General Discussion

bullwinkle428

(20,662 posts)

62. As if on cue, the "Zimpologists" barrel in with a plethora of reasons

Reply to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:04 AM

Jul 2013

why it couldn't possibly work!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Travyon�s parents propose �Trayvon Martin Amendment� to self defense law [View all] Bjorn Against Jul 2013 OP

K&R MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #1

That would be nice to see. Hoyt Jul 2013 #2

Err, except the law already accounts for that.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #3

Well the Stand Your Ground law was the law that got applied in this trial Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #5

SYG is not separate law! Scootaloo Jul 2013 #7

If that is true... Pelican Jul 2013 #39

Zimmerman is likely to be immune from a civil suit from the Martins Pennycat Jul 2013 #46

I agree... Pelican Jul 2013 #52

No, actually, it wasn't. X_Digger Jul 2013 #8

And it is completely fucked up that the law did not consider him the aggressor Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #9

bullshit. i can walk up to you anywhere and anytime i want and talk to you. period. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #12

And if I don't want to talk to you you have no right to continue to pursue me Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #14

That doesn't rise to the level of an aggressor. X_Digger Jul 2013 #19

False, because popping a mentally unbalanced homeless person simply for MillennialDem Jul 2013 #71

The poster's criteria of 'following you aggressively' / chasing you and yelling at you.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #83

Well, except for Rachel Jeantel's testimony. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #86

Her rationale for Trayvon not being the aggressor XemaSab Jul 2013 #88

Her testimony was actually very consistent with the evidence. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #95

Did we watch the same testimony? I think not. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #89

I think so. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #96

No Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #13

George Zimmerman aggressively pursued Martin who had done nothing wrong Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #15

I see, you're (unintentionally?) conflating English vernacular with the legal concept X_Digger Jul 2013 #20

I am arguing that Florida law is wrong Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #22

You're also arguing that common law in all 50 states is wrong (unintentionally). X_Digger Jul 2013 #25

Yes, I do think gun laws in all fifty states are wrong Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #28

It's not a gun law. It's common law from the 1700's, before FL existed. X_Digger Jul 2013 #30

Sorry, there are 1700's laws I disagree with Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #31

No, I think you don't understand the implications of what you propose in your heartfelt desire to.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #32

You would have a point if Zimmerman had been chasing him to give him his credit card back Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #33

So GZ's legal actions should have made him the legal aggressor?!? X_Digger Jul 2013 #34

George Zimmerman killed a child, I do not believe his acts were legal. Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #35

You're assuming your premise. X_Digger Jul 2013 #37

No I am not assuming anything, George Zimmerman really did kill a child Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #38

The premise you're working backwards from is that the shooting was an illegal act. X_Digger Jul 2013 #40

And I am telling you that law is idiotic Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #41

Please, spend some time with an attorney (preferably criminal) in your circle of aquaintances.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #44

If she didn't know why he was chasing her. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #43

And you would go to jail, and rightly so. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #47

Okay. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #55

Anecdote trumps law! Love it. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #56

If you chase me, I'm going to mace you. Deal with it. n/t Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #58

I think you'll be the one dealing with it, from a jail cell. X_Digger Jul 2013 #61

K bye. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #64

Jesus, remind me not to go for a jog on your street. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #67

Jeeze. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #69

Look, I know things don't come across right in text sometimes and all AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #70

I'm finished playing. Sorry. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #72

Do people who are going to give someone their credit card back follow you slowly in MillennialDem Jul 2013 #73

Stealing that... Pelican Jul 2013 #42

:-P n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #45

Wait, what exactly do you want 'aggressor' to be? X_Digger Jul 2013 #18

Grabbing someone makes somebody the aggressor Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #21

If the jury had believed that Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #23

Had the state argued that GZ tried to detain TM, the defense would have argued that.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #24

And I am telling you that law is bullshit Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #26

Oh fer chrissakes. 'Shoot to Wound' is a hollywood / TeeVee concept, not reality. X_Digger Jul 2013 #29

+2 on the stupidity of "Shoot to Wound" Pelican Jul 2013 #48

Does SYG only apply if you have a gun? HockeyMom Jul 2013 #94

The memes are thick with you. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #66

. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #53

Nice sidestep, but still a dodge. X_Digger Jul 2013 #54

I don't know why paparazzi would be interested in me. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #57

(Me either, but that's still a dodge.) X_Digger Jul 2013 #60

OK, it's a "dodge" (whatever the hell you mean by that). Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #63

Incorrect. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #65

Sorry but Stand Your Ground was never brought up in this case indie9197 Jul 2013 #76

Cool, until a judge says this statute won't be allowed in the case SaveAmerica Jul 2013 #92

If the state can't meet the burden of proof to call the defendant an 'aggressor' X_Digger Jul 2013 #93

Mahalo for this news, Bjorn.. which I missed the Cha Jul 2013 #4

A better--but unrelated--revision would be to SYG itself. Igel Jul 2013 #6

So you want Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #16

You would rather that the rapist shoot the victim dead? reusrename Jul 2013 #74

Making policy only using one case Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #81

This would be good. HappyMe Jul 2013 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author HappyMe Jul 2013 #10

Wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial Taitertots Jul 2013 #17

Fear of death or GBH opens the floodgates for use of deadly force. Pennycat Jul 2013 #51

Nope, the fear has to be reasonable... Taitertots Jul 2013 #59

Pretty pointless...irrelevant to the case. dkf Jul 2013 #27

Exactly right. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #36

Your honor... He was walking in the same direction as I was... Pelican Jul 2013 #50

Staring at me from a vehicle, then chasing me on foot, then yelling at me is a little fucking MillennialDem Jul 2013 #75

Look at that logically... Pelican Jul 2013 #77

Oh horseshit. Staring is different than looking, and I don't stare at someone while running or MillennialDem Jul 2013 #82

The point is that... Pelican Jul 2013 #84

Again it's about a sum total of parts, not individual actions. I can yell "Hey fatty" at someone MillennialDem Jul 2013 #87

I don't think this would have made a difference. Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #49

why bring facts to Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #80

As if on cue, the "Zimpologists" barrel in with a plethora of reasons bullwinkle428 Jul 2013 #62

If they are legitimate reasons... Pelican Jul 2013 #68

"Zimpologists"? Like Jimmy Carter? (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #85

K&R. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #78

This message was self-deleted by its author JDPriestly Jul 2013 #79

What is the proposed revision? Vattel Jul 2013 #90

Hopeless gulliver Jul 2013 #91