|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 13 2013 15:31 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 15:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person. and im saying that punishing someone for an act that is completely legal because you decide after the fact that you consider it illegal is barbaric. it happens all the time though, parents get prosecuted because their kid kills themselves after finding their parents gun. its attributed to carelessness by the parents and negligence and they are prosecuted. its not so barbaric to think that someone who takes a life through willful ignorance should be held accountable.
In such cases, prosecution occurs because there exists a law which the parents violated. You cannot arbitrarily decide that someone's behavior was "negligent" or whatever term you want to use then punish them. There has to exist a law which describes such criminal behavior and it has to be in effect PRIOR to the act. This is one of the foundations of the USA and most modern justice systems.
|
On July 13 2013 15:31 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 15:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person. and im saying that punishing someone for an act that is completely legal because you decide after the fact that you consider it illegal is barbaric. it happens all the time though, parents get prosecuted because their kid kills themselves after finding their parents gun. its attributed to carelessness by the parents and negligence and they are prosecuted. its not so barbaric to think that someone who takes a life through willful ignorance should be held accountable. edit: guys im going to sleep, its 2:30 am in miami and im tired af. lets try to remember that different viewpoints are OKAY and that is the purpose of these forums. we can at least agree to disagree because at the end of the day im glad to be having this discussion. goodnight zzzZZZzz
im not sure about this "all the time" business, but i assume that the parents are prosecuted because they were negligent (i.e., an illegal act). just think about what you are saying. you are asking for a system where a person should be put in prison for 30 years even though they did not commit an illegal act. how is that ever a good or fair thing?
i agree with you that zimmerman is careless and that none of this would have happened if he had taken certain steps to prevent the situation. i dont buy into the whole trayvon was lying in wait and jumping out of the bushes bullshit. however, i also dont buy the argument that zimmerman should go to prison because he was careless in the initial incident when we dont know what actually happened to cause the confrontation and eventual shooting. the only evidence we have points to trayvon being the ultimate aggressor (maybe not in the first instance, but in the instance that matters). we dont send people to prison in such circumstances, and we dont make up ex post facto bullshit to justify sending them to prison. that is a shitty system.
|
@ HEAVENS
you make a good point that the question that should be asked is was there self defense? should you be able to claim self defense in this situation if it was zimmerman's irresponsibility that aggravated the situation when it did not NEED to be aggravated at all? trayvon could have claimed self defense too if he was alive, but he is not so why should we honor zimmerman's when we don't even have enough information to know who was the aggressor besides the known fact that zimmerman chose to follow?
1. If YOU START a fight, then the other person unreasonably tries to kill you, then you again receive the right of self defense and you can kill that person. So, there is a legal case when you not also start the fight but also can go free because of self defense. And this legal example is more powerful than what happens here where evidence paint a picture of TM starting the fight. Yeah, we may not know for sure, but everything strongly suggests that TM wanted the fight, from Rachel's testimony to fight experts.
2. There can't be two self defense in the same time. It can switch from person to person during the fight, but not in THE SAME time,
someone above me used a barfight as an example so ill stick to that.
if you get in a barfight with someone and the cops get called and break it up. they question you about the fight and you claim self defense, are you going to jail? yep. how are you going to claim self defense when you were involved in a fight. and this happens all the time, people willingly get into fights then they're all like oh self defense, yet the cop knows better and arrests your ass anyways and the other guy too. same shit here, how is zimmerman going to claim self defense when his actions initially escalated the situation in the first place?
1. The cops arrest you BOTH then at the police station will sort things out. To simplify it and assume no other collateral damage, one of you will walk the other will be charged.
2. Already answered above.
|
|
|
On July 13 2013 12:55 docvoc wrote:
Back to the trial: What is the verdict going to look like? It seems like the defense is really strong right now. I'd be hard pressed to convict Zimmerman on most of the counts (I don't know all of them, unfortunately so I can't say he would be fully acquitted) especially the large ones. Recently I've been seeing a lot of "black-out" threat-esque twitter and facebook posts about how if Trayvonn doesn't get "justice," they will riot; any thoughts?
I think it's a more complicated issue and judgement would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
But people will reduce it to the lowest common denominator whether out of ignorance or to further their own agenda. To be honest it can accomplish something but you have to have a focused goal and responsibility for the impact it can have on this world whether or not it benefits you or your agenda.
