I'm not racist... I'm speciest.

I'm not racist... I own a coloured TV!

I'm not prejudiced... I hate everyone equally!

LOL!! Welcome back kiddo...

I love how idiots confuse The7even and me, and send me angry PMs :facepalm: ability to read much :lawl:

^ post dem PMs

:fullofwin:

edit - what thought was a coverup ended up being consistent with the before and after pictures.

-----

George Zimmerman Surveillance Day Of Arrest "no obvious sign of injury
_www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk4Px56Yag8
http://i.imgur.com/R6a0taU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UkV2fKo.jpg


Cover up?
ABC?s Enhanced Video Shows Cuts on Zimmerman?s Head | EURweb - Part 1

Sharpened video shows no signs of blood blotches but then looks like a photoshoped picture is inserted.
http://i.imgur.com/ngRp3NN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/q9vODYw.jpg

edit
Never-mind, these pictures are consistent with each-other.

Sorry about that, mate.
It's not the first time they did that with you and I.
You always seem the get flak for my posts :lol

LEL

How is 'I'm out of this convo'

the same as

'I'm out of this thread'.

I was commenting on Geoc's post. Not yours. Nor was I arguing with you.
Now be on your merry little way.

voluntary/involuntary/aggravated manslaughter <3 main categories

Im not the only btw one who found it possible (let alone proven) for him to be convicted of manslaughter all the other lawyers on cnn etc felt the same

but here's the law

if any of these are true to you he's guilty

his pursuit of Trayvon wasn't justified
his act of pursuing Trayvon resulted in death
he was negligent in his actions ('reasonable care' and i think that was proven)
he intentionally killed Trayvon and it wasn't excusable or justified

certainly there's an argument for Zimmerman as to why he killed Trayvon but like i said from the beginning i don't buy his story and his story had obvious holes and lies in them

Right, I dont think this kid would've killed Zimmerman... Zimmerman thought he was a cop to shoot an unarmed teenager and get away with it.
I think many Americans supporting this killing have a fear of the on going degenerate culture in their society (thanks to Hollywood)... compounded with the large gap in economic inequality, they think this "self defense" murder will give them some security from criminals but Americas problems are far deeper.

---

I found Zimmermans wounds consistent after all but his feet have been blacked out in the original photo and pointed out in better detail in some blogs.
http://i.imgur.com/lSqVJpv.jpg

I'm just going to leave this here...


Dem statistics at 1:30-1:40.

:seriously: ? all he does is try to justify racial profiling and call Rachel Jeantel an idiot...


edit: also by posting a video of larry elder you're baiting CiC to go into a tirade of his usual btw :)

In what interest is it to him.. as a black man.. to try and justify the profiling of people.. exactly like him self?

Take some time and think about that.

Or, could it be, that he is actually saying...what I have been trying to tell you all along.
While you think about this, remember the statistics mentioned between 1:20ish - 1:40.

There are always those within targeted groups who agree with the those doing the targeting regardless of the matter

regardless of the argument and whatever truths ppl try to dig up or warp to support their views you cannot justify racial profiling period (which is what Elder seems to be supporting here)


weren't you defending muslims in past threads? (sorry cant really remember) if so aren't you being hypocritical?

I'm not sure how defending muslims would make me a hypocrite.
But I'll address that issue as well and I'll tie this all up at the end and get back on topic.

In about 9/10 of the threads that I'm involved in regarding muslims, I denounce their ignorance, unwillingness to assimilate, anti-semitism, homophobia, racism, hatred of christians, disregard for law when they immigrate, sexism and any other stupidity they might harbor.

I call them out, and they don't like it.

Go for it, I encourage you or anyone to go through my history and look at my stance on muslims.
I call them out on their bullshit and so should you. Because you're a muslim and it is in your interest to present the real Islam, to both them and others.

I fully support the idea of kicking out any muslim in .. for example.. england... that publicly carries a sign "behead those who insult islam".. because 1, he should be beheaded right there on the spot were I to take what his sign said literally and 2, because those people are openly and publicly racist and violent. Protesting and threatening to kill some guy in Holland because he drew Muhammad.. and screaming how you will kill anyone that does this.. that is so stupid, it's offensive. The prophet would be ashamed, he'd never call those people muslim. They're a disease and they're spreading. They try to use the freedom that either England or Canada or whatever other european country granted them to opress and take away that same freedom from others. Yeah, no.

