3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 If he wins, I think he'll be fine. He just needs to move to a city where gun laws are as harsh and strict as possible. Like Chicago. Was that 8 more shootings there yesterday or today? Then again, maybe both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 If he wins, I think he'll be fine. He just needs to move to a city where gun laws are as harsh and strict as possible. Like Chicago. Amen to that. Anybody can pack illegally and shoot somebody. If he becomes a resident of Illinois, no way he becomes legal in the state and no way they give him a FOID card. And believe it or not... Even I just got one... w/Zimmerman, he would be better off NOT being a resident of Illinois and still stay in Chicago. That way he can find a state that will legally give him a gun and then he will be legal in Illinois when he comes and "visits." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passepartout Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Well the case kind of has died down over Boston, Sandy Hook. tornados, among other things. But when the trial REALLY starts, things will heat up again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Has there been any new evidence that contradicts Prof. Alan Dershowitz’s argument that the whole 2nd degree case against Zimmerman is entirely baseless? According to the Harvard law professor all the physical evidence supports Zimmerman’s claim of self defense and that he shouldn’t even have been indicted. As someone pointed out a few pages back, much of the support for George Zimmerman from conservatives on this board was not due to the simplistic "race" narratives that the left are so quick to assume, but due to the outrageous media "campaign". Have we forgotten what happened the first month? NBC News and the NYT were caught editing the audiotape in a way to make Zimmerman appear to have acted racially. ABC News published a video of Mr Zimmerman being led into the police station and claimed that there was no indication of any injuries on his person. After other media outlets proved that claim incorrect, ABC News “broke the story” that there were two gashes on the back of Mr Zimmerman’s head and his nose was busted. Darn that new media! Then, there was the reverse of the OJ Simpson-Newsweek situation where news outlets like the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, or Democracy Now were found to have been using a photograph of Mr Martin with lightened skin. I guess that they believe dark-skinned blacks are more scary looking….. How else do you explain lies like those told by the media that Mr Zimmerman wasn’t even detained or questioned when, in fact, he was interrogated for 5 hours? How else do you explain NBC’s Ron Allen letting viewers imagine the racial epithet Zimmerman used for the man he was allegedly stalking, as he did on the 20 March 2012 edition of the NBC Nightly News? How else do you explain ABC News’ correspondent, Matt Gutman, claiming that Mr Martin was shot “because he was black” with no evidence other than that manufactured by the media? How else to you explain the Dowderisation of the audio tape? How else do you explain Obama’s silence on the New Black Panther’s bounty on George Zimmerman? How else to explain the "discovery" of a new category of race (in media terms) the"White Hispanic" ? After all we are talking about a man, who not only mentored African-Americans and has black family members, two years ago, he publicly condemned and called for the investigation of the very same police force that investigated the Martin shooting when they beat a black, homeless man. . Edited June 2, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Is it bizarre to think that the case has so completely turned around that it's now racist to believe that the man is guilty... ...when the opposite was true at the beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 If he wins, I think he'll be fine. He just needs to move to a city where gun laws are as harsh and strict as possible. Like Chicago. Or NYC, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/25-people-shot-48-hours-article-1.1361388 If obama had a son, would he look like any of these guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Or NYC, http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1361388 If obama had a son, would he look like any of these guys? Thank goodness for the progressives who are succeeding in stomping out the NYPD's stop & frisk policy. I guess we'll need to go back to the crime levels of the '80s for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Thank goodness for the progressives who are succeeding in stomping out the NYPD's stop & frisk policy. I guess we'll need to go back to the crime levels of the '80s for a while. We just need more time for NY's new gun laws to show their effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Thank goodness for the progressives who are succeeding in stomping out the NYPD's stop & frisk policy. I guess we'll need to go back to the crime levels of the '80s for a while. The hipsters are pining for the '70s-'80s nostalgia. You know, the world looked so much better in photographs in the era before they were born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The hipsters are pining for the '70s-'80s nostalgia. You know, the world looked so much better in photographs in the era before they were born. Thank you for your input Mr. Eastwood. Excuse me while I get off your lawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 This is still freaking awesome. People are arguing over some dumb punk getting killed and some guy with an IQ equal to a rock shooting the dumb punk. At this point anyone can argue right or wrong, legal or not, but there is no way in hell this guy gets found guilty with what is already known. Unless there is some special evidence to show George in a video torturing little black babies, drowning puppies in Arizona Iced Tea and throwing skittles at nuns...he walks. That people debate this, that