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.
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
Wrong again, but we can do this if you want.

Cite where I said it. Just cite it.
Click to expand...
Here's the post, although you edited it after the fact to make it sound less presumptuous:

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.
Click to expand...
Saying "He didn't suffer life threatening injuries because he shot Martin before they could occur" is wrong, because for that to be true there would have to be a certainty that he would have suffered life-threatening injuries otherwise, which we can neither prove nor can we assume would have been the case (especially considering the evidence). Saying Martin would have "continued beating his head into concrete until someone else stopped him" is also an assumption based on nothing but your own supposition. Listen to Fanaskin and don't be a Nostradamus.
 
R

redshift_sl

shitlord
50
0
Vaclav_sl said:
Depends on the style of physical "assault" technically - it's got to be something actually worrisome - and assault laws can include things like a light shove or bumping shoulders or other non-threatening stuff. So please don't just say "assault" - it has to be a REAL assault where there's some level of worry. (i.e. this case)

Although I will say most people probably understand you, but people do need to understand that "assault" is actually applied as a legal term to almost any unwanted body contact, even when it's minor in nature - even though the general english use is severe.
Click to expand...
Battery is actually the term you're looking for, assault is the threat of physical contact coupled with the ability to carry it out. Battery is the tort and crime that results from contact.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
khalid_sl said:
Oh, I am sure he will find some incident of someone saying "The only thing changed by Zimmerman bringing a gun, was that Zimmerman survived" or something, when the real implication was that there was a serious chance of Zimmerman dying if he didn't have it.

I think the problem with Tanoomba right now is that he does essentially agree with most of us on all the facts, but he just wants to be "different", so has picked on the percentage risk of Zimmerman dying as his final holding point.
Click to expand...
Well, this thread would be boring as fuck without some kind of argument going on. If I get involved at least it can be a logical and two-sided argument, even if it's based on something that ultimately doesn't matter. There's been way too much high-horsing in this thread, I don't want you guys getting too comfortable thinking your shit don't smell.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Cad_sl said:
Is that surprising though? I guess we should feel some white guilt or assume automatic racism because whites kill people for no reason less often than blacks?

Whites kill less often than blacks, period. Thats in the stats too. Should we feel guilty because of that? White SAT scores are higher too. Look there, our privilege is stacking up! We should feel bad and convict Zimmerman! That'll fix it!
Click to expand...
If you're white and shoot someone its never justified because privilege.

Privilege means you can never be right or justified, because your privilege negates any justification. You have no right to self defense against a minority, because your great great great great grandfather MAY HAVE owned a slave sometime, somewhere. And he might have beat that slave. So yeah.

This is how the logic of the SJW crowd works. Its entirely made to silence opposing points of view by declaring them invalid without ever having to actually hear what those opinions include.

This is evidenced by every person who has come into this thread with their fingers in their ears screaming LALALALA RAYCISS

Frankly, its disgusting, and completely destroying any merit to the claim someone is racist, which SHOULD have significant weight.
 
A

Adam12

Molten Core Raider
2,067
35
Cad_sl said:
Itzenas graph makes the point that when killings happen, whites are significantly more likely to have that killing justified than blacks are.
Click to expand...
No, as Khalid's quote points out the numbers are so small that you can't make a determination of significance either way. P values and shit, yo.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Cad_sl said:
Whites kill less often than blacks, period. Thats in the stats too. Should we feel guilty because of that? White SAT scores are higher too. Look there, our privilege is stacking up! We should feel bad and convict Zimmerman! That'll fix it!

Wait... no it won't.
Click to expand...
Well, we shouldn't feel bad about it but we should hopefully feel like it is an issue we should address. For example, in that being yet another reason that we should try to deal with income inequality and get rid of the war on drugs, which both contribute heavily to black on black violence.

However, the irony of bringing up shit like that in relation to this case is if Zimmerman had shot a white kid, he never would have been prosecuted at all. It was only because of race-baiting and some weird sense of white-guilt or something in the media that resulted in this trial.
 
B_Mizzle

B_Mizzle

Golden Baronet of the Realm
7,751
15,326
Lleauaric_sl said:
http://www.bermudasun.bm/Content/NEW...a/24/270/68141

Yeah.. Valerie Rao is incompetent that she is flown all over the country on some of the highest profile cases..
rolleyes.png


And please.. The great Dr. Di Mao.. (Whom none of you have every fucking heard of before this trial)... I place SUCH trust in NATIONALLY RENOWN EXPERTS who testify for cash.

Anyone remember Henry Lee? Anyone? The Nationally Renown Henry Lee?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11...ive.simpson10/
Click to expand...
So if it's so easy to get experts to testify for cash, where were the prosecution experts? The prosecution probably had unlimited government funds to do whatever they needed to get a conviction, and they trot out a couple of scrubs who got annihilated on cross examination.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
Tanoomba_sl said:
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. The fact that he would have been charged with aggravated assault and not attempted murder if he had survived also supports the view that he wasn't actually trying to kill the guy.
Click to expand...
Z being justifiably worried and people understanding that worry is not the same thing as people saying that he was actually in high risk of death.

