I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[Dr Grump]

Meaningless. Zimmerman's right to privacy was abrogated.

He certainly has grounds to sue Lee for a violation of his civil rights.

Or is that different? Somehow?

What right was violated? Spike Lee is not the government and addresses are publicly available information.

Intent could be applied, if Lee posted the tweet knowing that people would go find and harm Mr. Zimmerman it could be considered depraved indifference, it would be tough to prove however...

Besides, Lee would hire attorneys that none of us could afford. So he'd probably get off, like Simpson did.

I wouldn't focus on Lee. I'd focus on Zimmerman....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are correct. Zimmerman's right to privacy was abrogated. He should be in jail in my opinion, but you are correct.

Its funny how you seem to be upset about Zimmerman's civil rights being violated, but are fine with him stalking, attacking and shooting an unarmed kid.

The right are funny people.

There is no evidence of stalking or of attacking. In fact there is ample evidence Zimmerman was attacked. And I have seen at least one thread on this board with a link to a story where an eye witness SAW the attack.

Even without a witness, Zimmerman was bloody on his face and back of his head and had been on his back on the ground. All actual evidence HE was attacked. Further he stated he was attacked and called out for help.

But lets ignore reality and keep making shit up.

No evidence of stalking? We have the 911 tapes where Zimmerman is following the kid and being told to by the dispatcher to stay back. We've also got the reports of the girl was on the phone with Trayvon saying he was being followed.

You might want to look up the legal definition of stalking, a neighborhood watch person following a suspicious individual for a few minutes is NOT stalking. Nor does it allow the person followed to attack that person when they ask them a question. Isn't it telling that the left will defend the physical attack of someone simply because the press and mob mentality has taken hold. By the way the shooter is NOT white, he is Hispanic. Last I checked no one has EVER referred to Hispanics as white when they are the victims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

At this point, you are actually saying he DID NOT go after that kid because he was black? There was a witness to all this and he was a white kid with a dog. Why didnt Zimmerman think that kid belonged there?

Seriously, it is racial. Sometimes you just have to say yup, it was.

He said "they always get away". Right before he approached that kid (after stalking and chasing him) he called him a coon.

Are you serious?

Why didnt Zimmerman think that kid belonged there?

It was reported that Martin had jumped the fence. However you are saying Zimmerman went after Martin because he was black without any proof. As for me do not put words in my post that I never said. I don't know one way or the other.

Without any proof? He used a racial slur to describe the kid on the 911 tape.

You can not prove that. I listened to the supposed slur, I can't even tell what the word was. It is garbled even after being "enhanced" further there is no consensus that it was coon, and last I checked goon sounds pretty much like coon as well. Your 911 tape is worthless and is not evidence of anything. Any reasonable person listing to it will tell you it is unintelligible.

 

[daveman]

I thought you just posted that it wasn't a "residential building"?

I said "neighborhood". Do try to keep up, dumbfuck racist.

You exact words:

1. That's not a residential address, so you're a liar.

2. Since it's not your real address, you're unwilling to do what you think is no big deal in Zimmerman's case, so you're a hypocrite.

3. Since it's not you're real address, you're a coward.

In summary, you're a lying, hypocritical, cowardly, racist, retard robot.

And that truly pathetic thing is you're not even ashamed of it.

You lie.

Yes, I said address, not neighborhood.

I was wrong.

And you're still a hypocritical, cowardly, racist, retard robot.

 

[daveman]

Last I checked, Spike Lee isn't the government.

Meaningless. Zimmerman's right to privacy was abrogated.

He certainly has grounds to sue Lee for a violation of his civil rights.

Or is that different? Somehow?

What right was violated? Spike Lee is not the government and addresses are publicly available information.

Like I said: the "right to privacy" sure seems to evaporate whenever it's convenient, doesn't it?

 

[mudwhistle]

Last I checked, Spike Lee isn't the government.

Meaningless. Zimmerman's right to privacy was abrogated.

He certainly has grounds to sue Lee for a violation of his civil rights.

Or is that different? Somehow?

What right was violated? Spike Lee is not the government and addresses are publicly available information.

A gun doesn't become a danger till you put bullets in it.

Neither does an address till you add malice and bad intentions.

Giving out the address to somebody that is hated by thousands, if not millions of people, is instigating a crime.

Making a threat against anyone other than the President doesn't become a crime until you have the will and the opportunity to go through with that threat. Idle threats are meaningless, but knowing that there are folks out there looking for Zimmerman who want to kill him Spike Lee became an accomplice. If his twitter account becomes "Get Zimmerman Central", which it appears it has, he's in deep shit.

 

[Ravi]

One of the eyewitnesses came forward yesterday.
"The guy in the red shirt was being attacked and was on the ground yelling for help."

End of story, done deal. Martin attacked him and now we have an eye witness to it.
Of course this does not matter as a black kid was killed and even if he was the attacker it does not matter.
Blacks side with blacks no matter what most of the time.

