OT, F' Florida.

  1. carbon gecko

    offline
    Member

    Some of the Canadians here may know Spirit of the West.
    They have a song called "Loaded Minds"
    Here's how it starts:

    young boy is killed by a gun toting driver
    he caught him cause the kid went too far
    when the man was asked why
    he replied with conviction
    i caught the young punk throwing stones at my car
    stones at my car
    uncle sam's on the billboard
    stars and stripes shining
    as i drive by he's a message for me
    the sign reads the constant preparation for war
    this is the preservation of peace
    there's a war in our streets
    there's a war in our streets
    and we're loading our minds
    with the word self-defence
    take someone's life for
    crossing over our fence
    there's a war in our streets
    there's a war in our streets
    and we're loading our minds
    with the word self-defence

    Read more: SPIRIT OF THE WEST - LOADED MINDS LYRICS http://www.metrolyrics.com/loaded-minds-lyrics-spirit-of-the-west.html#ixzz1qc1MWF6r
    Copied from MetroLyrics.com

    Posted 1 year ago
  2. rnddude

    offline
    Member

    "IF your initial reaction to that was "I need more facts",
    Well then, again, if the shoe fits....Oh and, if Zimmerman was beat up, broken nose, back of the head smashed into the sidewalk, In a fatal shooting investigation, there would not be photographs taken of that?
    Again, I will wait for the official report, but I would LOVE to be the attorney for the Martin family when the civil suit if filed."

    Danboo, from your very first post it appears that your mind was made up about what happened, OK, that is your perogative. But then I noted the phrase in your last post...."Again, I will wait for the official report,"

    Ummm, that is what I have been saying all along, was taken to task for that, and now YOU say it....well now I am confused...

    "To be free and to live a free life - that is the most beautiful thing there is."
    Miguel Indurain
    Posted 1 year ago
  3. Berzin

    offline
    Member

    Zimmerman racially profiled the kid from the very beginning. It's all there on the 911 call.

    Then he pursues Martin AFTER HE WAS TOLD NOT TO BY THE POLICE.

    And we are supposed to believe that Trayvon was the aggressor when Zimmerman was purposely going after him for no reason and had already made up his mind that Martin must have been under the influence of drugs? He was behaving not as an unlicensed security guard, but as a vigilante.

    I see a Simi Valley-type of jury acquittal for Zimmerman if this ever goes to trial. That's how they roll in Florida, which is why the "Stand Your Ground" law is so popular. It gives goons like Zimmerman a license to kill.

    As for anyone jumping to the conclusion of racial prejudice before some of the facts came to light, sometimes certain incidents just seem a bit too obvious to be anything other than what they are.

    Posted 1 year ago
  4. Justacyclist

    offline
    Member

    @Berzin...

    You said: "As for anyone jumping to the conclusion of racial prejudice before some of the facts came to light, sometimes certain incidents just seem a bit too obvious to be anything other than what they are."

    I guess this is what Zimmermann did, perhaps he also felt that certain incidents seem just a bit too obvious.

    The real tragedy, it would seem to me, is that prejudice of all flavors seems to be the enemy of justice for everyone.

    Posted 1 year ago
  5. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    By complete coincidence, our Spring Break vacation overlapped with Springsteen's only FL show (in Tampa). Halfway through the show, with no introduction or mention of Trayvon's name, came this.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nghqjBwZTiE

    All I can tell you is that moment when he raised his finger after the first verse of the song was one of the most powerful moments I have experienced at a Springsteen show. In an area not far from where Trayvon was gunned down, everyone knew exactly what was being said.....

    "You can get killed just for living in your American Skin."

    Indeed.

    Just say "NO!!" to WCP!

    "Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work"
    Posted 1 year ago
  6. Danboo

    offline
    Member

    Thanks for that Cosmic, powerful indeed!

    Posted 1 year ago
  7. Danboo

    offline
    Member

    I love how the apologists here for Zimmerman have Disappeared since the release of the tape at the police station.
    It turns out it was not taken 4 hours after the killing as first reported, but just 34 minutes after Zimmerman was "beat up" by Trayvon Martin.
    You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
    Kneejerk racists.

    Posted 1 year ago
  8. Cripesmoe!

    offline
    Member

    @ Boohoo I for one apologize for none of what I have posted and stand by it and do not believe myself to be a racist...I especially stand by my statement that you really do not give a shit about the young man, you only enjoy the platform that his death has brought about to spew your biggoted narrow minded bile of anyone not of your like mind to express your perverted sense of self rightousness.....In my opinion your constant vile attacks on this forum put you closer to a racist mindset than anyone else that has posted on this subject...

    Posted 1 year ago
  9. rnddude

    offline
    Member

    Having been on the wrong end of false accusations, and i'm not saying that is the case here at all, I especially appreciate DUE PROCESS. All of the notiarity of this case almost guarantees that justice WILL PREVAIL. If anything, to me this case highlights the problems with the 'stand your ground' laws, which are a really bad idea.

    Posted 1 year ago
  10. Berzin

    offline
    Member

    rnddude writes-"If anything, to me this case highlights the problems with the 'stand your ground' laws, which are a really bad idea."

    The application of the "stand your ground" law isn't conducive to the actions taken by Zimmerman. If it is true that Martin struck out at Zimmerman first, it was Martin who was standing his ground.

    It was Zimmerman who was pursuing Martin for no reason. When told to back off by the police dispatcher, he decided to get out of his car and confront Martin.

    If some asshole got out of his car and asked any of you what you are doing as you're walking down the street, which of the two parties is the aggressor?

    A private citizen has no right to ask anyone what they are doing walking down a public street.

    This case could be successfully argued without bringing race into the picture. But of course, race was a factor in how Zimmerman portrayed Martin. We cannot ignore that.

    Posted 1 year ago
  11. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    @Berzin, that is the big problem I am having with this whole thing.

    People are giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt as if he is a police officer or something.

    He was a citizen, if anything "Stand your ground" applies to Martin, not Zimmerman.

    It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
    Posted 1 year ago
  12. Cripesmoe!

    offline
    Member

    @Keith, actually that is a very interesting point as to the Martin youth, I kinda mentioned that in one post...provoke someone into having them feel they need to defend themselves from a perceived threat and then you claim the need to defend yourself from this threat...it does not quite seem right..

    In Michigan it is loosely called no retreat, but this only applies to your house or in your vehicle....

    Just this past weekend a 75 year old Detroiter shot an killed an armed 18 year old crawling into one of his windows....no charges filed but that is an actuall threat.....

    Posted 1 year ago
  13. rnddude

    offline
    Member

    here is the Fla statute....read it and decide for yourself if this is a good law....

    Florida
    2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[18]

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

    (5) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
    (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
    (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    Posted 1 year ago
  14. Inferno7

    offline
    Member

    Zimmerman's a murderer, with a history of violence against woman, and police. I believe he feels he has a sense of entitlement due to his father being a judge. If he told a cop to fuck off and fought with him after he interfered with an arrest you really don't think he fucked with Trayvon?

    7:10 pm Zimmerman calls 911 and is instructed not to follow
    7:17 pm Police arrive and Trayvon is dead

    A half hour later he gets thought the jail without any blood on his clothing what so ever, odd for someone getting the shit pounded out of them within the last hour.

    Don't confuse this with the media, Jackson, or Al. It's about a kid being murdered in cold blood by a self appointed executioner.

    LeMond VO2 max 95, Armstrong 82....doh
    Posted 1 year ago
  15. Inferno7

    offline
    Member

    Half hour later he gets brought to the jail*

    Posted 1 year ago

Reply

You must log in to post.