stebain: Thunderpipes: Haha. I make this a political thing? Nice.

You keep attributing disagreement with you as a "Libs" thing, regardless of the author.

Have not seen one intelligent person who thinks, from the actual available evidence, that Zimmerman did anything wrong.

Zimmerman did mostly things that were fine. While he shouldn't have called 911 (use the non emergency line for someone looking creepy in the neighborhood), that wasn't terrible. He probably should have actually said something to Martin while still out on the street. If he felt that his life was in danger, even the shooting was reasonable. I've always argued that he has no authority of SYG because he believed the kid dangerous and put himself in the situation. I don't think he set out to kill some kid that night.
Tracking the kid, if you felt he was dangerous, is what I feel he did wrong. I don't think necessarily that Martin would be wrong in attacking someone that he felt was out to do him harm.

I agree Zimmerman did not act completely wise. I think he did those things for a legitimate reason, I believe what, 8 break ins there recently? Maybe he was pissed the cops were not on it. I am on the fence about following the kid because I don't know how close he was, what the situation looked like. But, nothing he appeared to do was in any way criminal, and the law is pretty clear about that.

People here keep saying Tray has some right to attack Zimmerman and the law is clear about that too. Zimmerman even lost him, that's on the 911 call. People here keep saying Tray was in fear for his life, without any proof, evidence, or even reasonable cause. They are making things up because they don't want to believe Tray is capable of assault. They want a race war.

If the races were reversed, people would be calling him a hero, out to defend his neighborhood. If charges were brought and Zimmerman were black, Obama, Al, Jesse, and liberals would be right there again biatching about that as well. This is a lose/lose for everyone.

relcec: Thunderpipes SmartestFunniest 2012-03-29 02:03:53 PM

The law completely disagrees with you. This is fact. I like the word choices too. "Stalk", "chase them down". Nice.

The law says that if some random person starts following me anywhere, I have no special rights whatsoever unless they actually attack me. They can even yell at me, call me names, I still cannot attack them. Tray's duty (as you guys keep saying Zimmermans' was once attacked) was to ignore him, talk to him, or simply leave. He attacked. He died. Oops. No reasonable person (and no jury) would ever think silently following someone briefly constituted a threat of bodily harm. Tray was a thug. He wanted to be all gangsta like Twopack and Biggie Fats. He did it wrong.


you don't jack shiat about the law.
you don't have to wait until you get punched in the head to defend yourself. you don't even have to wait until they cock their fist first. you don't have to wait until someone slaps you or even so much as spits on your pant leg to take action. All that matter is whether a reasonable person in the given situation would have felt the physical threat was imminent and the preemptive response was proportional.

a strange man creeping up in his car on a random person lawfully walking down the street to get to their residence, then exiting his car and chasing that person down the street and behind houses in the dark of night would put any reasonable person in fear of a physical confrontation soon to be initiated by that unknown aggressor, and thus proportional self defense in that situation is reasonable.

trayvon is allowed to use reasonable force as anyone else would have been before zimmerman even tried to lay one finger on him.
this is the only conservative way to view the interplay between our individual rights regarding autonomy, and our responsibilities to each other and in opposition to one another in a society where we all must coexist, and it is also happens to be the law.

Umm, no. You might want to brush up on your law there Mattlock. First of all, you are making up a situation, like Zimmerman jumped out of his car and was running after Tray who was running for his life. Does not even remotely sound like what went down. "preemptive force"? WTF? Where the hell do you get that? There is no way, from what we know so far, that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or injury in Tray's case. None. And, to top all this off, Tray could easily outrun Zimmerman, and lost him, so you would have to ask why the dumbass jumped Zimmerman.

You guys are pants down retarded.

dittybopper: Dog Welder: 2) Carrying a gun. There was another article on Fark (last week) regarding the neighborhood watch, and the company that the community brought in to discuss how to set up a neighborhood watch said: "Rule #1: no weapons while on patrol."

Zimmerman wasn't "on patrol" as part of some neighborhood watch. According to his story, he was on his way to buy groceries when he noticed Martin.

Once he made the call and identified himself as part of the neighborhood watch, he should have been following the rule of no guns.

The simple fact is: if George Zimmerman listens to the advice of the dispatcher, Martin is still alive and Zimmerman's life isn't turned into a massive world of shiat.

Also, I'd probably be getting more stuff done at work.

dittybopper: According to his story, he was on his way to buy groceries when he noticed Martin.

