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.

(610 WIOD)   Zimmerman photos from the night of the incident detailing his injuries, and the 183 pages of court documents, for those who still care, have no life   (610wiod.com) divider line 745
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7484 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2012 at 1:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-18 02:28:28 PM

master_dman: Oh for farks sake.

Why can't people read?

Zimmerman got out of his car after losing sight of Martin behind some buildings.
He walked around to the back of the buildings and didn't see him so he walked back to his vehicle.

As he was approaching said vehicle, Martin came running up behind him and attacked him.

All you farktards that say Zimmerman chased him down and grabbed him are completely blinded by your racists views.

Grow up. Your on the wrong side here.


You have no actual facts to establish this.

As of right now - there are no objective witnesses to how the fight was initiated.
The fight did happen a good distance away from Zimmerman's vehicle (it happened on grass and behind a building).
 
2012-05-18 02:29:00 PM

Blowmonkey: he was explicitly told by police to stop


No, he wasn't. He was given advice by a civilian dispatcher, not a lawful order by a licensed peace officer.
 
2012-05-18 02:29:54 PM

Bontesla: However, that argument is easily deconstructed by the fact that Zimmerman also established a pattern of having black friends


There's even photographic evidence: gawker.com
 
2012-05-18 02:30:20 PM

wingedkat: SkinnyHead: Following someone is not the same as attacking someone. Following someone is not unlawful. If you get attacked while doing something lawful, you got the right to defend yourself against the attacker.

Following is not attacking, but it is threatening. Chasing, charging, tackling, grabbing, all these things have been shown in other court cases to be considered reasonable cause for self-defense.

Here's one example:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Woman-who-shot-man-at-bus-stop - won-t-be-charged-891425.php


A claim of self defense is determined by the defendant's objectively reasonable belief in the need to defend himself. It could be that Martin also had an objectively reasonable belief in the need to defend himself against Zimmerman, but that does not defeat Zimmerman's right to claim self defense. If both were acting in self defense, then neither one is guilty.

Florida law says that Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground and defend himself if he is attacked in a place where he has a right to be, as long as he was not engaged in unlawful activity. Following someone to report his whereabouts to police is not unlawful activity.
 
2012-05-18 02:31:02 PM

vegasj: The story in a nutshell:

OMG!!! a white guy shot an unarmed black kid!!

(media releases photos of a 12 yr old Trayvon & a lightened 5 or so year old photo of George in county oranges)

Wait, George is Hispanic???!?!

(media coins the phrase "white Hispanic" to continue their 'against YT' race baiting b.s.)

Well, Trayvon was a good kid, he never attacked anyone!!! George walked up and shot him!! The police told him not to follow!!!

(school records & Facebook posts come out showing he might have attacked a bus driver....) (911 call released, edited by news media to make George look racist) (a 911 dispatcher has no authority... the POLICE did not tell George not to follow, a dispatcher said they didn't need him to follow)

SO WHAT?!?! That doesn't mean he attacked George! George had a gun, what did this kid do... walk up and start a fight with a gun carrying WHITE GUY!!

(photos released of George's injuries from the attack. Head was split open, blood was visible, nose was scratched)

OMG! Look at those scratches!! I've hit my head harder and wasn't even bothered about it!!!

(medical records and autopsy report out. George did also have a broken nose, Trayvon did have hand injuries showing he was the aggressor)

SO?!?! The police told him not to follow!!

OMG, the police didn't say that. A 911 operator just said "we don't need you to do that" (follow him).

/repeat, rinse, repeat...

Martin sympathizers sure like to skew the facts to make it look like this white guy just walked up and blasted the poor, innocent black kid.


ftfy
 
2012-05-18 02:31:19 PM

codergirl42: Was his weapon drawn while following Trayvon? You can assault someone without actually causing harm to them. If his weapon was drawn or he was threatening to harm Trayvon that's assualt and Trayvon would have been well within his rights to defend himself.


There's no evidence that he did and a few factors suggesting his weapon hadn't been drawn yet. I'm pretty sure SYG probably applied to both of them, but that says more to how the law is written than anything else.
 
2012-05-18 02:31:52 PM

monoski: That is not "Standing your ground"


You are right. It is one of the basic freedoms we as americans enjoy. Unless you are saying walking in his neighborhood is illegal then he had every right to get out of his car, and him exercising his right isn;t something that can be used against him in court.
 
