Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#552 Apr 10 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
No aren't you paying attention to gbaji's argument? Trayvon was acting shady. Walking around in his hoodie while it was raining.

That means he loses all rights to self defence.
except, AS FAR AS WE KNOW Martin wasnt attacked, he was followed.

also was nightime (dark out)----- seems to be some "entitlement rage" going on where people feel they have an inalienable RIGHT to walk around other peoples property without being questioned. There is at least a chance that Zim's suspisions could have been dispelled.

Running when observed is an element of "suspicious behavior" & if you do run, & get away, its smarter NOT to go back. (but then you pretty much hafta run every time you see that person again).

















____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#553 Apr 10 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Quote:
also was nightime (dark out)----- seems to be some "entitlement rage" going on where people feel they have an inalienable RIGHT to walk around other peoples property without being questioned. There is at least a chance that Zim's suspisions could have been dispelled.

Running when observed is an element of "suspicious behavior" & if you do run, & get away, its smarter NOT to go back. (but then you pretty much hafta run every time you see that person again).


He wasn't walking around other peoples' property, he was walking back to the house he was staying. And I haven't seen a single report to suggest that he was in someone else's yard. But that's a pretty capable of use of gbaji's usual tactic, kudos.

Martin was clearly aware that Zimmerman was watching him, and we know he was afraid. Then Zimmerman (a sizable man) gets out of his car and follows Martin on foot. When Martin does run, Zimmerman chases. That's a very, very clear threat. And we shouldn't be assuming that the gun was concealed any more than we should be assuming Martin saw it. How do we know Zimmerman didn't leave the vehicle with his gun in hand?

And according to Zimmerman's story, he never went back. He hid, and then jumped Zimmerman when he turned his back. Rational, if he believed the only safe way to escape was to scare Zimmerman off. And the story is that he hid him from behind with a pipe or something. In that case, his intention was probably to knock him out and then run.

I'm still very, very firmly on the "criminal negligence makes him the aggressor" side of things because, even if he didn't realize it, Zimmerman was behaving extremely irrationally.

And, for the love of god, stop putting in so many line breaks for no reason.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#554 Apr 10 2012 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I was arguing that you actually thought he was disturbed by the "adolescent" part of "adolescent boy" and not the "boy" part, when there is no way in **** you didn't know that.


You're not a very clear thinker, are you?


Eh, that was a combination of what was already destined to be a convoluted sentence, and trying to type out and post said sentence while at work.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#555 Apr 10 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Then Zimmerman (a sizable man)
Zimmerman is about two inches shorter and about twenty-five pounds heavier than Martin, and considering Martin's hoody Zimmerman wouldn't be able to discern whether Martin was heavier set or not. Neither would really appear all that sizable to the other.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#556 Apr 10 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
I disagree. My brother is around Martin's measurements, same height but much more muscular. I'm closer to Zimmerman's. He has a very lean figure (like Martin, from what pics tell me), I have a stocky build like Zimmerman.

But despite the fact that he has a ton of muscle, depending on what we are wearing you could definitely interpret me as being the bigger threat. Not if you are close up and able to examine our body types, but through clothes? It's not like Martin could tell how jacked Zimmerman was through his jacket.

Maybe I'm being unfair, because I can only think about how I would react. But it's always seemed to me like the human mind is more likely to bias in favor of broadness, rather than height.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#557 Apr 10 2012 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I disagree. My brother is around Martin's measurements, same height but much more muscular. I'm closer to Zimmerman's. He has a very lean figure (like Martin, from what pics tell me), I have a stocky build like Zimmerman.

But despite the fact that he has a ton of muscle, depending on what we are wearing you could definitely interpret me as being the bigger threat. Not if you are close up and able to examine our body types, but through clothes? It's not like Martin could tell how jacked Zimmerman was through his jacket.

Maybe I'm being unfair, because I can only think about how I would react. But it's always seemed to me like the human mind is more likely to bias in favor of broadness, rather than height.


I think it's the exact opposite. To me, tall people always seem more intimidating. Having to look up at someone already puts you in a worse position. In this case, however, there was probably no way Martin could tell anything about Zimmerman's physique, seeing as he started running before Zimmerman got out of the car. Zimmerman probably couldn't get an accurate guage on Martin's build either because he ran before getting very close to the car.

What you have is an adolescent who's walking the streets of what is most likely an unfamiliar subdivision at night. He sees a car parked on the side of the road and the driver is probably staring at him the whole time. Martin has no way of knowing the driver is part of the neighborhood watch. Zimmerman has no way of knowing Martin' s father's girlfriend lives in the complex (or nearby, I never heard for sure if she lived there or just nearby).

