>> ^nanrod:

She's lucky they're not in Florida. The biker would have just shot her and claimed self defense.


Would fail. Neither was wearing a hoodie.

>> ^Reefie:

So why did he kick the car in the first place? There seems to be a crucial piece of the puzzle missing... If she ran over his foot then sure, I can understand his frustration. If not, then what was the provocation that made him kick the vehicle?


I'm watching the very beginning of the video and it looks like she bumps him. I mean she's really not in her lane and it looks like she was either trying to merge or hit him intentionally. Also she does her her window down and they are exchanging some (not civil probably) words.

She could be made about because he was splitting the lanes (not practiced here in America cept in Cali) and passing people in between lanes sometimes has the capacity to set people off.

*snore*
>> ^Reefie:

So why did he kick the car in the first place? There seems to be a crucial piece of the puzzle missing... If she ran over his foot then sure, I can understand his frustration. If not, then what was the provocation that made him kick the vehicle?

If it were a sane implementation of a self defense law. Martin would have had an obligation to continue to back away from the fight until given no other choice. He would have to have legal provocation, meaning that he must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. So pushing or grabbing might not be enough unless he was going for for something vital like your neck instead of your arm or hand or back of your shirt.

In a lot of cases this means someone pretty much has to have a weapon ready to use or make moves to take physical action against you.

Until scene photos come out showing he was in trapped in a corner, he had possible escape routes or he could have knocked on doors or whatever to get attention draw to what was happening if he didn't have time to call police. Some witness woman said it happened in her backyard, and if what they showed on video was it there was no fence but I can't be sure. The houses they showed were really close together, if it was the neighborhood shouting would have been heard by at least 6 houses given how close they were barring planes flying overhead or other noise.

Based on their laws, if SYG applied to Martin (and it should barring they come up with some reason why) he would have had immunity under the law, and Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered if he was found to meet criteria under "Aggressor". However SYG is a rather crazy law, I'll post a blurb at the bottom of this to show there's indication that people abuse it and it's very hard to apply in any sane matter due to nearly all encounters resulting in the other person ending up dead.

But in a less "kill the other guy" type self-defense law you have emphasis placed on avoiding the fight and have to have a damn good reason for lethal force and not just "reasonable belief". If you get provoked your "culpability" is assessed to see if you tried to avoid the fight at all costs.

In this case, blame would have probably been split something like 10-20% Martin 80-90% Zimmerman. A court in a sane area would say that Martin had ample opportunity to call police, ask for help as a door, or yelled for help before Zimmerman caught up. Or perhaps that he could have kept running. Hard to say for sure. But for him to be totally blameless Zimmerman would have had to have shown physical action toward him or some such...the following wouldn't have been enough.

But under SYG, the following could have been enough to give Trayvon reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant imminent use of unlawful force against him. And if you look up unlawful force it's defined as "force to escape arrest, forced use by non-law enforcement, or and non-consenting touch"...it's extremely vague I couldn't find a good definition of it anywhere. I found about 6-8 of them and just took the things in common and different variations and tried to compact it down to that....seriously try googling it and finding a good clear, applicable definition and one that is from Florida...I couldn't.

So Trayvon basically has to reasonable believe that Zimmerman was going to grab him, push him, or otherwise place his hands on him. And I think someone being chased could reasonable expect that.

Here's the blurb from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[32][33] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[33] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[34][35]

The Trayvon Martin case brought a large degree of criticism to the law. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, evidence indicates that he first pursued Trayvon Martin, prior to the altercation that resulted in the shooting. Legal experts are split as to whether charges will be dropped under Florida's stand-your-ground law before the case even goes to trial, as the extant Florida law allows Zimmerman to argue that the charges should be dropped before trial even begins. Legal experts are also split as to whether Zimmerman's actions will be viewed as self-defense should the case go to trial.