2012-05-18 02:32:17 PM

SharkTrager: Sargun: step one: initiate altercation with teenage boy
step two: shoot him when he fights back
step three: claim self defence

am I missing anything?

Except there is no evidence, literally none, of Zimmerman starting an altercation. There is a difference between an altercation and a confrontation.

He confronted Martin. The evidence all indicated Martin then attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman has no marks on his hands indicating he hit Martin.


What evidence is there that Martin "then attacked Zimmerman"? Specifically?
 
2012-05-18 02:32:32 PM
Can anyone provide a verifiable citation for "Zimmerman attacked" or "Zimmerman started(the confrontation)"?

Just one would be nice.
 
2012-05-18 02:32:41 PM

wingedkat: The most relevant evidence in this whole case is that the kid was running away when Zimmerman got out of the car and chased him.

If a strange guy were following me, then after I started running away got out of his car and started chasing me, I'd take the first chance I got to sit on top of him and bash his skull against the ground. How can Zimmerman act in self-defense if chased the kid when he ran away?

You can't attack someone then claim "self defense" when they fight back.


This.
 
2012-05-18 02:33:17 PM

jbuist: NeedlesslyCanadian:
Pot is a depressant, all you retards submitting threads on this yesterday. It dulls your reaction speed and slows you down.

It also tends to make you paranoid and prone to doing stupid shiat. Like attacking a guy for reporting to the police that you look suspicious and might be on drugs.


Unavailable for comment.
s15.postimage.org
 
2012-05-18 02:33:28 PM

Tatsuma: So evidence shows that Zimmerman indeed had Martin on top of him, and he was bashing his head on the ground (already corroborated by the only witness) and that Martin was in fact high.


Zimmerman is gonna walk, and riots all over.


As a reminder, Tats is not a lawyer.
 
2012-05-18 02:33:40 PM

serpent_sky: Theaetetus: 2) Why has it taken months for them to come out, particularly with all of the complaints about the video at the police station not showing any blood? If they had still photos, why did we have to go through that week of "look, the video shows nothing! Oh, we've enhanced the video, and maybe there's something... But this video-enhancement guy disagrees and suggests it's just an artifact..."? Why didn't the police just say "here's a full color close up photo"? Were they trying to start riots?

Seriously, it does change the story a bit if the guy really was beaten down, though the fact that he got out of his car and started the altercation does strike me as a significant factor in this case. The marijuana? Who cares about that, honestly?

No matter what happens in this case, justice will not be served because Zimmerman was already tried and convicted by the media and the whole country, and Trayvon Martin is still an unarmed teenager who is dead due to the overzealous neighborhood watch guy who couldn't just be content with staying in his car and allowing the real police to do their jobs. And I hate to say it, but if Zimmerman goes free, I fully expect riots. And probably not just in Florida, the way this got -- and continues to get -- covered.


Maybe I don't know the case well enough - but are you equating "got out of the car and approached" with "started an altercation", or do we know more? Approaching someone on the sidewalk in a neighborhood doesn't sound the same as "started an altercation" to me, even if it was ill advised. I talk to people walking in my neighborhood.
 
2012-05-18 02:33:51 PM
I am amazed by the number of people that suggest that Zimmerman is automatically guilty because he followed a suspicious person. It is not illegal to follow or even confront anyone on a public street, no matter the advise from a 911 operator or any other person.

The encounter doesn't become illegal until it turns physical. The juries decision to convict or acquit will fall on their determination of who started the physical altercation.

If the jury finds that Zimmerman turned the encounter physical, than his actions do not fall within the realms of self defense, under the stand your ground law or even more traditional theories of self defense. Under this fact pattern Zimmerman's injuries are irrelevant, and the jury will find him guilty.

If the jury finds that Johnson turned the encounter into a physical altercation than there is a basis for self defense. The jury then would have the duty to determine if Zimmerman was reasonable in his belief that his life was threatened. Under this fact pattern Zimmerman's injuries would be used by Zimmerman to support his contention that his life was threatened. If the jury agrees, he walks.