Z legally could've wrongly thought he was going to risk death (and likely did think) acted and been completely wrong and it doesn't change the legality of it - the importance was proving his mindset that he feared death and he was reasonable in fearing death. And how much damage he had done thusfar is a silly thing to bring up, since the fight stopped suddenly for some reason - if it had continued without the weapon it's impossible to say what he would've been charged with - he might have gone Captain Caveman on Zimmerman's face with a tree branch nearby if things were allowed to continue. (I doubt it's likely... but the point is we don't know how one event suddenly stopped would look without any similar stop)
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tanoomba_sl said:
Here's the post, although you edited it after the fact to make it sound less presumptuous:

Saying "He didn't suffer life threatening injuries because he shot Martin before they could occur" is wrong, because for that to be true there would have to be a certainty that he would have suffered life-threatening injuries otherwise, which we can neither prove nor can we assume would have been the case (especially considering the evidence). Saying Martin would have "continued beating his head into concrete until someone else stopped him" is also an assumption based on nothing but your own supposition. Listen to Fanaskin and don't be a Nostradamus.
Click to expand...
I never edited it to make it sound less presumptuous and this post does not in any way shape or form support your assertion.

You want another try, or are you ready to admit you're wrong and incapable of supporting your claim?

Tanoomba_sl said:
Well, this thread would be boring as fuck without some kind of argument going on
Click to expand...
Actually it would be hilarious as fuck because we'd be doing nothing but posting evidence of the media shitting the bed over this case and laughing at the retarded facebook posts post trial, etc. if it weren't for trolling fucks like yourself constantly shitting up the thread with unsupported, horseshit presumptions and mischaracterizations of other people's statements without any capacity to support those claims.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,447
81,059
hodj_sl said:
Had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would have continued beating his head into concrete until someone else stopped him, most likely the police.
Click to expand...
this is bullshit though. It's more likely he'd stop long before the police got there.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
redshift_sl said:
Battery is actually the term you're looking for, assault is the threat of physical contact coupled with the ability to carry it out. Battery is the tort and crime that results from contact.
Click to expand...
Unless it's applied very strangely in Maryland - I actually had to stand as a witness for a coworker who was charged with assault (and just assault - civil case) for running into an older woman carelessly while he was returning from lunch break late - that the woman absolutely threw a shitfit about. (Hooray for high lawyer % states.... woman got $25k from the company for it too...)

From how it was explained to me the battery is "Dude, I'm going to beat your ass" and assault starts at the shove that follows it up - but again, maybe we apply it weirdly here.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Vaclav_sl said:
Z being justifiably worried and people understanding that worry is not the same thing as people saying that he was actually in high risk of death.

Z legally could've wrongly thought he was going to risk death (and likely did think) acted and been completely wrong and it doesn't change the legality of it - the importance was proving his mindset that he feared death and he was reasonable in fearing death. And how much damage he had done thusfar is a silly thing to bring up, since the fight stopped suddenly for some reason - if it had continued without the weapon it's impossible to say what he would've been charged with - he might have gone Captain Caveman on Zimmerman's face with a tree branch nearby if things were allowed to continue. (I doubt it's likely... but the point is we don't know how one event suddenly stopped would look without any similar stop)
Click to expand...
You're preaching to the choir.


hodj_sl said:
I never edited it to make it sound less presumptuous and this post does not in any way shape or form support your assertion.

You want another try, or are you ready to admit you're wrong and incapable of supporting your claim?
Click to expand...
You edited it. Prove to me you didn't edit it to make it sound less presumptuous. What's that? the burden of proof is on me? Well shit, then prove to me that Redshift is my alt account, since the burden of proof falls on you there.
I don't need another try. I pointed out how 2 of your statements were making false assumptions without evidence. That's all I needed to do and I did it.
 
R

redshift_sl

shitlord
50
0
Vaclav_sl said:
Unless it's applied very strangely in Maryland - I actually had to stand as a witness for a coworker who was charged with assault (and just assault - civil case) for running into an older woman carelessly while he was returning from lunch break late - that the woman absolutely threw a shitfit about. (Hooray for high lawyer % states.... woman got $25k from the company for it too...)

From how it was explained to me the battery is "Dude, I'm going to beat your ass" and assault starts at the shove that follows it up - but again, maybe we apply it weirdly here.
Click to expand...
You're right, it does look like Maryland differs from common law:

Criminal assault statutes in the state of Maryland encompass assault, battery, and/or a combination of the two.http://cleverjustice.com/what-consti...e-of-maryland/
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tuco_sl said:
this is bullshit though. It's more likely he'd stop long before the police got there.
Click to expand...
I believe my point in making that statement was to show that Tanoomba's assumptions could just as easily be taken in the opposite direction.

However, what we know from the case is that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground for 30 to 40 seconds before Zimmerman shot him, correct?

So why should we presume that he would have stopped? The Prosecution actually tried to MAKE THAT CASE in their arguments, that's why the 90 degree positioning shit came up, they were trying to show that Martin might have been pulling away. Dr DiMiao blew that out of the water based on the angle of the gunshot to the chest and the clothing.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tanoomba_sl said:
You're preaching to the choir.



You edited it. Prove to me you didn't edit it to make it sound less presumptuous.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is look at the edit history on the post dumbfuck.


You and Numbers both need to stop trolling this thread with your shitposting, seriously. This opinion is ignorant shit. The point of self defense is to protect yourself before serious, possibly deadly, bodily injury 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.
Click to expand...
Want to try that shit again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.