At this point, they both have a right to be doing what they are doing. Martin also has a right to run when does. Zimmerman has a right to consider this suspicious behavior and follow Martin. Where the rights stop is when the physical altercation starts. Who ever threw the first punch or shoved the other first crossed the line.

Unfortunately, we don't have any way of knowing for sure who initiated the physical contact.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#558 Apr 10 2012 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Quote:
At this point, they both have a right to be doing what they are doing. Martin also has a right to run when does. Zimmerman has a right to consider this suspicious behavior and follow Martin. Where the rights stop is when the physical altercation starts. Who ever threw the first punch or shoved the other first crossed the line.


Having a right to do something can change according to whether or not a situation arises from it. When we say "Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin", we are assuming something is the case that a Jury should be deciding, as what the question is whether or not following Martin can be considered negligence. I linked the law in question earlier in the thread, but criminal negligence is dependent on harm or near-harm coming to someone as a result of your actions (which would not have been illegal otherwise).

So, yeah, in one sense Zimmerman definitely had the "right" to follow Martin. But in the real sense, when we mean to say that there was nothing wrong or criminal with following him, we don't know the answer.

[EDIT]

As for their sizes, that's probably fair. Zimmerman couldn't have known how tall Martin was just by looking at him from a distance. Height is definitely intimidating when you are next to someone, but it's far less of a factor at a distance (where you can only consider proportions). It's kinda like when my brother is watching basketball. None of the players look intimidating to me... until I see them standing next to a coach. But when he's watching football, they all look intimidating.

I don't really feel like going back to listen to the 911 tape--can someone confirm which came first: Martin runs and Zimmerman leaves the vehicle?

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 10:59am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#559 Apr 10 2012 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I don't really feel like going back to listen to the 911 tape--can someone confirm which came first: Martin runs and Zimmerman leaves the vehicle?


Martin definitely runs first, because that is the point on the tape where Zimmerman tells the police operator that Martin is running and he is following and the operator tells him that's not necessary.

As far as rights, Zimmerman definitely has the right to follow Martin, Martin may just not realize Zimmerman has the right. And there was definitely nothing criminal in Zimmerman following Martin. There is a property owner's association. Zimmerman is a member, therefore the entire gated community is community property of which Zimmerman is a part owner. He has the right to go anywhere on that property at any time. He saw what he thought was a suspicious person who, in his opinion, started acting more suspicious when they noticed him and ran away. There is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was menacing or that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun before the moment Zimmerman pulled it out and shot Martin.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#560 Apr 10 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
My point is that Florida's negligence law, which I linked earlier in the thread, can still make the act of following criminal. The law establishes negligence in the event of harm or near-harm, and it established based on the rationality of action--an action being legal does not mean it cannot be criminal in the wake of later events.

It's not illegal for me to toss something off a roof that I'm repaving (assuming zoning laws that don't prohibit it). It is criminally negligent (a felony in Florida) if it causes harm or near-harm to someone else though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#561 Apr 10 2012 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My point is that Florida's negligence law, which I linked earlier in the thread, can still make the act of following criminal. The law establishes negligence in the event of harm or near-harm, and it established based on the rationality of action--an action being legal does not mean it cannot be criminal in the wake of later events.

It's not illegal for me to toss something off a roof that I'm repaving (assuming zoning laws that don't prohibit it). It is criminally negligent (a felony in Florida) if it causes harm or near-harm to someone else though.


I see what you're saying. I'll admit it's a possibility, but with the information we have now it's a stretch. If (notice the if) Martin initiated the physical contact, you could just as easily argue that Martin striking Zimmerman led to Zimmerman shooting Martin. A lot depends on information we don't have and even the police don't have. I hate to say it, but it seems like this case is going to come down to a judgement call on whether charges should be pressed.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#562 Apr 10 2012 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
A lot depends on information we don't have and even the police don't have. I hate to say it, but it seems like this case is going to come down to a judgement call on whether charges should be pressed.


Now see, why is this so hard for gbaji?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#563 Apr 10 2012 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Quote:
No aren't you paying attention to gbaji's argument? Trayvon was acting shady. Walking around in his hoodie while it was raining.

That means he loses all rights to self defence.
except, AS FAR AS WE KNOW Martin wasnt attacked, he was followed.

also was nightime (dark out)----- seems to be some "entitlement rage" going on where people feel they have an inalienable RIGHT to walk around other peoples property without being questioned. There is at least a chance that Zim's suspisions could have been dispelled.

Running when observed is an element of "suspicious behavior" & if you do run, & get away, its smarter NOT to go back. (but then you pretty much hafta run every time you see that person again).

