Anyone know how much truth there is to this: Armed neo-nazis claim to be patrolling in and around Sanford, FL to protect white citizens in the case of a race riot. ?



http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php




I'm sure that won't fan any racial flames that exist.

4/9/2012 10:30:45 PM

So we have Zimmerman shooting an unarmed black kid...

You have those Oklahoma boys driving through black neighborhoods shooting random people...

Now we have bands of white people driving around with guns, ready to shoot a black at the drop of a hat...

What is it about the white man than makes them so violent? It must be the pigment in their skin.

4/9/2012 10:42:14 PM

^^
Looks like we can't be e-friends anymore.

4/9/2012 10:43:49 PM

This country has truly gone to shit thanks to the media.

4/9/2012 10:44:14 PM

Look you guys, milk this for all it's worth. But it's a short ride and when it's over you'll have nothing.

QFT

Quote :

"This country has truly gone to shit thanks to the media."

[Edited on April 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM. Reason : %]

4/9/2012 10:45:21 PM

Quote :

"Looks like we can't be e-friends anymore. "

4/9/2012 10:46:59 PM

so who put that on the sign on the last page? its reported that a white guy was seen running from the scene

Quote :

"UPDATE: The Sanford Police Department says it has no evidence of neo-Nazis in the area. "We have not seen any neo-Nazis on patrol nor have we had any reports of them," Sgt. David Morgenstern says. He adds there have been no signs of the New Black Panther Party either. "

UPDATE: the sanford police are the neo-Nazis

[Edited on April 9, 2012 at 10:51 PM. Reason : another]

4/9/2012 10:49:27 PM

^ all we know is that wdprice3 "conveniently" wasn't online when that sign fiasco happened.

4/9/2012 10:52:04 PM

^^That was probably because the National Socialist Party (or whatever they're called) has been getting a lot of press (by Fox News, specifically) recently in regards to this incident, and they (allegedly) have ties to neo-nazi groups.

4/9/2012 10:53:58 PM

lol. i think it was a CBS executive

4/9/2012 10:54:23 PM

http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com

he's got a really weird website up now, supposedly.

4/9/2012 11:31:56 PM

^ his lawyer confirmed its real

4/10/2012 7:17:09 AM

Quote :

"You're the last person I'd expect to see defending a dumb person making dumb person mistakes, wdpice3. What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions and all that? HOA screwed up, Zimmerman screwed up, time to pay the piper. They dug their own graves. They made their own beds."

I wasn't defending the guy. I was saying, IMO, the HOA isn't at fault here and suing is a money grab. If you want to get justice or hold someone accountable or whatever, then you go after Zimmerman. The HOA didn't sent GZ on patrol. The HOA didn't tell GZ to watch TM. The HOA didn't tell GZ to follow TM. The HOA didn't say it would be fine to shoot anyone. The HOA simply named him captain (leader/coordinator/etc.) of the community watch. The leader could have been anyone. The shooter could have been anyone. GZ didn't shoot because he was the captain. GZ was proactive in the community and as far as we know, followed all laws while doing so (up until this incident). If the president of the HOA gets drunk and crashes his car into one of the buildings, do you sue the HOA? He was appointed president by the HOA. Just because GZ had an unofficial role as CW captain doesn't mean the HOA SHOULD be held liable for his actions. The shooting has nothing to do with the HOA. So, if you want to talk accountability and taking responsibility for your actions, look at GZ, not the HOA. And before you idiots speak up, I realize there is a difference between my opinion and law/reality. If it isn't obvious, the above is my opinion.

Quote :

"Anyone know how much truth there is to this: Armed neo-nazis claim to be patrolling in and around Sanford, FL to protect white citizens in the case of a race riot. ?"

Probably some left-wing made up bullshit so you lefties can be all "LOOK, IT'S RACIST WHITEY WITH GUNS OUT TRYING TO KILL INNOCENT BLACK BABIES"

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 8:23 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 8:20:40 AM

I like the quote on "his" website:

Quote :

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke."

I wonder what would have happened if he actually listened to the 911 operator and did nothing.

Also

Quote :

"On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life."

Beats sitting in jail I guess.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM. Reason : -]

4/10/2012 8:28:05 AM

He is sitting in jail. Just not one run by the state; but run by racist angry mobs willing to commit vigilante justice.

4/10/2012 8:35:24 AM

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/cats-in-hoodies



they always get away

4/10/2012 9:11:02 AM

Quote :

"but run by racist angry mobs willing wanting to commit vigilante justice murder."

Fixed that for ya. On an unrelated side note:

You've got these groups and people like God that are just waiting to find something to get behind. Do they tackle black on black crime and hold vigils and protest because they feel there really is no justice? Nope, they're silent. This alone proves they have no true interest in justice.

Now, you take something like this where early reports came out that it was some white guy in a rich upscale white community that killed this kid and here come the seething masses wanting blood. Forget about your real problems and trying to better yourselves this shit is important. Your real problems you've got a free pass on because you can blame shit that ended at least 40 years ago.

Most blacks that I've met have never mentioned slavery holding them back. They've gotten far on their own and they work real jobs because they've earned their way up to those jobs. Then you've got these protester and wannabe vigilantes...they don't want justice, make no mistake about it.

4/10/2012 9:11:08 AM

Quote :

"He is sitting in jail. Just not one run by the state; but run by racist angry mobs willing to commit vigilante justice."

So... eye for an eye in this case.

4/10/2012 9:15:13 AM

Sure. Which is apparently fine in this case, but none other, else it's crazy/racist/wrong/etc.

4/10/2012 9:15:53 AM

I agree with wdprice3 on the HOA not being at fault. It didn't matter if they crowned him King Shit or told him to lock himself up in a cage...this dumbass was going to go patrolling the neighborhood locked and loaded regardless.

Wish this shit would go away. It's ridiculously annoying.

4/10/2012 10:35:22 AM

I guess people's opinions on liability in this case come down to this (IMO): Since the HOA listed GZ as the unofficial CW leader, then you see the HOA having liability. My view is that the HOA is irrelevant here. I think GZ would still be the "captain" type person, without the HOA saying anything. I think he would still "patrol"; I think he would still follow TM; I think he would still shoot, even without the HOA's unofficial title of CW captain. The fact that he was the "leader" is irrelevant. GZ's actions would have been the same, thus "blame", "fault", etc. lie with him, not the HOA.

4/10/2012 10:56:42 AM

I mean, yeah.....i think that's all anyone was saying....

The HOA couldn't have prevented this murder. But they did paint themselves into a corner by introducing the liability.

4/10/2012 11:22:20 AM

Right; legally he can [probably] be held liable. My point was that (1) I don't agree with how liability is applied in this country, and how it may be applied in this case; (2) I don't see a reason for the HOA to be sued unless TM's family is wanting money or they personally think it will make things [partially] right, in some form or fashion. GZ was acting under his own will and commands; not under the HOA, thus to me, the HOA shouldn't be held liable. This country is sue happy, so sure, I can see why the family would sue the HOA; I just personally don't agree with it because even if there is insurance, the other residents will likely see higher dues.

If the scenario were that GZ was an official board member/had an official position in the HOA, had a description of duties, and was at the time working under that position, following the described duties, and acting in part of the HOA, then yes, that's a better case for liability, IMO. However, GZ was only identified as the go to (an unofficial position with no job description, no official ties, etc.) for community watch concerns (AFAIK). I don't think that identifying a person to coordinate and be the go-to for CW concerns should open the entire HOA to liability. The HOA was just saying since GW was proactive that he would be a good resource to go to, when the police were unavailable or after they had been contacted. I don't think GZ had any official title or direction, etc. from the HOA; thus no liability on the HOA's part, IMO.


A bad example, but this would be like someone suing you, EMCE, for content on this site, because you are affliated with it. Now, it's a bad example, because 1) this is highly unlikely, 2) you actually have a defined role and title and an official tie and 3) it's backwards. However, it doesn't make sense and it's not right for you to be sued over site content when you aren't the responsible party; Ken would be GZ had no official title, role, or tie to the HOA; he was acting on his own under is own rules. He is responsible for his actions, not the HOA.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 11:39:41 AM

You sue the entity with the money and/or insurance, not the person responsible. No one is going to squeeze a cent out of GZ, regardless of weather or not they have a judgement against him. Unless he has a lot of assets there is nothing to attach the judgement to.

The HOA on the other hand has a lot, and they have liability insurance.

4/10/2012 12:31:11 PM

Which proves my point. They're going for money and nothing else.

4/10/2012 1:19:04 PM

not that i agree, but i'm not surprised. in these situations, it seems typical to just sue everyone you can and see what plays out.

4/10/2012 1:20:55 PM

Quote :

"Which proves my point. They're going for money and nothing else."

What else is there to go for in a civil case? I mean, that's the whole point of a wrongful death suit.

4/10/2012 1:26:43 PM

This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm going to throw the idea out there that Trayvon's parents would rather have their kid alive than a heap of money.

4/10/2012 1:27:56 PM

Quote :

"Which proves my point. They're going for money and nothing else."

Why the fuck not?

4/10/2012 1:30:01 PM

So when will we know if it's "wrongful death"

Also, there is a report of some lady in MD suing George Zimmermans hoa because there has been so many reports about the shooting that it has caused her to lose her winnin lottery ticket.



This is really taking a toll on everyone.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2012 1:33:22 PM

I believe the statute of limitations to bring that case is 2 years (it is in NC at least, might be different in Florida). Then it would go through the civil courts (depositions, hearing, etc). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, which is basically just over 50%. It's not like the standard of proof in a criminal case. But it could also just settle prior to hearing, which is the more likely outcome in this situation.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM. Reason : Short answer: it'll be a while.]

