The “at some point” was after the shot.
Let’s see what that ratio is after the trial. Polls indicate he’s gaining in support right now.
I won’t wish him ill just yet, but he better not profit from this when he’s acquitted, either. I have visions of him appearing as a Fox News Correspondent, or even running for office. I mean, it’s Florida, so it’s possible.
Cite? The article puts the “I’ve got a gun” comments before the gun went off, not after.
I would think such an announcement rather pointless, after the fact. Those big ass caliber pistols lack all subtlety.
Thank you for demonstrating just how biased the media coverage is (and how you swallow the lies hook, line and sinker)
From the report by Serino - one of the investigators - on 3/13/2012:
[The witness] articulated the sounds he heard as “ah, ah, ah,” and then he heard the same voice yelling, “help! help!” approximately twenty (20) times. He then heard a “pop,” ran upstairs, and then heard someone saying “I’ve got a gun, I’ve got a gun,” “take my gun from me.”
So your opinion is no one should have an opinion on what happened that night? Thanks!
Of course, you checked to see that wasn’t one of the witnesses who changed their testimony? You did that, right?
Is it too much to ask that agenda-ridden attempts at snark not be made every 3rd fricken post?
Yes, I did.
Now, do you think it is incredibly dishonest for the media to report "a witness heard Zimmerman say “I’ve got a gun” when the full quote is as I cited it? And if you google you will see multiple MSM sources repeating the dishonest quote.
Nobody says you have to read them. See my name, pick up your little basket and skip along, skip along. I’ll get over it.
Your visions are unrealistic. Go with the mundane-- a book deal.
That’s why I read these threads regularly (although I also read through the entire 183 pages of discovery documents). I agree it was misleading, but that’s what sells papers - and it cuts both ways as far as bias - for this and most news stories.
That goes without saying.
The sort of brain damage Zimmerman suffered? My brother and son have better sense than to go around playing cop with a loaded gun and they could certainly hold their own against a skinny teen. But lets’s say they were retarded and armed and followed someone fleeing from them thus scaring the bejeesus out of them. Let’s say they were too stupid to figure out somebody they were chasing might turn flight into fight when cornered. If they had then gotten the worst of the fight I think they would realize their own culpability in the situation and at the very least not shoot to kill. It sure as hell wouldn’t be a comfort to me to know they had initiated someones death with their dumbassery.
I understand being a man might not be your forte’ but to kill someone in a fight you yourself initiated and not with your hands where it is fair (as you both could accidently) but with a gun which is a total negation of fairness and decency is a puss move of the highest order. A real man doesn’t kill if he can at all help it. He isn’t so afraid of losing his own life that he takes anothers if there is any another way.
I’ll give an example. A buddy of mine was under his car changing his universal joint in Memphis when he felt a knife in his belly. He said sure he would give him his wallet and then reached under his seat and pulled out his gun. I would have just tossed my wallet because no amount of money is worth a life to me but I understand he was concerned about the knife and the possibility of injury or death. Did he kill the guy? He was an imminent threat. No. He shot him in the knee. And HE didn’t even initiate the confrontation. THAT is an example of a man.
Oh but what if he had been killed or injured? It IS a possibility. That’s why it takes courage. Go on and kill anyone you think might pose a danger if you chase them. It’s legal in Florida. And total puss. Particularly when they only have their hands and you have been chasing them without a uniform or any damn authority at all and making them fear for their life. Obviously it was a well founded fear.
Lastly it’s not a fair argument to ask a parent if they want a live coward or a dead (or brain dead) hero. Soldiers families have to make that decision all the time and I know what they would pick. Unfortunately for them they raised their sons and daughters better.
Yep, moron.
Indeed you are.
If it were true that I swallow lies without scrutiny, I wouldn’t have asked for a cite or prefaced my statements as “according to this cite”.
Thanks for the info.
Given the situation, wouldn’t that be very close to fighting words?
If I may, I believe the counselor is advising that the sharing of opinions is pointless mental masturbation, i.e., wasted time which could be much better spent on the regular kind. (Hence his frequent, extended absences.)
Well… maybe, but I don’t think so.
Let’s talk about fighting words.
First, let’s be clear on what the concept is: the doctrine is intended to remove First Amendment protection from words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It does not, by itself, criminalize the utterance of those words. The “fighting words” doctrine simply says that if a state makes such words criminal, the speaker cannot invoke the First Amendment to protect himself from prosecution.
Maybe the best example of how high that bar has to be is in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). A cross was burned on the front lawn of an African-American family, which, I think you’ll agree, is “speech” (at least in the broader sense of expressive conduct). Now, of course that’s against the law for reasons having nothing to do with the content of the expression; you can’t burn a cross or anything other piece of wood on my property, period. But the city of Minneapolis chose to charge the burner with a hate crime, under a city ordinance that read:
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction:
[
Westboro Baptist’s (aka “God Hates Fags, Inc.”) displays have been similarly excused, even though it’s hard to imagine more fighting-inciteful words than those, expressed in the context of a military funeral.
So why did I say “maybe” instead of an outright “no?”
Because I haven’t looked at Florida’s laws with this question in mind. Maybe Florida has some law that could reach Zimmerman’s hypothetical phrase without overreaching into First Amendment protection territory.
I have done more research on Florida law in the past month than I imagined I’d ever do in my life, so I’m going to pass on the initial invitation here, and say only that if someone else claims “OK, boy, what kind of stuff you been stealin’ tonight?” is violative of Florida law and that the law in question is NOT constitutionally infirm, have at it, with citations, please. I am happy to grade someone else’s work as long as I don’t have to do the heavy lifting.