Trayvon pt. 2? Vol. Stay classy Florida...

rillo561 said:
 
SneakerHeathen said:
brahs it's Florida period.

Doesn't matter if it's Jacksonville (this case), Sanford (Trayvon) or Orlando (Casey Anthony).


**** always goes down in the "gunshine" state as ya'll like to refer to ya'll selves.
Click to expand...
More like floriduh, all those cases you mentioned have one thing in common.


North Florida.
Click to expand...
yep....central florida up to north florida is probably as redneck as a back area in alabama or mississippi 
 
Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade county might as well be another state. Dade actually might as well be another country.
 
Lokillo40 said:
Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade county might as well be another state. Dade actually might as well be another country.
Click to expand...

Have you seen The First 48?

Black on black crime should be widely considered worse then white on black.
 
nawghtyhare said:
hope he actually wins the case this time
wheres that shoefreakybaby or whatever her sn is
surprised she aint in here
Click to expand...

Im here


Just packing my bags just in case this dude gets off.










Music was so loud your ear drums were trembling but you could still hear death threats. Boi bye

:smh:
 
:lol: this dude :smh: He's just a polite guy

CNN:

Michael Dunn, 47, took the stand on day eight of his trial on murder and attempted murder charges stemming from a November 2012 incident in which he opened fire on an SUV full of teenagers following an altercation over loud music.
Click to expand...

Dunn painted himself as perfectly collected for most of the altercation, saying he was "not mad at all" with the teens and politely asked them to turn down their "ridiculously loud" music. He thanked them when they obliged, but then Davis grew irate, he said.

He heard a flurry of profanity -- "f*** him, f*** that" -- and while Dunn felt it was "mean-spirited," he didn't roll down his window, he said. He had "no reaction at all," he testified.

The music came back on, but not as loud, he said, but "I wasn't going to ask them for any more favors." He heard more angry words from Davis, who Dunn claimed called him a "cracker" loudly enough for Dunn to hear over the bass coming from the stereo.

He continued looking forward, hoping Rouer would return to the car, he said, but the situation escalated with Davis saying, "I should kill that motherf***er."

"I'm flabbergasted. I must not be hearing this right," he said, recalling how he turned toward the Durango and saw "two guys with menacing expressions" looking at him. He rolled down his window and asked calmly if the teens were talking about him, he said, explaining that he was not taunting the teens so much as ascertaining about whom they were speaking.

"I wanted to know if I was that m-f'er," he said, using an abbreviated version of the profanity he had spoken earlier. "I wanted to make it clear that I had said, 'Thank you.' I didn't mean any disrespect."
Click to expand...

After firing three volleys of 10 bullets, prompting the teens to flee the gas station parking lot, Dunn and girlfriend Rouer left, too. They weren't fleeing because Dunn felt he'd committed a crime, he testified, but because they needed to get to a bed-and-breakfast in St. Augustine so their 7-month-old French bulldog, Charlie, could "go potty."

"We might be in trouble with the local gangsters, but I didn't do anything wrong," Dunn said, explaining his thought process leading to his decision to leave the well-lit parking lot where numerous witnesses had seen the altercation and aftermath.
Click to expand...

After learning almost six hours later that he had killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis, (Dunn) became "crazy with grief," vomiting and experiencing stomach problems for about four hours before taking a nap, he said.
Click to expand...

"We were stunned and horrified, just couldn't believe things escalated the way they did over a common courtesy," Dunn said.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
 
Last edited:
people that act like Florida is the only state with law issues...

NY got "stop and frisk" and the police just shooting ****** freely....

Texas has a law where you can shoot people to recover stolen property...

etc etc..
 
011781 said:
 
people that act like Florida is the only state with law issues...

NY got "stop and frisk" and the police just shooting ****** freely....

Texas has a law where you can shoot people to recover stolen property...

etc etc..
Click to expand...
Link to this? If utilized in the right situation, I love it
smokin.gif


Don't steal s**t. Simple.
 
AyZee said:
 
Link to this? If utilized in the right situation, I love it
smokin.gif


Don't steal s**t. Simple.
Click to expand...
First heard about this when a guy beat a murder case for shooting a prostitute... she ain't give him the butt apparently and tried to skate off with his bread. How THAT case didn't make national news is beyond me.