I've been on my way to buy groceries when a fire call came over the radio as well. When you're a volunteer, you're never really "off-duty". But that brings to mind another question: just what do you have to be doing to arouse the suspicion of somebody driving by? I can see somebody sitting on the porch, watching the whole neighborhood, but somebody driving through has a context of about 1 minute, maximum to gauge your actions by, unless the happen to be sitting at a long red light. You'd pretty much have to be seen peering in the windows of a darkened house to arouse suspicion. Walking down the street with an ice tea and a bag of skittles doesn't rise to that level.

RexTalionis SmartestFunniest 2012-03-29 03:24:14 PM


Thunderpipes: And, to top all this off, Tray could easily outrun Zimmerman, and lost him, so you would have to ask why the dumbass jumped Zimmerman.

You forget - in Florida, there's no duty to retreat.

in what jurisdiction is there a duty to retreat from run of the mill physical violence anywhere before responding in kind?
I'm fairly sure that duty to retreat only applies at all when the victim intends to reply to a threat with lethal force.

Dog Welder: dittybopper: Dog Welder: 2) Carrying a gun. There was another article on Fark (last week) regarding the neighborhood watch, and the company that the community brought in to discuss how to set up a neighborhood watch said: "Rule #1: no weapons while on patrol."

Zimmerman wasn't "on patrol" as part of some neighborhood watch. According to his story, he was on his way to buy groceries when he noticed Martin.

Once he made the call and identified himself as part of the neighborhood watch, he should have been following the rule of no guns.

The simple fact is: if George Zimmerman listens to the advice of the dispatcher, Martin is still alive and Zimmerman's life isn't turned into a massive world of shiat.

Also, I'd probably be getting more stuff done at work.

Simple fact is, if Tray did not attack Zimmerman, Tray is still alive and I get more done at work too. Zimmerman was unwise. Tray was worse, and he died for it.

I have been followed in a creepy way before. Bank Street in Burlington, VT, 20 years ago. Older dude kept driving slowly by me and pulling over. Watching me. I had no idea what he was doing. I went to ask him what the hell was going on (who the F are you I believe were my words) and he goes speeding off to the police station at the end of the Street. Cop and him come back, guy said he thought was I was going to beat him up for "being gay". Cop laughed, said "he is just out cruising for a piece of ass" and that was the end of it. Guess I am really handsome. And I guess that is how gay dudes pick people up, creepy. He looked to me like Ted Bundy.

Point is, did the guy do anything criminal? No. If I yanked him out of the car and beat his ass, what do you think the police and public would have thought? I would be guilty of a hate crime and thrown in the pokey. I felt a little nervous because I did not know who he was. Did I feel in fear of my life? No. I could have easily ran. Does the act of following me mean the guy is fair game for an ass beating? No. Law says no.

relcec: Thunderpipes SmartestFunniest 2012-03-29 03:20:18 PM

Umm, no. You might want to brush up on your law there Mattlock. First of all, you are making up a situation, like Zimmerman jumped out of his car and was running after Tray who was running for his life. Does not even remotely sound like what went down. "preemptive force"? WTF? Where the hell do you get that? There is no way, from what we know so far, that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or injury in Tray's case. None. And, to top all this off, Tray could easily outrun Zimmerman, and lost him, so you would have to ask why the dumbass jumped Zimmerman.

You guys are pants down retarded.

-trayvon' doesn't have to be in fear of his life to respond. that's not the law, anywhere, you idiot.
-I never said, ran, but chased.
-and here's a definition of preemptive: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preemptive

now, please shut up, imbecile who is convinced he knows the law and that it dictates that you must wait until you get punched square in the nose before you can take action against an agressor.
for the love of god.

I know it better than you, bed wetter.

Why don't you go launch your preemptive strike on the mailman and see how that works out for you. News flash, someone can even be in your face yelling at you and you still don't have the right to get violent, you dumb monkey. Where did you get your law degree, Jesse Jackson U?

sure thunderpipes, you know the law.

you think a person has to have a reasonable fear for their life, that they are about to be murdered essentially, or in the alternate that they need to wait until they take a punch square in the nose before they can lawfully defend themselves, but you still know the law.
right.

except for being wrong about every facet of the law in play here, you know it real good. I'm sure.

you're a god damn intellectual giant. thunderpipes, what we need to do is get your big brain working on cold fusion. if we could just tap genius intellect that you have but everyone you've ever met somehow misses, you'd solve the worlds energy problems I bet.

Thunderpipes: Dog Welder: dittybopper: Dog Welder: 2) Carrying a gun. There was another article on Fark (last week) regarding the neighborhood watch, and the company that the community brought in to discuss how to set up a neighborhood watch said: "Rule #1: no weapons while on patrol."

Zimmerman wasn't "on patrol" as part of some neighborhood watch. According to his story, he was on his way to buy groceries when he noticed Martin.

Once he made the call and identified himself as part of the neighborhood watch, he should have been following the rule of no guns.

The simple fact is: if George Zimmerman listens to the advice of the dispatcher, Martin is still alive and Zimmerman's life isn't turned into a massive world of shiat.

Also, I'd probably be getting more stuff done at work.

Simple fact is, if Tray did not attack Zimmerman, Tray is still alive and I get more done at work too. Zimmerman was unwise. Tray was worse, and he died for it.


And I'm sure you have access to security camera footage of Martin attacking Zimmerman first.

Oh, and Rule #2 of the Neighborhood Watch program is "Do not follow or confront a suspicious person."

Zimmerman failed pretty hard at both of those rules, even after being reminded of the second by the police dispatcher. At the very least, he's an idiot; at the worst he's a murderer.

RexTalionis SmartestFunniest 2012-03-29 03:57:38 PM

in what jurisdiction is there a duty to retreat from run of the mill physical violence anywhere before responding in kind?
I'm fairly sure that duty to retreat only applies at all when the victim intends to reply to a threat with lethal force.

I meant in the specific - in Florida, self defense does not have a duty to retreat in either cases of lethal or nonlethal force.

In any case, there was at least one state that had a duty to retreat even in nonlethal situations. It's Iowa. I'm not sure if the law is still valid, but it was valid as of 2007 .


ah, very good. I was wrong. should have known there would have been a few that would have it. and yeah, we all knew you were right about florida. sorry to sidetrack you.

Martin obviously feared for his life since there are so many witnesses to him running through the complex screaming for help.

Oh wait....

relcec: sure thunderpipes, you know the law.

you think a person has to have a reasonable fear for their life, that they are about to be murdered essentially, or in the alternate that they need to wait until they take a punch square in the nose before they can lawfully defend themselves, but you still know the law.
right.

except for being wrong about every facet of the law in play here, you know it real good. I'm sure.

you're a god damn intellectual giant. thunderpipes, what we need to do is get your big brain working on cold fusion. if we could just tap genius intellect that you have but everyone you've ever met somehow misses, you'd solve the worlds energy problems I bet.

Look it up, turd. Have to be in reasonable fear for you life, or bodily harm, neither of which Tray was. Can biatch and cry all you want, your "preemptive strike" law is pretty cool I must admit, but it is about as fail as it comes. I am in intellectual giant, and a sexual Tyrannosaurus. Weep! Weep!

By the way, if someone has not attacked, nor even threatened you, what are you defending yourself against? Magic? Calculus? Getting a job?

here is how FL defines it:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.

Reasonable belief that it WILL happen. Being followed does not satisfy this, nor even someone running towards you.

Thunderpipes:

Why don't you go launch your preemptive strike on the mailman and see how that works out for you. News flash, someone can even be in your face yelling at you and you still don't have the right to get violent, you dumb monkey. Where did you get your law degree, Jesse Jackson U?

You are 100% wrong.

If you feel you are under the imminent threat of violence or other felony, in Florida, you may strike first.

And because of Stand Your Ground, in Florida, you don't have to choose flight over fight first.

Your mailman does NOT pose an imminent threat unless he's walking up to your door while brandishing a gun.

ChuDogg:

Just to help you keep the call comments in the right order:

19:09:34 Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, line is being recorded. This is Sean.

19:09:38 Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

19:09:51
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

19:09:59
Dispatcher: Okay, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

19:10:01
Zimmerman: He looks black.

19:10:03
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

19:10:05
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes.

19:10:14
Zimmerman: He's here now and he's just staring...

19:10:17
Dispatcher: Oh, he's just walking around the area...

19:10:17
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.

19:10:19
Dispatcher: Ah, 'kay...

19:10:20
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.

19:10:22
Dispatcher: Okay-you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?

19:10:25
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

19:10:27
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the-he's near the clubhouse right now?

19:10:31
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.

19:10:33
Dispatcher: Okay.

19:10:37
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband.

19:10:42
Zimmerman: And he's a black male.

19:10:43
Dispatcher: Okay. How old would you say he looks?

19:10:45
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt..

19:10:46
Zimmerman: ..late teens.

19:10:47
Dispatcher: Late teens, okay.

19:10:48
Zimmerman: Mmhuh.

19:10:51
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him.

19:10:55
Zimmerman: Ayup, he's coming to check me out.

19:10:58
Zimmerman: He's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

19:11:01
Dispatcher: Okay, just let me know if he does anything okay...

19:11:02
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

19:11:03
Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got 'em on the way - just let me know if this guy does anything else.

19:11:08
Zimmerman: Okay.

19:11:11
Zimmerman: Ugh - these assholes, they always get away.

19:11:17
Zimmerman: Yep.

19:11:19
Zimmerman: When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in...and make a left.

19:11:25
Zimmerman: Actually. You would go past the clubhouse.

19:11:28
Dispatcher: Ah. You say it's on the left hand side from the clubhouse?

19:11:32
Zimmerman: Naaah...you go in straight through the entrance...and then you make a left...uh...yea, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left-

19:11:40
Zimmerman: - ah shiat.

19:11:41
Zimmerman: He's running.

19:11:42
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

19:11:44

[sound of vehicle door opening]

19:11:45
Zimmerman: Down towards the, uh, other entrance to the neighborhood.

19:11:48
Dispatcher: Okay, which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

19:11:50
Zimmerman: The back entrance...

19:11:54
Zimmerman: farking [unintelligible]

19:11:56
Dispatcher: Are you following him?

19:11:58
Zimmerman: Yeah

19:11:59
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

19:12:02
Zimmerman: Ok

 

[muffled noises - wind? heavy breathing?]

19:12:08
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?

19:12:10
Zimmerman: George

19:12:11
Zimmerman: He ran.  [muffled - breathless?]

19:12:14
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?

19:12:17
Zimmerman: [two slapping/tapping noises] Zimmerman

19:12:18
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?

19:12:19

[more slapping/flapping noises]

19:12:21
Zimmerman: 407-***-****[redacted]

19:12:26
Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

19:12:30
Zimmerman: Yeah.

19:12:31
Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

19:12:34
Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the uh, gate -- tell them to go straight past the club house, [more slapping/flapping noises] and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, they'll see my truck...[unintelligible]

19:12:53
Dispatcher: Okay. What address are you parked in front of?

19:12:55
Zimmerman: Um. I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

19:13:00
Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?

19:13:01
Zimmerman: Yeah, yeah...I live...[unintelligible]

19:13:02
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?

19:13:06
Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950 [more slapping/flapping noises]

19:13:09
Zimmerman:  Aw crap. I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

LCM>>>This is over a minute after he acknowledged the dispatcher's "we don't need you to do that" which should have given him plenty of time to retrace the steps that took him about 15 seconds away from his truck. The same truck that was parked on the street -- well away from somewhere the kid might be hiding close enough to overhear him give out his address on the phone. I'd say he was still looking for the kid.

19:13:12
Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

19:13:16
Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine. [more faint slapping/flapping noises]

19:13:20
Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you [unintelligible] there okay?

19:13:21
Zimmerman: Actually could you...could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

LCM>>>>In fact, he doesn't even want to give up to meet the cops where the dispatcher suggests.

19:13:25
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

19:13:27
Zimmerman: You need my number or you got it?

19:13:28
Dispatcher: Yeah I got it. 407-***-**** [redacted]?

19:13:29
Zimmerman: Yeah you got it.

19:13:33
Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.

19:13:36
Zimmerman: Thanks.

19:13:37
Dispatcher: You're welcome.

Thunderpipes: relcec: sure thunderpipes, you know the law.


Reasonable belief that it WILL happen. Being followed does not satisfy this, nor even someone running towards you.

It was after dark (7:30 pm in Florida on 2/26/12 is past sundown), and some guy was following him. I'd be a bit on edge, especially if the guy was walking through yards trying to find me.

Just because you're in Internet Tough Guy Mode and wouldn't have panicked, that does not mean someone else would not have.

Giltric: tirob: According to the ABC News story I read, the decison not to charge Zimmerman was made by the local prosecutor, not Serino.

Could be because there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty?

Evidence is usually accepted....speculation is usually overruled, but LA Law and Cop Rock hasn't been on in a while so I am not up to date on the legal system.

Yes. Or at least that's what the prosecutor is said to have believed, anyway.

