You want a real one now? That was a fucking shitpost until you edited it. After I saw the edit, I reversed it, you stupid fuck.adam12 for the record youre a fucking faggot for sending me a warning.
You want a real one now? That was a fucking shitpost until you edited it. After I saw the edit, I reversed it, you stupid fuck.adam12 for the record youre a fucking faggot for sending me a warning.
or collective private property in the form of a neighborhood watch, communities can't protect themselves and watch out for their community.So what your saying is Zimmerman isn't a person and has no right to defend himself?
Someone could follow you an infinite distance and at no point would you ever be justified in attacking them.Serious post...
There have been times I have been walking long distances home and someone behind me seems to make every turn that I make almost as if I'm being followed, but eventually they go another route or I end up at home. What is the definitive distance that is considered following? It sounds like what happened between Zimmerman and Martin was a matter of a few blocks and I've had people inadvertently "follow" me much further than that. Am I therefore allowed to start a physical confrontation with them or pull out my concealed pistol and start blasting them?
Pretty sure any rational person knows the answer to this question, but I think it gives a good perspective on what happened and why Martin should've went home instead of playing tough guy.
Strawman, and putting words in other's mouths. That isn't what anyone here thinks.Most of the posters here prefer to imagine Martin double-handed bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete as though he were trying to crack open a stubborn coconut.
Yes I'm aware of that. It was more of a rhetorical question... I just find it amusing that they're so many people in this thread that seem to think Martin was justified in starting a fight with Zimmerman.Someone could follow you an infinite distance and at no point would you ever be justified in attacking them.
I volunteer Hodj for this effort, but really that faq is pretty well captured in that timeline pic we keep reposting.If this thread is going to continue for any length of time, I petition that one/many of the informed members make a FAQ that is linked any time a random idiot comes in with opinions based on media and facebook statues. And if they dont take the time to read said FAQ, they are RRP'd for 2 weeks for being an idiot that brings nothing but facebook knowledge to the table.
If you are legally carrying a fire arm and are being physically assaulted, the answer is yes, shoot the fucking trash and make sure you kill it.So can I shoot black people without repercussions in any state in America, or do I specifically have to travel to Florida?
When you're doing nothing illegal and a person attacks you and is threatening your life you can shoot them, regardless of state or race.So can I shoot black people without repercussions in any state in America, or do I specifically have to travel to Florida?
Only if you're a light skinned hispanic, anglo saxon protestants need not apply.... race baiter.So can I shoot black people without repercussions in any state in America, or do I specifically have to travel to Florida?
Well, if you're black you can shoot black people without repercussions in any state in America. If you're white, you can only do it in Florida or Texas.So can I shoot black people without repercussions in any state in America, or do I specifically have to travel to Florida?
Would you mind putting the timeline picture in the OP? Would a faq or the image really help when its been posted directly to people like Llluiera;lkjasdf and they refuse to accept it?I volunteer Hodj for this effort, but really that faq is pretty well captured in that timeline pic we keep reposting.
I absolutely wasnotgoing to say "Then why did he have to shoot him?"If you going along with what you can prove, agg assault is provable because you can't show any intent to kill. Which I know, you're just going to roll into "HAHA THEN WHY DID HE HAVE TO SHOOT HIM HURR DURR" but intent to kill does not mean that what he was doing couldn't have resulted in death. Murder is hard to prove.
Strawman again.I absolutely wasnotgoing to say "Then why did he have to shoot him?"
It's just that some people are fairly confident Martin would have beaten Zimmerman to death had he not used his gun, which doesn't make a lot of sense given the evidence.