Basically in Florida you can go crazed gunman on a place if you say they were threatening and leave no one alive. If they do the kind of investigation they did with Trayvon, they might not even check all the witnesses or for security footage of the area, and then you'll have immunity....and none of the victims families can sue you for wrongful death, etc. If Im reading the immunity clause of it correctly.



>> ^longde:

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>>

Actually went and looked up the law. Because as more evidence comes out, I still thought that a teenager being followed by a much older adult (~10 years) should result in that teenager being covered under the SYG (Stand Your Ground) Law.

So looking at the text. Trayvon could use justfied force, in accordance with 776.012 and deadly force if he met the criteria of 776.012 (1). He was the person SYG, being stalked for unknown reason by a complete stranger. This is ignoring Zimmerman's comments and just looking at his actions. He followed a kid heedless of advice and the standard op of a neighborhood watch - call it in and remove yourself if no crime is taking place.

776.032 should not apply to Zimmerman, because he caused the confrontation by following. There was no defensive nature in stalking someone to the point of them defending themself from you.

776.041 could apply to Zimmerman as he is the clear aggressor (Again lots of people feel that aggressor means you threw the first punch, that's not what the law says, it's all about reasonable belief that you are in danger and I think being stalked = reasonable). The police had to verify that under 776.041 (1) wasn't happening, which I don't think it is easily proven that Zimmerman was commiting a hate crime via the stalking/profiling/shooting. 776.041 (2) only grants immunity if (A) OR (B) are fulfilled. I have not seen that the police have established (A) or (B) were fulfilled.

(A) Did Zimmerman exhaust every reasonable means of escape the danger of Trayvon? Does yelling help count? My argument here is that persistent following and disregard of advice of written material for conduct PLUS verbal command from dispatch shows that he is incapable of acting reasonably. The reasonable act would be to call it in and leave it the fuck alone. Plus he had no reason to be out of his vehicle after Trayvon.

(B) There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw from conflict. There is evidence he was getting thrashed on the ground by his victim after he forced the confrontation on Trayvon, but not that he tried to de-escalate the encounter by either (A) or (B).

So again, I wonder why Zimmerman was let go when he there is no evidence to suggest he didn't force the encounter by his rash and impulsive decisions to get the people "who always get away". Then you count the "fucking coons", which according to many is "fucking punks" or "fucking goons" because "coon" is something no one under 40 has said in a decade. But coons sounds nothing like punks and goons is what all the kids are saying these days (sarcasm).


I've had this discussion on other sites. And overall people seem to keep preaching that you should apply the evidence and the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked. Following isn't illegal and questioning someone isn't illegal, and calling the police isn't illegal, and saying "fucking coons" isn't illegal, and ignoring advice of dispatch isn't illegal, and using lethal force in defense of yourself isn't illegal, and.....blah. But taken together, it shows that Zimmerman did a lot of stupid shit to provoke an incident that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if a reasonable and rational person had been in his place. And according to the SYG law, Martin was covered under it more so than Zimmerman. Yet far too many people are all about believing the police THIS TIME because......of some reason...whether it be Zimmerman is white, an adult, or is alive to "say so". Yet Martin is unbelievable because he is black, a teen, or hit Zimmerman (many believe unprovoked at that).

Over all, it has a lot of earmarks of a case of road rage. Where Martin does something to upset Zimmerman. Zimmerman follows Martin, violence goes down. In most cases I've heard, the guy who does the following and forces an encounter = guilty. Because it's unreasonable anger/decision making leading up to the event and there may not have been an offense in the first place...especially because there's no evidence of an offense to require that kind of action on the part of the guy following you to your home, work, or whatever destination...getting out and starting shit.


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

>> ^longde:

If the guy wants justice, why not file charges against the woman? He has gobs of evidence. Throwing someone to the mob isn't justice.


This would have been a really dumb video if he just had the car parked sideways in the street, because we'd all assume it was just some entitled piece of shit that felt they could do as they please. Even if they could have identified her or he if posted her info and said that was her car......people wouldn't have reacted.

