WTF Post your Treyvoning pics

Yes, I know. SYG has nothing to do with this case. And I never said it did. I was simply explaining why the jury ruled the way it did. It isn't illegal to be an asshole, but it is illegal to beat someone for being an asshole.

I can see why the jury ruled that way, but he still killed someone, and that person is dead, which is why it's pretty meh to post joke pictures about it when it didn't even have to happen. People wonder why Europeans think some yanks see guns as penis extensions...well this is why I guess. Dickhead guy pursues a guy thinking he's rambo because he has a gun and someone ends up being killed unnecessarily.
 
Still has nothing to do with SYG. And as you say, he put himself in this position where he was 'fearing for his life' and because of his overblown sense of ego he killed another human. Good job.
Young lady, SYG is a blanket law. At any time when a citizen shoots a citizen, if they do so in a lawful manner (as Z was found to have done) then they are covered under the protections of SYG.
The trial was not about SYG, the trial was whether Z had a legal right to shoot T. They found that he did so because T came back and started beating him.

There were two confrontations.
1) Z got out of his car and confronted T, then they parted ways.
2) T said "fuck that shit, I be keepin it real!" and came back and attacked Z, and that's When Keepin It Real Goes Wrong.

Edit: you could also say that T had himself one of these.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see why the jury ruled that way, but he still killed someone, and that person is dead, which is why it's pretty meh to post joke pictures about it when it didn't even have to happen. People wonder why Europeans think some yanks see guns as penis extensions...well this is why I guess. Dickhead guy pursues a guy thinking he's rambo because he has a gun and someone ends up being killed unnecessarily.
Yes it was unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. However when T attacked Z it became necessary for Z to defend his life from an attacker.

Yes, Z should've stayed in his car.
Yes, T should've walked away.

Those didn't happen and T went on the offensive, costing him his life. If anyone is at fault it's T for provoking the attack that cost him his life.
 
Personally, I would place the blame on both of them, Z was a dumb fuck who wouldn't listen to the 911 Operator. Whether it's a 50/50 split or some other percentage is up in the air
Negative. The physical confrontation was instigated by T. His fault. Z used only words to convey his point, like a semi civilized person.
 
I can see why the jury ruled that way, but he still killed someone, and that person is dead, which is why it's pretty meh to post joke pictures about it when it didn't even have to happen. People wonder why Europeans think some yanks see guns as penis extensions...well this is why I guess. Dickhead guy pursues a guy thinking he's rambo because he has a gun and someone ends up being killed unnecessarily.

Finally, you understand what happened in court. Thank you @Sarcasmo.
 
Last edited: