keylock71: bikerbob59: kokomo61: [www.sun-sentinel.com image 600x400]

Why is everyone dressed the same. Did I not get the memo?

And why are they embarrassed to show their faces?

Sometimes they put these things called "captions" underneath photos to provide the reader with more info on the photo...

Sure, the old 'block the sun' ruse.

kokomo61: [www.sun-sentinel.com image 600x400]

Why is everyone dressed the same. Did I not get the memo?

And why are they all hiding their faces with their signs? Do they all have a warrant out on them and don't want to be ID'd by the po-po??

HAMMERTOE: ManateeGag: so, now it's OK that Zimmerman murdered him, right?

No, it just means that it wasn't "murder", no matter how much you want it to be. No matter how much you go on shouting that it is. No matter how many people shout with you. A man isn't prosecuted on the basis of popular opinion.

all those sex offenders who were charged in the late 90's and are now being aquitted due to DA's who prosecuted due to public opinion would like to speak to you.

BeesNuts: One thing appears to matter in this case, and that is whether or not Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin at the time of the shooting. Everything else, every fact about Trayvon's past, about laws he may or may not have broken, things he may or may not have said or written months before that, whether he had tattoos, was in a gang, loved or hated school, *EVERYTHING* else has absolutely nothing to do with the case, and has no legal bearing on the outcome of that case.

ChuDogg: A record of bar disputes 6 years prior should be just as irrelevent to the case, if not more.

Legally, prior bad acts to prove character to prove action in conformity with character are usually inadmissible. But not because they are relevant. They're inadmissible because they're almost too relevant. Juries tend to weigh such evidence too heavily, and it creates a risk that the jury will convict because of "bad person" prejudice rather than guilt for the present crime.

Now, in this case, since Zimmerman will claim self-defense against a party who cannot testify on his own behalf because Zimmerman killed him, I believe Zimmerman's bad acts will come in, and can even be used to prove character to prove action in conformity with character. Certainly it comes in if at trial Zimmerman attacks Trayvon's character. Law talking types please elucidate.

Whether or not Zimmerman's proven character for criminal violence comes in at trial, it is beyond dispute that his character is relevant to public discussion of the issue. Zimmerman's character for criminal violence, in conjunction with all the other evidence in the case, gives rise to the inference that Zimmerman was the first physical aggressor.

Whether or not a conviction can or will obtain here, we can justifiably hope some decent person exacts vigilante justice against Zimmerman. Zimmerman's apologists cannot justly complain: after all, they defend Zimmerman's commission of vigilante injustice.

ivan: white guy kills ethnic man AND IS NOT ARRESTED: NEWSWORTHY

But he was arrested. He was just not arraigned. There was even camera footage from where he was taken into the station, and the resulting frenzy whether it showed injuries or not. Before you begin arguing semantics, if he wasn't "arrested", what exactly would he have been charged with, had he resisted being taken downtown? (Clue italicized.)

bugontherug:
ChuDogg: A record of bar disputes 6 years prior should be just as irrelevent to the case, if not more.

Legally, prior bad acts to prove character to prove action in conformity with character are usually inadmissible. But not because they are irrrelevant. They're inadmissible because they're almost too relevant. Juries tend to weigh such evidence too heavily, and it creates a risk that the jury will convict because of "bad person" prejudice rather than guilt for the present crime.

Now, in this case, since Zimmerman will claim self-defense against a party who cannot testify on his own behalf because Zimmerman killed him, I believe Zimmerman's bad acts will come in, and can even be used to prove character to prove action in conformity with character. Certainly it comes in if at trial Zimmerman attacks Trayvon's character. Law talking types please elucidate.

Whether or not Zimmerman's proven character for criminal violence comes in at trial, it is beyond dispute that his character is relevant to public discussion of the issue. Zimmerman's character for criminal violence, in conjunction with all the other evidence in the case, gives rise to the inference that Zimmerman was the first physical aggressor.