I am afraid of people that can commit violence without understanding. People that are bigots that hate Zimmerman because Martin was a black teenager and can't be reasoned with. It's ok to push an agenda like the scopes trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial to accomplish something but you have to carry yourself with a purity of responsibility and fairness for this man's life.
|
On July 13 2013 15:47 Kakaru2 wrote:
1. If YOU START a fight, then the other person unreasonably tries to kill you, then you again receive the right of self defense and you can kill that person. So, there is a legal case when you not also start the fight but also can go free because of self defense. And this legal example is more powerful than what happens here where evidence paint a picture of TM starting the fight. Yeah, we may not know for sure, but everything strongly suggests that TM wanted the fight, from Rachel's testimony to fight experts.
2. There can't be two self defense in the same time. It can switch from person to person during the fight, but not in THE SAME time,
So if someone reasonably tries to kill you, you cannot kill them in self defense? Semantics, I know 
My question actually is: Isn't this too much in the theoretical aspect and impossible to apply to this specific case? In a case such as this how can you objectively determine whether TM tried to kill Zimmerman? I might have missed a lot in this thread so maybe I'm asking a stupid question
|
It's not about an observer/referee watching the fight and saying: Look, TM is trying to kill GZ, from now on he's allowed to kill him.
Actually the test is if YOU (GZ in our case) reasonably believes that other guy tries to kill him. If his belief is justified then he is entitled to self defense.That's why wounds are not required, so you can kill in self defense before that other person actually hits you.
The whole debate in self defense cases is centered around "reasonably believes". The other guy may have made a joke, but if the victim doesn't know and he truly believes and he fears for his life then it is self defense. It doesn't matter what the truth actually was, or what the other person actually was trying to do.
|
On July 13 2013 20:24 Kakaru2 wrote:
It's not about an observer/referee watching the fight and saying: Look, TM is trying to kill GZ, from now on he's allowed to kill him.
Actually the test is if YOU (GZ in our case) reasonably believes that other guy tries to kill him. If his belief is justified then he is entitled to self defense.That's why wounds are not required, so you can kill in self defense before that other person actually hits you.
The whole debate in self defense cases is centered around "reasonably believes". The other guy may have made a joke, but if the victim doesn't know and he truly believes and he fears for his life then it is self defense. It doesn't matter what the truth actually was, or what the other person actually was trying to do.
You're kind of contradicting yourself when you say it's about reasonable belief and then goes on to say it's what the person himself truly believes. People aren't always reasonable.
|
Why don't you read the 1st post if my explaining of it to you it's not that good? much better than counting on someone else to explain it for you.
|
On July 13 2013 20:33 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:24 Kakaru2 wrote:
It's not about an observer/referee watching the fight and saying: Look, TM is trying to kill GZ, from now on he's allowed to kill him.
Actually the test is if YOU (GZ in our case) reasonably believes that other guy tries to kill him. If his belief is justified then he is entitled to self defense.That's why wounds are not required, so you can kill in self defense before that other person actually hits you.
The whole debate in self defense cases is centered around "reasonably believes". The other guy may have made a joke, but if the victim doesn't know and he truly believes and he fears for his life then it is self defense. It doesn't matter what the truth actually was, or what the other person actually was trying to do. You're kind of contradicting yourself when you say it's about reasonable belief and then goes on to say it's what the person himself truly believes. People aren't always reasonable.
Of course not, that's the point though:
Can we see how his unreasonable belief might have seemed reasonable at the time? Or is his unreasonable belief so unreasonable that it could never have seemed reasonable, even to the most unreasonable person in the most unreasonable time? Or more simply, is the belief unreasonable because we have the vantage point of looking back with hindsight 20/20 vision, or is it unreasonable no matter what was going on or how little information you had.
You're a cop responding to a home invasion. Young person points a toy gun at you and you blast him. It's not reasonable to think that a toy gun can kill someone. But it is reasonable to think that a cop might think it was a real gun.
Alternatively, you're a cop responding to a home invasion. Little kid stumbles toward you. You blast him. At no point is it reasonable to think that a little kid who is just approaching you is a deadly threat.
|
Here we go....
edit: nevermind
|
On July 13 2013 20:41 Kakaru2 wrote:
Why don't you read the 1st post if my explaining of it to you it's not that good? much better than counting on someone else to explain it for you.
Eh I have and here:
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
Hence it's not just about whether or Zimmerman (or someone else) "truly believes and he fear for his life," like I thought you were suggesting there. If not you can ignore my post.
