Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Of the $200,000 in donations George Zimmerman raised from his website, he's already blown through $50,000 of it on "living expenses, rent or whatever"   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, donations, attorney-in-fact, expenses  
•       •       •

16019 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:58 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



927 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-27 06:06:16 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: fracto73: Timmy the Tumor: you have pee hands: CliChe Guevara: i don't get it? what is the photo of zimmerman supposed to prove again? you know, other than that there was a fight, which we already knew about?

i don't think that picture means what you think it means.

He started a fight he couldn't win. Don't you know that if you do that you're allowed to shoot the other guy?

What I don't understand is this.

I start a fight. Guy #2 can legally defend himself as long as there is an immediate threat of bodily harm. He can't, however, continue once that threat is no longer viable.

So, I start it, #2 starts beating my ass, breaks my nose, slamming my head into the ground. Once I've stopped fighting back, he continues.

How is that self-defense?

And since it isn't, Trayvon could have theoretically (NONE of us has a clue what really happened) run, or stood up and waited to see if Zimmerman would attack again, or just held him down until the cops came. Once he passes that point, and continues beating on Zimmerman, and it transforms from "fistfight" to "someone may die here" wouldn't Zimmerman be justified in defending himself, up to and including lethal force?


For that to be true you'd have to argue that the man who shot and killed Martin was no longer a threat to him.

I'm anticipating that in the trial...

Someone pinned to the ground, getting his head slammed into the concrete, and yelling like a little girl "Please someone help me" over and over sounds like "no longer a threat" but I wasn't there.



Who was yelling for help is disputed from what I understand.

I think the best case would be to convince a jury that Martin did go after Zimmerman, but it was self defense, and Zimmerman's claim of self defense is as applicable as a robber shooting a homeowner for fighting back. I think it would be easy to point out that an armed man following Martin might have made him fear for his life.
 
2012-04-27 06:06:26 PM  
Raspil: Anyone who "donates" money to this guy is a f*cking asshole.

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
 
2012-04-27 06:09:41 PM  
Really I think he DOES have a case, a big one. While he was acting unwisely, it sounds like Martin DID start wailing on him first.

I take issue with the law, because ironically, Martin could be justified in defending himself by pommeling Zimmerman. Technically Martin could have bashed Zimmerman's skull in with a chunk of concrete, because he followed him at night on an empty street. That doesn't happen for "good" reasons, and implies to me the guy HAD a weapon because you don't get all ballsy farking with strangers like that without a plan. I believe Martin had a reasonable belief Zimmerman was an attacker putting Martin's life in danger.

The problem here is that the DA didn't even TRY to charge him at first, and it looks like the investigation just got dropped way too soon. It was a serious incident and a man was killed, this IS worthy of spending time on.
 
2012-04-27 06:10:33 PM  

Johnnyflash: There is also more to that story, about 10 years ago, George was volunteering at a retirement home. He would go every Saturday morning and talk to the elderly people there who had no one to visit them. There was this little old lady there in her late 90s, they called her Rosie (she had rosie cheeks), he took an interest to her right away. The one thing that really made Rosie happy was those freaky little Precious Moments dolls, at the time she only had one, but really wanted more. So George would always look for these dolls at garage sales, thrift stores, and sometime eBay for a specific doll. Every week he had a new doll for Rosie, and her smile would light up the room from every visit and new doll George brought her. This went on for about a year until she passed, so in memory of Rosie, George just kept on picking up one a week when he could. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a cold blooded killer to me.


So? Hitler loved dogs and his girlfriend. Some of my racist relatives are the nicest people you'd want to meet ... so long as your white.
 
2012-04-27 06:11:31 PM  
Wha? You mean criminally violent racist child killer George Zimmerman also has difficulty telling the truth?

The hell you say!
 
2012-04-27 06:12:45 PM  

dittybopper: Serious Black: dittybopper: Serious Black:

IANAL by any stretch

With a name like "Serious Black", I bet you do.

Yes, because I am obviously a humorless African-American.

I was making an interracial anal sex joke. Why you have to ruin it? WHY?


Man, i swept my eyes across the screen, and I swear I saw: "I'm making interracial anal sex as American as apple pie", that would have been the best Fark statement EVER! Not sure how I saw this, though...
 
2012-04-27 06:13:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: Satanic_Hamster: Thunderpipes: Satanic_Hamster: dittybopper: If Zimmerman's story is correct, he didn't use deadly force until after he was knocked down and getting his ass beat. In every single state, no matter whether you initiated the fight or not, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, and you can't escape. If someone has you pinned down and it banging your head, I think that counts.