it stays in the news is sad. How many more worthy people have lost their lives since? The only solace I take away from this event is that we are not discussing a fat Kardashian spawning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 This is still freaking awesome. People are arguing over some dumb punk getting killed and some guy with an IQ equal to a rock shooting the dumb punk. At this point anyone can argue right or wrong, legal or not, but there is no way in hell this guy gets found guilty with what is already known. Unless there is some special evidence to show George in a video torturing little black babies, drowning puppies in Arizona Iced Tea and throwing skittles at nuns...he walks. That people debate this, that it stays in the news is sad. How many more worthy people have lost their lives since? The only solace I take away from this event is that we are not discussing a fat Kardashian spawning. What we should be taking away from this event is that the "stand your ground" law needs to be tweaked at the very least. Imagine if you were that the opposite of what happened happened. Let say GZ didn't get to his gun in time and TM beet him to death there on the sidewalk. Should TM get off with nothing? after all, he would have been "standing his ground" wouldn't he? Once that fight started who ever ended up killing the other could claim self defense under "stand your ground". The law needs to be tweaked. Not removed, just tweaked. What we should be taking away from this event is that the "stand your ground" law needs to be tweaked at the very least. Imagine if you were that the opposite of what happened happened. Let say GZ didn't get to his gun in time and TM beet him to death there on the sidewalk. Should TM get off with nothing? after all, he would have been "standing his ground" wouldn't he? Once that fight started who ever ended up killing the other could claim self defense under "stand your ground". The law needs to be tweaked. Not removed, just tweaked. *beat* not beet. !@#$ you dyslexia. !@#$ you right to hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What we should be taking away from this is that we need to find a way to prevent media driven prosecution persecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What we should be taking away from this event is that the "stand your ground" law needs to be tweaked at the very least. Imagine if you were that the opposite of what happened happened. Let say GZ didn't get to his gun in time and TM beet him to death there on the sidewalk. Should TM get off with nothing? after all, he would have been "standing his ground" wouldn't he? Once that fight started who ever ended up killing the other could claim self defense under "stand your ground". The law needs to be tweaked. Not removed, just tweaked. *beat* not beet. !@#$ you dyslexia. !@#$ you right to hell! What we should take away from this is don't !@#$ with someone unless you carry a bigger stick and are prepared to use it. GZ just so happened to have the bigger stick that day. The law should be tweaked - definitely. As in, if you get touched by someone repeatedly that shouldn't touch you, you can shoot them. Anyone want to play tag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Is it bizarre to think that the case has so completely turned around that it's now racist to believe that the man is guilty... ...when the opposite was true at the beginning? I wouldn't go that far. Despite this board being near unanimous - I don't think the general public will support that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I wouldn't go that far. Despite this board being near unanimous - I don't think the general public will support that statement. I don't disagree that the general public still has its doubts. The reason that it is nearly unanimous here that GZ is innocent, or at least not guilty is that in most cases the people addressing it at PPP are much more knowledgeable than the general public. Every once in awhile someone from the main board will drift down here, see the discussion and call us all nuts. Of course they haven't read an article or watched a report on this case since April of 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I don't disagree that the general public still has its doubts. The reason that it is nearly unanimous here that GZ is innocent, or at least not guilty is that in most cases the people addressing it at PPP are much more knowledgeable than the general public. Every once in awhile someone from the main board will drift down here, see the discussion and call us all nuts. Of course they haven't read an article or watched a report on this case since April of 2012. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 :lol: You can quit laughing now. I wasn't referring to you as being more knowledgeable than the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 :lol: you do know that this isn't a "stand your ground" case right? It's a simple self defense case. In other words, he had a reasonable fear that his life was about to be snuffed out. The same self defense right you'd have in any state. The stand your ground controversy is a figment of the msm. That's what the defense is using forget "stand your ground". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What we should be taking away from this event is that the "stand your ground" law needs to be tweaked at the very least. Imagine if you were that the opposite of what happened happened. Let say GZ didn't get to his gun in time and TM beet him to death there on the sidewalk. Should TM get off with nothing? after all, he would have been "standing his ground" wouldn't he? Once that fight started who ever ended up killing the other could claim self defense under "stand your ground". The law needs to be tweaked. Not removed, just tweaked. *beat* not beet. !@#$ you dyslexia. !@#$ you right to hell! Can you or anyone else PLEASE tell me how "stand your ground" has anything whatsoever to do with this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts