Whether or not this cat was tatted up, a drug dealer, etc. -- wholly irrelevant to the analysis surrounding his death.
Thats statement is 100% false imo Kap. Your looks can create suspicion alone. If this guy was walking in my neighborhood I would do a double take. You know why? I know he doesnt live there. No of course there are a million reasons why he could be there, but I'm a sane and logical person, sogive him the benefit of being legit.. I most definately wouldnt go up to him and ask him what he doing, but I would keep my eye on him.
Whether or not this cat was tatted up, a drug dealer, etc. -- wholly irrelevant to the analysis surrounding his death.
Thats statement is 100% false imo Kap. Your looks can create suspicion alone. If this guy was walking in my neighborhood I would do a double take. You know why? I know he doesnt live there. No of course there are a million reasons why he could be there, but I'm a sane and logical person, sogive him the benefit of being legit.. I most definately wouldnt go up to him and ask him what he doing, but I would keep my eye on him.
they wont do it directly...they will do it piece by piece, state by state, city by city using incidents like this to gain public support
remember the smoking on planes? first it was no smoking on overseas flights, then longer than 5 hours, etc etc now you cant even smoke in your yard in some cities
Thats good news. Smoking is bullshit. I shouldnt have to inhale smoke because you want to.
they wont do it directly...they will do it piece by piece, state by state, city by city using incidents like this to gain public support
remember the smoking on planes? first it was no smoking on overseas flights, then longer than 5 hours, etc etc now you cant even smoke in your yard in some cities
Thats good news. Smoking is bullshit. I shouldnt have to inhale smoke because you want to.
Thats statement is 100% false imo Kap. Your looks can create suspicion alone. If this guy was walking in my neighborhood I would do a double take. You know why? I know he doesnt live there. No of course there are a million reasons why he could be there, but I'm a sane and logical person, sogive him the benefit of being legit.. I most definately wouldnt go up to him and ask him what he doing, but I would keep my eye on him.
It is what it is.
You can "double take" all you want. But it doesn't give you any more right to harass, stalk or kill them.
If you end up in a "black area", should black people have more legal right to stalk, harass or kill you?
Thats statement is 100% false imo Kap. Your looks can create suspicion alone. If this guy was walking in my neighborhood I would do a double take. You know why? I know he doesnt live there. No of course there are a million reasons why he could be there, but I'm a sane and logical person, sogive him the benefit of being legit.. I most definately wouldnt go up to him and ask him what he doing, but I would keep my eye on him.
It is what it is.
You can "double take" all you want. But it doesn't give you any more right to harass, stalk or kill them.
If you end up in a "black area", should black people have more legal right to stalk, harass or kill you?
You can "double take" all you want. But it doesn't give you any more right to harass, stalk or kill them.
If you end up in a "black area", should black people have more legal right to stalk, harass or kill you?
Did I say it gave me any rights?
I said I would keep an eye on him because he is out of the ordinary. Its animal instinct. Go into someones house who has a dog and see what happens. If it doesnt know you its ready to fuck you up.
If I was in a black area they wouldnt care because they know I'm not there to cause problems. White people dont go to "black areas" looking for problems.
If this happened in a bad area in Compton, not that big of a story.People arent stupid. Call it racism if you want, but it is what it is.
You can "double take" all you want. But it doesn't give you any more right to harass, stalk or kill them.
If you end up in a "black area", should black people have more legal right to stalk, harass or kill you?
Did I say it gave me any rights?
I said I would keep an eye on him because he is out of the ordinary. Its animal instinct. Go into someones house who has a dog and see what happens. If it doesnt know you its ready to fuck you up.
If I was in a black area they wouldnt care because they know I'm not there to cause problems. White people dont go to "black areas" looking for problems.
If this happened in a bad area in Compton, not that big of a story.People arent stupid. Call it racism if you want, but it is what it is.
A guy is driving down the street. We will call him person A. He gets cut off by another car and that car turns into a Walgreens. We will call him Person B. Person A follows Person B into the parking lot and then into the store. As of right now anyone would think Person A would be the aggressor. Even though he was cut off it doesn't give Person A the right to follow Person B. It would be hard to disagree with that.
Person A approaches Person B in the store. An argument ensues but so far no physical contact. The argument ends. Person B starts walking away. Person A calls him a name. Person B then turns around because he was called a name and approaches Person A and then pushes him. A fight then starts. The cops show up about ten minutes later. When it was discovered Person A followed person B in to the store Person A was arrested.
The reason I am writing this is because Zimmerman following Trayvon sounds similar.
The Person A/Person B situation was a real case. The judge ruled in person A's favor even though he was the initial instigator. The reason the judge ruled that way is because at some point Person A layed back and Person B approached him which then made him the aggressor.
Even though Zimmerman was initially following Trayvon I would think he stopped and then Trayvon became the aggressor.
Why do I think Trayvon was the aggresso? Would Trayvon have approached Zimmerman if he knew he had a gun? I know if someone was pointing a gun at me I would either be frozen still or I would turn and run. What I would not do is charge the person pointing a gun at me.
The reason I told the Walgreens story is because the legal definition of the aggressor can change in seconds.
A guy is driving down the street. We will call him person A. He gets cut off by another car and that car turns into a Walgreens. We will call him Person B. Person A follows Person B into the parking lot and then into the store. As of right now anyone would think Person A would be the aggressor. Even though he was cut off it doesn't give Person A the right to follow Person B. It would be hard to disagree with that.
Person A approaches Person B in the store. An argument ensues but so far no physical contact. The argument ends. Person B starts walking away. Person A calls him a name. Person B then turns around because he was called a name and approaches Person A and then pushes him. A fight then starts. The cops show up about ten minutes later. When it was discovered Person A followed person B in to the store Person A was arrested.
The reason I am writing this is because Zimmerman following Trayvon sounds similar.
The Person A/Person B situation was a real case. The judge ruled in person A's favor even though he was the initial instigator. The reason the judge ruled that way is because at some point Person A layed back and Person B approached him which then made him the aggressor.
Even though Zimmerman was initially following Trayvon I would think he stopped and then Trayvon became the aggressor.
Why do I think Trayvon was the aggresso? Would Trayvon have approached Zimmerman if he knew he had a gun? I know if someone was pointing a gun at me I would either be frozen still or I would turn and run. What I would not do is charge the person pointing a gun at me.
The reason I told the Walgreens story is because the legal definition of the aggressor can change in seconds.
Thats statement is 100% false imo Kap. Your looks can create suspicion alone. If this guy was walking in my neighborhood I would do a double take. You know why? I know he doesnt live there. No of course there are a million reasons why he could be there, but I'm a sane and logical person, sogive him the benefit of being legit.. I most definately wouldnt go up to him and ask him what he doing, but I would keep my eye on him.
It is what it is.
Of course looks and context can create suspicion. But suspicion is no where near a confrontation and death.
Thats statement is 100% false imo Kap. Your looks can create suspicion alone. If this guy was walking in my neighborhood I would do a double take. You know why? I know he doesnt live there. No of course there are a million reasons why he could be there, but I'm a sane and logical person, sogive him the benefit of being legit.. I most definately wouldnt go up to him and ask him what he doing, but I would keep my eye on him.
It is what it is.
Of course looks and context can create suspicion. But suspicion is no where near a confrontation and death.
I said I would keep an eye on him because he is out of the ordinary. Its animal instinct. Go into someones house who has a dog and see what happens. If it doesnt know you its ready to fuck you up.
If I was in a black area they wouldnt care because they know I'm not there to cause problems. White people dont go to "black areas" looking for problems.
If this happened in a bad area in Compton, not that big of a story.People arent stupid. Call it racism if you want, but it is what it is.
I said I would keep an eye on him because he is out of the ordinary. Its animal instinct. Go into someones house who has a dog and see what happens. If it doesnt know you its ready to fuck you up.
If I was in a black area they wouldnt care because they know I'm not there to cause problems. White people dont go to "black areas" looking for problems.
If this happened in a bad area in Compton, not that big of a story.People arent stupid. Call it racism if you want, but it is what it is.