That's a stupid lie and you're stupid for saying it. That's even dumber then GED in law level of stupid, that's how stupid your legal "advice is." You should feel bad for even typing something that stupid.

It is entirely accurate. Look up state laws.

Here is Vermont's:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

Silly troll account, no where does it say that you can start a crime or a fight and then claim it's self defense. You're not allowed to walk up to a stranger, biatch slap them, and then shoot them if they fight back.

And if you ARE allowed, I need your home address.

You're gonna be needing that home address...

If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman's account that Martin blindsided him with a punch ...


I thought it was fear of injury or death?
 
2012-04-27 06:13:38 PM  

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: When I was young and growing up in the 70's my future world was going to be one of landing on Mars, flying cars, massive prosperity, scientific progress, societal equality...it was going to be grand...

Reading posts from people who support Zimmerman makes me realize the one thing I didn't count on ruining that vision was the high percentage of people in this world who would turn out to be absolute morons.

[www.alandershowitz.com image 164x155]

"absolute moron"

amiright?

Nice cherry picking. In no way does he support Zimmerman. In fact, he said this regarding Zimmerman; "...it is quite possible Zimmerman was guilty of a lesser charge, but the affidavit does not support a second-degree murder charge."

He's only concern was what he considers an overcharge.

Try and keep it real.


Not really cherry picking when he represents the consensus of prominent legal minds on the topic.

And talk about cherry picking...out of all of the information that he has published he said once that Zimmerman MAY be guilty of SOME crime. That's just logical, and not something that I would contest, but I don't see that as being of much importance in the current argument. Hell, some of the things he MAY be guilty of are misdemeanors and more of a negligence flavor than a malicious one.

What I am talking about is what he is currently being charged with and I am prone to believing that there isn't any further evidence even for a lesser crime since the prosecution is already resorting to perjury to try to create a case.
 
2012-04-27 06:14:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: I am a conservative, I work.

Because only conservatives work.

/rolls eyes


I always enjoy people who are goofing off on the internet during the work day talking about how hard they work.
 
2012-04-27 06:14:23 PM  

Corporate Self: Johnnyflash: There is also more to that story, about 10 years ago, George was volunteering at a retirement home. He would go every Saturday morning and talk to the elderly people there who had no one to visit them. There was this little old lady there in her late 90s, they called her Rosie (she had rosie cheeks), he took an interest to her right away. The one thing that really made Rosie happy was those freaky little Precious Moments dolls, at the time she only had one, but really wanted more. So George would always look for these dolls at garage sales, thrift stores, and sometime eBay for a specific doll. Every week he had a new doll for Rosie, and her smile would light up the room from every visit and new doll George brought her. This went on for about a year until she passed, so in memory of Rosie, George just kept on picking up one a week when he could. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a cold blooded killer to me.

So? Hitler loved dogs and his girlfriend. Some of my racist relatives are the nicest people you'd want to meet ... so long as your white.



He isn't a cold blooded killer. He got cocky because he was armed and Martin wasn't, escalated a situation when he shouldn't have, and put himself and Martin in a situation where they both thought they were fighting for their lives. He isn't a cold blooded killer, he is a cocky moron.
 
2012-04-27 06:14:58 PM  

fracto73: Timmy the Tumor: fracto73: Timmy the Tumor: you have pee hands: CliChe Guevara: i don't get it? what is the photo of zimmerman supposed to prove again? you know, other than that there was a fight, which we already knew about?

i don't think that picture means what you think it means.

He started a fight he couldn't win. Don't you know that if you do that you're allowed to shoot the other guy?

What I don't understand is this.

I start a fight. Guy #2 can legally defend himself as long as there is an immediate threat of bodily harm. He can't, however, continue once that threat is no longer viable.

So, I start it, #2 starts beating my ass, breaks my nose, slamming my head into the ground. Once I've stopped fighting back, he continues.

How is that self-defense?

And since it isn't, Trayvon could have theoretically (NONE of us has a clue what really happened) run, or stood up and waited to see if Zimmerman would attack again, or just held him down until the cops came. Once he passes that point, and continues beating on Zimmerman, and it transforms from "fistfight" to "someone may die here" wouldn't Zimmerman be justified in defending himself, up to and including lethal force?


For that to be true you'd have to argue that the man who shot and killed Martin was no longer a threat to him.

I'm anticipating that in the trial...

Someone pinned to the ground, getting his head slammed into the concrete, and yelling like a little girl "Please someone help me" over and over sounds like "no longer a threat" but I wasn't there.


Who was yelling for help is disputed from what I understand.

I think the best case would be to convince a jury that Martin did go after Zimmerman, but it was self defense, and Zimmerman's claim of self defense is as applicable as a robber shooting a homeowner for fighting back. I think it would be easy to point out that an armed man following Martin might have made him fear for his life.


If they make the claim that Martin went after Zimmerman first in self defense, they'll need a good theory on why. It's not illegal to follow someone or even confront and question them. There is no evidence (that we know of) that Zimmerman grabbed or tackled Martin, much less approaching him with his gun drawn (as some people implied). Just saying that Martin feared Zimmerman isn't enough, it has to be a reasonable fear. Maybe Zimmerman did do one of those things, but nothing suggests it right now.
 
2012-04-27 06:15:47 PM  

Oznog: Really I think he DOES have a case, a big one. While he was acting unwisely, it sounds like Martin DID start wailing on him first.

I take issue with the law, because ironically, Martin could be justified in defending himself by pommeling Zimmerman. Technically Martin could have bashed Zimmerman's skull in with a chunk of concrete, because he followed him at night on an empty street. That doesn't happen for "good" reasons, and implies to me the guy HAD a weapon because you don't get all ballsy farking with strangers like that without a plan. I believe Martin had a reasonable belief Zimmerman was an attacker putting Martin's life in danger.

The problem here is that the DA didn't even TRY to charge him at first, and it looks like the investigation just got dropped way too soon. It was a serious incident and a man was killed, this IS worthy of spending time on.


One thing I don't think has occurred to Zimmerman's gun toting right wing apologists is that Zimmerman getting off scot free is worse for the future of stand your ground and concealed carry laws than him being convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. If he goes home and gets rich with book/movie deals. that proves the system massively failed. If he goes to prison, that means stand your ground/concealed carry laws don't necessarily lead to the killing of innocent children.
 
2012-04-27 06:16:42 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: He is either getting off or it's going to the Supreme. What would you do while waiting?


A: I'd probably stay away from anything that could potentially be seen as fraud. People donated for his legal defense, not so he could snort blow off the asses of Brazilian hookers.

B: What about this case screams "Supreme Court" to you? It's not a civil rights question. Maybe Florida Supreme Court, but nothing about it says 'Federal' to me.
 
2012-04-27 06:17:07 PM  
You know, the thing Zimmerman should do, along with Wesley Autrey (The New York Subway Hero) is arrange a one-time pay-per view fight, in the ring. Autrey is hurting for cash as well. They could bill it as "Good (Autrey) Vs Evil (Zimmerman)" and they could -easily raise 10s of millions of dollars from people willing to pay to see that. The pure good selfless black hero vs the corrupt evil racist black-killing hispanic.

Who here wouldnt want to see what happens?
 
2012-04-27 06:17:27 PM  
dittybopper:
he's already blown through $50,000 of it on "living expenses, rent or whatever"

I can honestly see that. He had to find a reasonably place to live fairly anonymously, and fast. That means probably some kind of limited access apartment, and I'm sure they'd want more than just a single months rent and a security deposit, especially knowing who he is. Probably have to rent a car also, and of course food and someone to go buy it for him (or have it delivered).

Thank God he didn't take a vacation in Spain instead -- he'd be up to his eyeballs in debt. I hear they're going for nearly a half-million.
 
2012-04-27 06:19:00 PM  

EbolaNYC: How much you wanna bet that if he skips on the murder charges, he'll get nabbed for tax evasion?


Since you are allowed to receive gifts from people without paying taxes, I'd bet $0, clueless Alex.
 
2012-04-27 06:19:11 PM  

fracto73: He isn't a cold blooded killer. He got cocky because he was armed and Martin wasn't, escalated a situation when he shouldn't have, and put himself and Martin in a situation where they both thought they were fighting for their lives. He isn't a cold blooded killer, he is a cocky moron.


I think your theory of what happened is probably right. But I don't believe he's really remorseful at all for killing Trayvon. I think he's cold blooded by his after the fact conduct.
 
2012-04-27 06:20:14 PM  
With the exception of a small handful of you, I'm amazed at the level of derp coming from Farkers in this thread. There are a lot of facts in this case that are still unknown (or at least not public yet), yet the Fark Army of GED Lawyers has already tried, convicted and hung Zimmerman. You sons of biatches must be clairvoyant or something.
 