They basically came out and confirmed that they were entitled pieces of shit, removing any and all doubt. She and her husband threatened the guy, after obviously violating traffic laws doing something most people would never consider doing.

The guy on the receiving end of their threats is not "throwing them to the mob" by posting the evidence of those threats in a public forum. If people react extremely to evidence of those actions, it's not the victims fault.

This falls under the "all choices have consequences, known and unknown" category. Lady could have let the authorities tow her car, never exposing her identity to the guy filming the vehicle......paid the fines and guy would probably have never identified her. She could have just driven off and decided that parking across the street blocking traffic flow probably wasn't a very smart thing to do. But she got out and confronted the guy, like HE was doing something wrong.

While this is not as severe a crime, it's akin to blaming the rape victim for pointing a finger at the rapist after they've gotten their evidence.....because the rapist might suffer hardship for being identified and all the evidence confirms he did it. The video tape, assuming it's not doctored leaves no doubt as to what the crimes being committed were, by whom, and how far they were willing to go to keep their accuser quiet (at least on video, who knows what they did to him before, after, or will do).

It's really not anyone's job to help people hide their bad behavior from the public eye, whether it's illegal or not.

I'm not her judge. I'm as troubled by the self righteous people who are arrogant enough to believe they are judge, jury and executioner of anyone, even a flagrant ass.

I don't think anyone in the world has escaped being a total prick at one time or another.

>> ^messenger:

No big deal if it was a one-off. Do you really think that this is the only time in her life that she's been a self-important asshole? She showed an incredible lack of ability to understand the feelings and needs of other people. I'm of two minds as to whether she deserves any moral consideration at all. One the one hand, she's a person, but on the other hand, she's probably a genuine psychopath incapable of empathy, so what's the point in giving her any?>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

>> ^budzos:
This smelly bitch (lots of other bad words I could send her way) is a psychopath. Her husband is probably just under her spell.


What is more likely is that she's just a normal person who had a shitty start to her day which put her in a bad mood and exacerbated her stress levels. Psychopath generally applies to people who do not feel guilty about behaving in a violent or antisocial manner, I bet this woman felt guilty as hell afterwards but probably doesn't remember feeling guilty now she's being harassed by phone and email.

I certainly don't agree with her behaviour but I do understand that people do shitty things they regret when under stress or are having a bad day (or week, or month, or in some cases just a bad life).

No big deal if it was a one-off. Do you really think that this is the only time in her life that she's been a self-important asshole? She showed an incredible lack of ability to understand the feelings and needs of other people. I'm of two minds as to whether she deserves any moral consideration at all. One the one hand, she's a person, but on the other hand, she's probably a genuine psychopath incapable of empathy, so what's the point in giving her any?>> ^longde:

Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Your video, Road rage - I'm calling the police, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
... jeez, what a bitch.




END OF STORY! relax everybody, I mean come-on.



hah, When I see that I ALWAYS think of Jimmy.

>> ^dannym3141:

At what point did i "join em"? I said i don't approve, but that i'm not upset over a fucking manipulative, aggressive, posh, entitled little cunt getting a bit of come uppance. There's not enough karmic justice in this universe.
I never claimed you said "join 'em". I asked if joining them was a valid alternative to condemning them.


>> ^dannym3141:

Her crime is NOT parking across the street, but chasing, intimidating, assaulting, and causing others to assault, and there's probably a few more in there as well.
Agreed.


>> ^dannym3141:

If this were a child molester i think the sway of opinion would be heavily on my side so the real question is where do you draw the line? I draw it roughly where she is.

You missed my point. The line I draw is not related to her actions, it is related to ours. I'm fine for people to boycott her shop, mock her on the web and so on, but I think abusive phone calls are a step too far. Bringing child abuse into the discussion does nothing but add emotion, but I would say that if her crime was that serious, it's a matter for the police. The question of abusive phone calls doesn't even come into it.

>> ^dannym3141:

I detest people like that; i'm sure it does cloud my vision, but please don't accuse me of joining them, because that's an outright falsehood and a little bit insulting to suggest that i'd make threatening phone calls, etc.