The whole presence of HTC is irrelevant to the equation, other than attempts to shift public opinion. This fact may never make it before a jury, as Zimmerman didn't know about it at the time and therefore it wasn't a factor that he considered when he decided to use deadly force. Johnson's actions are the only thing that is relevant for Zimmerman's self defense claims. The reason for acting in a specific matter are irrelevant. (I think this is the proper legal reasoning for suppressing this issue before the jury, but I have seen inconsistent rulings on this type of issue. )

I suspect the jury will base 99% of its verdict on two "pieces" of evidence, specifically the testimony of the two witnesses. As long as the two eye witnesses agree on what happened all the expert opinions as to who is heard shouting "help" on the 911 tape are post event guesses. Juries, more often than not, rely on eye witness testimony more than any other form of evidence, despite that fact that it is often riddled with errors due to only seeing something for a short period of time, being under the stress of the event, and lack of memory the further one gets from the date of the event.

If the two witnesses agree with each other and Zimmerman's version of the events, Zimmerman has a 99% chance of walking.
 
2012-05-18 02:34:38 PM

greenboy: anyone think that maybe zimmerman was backpedaling away from martin and as he shot, he fell and hit is head?


From the ground, underneath Martin, when the shot was fired from 12-18 inches away? Fortunately, with the evidence available, I don't have to "think" or "believe" in theories.
 
2012-05-18 02:35:13 PM

Tatsuma: So evidence shows that Zimmerman indeed had Martin on top of him, and he was bashing his head on the ground (already corroborated by the only witness) and that Martin was in fact high.


Zimmerman is gonna walk, and riots all over.


Yep, because people are not going to accept that Martin will be blamed for defending himself against an armed stalker following him through his own neighborhood. If only stand your ground applied to unarmed black kids.

Going to be a long summer.

/I remember the 60s
 
2012-05-18 02:36:01 PM

Nanny Ogg: This is factually incorrect.


FTFY. You absolutely can start shiat, then defend your life with lethal force. That whole "gray area" thing is not fun when it doesn't support your prejudices.
 
2012-05-18 02:36:19 PM
another thought...
If martin was on zimmeran and beating him when zimmerman shot him, wouldn't it mean that zimmerman would have had to shoot from almost an angle to get the leverage to point and pull the trigger? In my head, i'm imagining all the times my bro was beating the crap out of me. He was so close that i couldn't do anything but little rabbit punches to the side. If there was a gun, that would be the only way i could get it out and point it? If that is the case, then the shot would have been very much across the body, with some spray getting on zimmermans clothes. That doesn't really lend itself to him being on the ground.

My thought is that they were either standing, or coming out of a struggle with some separation that allowed him to aim at full reach plus 18 inches.

//Just like everyone else, I'm just guessing based on information that we know.
//We don't know squat.
 
2012-05-18 02:36:26 PM
roughly a thousand murders in florida every year since 1970.

nobody gave a damn before

so why should I start caring now?
 
2012-05-18 02:37:08 PM

s2s2s2: From the ground, underneath Martin, when the shot was fired from 12-18 inches away? Fortunately, with the evidence available, I don't have to "think" or "believe" in theories.


Artist's rendition of Zimmerman that night:

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-05-18 02:37:22 PM

edmo: Yep, because people are not going to accept that Martin will be blamed for defending himself against an armed stalker following him through his own neighborhood. If only stand your ground applied to unarmed black kids.

Going to be a long summer.

/I remember the 60s


Smells like alzheimer's. Get to a doctor, quick.

btw, your hat is in your hand.
 
2012-05-18 02:37:29 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: It's a little sad to see a group of people who have such an infantile, underdeveloped sense of right and wrong that instead of relying on their moral compass to determine whether an unarmed boy deserved to die, they fall back on the letter of a law...written by a man who says that the law should not be applied in this case.


Is the question whether Martin deserved to die, or whether Zimmerman should be punished?

For those few non-trolls who are trying to honestly debate the evidence, do you seriously believe that a child deserved to die because Florida law makes it legal for Zimmerman to start an altercation and kill a kid when he feels threatened?

The question of whether or not Martin deserved to die is, I believe, a distraction from the core issue. Very few people truly deserve to die, and most contemporary justice systems don't even take that into account (certainly none of them do in a consistent manner). Self-defense is not a question of merit, but of what people do to survive.

I believe that the question of who started the altercation is also a distraction. In this day and age, not many people who start fights, even when armed, expect to kill or to be killed. One could argue that this is an incredibly stupid error in judgment to make -I'd agree with that- but starting fights is usually not a sign of good judgment, and the fact remains that the judgment is made. This has very real implications when determining things like malice aforethought.