Talk about race hustlers ..activist Dick Gregory made a surprise appearance on the Wilson Building steps at the DC rally yesterday .. .he explained to the crowd why they did an autopsy on Trayvon. ..
In his tribute to Martin, he suggested to the crowd that medical examiners conducting autopsies frequently rob decedents of their internal organs for illegal gains.........
Talk about race hustlers ..activist Dick Gregory made a surprise appearance on the Wilson Building steps at the DC rally yesterday .. .he explained to the crowd why they did an autopsy on Trayvon. ..
In his tribute to Martin, he suggested to the crowd that medical examiners conducting autopsies frequently rob decedents of their internal organs for illegal gains.........
@25 Smoking is not covered by an amendment. Guns are.
I realize that there very well may be a push if someone with anti gun leanings gets to nominate a Supreme Court justice 2013-2017, but until then I think gun owners will be ok.
@25 Smoking is not covered by an amendment. Guns are.
I realize that there very well may be a push if someone with anti gun leanings gets to nominate a Supreme Court justice 2013-2017, but until then I think gun owners will be ok.
The Obama camp announced via Twitter yesterday that it was putting its 2012 hoodies on sale..is the President trying to capitalize off the death of Martin.............BarackObama store
The Obama camp announced via Twitter yesterday that it was putting its 2012 hoodies on sale..is the President trying to capitalize off the death of Martin.............BarackObama store
The Obama camp announced via Twitter yesterday that it was putting its 2012 hoodies on sale..is the President trying to capitalize off the death of Martin.............BarackObama store
Of course he is,and im sure you know that. What a convienent time for him to continue w/ the race baiting during his election yr. This scumbag will cross every boundry to get re-elected. I could see a wolf in sheeps clothing since 2008.
The Obama camp announced via Twitter yesterday that it was putting its 2012 hoodies on sale..is the President trying to capitalize off the death of Martin.............BarackObama store
Of course he is,and im sure you know that. What a convienent time for him to continue w/ the race baiting during his election yr. This scumbag will cross every boundry to get re-elected. I could see a wolf in sheeps clothing since 2008.
I was Person A. The fight occurred on December 24, 1994. It actually went to trial because the DA was charging me with 2nd degree battery but would reduce the charges if I would plead guilty to lesser charges. I refused.
Once the judge heard both sides of the story he said basically what I said in my previous post. I had no right to follow the guy into Walgreens. But by following him in the store did not mean I committed a crime. Once I relented and Person B came towards me then pushed me that made him the aggressor.
My case could be used as precedent if Zimmerman is brought to trial.
Side note:
The day of my trial was April 19, 1995...The Oklahoma City Bombing.
I was Person A. The fight occurred on December 24, 1994. It actually went to trial because the DA was charging me with 2nd degree battery but would reduce the charges if I would plead guilty to lesser charges. I refused.
Once the judge heard both sides of the story he said basically what I said in my previous post. I had no right to follow the guy into Walgreens. But by following him in the store did not mean I committed a crime. Once I relented and Person B came towards me then pushed me that made him the aggressor.
My case could be used as precedent if Zimmerman is brought to trial.
Side note:
The day of my trial was April 19, 1995...The Oklahoma City Bombing.
Trial court rulings are not precedent, canovsp -- especially not if it was in a different jurisdiction than where this case is. Besides, judges can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it generally in terms of rulings unless someone challenges them and takes them up on appeal. I wouldn't be so sure about the precedental value of your situation.
Trial court rulings are not precedent, canovsp -- especially not if it was in a different jurisdiction than where this case is. Besides, judges can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it generally in terms of rulings unless someone challenges them and takes them up on appeal. I wouldn't be so sure about the precedental value of your situation.
That being said, I do think that someone who was initially an "aggressor" can lose that status if they attempt to withdraw from the situation. They still bear some responsibility for the situation though in that it wouldn't have escalated if they didn't make the first move.
That being said, I do think that someone who was initially an "aggressor" can lose that status if they attempt to withdraw from the situation. They still bear some responsibility for the situation though in that it wouldn't have escalated if they didn't make the first move.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.