Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#353 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
What it boils down to is a grown man shot and killed a teenager.
Now consider this:
1) He was told not to purse he did
2) He has a record
3) He sees himself as rambo self instated cop

He's got no chance in hell and his sentence will be well deserved.
#490 to #353 - eboloramma (04/14/2012) [-]
The case is actually highly likely to be thrown out. Nice try.
User avatar #447 to #353 - aoeui (04/14/2012) [-]
Here are those things that it "boils down to".
1) 911 dispatchers *can not* give orders. They merely told him they didn't need him to follow. They were both in public and, at least I hope, we're living in a democracy where it's perfectly legal to follow anyone, suspicious looking, black, white, or because whatever reason.
2)He was accused of *pushing* a cop during a small riot. Never charged with it.
3)I don't think so. I think he was trying to protect his community. Trayvon was a tall, black(not gonna argue on if this matters or not. It's up to you to decide whether racial profiling is right, but it isn't illegal) guy walking around late at night looking at houses all while it's heavily raining. That certainly sounds odd how someone would be out in the rain like that with no apparent purpose esp considering he was staring at houses. Don't you think?
He perhaps acted stupidly but that certainly isn't a crime in itself. Fine, go ahead and hate and want to imprison an innocent man, but it definitely makes you sound pretty bad, almost as bad as the 'terrible evil' you hated in the first place.
#391 to #353 - Blackarican (04/14/2012) [-]
im 80% with you my friend!
User avatar #356 to #353 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Except for the fact that Trayvon broken his nose, (medical records and police report), knocked him down (grass stains on the back of his shirt, police report), And was beating his head against the sidewalk (multiple abrasions and cuts, police report, medical records).

Trayvon had no evidence of any injuries except a single gunshot wound to the chest. (Coroner's report)
#415 to #356 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
Would you be scared for your life if some creepy ass guy started following you around in a vehicle for a while and when you try to run home for help he gets out and chases after you? Yeah I would have acted in self defense because doing that is NOT normal behavior, following someone for for 15 minutes and chasing after them is DEFINITELY in my opinion a sign that your in serious danger. It's like seriously, this guy had no badge or anything on him that would of said he had any authority to be doing that, so what the hell did he think was gunna happen when he stalked and chased someone? And Florida's "Stand you Ground" law states that if you have reasonable belief that your life is in danger you can defend yourself which seems like Trayvon was doing. Not only that but neighborhood watch is just supposed to report suspicious activity (Trayvon was just walking to a relatives, how he found that suspicious stumps me) and let the police do their job. But thinking he was some rambo cop he chased and confronted him expecting nothing to happen.
User avatar #426 to #415 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Zimmerman wasn't following him in a vehicle, Martin didn't run, Zimmerman Didn't chase. Martin's girlfriend who was on the phone with Martin at the time confirms this.

If what you said was true I would be on your side, but all the evidence points that it is not so.

Trayvon had no sanctions under the stand your ground law.

Please read comment 400, At this moment it's the second one down.

#445 to #426 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
And he did have sanction for the stand your ground law, since the law is so loose and vague if you have any reasonable suspicion your life is in danger you can use lethal force to defend yourself. If being followed around and chased in the dark at night isn't a reasonable suspicion than I don't know what is.
User avatar #453 to #445 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Trayvon had broken Zimmerman's nose, Knocked him the ground. At that point the law Requires you RUN.

Defending yourself by bashing a persons head into the pavement after you've knocked him down and broken his nose will get you murder two.
User avatar #454 to #453 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Hmm I suppose I'll clarify this before people start asking and that's different from Zimmerman how?

Firstly a clarification to the Stand your ground law: If you are able to escape, you MUST escape. That's why it doesn't apply to Trayvon in this case.

Zimmerman killing Trayvon is self defense because he was currently under attack, already injured, and unable escape since Martin was over him. Thus he is legally allowed to kill Martin.