For the record, I do think Zimmerman should be punished: this was not a valid act of self-defense. I do not think that whether or not he started it should change the outcome, though I happen to think that he probably did start it. Last I heard, no one was disputing that Martin was running away at the time he was shot, and this makes all the difference: the threat was neutralized, leaving Zimmerman with no call to shoot.

This said, I also do not think that charging him with anything more severe than manslaughter is a good idea. I suspect that Zimmerman's state of mind may very well have fit the depraved-heart definition of malice aforethought, but I do not think there is any chance of proving this beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given his actual injuries. Charging him with worse than this harms the prosecution's chances for no real gain: even manslaughter will put him away for a long time, and given the circumstances he probably would not survive his sentence.
 
2012-05-18 02:38:03 PM

Deucednuisance: Your Boss: To all of you Zim-haters out there..


Umm.. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

No marks on him, eh?
did I mention BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!??
/ha
//haha

Crow for lunch anyone????


Jeezus, a kid is dead, another guy's life is ruined, and you're cheering on the sidelines because "your team" got some news that's arguably in its favor (and it's far from conclusive, btw)?

You're disgusting.


No, I think y'all are misreading my message.. I am laughing at all of you armchair lawyers saying he is guilty, guilty, guilty, and that he had no marks, and there were no fight, and that your pussy hurts. A dead kid is very tragic. those of you who are trying Zim out of court, without all of the evidence are morans.

Hence the 'Crow for lunch' comment. but you'll still try to interpret in a way that makes you feel better.
/jackwagons
 
2012-05-18 02:38:09 PM
Bontesla SmartestFunniest 2012-05-18 02:19:48 PM

that's all this case hinges on. it has nothing to do with who chased who, what the dispatcher said, who started the actual fight, or whether florida requires Zimmerman to run away before using lethal force because everyone agrees Martin was on top of Zimmerman and had him under control.

Incorrect. The charge is that Zimmerman was acting with a depraved mind. That Zimmerman's actions are consistent with someone acting with blatant disregard for human life.

He (the Defense) will need to affirm to the jury that his actions were legal, reasonable, and necessary to defend himself.



that's exactly what I said, it hinges entirely on whether the jury finds that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances.

behaving reasonably will mean he acted legally. you don't really need to say he needs to prove he acted reasonably AND legally AND that his actions were necessary to defend himself. do you see how your adding words but no substance here?

and I'd disagree with you about a minor point of florida procedure. Zimmerman merely needs to introduce some evidence he had a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, then the burden gets thrown back on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted unlawfully. the defendant doesn't have to prove (or affirm) jackshiat.

can i help you with anything else today?
 
2012-05-18 02:38:35 PM

IrateShadow: s2s2s2: From the ground, underneath Martin, when the shot was fired from 12-18 inches away? Fortunately, with the evidence available, I don't have to "think" or "believe" in theories.

Artist's rendition of Zimmerman that night:

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 60x118]


The Third Nipple of the Devil!
 
2012-05-18 02:38:51 PM

Splinshints: I alone am best: Not to mention Trayvon pulled that whole stupid intimidation thing where he reached inside his pants like he had a gun.

And, yet, there's that niggling little detail about the entire confrontation only happening because Zimmerman caused the confrontation in the first place....


Did Zimmerman draw or show his weapon first? Did he throw punches at Martin first? You have no indication that any of that happened. If Zimmerman did niether of these things and did not verbally threaten him with anything other than the fact that he had called the police the responsibility of the altercation is now in Martin's hands.

I can follow anyone I want to (even if a 911 dispatcher tells me not to because they have no more authority over me at any given time than does the check out girl at K-Mart) and call the police on them if there is a problem or possible problem. Until I physically or verbally threaten a person that I, myself, am going to harm them, I have done no wrong.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:00 PM

redmid17: codergirl42: Was his weapon drawn while following Trayvon? You can assault someone without actually causing harm to them. If his weapon was drawn or he was threatening to harm Trayvon that's assualt and Trayvon would have been well within his rights to defend himself.

There's no evidence that he did and a few factors suggesting his weapon hadn't been drawn yet. I'm pretty sure SYG probably applied to both of them, but that says more to how the law is written than anything else.