On July 13 2013 20:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:33 nihlon wrote:On July 13 2013 20:24 Kakaru2 wrote:
It's not about an observer/referee watching the fight and saying: Look, TM is trying to kill GZ, from now on he's allowed to kill him.
Actually the test is if YOU (GZ in our case) reasonably believes that other guy tries to kill him. If his belief is justified then he is entitled to self defense.That's why wounds are not required, so you can kill in self defense before that other person actually hits you.
The whole debate in self defense cases is centered around "reasonably believes". The other guy may have made a joke, but if the victim doesn't know and he truly believes and he fears for his life then it is self defense. It doesn't matter what the truth actually was, or what the other person actually was trying to do. You're kind of contradicting yourself when you say it's about reasonable belief and then goes on to say it's what the person himself truly believes. People aren't always reasonable. Of course not, that's the point though: Can we see how his unreasonable belief might have seemed reasonable at the time? Or is his unreasonable belief so unreasonable that it could never have seemed reasonable, even to the most unreasonable person in the most unreasonable time? Or more simply, is the belief unreasonable because we have the vantage point of looking back with hindsight 20/20 vision, or is it unreasonable no matter what was going on or how little information you had. You're a cop responding to a home invasion. Young person points a toy gun at you and you blast him. It's not reasonable to think that a toy gun can kill someone. But it is reasonable to think that a cop might think it was a real gun. Alternatively, you're a cop responding to a home invasion. Little kid stumbles toward you. You blast him. At no point is it reasonable to think that a little kid who is just approaching you is a deadly threat.
I'm not saying anything differently. In fact the last example was what I was getting at. A paranoid person might fear for his life by having a kid stumble towards him, that is not justification for shooting the kid in self-defense no matter how much he believed it.
|
On July 13 2013 15:31 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 15:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person. and im saying that punishing someone for an act that is completely legal because you decide after the fact that you consider it illegal is barbaric. it happens all the time though, parents get prosecuted because their kid kills themselves after finding their parents gun. its attributed to carelessness by the parents and negligence and they are prosecuted. its not so barbaric to think that someone who takes a life through willful ignorance should be held accountable. edit: guys im going to sleep, its 2:30 am in miami and im tired af. lets try to remember that different viewpoints are OKAY and that is the purpose of these forums. we can at least agree to disagree because at the end of the day im glad to be having this discussion. goodnight zzzZZZzz
Different viewpoints can be okay, but that doesn't make them "correct". What you're arguing is that you think Zimmerman should go to jail because he had a heightened responsibility due to his gun ownership.. which would make sense if he does something illegal. You're skimming over the fact that he was getting assaulted when he shot the gun because the other person died as a result. The gun was there for defense, and the evidence highly suggests that defense was exactly what it was used for.
|
On July 13 2013 22:04 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:41 Kakaru2 wrote:
Why don't you read the 1st post if my explaining of it to you it's not that good? much better than counting on someone else to explain it for you. Eh I have and here: Show nested quote +In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. Hence it's not just about whether or Zimmerman (or someone else) "truly believes and he fear for his life," like I thought you were suggesting there. If not you can ignore my post. Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 20:33 nihlon wrote:On July 13 2013 20:24 Kakaru2 wrote:
It's not about an observer/referee watching the fight and saying: Look, TM is trying to kill GZ, from now on he's allowed to kill him.
Actually the test is if YOU (GZ in our case) reasonably believes that other guy tries to kill him. If his belief is justified then he is entitled to self defense.That's why wounds are not required, so you can kill in self defense before that other person actually hits you.
The whole debate in self defense cases is centered around "reasonably believes". The other guy may have made a joke, but if the victim doesn't know and he truly believes and he fears for his life then it is self defense. It doesn't matter what the truth actually was, or what the other person actually was trying to do. You're kind of contradicting yourself when you say it's about reasonable belief and then goes on to say it's what the person himself truly believes. People aren't always reasonable. Of course not, that's the point though: Can we see how his unreasonable belief might have seemed reasonable at the time? Or is his unreasonable belief so unreasonable that it could never have seemed reasonable, even to the most unreasonable person in the most unreasonable time? Or more simply, is the belief unreasonable because we have the vantage point of looking back with hindsight 20/20 vision, or is it unreasonable no matter what was going on or how little information you had. You're a cop responding to a home invasion. Young person points a toy gun at you and you blast him. It's not reasonable to think that a toy gun can kill someone. But it is reasonable to think that a cop might think it was a real gun. Alternatively, you're a cop responding to a home invasion. Little kid stumbles toward you. You blast him. At no point is it reasonable to think that a little kid who is just approaching you is a deadly threat. I'm not saying anything differently. In fact the last example was what I was getting at. A paranoid person might fear for his life by having a kid stumble towards him, that is not justification for shooting the kid in self-defense no matter how much he believed it.
