Bf+: oesn't matter...
Florida 776.013.3: person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force

Who was attacked, Zimmerman or Martin? We do not know.

moralpanic: 9beers: NightOwl2255: Just want to make sure everyone knows what a vile POS 9beers is.

I like when people pull that out, helps keep track of the people that can't argue their side with facts and evidence.

Ya, because you're all about facts and evidence!

Of course he is, but only with the evidence he likes or agrees with.

LasersHurt: cuzsis: LasersHurt: steamingpile: FlashHarry: you're going to jail, buddy. good thing, too.

Why is that a good thing? Because you buy the line that he hunted down a child?

It helps to make a decision on your own instead of relying on what people who want to sell a story tells you to believe, but then someone has to be the victim.

An armed man confronted and killed an unarmed teenager. This is a problem, no matter the specifics. I'm not saying he should definitely go to jail, mind you, the courts will decide that. But I am personally judging him.

I have nothing but contempt for people who carry guns and use them to kill (outside of professionals, and self defense, mind you).

So if the unarmed teenager was (hypothetically) beating the guy to *death*, he should go to jail for defending himself?

/you must work for the public school system...

Are you handicapped? I said "self defense" was okay. Zimmerman, as far as we can tell, put himself INTO that situation willingly, then used a gun to end it. That's cowardly and should be criminal.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth then.

"An armed man confronted and killed an unarmed teenager. This is a problem, no matter the specifics."

That is your quote. If the specifics don't matter to you, then "self defense" (which is quite specific) doesn't matter.

If specifics, like self defense, *do* matter, then you're contradicting yourself.

So pick one. I'm happy to reverse what I've said if you end up choosing the one where specifics like "self defense" *do* matter.

Gyrfalcon: No.

The only facts that matter in court are that a man shot a teenager. The man saw a teenager acting suspiciously and ACCORDING TO HIM he got into an altercation with the teenager and shot him. ACCORDING TO THE MAN the shooting was in self-defense. Everything else is what we in the biz call "hearsay" or "character evidence" and guess what? If/when the case goes to trial, unless ZIMMERMAN decides to open the door to character evidence, nobody else gets to do it.

Zimmerman's history? Out.
Martin's history? Out.
Everything else you've learned about either man? Out.

So unless Zimmerman takes the stand, nobody can ask him about his racism or his dislike of hoodies or bring up what a saint young Martin was: It all comes down to the physical evidence and Zimmerman's word. And that is going to make things really tough for the prosecution.

This.

And don't think that the prosecution exists in a vacuum. They know the shiatstorm that's going on regarding this case, and are crossing their Is and dotting their Ts in an effort not to fark things up further.

They know that if they bring this to trial, they'd better have damned good evidence and be able to get a conviction. Likewise if they can't do it, they're going to need a VERY good explanation for half of a pissed off nation. (Not that it will probably matter anyway, as most people made up their minds one way or another weeks ago.)

Earguy: Does anybody else think Zimmerman might have fled the country? I'm thinking we may never see him again, at least not somewhere where he can be extradited.

I dunno if he's gone that far. Maybe to Virginia.

Earguy: Does anybody else think Zimmerman might have fled the country? I'm thinking we may never see him again, at least not somewhere where he can be extradited.

I think he is making too many phone calls to be out of the country.

Earguy: Does anybody else think Zimmerman might have fled the country? I'm thinking we may never see him again, at least not somewhere where he can be extradited.

I do and think that him asking for donations for his lawyers is code for need to get money to flee...

Weaver95: witnesses are unreliable at best. ask anyone who's ever taken a psych 101 class about that sort of thing....

Yep, multiple police officers, paramedics and an eyewitness are all lying to cover for Zimmerman.

vudukungfu: I have audio video evidence that Zimmerman's innocent.
But I hid the flash drive at MdDonald's, where I used to work.
[insert any JPEG here for Insta-meme]

Rent Party:

The law does not require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Glad I could help.

Please show the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what Ravi Dharun did was a hate crime.

What he DID was trying to goof on people and take them out of their sexual comfort zone. No different that someone sending you a link to goatse. Creepy. Privacy invading. But nowhere near the same ballpark as a hate crime.

topcon: Can't wait to see the 3,000 response final thread on this when it's finally decided he's not going to be arrested.

I can't wait to see your outrage when he actually is arrested.

I don't wanna live in a country where its illegal to kill blah people.

RibbyK: [begin soapbox]
Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime.
Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime.
Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime.
[end soapbox]

/carry on

Were this an episode of Law & Order the perp just plea bargained with Jack without his lawyers present and Serena Southerlyn would be working Arthur Branch's nerves.
/is that about right Fark Legal Eagles?

cameroncrazy1984: bhcompy: . If you've got a problem with our justice system, take it up with Thomas Jefferson et al.

It ain't real hard to prove that Zimmerman shot Martin.

It's also a huge stretch to go from that to "you've got a problem with our justice system" and name-dropping Thomas Jefferson.

You aren't exactly the brightest bulb, are you there, buddy?

The person you tried to quote (but managed to strip out all that unimportant stuff) never said whatshisname didn't shoot whatshisface. You are the one that implied that he said it. You've done it at least twice. Your agenda is peeking out from just under your wing, there... just to the left. There.

What he said was that if you arrest him now, you set the big wheels in motion. Once he is in jail, then you have to shiat or get off the pot. If the DA doesn't have the evidence to convict, then the guy walks and tards like you rip up the internet with your personal opinions. If you let him walk around while evidence is gathered, then you can haul him in and nail him to the cross in a timely fashion. "Due process." You deleted that out of the post for some reason.

Now, I realize that you are more of a 'politics' person which explains a lot of the patently idiotic garbage that you post here, but seriously man... this concept of due process just isn't that tough to get a grip on. There is a law that lets him defend himself with deadly force. He alleges that he defended himself with deadly force when attacked. Him shooting that chump isn't in question. WHY he shot him... is. Was it self defense or not? Did he decide to cash in that guy's man card for kicks? You can't just arrest someone, charge them with a crime that you hope will stick, and let them sit in a jail and hope that evidence surfaces in the next year or three that will actually make the charge stick. You remember the whole 'double jeopardy' thing, right? I know... you have to actually read past just that first amendment, but it is in there. The DA gets one shot. Screw it up and this guy is playing golf and sipping scotch without even a need to find the real killer.

Yogimus:
the prosecution can prove that:

1. A shooting occurred (trying to use a non-charged term here)
2. A person died from the shooting
3. The shooter is zimmerman

With these facts, and ONLY these facts, the prosecution can move ahead without ANY input from Zimmerman. The burden now falls on the shooter to justify his kill, to bring evidence that may exonerate him.

Couple other bits in there for Ms. Prosecutor:

1. The shooter had to leave the safety of his vehicle and pursue the teenager in order for the shooting to occur.

2. In order for "stand your ground" to apply to Zimmerman, he would have to show evidence that he was in desperate fear of getting killed by the unarmed teenager. Such evidence would most likely be in the form of the weapons that the teenager held, or in the wounds that Zimmerman suffered as a result of the assault.

Zimmerman has that, right?

Fellate O'Fish: Ezekiel 23:20
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Modern day translation: She liked those big donkey co*ks and the powerful horse-like ejaculations.

/one ticket

MattyFridays: So the guy who is keeping an eye on the neighborhood sees a strange kid walking around.

And that justifies shooting the kid? Please.

Anyone who'd send a telegram to Mexico proposing they ally with Germany to attack the USA gets no sympathy from me.

SkinnyHead: Rent Party: SkinnyHead:
Sometimes it's best to cooperate. When you've just killed someone in lawful self defense, that's one of those times.

No, it's not. What you consider self defense may not be what the law considers self defense.

Never, ever, under any circumstance, talk to the law. There is absolutely *nothing* to be gained by doing so. Let your lawyer do that.

That's right, most times. But if you've just killed someone, either by accident or self-defense, it's best that you go straight to the police. Doing anything else will be seen as inconsistent with your claim of accident or self defense.

Horseshiat. Call the cops, then call your lawyer. Let your lawyer argue self defense while you STFU.

I couldn't give two shiats either way.

What I think would be amusing though is for hypothetical arguments sake - let's say video of this incident surfaced, and it showed the sweet innocent 17 year old back kid jumping on zimmerman and beating him senseless. At this point I'd love to hear the reasons that come out of the predominantly black population that has risen up to blindly protest even though nobody anywhere knows 100% without a doubt what *actually* happened.

Fact is nobody knows what really happened - the "kid" was not exactly a sweet innocent angel, he was a tatted up thug wannabe. If he attacked Zimmerman, he got exactly what he deserved. If he was truly innocent then Zimmerman needs to be served up a dish of cold lead justice.

It's a testament to the black community that despite none of them being there to see what happened they are so sure, and so "right", along with those of their group who turn to violent protest and death threats. Ignorant knee jerk responses if you ask me. The best thing anyone can do is keep their mouth shut and see what turns up in the investigation.

The message I've been getting from the actions and thoughts of the black protesters is that its only "okay" for a black person to do something else to a black person. Racism goes both ways.

namegoeshere: MattyFridays: Here's the biggest problem I have with all of this.

Zimmerman has basically been convicted by the court of public opinion and there's no way he'll get a fair trial if he does get charged with something.

Casey Anthony disagrees.

Surprisingly, they got that right. But she is the exception to the rule.

Weaver95: hmm...that's weird. if all those people were there on the scene then why didn't someone stop Zimmerman from shooting Martin?

See, now you're just being way too obvious. Stick to the politics tab, you're not doing such a good job over here.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Bf+: oesn't matter...
Florida 776.013.3: person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force

Who was attacked, Zimmerman or Martin? We do not know.


I agree completely. It's a terribly written law.
To find Zimmerman guilty, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was engaged in illegal activity (hard to do), and was "attacked" (he's got the scars. Basically, under this law, you can get harass anyone until they "start a fight" (maybe), then legally kill them.

nekom: What is the significance of this? He's not, at least as of yet, been charged with any crime. He's not been sued. He's not actively litigating any case that I'm aware of. So what, these lawyers are going to withdraw from doing nothing?



They withdrew, and good thing that they did, because they did not want to run the risk of getting sued themselves later for malpractice. They made it clear that they did not advise Zimmerman to call Hannity or the Special prosecutor. Boy, I was willing to wait until the facts came out before passing judgment, but now I really want to see him go down for being a complete idiot.

*adjusts tinfoil*

My off the wall (and likely wrong) theory of the day. Zimmerman is in hiding due to the threat of mob justice, or so he says. If you look at at his legal history (the domestic abuse, the fighting with the cop) in the past connected friends and family members have fixed it for him before it made it to court. Now though if the special prosecutor opts to charge, no way you can fix this one before court.

Thus the crazy theory is he is cutting off ties so if he is charged he can flee. Hence the not returning calls or anything. He's trying to drop off the grid and if the charges come in, he's gone.

accelerus: I couldn't give two shiats either way.

What I think would be amusing though is for hypothetical arguments sake - let's say video of this incident surfaced, and it showed the sweet innocent 17 year old back kid jumping on zimmerman and beating him senseless. At this point I'd love to hear the reasons that come out of the predominantly black population that has risen up to blindly protest even though nobody anywhere knows 100% without a doubt what *actually* happened.

Fact is nobody knows what really happened - the "kid" was not exactly a sweet innocent angel, he was a tatted up thug wannabe. If he attacked Zimmerman, he got exactly what he deserved. If he was truly innocent then Zimmerman needs to be served up a dish of cold lead justice.

It's a testament to the black community that despite none of them being there to see what happened they are so sure, and so "right", along with those of their group who turn to violent protest and death threats. Ignorant knee jerk responses if you ask me. The best thing anyone can do is keep their mouth shut and see what turns up in the investigation.