But that's just one example of how I view things regarding muslims.. there is the other part.
Where I defend Islam.
But defending Islam is rare for me.. because Islam doesn't need defending. I only call out anyone when they're being totally ignorant about what Islam is.

When I get called out on being anti islamic, I just kindly point it out to them that I am muslim too. And that shuts them the fuck up because they realize their racism card is ineffective.
And I don't say that just to shut them up, I say it because I really am a muslim.

Now.. with all of this said, this is why I will always speak the truth.
I don't care if I appear racist. I will speak it.
And the numbers speak with me.

What people need to realize is that "stereotyping" or whatever you want to call it is human nature. It is NOT a bad thing.

How it is good:

Yes, it is bad to label a certain group as "evil" or "bad". That is retarded.
It is however a completely other thing to use data that your brain gathers from the environment you are in and creates a general idea of what kind of people to avoid or look out for.
If you ignore that.. you can die. You have 1 life only on this planet. That is all. One. No one is sure of any afterlife or whatver. Your brain certainly isn't. So it is designed to protect you from external threats.

His neighborhood was burglarized 8 times. Each and everytime by someone black.
Yes, this does give him the right to "stereotype" , because there are billions of people on this planet, but you have to come to a conclusion on who the thread could be. It's common sense.

For example. If I see a black man wearing a hoodie, pants sagging, walking like a retard, you are damn right I'll be cautious.
But if I see a black man with a sweater and jeans and walking like a human being, I won't even notice that person, because it would never hit me as 'Hey, that person could be a threat to your safety'.

I automatically assume if you dress like a thug that you might be one. So sorry, I have a defense mechanism that tells me to be vary of assholes who fit a certain description because my brain taught me that people who fit that description have a tendency to commit crime.. if I see a pattern, I notice it.
Most people that commited a burglary in that area wore hoodies.


To suggest that "oh just because he looks like a thug, doesn't mean he should have followed him" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. He was active in his community, he wanted to help his neighborhood, so he mistaked one young adult as a criminal and followed him to make sure that when the police arrive, they can find him.
Doesn't anybody take accountability for anything anymore? Of course not, they just yell out racism because thats easier than facing the numbers and statistics that I and the guy in the video I posted pointed out earlier.

You can't dress like a cop and then be upset when people try to come to you for help..

What I am not: HURRRR ZOMG ALL BLACKS R EVIL LOLOL NI***RS!!! ALL GO BACK TO AFRIKA LUL KEKEKEKE XD XDXD



Oh, you're also 100% wrong.. again.
Elder supports fixing his communities problem .. which is, and you won't believe this..
EVERYONE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITHIN SAID COMMUNITY.

But nah.. hes just a racist sympathizer LOL what a silly guy, silly him.

Wrong. There are two types - as I said before. If you read deeper than the first page of the Florida Statutes you would have known that.

Yes, you can break down the Voluntary and Involuntary further, but its one or the other. Notice the aggravated term you posted applies to elderly, disabled, children, and emergency services. These are special statutes for things like child abuse, and caregiver negligence.

Not sure whether to slap you for horrible English, laugh at you for watching CNN and taking it seriously, or punch you for introducing more irrelevant hearsay to a factual discussion.

So this is the only one that we need to look at. Did you even read the provisions in chapter 776?

If you did, you would have found some explanations of when such force is justified.

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

Now, would you like to sit there and tell me that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe he was preventing 'great bodily harm' by shooting Trayvon? (assuming we take into account the accepted version of the events by the courts).

Just in case you want to refer to this one. I'll save you the time - its for child abuse.

So you are arguing for Culpable Negligence, correct? Do you have the first clue what that means?

It's not like you leaving your garden hose on in the summer and getting a warning from the by-law officer. No its quite different. Allow me to share:

Culpable negligence means recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences).

It is the omission to do something which a reasonable, prudent and honest man would do, or the doing something which such a man would not do under all the circumstances surrounding each particular case. [State v. Emery, 78 Mo. 77, 80 (Mo. 1883)]

"The term culpable negligence should be construed to mean a negligence of a higher degree than that which in civil cases is held to be gross negligence, and must be a negligence of a degree so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life." [Smith v. State, 197 Miss. 802 (Miss. 1945)]

so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life.

Yes....following around a guy you think is trying to burglarize your neighbors is exactly that. Wait.

Wow...spoken like a true fool. No one cares what story you buy, or what makes you feel good. Or that your mom bought single-ply toilet paper this month, and you are mad as hell.

In fact, luckily the world operates in a slightly more sophisticated way for the most part.

Since we are sharing our opinions - the part that annoys me the most, is that you are too damn lazy to ever do any actual research in your online arguments. You run away every time someone calls you out - you bring nothing to the table. In fact, if I spent more than 0.001% of my time online with people like you, I would seriously be questioning what I am doing with my life.

CLIFFS
-StylinRed is an idiot - as usual

they're visually attracted to your avatar more than his...and click on your username thinking

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps7bee2934.png

i know...i was adding the break downs :P

my point was that mine is not a unique viewpoint

yes and as i said in my comment i dont believe he was justified nor do i believe his story
is it the accepted version by the courts? i dont agree with that wording. its the accepted view of the jury certainly, if we were to just look at the aftermath and take everything the jury believes as fact than there would be nothing to discuss in here it would simply be "nothing to see here move along"

of course...

a reasonable person would listen to the dispatch officer and not pursue

also use of force for defense is limited to the aggressor and deadly force isn't allowed

read up 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

you want to argue that Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor go ahead

actually this is what the discussion is actually about in here or else there would be no discussion, the facts of the case and the 2 stories and which we believe to be true

lol

i'll just leave this here...

this guy makes a good point

^^^its true, that's why the media especially US media sucks but since it is the topic of discussion right now may as well ;)

No, you weren't. The breakdown for Florida would be
1) By Act (Voluntary)
2) By Procurement (Voluntary)
3) By Culpable Negligence (Involuntary)

Aggravated just means with a weapon - and doesn't change the fundamental criminal process, just adds time to the sentence if convicted.

It is not a unique viewpoint that the world is a few thousand years old either.

It's not up to you (especially with your obvious limited knowledge of the facts) to believe whether or not he was justified. It's up to the interpretation of the legal protocols as they relate to the best understood circumstances of the case.

The jury are the 'Finders of Fact,' so what they say determines the outcome of the court proceedings. And yes, it is accepted by the court. What else is the accepted version? The prosecutions? Defendants? You may have just a slight bias problem there.

This is bullshit for the following two reasons:

1) The dispatcher (not an officer by the way - so stop using that term) did not tell him not to pursue. He told him 'We don't need you to do that.' Do you understand the difference? To anyone with half an ounce of sense, it was essentially a legal statement. If the dispatcher had said 'Don't let him out of your sight' and George had been killed, his family would have received a huge payout from the city. There was no direct order that was disobeyed. Even if there had been, it was not coming from an officer of the peace, nor would it have been unreasonable for a person in the same circumstances to disobey it.

2) As we established a long time ago where someone got shot outside your house, and you sat inside playing Starcraft while blogging about how scared you were, there are two major types of people in the world. Those willing to put themselves in some level of harms way for the benefit of other people - yes even strangers, and people like you. So while I agree I fall into the former category, I would still say we are both reasonable.

Finally, even with that said - there is no evidence that George pursued Trayvon after it was suggested he needn't do such a thing. So your point is moot to begin with.

The stupidity in your posts is increasing by magnitudes.

Fortunately I have read up on the statute you quoted. Let me first say, you are making the assumption that George was the aggressor. That means George was committing a forcible felony, or that he had provoked the use of force against himself. Even if you believe the second point is true, there is an exception for situations where the aggressor has tried to escape, and then in fear of incurring great bodily harm, is entitled to the same rights as a non-aggressor.

These arguments were brought up and addressed clearly during the trial.

No, not really. Its about you getting all your information from third party sources. It's all very vague, but certainly pulls at our emotional strings. Then you develop a closed subjective mind, and no matter what else is said, your opinion will never change.