I'm not saying there is but people seem to assume that a physical confrontation had to take place before it became assault. I was simply pointing out that you can assault someone without actually touching them. Mainly by brandishing a weapon or threatening to do harm to someone with a weapon in your possession.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:00 PM

JeffreyScott: If the two witnesses agree with each other and Zimmerman's version of the events, Zimmerman has a 99% chance of walking.


He doesn't even have to get a jury to agree. There is a judicial hearing option with a lower standard of doubt.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:03 PM

greenboy: another thought...
If martin was on zimmeran and beating him when zimmerman shot him, wouldn't it mean that zimmerman would have had to shoot from almost an angle to get the leverage to point and pull the trigger? In my head, i'm imagining all the times my bro was beating the crap out of me. He was so close that i couldn't do anything but little rabbit punches to the side. If there was a gun, that would be the only way i could get it out and point it? If that is the case, then the shot would have been very much across the body, with some spray getting on zimmermans clothes. That doesn't really lend itself to him being on the ground.

My thought is that they were either standing, or coming out of a struggle with some separation that allowed him to aim at full reach plus 18 inches.

//Just like everyone else, I'm just guessing based on information that we know.
//We don't know squat.


Why would you choose to pick 18 inches? The maximum distance, it could have been as short as one inch.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:11 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Tatsuma: So evidence shows that Zimmerman indeed had Martin on top of him, and he was bashing his head on the ground (already corroborated by the only witness) and that Martin was in fact high.


Zimmerman is gonna walk, and riots all over.

No, the evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC in his system. That's not the same as being high.

It also doesn't say anything about the fact that Zimmerman started the entire thing, or does Martin somehow not qualify for the stand your ground laws? You know, the guy who did actually have somebody stalk and attack him?


Following is not attacking.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:16 PM

s2s2s2: greenboy: anyone think that maybe zimmerman was backpedaling away from martin and as he shot, he fell and hit is head?

From the ground, underneath Martin, when the shot was fired from 12-18 inches away? Fortunately, with the evidence available, I don't have to "think" or "believe" in theories.


keep in mind 12 inches away was how far the gun was. If someone is on top of me, then their body is that far away. how are you going to fire the gun like that? how are you going to even get it out of the holster, assuming it's not. I'm not trying to pick one side or the other, but it doesn't seem plausible (as seen in my previous post) that at the time he was shot, martin was on top of zimmerman.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:43 PM

Bontesla: master_dman: Oh for farks sake.

Why can't people read?

Zimmerman got out of his car after losing sight of Martin behind some buildings.
He walked around to the back of the buildings and didn't see him so he walked back to his vehicle.

As he was approaching said vehicle, Martin came running up behind him and attacked him.

All you farktards that say Zimmerman chased him down and grabbed him are completely blinded by your racists views.

Grow up. Your on the wrong side here.

You have no actual facts to establish this.

As of right now - there are no objective witnesses to how the fight was initiated.
The fight did happen a good distance away from Zimmerman's vehicle (it happened on grass and behind a building).


Untrue. This is the sworn testimony in the police reports. The fight, and the shooting happened a mere 20 yards from Zimmermans vehicle.

Zimmerman was just stepping out of his car when the dispatcher said he shouldn't follow him. Zimmerman says OK, and hangs up.

Less than two minutes later, the 911 call with Zimmerman screaming for help was placed.

Two minutes seems like just enough time to walk around to the backside of a large block of apartment buildings, look around, and return to the vehicle.

The facts WILL come out. Zimmerman WILL go free. There WILL be riots.

This whole farking thing has EVERYTHING to do with gun rights and political grandstanding, and NOTHING to do with race and violence.

George is being thrown under the bus in the name of the media trying to stir up racial tension to sell papers and ad time.. and in the name of liberal farktards who can't stand the fact that the average joe citizen has the right to defend themselves in Florida and much of the U.S.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:44 PM

ParaHandy: IronOcelot: I see this ending in no other way than Zimmerman walking away free.
Personally, I think this was a series of bad decisions made by both parties that culminated with the most tragic outcome for one of the people involved.

In some countries, making "bad decisions" that get other people killed has consequences.


Zimmerman made the right decision. It was his neighborhood and he was doing what he should have to keep it safe.

He guessed correctly that Martin was a drug user. He guessed correctly that Marin was a stranger to the neighborhood. And he guessed correctly that Marin was the sort of person that would try to beat the hell out of someone.

Martin was a bad kid. That's too bad, but that's not Zimmerman's fault.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:59 PM
Remember the lesson our liberal friends are teaching us hear. If you follow someone who looks suspicious, you deserve to get beat up by said person. Do not try to defend yourself if the person you are following knocks you down and starts wailing on you, you have to just take the beating you have coming to you or else you are a violent racist!

Martin followed some one who looked suspicious in his neighborhood after there had been a string of vandalism in the area. He got knocked down by Martin, who started kicking is ass. Zimmerman pulled a guy and shot Martin, who was on top of him at the time and after Zimmerman had unsuccessfully called out for help. Unfortunately the race-baters and those who love reporting a race-based narrative for political reasons took this obvious case of self-defense and have plaster lies about it all over the media. There have already been a number of retaliatory assaults on random white people who were just the wrong color in the wrong part of town and if riots do erupt when Zimmerman is found innocent, people like Sharpton and Jackson, and tv networks who intentionally edited to the audio to make Zimmerman sound like a racist will have blood on their hands.

BTW: The THC in his system is completely irrelevant to what happened, other that the fact that cotton mouth and the munchies would explain the skittles and tea, but that is not the issue. People who lead with the concept that he was "hopped up on goofballs" look every bit as ridiculous as the Stacy Keach character in "Up In Smoke".
www.wearysloth.com
 
2012-05-18 02:40:51 PM

codergirl42: Was his weapon drawn while following Trayvon? You can assault someone without actually causing harm to them. If his weapon was drawn or he was threatening to harm Trayvon that's assualt and Trayvon would have been well within his rights to defend himself.

as·sault [uh-sawlt] Show IPA
noun
Law . an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.


If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation in the first place by unlawfully assaulting Martin with a firearm, then he is the unlawful aggressor, and cannot claim self defense, except in the limited circumstances set forth in section 776.041.
 
2012-05-18 02:41:24 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Tatsuma: So evidence shows that Zimmerman indeed had Martin on top of him, and he was bashing his head on the ground (already corroborated by the only witness) and that Martin was in fact high.


Zimmerman is gonna walk, and riots all over.

No, the evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC in his system. That's not the same as being high.

It also doesn't say anything about the fact that Zimmerman started the entire thing, or does Martin somehow not qualify for the stand your ground laws? You know, the guy who did actually have somebody stalk and attack him?


I think most people are so bias one way or the other like tats and DFML here shows... it doesn;t matter what is 'right' or what the evidence shows anymore.

T.M has been idolized to represent everything that is social injustice against blacks while G.Z has been unfortunately stigmatized as the guy who represents everything that is white superiority and oppression against blacks.

I think everyone at this point probably realizes that on a societal level it's no more about justice for either of these individuals but rather it has become a cause much bigger than themselves.
 
2012-05-18 02:41:38 PM

edmo: armed stalker


Skittles and iced tea are now prohibited from being a carry on item.
 
2012-05-18 02:42:02 PM
Problem with black people riots is the tend to burn down their own neighborhood.
 
2012-05-18 02:42:49 PM

I alone am best: greenboy: another thought...
If martin was on zimmeran and beating him when zimmerman shot him, wouldn't it mean that zimmerman would have had to shoot from almost an angle to get the leverage to point and pull the trigger? In my head, i'm imagining all the times my bro was beating the crap out of me. He was so close that i couldn't do anything but little rabbit punches to the side. If there was a gun, that would be the only way i could get it out and point it? If that is the case, then the shot would have been very much across the body, with some spray getting on zimmermans clothes. That doesn't really lend itself to him being on the ground.

My thought is that they were either standing, or coming out of a struggle with some separation that allowed him to aim at full reach plus 18 inches.

//Just like everyone else, I'm just guessing based on information that we know.
//We don't know squat.

Why would you choose to pick 18 inches? The maximum distance, it could have been as short as one inch.


Yes it could have. it is still not a lot of room to get a gun pointed and fired directly in the middle of the chest.
 
2012-05-18 02:43:02 PM

vegasj: Martin sympathizers sure like to skew the facts to make it look like this white guy just walked up and blasted the poor, innocent black kid.


I think the real story is that at least three black people, none of whom knew one another personally, publicly and repeatedly lied about evidence they handled in an attempt to get a non-black lynched for killing a black man in a clear-cut case of self defense.