Now if he had been able to knock Martin down and delay him (break his nose) then Had he pulled his gun and killed Martin AT THAT TIME. Then it's murder 2.
#463 to #454 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
AND getting your head bashed on the ground isn't enough for an abrasion. Even with a really muscular guy (Martin was not) you would just receive some bruises because since your already on the ground that gives your head just an inch or two of motion. I got into a barfight with a guy built like a brick **** house and my head was slammed repeatedly onto the wood floor (a very hard surface) and only received some bruises before he got restrained, but no cuts at all. And the report says this took place on grass because of the grass stains, now I know for a FACT a grassy surface is not hard enough to give multiple abrasions like he stated, even falling from a standing position. Which makes me thinks he inflicted those himself to get away with saying it was self defense. BUT thats just my view. I highly doubt Zimmerman did what he did in self defense and that he was just pissed off. Man I wish I could testify in the court and tell them about my standpoint on his injuries.
#457 to #454 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
Like I said before, you don't know that, you didn't witness it nor did I or probably anyone else here. Martin may have not bashed his head on the ground and was going to run but was shot in anger. Nobody was around to witness it and Martin can't tell his side of the story so Zimmerman can say whatever the hell he wants and his word will have to be trusted because he is the only one who can tell the story. Another thing is you don't need to have your head bashed repeatedly to get multiple abrasions. One good fall is enough to do it, I speak from experience.
User avatar #462 to #457 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
There are multiple witnesses:
This story was printed the day after the incident happened (Feb 27th), before anyone knew anything about it.

Amazing how it took a MONTH for anyone to care about this incident.


Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.
#461 to #457 - malific has deleted their comment [-]
#460 to #457 - malific has deleted their comment [-]
#442 to #426 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
Are you even keeping up with the case? Zimmerman confirmed he was in a vehicle (yeah he's gunna go patrol around the neighborhood all night in heavy rain on foot, what is this Vietnam? He's a neighborhood watch for ***** sake.) and that Martin did try to run and thats why he "tried to stop him". And yeah, Zimmerman didn't chase him, thats why he got within arms reach of Martin. Don't try to deny it you would have been scared if you were in Martin's shoes and would have most likely acted in self defense.
User avatar #451 to #442 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
He got out of the vehicle to tail Martin moron.

According to the attorney's statement, Martin's girlfriend said that he expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?"

#455 to #451 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
How do you know that? Did you witness it? No? Really me neither. I'm just going off what I've read on the news, I don't know what happened there nor does anyone here. The article I read says Zimmerman admits he tried to run and he was only trying to stop him so the police could do their job, but it ended in confrontation. But really, Martin had no idea who this guy was or why he was following him so it doesn't surprise me he did what he did.
User avatar #458 to #455 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Read some more.
ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Everyone is assuming Zimmerman is a liar so I'm not using anything he says. because.. well no one believes it. What you're failing to spend time on though is the fact that Zimmerman then said he lost Trayvon and RETURNED to his vehicle.

I'm using ALL the Evidence I have you need to stop half assing yours to fit what you WANT to happen. And start looking at all of it.

Here's another question, though. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin... Why was Martin dead by Zimmerman's SUV, since he got out of the vehicle to chase Martin how did they end back to it?
#505 to #458 - eboloramma (04/15/2012) [-]
I can't thumb you up anymore. Good job my friend.
User avatar #393 to #356 - roninpenguin (04/14/2012) [-]
You know, if some dude started following me for no reason and then threatened me in some way I would probably fight back to.

Yes, yes, we don't know if Zimmerman threatened Martin in any way, but things don't happen in a vacuum and Martin had no record of violent behavior so something had to set him off and all I can keep coming back to is what would I do if some dude started following me in the rain.

I also wonder who would stand behind who if Martin had been old enough to be armed and decided to defend himself against someone that he thought was a threat...
User avatar #400 to #393 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Martin had been caught with drugs at school, as well as larger amounts of expensive women's jewelry.

According to the girlfriend, who was on the phone at the time Martin asked why he was being followed, then Zimmerman asked what he was doing their.

Then something physical happened. Considering Zimmerman was the last person to ask a question human nature dictates he would wait for a response and Martin would give one.

