the scary thing is that on a weekly basis i walk around a couple neighborhoods in raleigh, late at night (11p-midnightish), and in the afternoons, usually in a hoodie/sweatshirt or black rain jacket and yes, i look at all the houses because they're familiar to me and i like looking at them just for the hell of it because theres nothing else to look at. i occasionally throw shit away in their garbage cans too.

im glad no one has deemed my behavior suspicious yet.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason : FITTY ONE (51!!)]

4/12/2012 12:06:05 AM

Tacolu, duke866, that's called stalking and it's illegal.

Both u are making some really stupid arguments. Go back to mourning ZImmerman's arrest quietly.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2012 12:07:20 AM

Quote :

" http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php Quote : " In Beckford v R (1988), the defendant police officer shot dead a suspect, having been told that he was armed and dangerous, because he feared for his own life. The prosecution case was that the victim had been unarmed and thus presented no threat to the defendant. The trial judge directed the jury that the defendant's belief in the need to shoot in self-defence had to be both honest and reasonable. In rejecting this direction, the Privy Council approved the approach in Williams. Lord Griffiths commented that juries should be given the following guidance: "Whether the plea is self-defence or defence of another, if the defendant may have been labouring under a mistake as to facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken belief of the facts: that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a reasonable mistake or not." The defendant therefore, had a defence of self-defence because the killing was not unlawful if, in the circumstances as he perceived them to be, he had used reasonable force to defend himself.""

This is a British law citing a British trial setting British precedent, and is quoted out of context



[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2012 12:08:36 AM

Quote :

"HE IS NO KID. there is a picture of him with his middle finger up. and he was suspended from school. WHAT A THUG"

Don't forget the big tattoo on his arm.

I mean, tons of "kids" these days have tattoos now don't ya know.

Dropped my nephew off at grade school the other day, and half the bitches there were tatted up.

4/12/2012 12:09:10 AM

if rich people were to shoot everyone that looked at their house

what if "M" says "why the fuck are you followin me back the fuck off"

and "Z" gets all butthurt because the nigger didnt bow down and kiss his shoe and decides to show him what for by pullin his strap

and then M goes to the ground to tryb to continue to wrestle the gun from Z and he fucks up and misses the grab and gets shot

lets all make up scenarios and see who wins in the end

4/12/2012 12:09:31 AM

Quote :

"Tacolu, that's called stalking and it's illegal."

Yes, if you do it over and over.

4/12/2012 12:09:48 AM

finally got an egg out of this damn thread, best thing to come out of it yet

4/12/2012 12:10:50 AM

yess... because we're not profiling people based on the fact that they have tattoos

i don't care how old martin was anyways. what does it matter? the fact he was unarmed matters.

although 17 is too young to die in some neighborhood scuffle. whether you have tattoos or not.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2012 12:11:22 AM

i havent got one yet

just tacolu and his stank breath

4/12/2012 12:11:43 AM

Tacolu, We don't know if Zimmerman hadnt followed trayvon before. Ur just speculating so don't pretend u have all the facts.

I finally got an egg up in here too
[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2012 12:11:59 AM

Keep in mind Duke cant even avoid being ticketed on a freeway

and hes talking about the law

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM. Reason : d]

4/12/2012 12:13:10 AM

Quote :

"yess... because we're not profiling people based on the fact that they have tattoos i don't care how old martin was anyways. what does it matter? the fact he was unarmed matters."

Actually, you are wrong again, the fact that he was unarmed does not matter.

Quote :

"although 17 is too young to die in some neighborhood scuffle. whether you have tattoos or not. "

Really? A 17yo cant kill someone, or seriously harm someone, or go after someones gun during a struggle?

You are putting to much emphasis on age.

He was less than a year from being a legal adult.

Everyone seriously needs to stop acting like Trayvon was 10.



[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ,]

4/12/2012 12:13:14 AM

Quote :

"what if "M" says "why the fuck are you followin me back the fuck off" and "Z" gets all butthurt because the nigger didnt bow down and kiss his shoe and decides to show him what for by pullin his strap and then M goes to the ground to tryb to continue to wrestle the gun from Z and he fucks up and misses the grab and gets shot lets all make up scenarios and see who wins in the end"

Then no doubt, that would be at least manslaughter, and THAT would probably be murder 2.

...and maybe that's exactly how it went down--I'm just saying that's not my best guess.

Quote :

"the scary thing is that on a weekly basis i walk around a couple neighborhoods in raleigh, late at night (11p-midnightish), and in the afternoons, usually in a hoodie/sweatshirt or black rain jacket and yes, i look at all the houses because they're familiar to me and i like looking at them just for the hell of it because theres nothing else to look at. i occasionally throw shit away in their garbage cans too. im glad no one has deemed my behavior suspicious yet."

...there's nothing scary about that. that's not how M got shot.

Quote :

"Tacolu, duke866, that's called stalking and it's illegal."

No, if you are walking down a public street, it's perfectly legal for someone else to walk down the public street behind you.

4/12/2012 12:13:17 AM

Quote :

"the fact he was unarmed matters. "

no, that is totally irrelevant.

Quote :

" although 17 is too young to die in some neighborhood scuffle."

That is a fact.

4/12/2012 12:14:27 AM

until the point were it becomes threatening which it becomes assault

4/12/2012 12:15:23 AM

exactly, which i've been saying from the beginning as one of the central points i'm trying to convey

(and really, it might even be problematic for Z if it was short of truly threatening and was just extremely harassing. That might be a murky area...I'm not sure. I don't mean harassing in a "fuck this guy for following and watching me, I'm gonna bust his lip" way. I mean truly harassing.)



[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2012 12:16:12 AM

i dont think thats what youve been arguing

4/12/2012 12:16:44 AM

Quote :

" This is a British law citing a British trial setting British precedent, and is quoted out of context [Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ]"

It is not out of context and the same situation (mistake of proof) is applicable in US courts...

4/12/2012 12:17:04 AM

cheese and rice people, count how many times they bring up the fact that he was unarmed in trial and put it against how many times they bring up his age and then tell me it is irrelevant

someone (the lawyers in this shit storm) absolutely think it matters. and when i say matters all i mean is that its a point they're going to use over and over and over and ovvveeeerrrr again during the trial.

4/12/2012 12:17:05 AM

Quote :

"cheese and rice people, count how many times they bring up the fact that he was unarmed in trial and put it against how many times they bring up his age and then tell me it is irrelevant someone (the lawyers in this shit storm) absolutely think it matters. and when i say matters all i mean is that its a point they're going to use over and over and over and ovvveeeerrrr again during the trial."

You seriously can't be this stupid.

The age and unarmed fact have nothing to do with it LEGALLY.

I would expect any half witted prosecutor to bring it up because to a jury, it drums up sympathy and adds emotion to the case.

Hell, I'd call a mistrial if they didn't bring it up because it's that fucking obvious.

4/12/2012 12:19:15 AM

are they sure that it was a regular arizona iced tea

cuz id be willing to be it was the arizona watermelon or the arizona grape

4/12/2012 12:19:16 AM

DAT ARIZONA PURPLE DRANK

4/12/2012 12:20:43 AM

^^^^^^ I have to think you're just trolling, because that's exactly what I've been saying.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:21 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2012 12:21:18 AM

meh maybe i didnt follow your entire argument

im getting you crossed with tacolu who is a complete fag

4/12/2012 12:22:20 AM

haha

4/12/2012 12:22:55 AM

Quote :

" That is what I'm saying...I can kinda see Z following him (likely quite reasonable), M thinking "I'm not doing anything wrong" and getting pissed about it. Totally reasonable actions by both up to this point, and neither of them is wrong. ...but then if M, just like the aforementioned guy says HE would, overreacts and says "I'm gonna beat this dude's ass", and Z says "Not very much, you're not. Not before I shoot you"...well, it's a tragedy for everyone, but actions have consequences, and that would be a case of M making a dumb mistake that a teenager could easily make, and paying the ultimate price for it."

This reason why this is not an acceptable outcome though is that it appears Zimmerman's only basis for following Martin was because of how Martin looked; none of the actions ascribed to Martin are suspicious. Z's assumption was purely based on superficial items.

What it breaks down to is that if Zimmerman didn't judge Martin for superficial reasons, Martin would still be alive today.

I would say it's an injustice that someone can judge someone superficially, get into an altercation based on this rash judgement, and kill the person they wrongly judged, then get off without punishment.

You have short hair for example, what if someone thought you were a skin head, followed you, then shot you if you stood up for yourself?

And what if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, but instead beat Martin to death? Would it still be self defense? Why does having the gun seem to protect him more than if he used his fists?

This is all assuming it happened how Zimmerman said, when there's good reason to believe it didn't.

4/12/2012 12:23:07 AM

i love how tacolu just called me stupid and agreed with me in the same post. gg

4/12/2012 12:23:34 AM

mix the drank up in the sprite

4/12/2012 12:24:16 AM

^^^sigh

facepalm

i don't feel like writing all it would take to respond to everything wrong you've just presented


so i think i'll just go hit the gym now.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ^^]

4/12/2012 12:25:03 AM

I have some Purple Drank

it makes you sleepy

4/12/2012 12:25:31 AM

Hey guize. what's going on ITT?

4/12/2012 12:26:14 AM

hitting the gym at 12:30 jesus

4/12/2012 12:26:59 AM

That's kind of suspicious behavior.

4/12/2012 12:28:47 AM

Racists take notice, the republican prosecutor carefully examined all of the facts and made the charges. Justice is being served!

4/12/2012 12:29:51 AM

Quote :

""the scary thing is that on a weekly basis i walk around a couple neighborhoods in raleigh, late at night (11p-midnightish), and in the afternoons, usually in a hoodie/sweatshirt or black rain jacket and yes, i look at all the houses because they're familiar to me and i like looking at them just for the hell of it because theres nothing else to look at. i occasionally throw shit away in their garbage cans too. im glad no one has deemed my behavior suspicious yet." ...there's nothing scary about that. that's not how M got shot."

That actually is how he got shot.

4/12/2012 12:30:39 AM

^^^^ 11:30 here, for whatever that's worth.

^ [NO]. ...and if what we've heard is wrong and that IS what happened, then yeah, throw that motherfucker in the butt hut for good.

4/12/2012 12:34:12 AM

^^Yeah, I actually can't believe theDuke866 posted that response. Martin being mistakenly perceived as suspicious is clearly a critical factor, and I don't know what interest theDuke866 would have in dismissing that part of the events.

^That's exactly what happened.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2012 12:38:34 AM

Umm, no, he was shot during a physical altercation.

Not while he was looking at houses.

Huge difference.

Which, as usual, you people are not realizing.

4/12/2012 12:45:30 AM

Quote :

"Martin being mistakenly perceived as suspicious is clearly a critical factor, and I don't know what interest theDuke866 would have in dismissing that part of the events. "

Explain how he was mistakenly perceived as suspicious.

He was suspicious to George Zimmerman.

As I've stated, everyone has different definitions of their level of suspicious.

What Trayvon was doing was suspicious to Zimmerman.

It doesn't matter if every other single person on the face of the earth doesn't think it was suspicious.

It was suspicious TO HIM.

4/12/2012 12:47:29 AM

Assuming things went down exactly like Zimmerman claims (which I believe the 911 call already disproves for the record), then I can see why Florida law would exonerate him.

But we all know that laws aren't always right, and in that situation, it would still be wrong in a moral sense for Zimmerman to get off without punishment.

The only way I could see Zimmerman being morally right in murdering someone is if Martin knew who he was, knew he was following him, was hiding in wait for him, and had every intention of putting him in the hospital when he attacked.

But based on the fact that 1) Zimmerman couldn't articulate any behavior that a reasonable person would find suspicious 2) the burden of responsibility, as a gun owner and watchman and adult, was on him to make sure the situation doesn't escalate, he deserves to be punished.

And considering Zimmerman's past, and proclivity for acting like a rent-a-cop, he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who tries to deescalate things.

^ you're suspicious to me, because you have "taco" in your name. I'm going to follow you with a gun. I'm going to shoot you as a result of following you because you have "taco" in your name. But i didn't commit a crime, because it's okay for me to assume people named taco are suspicious.
-tacolu logic

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:52 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2012 12:48:15 AM

you people

4/12/2012 12:50:00 AM

Quote :

"Assuming things went down exactly like Zimmerman claims (which I believe the 911 call already disproves for the record)"

Oh really? Please explain.

4/12/2012 12:50:43 AM

You think the prosecutor doesn't know the law better than anyone in this thread. She obviously sees facts that back the charges and overcome stand your ground.

4/12/2012 12:51:58 AM

no no no

you got it all wrong

you should listen to tacolu who probably couldnt get a job cooking on a taco truck

4/12/2012 12:52:47 AM

^ haha, the taco loco truck.

4/12/2012 12:53:44 AM

seriously would anyone like some purple drank?

4/12/2012 12:54:34 AM

grip n sip

4/12/2012 12:55:01 AM

pass me some.

and some popcorn, too.

4/12/2012 12:55:04 AM

Quote :

""Assuming things went down exactly like Zimmerman claims (which I believe the 911 call already disproves for the record)" Oh really? Please explain."

There wouldn't have been 1-2 minutes of a regular pattern of screaming "help," by either party, if Zimmerman's 2nd or 3rd iteration of his account of what happened is accurate

4/12/2012 12:56:56 AM

I wish Trayvon were alive


























so we could shoot him again

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 12:58 AM. Reason : I miss Trayvon......................................................... but aim is getting better]

4/12/2012 12:57:11 AM