Whether or not a conviction can or will obtain here, we can justifiably hope some decent person exacts vigilante justice against Zimmerman. Zimmerman's apologists cannot justly complain: after all, they defend Zimmerman's commission of vigilante injustice.

Dang it.

Trance354: all those sex offenders who were charged in the late 90's and are now being aquitted due to DA's who prosecuted due to public opinion would like to speak to you.

And this is why they're being acquitted, no?

You're not going to get me with this argument. I believe that "sex offender" status is a huge travesty of justice. Once you pay your debt to society, your punishment should end, not perpetually prohibit you from becoming a contributing member of society.

HAMMERTOE: ivan: white guy kills ethnic man AND IS NOT ARRESTED: NEWSWORTHY

But he was arrested. He was just not arraigned. There was even camera footage from where he was taken into the station, and the resulting frenzy whether it showed injuries or not. Before you begin arguing semantics, if he wasn't "arrested", what exactly would he have been charged with, had he resisted being taken downtown? (Clue italicized.)

The rest of us, who don't have retired judges for dads, would have been jailed and charged in a heartbeat.

Trance354: leave your assumptions back in the 50's, people. We don't know how much of any of this is just posing for a girl, or looking tough in front of his friends. His English teacher would be aghast at the lack of anything remotely resembling English in any of those posts. His ancestors would be ashamed that he wasn't conducting himself with class(I'm giving his the benefit of the doubt and Fredrick Douglas was an ancestor of his). Before I make any judgement, I want to see the tattoos.

OTOH:
Which gang did he belong to? Tattoos at that age = gang activity/affiliation. Depending on the way the PR wind is blowing, the media will either be positive or negative about the boy. The family will obviously be positive, but I want the FACTS, not the TRUTH. Was he a Blood? Their initiation routines are normally brutal, and you have to commit random acts of violence to move up in the gang. Empty weed bag? Was he a pothead that young or was he a dealer? Did he do other drugs. Facts, people, not the truth. The truth can be twisted, facts can be used.
OTOH:
Was he a saint? Was he sexually active ... with your daughter? Well, FTA, he was asking about the physical aspects of sexual intercourse and he liked the opposite sex, so someone's daughter was getting the dark chocolate.(Yes, I know Easter was yesterday, you're welcome). The media will, eventually, get around to examining every little aspect of this young man's life. And we will hear about it ad infinitum.

/ok, so we're being censored now on FARK. Mods, unbunch the tidy-whites. Some "hate-speech" can be considered necessary for discourse.
//And sometimes it's funny. as long as you're kidding. I play bones with some friends twice a week, and the "hate-speech" is the most prevalent type of joke. I might mention that I'm the only white guy at the table ... or in the club, for that matter, and I'm doing design work for two of those friends. It depends on the company. I had thought that here on fark, we knew what was what.
[farm3.stati ...

You're not trying to be funny. You're one of those internet gangstas who says shiat online that you can't say in the real world.

HAMMERTOE: ivan: white guy kills ethnic man AND IS NOT ARRESTED: NEWSWORTHY

But he was arrested. He was just not arraigned. There was even camera footage from where he was taken into the station, and the resulting frenzy whether it showed injuries or not. Before you begin arguing semantics, if he wasn't "arrested", what exactly would he have been charged with, had he resisted being taken downtown? (Clue italicized.)

You should argue semantics. You're right! He was restrained and put into the custody of authorities. That's was an arrest is.

HAMMERTOE: Trance354: all those sex offenders who were charged in the late 90's and are now being aquitted due to DA's who prosecuted due to public opinion would like to speak to you.

And this is why they're being acquitted, no?

You're not going to get me with this argument. I believe that "sex offender" status is a huge travesty of justice. Once you pay your debt to society, your punishment should end, not perpetually prohibit you from becoming a contributing member of society.

HA! It's like you think we let thieves, drunk drivers and domestic abusers rejoin society.