There are two witnesses that disagree with him. And he did not come forward yesterday.....he came forward last month.

Even if they were fighting and Martin was on top at one time or another, that isn't evidence that Martin attacked first.

It was released yesterday.
The other 2 witnesses showed up AFTER the fact. NO they did not state that Martin was attacked first. They said "we showed up and the big guy was not offering any help to the guy laying on the ground. He should have done CPR or something."
They saw nothing and stated that.
Fact is they offered NO CPR either.
The main witness stated he saw Martin cold cock Zimmerman from behind.
Still may not warrant deadly force but that IS A MATERIAL FACT ISSUE FOR A JURY.
Definitely not murder of any shape, as I have been trying to educate you folks: this is a manslaughter case of some kind. Most likely aggravated involuntary manslaughter.
10 year sentence with 2 to do max, plea to 10 year sentence and 1 year county jail.

News flash to the dumbmasses here: There was no motive to kill in this and no premeditated evidence.
Still may not warrant deadly force though. I am still impartial and open to all evidence.

Where are you getting that from? This witness said no such thing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Should anything happen to Zimmerman, and if the Department of Injustice suddenly discovers rectitude, then I would hope they pursue the same path taken against the Metzgers....

Assuming there’s evidence Lee encouraged a person or persons to commit a violent act against Zimmerman. Tweeting the address alone wouldn’t constitute such an act, particularly if the address is already known to the public prior to the tweet.

There would need to be evidence Zimmerman’s would-be attacker got the address from Lee only and that Lee knew the would-be attacker intended to harm Zimmerman.

A wrongful death civil suit would require similar evidence.

Lee wouldn't have to know the attacker.

Publishing someones address with the intent to do harm is grounds for reckless endangerment charges.

Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.​

Since Spike Lee's Twitter account is highly visible he may be charged with this crime right now. It depends if anyone wants to swear out a warrant on him.

 

[Sallow]

Spike Lee wants to become a vigilante. He retweeted George Zimmerman's home address to the world.

Somebody correct me, but isn't this conspiracy to commit murder if somebody kills him as a result of everyone in the world knowing where he lives???

If I was Zimmerman I'd have my lawyer suing the SOB right now.

Spike Lee Retweets George Zimmerman’s Home Address | TheBlaze.com

Naw.

Operation Rescue and Sarah Palin targets people all the time.

No arrests.

 

[mudwhistle]

Spike Lee wants to become a vigilante. He retweeted George Zimmerman's home address to the world.

Somebody correct me, but isn't this conspiracy to commit murder if somebody kills him as a result of everyone in the world knowing where he lives???

If I was Zimmerman I'd have my lawyer suing the SOB right now.

Spike Lee Retweets George Zimmerman’s Home Address | TheBlaze.com

Naw.

Operation Rescue and Sarah Palin targets people all the time.

No arrests.

Sarah Palin wasn't trying to kill anyone. Now, the assholes that accused her of targeting people for violence are more liable to cause physical harm to someone than Sarah Palin simply putting a bullseye on a place on the map.

 

[Sallow]

Should anything happen to Zimmerman, and if the Department of Injustice suddenly discovers rectitude, then I would hope they pursue the same path taken against the Metzgers....

Assuming there’s evidence Lee encouraged a person or persons to commit a violent act against Zimmerman. Tweeting the address alone wouldn’t constitute such an act, particularly if the address is already known to the public prior to the tweet.

There would need to be evidence Zimmerman’s would-be attacker got the address from Lee only and that Lee knew the would-be attacker intended to harm Zimmerman.

A wrongful death civil suit would require similar evidence.

Lee wouldn't have to know the attacker.

Publishing someones address with the intent to do harm is grounds for reckless endangerment charges.

Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.​

Since Spike Lee's Twitter account is highly visible he may be charged with this crime right now. It depends if anyone wants to swear out a warrant on him.

Funny you mention that..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs]Gabrielle Giffords warns Sarah Palin there will be consequences. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Spike Lee wants to become a vigilante. He retweeted George Zimmerman's home address to the world.

Somebody correct me, but isn't this conspiracy to commit murder if somebody kills him as a result of everyone in the world knowing where he lives???

If I was Zimmerman I'd have my lawyer suing the SOB right now.

Spike Lee Retweets George Zimmerman’s Home Address | TheBlaze.com

Naw.

Operation Rescue and Sarah Palin targets people all the time.

No arrests.

Sarah Palin wasn't trying to kill anyone. Now, the assholes that accused her of targeting people for violence are more liable to cause physical harm to someone than Sarah Palin simply putting a bullseye on a place on the map.

Giffords had a different opinion.

I sure you think she was wrong.

Just as your thread here is wrong.

Unless of course..you are being inconsistent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I said "neighborhood". Do try to keep up, dumbfuck racist.

You exact words:

1. That's not a residential address, so you're a liar.

2. Since it's not your real address, you're unwilling to do what you think is no big deal in Zimmerman's case, so you're a hypocrite.