2012-04-27 06:22:19 PM  

pyrotek85:
If they make the claim that Martin went after Zimmerman first in self defense, they'll need a good theory on why. It's not illegal to follow someone or even confront and question them. There is no evidence (that we know of) that Zimmerman grabbed or tackled Martin, much less approaching him with his gun drawn (as some people implied). Just saying that Martin feared Zimmerman isn't enough, it has to be a reasonable fear. Maybe Zimmerman did do one of those things, but nothing suggests it right now.



Where was the gun concealed on him and how was it hidden? I could believe that Martin might have known Zimmerman was carrying even if it wasn't drawn.

There might be no law against chasing someone down at night, but that isn't the test. Would you feel that you were in danger if someone was following you and when you tried to get away they got out of the car and chased you? Plenty of ITGs will say no, but the only thing that matters is what a jury thinks.
 
2012-04-27 06:23:35 PM  
Serious Black:
IANAL by any stretch,

"IANAL, by any stretch?"


www.eidolons-inn.net
He said "IANAL, by any stretch!"
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.

 
2012-04-27 06:23:47 PM  

Oznog: Really I think he DOES have a case, a big one. While he was acting unwisely, it sounds like Martin DID start wailing on him first.

I take issue with the law, because ironically, Martin could be justified in defending himself by pommeling Zimmerman. Technically Martin could have bashed Zimmerman's skull in with a chunk of concrete, because he followed him at night on an empty street. That doesn't happen for "good" reasons, and implies to me the guy HAD a weapon because you don't get all ballsy farking with strangers like that without a plan. I believe Martin had a reasonable belief Zimmerman was an attacker putting Martin's life in danger.

The problem here is that the DA didn't even TRY to charge him at first, and it looks like the investigation just got dropped way too soon. It was a serious incident and a man was killed, this IS worthy of spending time on.


Try that and you'd be in jail for murder very quickly in any jurisdiction in the country.

No law comes even remotely close to allowing for that.
 
2012-04-27 06:24:55 PM  
In other news the "charity" set up by Trayvon's parents Justicetm For Trayvon has collected a paltry $26,692.70. You'd think with all the black celebrity millionaires and "millions" of people donning hoodies and waiving skittles purporting to champion the cause they'd have raised a bit more. Weren't songs released to benefit this "charity"? I bet his parent are just loving their decision to quit their jobs and hit the "civil rights" circuit full-time with the Reverends.

/they must donate like they tip
 
2012-04-27 06:26:20 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Weaver95: dittybopper: he's already blown through $50,000 of it on "living expenses, rent or whatever"

I can honestly see that. He had to find a reasonably place to live fairly anonymously, and fast. That means probably some kind of limited access apartment, and I'm sure they'd want more than just a single months rent and a security deposit, especially knowing who he is. Probably have to rent a car also, and of course food and someone to go buy it for him (or have it delivered).

I don't know about living arrangements...but yeah, security is something I can see being a primary concern for Zimmerman. that's expensive to set up and he's gonna need someone watching his back if he plans on living through the trial. lot of people wouldn't mind seeing him fall down some stairs and onto a couple of bullets. so spending $50k on security guards and/or alarm systems and body armor wouldn't be out of the question.


Jesus, is there anything this guy does that you all can't find an explanation for?


Shoot an unarmed kid? Oh, I'm sorry, your victim complex insists we're "all" in on defending this pathetic assbag. fark you buddy, fark you right in the ass.
 
2012-04-27 06:27:44 PM  
dittybopper:
Serious Black: dittybopper: Serious Black:

IANAL by any stretch

With a name like "Serious Black", I bet you do.

Yes, because I am obviously a humorless African-American.

I was making an interracial anal sex joke. Why you have to ruin it? WHY?

Meh. To be fair, he DID give you a big clue...
 
2012-04-27 06:28:09 PM  
Nice to see the LA times is not working 24/7 to inflame the issue like NBC did.
 
2012-04-27 06:28:14 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Silly Jesus: Satanic_Hamster: Thunderpipes: Satanic_Hamster: dittybopper: If Zimmerman's story is correct, he didn't use deadly force until after he was knocked down and getting his ass beat. In every single state, no matter whether you initiated the fight or not, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, and you can't escape. If someone has you pinned down and it banging your head, I think that counts.

That's a stupid lie and you're stupid for saying it. That's even dumber then GED in law level of stupid, that's how stupid your legal "advice is." You should feel bad for even typing something that stupid.

It is entirely accurate. Look up state laws.

Here is Vermont's:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

Silly troll account, no where does it say that you can start a crime or a fight and then claim it's self defense. You're not allowed to walk up to a stranger, biatch slap them, and then shoot them if they fight back.

And if you ARE allowed, I need your home address.

You're gonna be needing that home address...

If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman's account that Martin blindsided him ...


The threat must be reasonable and immediate. And not just of injury, but of great bodily injury, such as losing or breaking limbs, losing eyes etc., or death.

No court is going to justify murder in response to someone following behind you without a great deal of intermediary actions.
 
2012-04-27 06:28:59 PM  
Nancy Grace will get to the bottom of it... just wait and see!
 
2012-04-27 06:29:01 PM  
OMG a person spending money, unacceptable, burn the warlock BURN HIM
 
2012-04-27 06:30:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: Not really cherry picking when he represents the consensus of prominent legal minds on the topic.


You clearly implied that Dershowitz was a supporter of Zimmerman. That's simply not true. He obviously has major issues with the prosecutor but that does not make him a Zimmerman support.

Legal experts were very critical of the prosecutors in the OJ case. I'm pretty sure they were not OJ supporters.
 
2012-04-27 06:30:26 PM  

fracto73: pyrotek85:
If they make the claim that Martin went after Zimmerman first in self defense, they'll need a good theory on why. It's not illegal to follow someone or even confront and question them. There is no evidence (that we know of) that Zimmerman grabbed or tackled Martin, much less approaching him with his gun drawn (as some people implied). Just saying that Martin feared Zimmerman isn't enough, it has to be a reasonable fear. Maybe Zimmerman did do one of those things, but nothing suggests it right now.


Where was the gun concealed on him and how was it hidden? I could believe that Martin might have known Zimmerman was carrying even if it wasn't drawn.

There might be no law against chasing someone down at night, but that isn't the test. Would you feel that you were in danger if someone was following you and when you tried to get away they got out of the car and chased you? Plenty of ITGs will say no, but the only thing that matters is what a jury thinks.


In those circumstances I might be in fear, but I'd want to be pretty sure that there was an imminent threat of seriously bodily harm or death before I'd make a preemptive attack myself. Even if he was openly carrying the pistol, that still probably wouldn't be enough. It would depend on other things, like if Zimmerman was threatening him verbally, even while it remained holstered (the mere presence of a weapon doesn't mean someone is going to attack you, it's legal to carry). Of course, we only have one side of it, so the problem is can they demonstrate that Zimmerman did anything like that?
 
2012-04-27 06:30:43 PM  
Is Zimmerman a racist?
I really don't care.
The law should not care, either.
Did he shoot the kid "in self-defense"?
It doesn't look like it.
That's all that matters.
 
2012-04-27 06:31:35 PM  

bugontherug: fracto73: He isn't a cold blooded killer. He got cocky because he was armed and Martin wasn't, escalated a situation when he shouldn't have, and put himself and Martin in a situation where they both thought they were fighting for their lives. He isn't a cold blooded killer, he is a cocky moron.

I think your theory of what happened is probably right. But I don't believe he's really remorseful at all for killing Trayvon. I think he's cold blooded by his after the fact conduct.



I wouldn't even go that far. I think he believes he was justified. For instance I wouldn't feel remorseful if I killed someone in self defense believing it was them or me. I might question my humanity or be depressed or something, but I wouldn't regret doing it if I believed the alternative was my own death.
 
2012-04-27 06:33:11 PM  
The Onanist:
Bunnyhat: $150,000 a year isn't a well-paying job?

It's not in the 1% so I guess - no, it's not a "well-paying" jorb.

wedc.lboro.ac.uk
What a well-paying job might look like

 
2012-04-27 06:33:24 PM  

bugontherug: Oznog: Really I think he DOES have a case, a big one. While he was acting unwisely, it sounds like Martin DID start wailing on him first.

I take issue with the law, because ironically, Martin could be justified in defending himself by pommeling Zimmerman. Technically Martin could have bashed Zimmerman's skull in with a chunk of concrete, because he followed him at night on an empty street. That doesn't happen for "good" reasons, and implies to me the guy HAD a weapon because you don't get all ballsy farking with strangers like that without a plan. I believe Martin had a reasonable belief Zimmerman was an attacker putting Martin's life in danger.