Not sure how credible this article is, but based on what I read a while ago, it sounds accurate.

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

Texas law (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) goes even further by adding the justifiable use of deadly force to protect someone else's property if a person "reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property." This means that you can use deadly force in Texas not only to protect your own property, but also the property of someone else. There have been incorrect reports in the media that you may only do this in Texas if you have been formally asked or legally required to protect the property of someone else. However, this is not a provision of the law as it is currently written.

Why would you support this tho?

Take someone's life over petty goods? You don't deserve to die just because you stole someone's iPhone. That's just stupid to me. A person's life isn't valued over a ******* phone?
 
one thing I hate about these kind of trials is that people are in the court room laughing and so non-chalant at times...

i couldn't be a parent or family member of someone that was murdered for no damn reason and hear the judge joking or treating it as just a faceless case....

i know thats their job and they have no personal attachment, but damn, where's the respect for people... **** just comes across so insensitive and unprofessional
 
011781 said:
 
First heard about this when a guy beat a murder case for shooting a prostitute... she ain't give him the butt apparently and tried to skate off with his bread. How THAT case didn't make national news is beyond me.

Not sure how credible this article is, but based on what I read a while ago, it sounds accurate.

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

Texas law (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) goes even further by adding the justifiable use of deadly force to protect someone else's property if a person "reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property." This means that you can use deadly force in Texas not only to protect your own property, but also the property of someone else. There have been incorrect reports in the media that you may only do this in Texas if you have been formally asked or legally required to protect the property of someone else. However, this is not a provision of the law as it is currently written.

Why would you support this tho?

Take someone's life over petty goods? You don't deserve to die just because you stole someone's iPhone. That's just stupid to me. A person's life isn't valued over a ******* phone?
Click to expand...
I support it only in situations where it is used properly. Problem is, the whole "reasonably believes..." leaves too much open to interpretation and will result in trigger happy citizens with lawyers proving their clients had "reasonable belief" (just like the Zimmerman case).

However, if someone is shot in act of stealing an iPhone, burglarizing someone's house, robbing a bank, that's on them. The fear of being legally shot by your victim makes a great deterrent.

Did you feel bad for this victim?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...aker-shoots-would-be-robber-article-1.1380615
 
AyZee said:
 
I support it only in situations where it is used properly. Problem is, the whole "reasonably believes..." leaves too much open to interpretation and will result in trigger happy citizens with lawyers proving their clients had "reasonable belief" (just like the Zimmerman case).

However, if someone is shot in act of stealing an iPhone, burglarizing someone's house, robbing a bank, that's on them. The fear of being legally shot by your victim makes a great deterrent.

Did you feel bad for this victim?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...aker-shoots-would-be-robber-article-1.1380615
Click to expand...
armed robbery and petty theft aren't the same thing, so no....

armed robbery is also a case of SELF-defense ....

shooting someone because they saw your iPhone on the table unattended isn't grounds to shoot someone -- it ain't like you got nuclear codes in that ****
 
KingKoopa said:
 
Lokillo40 said:
Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade county might as well be another state. Dade actually might as well be another country.
Click to expand...
Have you seen The First 48?

Black on black crime should be widely considered worse then white on black.
Click to expand...
I hate when people say things like this.

There's no such thing as "_____ on _____ crime."  It's a racist phrase drummed up by the media when Reagan was getting elected to convince people Blacks are extremely dangerous and in need of control.

90%+ of violent crimes against White people are committed by other White people.  90%+ of violent crimes against Blacks are committed by Blacks.  There is no "Black on Black crime" it's just crime.

First 48 makes it look like n words are running around all crazy because A. there are more minority poor people in those areas they film in and therefore more opportunity to catch minorities committing crime and B. the show's core audience is middle America White people, who don't want to see case after case of redneck killing another redneck over a property dispute, or a girlfriend, or drugs. They believe that Blacks are crazy so the show exploits its population and gives its viewers what they want -- "animals" running wild in the zoo.  And people eat that nonsense up, even using the show as evidence that some perceived trend of "Black on Black crime" is somehow worse than grown men gunning down children in cold blood.