3. Since it's not you're real address, you're a coward.

In summary, you're a lying, hypocritical, cowardly, racist, retard robot.

And that truly pathetic thing is you're not even ashamed of it.

You lie.

Yes, I said address, not neighborhood.

I was wrong.

And you're still a hypocritical, cowardly, racist, retard robot.

Actually Dave the address lee gave was to a house. google it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Naw.

Operation Rescue and Sarah Palin targets people all the time.

No arrests.

Sarah Palin wasn't trying to kill anyone. Now, the assholes that accused her of targeting people for violence are more liable to cause physical harm to someone than Sarah Palin simply putting a bullseye on a place on the map.

Giffords had a different opinion.

I sure you think she was wrong.

Just as your thread here is wrong.

Unless of course..you are being inconsistent.

You're trying to distract from the issue.

And what you think is irrelevant.

Did Sarah Palin give out Gabby Gifford's address knowing 5000 racist blacks were looking to kill her????

 

[mudwhistle]

Assuming there’s evidence Lee encouraged a person or persons to commit a violent act against Zimmerman. Tweeting the address alone wouldn’t constitute such an act, particularly if the address is already known to the public prior to the tweet.

There would need to be evidence Zimmerman’s would-be attacker got the address from Lee only and that Lee knew the would-be attacker intended to harm Zimmerman.

A wrongful death civil suit would require similar evidence.

Lee wouldn't have to know the attacker.

Publishing someones address with the intent to do harm is grounds for reckless endangerment charges.

Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.​

Since Spike Lee's Twitter account is highly visible he may be charged with this crime right now. It depends if anyone wants to swear out a warrant on him.

Funny you mention that..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs]Gabrielle Giffords warns Sarah Palin there will be consequences. - YouTube[/ame]

So Sarah Palin had nukes she could have dropped on Gabby Gifford's district?

Keep going dip-shit.

It gets funnier by the minute.

 

[Sallow]

Sarah Palin wasn't trying to kill anyone. Now, the assholes that accused her of targeting people for violence are more liable to cause physical harm to someone than Sarah Palin simply putting a bullseye on a place on the map.

Giffords had a different opinion.

I sure you think she was wrong.

Just as your thread here is wrong.

Unless of course..you are being inconsistent.

You're trying to distract from the issue.

And what you think is retarded.

Did Sarah Palin give out Gabby Gifford's address knowing 5000 racist blacks were looking to kill her????

Not distracting from it at all. Actually..trying to help you here ace.

Palin's and Operation Rescue's shennigans resulted in death. Mr. Lee should take that to heart.

But of course..you only see Lee as wrong.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Sallow]

Lee wouldn't have to know the attacker.

Publishing someones address with the intent to do harm is grounds for reckless endangerment charges.

Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.​

Since Spike Lee's Twitter account is highly visible he may be charged with this crime right now. It depends if anyone wants to swear out a warrant on him.

Funny you mention that..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs]Gabrielle Giffords warns Sarah Palin there will be consequences. - YouTube[/ame]

So Sarah Palin had nukes she could have dropped on Gabby Gifford's district?

Keep going dip-shit.

It gets funnier by the minute.

You mad bro?

 

[Papageorgio]

What right was violated? Spike Lee is not the government and addresses are publicly available information.

Intent could be applied, if Lee posted the tweet knowing that people would go find and harm Mr. Zimmerman it could be considered depraved indifference, it would be tough to prove however...

Besides, Lee would hire attorneys that none of us could afford. So he'd probably get off, like Simpson did.

I wouldn't focus on Lee. I'd focus on Zimmerman....

I'd focus on both, Lee for possibly inciting violence and Zimmerman for his actions in killing Martin.

 

[mudwhistle]

Giffords had a different opinion.

I sure you think she was wrong.

Just as your thread here is wrong.

Unless of course..you are being inconsistent.

You're trying to distract from the issue.

And what you think is retarded.

Did Sarah Palin give out Gabby Gifford's address knowing 5000 racist blacks were looking to kill her????

Not distracting from it at all. Actually..trying to help you here ace.

Palin's and Operation Rescue's shennigans resulted in death. Mr. Lee should take that to heart.

But of course..you only see Lee as wrong.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

You're grasping at straws. If you think you could prove this nonsense in any court, feel free. It may work in the warped minds of those on the left but not in reality.

Course folks like you don't need reality to think you have a valid point.

 

[Sallow]

Intent could be applied, if Lee posted the tweet knowing that people would go find and harm Mr. Zimmerman it could be considered depraved indifference, it would be tough to prove however...

Besides, Lee would hire attorneys that none of us could afford. So he'd probably get off, like Simpson did.

I wouldn't focus on Lee. I'd focus on Zimmerman....

I'd focus on both, Lee for possibly inciting violence and Zimmerman for his actions in killing Martin.

I'm with ya. And we can finally bring Palin and Operation Rescue to justice as well.