Also, there are not two stories. There is one. There is only one person alive who knows exactly what happened. Maybe if Trayvon was alive he would say 'Yeah I beat Georges ass, he would have been unconsciousness in about 30 more seconds had he not been packing a gun.' We don't really know. Just because the prosecutors have written their own story in an attempt to directly discredit Georges does not mean it is true.

There were no independent witnesses that would have led me to believe any of the things you are continually regurgitating are or were true.

Im sorry do you know what's going on here? we're having a discussion on this case and what we believe

as for my limited knowledge of facts that's ur opinion

so what you're basically saying is there should be no discussion and we should just ignore everything because the jury has spoken
and that's precisely why you are wrong

its my understanding he called the non-emergency line and spoke to an officer not a simple operator i may be wrong though but regardless if he disobeyed the officer telling him not to pursue

the mere fact that he pursued and confronted (as we know there were words exchanged) marks him as the aggressor and acting recklessly
if u recall i had actually gone outside and then gone back in as there was a crowd and i couldnt handle it i wished i could have done more or would have been able to handle it better but until something like that actually happens you don't know how you'll react

willing to throw yourself in danger for the good of the community is a stupid argument and in the example you used of mine there was an obvious incident of crime whereas in Zimmermans case it was mere profiling of a kid walking home that he didnt recognize there's so much more to it in his case than simply throwing yourself out there to help the community

in regards to a reasonable person, reporting to police someone you find suspicious and not currently involved in criminal activity seems like the reasonable thing to do... pursuing someone and confronting someone you find suspicious but isn't doing anything illegal seems rather unreasonable no? but that is open to interpretation
the fact that he got out of his vehicle and walked towards where trayvon was heading was evidence of his pursuit



just keep on attacking personally when you get a rebuttal you dont want to deal with...

if you had read the comments from the beginning of the conversation my argument is in the view that George is the aggressor based on what facts we have yes glad you read it...

yes they were...


no...you're assumptions here are too great third party as in watching the trial and reading up on any nuances in florida law?
sounds like....wait for it...you?

Im willing to accept that the jury has spoken and he's free but even still, as ive mentioned, i believe he should have been found guilty of manslaughter

simply consider the stories consider what lies were revealed and consider witness testimony
its your opinion that zimmermans sentence was the correct one and its mine that it wasnt but nothing you've said has shown, to me, that mine is the incorrect one we've both interpreted the details of the case with the law differently

Let me lay this out in the simplest terms possible...

YOUR POINT #1 - ZIMMERMAN WAS THE AGGRESSOR

George Zimmerman was NOT the first aggressor.

Here are the sufficient provocations:

Assaulted the deceased;
Unlawfully arrested the deceased;
Fires the first shot in a standoff;
Leaves a fight, only to return with a weapon; and
Is caught sleeping with the deceased’s wife.

And the insufficient:

Demands an explanation of offensive words or conduct;
Discusses settlement of a claim;
Discusses a sensitive subject;
Hurls inappropriate language and insulting epithets;
Engages in an inconsiderate act;
Travels near a neighbor who has previously threatened him;
Arms himself to repel an anticipated attack, while going about normal business;
Provides an opportunity for conflict, but does not cause it; and
Arms himself with the intent to cause a conflict with the deceased, but does not perform an act manifesting his subjective intent to cause the conflict.

There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest one of the sufficient provocations were met. Just because you feel he 'provoked' the situation, does not mean (thank god) the legal criteria was met.

YOUR POINT #2 - ZIMMERMAN WAS RECKLESS

First of all the correct term was Culpable Negligence for this case. So stop saying he was reckless, it has zero relevance to anything, and is the incorrect terminology.

Culpable negligence is basically doing something so ridiculously wrong, it would be easily punishable by law. So wrong it is completely unreasonable and grossly reckless. Do you need examples? Can you please try to wrap your head around this? It seems very difficult for you to comprehend.

Following around people you think are potential burglars will never fall into this category. Confronting someone walking between the houses in your neighborhood to find out who they are, will never be culpable negligence.

If it feels a little reckless to you - fine. It feels quite normal to many of us.

Just because you disagree with the tactics George used, does not mean he should be guilty of a crime and in jail for the better part of his life. He should be guilty of a crime and in jail if he broke the law according to its interpretation.

I agree, the law is not always upheld in all cases, but in this one, there is absolutely no way he could have been convicted, hence the reason, the case was dismissed in the very beginning before charges were even brought.

Imagine the kind of things that could have been accomplished, if all the energy put forth by the Trayvon supporters, was actually put towards a relevant and useful cause.

We can absolutely have a discussion.

What if I had the opinion that Trayvon was the first aggressor because he was wearing a hoody. How would you respond? Exactly.

Thats because, luckily the law along with case-law is there to help us see exactly what these terms mean.

So instead of inserting your own version of what legal definitions are, why not talk about how you would like the laws to change - which parts of the stories you agree or disagree with etc. But don't tell me we have different interpretations of what Culpable Negligence is, because we are nowhere in the same ballpark. At that's not a discussion point.

Maybe you want the definition to be revised...fine.

I hope you understood some of this.

<< you're incorrect here sorry maybe pull out your law definitions book and look up culpable negligence


Anyway I'll repeat myself i guess... given what we know of the case, given we really only have Zimmermans side of the story (we have Jeantel and some other witnesses etc but anyway)
given Zimmermans lies and his aggressive history I believe he was the aggressor in their confrontation
following someone isn't illegal no but zimmermans actions imo could have been construed as aggressive couple with whatever events occurred during their encounter Trayvon could was driven to defend himself (this was spoken about near the end of the trial i believe but the judge ruled in the prosecutions favor here)

you can bitch and moan about how you dont agree with me and attack me personally have at it but at the end of the day i was remarking on the facts and my beliefs on how things likely played out and so i believe he should be guilty of manslaughter




edit: Interestingly there's an article at huffpost almost exactly like ours

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafai...b_3596685.html

and the commentary seems to take your view too

You and I can disagree all we want on Trayvon Martin but I fucking love this post.

It is the exact way I feel about religion.

Fuck man, comprehension much?

Sufficient Provocation

• Assaulted the deceased;
• Unlawfully arrested the deceased;
• Fires the first shot in a standoff;
• Leaves a fight, only to return with a weapon; and
• Is caught sleeping with the deceased’s wife.

These are the acceptable provocations from the Criminal Law treatise. So unless you believe he did one of those mentioned things (which I haven't heard any sane person say) he is NOT the first aggressor by rule of law.

It's NOT about how we feel about his actions. Its clear cut. How the fuck can you not understand this point??

Also, there was no evidence submitted in the Affidavit of Probable Cause that described George doing anything remotely close to the acceptable provocations. If the prosecution was hoping to label George as the First Aggressor, surely there would be some kind of factual evidence in the Affidavit of Probable Cause to support this claim.

Wow...news much??

That is the worst left wing liberal newspaper on the face of the earth. I heard it was dead last in the American Consumer Rating index as well - god if a majority of Americans even know its that bad, what does that tell you? Not surprised this is a main information source for you.

Also, did you read the article?

The article is like ours? What does that even mean, we are not writing an article, I am trying to explain what law is to you.

If you read it, you would notice, they do not take my point of view. The crime novelist who wrote the article starts out very sane and reasonable. Then near the end, they go off the deep-end.

They fail to mention the fact I just alluded to above. We already have established case law for what being the First Aggressor entails.

So of course the judge didn't need to waste time giving instructions to a jury. She could see there was no one in the room who was arguing George had fulfilled any of the sufficient provocations.

And...yes, I do agree the possibility of a reversal would have become a reality, because we have already established that calling George the aggressor goes against the established case law.

It wasn't that the judge was scared - its that she had a brain.

ADDITIONALLY - as I have already mentioned in this thread, and you somehow conveniently keep glossing over, even if he somehow was the first aggressor, Florida law also has an exception 776.041 that states the first aggressor can use that force after they have exhausted their means of escaping if they believe they are in danger of receiving great bodily harm.

This significant piece of information was conveniently left out of the crime novelists article.

I want to say I give up...but I'm optimistically hoping you are going to have an epiphany, and say 'Ah, I finally get it.' I guess I am becoming the stupid one.