/the SPLC used to sue the shiat out of the KKK for this sort of thing
//"The only possible answer to collective incitement is collective punishment."
 
2012-05-18 02:43:48 PM

I alone am best: Why would you choose to pick 18 inches? The maximum distance, it could have been as short as one inch.


A gun that close would likely leave some forensically detectible scorching on the victim.
 
2012-05-18 02:43:58 PM

jdmac: Remember the lesson our liberal friends are teaching us hear.


Way to build credibility that you are about to say something smart!
 
2012-05-18 02:45:16 PM

codergirl42: redmid17: codergirl42: Was his weapon drawn while following Trayvon? You can assault someone without actually causing harm to them. If his weapon was drawn or he was threatening to harm Trayvon that's assualt and Trayvon would have been well within his rights to defend himself.

There's no evidence that he did and a few factors suggesting his weapon hadn't been drawn yet. I'm pretty sure SYG probably applied to both of them, but that says more to how the law is written than anything else.

I'm not saying there is but people seem to assume that a physical confrontation had to take place before it became assault. I was simply pointing out that you can assault someone without actually touching them. Mainly by brandishing a weapon or threatening to do harm to someone with a weapon in your possession.


True. There is actually a SYG case where a guy got off because witnesses told the judge that someone had threatened the defendant with "heat in his pocket," even though he was unarmed.
 
2012-05-18 02:46:06 PM
JeffreyScott SmartestFunniest 2012-05-18 02:33:51 PM


I am amazed by the number of people that suggest that Zimmerman is automatically guilty because he followed a suspicious person. It is not illegal to follow or even confront anyone on a public street, no matter the advise from a 911 operator or any other person
The encounter doesn't become illegal until it turns physical. The juries decision to convict or acquit will fall on their determination of who started the physical altercation.


dude, you are dead wrong.
for the love of god please stop, you are not the law talking guy.

it has everything to do with whether zimmerman had an objectively reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. it doesn't matter if martin attacked out of the blue with a slurpee, or if zimmerman started the altercation with two slaps to the face and a wet willy.
 
2012-05-18 02:46:15 PM
Why do people insist there will be riots? Are you suggesting your dark-skinned fellow citizens are unable to express their opinions of a court case without resorting to extreme rage?

Additionally, why do people feel like the timing of the information is somehow a personal slight to them? Every person demanding to know "why wasn't this released up front" seems to be saying "why didn't someone tell me before I ran off to make declamations based on a half-baked opinion".
 
2012-05-18 02:46:30 PM

Deucednuisance: Now if you're going to discount witness testimony as unreliable, that's fine, but you gotta toss the "Martin was on top of Zimmerman" testimony as well. Because all we have for that is one person's word, just like the girlfriend's story.


Eye witness > girl on the phone in another location with good reason to lie.
 
2012-05-18 02:46:55 PM

serpent_sky: Theaetetus: Yeah... That's why it made more sense if those photos were supposedly the next day - he could've showered and changed clothing first.

but then, if that were the case, the trickles from what looks like two small gashes would not be there.

I don't want to sound like a kooky conspiracy theorist, but something is really not right with these photos. As you also noted, there is a lack of bruising on his nose and head. I once fell backwards and hit my head on a step, and ended up, rather quickly, with a baseball sized lump and I assume it was quite bruised, but I couldn't tell because it was under my hair.


Sometimes.. actually most times things are exactly what they appear to be. Why yes.. you do sound exactly like a kooky conspiracy theorist.
 
2012-05-18 02:47:20 PM

I alone am best: If he physically attacked someone and was slamming his head into the cement,


Something's been bugging me about this.

If the evidence that Trayvon was atop him is a damp shirt with grass on it, how is it that the his head was on "cement"?
 
2012-05-18 02:47:31 PM

SkinnyHead:
If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation in the first place by unlawfully assaulting Martin with a firearm, then he is the unlawful aggressor, and cannot claim self defense, except in the limited circumstances set forth in section 776.041.


Right. But I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman, if he was holding the gun, would have let Martin punch him in the nose and allow him to bash his head against the ground.

I doubt Martin would have done anything except run away if he had seen Zimmerman with the gun.
 
2012-05-18 02:47:31 PM

Wingchild: Why do people insist there will be riots?


Effective memories, understanding of history?
 
Displayed 50 of 745 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report