The best part of the zimmerman saga

poet said:
No, bitch...coming to the conclusion you came to. And for the reasons you listed. I totally disagree with your perception. In your mind, Martin was in the wrong. In my mind, Zimmerman was completely in the wrong. What about Martin's self defense. I guess he had none because he was black.
You people have lost your fucking minds, and if you don't get it together, it will be nutjobs like you that bring on a race war. Because, trust me.....Trayvon Martin was the camel's back. We are not taking it anymore. Kill another black youngster. And wait.
Click to expand...

Trayvon had no defense because zimmerman was doing nothing illegal, and in our society, you cannot violently attack someone for doing nothing illegal and expect to get away with it.
 
Crashk said:
the next time you are walking in the dark and someone is following you, you had better not try to defend yourself. You might get killed, especially if you are a person of color because there is no justice for you.

Like I said, go ahead and gloat you ignorant, racist, kkk motherfuckers
Click to expand...

Why would you have to defend yourself if you're just walking? You libs refuse to accept that Trayvon assaulted Zim.
How does it feel to be a denier?
 
poet said:
Justice? Who's justice? What justice? This justice? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html?src=tp&_r=3&
Click to expand...

A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white teenager outside the man’s house last year, ending a racially charged trial.

The jury began deliberating on Wednesday, and on Friday indicated that it was deadlocked and racked with discord. But late Saturday night, it delivered its verdict: The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon. Mr. White was allowed to remain free until sentencing, when he will face a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. White was convicted of shooting Daniel Cicciaro, 17, point-blank in the face on Aug. 9, 2006. Daniel and several friends had left a party and showed up Mr. White’s house just after 11 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight, and had used threats, profanities and racial epithets. Mr. White awoke and grabbed a loaded Beretta pistol he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.

“We are elated and relieved and feel that Daniel has been vindicated and that justice has been served,” said Gregg Sarra, a longtime friend of the Cicciaro family and Daniel’s godfather.
Click to expand...
.
 
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
 
Legion Troll said:
Justice is when a jury weighs the evidence and renders a verdict.

Just because you don't like the verdict doesn't negate it.
Click to expand...

That isn't justice. There are plenty of wrongful verdicts in American history that would beg to differ with your charactrerization above.

I don't happen to think this is one of them, but that's an overly simplistic definition of "justice."
 
poet said:
Did I stutter? He was attacked for at least presenting a "clear and present danger". We don't even know if Zimmerman said any threatening words, or racial pejoratives, because the eyewitness is no longer here. Martin had just as much right as Zimmerman to defend himself. And if Martin had shot Zimmerman, we wouldn't even be having a discussion about guilt, or Justice "deferred".
Click to expand...

I guess attacking a man with a gun just because he followed you is pretty stupid, wouldn't you agree?
 
Thing1 said:
That isn't justice. There are plenty of wrongful verdicts in American history that would beg to differ with your charactrerization above.

I don't happen to think this is one of them, but that's an overly simplistic definition of "justice."
Click to expand...

And claiming injustice because you disagree with the jury is equally simplistic, wouldn't you say?
 
Team Zimmerman - Vindication 2013 said:
Trayvon had no defense because zimmerman was doing nothing illegal, and in our society, you cannot violently attack someone for doing nothing illegal and expect to get away with it.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, instead of a wiry teenager in a hood, I suggest you go into the hood and walk behind some burly 230 lb. homie, and claim that you're doing nothing illegal by following him. Go on, coward....do that, if you believe what you say. What's the major holdup?
 
poet said:
If that's the case, instead of a wiry teenager in a hood, I suggest you go into the hood and walk behind some burly 230 lb. homie, and claim that you're doing nothing illegal by following him. Go on, coward....do that, if you believe what you say. What's the major holdup?
Click to expand...

Poet stop being crazy okay? When they say that they mean that there is nothing wrong with a white man following a black kid or a woman.
 
Darla said:
Poet stop being crazy okay? When they say that they mean that there is nothing wrong with a white man following a black kid or a woman.
Click to expand...

And if they believe that, let them prove it by going into the hood and walking behind the first black man or woman they see. It will be the last thing they ever do. And by all means, say it loud and proud that there is nothing illegal about doing it. That ought to go over as well as a red cape during a bull fight.
 
poet said:
If that's the case, instead of a wiry teenager in a hood, I suggest you go into the hood and walk behind some burly 230 lb. homie, and claim that you're doing nothing illegal by following him. Go on, coward....do that, if you believe what you say. What's the major holdup?
Click to expand...

I will make that claim and I will be legally right. If they choose to use violence, that does not negate anything I have said. laws are laws.
 
Darla said:
Poet stop being crazy okay? When they say that they mean that there is nothing wrong with a white man following a black kid or a woman.
Click to expand...

certainly not wrong to the degree that someone should go to jail for life.

and as a legal matter, as we all know, it's not against the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top