Zimmerman - Self Defense Class or Benching 500 an Up? whats next?

[coltrane]

Sorry, you are wrong.  You can yell guy all you want and if you get beat up, you are protected.  The word is not a green light for automatic acceptable violence.  You are dead wrong.

You're so confused.  What do you mean "if you get beat up, you're protected??!  It has nothing to do with you getting beat up TA.  It's whether the discon statute you've been arrested on holds constitutional muster in reference to what you've said.

Believe what you want, but it's not an easy topic to understand or "get".  All I can tell you is that you're confused. 

[A Professional]

I asked this question in the other thread, but got no answer surprisingly.

If your mother comes outside her home to check that a stranger loitering outside isn't causing trouble, as she has had trouble in the past, you are all ok with the stranger punching her in the face, breaking her nose, then getting down and slamming her head in to the sidewalk multiple times?This is a reasonable response?

Nobody answered because that's not what happened.
What happened is a creepy fat guy with no real credentials chased and accosted a 17 year old minor, got his ass beat, and pulled a gun--ending his life when it all could have been avoided.
If it was an old grandma that accosted the 17 year old I doubt he would have felt fearful enough to assault her.

[coltrane]

Plain and simple, speech that is made that is likely to incite an immediate lawless action is NOT protected under the First Amendment. 

There is a simple test the Court uses to assess whether the speech would cause such action.

[The True Adonis]

You're so confused.  What do you mean "if you get beat up, you're protected??!  It has nothing to do with you getting beat up TA.  It's whether the discon statute you've been arrested on holds constitutional muster in reference to what you've said.

Believe what you want, but it's not an easy topic to understand or "get".  All I can tell you is that you're confused. 

You are claiming that If I call a group of blacks N9GGERS to their faces that they can legally beat me up and that I would be the one charged, not them.

You are DEAD WRONG and you know it.  You are acting as if that word is a green light to violence and that the user of the word does not have the First Amendment right to use it.

[The True Adonis]

Really? I know of a case of a Black man assaulting a white supremisist after being called a guy here in Oregon. Guess who was arrested?

I`m sure you are lying or mistaken.  Please provide a link.

[Soul Crusher]

New Black Panther Leader Arrested after Pawning Gun (Same Panther offering $10K reward on Zimmerman)
myfoxatlanta.com ^ | March 26, 2012 | MYFOXATLANTA STAFF

Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:34:18 PM by Berlin_Freeper

DECATUR, Ga. - A member of the New Black Panther Party who went on national television to offer a reward for the capture of George Zimmerman was arrested in Gwinnett County.

According to the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office, Hashim Nzinga, 49 of Norcross, was arrested at probation office he was reporting to in Lawrenceville. He taken to Dekalb County Jail and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A warrant was sworn out in DeKalb County after evidence surfaced that Nzinga tried to pawn a semi-automatic handgun at a Stone Mountain pawn shop.


(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxatlanta.com ...

[tommywishbone]

He obviously killed a bucket of chicken and 2 six packs.

[coltrane]

You are claiming that If I call a group of blacks N9GGERS to their faces that they can legally beat me up and that I would be the one charged, not them.

You are DEAD WRONG and you know it.  You are acting as if that word is a green light to violence and that the user of the word does not have the First Amendment right to use it.

Again, youre confused, or maybe we're arguing two different points.

They can't legally beat you up.  You're correct.  They should be cited with harassment or assault pending on the local/state penal law.  BUT, if you were arrested on a discon statute prohibiting such speech, your freedom (as you think you have) to yell guy wouldn't be protected. 

I think we may be arguing two separate issues.

[The True Adonis]

Again, youre confused, or maybe we're arguing two different points.

They can't legally beat you up.  You're correct.  They should be cited with harassment or assault pending on the local/state penal law.  BUT, if you were arrested on a discon statute prohibiting such speech, your freedom (as you think you have) to yell guy wouldn't be protected. 

I think we may be arguing two separate issues.

The bottom line is that I can call anyone I want to a guy and be safe from physical violence and I can walk around and say it as much as I want with no penalty.

[240 is Back]

This case is a good example of a hate crime.
 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-isolates-audio-on-alleged-%E2%80%98fcking-cns%E2%80%99-trayvon-martin-911-call/

it sure does sound like the C- word when they loop it at the end.  That "oooo" sound sure isn't "punk" like some people claim.

[coltrane]

The bottom line is that I can call anyone I want to a guy and be safe from physical violence and I can walk around and say it as much as I want with no penalty.

Bottom line is this:  You should be safe from violence, youre  correct.  You should be able to call someone these names and not get hit, etc as we have penal laws to protect you and punish them.   BUT, if YOU get arrested for a disorderly conduct for yelling it and your lawyer challenges that statute as not in line with the First amendment, you're going to lose.  It's NOT protected free speech.  

i don't know how much more clear I can be on this.

[The True Adonis]

Bottom line is this:  You should be safe from violence, your correct.  You should be able to call someone these names and not get hit, etc as we have penal laws to protect you and punish them.   BUT, if YOU get arrested for a disorderly conduct for yelling it and your lawyer challenges that statute as not in line with the First amendment, you're going to lose.  It's NOT protected free speech.  

i don't know how much more clear I can be on this.

Wrong.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-03-04/news/0903020604_1_racial-slurs-cleared-charges

Retired Judge Marcella Lipinski cleared of disorderly conduct charges
She was accused of using racial slurs after minor traffic accident
March 04, 2009

HOMEWOOD — A former Cook County Circuit Court judge accused of using racial slurs after a minor traffic accident in Homewood was recently cleared of disorderly conduct charges in connection with the 2008 incident. Judge Marcella Lipinski, 66, was found not guilty after a hearing Friday.

[deadpan]

Why is this so difficult for anyone?

same reason rodney king and oj was "difficult" for people, blacks gonna black

dont get me wrong, i think both guys were in the wrong here, zimmerman shouldn't have bothered martin (i don't buy this whole community watch thing, community watch != blackwater patrol squad). zimmerman in general seems one of those guys that takes his menial position WAY too seriously but martin completely overreacted if we are to believe the official report, unless zimmerman physically injured himself on purpose in order to frame martin which seems far-fetched.

this doesn't change the fact the blacks are starting a race riot because some kid that overreacted and attacked someone *fairly* unprovoked,because the person that killed him happened to be a different race. and they chose to single out his "white" nationality even though the man was half-latino, of course when black on white crime happens no one says anything.

also i think we need to put ourselves in the dude's postion.

for example, i live in a very high crime area, once saw a bunch of blacks rob a place nearby at 2am when i was on my balcony smoking a cig, by the time i ran inside to grab my gun and call police two k9 units had already arrived....


i guess legally he shouldn't have chased martin but what would you have done in that situation, let the guy that physically assaulted you run away and then come back with 10 of his nigg friends and kill you, or shoot the mofo right then and there? i know what i would have done. then again if i see random black guys at night i don't think to myself "HEY I SHOULD GO BOTHER THEM". 

[chunkramwell]

Maybe if Trayvon didn't have a ridiculous name and George had a more appropriate name like Jose or Juan this whole thing would have turned out alright.

[coltrane]

Oh brother.

TA.  I'm a lawyer.  Trust me on this.

Racial slurs during a traffic accident aren't on the level of walking into a group of blacks and yelling things.

And something decided in a circuit court of appeals isn't the same as being decided in the US Supreme Court.  I could find hundreds of articles the same as you found.  

Just trust me on this.  Really.  

[The True Adonis]

Oh brother.

TA.  I'm a lawyer.  Trust me on this.

Racial slurs during a traffic accident aren't on the level of walking into a group of blacks and yelling things.

And something decided in a circuit court of appeals isn't the same as being decided in the US Supreme Court.  I could find hundreds of articles the same as you found.  

Just trust me on this.  Really.  

Maybe you should attend a Klan rally and see that nobody gets arrested for the things they say to the onlookers or the counter protests.  Have you ever seen one in person?