Dog Welder: Thunderpipes:

Why don't you go launch your preemptive strike on the mailman and see how that works out for you. News flash, someone can even be in your face yelling at you and you still don't have the right to get violent, you dumb monkey. Where did you get your law degree, Jesse Jackson U?

You are 100% wrong.

If you feel you are under the imminent threat of violence or other felony, in Florida, you may strike first.

And because of Stand Your Ground, in Florida, you don't have to choose flight over fight first.

Your mailman does NOT pose an imminent threat unless he's walking up to your door while brandishing a gun.

Just posted the same thing, butt head.

At no time, but any reasonable way to view it, was Tray ever in imminent danger of violence or even touch. Remember, Zimmerman was on the phone describing all this. Confrontation did not happen until Zimmerman lost him and was walking to his truck, at which time NO_LIMIT got all up in his grill.

Can make up scary scenarios all you like, doesn't make anything you say right. You are wrong. You are racist. You are trying to make up scenarios to justify an attack on Zimmerman. And, according to the law, since Zimmerman was not engaged in any criminal behavior, he still would have the right to shoot Tray once he was down and in danger.

But keep fishing. Get the Justice League involved, call Al and Jesse, they could use your support. Don't forget your riot shoes and underwear!

Just go ahead and let G-Zimz roll free. The public'll get him right quick

Giltric: has this been posted yet? (new window)


/shamelessly stolen from somewhere else

What Zimmerman thought he was:

NationalHero: Just go ahead and let G-Zimz roll free. The public'll get him right quick

It would be ironic if someone shot him and pulled "stand yer ground" out of their ass.

Zimmerman was not arrested, from the Sanford Fl City Manager

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

warning PDF

Sanford City Manager

also the police report verifies this by omission, nowhere in the report does either officer state that zimmerman was placed under arrest which would be noted if he had been.

Handcuffing someone involved in a homocide would seem to be a pretty good idea and SOP when transporting to investigation\detention until such time as you can verify they are not a threat to law enforcement

Hots_Kebabs: Zimmerman was not arrested, from the Sanford Fl City Manager

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

warning PDF

Sanford City Manager

also the police report verifies this by omission, nowhere in the report does either officer state that zimmerman was placed under arrest which would be noted if he had been.

Handcuffing someone involved in a homocide would seem to be a pretty good idea and SOP when transporting to investigation\detention until such time as you can verify they are not a threat to law enforcement

Good point.

Thunderpipes: Simple fact is, if Tray did not attack Zimmerman, Tray is still alive and I get more done at work too. Zimmerman was unwise. Tray was worse, and he died for it.

I disagree with your basic premise. If someone is following you at night, and you try to run away from them, and they continue to follow you, it's reasonable for you to assume that they are up to no good and that they mean you harm. "Let the mugger hit you first before you are allowed to do anything" doesn't make any sense.

You are also making an assertion that Martin started the physical fight. That may or may not not be true. He may have been trying to run and Zimmerman, who was chasing him with a self proclaimed "These assholes always get away, and I"m not letting this one get away" attitude may have grabbed him in an attempt to keep him from escaping. If that happened, then ZImmerman made the first physical contact.

We know that Martin tried to avoid the conflict in the first place by running, and we know that Zimmerman followed him. Zimmermans 911 call makes that clear.

We don't know either way which one initiated physical contact after that.

Personally, I don't care because I don't think Zimmerman should have been chasing after the kid anyway, and I think you have a right to defend yourself against maniacs that chase you at night.

Claiming that Martin initiated physical contact (and pretending that's an actual fact) ignores that the only evidence of that is a claim by the shooter, who obviously has a lot riding on it. If he says "Yes, I tacked the kid, then he started punching me", he knows he'll be in more trouble. Just because a suspect says "I didn't do it" doesn't mean we should always believe them.

Phinn:

However, there is no evidence, from any of the reported witness statements, that Zimmerman presented an imminent threat of harm to Martin. There may have been grounds for Martin to be suspicious, to feel nervous, and if we believe the lawyer-coached girlfriend, that Martin did in fact feel nervous. But Martin must have reasonably believed the threat to him was imminent, and there is no evidence to support that conclusion.


There is, however, evidence that Zimmerman is an adult and that Martin was a juvenile. I don't know how things are where you are, but around here, if an adult approaches an unaccompanied juvenile whom he doesn't know, he could get charged with disorderly conduct, especially if it is after sunset and if that adult is carrying a pistol. If Zimmerman was *already* committing a misdemeanor by the time he got within striking distance of Martin, Martin could have reasonably believed that he was imminent danger of a serious threat to himself.