Was he walking around other peoples' property? Sure, he was in a gated community, but he knew someone who lived there. Only reason he was even approached was because he was black.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 1:39pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#564 Apr 10 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
except, AS FAR AS WE KNOW Martin wasnt attacked, he was followed.


Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the phrasing here bothers me. We don't know what happened either way.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#565 Apr 10 2012 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Nilatai wrote:
Was he walking around other peoples' property? Sure, he was in a gated community, but he knew someone who lived there. Only reason he was even approached was because he was black.
We don't know that. From what I can recall there had been a number of break-ins recently, so someone wandering around without a purpose could seem suspicious on it's own.


Edited, Apr 10th 2012 12:52pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#566 Apr 10 2012 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Really, all we know is:

Zimmerman followed Martin
Martin and Zimmerman fought
Zimmerman shot Martin

We have conflicting stories regarding how the fight began and how it proceeded. We don't know much about what made Martin seem suspicious to Zimmerman. We don't know how long Zimmerman was watching or following Martin before exiting his vehicle to chase after him. We don't know who initiated the fight. We don't know how the fight proceeded (important, because SYG no longer applies if your opponent surrenders).

We have conflicting witness testimonies and (seemingly fair, imo) allegations of seriously poor police work. It wouldn't surprise me if, even if Zimmerman was guilty of something criminal, he'd never be charged because of various problems with the case (witness leading being the most significant, compounded with delayed testimonies until after the media coverage).

There's very little we don't know about the case. I seriously doubt Zimmerman murdered Martin in cold blood, just like I can't believe that Martin was committing crimes when Zimmerman spotted him.

What we need to know is whether or not SYG applies. If Zimmerman was criminally negligent or the aggressor, it does not apply. If Martin surrendered (which you could seriously argue if the pleads for help are confirmed to be his), then SYG does not apply. If Zimmerman did not start the fight, is not found negligent, and was not committing some other felony at the time, then SYG applies.

That's pretty much the extent of what we know. I feel that Zimmerman's actions were sufficiently negligent, but that's for a jury (not me) to decide.

Which is why I want him charged. Bring it to trial and have it sorted out there. I'm not demanding his execution, I'm asking that the courts be allowed to do their job. Police are not judges. The DA is not the judge. It is not either of their job to decide if Zimmerman is guilty or not.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#567 Apr 10 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Was he walking around other peoples' property? Sure, he was in a gated community, but he knew someone who lived there.
Except that's information we got in hindsight. Martin didn't exactly stick around and explain he knew someone there, or that he was lost, or anything. All Zimmerman knew for a fact was that a tallish black individual wearing a hoodie was wondering around the neighborhood.

Also, does anyone have any information on the neighborhood itself? As in the racial makeup? I mean, it's one thing to harp on Zimmerman singling out Martin for being black (always a possibility, even if what I point out here is the case), but it's a completely different case if the neighborhood didn't even have any black people living there, which I don't care how racially tolerant you are because that would raise anyone's suspicions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#568 Apr 10 2012 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
What we need to know is whether or not SYG applies. If Zimmerman was criminally negligent or the aggressor, it does not apply. That's pretty much the extent of what we know. I feel that Zimmerman's actions were sufficiently negligent, but that's for a jury (not me) to decide.

Which is why I want him charged. Bring it to trial and have it sorted out there. I'm not demanding his execution, I'm asking that the courts be allowed to do their job. Police are not judges. The DA is not the judge. It is not either of their job to decide if Zimmerman is guilty or not.


I'm only going to respond to these 2 parts because I agree with the rest of what you posted.

SYG can apply if Zimmerman is the aggressor if, at the point in the alercation when Martin was shot, he had lost the upper hand, Martin had not fled and instead pressed the fight, and Zimmerman felt in grave danger. I don't necessarily agree with that wording of the law either, but that's the way it's written. I mean, what red-blooded American, when phyysically assault and fights back, is going to be clear of head enough to realize they have the upper hand in the fight and should try to end the fight so the other party doesn't take out a gun and shoot them? I think SYG should be written in such a way that you have a right to protect yourself, your property, or another person who is having a forcable felony committed against them. But if you start the physical altercation should not apply.

The only reason I disagree with the second paragraph is because, unfortunately, that is not the way the SYG law is written. The law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. Speedy trial laws also make it difficult to arrest someone before you have enough evidence to convict. I don't doubt that Zimmerman will eventually be arrested, and so far he hasn't gone anywhere so I think he will still be there when they come with the warrant.

I'm just afraid that the trial wil turn into an even bigger media **** circus than the investigation so far has been.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#569 Apr 10 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
SYG can apply if Zimmerman is the aggressor if, at the point in the alercation when Martin was shot, he had lost the upper hand, Martin had not fled and instead pressed the fight, and Zimmerman felt in grave danger. I don't necessarily agree with that wording of the law either, but that's the way it's written.


Smiley: dubious That can't be true. It would be **** crazy.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#570 Apr 10 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
It would be batsh*t crazy.
You can get away with statutory rape if you can prove the underage individual not only made no attempt to prove their legal status, but went out of their way to hide it. There's no "If A happens, B is the consequence." You should see the UCMJ books we have. The first three pages are all of the UCMJ laws and charges, and the following thousand~ish pages are how and when they are and aren't applicable and in what situations.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#571 Apr 10 2012 at 1:46 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
But if you start the physical altercation should not apply.


As a child, I was always taught never to start a fight, but never be afraid to finish one.

Anecdote aside, what people need to remember here is that not every crime goes to trial. Even if on the surface, it seems a clear cut case, there may not be enough admissible evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the prosecutor at this point is to identify the possible charges, the evidence, and which combination of the two is likely to result in a conviction, if any. Given the apparent lack of concrete evidence surrounding this case, that may not be possible and justice may be left undone, even if it's seems clear to the layman that some form of injustice took place.

The only logical expectation at this point is a full review of the existing law and whether it needs to be scrapped in favor of something less broad and undeniably vague. Barring that, this is a tragedy which may never be reconciled and a very unhealthy precedent could be set in its place.


____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#572 Apr 10 2012 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
SYG can apply if Zimmerman is the aggressor if, at the point in the alercation when Martin was shot, he had lost the upper hand, Martin had not fled and instead pressed the fight, and Zimmerman felt in grave danger. I don't necessarily agree with that wording of the law either, but that's the way it's written.


Smiley: dubious That can't be true. It would be batsh*t crazy.

1) Pick fight
2) Start losing and kill other guy
3) ???
4) Profit!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#573 Apr 10 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
BrownDuck wrote:

Anecdote aside, what people need to remember here is that not every crime goes to trial. Even if on the surface, it seems a clear cut case, there may not be enough admissible evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the prosecutor at this point is to identify the possible charges, the evidence, and which combination of the two is likely to result in a conviction, if any. Given the apparent lack of concrete evidence surrounding this case, that may not be possible and justice may be left undone, even if it's seems clear to the layman that some form of injustice took place.

The only logical expectation at this point is a full review of the existing law and whether it needs to be scrapped in favor of something less broad and undeniably vague. Barring that, this is a tragedy which may never be reconciled and a very unhealthy precedent could be set in its place.


Yeah, no.

There was a body, a weapon even a confession. There was no question that Zimmerman was the shooter and no question that he shot Martin. The only question is motive. Never in the history of our justice system has law enforcement been able to make the kind of decision they did in regards to Zimmerman. He should have been arrested then and there. He should have had a trial, a fair trial not bogged down in sensationalism as it will be now. An alibi of self defense is for a judge and jury to decide. Had they, had this gone to court in the normal fashion, the community and the general public at large would never have questioned the findings and Zimmerman could have walked away from all this.

Martin is dead, Zimmerman is the one that's gonna be paying for Florida Laws complacency.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#574 Apr 10 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
See, but there the burden of proof is on the defendent, which makes sense. The prosecution shouldn't have to prove that the kid didn't hide their age.

But if that's actually how SYG works, I could walk up to anyone in an isolated section of Florida, force a fight, then murder them and claim self defense. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have very little hope unless I was stupid enough to commit the crime where there was AV recording being done, killed him stupidly (like I put the gun in his mouth or something), or failed to make the fight believable.

I really, really, really hope the lawmakers in Florida weren't this stupid. It's believable that they were, but I have to have SOME faith in humanity. Maybe.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#575 Apr 10 2012 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:

Anecdote aside, what people need to remember here is that not every crime goes to trial. Even if on the surface, it seems a clear cut case, there may not be enough admissible evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the prosecutor at this point is to identify the possible charges, the evidence, and which combination of the two is likely to result in a conviction, if any. Given the apparent lack of concrete evidence surrounding this case, that may not be possible and justice may be left undone, even if it's seems clear to the layman that some form of injustice took place.

The only logical expectation at this point is a full review of the existing law and whether it needs to be scrapped in favor of something less broad and undeniably vague. Barring that, this is a tragedy which may never be reconciled and a very unhealthy precedent could be set in its place.


Yeah, no.