4/10/2012 1:38:01 PM

Fuck the neighbors. They killed Trayvon, too.

Can't get the guy who committed the crime? Just sue someone else!

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 1:40:20 PM

If I were them and I won I would buy $1,000,000 worth of lottery tickets.

4/10/2012 1:40:57 PM

^^Are you new to wrongful death suits?

Do you think there shouldn't be a cause of action for wrongful death at all? Cause that's really what it sounds like to me.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2012 1:42:04 PM

Go after GZ all you want. The HOA doesn't have anything to do with it. This has been my consistent point all along. Where do you get that I'm against any action at all?

4/10/2012 1:44:37 PM

It just comes across like you don't know the purpose of a wrongful death suit, as you allude to the money grabbing, like it's unexpected. Or the fact that the courts have consistently ruled that HOA's can be held responsible for wrongful deaths.

And the "can't get the guy" statement leads me to believe that you misunderstand how prevalent these suits are, or that they are COMMONLY used when the criminal case doesn't cut it, or when there's a third party who is liable, other than the defendant.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM. Reason : If that's not what you mean, just let me know.]

4/10/2012 1:46:38 PM

This is why I say you don't have the necessary understanding of liability, and how it applies here.

I mean, you say you do... But you couldnt possibly hold your current position if you truly did.

4/10/2012 1:47:59 PM

Well you are wrong. I am voicing my opinion on this case and it applies to other similar situations. I understand that people sue other people all the time. My point is, is that it is wrong, shouldn't be allowed, and shows nothing but greed.

The victim's family wants something, I get that. But they feel that they can't get anything from GZ, so they are willing to create victims out of the HOA and homeowners to feed their fury.

^Not when I've stated multiple times that the current use/definition of liability in this country is WRONG. Good lord you people are thick. I AM DISAGREEING WITH THE WHOLE FUCKING CONCEPT, THAT'S HOW I CAN SAY WHAT I SAY. There is a difference between law and my opinion. How many times do I need to say that?

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 1:50:01 PM

I asked: Do you think there shouldn't be a cause of action for wrongful death at all? Cause that's really what it sounds like to me.

You answered:

Quote :

"Where do you get that I'm against any action at all?"

This:

Quote :

"My point is, is that it is wrong, shouldn't be allowed, and shows nothing but greed. ... I AM DISAGREEING WITH THE WHOLE FUCKING CONCEPT, THAT'S HOW I CAN SAY WHAT I SAY."

4/10/2012 1:51:44 PM

Did you not read where I said to go after GZ, the person at fault, and not some unrelated 3rd party?

4/10/2012 1:52:40 PM

So, you just answered the question I asked, but didn't read the question?

4/10/2012 1:53:49 PM

wat. That's my answer to your question. No, the HOA shouldn't be sued; I don't think it should be allowed. The family should go after the truly responsible party, GZ. How many ways to I need to spell it out?

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 1:55:47 PM

Ok...

So...


Your definition and opinion of liability differs from that of the society in which you live and who's laws govern you. Neat. have fun with that in in your imaginary kingdom.

4/10/2012 1:59:51 PM

So you don't have any opinions on how things should be that differ from how society/government sees them?

You essentially just said anyone with an opinion that differs from society's/the government's is crazy. GG!

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 2:00:57 PM

Sure I do. But I don't expect others to play with me in my imaginary world when the laws in reality say something different.

4/10/2012 2:03:30 PM

So... in your opinion, wrongful death suits are only appropriate against the defendant in a criminal trial? At what point, in YOUR opinion, can you bring in a third party? Bring a suit against someone who is not a defendant? Or what if there's no criminal liability at all, and only civil liability???

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2012 2:03:32 PM

^^you never voice your opinion and have a discussion about it publicly? Now you're just being an annoying troll. Are you seriously saying that one with a different opinion can't voice it? That the person is crazy? What type of idiot are you? Wow.

^no; I never said that. And I already pointed out the scenario in which I think the HOA could rightfully be held liable.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 2:04:35 PM

Or maybe you just arent making a bit of sense? And you know it. Yeah, that's it.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM. Reason : Go back and read what I typed you grimy fuck. THAT is what I said. No need to make shit up. ]

4/10/2012 2:06:16 PM

Ok, troll.

What did I make up? You told me to have fun in my imaginary kingdom (e.g. calling me crazy) for having an opinion that differs from "society's". What's made up?

It's simple. I don't agree with how people in this country view liability. If you think the HOA, an unrelated third party in this case, is liable for GZ's action, then I disagree with you. GZ is responsible for his actions and thus is liable. If GZ was an official member of the HOA staff, with a position, title, etc. and was acting under the direction of the HOA per his written duties per his position, then yes, the HOA can be held liable since GZ was acting as an agent of the HOA. What doesn't make sense about that?

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 2:07:00 PM

Go back and read what I wrote....answer your own dumbass questions.

4/10/2012 2:21:44 PM