What happened? No one knows. But when knock a guy down you don't start beating his head into the pavement when you want to get away and have acquired no injuries of your own.
User avatar #456 to #400 - roninpenguin (04/14/2012) [-]
A link to a source would be nice on that, I hadn't read that in any article from either side of the story.

Honestly though, we don't know exactly what caused which wound on Zimmerman, If I'm Martin and I'm out weighed by a guy by almost double, I'm tackling him and making sure he isn't going to easily get up to chase me. There is something missing in your view of the story though. First you said that Martin ran from Zimmerman, now you are saying Zimmerman said "What are you doing there" and then the physical confrontation.

Did Zimmerman speak, then Martin run and Zimmerman chase him? If so did Zimmerman stop Martin some how or did Martin turn and confront him because he was fearful of the person chasing him? Why did Zimmerman chase him if Martin had committed no crime?

I guess I still remember when I was a teenager and used to skate in offices and old washes. One time we were skating and an old strip mall parking lot and some guy came around the corner and said something of the nature of "You kids can't do that here!" and when we tried to leave the guy grabbed my friend. Now my friend had a little bit of a record (a few trespassing charges for skating pools) and didn't want to get nabbed so he wrestled away from the guy and the guy fell back and cracked his head on a parking block. My friend took off (understandably) while I stayed behind to check on him, but the first thing he did when I went near him is started swinging until I calmed him down and checked out his wound. Once the guy realized I was just trying to help he settled down, but I can't help but wonder if he had been more like Zimmerman if I would have been shot that day.
User avatar #486 to #459 - roninpenguin (04/14/2012) [-]
That link doesn't say anything about Martin being caught with Drugs or Expensive Jewelry.

It also kind of supports my point, Trayvon thought that he was in danger because he was being followed, so why is his act of defense (aka physically attacking Zimmerman) not "Self Defense" yet Zimmerman shooting him is?
User avatar #492 to #486 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]

March 27: The Miami-Dade Police Department says women’s jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin’s backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts. Police confirm that they had been asked by school police to help identify the property taken from Martin’s backpack. Martin previously was suspended for excessive absences and tardiness. At the time of his death, Martin was serving a 10-day suspension after school officials found an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in his backpack.
User avatar #491 to #486 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Breaking a guys nose and knocking him to the ground is self defense if you feel threatened. At that point the Stand your ground law requires you run.

Staying over the guy and bashing his head into the payment is an assault and can kill if it continues. Hence Zimmerman's self defense.
User avatar #498 to #491 - roninpenguin (04/15/2012) [-]
But we don't know if that is how it happened, and besides its not like you are going to be thinking rationally when you are hyped up on adrenaline and think your life might be in danger.

Think about it this way, if Martin hadn't been a minor and had been armed, I personally believe that HE could have used the "Stand Your Ground" law in his own defense. He was being followed by an armed person that he felt threatened by. Stand Your Ground is a law that is suppose to protect a person who needs to use force in self defense, but also in my opinion Zimmerman went from Defensive to Offensive the moment he started to pursue Martin, I mean he ran after a guy who hadn't committed a crime, armed, how can that not be an offensive act?
User avatar #520 to #498 - malific (04/15/2012) [-]
Hyped up on adrenaline wouldn't get him off, The Law requires you run. At best it would allow him to plead temporary insanity.

Yes if Trayvon had a gun he very well may have been able to use stand your ground. If both of them were completely uninjured and Zimmerman was dead. This would be an open and shut case. Self Defense, no one would care.

Buy Zimmerman gets brutally injured, and Trayvon is dead, and we get a media ********* .


The Media playing Racial Politics. That's the only reason anyone cares about this.

Running after him wasn't smart. But from the eyes of some one trying to protect his neighborhood, it's a sign of guilt. Zimmerman's plan would have been to detain him for authorities. At that point Martin had Self defense.

When martin through ZImmerman to the ground and started beating him. The tables turned. Martin is now the attacker and Zimmerman now has self defense. It's ****** up, but that's how the law works.
User avatar #525 to #520 - roninpenguin (04/15/2012) [-]
That is kind of my point though, should it be okay for Martin to have been able to kill Zimmerman, but not hit him? We don't know that he actually slammed his head into the ground multiple times, but if I have to use my hands to defend myself I am going to make sure that the guy I'm defending myself from will not be able to harm me after. Seeing as Zimmerman still had the ability to pull a weapon and use it, then Martin obviously hadn't done enough damage to escape unharmed.

To me, though, it is all about who made the least reasonable choice. I feel that Martin's choice to defend himself was reasonable, and in a vacuum Zimmerman's choice to defend himself was reasonable.

To me the least reasonable choice that was made was for Zimmerman to pursue Martin in the first place. Zimmerman had called the cops, even if Martin was the thief (which Zimmerman had no real evidence of) he would not have broken into any homes at that point knowing he had been made, he had already done his duty in protecting his and his neighbors property. What did Zimmerman expect to happen when he caught Martin? He hadn't seen any crime committed so the Cops wouldn't be able to hold him on anything, the best he could hope for was that Martin had an outstanding warrant out on him or something but what were the chances of that?

No, Zimmerman wanted to be the "Big Damn Hero".

See, I love guns and hang out with gun people all the time. Most of us are really level headed and understand what defense means. But for every 10 of us there is always one Zimmerman, who's heart is in the right place but doesn't really understand where to draw that line. If someone were to try to break into my house I'll shoot them in a heart beat, same if they threaten my family, but if they see me and run I'm not chasing them because not only does it put me in danger, it also puts those around me in danger if this guy starts shooting back at me. Every firearm self defense course pretty much says that too.
User avatar #526 to #525 - malific (04/15/2012) [-]
For me it's somewhat simple.

If I'm on my back, person over me, being assaulted and I'm unable to get him off me physically, I'll shoot if I have the ability.

Remember from Zimerman's view this guy is a criminal, he's already knocked you down and now he's slamming your head into the ground. At this point fearing for you life is the logical thing to do.

Here's one of the first stories that ever came out, A full month before any of us even heard about it.


Published : Monday, 27 Feb 2012, 4:55 PM EST
SANFORD, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
User avatar #548 to #526 - roninpenguin (04/16/2012) [-]
So everything lead up to that point doesn't matter, no matter how many bad choices Zimmerman made, how many people that he may have put in danger by those choices, or the final consequences of those choices.

Every time I put my firearm on my belt I know that I have to be careful because I have the ability to take someone's Father, Mother, Child away from them. I know how it would ruin my life if I lost someone that close to me so I understand how important that is.

If I pick a fight with someone then I deserve my ass kicking, I'm not going to ruin others lives because of my poor choice, and that is exactly what Zimmerman did when he pursued Martin, he picked a fight because he wanted to be a bad ass. Pursuing Martin served no purpose except to make Zimmerman feel like a hero and a family has lost their son because of it.
User avatar #549 to #548 - malific (04/16/2012) [-]
Your argument is one that will be used to sway the jury no doubt about it.

But the simple fact is Martin over stepped his side. There are many cases that occur like that and The Martin side ends up at fault because they went beyond self defense.

It's a very fine line, and a very difficult one to see when you cross it. but the law itself doesn't care about how difficult it is to see.

All your arguments are valid. At this point it's up to the jury to decide which side has more weight. The circumstances, or the law.
#363 to #356 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
Sorry but his dad claimed he had a broken nose not the police. Also no wounds on the kid's knuckles either. The force required to break someone's nose would leave visible damage on the hands. Again a grown man disobeyed the police and shot a kid. He's done for and deserves it because he's an idiot!!
User avatar #408 to #363 - aceofshadows ONLINE (04/14/2012) [-]
1. ******** . Your nose is made of cartilage which is not as hard as bone and is flexible. There wouldn't be damage to the hands. Also, how do you know he broke his nose with his hands?
2. The person who he was talking to was a civilian working on the other side of the call (for 911). They weren't a member of the police. They did NOT tell him not to pursue trayvon. They said they didn't need him to.
User avatar #430 to #408 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/14/2012) [-]
When you punch someone in the nose hard enough to break it there will be visible signs on the attackers hands. The cartilage is hard enough to wound the hand to a degree. Anyone who has studied medicine knows this.
User avatar #418 to #408 - littlenish (04/14/2012) [-]
The nose is made of both bone and cartilage. The lower part is cartilage, while the bridge, is made of bone
User avatar #375 to #363 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
You really shouldn't go making an ignorant ass of yourself.. but HEY it's the internet who cares?
User avatar #373 to #363 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Brother not father. They have medical records.

Police: http:// abcnews You need to login to view this link /2012/04/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/
According to the Sanford police report, George Zimmerman, 28, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, is found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. He has a bloody nose and a wound in the back of his head.
#378 to #373 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm making an ass of meself now? Really? I've presented a more sound legal arguement than you youngin.
User avatar #381 to #378 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]

You've presented a very sound biased and baseless opinion, which would be thrown out of any court room in the country.

Thank you man you're post is going to have me laughing for weeks. It's tards like you that keep me coming here.
#385 to #381 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
Right it's not like I studied law and my word wouldn't be considered over that of an angry 15 year old ohh wait....
User avatar #390 to #385 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Blatant lie is blatant. Put him to death for gun debate?

You know dick about law my friend.

I'm not even going to argue age, you believe what you like, but My profile isn't hidden like yours is and I believe I have it set so my age is visible. you can accept that as truth or not I don't care. But I am done talking to you. You're so funny, but stupid so I'm done wasting my time.
#394 to #390 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
I would win in court little man.
#376 to #373 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
Even if this is the case you truly believe he'll fight a murder charge? lol
More things to consider:
1) Every kid is now a ****** or a wigger
2) It has national media attention

There is no way the angry beaner is going to win this case.
User avatar #380 to #376 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]

You obviously don't know a lot do you?

The guy's going to walk. The Blacks are going to riot. And the media is to blame.
#382 to #380 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
Right. Chances are they'll pick a "diverse" jury who will be out for his blood. A kid being a delinquent is expected now a days, a grown man killing one for such actions is not. He won't prove self defense and his record will be a chain around his neck. I wish they'd put him to death personally for the **** he's stirred and for agitating the gun debate again.
User avatar #386 to #382 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]

Put him death for causing a gun debate? Oh man I'm so glad you have absolutely no say in our justice system.

I don't know about you but if 6 feet 160lbs was banging my head against a sidewalk. I'd shoot it too.

What would you do? Try to talk him out of it?
#411 to #386 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm trying to understand how this guy has time to pull out a gun and shoot while a kid is banging his head against the sidewalk.
User avatar #448 to #411 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Put your self on your back, attacker over you.

Attacker has hand(s) on your head.

Reach into armpit holster/waisteband, grab gun. Point upwards blindly. Pull trigger.
#387 to #386 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
I wouldn't appoint myself head of the neighborhood watch, chase punks, and ignore the orders of the police. Better uses of my time. Also wouldn't trust the word of a criminal.
User avatar #392 to #387 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Then trust the evidence. Your law knowledge *snickers* should tell you that.
User avatar #427 to #392 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/14/2012) [-]
He will be found guilty mainly for disobeying the police orders which lead to the confrontation and the kid's death. If he had done as he was told by the police none of it would have happened. That will get you a second degree murder charge right there. It was his actions and blatant disregard for police orders that made it all happen.
User avatar #552 to #427 - malific (04/17/2012) [-]
Response to your comment 551 since it is unable to reply to that particular comment.

I've been an RPer for well over 20 years. My *snorts* and *sighs* are a text projection of my physical reactions to what I am responding to. They are put in to give a tone to my words, such as disbelief and exasperation, and are actions used constantly in real world communication.

Interpreting them as a sign of "tweenness" is possible but only if you actually fail to read the responses themselves in context of the conversations that are occurring. After reading this statements in full you will see I have full ability to call out the immature on their immaturity.
User avatar #553 to #552 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/17/2012) [-]
Nope, still can't with you "tweeness" coming out. You don't have to lie about being prepubescent, we forgive you. You will find love one day.
User avatar #554 to #553 - malific (04/17/2012) [-]

Well I'll just have to take your word on my acting like a tween since here on FJ is the only place I ever interact with any, yet I only ever see me using it.

Emotes as they are called are used quite largely across the internet and have been for decades. To say it is a sign of tweenness only shows your lack of experience and knowledge of the world at large. But then also your in depth knowledge of tweenness is suggests one of four possiblities, you are a tween, were not that long ago, are the parent of a tween, or possibly a sibling. None of which I can claim to be, and based on our conversation I am guessing you most likely fit the second or fourth option.

BTW you're showing your immaturity quite well. Mainly by drawing conclusions on my age based on no real evidence but also your inability to question your own misplaced conclusion. I'm quite able to re-evaluate my conclusions, and had done so in regards to the comment your initial allegation of tweeness responded to even before you made your response.

As to the person I had that original conversation with they have failed to claim their victory in regards to their age, maturity and experience. They probably never will since I highly doubt they are unable to answer the question I put to them. But as I said in my comment to them (#550) I'll eat my words if they can properly respond.

You may continue believing in my tweeness as long as you desire, it will not change the simple fact that you are wrong, but I have already attempted to assist you in alleviating your ignorance and feel no such need to do so from this point on.

Have a lovely time enjoying FJ content.

User avatar #555 to #554 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/18/2012) [-]
You do realize you are doing everything you are accusing others of doing. Ya that makes you the mature one. ******* tweens
User avatar #556 to #555 - malific (04/18/2012) [-]
Not at all.

I'm basing my assumptions on overall attitude, amount of relevant facts given and, whether or not any real thought is put into statements over the course of multiple posts.

You are basing your assumption on the fact that I use a very common form of communication across all age groups. Thus you are falling miserably short of any sort of truth because you are not thinking or using all the information which is available to you.

Also the more you speak the less mature you sound. I explain my assumptions and statements you simply come back with more false accusations and insults, and nothing to back you up on them.
User avatar #557 to #556 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/18/2012) [-]
Nah you just act like a child with how you talk to people.
User avatar #558 to #557 - malific (04/18/2012) [-]
Actually no, I act Condescending with how I talk to people, at least in this entire section here. Mainly because of miss-informed everyone is.

Like your earlier statement about having police officer buddies and family. So you "know" that disobeying a dispatcher is disobeying a police officer.

Well you're right, disobeying a Dispatcher IS disobeying a LEO, because dispatchers are LEOs. However 911 operators are NOT LEOs and disobeying them is NOT disobeying a LEO.

911 Operators are unable to give ORDERS to people. If disobeying an order from a 911 operator was disobeying an order from a LEO he would have been arrested immediately for obstruction of justice.

Disobeying the operator will certainly hurt him in trial but it is not considered disobeying a LEO.
User avatar #563 to #559 - malific (04/19/2012) [-]
Yes there is, I'm glad you brought this to my attention.

Based on me posting facts, explanations, and logical thought processes vs you and your 'you use this so you'er tween', followed by you continuously backing up said statement simply by repeating it and adding on insults, it's quite obvious you're the idiot.

Thank you for reminding me, this is where I stop arguing with you. Feel free to continue posting for your own self satisfaction though. I'm simply going to delete the notification.

But I know you'll read this one, just like you've read (or scanned over without comprehension) all the others.

Enjoy your stay on FJ.
User avatar #564 to #563 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/19/2012) [-]
Actually all you have done it talk around in circles and drag out a simple explanation to. Make yourself seem smarter than you really are. You have provided very little facts against anyone's argument. This is what is known as a ******** in the public speaking world. I have seen plenty of these in my time, and you sir are just another one to fall into that crowd.
#560 to #559 - malific (04/18/2012) [-]
Typical, lose the argument, so say you don't really care.   
Son, I am disappoint.   
And since I'm sure another emote would be considered tweenenss by you, here's a gif instead.
Typical, lose the argument, so say you don't really care.

Son, I am disappoint.

And since I'm sure another emote would be considered tweenenss by you, here's a gif instead.
User avatar #562 to #560 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/18/2012) [-]
There is losing an argument and refuses to argue with an idiot.
User avatar #432 to #427 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
-_- You really believe that? I feel sorry for you.

He was talking to a 911 operator, not a police officer. He didn't speak to a police officer until they arrived on the scene.

If he had disobeyed a police officer he would have been arrested immediately for "obstruction of justice."

That argument will be used against him by the prosecution, but in a court of law it will only be circumstantial evidence at best.
User avatar #436 to #432 - EvilFluffyBunny (04/14/2012) [-]
Disobey a dispatcher's order to not follow a suspect is considered to be disobeying police orders. I have many police officers buddies and family members so I know this for a fact. Because he disobeyed the order it lead to someone's death that otherwise would have been avoided. That will get a second degree murder charge.
#450 to #436 - malific has deleted their comment [-]
#441 to #436 - eboloramma (04/14/2012) [-]
No it absolutely is not. Dispatchers are not police and what they say are not orders. They are suggestions.
#399 to #392 - dwarfman (04/14/2012) [-]
1) Dead kid check
2) Angry man with gun check
3) Man ignores orders of law enforcement check
4) Man has criminal record check
5) Case is now national media story check

Result? Guilty easily.
You've done nothing but *snicker*/laugh and presented little in the way of counter argument. His injuries alone won't let him walk he's done.
#515 to #399 - eboloramma (04/15/2012) [-]
You are so unbelievable wrong. This case is lucky to make it to a jury before a judge throws it out.
#435 to #399 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
I can play the bias game too!

1) Dead juvenile delinquent check.
2) Man trying to protect himself AND his neighbors check.
3) Man was told he "doesnt have to" follow NOT "do not follow".
4) Man has NO criminal convictions that prevent handgun ownership.
5) Case is now a national media story, but you're retarded if you believe anything the news spits out. Case in point the fact they use biased pictures to aid what they have decided.

Result: Your biased ******** shows you've made the decision regardless of the facts.
User avatar #423 to #399 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
I know i said I'd leave, buy your stupidity deserves a response to this one.

1) Evidence.
2) Opinion.
3) Circumstantial at best.
4) Goes to character. Martin also has noted criminal activities. Circumstantial in both cases.
5) No relevance to verdict.
Result? Not enough evidence to prosecute let alone convict.
You've missed a lot you need. But I'll assume you're just shortening your response so I won't list it all and give it to you cause it is out there.

Here's some from the other side.
6) Florida Stand your Ground law: Florida Statute the case will be based around.
7) Martin Attacked Trayvon: Physical evidence leads to this conclusion.

Presented little in way of counter agrument?
Please read comments 356 (INCLUDING the article), and 373, the reset was just pointing out your obvious stupidity, but here goes some more. Read comment 400 (wasn't to you so you missed it).

His injuries actually ARE all he needs to win based on the stand your ground law, that and the fact that Martin had no injuries other than the gunshot. This means Trayvon attacked him, not the other way around. The severity and nature of the injuries indicate that they could easily be life threatening if continued. Martin showed no signs of stopping when he was shot. (Insert last sentence of comment 400.)

I feel sorry for your delusions, but at least you admitted you know nothing about law. And no, you wouldn't win in court. You seem to think public opinion has sway in court cases. They don't. Anyone who knows law knows this. Heck anyone who knows past cases knows this. We've seen tons of people that the public thought was guilty go free.

Micheal Jackson, O.J. Simpson, there was a white cop In St. Pete Florida who shoot a black guy trying to run him with a car. He was exonerated and the blacks rioted in the streets over it. Same thing is going to happen here.
And with that, I'm finally done. Good night, sleep well.
#425 to #423 - fefe (04/14/2012) [-]
User avatar #433 to #425 - malific (04/14/2012) [-]
Yes yes we do +thumbs for you.
 Friends (0)