There was a body, a weapon even a confession. There was no question that Zimmerman was the shooter and no question that he shot Martin. The only question is motive. Never in the history of our justice system has law enforcement been able to make the kind of decision they did in regards to Zimmerman. He should have been arrested then and there. He should have had a trial, a fair trial not bogged down in sensationalism as it will be now. An alibi of self defense is for a judge and jury to decide. Had they, had this gone to court in the normal fashion, the community and the general public at large would never have questioned the findings and Zimmerman could have walked away from all this.

Martin is dead, Zimmerman is the one that's gonna be paying for Florida Laws complacency.


Nobody denies that Zimmerman shot Martin. The issue is whether it was permissible under current law. You may not agree with it, but that's for the prosecutor to determine and the courts to decide, should it get that far. Quite frankly, neither my opinion, nor yours, nor that of anybody on this forum matters.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#576 Apr 10 2012 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Elinda wrote:
Had they, had this gone to court in the normal fashion, the community and the general public at large would never have questioned the findings and Zimmerman could have walked away from all this.
Bullshit. If he'd have been found innocent he'd still be chastised as a racist and how he murdered a young innocent little boy and there would be equal, if not more, fervor over the justice system. If he'd have been found guilty there'd be fervor over the failures of the justice system when you're found guilty of just defending yourself against someone who was on the verge of killing you and how justice was subverted based purely on public opinion.

Either way, pure and utter bullshit if you think, for even a second, that a trial would have made it all better.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 4:06pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#577 Apr 10 2012 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
See, but there the burden of proof is on the defendent, which makes sense. The prosecution shouldn't have to prove that the kid didn't hide their age.

But if that's actually how SYG works, I could walk up to anyone in an isolated section of Florida, force a fight, then murder them and claim self defense. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have very little hope unless I was stupid enough to commit the crime where there was AV recording being done, killed him stupidly (like I put the gun in his mouth or something), or failed to make the fight believable.

I really, really, really hope the lawmakers in Florida weren't this stupid. It's believable that they were, but I have to have SOME faith in humanity. Maybe.


Gbaji linked to a section of the Florida code that said quite clearly that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Then again, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Who hasn't heard of a case where after the state calls its last witness, the defense moves to dismiss and the judge grants it because the state didn't prove their case? It happens all the time. It's usually not in cases as high-profile as this, but it still happens.

As far as the "start losing the fight and kill the other guy" part, the law is less clear, but seems to indicate that even if you initiate a fight, if you get to a point in the fight where the other party could break off the fight, but decides not to and you feel like you are in fear of your life or grave physical harm, you have the right to use lethal force.

As I said earlier, this case is going to come down to a judgement call on the shoulders of the special prosecutor. She's going to have to decide if there's enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Not enough about how the fight started is known and there also appears as if there might be some conflicting witness statements as to who had the upper hand in the fight, which may or may not be important.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#578 Apr 10 2012 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
How in the world are they supposed to EVER convict someone of murder, then, barring the most blatant pieces of evidence?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#579 Apr 10 2012 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
As far as the "start losing the fight and kill the other guy" part, the law is less clear, but seems to indicate that even if you initiate a fight, if you get to a point in the fight where the other party could break off the fight, but decides not to and you feel like you are in fear of your life or grave physical harm, you have the right to use lethal force.


If I got attacked by a random guy with a gun, then as far as I'm concerned there isn't a point in the fight where I can break it off, unless I come away with the gun, or he's unconscious or dead. What are you going to do, let him up, run, and roll the dice that he won't catch you with a bullet?

If that's the law's implication, then it's got to go.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#580 Apr 10 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
As far as the "start losing the fight and kill the other guy" part, the law is less clear, but seems to indicate that even if you initiate a fight, if you get to a point in the fight where the other party could break off the fight, but decides not to and you feel like you are in fear of your life or grave physical harm, you have the right to use lethal force.


If I got attacked by a random guy with a gun, then as far as I'm concerned there isn't a point in the fight where I can break it off, unless I come away with the gun, or he's unconscious or dead. What are you going to do, let him up, run, and roll the dice that he won't catch you with a bullet?

If that's the law's implication, then it's got to go.


It ALSO says that you are criminally responsible for his death if he makes it clear that he wants to surrender, even if he attacked you first. I don't even understand what that means, though. Who the **** is going to take the word of the guy with a gun that just jumped them? I wouldn't.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#581 Apr 10 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,798 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
As far as the "start losing the fight and kill the other guy" part, the law is less clear, but seems to indicate that even if you initiate a fight, if you get to a point in the fight where the other party could break off the fight, but decides not to and you feel like you are in fear of your life or grave physical harm, you have the right to use lethal force.