Gwendolyn:
By wrong neighborhood I meant the one that Zimmerman was paroling.

You mean "wrong neighborhood" as in a neighborhood where shorter, slower, citizens won't tolerate being punched in the mouth and beaten.

Pass.

chapman: As a side note, a big FARK YOU to CNN for their decision that saying the N-word is now okay on their broadcasts.


and black people respect them for it

mc6809e: Gwendolyn:
By wrong neighborhood I meant the one that Zimmerman was paroling.

You mean "wrong neighborhood" as in a neighborhood where shorter, slower, citizens won't tolerate being punched in the mouth and beaten.


When did it become so acceptable for men to act like little pussies? Seriously. If you can't fight then its not in your interest to start one. Leave people the fark alone.

Updated since previous thread.

BeesNuts: One thing appears to matter in this case, and that is whether or not Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin at the time of the shooting. Everything else, every fact about Trayvon's past, about laws he may or may not have broken, things he may or may not have said or written months before that, whether he had tattoos, was in a gang, loved or hated school, *EVERYTHING* else has absolutely nothing to do with the case, and has no legal bearing on the outcome of that case.

SO WHY IN THE EVER LIVING FARK IS THIS CRAP ALL THAT THE PRESS IS TALKING ABOUT?

Fark sakes.

Because someone shot him dead at point blank range, so we can't ask him what happened. And then the police failed to investigate what happened when they arrived barely a minute later, but decided instead to let the shooter go free and not collect evidence because they had decided the shooting was justified based on the shooter's story, despite the initial investigator wanting to arrest the shooter because he found the story unbelievable and eyewitnesses at the scene contradicted the shooter's story.

Yeah, it's a big clusterfark. We have to deduce and infer everything about the case because any actual evidence was either ignored, contaminated, never collected or is currently being fabricated by the Sanford PD to cover their own asses when the trial starts. THAT is why all of this matters. Motive, prior acts, historical evidence of violence and/or criminal activity, ALL of it will be relevant at the trial because of the lack of physical evidence and the amount of contamination produced by the act of getting attention drawn to this case.

DROxINxTHExWIND: mc6809e: Gwendolyn:
By wrong neighborhood I meant the one that Zimmerman was paroling.

You mean "wrong neighborhood" as in a neighborhood where shorter, slower, citizens won't tolerate being punched in the mouth and beaten.


When did it become so acceptable for men to act like little pussies? Seriously. If you can't fight then its not in your interest to start one. Leave people the fark alone.

You're assuming you know who started the fight. A lot of people think they know what happens, but only Zimmerman knows for sure.

altrocks: BeesNuts: One thing appears to matter in this case, and that is whether or not Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin at the time of the shooting. Everything else, every fact about Trayvon's past, about laws he may or may not have broken, things he may or may not have said or written months before that, whether he had tattoos, was in a gang, loved or hated school, *EVERYTHING* else has absolutely nothing to do with the case, and has no legal bearing on the outcome of that case.

SO WHY IN THE EVER LIVING FARK IS THIS CRAP ALL THAT THE PRESS IS TALKING ABOUT?

Fark sakes.

Because someone shot him dead at point blank range, so we can't ask him what happened. And then the police failed to investigate what happened when they arrived barely a minute later, but decided instead to let the shooter go free and not collect evidence because they had decided the shooting was justified based on the shooter's story, despite the initial investigator wanting to arrest the shooter because he found the story unbelievable and eyewitnesses at the scene contradicted the shooter's story.

Yeah, it's a big clusterfark. We have to deduce and infer everything about the case because any actual evidence was either ignored, contaminated, never collected or is currently being fabricated by the Sanford PD to cover their own asses when the trial starts. THAT is why all of this matters. Motive, prior acts, historical evidence of violence and/or criminal activity, ALL of it will be relevant at the trial because of the lack of physical evidence and the amount of contamination produced by the act of getting attention drawn to this case.

Where did you hear that? They arrested him, took things into evidence and questioned him back at the station for hours. At that point they determined they couldn't charge him for anything and let him go home. They continued the investigation for two weeks and at that point the case was closed as there was nothing to prove that it wasn't self defense.

The main thing that I have learned from this case is that some of my friends on facebook are scared shiatless of black people and do not understand their culture at all.

Has anyone enhanced the tweets yet?

PoochUMD: They continued the investigation for two weeks and at that point the case was closed as there was nothing to prove that it wasn't self defense.

A large part of the problem is that there is nothing to prove that it was self-defense, either. Claiming self defense should not be a get-out-of-a-trial-free card. Unfortunately, in Florida it seems that it is. But that's Florida for you.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Trance354: leave your assumptions back in the 50's, people. ...

something about being gangsta on the internets ...

I'd insult you to get your attention, but that would be counter to my point which is thus: Context

I'm in the club with my friends, they're making jokes, I'm making jokes, everybody is laughing and having a good time. When we're working, everything is professional. We have different lines which cannot be crossed because we are at WORK, in a PROFESSIONAL environment. While I'm on Fark, I don't expect to be censored if I'm trying to be funny. There were more like 2-3 posts in my original post; several topics, if you will. either go back and read it again, or don't. You don't know me, and I'm being civil in my discourse. I might make the odd crack(see Family Guy post), but in this case, civil discourse is the flavor of the day.

/yes, I know I'm on Fark, the antithesis of civil discourse

altrocks: BeesNuts: One thing appears to matter in this case, and that is whether or not Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin at the time of the shooting. Everything else, every fact about Trayvon's past, about laws he may or may not have broken, things he may or may not have said or written months before that, whether he had tattoos, was in a gang, loved or hated school, *EVERYTHING* else has absolutely nothing to do with the case, and has no legal bearing on the outcome of that case.

SO WHY IN THE EVER LIVING FARK IS THIS CRAP ALL THAT THE PRESS IS TALKING ABOUT?

Fark sakes.

Because someone shot him dead at point blank range, so we can't ask him what happened. And then the police failed to investigate what happened when they arrived barely a minute later, but decided instead to let the shooter go free and not collect evidence because they had decided the shooting was justified based on the shooter's story, despite the initial investigator wanting to arrest the shooter because he found the story unbelievable and eyewitnesses at the scene contradicted the shooter's story.

Yeah, it's a big clusterfark. We have to deduce and infer everything about the case because any actual evidence was either ignored, contaminated, never collected or is currently being fabricated by the Sanford PD to cover their own asses when the trial starts. THAT is why all of this matters. Motive, prior acts, historical evidence of violence and/or criminal activity, ALL of it will be relevant at the trial because of the lack of physical evidence and the amount of contamination produced by the act of getting attention drawn to this case.

The police were on scene investigating for seven hours the night of the shooting. Also this talking point about one of the investigators wanting to charge him and being overridden originated with the Martin's attorney and everyone involved with the investigation has denied it. The Sanford PD even issued a press release stating as much. I'd link to it but they seem to have been told to scrub their website of Trayvon info.

HAMMERTOE: Trance354: all those sex offenders who were charged in the late 90's and are now being aquitted due to DA's who prosecuted due to public opinion would like to speak to you.

And this is why they're being acquitted, no?

You're not going to get me with this argument. I believe that "sex offender" status is a huge travesty of justice. Once you pay your debt to society, your punishment should end, not perpetually prohibit you from becoming a contributing member of society.

We're arguing different topics. I'm arguing that people did get prosecuted in the 90's for crimes they didn't commit because the public was outraged and cried for blood, and that is still the way shiat works, from time to time, to the shame of the justice system. You're arguing, I think, that people who have served their time should be assimilated back into society. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Trayvon Martin liked girls, hated high school and was planning for college

Sure he was. He didn't do nuffin and was turning his life around. Possession of drugs, possession of burglary tools, possession of stolen property, multiple suspensions and a history of violent assaults are all prerequisites for all the IVY-League schools now days.