The message I've been getting from the actions and thoughts of the black protesters is that its only "okay" for a black person to do something else to a black person. Racism goes both ways.

Derp

LasersHurt: cuzsis: "An armed man confronted and killed an unarmed teenager. This is a problem, no matter the specifics."

That is your quote. If the specifics don't matter to you, then "self defense" (which is quite specific) doesn't matter.

If specifics, like self defense, *do* matter, then you're contradicting yourself.

So pick one. I'm happy to reverse what I've said if you end up choosing the one where specifics like "self defense" *do* matter.

... CONFRONTED. THE ARMED MAN CONFRONTED HIM. IF YOU ARE ARMED, THEN CONFRONT SOMEONE, THEN KILL THEM, YOU DO NOT GET TO USE SELF DEFENSE. YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, AND THE LAW SHOULD REFLECT IT.

How are you not farking getting this? "Get a gun > confront someone > get punched > kill them" is not moral or right or just or defensible in any way.

That word up there. It means something.

jaybeezey: Weaver95: netweavr: Weaver95: Zimmerman seems...unwise.

He's a 28 year old kid who has half the country ready to lynch him.

*sigh*

I know. i'll never make the big leagues. i'm just not willing to murder innocents to up my rep score.

Murder involves premeditation, you may have problems proving that.

He lost the right to use stand your ground as a defense when he got out of his car and provoked the situation by stalking the kid.

YOU DO NOT GET TO CLAIM SELF DEFENSE IF YOU INITIATE THE CONFRONTATION.

Could someone please explain this whole "race" thing to me again? Zimmerman is half white so he gets called white. Obama is half white and he gets called black. One of the Tulsa shooters is Native American and he gets called white. So was Seung-Hui Cho Korean or white?

Bf+: and was "attacked"

"or wasn't"

Dammitsomuch!

How ambiguous is the "Stand your Ground" law? Can I pick a fight and when my victim "stands his ground" and starts beating me up, can I "Stand my ground" and shoot him?


The problem is Florida and its farked up society which says its ok for someone to do what Zimmerman did.


He will not be charged.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Who was attacked, Zimmerman or Martin? We do not know.

Yes we do! Martin attacled when he was shot by Zimmerman.

SkinnyHead: Rent Party: SkinnyHead:
Sometimes it's best to cooperate. When you've just killed someone in lawful self defense, that's one of those times.

No, it's not. What you consider self defense may not be what the law considers self defense.

Never, ever, under any circumstance, talk to the law. There is absolutely *nothing* to be gained by doing so. Let your lawyer do that.

That's right, most times. But if you've just killed someone, either by accident or self-defense, it's best that you go straight to the police. Doing anything else will be seen as inconsistent with your claim of accident or self defense.

That's why it's called an affirmative defense.

Rent Party: Yogimus:
the prosecution can prove that:

1. A shooting occurred (trying to use a non-charged term here)
2. A person died from the shooting
3. The shooter is zimmerman

With these facts, and ONLY these facts, the prosecution can move ahead without ANY input from Zimmerman. The burden now falls on the shooter to justify his kill, to bring evidence that may exonerate him.

Couple other bits in there for Ms. Prosecutor:

1. The shooter had to leave the safety of his vehicle and pursue the teenager in order for the shooting to occur.

2. In order for "stand your ground" to apply to Zimmerman, he would have to show evidence that he was in desperate fear of getting killed by the unarmed teenager. Such evidence would most likely be in the form of the weapons that the teenager held, or in the wounds that Zimmerman suffered as a result of the assault.

Zimmerman has that, right?

I am on your side, and you still go and shiat all over everything I wrote. 1 is irrelevant to an initial prosecution. the burden of 2 falls on zimmer.

stonelotus: Could someone please explain this whole "race" thing to me again? Zimmerman is half white so he gets called white. Obama is half white and he gets called black. One of the Tulsa shooters is Native American and he gets called white. So was Seung-Hui Cho Korean or white?

Zimmerman is 3/4 white or so I thought. White/White Paternal Grandparents White/Cuban Maternal.

Could be wrong.