If I got attacked by a random guy with a gun, then as far as I'm concerned there isn't a point in the fight where I can break it off, unless I come away with the gun, or he's unconscious or dead. What are you going to do, let him up, run, and roll the dice that he won't catch you with a bullet?

If that's the law's implication, then it's got to go.


There's no evidence released so far that shows that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before Zimmerman pulled out he gun and shot him.

I do see your point and I agree that the law should be changed in that case.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#582 Apr 10 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
As far as the "start losing the fight and kill the other guy" part, the law is less clear, but seems to indicate that even if you initiate a fight, if you get to a point in the fight where the other party could break off the fight, but decides not to and you feel like you are in fear of your life or grave physical harm, you have the right to use lethal force.


If I got attacked by a random guy with a gun, then as far as I'm concerned there isn't a point in the fight where I can break it off, unless I come away with the gun, or he's unconscious or dead. What are you going to do, let him up, run, and roll the dice that he won't catch you with a bullet?

If that's the law's implication, then it's got to go.


There's no evidence released so far that shows that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before Zimmerman pulled out he gun and shot him.

I do see your point and I agree that the law should be changed in that case.


Aye, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals. But these are things that I wonder about with the case, because of all the gaps that have to be filled in. Little things like whether Martin saw a gun could really change the dynamic of the situation to me. There's no evidence one way or the other, so it remains to be seen.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#583 Apr 10 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,798 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
As far as the "start losing the fight and kill the other guy" part, the law is less clear, but seems to indicate that even if you initiate a fight, if you get to a point in the fight where the other party could break off the fight, but decides not to and you feel like you are in fear of your life or grave physical harm, you have the right to use lethal force.


If I got attacked by a random guy with a gun, then as far as I'm concerned there isn't a point in the fight where I can break it off, unless I come away with the gun, or he's unconscious or dead. What are you going to do, let him up, run, and roll the dice that he won't catch you with a bullet?

If that's the law's implication, then it's got to go.


There's no evidence released so far that shows that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before Zimmerman pulled out he gun and shot him.

I do see your point and I agree that the law should be changed in that case.


Aye, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals. But these are things that I wonder about with the case, because of all the gaps that have to be filled in. Little things like whether Martin saw a gun could really change the dynamic of the situation to me. There's no evidence one way or the other, so it remains to be seen.


I agree. However, at this point, I don't think there is any possible good outcome from this situation. The public has been whipped into a lather over it and everybody has taken a side without waiting for all (or even most) of the evidence, which we may never get. Whether Zimmerman is arrested/convicted or not, one group of people is going to feel like the justice system failed.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#584 Apr 10 2012 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I don't even understand what that means, though. Who the **** is going to take the word of the guy with a gun that just jumped them? I wouldn't.
I would. You're statistically more likely to be injured or killed if you're confronted by someone with a weapon and don't comply, and you're far less likely to survive if you actively fight back. Confrontation should be your last resort.

"Give me your wallet or die!"
"Yelp, here you go. Enjoy."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#585 Apr 10 2012 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I don't even understand what that means, though. Who the **** is going to take the word of the guy with a gun that just jumped them? I wouldn't.
I would. You're statistically more likely to be injured or killed if you're confronted by someone with a weapon and don't comply, and you're far less likely to survive if you actively fight back. Confrontation should be your last resort.

"Give me your wallet or die!"
"Yelp, here you go. Enjoy."


I was thinking more of a hypothetical situation where someone just straight up attacked you, not one where they're trying to rob you or something of that sort.

Otherwise yes, I definitely agree. I don't want my obituary to say that I was willing to die for my Kindle Fire.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 4:45pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#586 Apr 10 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Sure, I'd fight back if I didn't know the reason and the gun was an unknown variable, but once it was introduced I sure as **** would stop. I might still get shot, but the chances of being shot are much higher if you do continue. To put it simply, if I'm gambling with my life I'd rather bet on Red than 32. Even if it's only a 50% chance, it's still higher than the alternative.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#587 Apr 10 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sure, I'd fight back if I didn't know the reason and the gun was an unknown variable, but once it was introduced I sure as **** would stop. I might still get shot, but the chances of being shot are much higher if you do continue. To put it simply, if I'm gambling with my life I'd rather bet on Red than 32. Even if it's only a 50% chance, it's still higher than the alternative.


If that's what they're teaching our soldiers nowadays, then the terrorists have won. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#588 Apr 10 2012 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Yeah, I was thinking that they had a weapon, but I otherwise had them disabled. They're trying to surrender, but I'm the only thing keeping them from actually using the weapon on me. Chances are I'm not going to take that leap of faith.