But if that kid stumbles towards you, slams your head into the sidewalk, and punches you in the face/head over and over, that is justification for shooting the kid in self-defence no matter how much people don't want to believe it.
|
The fact they didn't come back right away and agree self defense means they are either split are arguing the two charges. Just my opinion, I don't see a not guilty verdict. Either split or guilty is my prediction
|
The jury back deliberating now?
|
On July 13 2013 22:40 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 22:04 nihlon wrote:On July 13 2013 20:41 Kakaru2 wrote:
Why don't you read the 1st post if my explaining of it to you it's not that good? much better than counting on someone else to explain it for you. Eh I have and here: In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. Hence it's not just about whether or Zimmerman (or someone else) "truly believes and he fear for his life," like I thought you were suggesting there. If not you can ignore my post. On July 13 2013 20:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 20:33 nihlon wrote:On July 13 2013 20:24 Kakaru2 wrote:
It's not about an observer/referee watching the fight and saying: Look, TM is trying to kill GZ, from now on he's allowed to kill him.
Actually the test is if YOU (GZ in our case) reasonably believes that other guy tries to kill him. If his belief is justified then he is entitled to self defense.That's why wounds are not required, so you can kill in self defense before that other person actually hits you.
The whole debate in self defense cases is centered around "reasonably believes". The other guy may have made a joke, but if the victim doesn't know and he truly believes and he fears for his life then it is self defense. It doesn't matter what the truth actually was, or what the other person actually was trying to do. You're kind of contradicting yourself when you say it's about reasonable belief and then goes on to say it's what the person himself truly believes. People aren't always reasonable. Of course not, that's the point though: Can we see how his unreasonable belief might have seemed reasonable at the time? Or is his unreasonable belief so unreasonable that it could never have seemed reasonable, even to the most unreasonable person in the most unreasonable time? Or more simply, is the belief unreasonable because we have the vantage point of looking back with hindsight 20/20 vision, or is it unreasonable no matter what was going on or how little information you had. You're a cop responding to a home invasion. Young person points a toy gun at you and you blast him. It's not reasonable to think that a toy gun can kill someone. But it is reasonable to think that a cop might think it was a real gun. Alternatively, you're a cop responding to a home invasion. Little kid stumbles toward you. You blast him. At no point is it reasonable to think that a little kid who is just approaching you is a deadly threat. I'm not saying anything differently. In fact the last example was what I was getting at. A paranoid person might fear for his life by having a kid stumble towards him, that is not justification for shooting the kid in self-defense no matter how much he believed it. But if that kid stumbles towards you, slams your head into the sidewalk, and punches you in the face/head over and over, that is justification for shooting the kid in self-defence no matter how much people don't want to believe it.
I can understand that, but in how far should the law be catered to a situation of conflict resolution instead of conflict avoidance? I understand that there are very big differences between countries in crime environment and cultural attitudes that will determine someone's stance on the matter, aside from the specific situation to consider. From my own cultural view it seems rather weird to initiate conflict and subsequently fear for your life.
|
On July 13 2013 23:02 Blacktion wrote:
The jury back deliberating now?
Yes, they started like an hour ago.
|
Jesus Christ, reading some of those comments on the gawker articles is so horrifying... the contrast between that shithole and this thread cannot be more stark:
http://gawker.com/will-george-zimmerman-get-away-with-murder-757850043
I love this quote from the article:
"So we get a self-defense case, because self-defense is what a killer claims when no other claim can possibly work."
(Yeah, because we all know that self-defense is a myth and never really exists.)
I'm just happy that people who are on this thread (generally), be they convinced of guilt or not, actually pay some kind of attention... rather than just make shit up willy-nilly and accuse everyone who thinks Zimmerman isn't guilty of being a racist.
|
Lol that gawker article. Makes me happy the government is monitoring everything, when shit goes down we'll have nice lists with all the crazies/dangerous/seditious people (referring to the twitter riot comments mostly).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