[deadpan]

Bottom line is this:  You should be safe from violence, youre  correct.  You should be able to call someone these names and not get hit, etc as we have penal laws to protect you and punish them.   BUT, if YOU get arrested for a disorderly conduct for yelling it and your lawyer challenges that statute as not in line with the First amendment, you're going to lose.  It's NOT protected free speech.  

i don't know how much more clear I can be on this.

that seems like favoritism, i think both parties should be arrested and the attackers should be charged with assault and the person using racial slurs should be charged with disorderly conduct or inciting violence or something like that, but the people that attacked you should not be excused just because you used a racial slur. of course it will all depend on the jury, blacks are majorly gonna protect their friends, we saw it with OJ simpson, then again white people will do the same (you could argue the rodney king case as well), i just don't like that when black people do it, it's "their right" but when anyone else does it it's racism.

[chaos]

240isblack has latched onto this like it was a Loose Change video.

[240 is Back]

240isblack has latched onto this like it was a Loose Change video.

lol!   i ignored this story for the frst week or two.  only when i realized it was shitty police work, and that this ambitious rent a cop was going to fck up carry rights in FL, that I took notice.

justified shooting, i'm fine with that.  This dickhead creating all the scenarios, padding the 911 call with "he's on drugs" and "waistband bulging, now he's reaching for it... now he has something in his hand".... it's taxtbook cover-your-ass talk for "I'm about to shoot a guy and I want it to be legal".

I dont like that part of it.  Dude made a situation so bad that it escalated to shooting.  Police were minutes away, they would have caught the kid.  No, dickhead had to chase unknown person "on drugs with something in his hand form waistband" into darkness for a confrontation.  WTF.

[coltrane]

Maybe you should attend a Klan rally and see that nobody gets arrested for the things they say to the onlookers or the counter protests.  Have you ever seen one in person?

I wouldn't waste my time at one.  

Klan rallies etc were the crux of the Brandenburg decision.  This is where the imminent lawless action test comes from.  Basically says that these rallies are "ok" in that the gov't can't punish abstract speech on law violation etc.  The Court says (and i've always disagreed with the decision) that it the intent of the klan isn't to incite lawless action, but to "inform" others on the evils of other races etc.  Con Law is extremely interpretive.

I somewhat disagree on this speech being protected.  It's different than standing in a group of blacks and yelling "n#ggers!"...  unless your true intent is to just make friends.   

A great book to get (if this topic truly interests you) is  the "In a Nutshell" series law books..  the one on con law.

[coltrane]

that seems like favoritism, i think both parties should be arrested and the attackers should be charged with assault and the person using racial slurs should be charged with disorderly conduct or inciting violence or something like that, but the people that attacked you should not be excused just because you used a racial slur. of course it will all depend on the jury, blacks are majorly gonna protect their friends, we saw it with OJ simpson, then again white people will do the same (you could argue the rodney king case as well), i just don't like that when black people do it, it's "their right" but when anyone else does it it's racism.

This is what is SUPPOSED to happen.

[chaos]

Was the kid justified in being on top of the guy pounding his head into the concrete?
And you bring up the guys past, but want people to ignore the kids? If that little bastard wasn't suspended for the **teen time he wouldn't have ever been there. We can point finger back and forth all day long, look at thsi thread, in the end, kid is dead, and if they ever charge that guy, he'll be cleared. Guaranteed.

[Emmortal]

Again TA, you were not there. So you don't know that the kid started anything other than Zimmerman telling that so he can save himself

There were multiple eye witnesses who backed up Zimmermans statements to the police, so your point is completely invalid.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Even though they're saying Zimmeran isn't a GGew, It's looking more and more that he has Ggewish bloodline. So with that said, he will be left alone and no charges will stick.

[King Shizzo]

Has anyone thought about the possibility of zimmerman beating himself up to make it look better.  You can punch yourself in the nose hard enough to break it, and he could have slammed the back of his head against something as well.  Hes got nothing to lose at this point, and it isn't as if a dead guy can refute his story now.