Quick and dirty example, I have them pinned to the ground, and the gun is still holstered or something. Or maybe it's beneath them/ just out of reach/whatever. I can't grab the gun without letting them go, but neither can they. To be fair, I actually have no clue what I'd do in the situation, but I don't see myself just taking their word for it and backing off. And I definitely don't know any way to continue to disable them while getting the gun away.

Just seems ridiculous that the law requires you to accept their surrender or lose your ability to claim self defense. When there's a weapon involved (and you aren't in complete control of it), I'm not entirely sure you ever can truly believe their intention to surrender.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#589 Apr 10 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Just seems ridiculous that the law requires you to accept their surrender or lose your ability to claim self defense. When there's a weapon involved (and you aren't in complete control of it), I'm not entirely sure you ever can truly believe their intention to surrender.


Now you're just being silly.

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

(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.


The act of surrender, by law, must be in good faith. If you have reason to doubt the intention of the person surrendering, then it's almost certainly not in good faith.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#590 Apr 10 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quick and dirty example, I have them pinned to the ground, and the gun is still holstered or something. Or maybe it's beneath them/ just out of reach/whatever. I can't grab the gun without letting them go, but neither can they. To be fair, I actually have no clue what I'd do in the situation, but I don't see myself just taking their word for it and backing off. And I definitely don't know any way to continue to disable them while getting the gun away.
If you've got them pinned, then you roll them on their stomach and scream in their ear to stretch their arms out, palms up, and put their feet shoulder length apart with their big toes and heels touching the ground. You do that because if they try to escape they'll be completely off balance and you can react much faster than they can. At that point you'd draw their far arm back holding their thumb, followed by the closer arm, and cuff them. Barring actual police action for a civilian I'd say that would be a pretty good time to open up a line of communication to find out what's going on.

After all, if anything really is clear about this case it's that 99% of it was because of misunderstandings and a complete lack of communication.
Eske Esquire wrote:
If that's what they're teaching our soldiers nowadays, then the terrorists have won. Smiley: frown
I'm more likely to fight back against someone when I've got a rifle, forty pounds of ceramic plates and at least three people similarly geared against someone in a mandress and AK47 than I am walking to the gas station to get a hot dog. Smiley: tongue

Like I said, it's about going with the safer bet.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 5:19pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#591 Apr 10 2012 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Quote:
The act of surrender, by law, must be in good faith. If you have reason to doubt the intention of the person surrendering, then it's almost certainly not in good faith.


And my point is that if I was in that high-stress of a situation, I seriously doubt I'd be willing to believe any surrender to be in good faith.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#592 Apr 10 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Like I said, it's about going with the safer bet.


Wesley Snipes says, "Always bet on black.". I don't know who to believe. [:sad:]
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#593 Apr 10 2012 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
The act of surrender, by law, must be in good faith. If you have reason to doubt the intention of the person surrendering, then it's almost certainly not in good faith.


And my point is that if I was in that high-stress of a situation, I seriously doubt I'd be willing to believe any surrender to be in good faith.


A good faith surrender, for example, might include tossing the weapon out of reach (or simply ejecting the clip and the chambered round) and holding your hands in the air while backing away from the other person. In such a case, the intent to halt the confrontation is pretty clear. If you would continue to escalate the violence after such an act, you'd be in the wrong and SYG would most certainly not apply to your defense.


Edited, Apr 10th 2012 4:25pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#594 Apr 10 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Like I said, it's about going with the safer bet.
Wesley Snipes says, "Always bet on black.". I don't know who to believe. [:sad:]
I always joke about not knowing any black people because everyone I know who claims they are are actually varying shades of brown. But Wesley Snipes? That guy is black.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#595 Apr 10 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
You're quite welcome to come to whatever conclusion you want about the case. Just don't try to pass off your conjecture as fact, then slam others for doing the exact same.


My conjecture is based on facts though. The conjecture I'm questioning is based on hearsay and speculation. There is a bit of a difference.

Quote:
While significant factors that remain unknowable regarding the case (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe we know who attacked first), your conjecture remains loose.


We don't know who attacked first, but as I've said repeatedly, we can't assume it was Zimmerman. And the only way Zimmerman could even remotely be guilty is if that assumption was made. You can't charge someone with a crime because we don't know whether he did something which might have made a later act a crime.

Also, as I've pointed out as well, even if he did, assuming the reports of his position just prior to firing is correct (and it's been corroborated by several witnesses), then it doesn't matter anyway. This is not conjecture or speculation on my part. This is based on reading the actual law.

Quote:
Spouting off about your certainty just shows your true colors. And the hypocrisy of attacking others for the same shows how little you think about yourself and the implication of your words.