We won't even touch on the fact that whenever you hear about a 30-50 year old man killing a teenager because he felt threatened and afraid for his life, the man is almost always White, the teenager a lesser represented ethnic group, and for some odd reason usually unarmed.
 
011781 said:
 
armed robbery and petty theft aren't the same thing, so no....

armed robbery is also a case of SELF-defense ....

shooting someone because they saw your iPhone on the table unattended isn't grounds to shoot someone -- it ain't like you got nuclear codes in that ****
Click to expand...
Stealing is stealing. If you dance with the devil, you have to pay the piper. It's all in the game. Don't steal.
 
AyZee said:
 
011781 said:
 
First heard about this when a guy beat a murder case for shooting a prostitute... she ain't give him the butt apparently and tried to skate off with his bread. How THAT case didn't make national news is beyond me.

Not sure how credible this article is, but based on what I read a while ago, it sounds accurate.

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

Texas law (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) goes even further by adding the justifiable use of deadly force to protect someone else's property if a person "reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property." This means that you can use deadly force in Texas not only to protect your own property, but also the property of someone else. There have been incorrect reports in the media that you may only do this in Texas if you have been formally asked or legally required to protect the property of someone else. However, this is not a provision of the law as it is currently written.

Why would you support this tho?

Take someone's life over petty goods? You don't deserve to die just because you stole someone's iPhone. That's just stupid to me. A person's life isn't valued over a ******* phone?
Click to expand...
I support it only in situations where it is used properly. Problem is, the whole "reasonably believes..." leaves too much open to interpretation and will result in trigger happy citizens with lawyers proving their clients had "reasonable belief" (just like the Zimmerman case).

However, if someone is shot in act of stealing an iPhone, burglarizing someone's house, robbing a bank, that's on them. The fear of being legally shot by your victim makes a great deterrent.

Did you feel bad for this victim?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...aker-shoots-would-be-robber-article-1.1380615
Click to expand...
There's no way to have this law exist without it being a "reasonable belief" standard and the reasonable belief standard is where all the problems arise, because well, the law is stupid and akin to stand your ground.

For example:  You AyZee are going to visit 011781's house for a backyard bbq.  You accidentally go to the wrong house and walk around to his neighbor's backyard for a perceived bbq.  His neighbor sees you turning the corner to the back of his house and shoots you on sight.

He has a justifiably reasonable belief that you were in the process of committing burglary.  Texas made the standard flimsy on purpose to give leeway and from what I remember would prefer that you know that your property has been taken or threatened, but there's no requirement to wait for the actual property to be stolen.  There are plenty of cases just like the one I drew up above that have been successfully defended.

Someone who knows Texas law correct me if I'm mistaken?
 
Last edited:
The law is flawed. That's my point. I only love it on the surface. I'd only support it in situations where it was used accurately. I'd have no sympathy for someone that knowingly stole something and was shot dead by the victim of the theft. The problem is the interpretation flaw as is the case with many laws.
 
AyZee said:
The law is flawed. That's my point. I only love it on the surface. I'd only support it in situations where it was used accurately. I'd have no sympathy for someone that knowingly stole something and was shot dead by the victim of the theft. The problem is the interpretation flaw as is the case with many laws.
Click to expand...

so if a 14 yr old steals a pair of sneakers at a gym you have no problem with him being killed for that?

you sound like a true bozo
 
AyZee said:
 
The law is flawed. That's my point. I only love it on the surface. I'd only support it in situations where it was used accurately. I'd have no sympathy for someone that knowingly stole something and was shot dead by the victim of the theft. The problem is the interpretation flaw as is the case with many laws.
Click to expand...
Let me throw out the most extreme example for why I think it's a stupid law
laugh.gif
:

A person's in the parking lot of a grocery store loading up his car with groceries after shopping.  An 11 year old homeless kid sprints over and grabs an apple from the cart for his starving little sister and runs off.  The shopper turns and shoots the 11 year old, as would be his right by law.

It's extreme, but you'd be ok with its application there, as it's intended?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom