isn't against the law to follow someone.
2. It isn't a crime to carry a gun with the proper permits.
3. It isn't a crime to be a member of the neighborhood watch.
4. It isn't a crime to disregard 911 commands.
5. It isn't a crime to shoot someone when THEY ARE BASHING YOUR FUCKING HEAD INTO THE GROUND.
2013-07-12 07:26:00
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
who cares how the media portrayed him? i am not defending him as a 'sweet angelic boy'. i'm not interested in rhetoric or emotional hand-wringing. i just think the law itself is procedurally flawed.
2013-07-12 07:39:56
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4411|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

who cares how the media portrayed him? i am not defending him as a 'sweet angelic boy'. i'm not interested in rhetoric or emotional hand-wringing. i just think the law itself is procedurally flawed.
I think you are.  It's been made abundantly clear to you what the law is and how it works.  It's been made abundantly clear to you how the actions of that night correlate with said laws.  Yet you are still bitching and whining about how it's stupid and it's bullshit and fuck America and all that.  The law is the law is the law is the LAW.  It is what it is whether you like it or not, there are lots of laws I don't like but that doesn't mean my opinion supersedes them.

Besides you're in Tea and Crumpet land, what the hell do you care what our laws are or how they work.  They affect you exactly 0%.
2013-07-12 07:48:23
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
wasn't aware every topic in d&st had to personally affect someone to be eligible to post. guess you better shut the fuck up 80% of the time.

also i'm not saying my opinion should over-ride the law. i'm saying that law, in comparison to other states' approaches and international law generally, in the anglo-american common law system, seems like an absurd anachronism. just in the sense of legal comparison, on the level of judicial decision making. i'm not saying "wah i don't like the outcome, it should be changed because i say so". i am saying the way they establish causation in the stand your ground law is blinkered as hell.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-12 07:49:57)

2013-07-12 12:09:10
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6988|PNW

Extra Medium wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I guess if you defend yourself against stalkers you'd better win or they'll take up the mantle of self-defense once you're dead.
It isn't illegal to stalk someone unless they have a restraining order against you.  I can follow anyone I damn well please down the street until they get a court order telling me not too.
uhhh...

18 USCS § 2261A. Stalking. (2013) wrote:

Whoever--
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; or

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.
I guess Trayvon should have magically known that a potentially armed man stalking him had no intent to kill, even if he did end up killing.

Good luck with stalking anyone you want, Meds. Maybe you can be the next Zimmerman.
2013-07-12 13:07:15
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4411|Oklahoma

Newbie wrote:

with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that
He was shadowing Trayvon while waiting for police to arrive.  He had no intent to injure, kill, harass or intimidate.  If he had those intentions he would have verbally or physically gotten Trayvon's attention.  Trayvon responded to his presence.

Next.
2013-07-12 13:08:51
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4411|Oklahoma
Also, this shit isn't hard to interpret.  I feel like you guys are grasping desperately at thin air hoping to find a noose to slip around my arguments.  It isn't going to happen.
2013-07-12 13:27:24
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+691|6507|Washington St.

Extra Medium wrote:

Riots are next people, bet your fucking ass

USA Today wrote:

Zimmerman verdict sparks worry of riots
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … p/2511995/
2013-07-12 14:39:14
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5802

There will be 1 or 2 little minor incidents but there will never be another LA riots. Stop being paranoid.



It is interesting that the jury asked for a list of evidence today. I guess it is not as open and shut/black and white to the jurors as it is to us.
2013-07-12 15:19:18
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6988|PNW

Extra Medium wrote:

Newbie wrote:

with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that
He was shadowing Trayvon while waiting for police to arrive.  He had no intent to injure, kill, harass or intimidate.  If he had those intentions he would have verbally or physically gotten Trayvon's attention.  Trayvon responded to his presence.

Next.
Right, because Trayvon magically knew that George was only following him while waiting for police to arrive. It's sure a good thing he put a stop to illicit Skittles trafficking.

 

Pages: 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 69

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard