- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 10:36
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
And I'll be ready to stomp it back down again.
Shouldn't you be posting about how you are going to be rioting on twitter?
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:53
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Did I hit a nerve Johnny Rebel?
Now that's just racist as all gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:55
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
I'm a pretty quick draw we can have a Mexican standoff.
http://youtu.be/sXldafIl5DQ
Go three ways and add awesome music.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:04
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Guilty, or Not-Guilty, the biggest issue here is the law itself, not this one case in particular.
SYG gives wannabe tough-guys license to instigate confrontations and then shoot people when they get in over their head. It's a terribly lovely law that needs to go ASAP, and hopefully this case is the catalyst
Do you even know how SYG laws work?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:20
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Zimmerman's posting in the thread????
That's really loving racist, you bigot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:23
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Absolutely. And furthermore the civil suit only needs to prove that zimmerman was more than 51% responsible. Its a lot easier to win the civil case that it is the criminal case.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2012/03/can-trayvons-family-sue-zimmerman-in-civil-court.html
Sorry, Martin's family can't sue Zimmerman.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:46
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Thats for SYG not self-defense. Pay attention.
YOU pay attention.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:51
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
I think his testimony under cross examination would have shown his true actions were not covered by SYG.
SYG wasn't brought up in the trial.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 09:57
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Hypothetically? Say Zimmerman grabs Trayvon. Trayvon yells, "Get off" and elbows Zimmerman in the face. Zimmerman goes down and hits his head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman goes for his gun, Trayvon sees it and jumps on him to try to get the gun away from him. In that case, Martin would be on top, struggling with Zimmerman, and probably screaming for help at the same time.
I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened, but it's a logical explanation.
Who was the second gunman on the grassy knoll?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:21
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
This is something that I just thought of today.
I was listening to a news report that was talking about Florida's Stand Your Ground law.
It states:
If Martin thought he was about to be a victim of a crime because he was being pursued by another person in the middle of the night, wasn't he allowed under Florida law to defend himself with deadly force if necessary? So aren't all these arguments about how much Zimmerman was injured moot because Martin was legally allowed within the law to apply such force?
I read a lot of arguments saying, "WELL Martin shoulda just RUN away instead he bashed George's head against the concrete!" but.. given the law, wasn't he allowed to do that?
Attacked means what again?
Jeantel herself said Martin threw the first punch. That means he was the attacker.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 00:04
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
She's 100% credible when she is backing up Zimmerman's account. Just like Zimmerman himself.
Everybody in this thread is coming up with crazy theories without any proof. It is getting to the point of I don't know who has a worse theories, people in this thread, or crazy people who really believe the earth is 4000 years old and men rode dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 01:02
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
quote:The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2012-153.
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
See the key words here?
There was no stalking involved in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 03:48
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
Following and fixating on a stranger is not stalking, gotcha!
REPEATEDLY
That means more than once right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 03:52
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 10:36
|
|
- InterceptorV8
- Mar 9, 2004
-
Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
|
How many 911 calls has Zimmerman made on random passer bys? He is a stalker.
Holy poo poo, that makes no sense what-so-ever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 03:57
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:42