The problem here is that the DA didn't even TRY to charge him at first, and it looks like the investigation just got dropped way too soon. It was a serious incident and a man was killed, this IS worthy of spending time on.

One thing I don't think has occurred to Zimmerman's gun toting right wing apologists is that Zimmerman getting off scot free is worse for the future of stand your ground and concealed carry laws than him being convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. If he goes home and gets rich with book/movie deals. that proves the system massively failed. If he goes to prison, that means stand your ground/concealed carry laws don't necessarily lead to the killing of innocent children.


So an innocent man should be imprisoned for the remainder of his life to preserve a law?

How does him making money off public interest in his situation prove a failure of the system?

How does him going to prison mean that the law doesn't lead to the killing of innocent children?

Surely this is a troll post...
 
2012-04-27 06:35:09 PM  

MoeSzyslak: In other news the "charity" set up by Trayvon's parents Justicetm For Trayvon has collected a paltry $26,692.70. You'd think with all the black celebrity millionaires and "millions" of people donning hoodies and waiving skittles purporting to champion the cause they'd have raised a bit more. Weren't songs released to benefit this "charity"? I bet his parent are just loving their decision to quit their jobs and hit the "civil rights" circuit full-time with the Reverends.

/they must donate like they tip


Ya know, I'm really sick of hearing from these parents. It's not enough that they dragged the "revs" into it and all of the accompanying attention-whoring. It's not enough that they poisoned race-relations all over the country for a "hate crime" that clearly isn't. It's not enough that the guy has now been arrested and charged, which is all they initially claimed they wanted, NOW they want his bail revoked and are "offended"??? Tell ya what folks - sit down and shut the fark up for awhile. You've done enough damage, and you don't run the court system. SHUT THE FARK UP and let the system work.
 
2012-04-27 06:35:13 PM  

Jake Havechek: doglover: Jake Havechek: Lying to the judge, ehh?

Seems little Georgy Porgy isn't as pure as the driven snow.

That doesn't mean Treyvon didn't earn his halo. Let the jury decide, thanks.

What jury? Everybody and their brother has heard about this stupid case. This will mistrial for sure.


Really, this jury will have to be 100% Amish
 
2012-04-27 06:37:34 PM  

Silly Jesus: StoPPeRmobile: Silly Jesus: Satanic_Hamster: Thunderpipes: Satanic_Hamster: dittybopper: If Zimmerman's story is correct, he didn't use deadly force until after he was knocked down and getting his ass beat. In every single state, no matter whether you initiated the fight or not, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, and you can't escape. If someone has you pinned down and it banging your head, I think that counts.

That's a stupid lie and you're stupid for saying it. That's even dumber then GED in law level of stupid, that's how stupid your legal "advice is." You should feel bad for even typing something that stupid.

It is entirely accurate. Look up state laws.

Here is Vermont's:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

Silly troll account, no where does it say that you can start a crime or a fight and then claim it's self defense. You're not allowed to walk up to a stranger, biatch slap them, and then shoot them if they fight back.

And if you ARE allowed, I need your home address.

You're gonna be needing that home address...

If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman's account that Martin ...


Ah yes, great injury.
 
2012-04-27 06:38:03 PM  

pyrotek85: fracto73: pyrotek85:
If they make the claim that Martin went after Zimmerman first in self defense, they'll need a good theory on why. It's not illegal to follow someone or even confront and question them. There is no evidence (that we know of) that Zimmerman grabbed or tackled Martin, much less approaching him with his gun drawn (as some people implied). Just saying that Martin feared Zimmerman isn't enough, it has to be a reasonable fear. Maybe Zimmerman did do one of those things, but nothing suggests it right now.


Where was the gun concealed on him and how was it hidden? I could believe that Martin might have known Zimmerman was carrying even if it wasn't drawn.

There might be no law against chasing someone down at night, but that isn't the test. Would you feel that you were in danger if someone was following you and when you tried to get away they got out of the car and chased you? Plenty of ITGs will say no, but the only thing that matters is what a jury thinks.

In those circumstances I might be in fear, but I'd want to be pretty sure that there was an imminent threat of seriously bodily harm or death before I'd make a preemptive attack myself. Even if he was openly carrying the pistol, that still probably wouldn't be enough. It would depend on other things, like if Zimmerman was threatening him verbally, even while it remained holstered (the mere presence of a weapon doesn't mean someone is going to attack you, it's legal to carry). Of course, we only have one side of it, so the problem is can they demonstrate that Zimmerman did anything like that?