By that logic then no one should ever have an opinion about anything *or* all opinions are equally valid. But that's not true, is it? Opinions should be weighed based on the evidence and facts which support them. My opinion is based on an assessment of the facts that we have a reasonable degree of certainty about. I freely acknowledge that if those facts are wrong, or if there are additional facts we don't know which are relevant, then my conclusion will be wrong. Here's the thing: I'm more than willing to change my conclusion if/when those new facts appear.

This is in grave contrast to those who continue to cling to their initial conclusion that Martin was just an innocent victim of a vigilante even as more and more evidence has appeared which should make them question that conclusion. I think it's unfair to say that I'm being inconsistent or hypocritical here. My conclusion is a conclusion based on the facts that we know. I don't think there's anything wrong about doing that, nor is there anything wrong about pointing out that the conclusions of others seem more related to their initial assumptions and not so much on the facts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#596 Apr 10 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Quote:
My conjecture is based on facts though. The conjecture I'm questioning is based on hearsay and speculation. There is a bit of a difference.


Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#597 Apr 10 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
My conjecture is based on facts though.


No, it's not. You're still an idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#598 Apr 10 2012 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
How in the world are they supposed to EVER convict someone of murder, then, barring the most blatant pieces of evidence?


When there's no evidence of self defense. I think the problem here is that people continue to ignore the most critical part of this. Zimmerman's description of the sequence of events, the physical evidence at the scene, and at least 3 different eye witness reports all were in agreement and supported his claim of self defense. Zimmerman doesn't get to start just claiming self defense. Self defense has to be the clear determination at the scene (and it was, overwhelming, in this case).

Once that has happened *then* the burden falls on the police and prosecutors to find evidence that the shooting fails to meet the requirements of self defense.


As I keep repeating over and over, the facts of the scene itself at the time the police arrived all pointed to a legitimate case of self defense. When you've got three witnesses all saying that the shooter was on his back with the other guy on top of him punching him just prior to the shot being fired, that puts the whole thing into the self defense category. At that point, you have to show sufficient evidence to change that assessment. So far, no one has. And frankly, none of even the speculative ideas floating around in this thread are sufficient to do so.


If we'd just found Martin dead with Zimmerman standing over him, with no witnesses and none of the physical evidence (No **** nose, wound in the back of his head, grass stains on his back, etc) then it's quite certain Zimmerman would have been charged with manslaughter. But the evidence at the time is very very powerfully in support of self defense. As I've said before, this is nearly as perfect an example of legitimate use of a concealed weapon in self defense as you can get. If you asked 100 experts on self defense laws to list their top 5 scenarios in which lethal force is justified for self defense, they'd probably all list this exact situation (shooter on his back with an assailant on top of him continuing to beat him, with no sign that anyone was running over to help) as number 1 or 2 on their lists.


It's really that clear. And that's why the police correctly did not press charges.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#599 Apr 10 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
My conjecture is based on facts though.


That's priceless.

gbaji wrote:
We don't know who attacked first, but as I've said repeatedly, we can't assume it was Zimmerman.


And I'm not suggesting that we assume it was Zimmerman. I'm saying that we can't state that it was Martin. How are you still not getting this?

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Spouting off about your certainty just shows your true colors. And the hypocrisy of attacking others for the same shows how little you think about yourself and the implication of your words.


By that logic then no one should ever have an opinion about anything *or* all opinions are equally valid.


Well, no. But color me surprised that you don't know how logic works.

____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#600 Apr 10 2012 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
After all, if anything really is clear about this case it's that 99% of it was because of misunderstandings and a complete lack of communication.


That's not clear.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#601 Apr 10 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
I think something that is getting lost in all of this needs to be explained to gbaji.

When the protesters are screaming "JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON" they're not calling for Zimmeron to be hanged at dawn.

They're calling for him to be properly tried in a court of law. All everyone has to go on is conflicting bits of Zimmerman's account, witness accounts, fuzzy 911 calls (don't forget - Trayvon also called 911 during this whole mess because he too was apparently freaked out), terrible police investigatory work (no autopsy? really?), and the entire media circus that has developed around the case.

If Zimmerman is tried before a jury, or at the very least, before a judge, and he is still found innocent of wrongdoing, then we have on our hands a tragedy born of misunderstanding, but Zimmerman's innocence will be vindicated and he can get on with his life.

But if Zimmerman is found guilty, we have evidence that the SYG law in Florida needs to be clarified and can't be used as an excuse to shoot the scary black kid with the skittles and the Arizona tea and the hoodie.

Either way, Trayvon will have gotten justice. Is that too much to ask?

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 9:08pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Allegory, RavennofTitan, rdmcandie, Samira, Anonymous Guests (42)