Another Vigilante Case.......We Knew It Was Coming .....

BAIT?????


you think your fishing?

this country is going to have this conversation about race no matter how long or far you run.
 
trying to compare this case to the Zimmerman case is ridiculous. There are no similarities.

Here is something to address... address the 60 shootings and 5 murders of African American kids in Chicago this weekend by other African Americans.

I dont see you mourning them in the slightest.

Their deaths dont suit your agenda.
 
you dont get to define the world for everyone


This is what your idiot gun laws have created

people thinking they have a right to shoot people if they feel scared


the wild wild west.


Your idiots and these laws will in the end be repealed.

HOW many people will die needlessly before they are repealed is on your shoulders.


their blood Is on the hands of every fool who supports these idiot laws
 
evince said:
you dont get to define the world for everyone


This is what your idiot gun laws have created

people thinking they have a right to shoot people if they feel scared


the wild wild west.


Your idiots and these laws will in the end be repealed.

HOW many people will die needlessly before they are repealed is on your shoulders.


their blood Is on the hands of every fool who supports these idiot laws
Click to expand...

actually... why is it that the places where Liberals have the strictest gun laws (NYC,Los Angeles, Detroit, St. Louis, Philly) have the most shootings?

Why is it those neighborhoods have the greatest drug problems and lowest graduation rates?

Why is it that since the institution of LBJ's "GREAT SOCIETY" there has been a chronic breakup of the African American Family?

Address these social ills first.

You misdirect your hatred to one man when 11,500 African Americans were killed last year by other African Americans!

One instance isn't a trend.. 11,500 of them is an epidemic.

95% of all the murders of African Americans are Black on Black crime. Whites, Hispanics and all others account for 5%. if we break that down between Whites, Latinos, Asians and Muslims it averages out to only 1.25% for each of the other groups.

The Numbers dont lie.... you're worried about 1.25% of the homicides and ignore and fail to address the 95% because they dont suit your agenda.

Thats the blood on your hands... Ignoring the deaths of 11000 people to make a political point.

That is shameful.
 
evince said:
because you assholes make guns easy for criminals to get with your idiot gun laws
Click to expand...

Minor case in point. Kid was killed here in California - in spite of our tough gun laws.

Why? Gun came from Colorado; you can buy as many guns as you want there. So guy in Colorado would go buy a bunch; send them to California; sell them on the streets. One of them ended up with a guy who killed a kid.

If Colorado had the same limits on number of guns purchased, maybe that gun wouldn't have ended up here and that kid wouldn't have died.

Thanks a lot, Colorado - NOT.
 
tekkychick said:
Minor case in point. Kid was killed here in California - in spite of our tough gun laws.

Why? Gun came from Colorado; you can buy as many guns as you want there. So guy in Colorado would go buy a bunch; send them to California; sell them on the streets. One of them ended up with a guy who killed a kid.

If Colorado had the same limits on number of guns purchased, maybe that gun wouldn't have ended up here and that kid wouldn't have died.

Thanks a lot, Colorado - NOT.
Click to expand...
you mean someone didn't obey the law and brought guns in to california? good golly, oh my.

tell us, what other laws would have prevented it?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you mean someone didn't obey the law and brought guns in to california? good golly, oh my.

tell us, what other laws would have prevented it?
Click to expand...

I just told you. While it might not have prevented it, if Colorado had a limit on number of guns purchased, there is a decent chance this gun wouldn't have arrived where it did.

But you can't see any good in any gun law, so don't worry about replying. I certainly won't be answering you again.
 
tekkychick said:
I just told you. While it might not have prevented it, if Colorado had a limit on number of guns purchased, there is a decent chance this gun wouldn't have arrived where it did.
Click to expand...
that is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven, as evidence by your 'might have'. making laws based on what MIGHT happen makes bad law.

tekkychick said:
But you can't see any good in any gun law, so don't worry about replying. I certainly won't be answering you again.
Click to expand...
good, you'd be unarmed in this battle of wits anyway
 
Voted4Reagan said:
actually... why is it that the places where Liberals have the strictest gun laws (NYC,Los Angeles, Detroit, St. Louis, Philly) have the most shootings?

Why is it those neighborhoods have the greatest drug problems and lowest graduation rates?

Why is it that since the institution of LBJ's "GREAT SOCIETY" there has been a chronic breakup of the African American Family?

Address these social ills first.

You misdirect your hatred to one man when 11,500 African Americans were killed last year by other African Americans!

One instance isn't a trend.. 11,500 of them is an epidemic.

95% of all the murders of African Americans are Black on Black crime. Whites, Hispanics and all others account for 5%. if we break that down between Whites, Latinos, Asians and Muslims it averages out to only 1.25% for each of the other groups.

The Numbers dont lie.... you're worried about 1.25% of the homicides and ignore and fail to address the 95% because they dont suit your agenda.

Thats the blood on your hands... Ignoring the deaths of 11000 people to make a political point.

That is shameful.
Click to expand...

Detroit does not have strict gun laws.
 
tekkychick said:
I just told you. While it might not have prevented it, if Colorado had a limit on number of guns purchased, there is a decent chance this gun wouldn't have arrived where it did.

But you can't see any good in any gun law, so don't worry about replying. I certainly won't be answering you again.
Click to expand...

Because there is no good in them to see. There is no evidence to suggest that they accomplish any of their stated goals in any way, for any state or city.
 
Anti-Party said:
Ok kid, educate me. Tell me why Harassment is only Harassment when done on multiple occasions. Also explain in your "law is perfect and always correct terms" that it takes multiple occasions to consider harassment, harassment........as YOU stated.

I'm waiting :good4u:
Click to expand...
Here is your Education...Kid

Florida State Code:
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. (GZ Did not Violate this)

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.(GZ Did not Violate this)


(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.

(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.


In other words... He didn't harass or stalk him according to the Laws of the State of Florida.

Stop characterizing what he did as Harassment. Harassment requires a repeated pattern against an individual. This was not the case in the GZ/TM Case.

Zimmerman FOLLOWED HIM... thats all.

No matter how many times you try and repeat your lie it doesn't apply and shows you to be intellectually dishonest.
 
Voted4Reagan said:
Here is your Education...Kid

Florida State Code:
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. (GZ Did not Violate this)

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.(GZ Did not Violate this)


(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(GZ Did not Violate this)

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.

(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.


In other words... He didn't harass or stalk him according to the Laws of the State of Florida.

Stop characterizing what he did as Harassment. Harassment requires a repeated pattern against an individual. This was not the case in the GZ/TM Case.

Zimmerman FOLLOWED HIM... thats all.

No matter how many times you try and repeat your lie it doesn't apply and shows you to be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman FOLLOWED HIM...that's all...............in Florida law books only.........But you never checked the general definition of stalking or harassment did you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top