While the presence of a weapon isn't it self threatening, it could push someone who felt threatened over the line into threat of death or bodily harm. We don't know much and all of this is speculation on my part. I certainly don't know much about Martin, but if he was half the thug that some are making him out to be then guns are for shooting people. It might be different if he were a country boy who grew up around hunters and farmers, but in my experience the more urban a person is the more likely they are to have a negative view of guns, especially pistols.
 
2012-04-27 06:39:13 PM  

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: Not really cherry picking when he represents the consensus of prominent legal minds on the topic.

You clearly implied that Dershowitz was a supporter of Zimmerman. That's simply not true. He obviously has major issues with the prosecutor but that does not make him a Zimmerman support.

Legal experts were very critical of the prosecutors in the OJ case. I'm pretty sure they were not OJ supporters.


I am sorry if I equated his stating that there is no case against Zimmerman (barring some unspecified theoretical lesser charge that MAY be floating around out there somewhere) with being on the side of Zimmerman, which I define as the side of no crime having been committed.
 
2012-04-27 06:41:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: I am a conservative, I work.

Because only conservatives work.

/rolls eyes


Yeah, because conservative states accept zero dollars in federal funding for anything. Being self-sufficient n' all.
 
2012-04-27 06:45:34 PM  

mongbiohazard: meathome: Does it come furnished with physical security that also travels with you if you leave the site? A communication system that is a little bit more difficult to eavesdrop on than the avg. phone? A vehicle that can't be traced back to the occupants of the unit? A secure method of transferring a person (or persons) from a media storm to a secure undisclosed location? OPSEC issues and requirements for the company providing all of this?


The thing is, in the real world people aren't really getting most of that stuff unless they are actually protecting the president or a head of state. And if they're one of those folks they're renting two (or more) apartments from me, the second one housing their security team or station - and taxpayers are footing the bill.

And as far as communications..... cell phone. Everybody's got a cell phone now. You can tell me all about the theoretical need for encrypted yadda yadda, or whatever high end service provides what, but unless the government is providing it for someone in a sensitive position with access to classified info then everyone else is just getting a couple cell phones from AT&T or something. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that's the reality.


I'm not even getting into the idea of having a monitored security system (which I'd assume you have).


For the kind of rent we're paying the buildings generally are controlled access, with RFID tags and a concierge. They may have a security guard in the lobby. That's about it. If someone has a special security need they will want to provide it for themselves anyway.... like a certain well-known actress we had staying with us once who made some awfully inflammatory statements (and frankly, just awful) about a certain right wing figure while staying with us and was suddenly getting a torrential flood of nasty death threats. Her assistant arranged for her security in a hurry, which was basically a guard to stay in her apartment with her, and then I believe others would p ...


WOW. How long have you been waiting for a thread in which you could talk about your job? We get it, you think you are important and TMZ should be calling you to get the awesome story. Please tell us more about the amount of rent and cell phoZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 
2012-04-27 06:47:47 PM  
There is no greater moron than a racist right winger. Hopefully they send him some more of their Natty Light money to fight these accusations from the lib media.
 
2012-04-27 06:49:29 PM  

Oldiron_79: Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.


There is no gray side of the force, amirite? Stupid Jedi denouncing absolutes with an absolute.
 
2012-04-27 06:49:57 PM  

Harridan: MoeSzyslak: In other news the "charity" set up by Trayvon's parents Justicetm For Trayvon has collected a paltry $26,692.70. You'd think with all the black celebrity millionaires and "millions" of people donning hoodies and waiving skittles purporting to champion the cause they'd have raised a bit more. Weren't songs released to benefit this "charity"? I bet his parent are just loving their decision to quit their jobs and hit the "civil rights" circuit full-time with the Reverends.

/they must donate like they tip

Ya know, I'm really sick of hearing from these parents. It's not enough that they dragged the "revs" into it and all of the accompanying attention-whoring. It's not enough that they poisoned race-relations all over the country for a "hate crime" that clearly isn't. It's not enough that the guy has now been arrested and charged, which is all they initially claimed they wanted, NOW they want his bail revoked and are "offended"??? Tell ya what folks - sit down and shut the fark up for awhile. You've done enough damage, and you don't run the court system. SHUT THE FARK UP and let the system work.