Hots_Kebabs

Handcuffing someone involved in a homocide would seem to be a pretty good idea and SOP when transporting to investigation\detention until such time as you can verify they are not a threat to law enforcement


it would even make more sense if the the case were a homicide

JuggleGeek: Claiming that Martin initiated physical contact (and pretending that's an actual fact) ignores that the only evidence of that is a claim by the shooter, who obviously has a lot riding on it. If he says "Yes, I tacked the kid, then he started punching me", he knows he'll be in more trouble. Just because a suspect says "I didn't do it" doesn't mean we should always believe them.

If only Anglo-American jurisprudence had some means of resolving cases where the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion ... if only there were some presumption we could make ... a presumption of guilt, or a presumption of innocence ....

If only.

Hammertoe

You derp so sincerely.

But it's still complete derp.

Thunderpipes: At no time, but any reasonable way to view it, was Tray ever in imminent danger of violence or even touch. Remember, Zimmerman was on the phone describing all this. Confrontation did not happen until Zimmerman lost him and was walking to his truck, at which time NO_LIMIT got all up in his grill.

This is part of the story I find extremely unlikely.

Stuff we know : Martin ran, Zimmerman chased him. ZImmerman tells us that on the 911 call.

Zimmerman also is unwilling to agree to a place to meet the police, saying "Have them call me when they get here, and I'll tell them where I am". That indicates that he's still looking for the kid. If he were going to go straight back to his vehicle, he could have told them he'd meet them there, or at the clubhouse, or at his house, or at the corner of X and Y streets. But he wanted them to call him. I strongly suspect he was still searching or still chasing.

Now here is where his story breaks down. Martin runs, and he chases the kid. He claims the kid got away and he was returning to his vehicle when the kid confronted him. How likely is that? Martin initially ran from him, got away, and then came back to start a fight? It seems more likely that Martin got to a deadend with Zimmerman still following him. Or that Martin hid someplace and Zimmerman found him. It seems very unlikely that he would run, and then after Zimmerman was no longer after him, would decide to come back and confront Zimmerman.

Whatever happened, however the fight started, it happened in a back yard area. That doesn't fit well with the "I had quit chasing him and was on my way back to my car".

Zimmermans story is possible, but it seems unlikely.

Your claim that Martin wasn't being threatened with violence or even touch doesn't make sense. You're claiming Zimmerman is carrying a gun, and willing to chase Martin down, but that he would be unwilling to grab Martin to keep him from running away.

Phinn: If only Anglo-American jurisprudence had some means of resolving cases where the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion ... if only there were some presumption we could make ... a presumption of guilt, or a presumption of innocence ....


Presumption of innocence doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an investigation or a trial any time the suspect says "I didn't do it".

tirob: if an adult approaches an unaccompanied juvenile whom he doesn't know, he could get charged with disorderly conduct

A few months ago, unbeknownst to me, the people in the house next to mine moved out. Their teenage son, however, came back to the house a few days later and threw a party. Since the house was empty, and no adults were around, the party became pretty raucous. They were 15-18 year-olds.

When the party got louder and louder, and woke up our 7 year-old son at midnight, we called the police. The teenagers scattered, and many of them ran to hide behind my bushes, which meant they were lurking just outside my bedroom window.

I considered having several dozen drunk teens running through my back yard and standing outside my bedroom windows at 12:30 am to be a problem. So I went outside to investigate. I found several of them, walking around my property, climbing through my bushes, and some walking down the street and on nearby properties, evading the police on the other side of the house.

I approached them, with the intent to tell them to stay the fark away from my bedroom windows.

You are saying that, according to your inestimable legal acumen, merely by approaching these teenagers, unaccompanied as they were by an adult, I committed a crime, such that if one of them had asked me if I had a problem, then said. "You do now" and hit me, that I would have been the aggressor, and legally prevented from using force to defend myself against the attack.

If so, by what operative legal principle did you arrive at this conclusion, Mr. Justice Tirob?

Thunderpipes: stebain: Thunderpipes: The law completely disagrees with you. This is fact. I like the word choices too. "Stalk", "chase them down". Nice.

I think it fairly represents what the 2nd party might interpret your actions as.

UPS guy came to my house today. Drove up my driveway, walked right up to the door. Maybe I should have kicked his ass? I was not expecting a package today after all. Could have been a stalker, or a murderer. Someone walked by the house earlier too, did not recognize them. Perhaps they were here to murder me. Maybe I should have kicked their ass as well. I swear at the grocery store a shady looking teenager was walking behind me talking about skittles. He was a rapist, so I could kick his ass!

That is how dumb liberals are. So dumb you have to look down to look up.

If Traypack felt so threatened, why the hell didn't he, I dunno, run away? After all, the weight advantage you liberals all cry about surely means a 17 year old 120 pound kid can outrun a 350 pound whexican with a 50 caliber rifle?

0/10. I thought you were just stupid for a while, but now I realize you're only a troll.

JuggleGeek: Presumption of innocence doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an investigation or a trial any time the suspect says "I didn't do it".

There was an investigation. The police brought Zimmerman in for questioning, reviewed the audio tapes and record of other 911 calls, located witnesses and interviewed them.

This investigation yielded insufficient evidence to justify a trial, according to the prosecutor whose job it is to make such an evaluation.

The Special Prosecutor says "It's possible that we'll just make a decision without the grand jury"

Link (new window)

gameshowhost: CrAz3D: grainy video that shows basically grainy grain-like grains. DEFINITELY proof of X.

Even though I knew ~some~ idiot was going to proclaim this, I just wanted to congratulate you for being the first idiot.

/also: 'watch stuff' in your lcd's native resolution so you can 'see stuff'

I was. Nevertheless, the video isn't clear enough to show bruising or swelling that might have existed. Further, the video isn't clear enough to show whether there was blood under his nose or whether his nose was broken (aint no xray video).


lacrossestar83: CrAz3D: eurotrader: GAT_00 [TotalFark]

Do you ever comment in threads you don't submit?

I have not submitted a thread in months. Working on a project right now that a break is needed about every half hour of so. I think you may have seen my other posts today. I am not opposed to fixing health care; just the method employed by Obamacare does not really fix anything and makes somethings worse. I think the US should have some sort of true public health system and it could have been done for less money with full coverage for all. The argument solely based on who gets credit is idiotic when merits and method of solving lack of health care for all should be the starting point. With the mood on both sides I do not see it happening on any issue anytime soon.

Still irritated when given the chance for an enormous good for the country it was squandered because special interests and lobbyists and now another 10 years will have to pass to try to fix it. While I did not vote for Obama after he won I thought the weed thing, gay marriage, health care and civil liberties would at least head in the right direction, with the exception of maybe health care for some it has gotten worse than the nonsense Bush did

Last paragraph = comedy gold.

RON PAUL!
Do I know you or are you just speculating that I'm a Paul supporter?
/even if I think some of his domestic policy is a little nuts (e.g., eliminated ed dept)
//I fully support his foreign policy, that's what turned me on to him

Meanniss: The Special Prosecutor says "It's possible that we'll just make a decision without the grand jury"

Isn't that wonderful? An administration that wants to circumvent one of the most important safeguards against the abuse of state power for political gain.

Corey said she is also immune to the public controversy swirling around the case, which is also being probed by the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department.

Oh, well, she said she's immune, so that must mean it's true.

Meanniss: The Special Prosecutor says "It's possible that we'll just make a decision without the grand jury"

Link (new window)

What she said is that state charges bypass the need for a grand jury. Oh this is going to get good when she announces manslaughter charges. Get your riot insurance now.

9beers: Meanniss: The Special Prosecutor says "It's possible that we'll just make a decision without the grand jury"

Link (new window)

What she said is that state charges bypass the need for a grand jury. Oh this is going to get good when she announces manslaughter charges. Get your riot insurance now.

No one is going to charge the son of a former magistrate with diddly squat. She's just saying that for the TV. Oh, and what makes her so "special"? Does she really believe she's better than the other prosecutors? Or is that something she just calls herself? She sounds like an attention whore.

9beers: Meanniss: The Special Prosecutor says "It's possible that we'll just make a decision without the grand jury"

Link (new window)

What she said is that state charges bypass the need for a grand jury. Oh this is going to get good when she announces manslaughter charges. Get your riot insurance now.

Wow. Just....wow. Why not just bypass court altogether?

This is problematic at best. Now our justice system is based upon public outcry? Oh boy. Just wait until the "Skip justice altogether" offense is used on a black dude.

Phinn: tirob: if an adult approaches an unaccompanied juvenile whom he doesn't know, he could get charged with disorderly conduct

A few months ago, unbeknownst to me, the people in the house next to mine moved out. Their teenage son, however, came back to the house a few days later and threw a party. Since the house was empty, and no adults were around, the party became pretty raucous. They were 15-18 year-olds.

When the party got louder and louder, and woke up our 7 year-old son at midnight, we called the police. The teenagers scattered, and many of them ran to hide behind my bushes, which meant they were lurking just outside my bedroom window.

I considered having several dozen drunk teens running through my back yard and standing outside my bedroom windows at 12:30 am to be a problem. So I went outside to investigate. I found several of them, walking around my property, climbing through my bushes, and some walking down the street and on nearby properties, evading the police on the other side of the house.

I approached them, with the intent to tell them to stay the fark away from my bedroom windows.

You are saying that, according to your inestimable legal acumen, merely by approaching these teenagers, unaccompanied as they were by an adult, I committed a crime, such that if one of them had asked me if I had a problem, then said. "You do now" and hit me, that I would have been the aggressor, and legally prevented from using force to defend myself against the attack.

If so, by what operative legal principle did you arrive at this conclusion, Mr. Justice Tirob?

you can't really be this dumb.
I don't believe you really can't see a difference between trayvon martin lawfully walking home and then being followed in a car, then chased on foot across dark streets and backyards, those and random people trespassing on your property.
no one can be this stupid.

you have an affirmative right to use reasonable force to remove trespassers. they are acting unlawfully, they don;t have the right to attack you for you using reasonable force to remove them.
trayvon had the right to use force to meet what would appear to be an imminent threat to any rational individual in the same circumstances.

please tell me you are trolling.
please tell me you aren't so stupid you can't see how and why the legal system allows a legal defense for actions in self defense for the lawful and innocent trayvons of the world and none to the random tresspassers of the world.

how can so many of you f*cks be so clueless?

Phinn: Isn't that wonderful? An administration that wants to circumvent one of the most important safeguards against the abuse of state power for political gain.

Whats the difference if the grand jury convenes with manslaughter charges being on the table and if manslaughter charges are filed without a grand jury convening. The grand jury doesn't look at the evidence and then say "Lets go for murder charges" or "I think this is manslaughter". The prosecutor determines what charges they want to file before the grand jury convenes and then the grand jury decides if the evidence supports those charges or not.

If you think Zimmerman is going to be charged with murder, prepare to be disappointed.

Phinn: tirob: if an adult approaches an unaccompanied juvenile whom he doesn't know, he could get charged with disorderly conduct

A few months ago, unbeknownst to me, the people in the house next to mine moved out. Their teenage son, however, came back to the house a few days later and threw a party. Since the house was empty, and no adults were around, the party became pretty raucous. They were 15-18 year-olds.

When the party got louder and louder, and woke up our 7 year-old son at midnight, we called the police. The teenagers scattered, and many of them ran to hide behind my bushes, which meant they were lurking just outside my bedroom window.

I considered having several dozen drunk teens running through my back yard and standing outside my bedroom windows at 12:30 am to be a problem. So I went outside to investigate. I found several of them, walking around my property, climbing through my bushes, and some walking down the street and on nearby properties, evading the police on the other side of the house.

I approached them, with the intent to tell them to stay the fark away from my bedroom windows.

You are saying that, according to your inestimable legal acumen, merely by approaching these teenagers, unaccompanied as they were by an adult, I committed a crime, such that if one of them had asked me if I had a problem, then said. "You do now" and hit me, that I would have been the aggressor, and legally prevented from using force to defend myself against the attack.

If so, by what operative legal principle did you arrive at this conclusion, Mr. Justice Tirob?

No, I am not saying that at all. You had a right to approach them.

Your example, however, is inapposite to the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation. By a mile. The teenagers on your property were trespassers. And hiding from the cops. Martin was an invitee on the property where Zimmerman was "patrolling," or at least he was an invitee on its common grounds, and there is no evidence that he was trying to evade the cops when Zimmerman approached him.

See the distinction? Let me try again: An adult who approaches an unaccompanied juvenile whom he doesn't know, on the highway, could get charged with disorderly conduct, particularly if it is after sunset and if that adult is carrying a pistol.

Better?

9beers: George Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime because there is not evidence that he committed any.

The evidence is the dead kid. Self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on the person claiming self defense.

GreatGlavinsGhost: No one is going to charge the son of a former magistrate with diddly squat.

Stop preparing your excuses. If he isn't charged, it will be because no evidence exists that he committed a crime.