He loved rap music and enjoyed cracking jokes on Twitter about street culture.

""Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver.""

Hilarious. This guy would have been the next Chris Rock!

TimonC346: BeesNuts: TimonC346: In this case, it seems like everyone is trying to make Trayvon either a saint of an imp.

The reality was he probably was somewhere in between like the rest of us. And like what will probably happen to the rest of us, he didn't do anything to "deserve" his demise.

The reality is it doesn't farking matter if he is a cofounder of the 17th street Bloods. If he wasn't assaulting Zimmerman, than Zimmerman is guilty of some degree of homicide.

More than anything, I'm getting real farking uneasy with American's apparent zeal for vigilante justice. The fact that the press keeps bringing up crap like the bag with Marijuana "residue" in it, the un-STOLEN jewelry in his bag, the tattoos, the tweets, etc... the attempt to characterize the kid as somehow dangerous based upon knowledge that Zimmerman couldn't have possibly possessed... it tells me that we, as Americans react less negatively to *MURDER* when we can identify the victim as a bad guy.

Which isn't how a system of justice is supposed to work.

I completely agree--this being a raced based murder makes it so people have to demonize to make it feel okay. It takes the edge off the racism if the kid was a hood.

Freaking sad, but the reverse hurts a bit too. I kind of feel like Zimmerman is a moron. Not a Klan member. He's probably some unfortunate loser, not the adamant, out of control racist we sort of wish he is.

He's no klansman, but he is your typical right-winger who feels persecuted by the notions that we not use racial epithets, that we should treat blacks as equals, and that we shouldn't infer criminality solely on the basis of race. It is the same racist impulse that animates klansmen. Different only in degree.

TimonC346: I completely agree--this being a raced based murder makes it so people have to demonize to make it feel okay. It takes the edge off the racism if the kid was a hood.

I don't see many - if there are any - people claiming that the murder was race-related. People are saying that Martin was singled out by Zimmerman as a criminal because of his race and that Martin's race affected the investigation, but I don't see people saying that race was why Zimmerman killed Martin.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere...here's the tough reality of guns: If person A pulls a gun on person B, and tells person B to stop doing whatever he/she is doing, then there are only two outcomes: 1) person B stops, 2) person B dies. (option 3, where B gets the gun form A and hills them, only happens in Chuck Norris movies)

Obviously you are as ignorant with the t.m. case as with the happy statistic that shows how often cops are killed with their own guns.

Trance354: DROxINxTHExWIND: Trance354: leave your assumptions back in the 50's, people. ...

something about being gangsta on the internets ...

I'd insult you to get your attention, but that would be counter to my point which is thus: Context

I'm in the club with my friends, they're making jokes, I'm making jokes, everybody is laughing and having a good time. When we're working, everything is professional. We have different lines which cannot be crossed because we are at WORK, in a PROFESSIONAL environment. While I'm on Fark, I don't expect to be censored if I'm trying to be funny. There were more like 2-3 posts in my original post; several topics, if you will. either go back and read it again, or don't. You don't know me, and I'm being civil in my discourse. I might make the odd crack(see Family Guy post), but in this case, civil discourse is the flavor of the day.

/yes, I know I'm on Fark, the antithesis of civil discourse


I respect that but I do not have the ability to censor you. There is a difference between stopping you from saying what you want to say and commenting on what you have said. You admittedly are trying to be provocative and "funny". Do you expect that no one will respond to you? You'll have to excuse those of us who have seen the "i'm joking" defense on Fark a number of times. You're not amongst your friends at a bar when you're on Fark. You're one of many anonymous strangers.And you';re right, I don;t know you. All I know is what you post. And when your "joke" is mixed in among 300, "Trayvon was a gangster" quotes, its tough to know who is joking and who is derping.