I'm fine with it. I personally think that what happened to their son was a horrible tragedy. But if they manage to get people to take a serious second look at the law that made this situation so confusing and also happen to make a little money then I say good on them. And I admit to changing my position on this over time, back then that Elizabeth Smart crap was floating around, I considered her family horrendous for profiting from it, but I've since changed my tune, and now I say, when life gives you a shiatload of lemons, make a shiatload of lemonade and go out and sell that lemonade to the millions of people tuning into your suffering for their entertainment.

tl:dr better they get some money than "reality TV" stars.
 
2012-04-27 06:50:05 PM  

fracto73: pyrotek85: fracto73: pyrotek85:
If they make the claim that Martin went after Zimmerman first in self defense, they'll need a good theory on why. It's not illegal to follow someone or even confront and question them. There is no evidence (that we know of) that Zimmerman grabbed or tackled Martin, much less approaching him with his gun drawn (as some people implied). Just saying that Martin feared Zimmerman isn't enough, it has to be a reasonable fear. Maybe Zimmerman did do one of those things, but nothing suggests it right now.


Where was the gun concealed on him and how was it hidden? I could believe that Martin might have known Zimmerman was carrying even if it wasn't drawn.

There might be no law against chasing someone down at night, but that isn't the test. Would you feel that you were in danger if someone was following you and when you tried to get away they got out of the car and chased you? Plenty of ITGs will say no, but the only thing that matters is what a jury thinks.

In those circumstances I might be in fear, but I'd want to be pretty sure that there was an imminent threat of seriously bodily harm or death before I'd make a preemptive attack myself. Even if he was openly carrying the pistol, that still probably wouldn't be enough. It would depend on other things, like if Zimmerman was threatening him verbally, even while it remained holstered (the mere presence of a weapon doesn't mean someone is going to attack you, it's legal to carry). Of course, we only have one side of it, so the problem is can they demonstrate that Zimmerman did anything like that?


While the presence of a weapon isn't it self threatening, it could push someone who felt threatened over the line into threat of death or bodily harm. We don't know much and all of this is speculation on my part. I certainly don't know much about Martin, but if he was half the thug that some are making him out to be then guns are for shooting people. It might be different if he were a country boy w ...


Yep, he could be honestly afraid of dying upon seeing Zimmerman approach with a holstered gun, but would that pass the 'reasonable person' test or whatever it's called? Since gun ownership is legal and common in FL, it probably wouldn't be, even though Martin might have truly believed it. His belief doesn't have to be true mind you, but it has to be what they determine is reasonable. Just like how it would be legal to defend yourself against someone who pointed a gun at you, but was later determined to be a realistic looking fake.

This really could have started as a misunderstanding that got out of control due to one or the other jumping the gun so to speak, but I just don't see them getting a murder conviction. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates a depraved mind or malice of some sort from Zimmerman.
 
2012-04-27 06:50:23 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: There is no greater moron than a racist right winger


The Obstructionist GOP Scoffs at you.
 
2012-04-27 06:53:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: There is no greater moron than a racist right winger.


Who is the greater moron: the right winger who continually steps to the right or the left winger who keeps trying to meet him half way?
 
2012-04-27 06:55:13 PM  

pyrotek85: Yep, he could be honestly afraid of dying upon seeing Zimmerman approach with a holstered gun, but would that pass the 'reasonable person' test or whatever it's called? Since gun ownership is legal and common in FL, it probably wouldn't be, even though Martin might have truly believed it. His belief doesn't have to be true mind you, but it has to be what they determine is reasonable. Just like how it would be legal to defend yourself against someone who pointed a gun at you, but was later determined to be a realistic looking fake.

This really could have started as a misunderstanding that got out of control due to one or the other jumping the gun so to speak, but I just don't see them getting a murder conviction. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates a depraved mind or malice of some sort from Zimmerman.



I agree. In fact not only do I think they won't get the conviction, I don't think he is legally responsible. Though as I said earlier I think he is morally responsible (I think it is the armed mans duty to NOT escalate a situation), but that doesn't matter in court.
 
2012-04-27 06:55:45 PM  

s2s2s2: HotWingConspiracy: There is no greater moron than a racist right winger

The Obstructionist GOP Scoffs at you.


Why? They bilk racist right wingers out of cash every day. Marks, all of them.
 
2012-04-27 06:57:10 PM  

Sticky Hands: HotWingConspiracy: There is no greater moron than a racist right winger.

Who is the greater moron: the right winger who continually steps to the right or the left winger who keeps trying to meet him half way?


If you're referring to democrats, they aren't left wing.
 
Displayed 50 of 927 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report