Justice for Zimmerman

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

I doubt anything will come of it, to be honest. Rodney King they could bring charges up on the police officers because of federal laws regarding police conduct in relation to race, but for a civil rights violation charge on Zimmerman, after being exonerated, it would be pretty tough, if not impossible, to get a verdict that wouldn't get to the Supremes and then knocked down I imagine.

Miami Herald thinks its not very likely

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/1...zimmerman.html

I'd say its just the NAACP and others trying to fund raise off the case more than anything else, while satiating some of their dumber clientele that don't understand the intent of Double Jeopardy, if not the actual language of the statutes, would be violated by such an act.

Mire_sl · Jul 14, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
He generally posts videos of terrible music in the music thread

Asshole...damn weaboo.

Tuco · Jul 14, 2013

Whether the DoJ was even remotely planning on taking any legal actions they'd have to give the response of 'we're looking into it' this early in the game.

redshift_sl · Jul 14, 2013

hodj_sl said:
And this is the neg

Thread: Justice for Trayvon and/or Zimmerman
You're wrong, he's right. Your argument doesn't have legs in this one.
07-14-2013 03:51 PM
redshift

And this is the poster

http://www.rerolled.org/member.php?2669-redshift

Note the exactly 5 posts too.

Prove me wrong.

I'm a real poster you ignorant twat, good to see you're so fucking stupid you have to invent red herring arguments when you're clearly losing the ones you're already involved in. Mods, feel free to compare my account history and IP with Tanoomba to verify.

Oh, and I had this account on FoH since 2001 as well, just rarely posted.

tad10 · Jul 14, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
what did Obama do?

Travyon was his son, didn't you know that?

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

redshift_sl said:
I'm a real poster you ignorant twat, good to see you're so fucking stupid you have to invent red herring arguments when you're clearly losing the ones you're already involved in.

Funny I don't remember losing any arguments yet.

So defend his position. How is he right that Zimmerman shouldn't have brought his gun to defend himself that night, and that is why Zimmerman is ultimately responsible for Martin's demise.

redshift_sl · Jul 14, 2013

hodj_sl said:
Funny I don't remember losing any arguments yet.

So defend his position. How is he right that Zimmerman shouldn't have brought his gun to defend himself that night, and that is why Zimmerman is ultimately responsible for Martin's demise.

That's not the argument that I negged you for, nor the argument he's making. You're inventing an argument that has not been made and putting words into people's mouths that have not been written.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

redshift_sl said:
That's not the argument that I negged you for, nor the argument he's making. You're inventing an argument that has not been made and putting words into people's mouths that have not been written.

That's exactly the argument you negged me for.

Troll a little harder there Tanoomba.

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
Whether the DoJ was even remotely planning on taking any legal actions they'd have to give the response of 'we're looking into it' this early in the game.

Exactly my take on it - if there really were worries of riots like mentioned a lot its exactly step 1 to defray them occurring.

redshift_sl · Jul 14, 2013

hodj_sl said:
That's exactly the argument you negged me for.

Troll a little harder there Tanoomba.

No, it wasn't. It was this idiocy:

No, actually, Gavinrad pretty well summed up exactly what I was arguing, which is that is that he was beating him severely enough to warrant feeling his life was reasonably at risk and therefore the shooting was justified.

Just because you are incapable of expressing a cogent opinion, and have consistently been demolished in this debate, doesn't give you the right to put words in my mouth.

Zimmerman feeling his life was in danger is not the legal threshold that needed to be met for the use of deadly force per Florida law. You, like almost ever other armchair lawyer mouth-breathing their way though the internet in the last 24 hours, don't have the first clue of what you're talking about.

Tanoomba, on the other hand, specifically said that it did not matter whether Zimmerman felt his life was in danger to meet the legal threshold for self defense which isdemonstrably correct under Florida self defense statutes. I negged you because you were effectively arguing against your own position - the legal threshold that needed to be met was only imminent peril of great bodily harm, not death. You were weakening your own argument out of your ignorance of the law of which you were trying to defend.

I negged you because you're ill-informed and evidently retarded, not because I disagreed with your overall point.

khalid · Jul 14, 2013

So trying to move on from the rep/neg shit that no one cares about...

Should the media be sued and does Zimmerman deserve a reward from:

1) The media deliberately using old photos of Zimmerman and Martin to make Martin appear younger and Zimmerman more threatening.

2) CNN and other news media outlets alleged Zimmerman had said "fucking coons". Only two weeks later was it clear that it was probably fucking punks, certainly no audio expert of any decency thought it was fucking coons.

3) NBC editing the tape so that Zimmerman appeared to have said "This guy looks up to no good. He looks black", instead of the truth, that he had only said "He loosk black" after being asked directly by the operator what race the suspect was.

4) ABC "reg-digitized" a video to make it seem Zimmerman had no head wounds.

I would say incidents 2 and 3 definitely rise to stuff that he should sue about and the media should be punished for it. They were essentially complete lies made up to drum up a story. At best it was yellow journalism. Incident 1, well, yes it was done to make the story worse, but they were valid pictures of the two people, even if a misrepresentation of current events.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

redshift_sl said:
Zimmerman feeling his life was in danger is not the legal threshold that needed to be met for the use of deadly force per Florida law.

Wrong. Fear of grevious bodily injury up to and including death is the threshold.

You, like almost ever other armchair lawyer mouth-breathing their way though the internet in the last 24 hours, don't have the first clue of what you're talking about.

Interesting since I'm the guy who laid out, step by step, why Zimmerman was probably not guilty at all, way way back. Must suck to be so wrong huh?

Notice how Tanoomba mysteriously logged out, and you mysteriously appeared from nowhere?

I'm on to you, Tanoomba.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

khalid_sl said:
So trying to move on from the rep/neg shit that no one cares about...

Should the media be sued and does Zimmerman deserve a reward from:

They're definitely suing NBC, they have to get a stay lifted first.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...-media_b188189

redshift_sl · Jul 14, 2013

hodj_sl said:
Wrong. Fear of grevious bodily injury up to and including death is the threshold.

Interesting since I'm the guy who laid out, step by step, why Zimmerman was probably not guilty at all, way way back. Must suck to be so wrong huh?

You are stunningly stupid. I specifically stated that the minimum threshold for self defense is actuallylowerthan what you were claiming, and you seemingly still don't understand how that strengthens your argument and Zimmerman's case. How did your critical thinking skills become so shitty, did your parents feed you paint chips as a child?

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

redshift_sl said:
You are stunningly stupid. I specifically stated that the minimum threshold for self defense is actuallylowerthan what you were claiming

That's your (and Tanoomba's which is why I know you're Tanoomba) problem.

I never stated what you're stating.

Thank you. Cite where you think I did so I can explain to you, in detail, why you are functionally retarded and incapable of reading comprehension at an 8th grade level.

In fact, just to make it clear, what I've been arguing with Tanoomba about was his statement that George Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death for bringing the gun that night, and whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably have died from the attack.

So where you two got this whole concept that I ever said the legal definition in Florida is potential to die and only potential to die, I dunno. Probably you are both the same person, and suffer severely from an extreme mental retardation issue.

Now, going back to page 139 if you have default settings on this forum

hodj_sl said:
He didn't suffer life threatening injuries because he shot Martin before they could occur.

You and Numbers both need to stop trolling this thread with your shitposting, seriously. This opinion is ignorant shit that has already been addressed multiple multiples of times in this thread.The point of self defense is to protect yourself before serious, possibly deadly, bodily injury occur.

Had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would have continued beating his head into concrete until someone else stopped him, most likely the police. Zimmerman may very well have died. That's why the shooting was justified, that's why Zimmerman is a free man despite all odds, and its why you're wrong.

What's....what's that bolded part say there redshift?

Hmmmm?

What's it say?

Can you read it for me? Tell me? Hmmm?

Tanoomba retorts with "Smacking someone's head into concrete doesn't constitute an attempt to kill them." Which is retarded. And away we went down his retard rollercoaster until we ended up here.

So you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

fanaskin · Jul 14, 2013

The whole premise that white people murder blacks at any significant rate at all is race baiting BULLSHIT.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.

Most of the black murder victims -93 percent- were killed by other black people, the study found. About 85 percent of white victims were slain by other white people.

93 MOTHERFUCKING PERCENT

anti tv rant

what's orwellian about growing up around television is those that spend any significant time around it, it shapes our perceptions of reality our entire lives, I don't watch television anymore at all because it's all bullshit, all of it, it rots your brains makes you dumb and formats your perceptions and opinions. I thank god(the abstract) everyday of my life my parents never bought cable and I grew up on only public television, and 1 local channel.

redshift_sl · Jul 14, 2013

hodj_sl said:
That's your (and Tanoomba's which is why I know you're Tanoomba) problem.

I never stated what you're stating.

Thank you. Cite where you think I did so I can explain to you, in detail, why you are functionally retarded and incapable of reading comprehension at an 8th grade level.

Sure!

Tanoomba_sl said:
Still, even if you're right that doesn't change that we have no proof that Martin would have killed Zimmerman. "Zimmerman was justified using deadly force" does not equal "Martin would have killed Zimmerman".

Both of those claims are logically coherent. Specifically, he/she claims that Zimmerman's justification in using deadly force is NOT dependent on Zimmerman's life being under immediate threat by Martin. This is, again, entirely in line with the threshold for use of deadly force in Florida; the threat of death is NOT needed, only the threat of great bodily harm.

For some reason, you decide to go full retard and argue against those two logically valid points.

Now, let's read a bit farther:

Tanoomba_sl said:
I've readily acknowledged many times that Zimmerman's actions were legally justified. There's no hidden "but" here. Get off your high horse and strop trying to find secret hidden messages in my posts that don't exist. I'm being extremely clear here.

Yet you continue your flip-flop troll tirade where you on one hand acknowledge that what Tanoomba is saying is correct:

hodj_sl said:
What we've been TELLING YOU this entire thread is Zimmerman was justified to use deadly force whether Martin would have absolutely killed him for certain or not. Fear of serious bodily injury is enough. Now you're taking our point, and pretending you've been feeding it to us this entire time? How stupid do you think everyone else is?

Then a few posts later randomly decide to re-define the threshold for self-defense:

hodj_sl said:
No, actually, Gavinrad pretty well summed up exactly what I was arguing, which is that is that he was beating him severely enough to warrant feeling his life was reasonably at risk and therefore the shooting was justified.

That's why you're an idiot, and why you'd make a fucking terrible lawyer. Go back to school kiddo, you're not ready to hang out at the grown-ups table yet.

Tanoomba · Jul 14, 2013

Fucking LOL.
Fuck it, I'm giving redshift a net.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

So what I'm getting is that you're reading this statement

No, actually, Gavinrad pretty well summed up exactly what I was arguing, which is that is that he was beating him severely enough to warrant feeling his life was reasonably at risk and therefore the shooting was justified.

To read as if I'm saying the ONLY way the shooting was justified was if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger.

But it doesn't say that. It just says that he was beating him severely enough to warrant feeling his life was in danger, therefore the shooting was justified.

Basically, you're reading more into what was written than was there. Your argument is a strawman. I said, and you even quoted right there, this

What we've been TELLING YOU this entire thread is Zimmerman was justified to use deadly force whether Martin would have absolutely killed him for certain or not.

And I said this, in my very first response to Tanoomba

You and Numbers both need to stop trolling this thread with your shitposting, seriously. This opinion is ignorant shit that has already been addressed multiple multiples of times in this thread. The point of self defense is to protect yourself before serious, possibly deadly, bodily injury occur.

Had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would have continued beating his head into concrete until someone else stopped him, most likely the police. Zimmerman may very well have died. That's why the shooting was justified, that's why Zimmerman is a free man despite all odds, and its why you're wrong.

Several times where I was clearly being specific. You're taking one generalized statement out of about three, trying to make it sound as if that generalized statement was the basis of an entire argument I never made.

You are fucking retarded as shit, by the way. Nowhere have I implicitly or explicitly said or inferred that the ONLY METRIC for reasonable self defense in Florida is fear for your life. I've only said that BECAUSE he was in fear for his life, the shooting was justified. That has no bearing on the ACTUAL LEGAL METRICS required.

You've literally conflated an entire farcical argument from...one statement you've taken out of context.

Merrith · Jul 14, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
The whole premise that white people murder blacks at any significant rate at allis race baiting BULLSHIT.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.

Most of the black murder victims ? 93 percent ? were killed by other black people, the study found.About 85 percent of white victims were slain by other white people.

93 MOTHERFUCKING PERCENT

Helpful formatting for grouping like things together.

Justice for Zimmerman

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

I got Tuco'd!

shitlord

Elisha Dushku

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

shitlord

Unelected Mod

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

Well known agitator

shitlord

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Golden Baronet of the Realm