Again, I never accused you of any such thing. For reference:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

So we just shrug and say "can't beat 'em, join 'em"? Yes, the internet is here and people use it to be assholes, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. There is a line, and making personal threats crosses it. It might be a cliché, but two wrongs still don't make a right.
If someone really wanted to "giver her a taste of her own medicine", they could park their car across her driveway.


In fact, as I was writing that I specifically went out of my way to use neutral language ("if someone wanted, they could") for that very reason.

>> ^dannym3141:

I think you may have let an emotional reaction dictate your assessment of what i said.


Re-read the last quoted paragraph and tell me again who's being emotional.


So to sum up:
She's a silly bitch.
I'm glad she got caught on tape.
I'm glad people are boycotting her business and taking the piss out of her.
I don't approve of threatening phone calls/emails.
I don't believe you would do something like that either.

whoa whoa whoa.....where did I say what she did is OK?
>> ^Kofi:

His point and I think THE point of this video is that her behaviour can in no way be universalised. No one can park where ever they like regardless of the impact. If they did then there would not be gridlock. There would be parklock.
Hypotheticals enable us to imagine consequences of our actions and are therefore important when considering what is right and wrong. Suppose another decided to do what she did, right next to her. Road is closed. Longe says "That's ok man. They might have had something important to do. Its ok that they think that their event is so much more important than so many others because hey, it probably is. I mean, think of other people"
Driving, like society at large, is about a social contract not to be douches to each other. This woman violated it many times over with potentially dangerous consequences and was indignant about being held accountable.

That's funny. That's what I was I was asking you to do: expand your perspective. Another ironic post. You're making my point for me, by becoming so irate over something so small and petty. And getting angry over hypotheticals like an emergency vehicle.

>> ^Confucius:

But see...dum dum...we're not talking about you. Stop thinking about only yourself. Expand your mind to other people and adopt THEIR perspective. Stop being selfish and narrow minded.

But see...dum dum...we're not talking about you. Stop thinking about only yourself. Expand your mind to other people and adopt THEIR perspective. Stop being selfish and narrow minded.

You said that that it doesnt matter because there were no emergency vehicles at the moment. REALLY??? What if there were? What if there are the next time?

It sounds like you're encouraging people to do this. Who gives YOU or HER the right to impose themselves on you or others? Can you imagine if someone did this to her and caused her delay?

Why is it okay for her to do this? Because it only inconveniences ppl for 10 mins? REALLY?

You dont think EVERYONE wants to just park wherever tf they want to? I feel like im talking to a third grader....If she in your weirdo world can do it then everyone should be able to do it. Then there would be no traffic problem AT ALL because the city would be one giant parking lot. No inconvenience then because there wouldnt even be a point in getting in your car.

This could go on forever. This is my last post on this vid.

>> ^longde:

I am quite used to gridlock and delay and have learned to take it in stride. I live and work in areas where it takes an hour to go 1 mile at peak rush hour. I regularly get held up for an hour or more. Two days ago, on a layover on a 30 hour flight, our plane was delayed for 50 minutes.
To only be inconvenienced for 10 minutes at a time would actually be a great improvement.
So, thank you for your ironic wish. I in turn sincerely hope you develop some patience and fortitude.>> ^Confucius:
May you be inconvenienced for 10 minutes many many times until YOU gain some perspective.......and half a brain.
>> ^longde:
There was no emergency vehicle.
It's not a big deal; and I hate to wait in traffic. If you think 10 minutes is a big deal, the problem with that attitude and this video is that people don't know how to keep things in perspective, and want to escalate everything into a mountain. What's next, honor killings 'cause I cut you off in traffic?
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Yea no big fuckin deal at all unless there is an emergency vehicle that needs to get by, or you are on your break and going back to work, or maybe going to pick your kid up from your asshole insignificant other. BUT BIG FUCKIN DEAL IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO BE AT THE MOMENT.