Justice for Zimmerman

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Lleauaric_sl said:
You don't have to respond dude.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I do, and will continue to do so, until you start to learn to recognize facts from conjecture.

Let me make this clear to you as can be:

You are just another in a long string of people who have come into this thread, during and after the trial, refusing to actually accept any evidence, as it was presented, not just by the Defense, but BY THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, make a string of assertions which were refuted not just in this thread, but in the one before it that got rickshawed, multiple multiples of times. You will be properly informed of the facts of this case, to the point that you have no capacity to deny them, if you continue to post this nonsense disinformation, lies and absolute fantasy.

All your ranting, including your ranting about bad laws, is based on complete fiction. There were no "bad Florida only laws" in play here, except mandatory minimums that would have put Zimmerman away for 30 years if he had been convicted of MANSLAUGHTER. There's your bad law.

Self defense statutes have existed in this nation for eternity. So pony up, what LAWS are so bad here? Did you not read the article about an almost exact same style self defense shooting in New York, where the BLACK MAN who shot the 17 year old WHITE MAN was also, justifiably found, not to be guilty of criminal wrong doing? So what laws in Florida, specifically, are so bad that don't exist in New York as well, one of the states with the strictest gun laws in the nation?

Your argument has no merit. It holds no water.

Tuco_sl said:
I would choose your next few posts carefully because I'm about to act in self-defense.
Click to expand...
lol'd
 
E

Eorkern

Bronze Squire
1,090
5
Shinobyi or someone please put a gif of the black guy falling into the pit but with Lleauaric instead, unfortunatly he doesnt have avatar pic...

Internet(s) guaranteed.
 
Lleauaric

Lleauaric

Sparkletot Monger
4,058
1,822
Tuco_sl said:
Are you really playing the "I should be able to perform a cursory glance at the case, come in here and argue, and if you guys don't agree with me don't say mean things just ignore my incompetence and move on while I keep spouting off bullshit like a fountain that some drunk plumber hooked up to a toilet."

I would choose your next few posts carefully because I'm about to act in self-defense.
Click to expand...
Im saying things you disagree with and are getting upset with. Justify it any way you want, and ban me if you want. I dont care, and you prove my point. Ive obviously been entertaining enough for you to waste your morning, so /shrug. Ive insulted nobody, engaged in no Ad Homs, and simply presented a point of view you dont like.

Sorry if my level of engagment, or lack of engagement, in this story isnt sufficient enough to post with you esteemed experts. Im not sure why you waste your time and expertise with some lowly insignificant like me... unless.....
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Lleauaric_sl said:
Im saying things you disagree with and are getting upset with.
Click to expand...
No, that would be you giving an opinion. You aren't giving an opinion. You're stating that facts which are facts about this case, presented in evidence in the trial, are wrong, and then refusing to back up your assertions with anything but "MUH RIGHT TO AN OPINION" and "MUH LAWS ARE REALLY BAD EVEN THOUGH I CANT NAME THEM EXCEPT STAND YOUR GROUND WHICH DOESNT EVEN APPLY IN THIS CASE"
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,452
81,078
Lleauaric_sl said:
Im saying things you disagree with and are getting upset with. Justify it any way you want, and ban me if you want. I dont care, and you prove my point. Ive obviously been entertaining enough for you to waste your morning, so /shrug. Ive insulted nobody, engaged in no Ad Homs, and simply presented a point of view you dont like.

Sorry if my level of engagment, or lack of engagement, in this story isnt sufficient enough to post with you esteemed experts. Im not sure why you waste your time and expertise with some lowly insignificant like me... unless.....
Click to expand...
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,441
49,100
Lleauaric_sl said:
Im a fucking idiot for not having a Florida law degree? I guess you learned about civil suit immunity in the state of Florida watching cable TV.

How about Federal Civil Court? Did Greta mention anything about immunity there?
Click to expand...
Uhh... you realize Federal Courts don't have jurisdiction in civil disputes except under very particular circumstances, which wouldn't apply in this case? (Diversity or Federal Question...)

And even if the Federal Court did have jurisdiction, state law would still apply on all substantive issues?

I don't know who Greta is, I actually am a lawyer so I am informed about what I speak. You on the other hand are a CNN-quoting douchebag who knows jack shit but has strong opinions. Fucking idiot, indeed.
 
BoldW

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
Think he was calling you a republitard. Greta van sustren has a show on fox. Think she is/was a lawyer also. Worked for CNN during oj trial. She has a weird mouth issue
 
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
17,848
49,703
Cad, are you familiar with 42 USC Sec 1983? The only case I have worked that dealt with it involved a state funded hospital so we had a state actor that would obviously be covered by Federal statute in violating civil rights, but I'm curious if you think the statute as written could be applied between private citizens. My reading of it leads me to think it might unless I'm forgetting something. (You don't necessarily have to have diversity if the Fed statute provides for jurisdiction another way and the amount in controversy for the loss of life of a 17 year old would be well over the minimum amount)
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,441
49,100
BoldW_sl said:
Think he was calling you a republitard. Greta van sustren has a show on fox. Think she is/was a lawyer also. Worked for CNN during oj trial. She has a weird mouth issue
Click to expand...
Yea because I disagree with him, I must be a conservative. Is this how brainwashed people are these days?

Christ that is scary.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,441
49,100
Kaines_sl said:
Cad, are you familiar with 42 USC Sec 1983? The only case I have worked that dealt with it involved a state funded hospital so we had a state actor that would obviously be covered by Federal statute in violating civil rights, but I'm curious if you think the statute as written could be applied between private citizens. My reading of it leads me to think it might unless I'm forgetting something. (You don't necessarily have to have diversity if the Fed statute provides for jurisdiction another way and the amount in controversy for the loss of life of a 17 year old would be well over the minimum amount)
Click to expand...
A 1983 case would meet the "federal question" test for jurisdiction, for sure.

But there's no 1983 case here. There's simply no evidence of racial animus whatsoever.

Secondly, assuming for a moment that Zimmerman did follow and racially profile Martin, which constitutional or civil right did he deprive him of?

Its just a non-starter.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Next person who comes in here and actually says "I didn't follow the trial, but he should have just stayed in his car like the police told him" is going to get mounted in an MMA style melee.
 
Kuriin

Kuriin

Just a Nurse
4,046
1,020
Stupid protests in Oakland are vandalizing stores. Dipshits are really making a difference for Florida!
 
Lleauaric

Lleauaric

Sparkletot Monger
4,058
1,822
Tuco_sl said:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Click to expand...
What facts have I invented? I didnt know the details of this case as well as many of you, and I've admitted when I had details wrong. but Di Maio is not above skepticism. He wouldnt have been hired and put on the stand if his testimony was not pre-vetted. And, in my most cynical view, Im sure its not a horrible career move for the Dr. DiMaio to testify in a huge national case.. Do you disagree? Fine, but there was testimony counter to what he testified, you CHOOSE to believe his version. That's not a fact. Its an opinion.

My point of Zimmerman being responsible for creating a dangerous situation stands. Much of the country is polarized on this issue. What is it about so many people that someone can't have a different opinion than you without them being attacked? If you all cant see how comical it is that about 6 or so of you guys have white knighted GZ in this thread to such an extreme, then you really need some perspective. I dont understand why some of you take it so personally. Does it really fucking matter?

Ive been disgusted by the media attention devoted to this. Ive been disgusted by the non stop attention its gotten. I've been disgusted by the trivialization of the media and the way in which the public has rooted for one side or the other like a fucking sports team.

But its been fun. I cant wait for the next confrontation between a black person a white person gets national attention. We should all do this again.
 
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
17,848
49,703
Zimmerman deprived him of hit right to live. The statute doesn't require racism at all to apply. Should I link it?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Lleauaric_sl said:
What facts have I invented?
Click to expand...
The better question is what "facts" haven't you invented.

Kaines_sl said:
Zimmerman deprived him of hit right to live.
Click to expand...
You realize that this is ridiculous because Zimmerman was found not guilty by reason of self defense, right?

Zimmerman was in fear for serious bodily injury or his life, so therefore...the Feds would try to prosecute a man who was in fear of potentially losing his life for depriving the person trying to injure or kill him of their right to life?

I mean this case has been a fucking joke all along but really dude?

You really think this is applicable in a case where a civilian was found to have committed a lawful killing in order to defend himself from injury or death?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.