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.

(MSNBC)   All those witnesses who you've been basing your defense of George ZImmerman on? Yeah, sit down I have something to tell you   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, NBC News  
•       •       •

33036 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2012 at 2:04 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



741 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

 
2012-05-23 04:09:29 PM  

bugontherug: ihatedumbpeople: //initially figured Zimmerman was 100% guilty, but I have my doubts.

Your doubts should be settled by Trayvon's girlfriend's credible statement that Trayvon said "get off" two or three times before the phone cut out.


I am somewhat less willing to take the girlfriend's statement at face value without corroborating evidence than you are. She has an axe to grind (as do the members of Zimmerman's family who have commented on the case to the media up to now).
 
2012-05-23 04:15:05 PM  

frepnog: My guess is that the ONLY reason Martin was even shot was that he saw Zim's gun and went for it. I have no doubt that the gun would never have even come into play if it had been better concealed


I agree with this.

I further offer that Zimmerman would not have even gotten out of his car at all if he did not have a gun. It's an option on the table that, even if he did not invite it, he still recognizes in the back of his head should things turn unfortunate, he always has that out. It dominates his decision-thinking throughout the whole scenario, as it does anyone with a concealed weapon.
 
2012-05-23 04:15:07 PM  

s2s2s2: jayhawk88: People can smear this kid all you want: No one is claiming that he was a choir boy and didn't do some things that were sketchy. The point here is that Zimmerman completely bat-shiat-insane over reacted to a kid who, at worst, was "trespassing" on some lawns.

Let me finish that for you: in a neighborhood that had lots of break-ins, and Trayvon did not live in. No reason for the neighborhood watch coordinator(so ordained by the community) to call cops to show a presence that may have scared a potential criminal off!


I'll bet Zimmerman wishes now that he had left it at that.
 
2012-05-23 04:16:23 PM  

tirob: Can you please cite Florida statute/case law that would back this assertion up?


No he cannot, but he has quite the impressive floor routine.

www.anntorrence.com
 
2012-05-23 04:18:54 PM  

tirob: I'll bet Zimmerman wishes now that he had left it at that.


Nah. His real prey that night? FAME!
http://i2.listal.com/image/1827779/600full-natural-born-killers-poste r .jpg
 
2012-05-23 04:19:35 PM  
i2.listal.com
 
2012-05-23 04:23:14 PM  

Phinn: stoli n coke: Sorry. meant criminally negligent manslaughter, which is death caused by recklessness. In this case, the recklessness being trolling after a stranger with a loaded gun, even if it was just to ask him what he was doing.

That conduct does not constitute a criminal offense.

The Justice for Trayvon crowd is consistently wrong on both the law and the facts.


I've seen plenty of that from the people sympathetic to Zimmerman, too.
 
2012-05-23 04:37:28 PM  
We have a win, win situation here people the Z man a Mexican on trial for murder of little black ghetto trash might get off and get to do it all over again. Or if guilty, they fry a Mexican, it's a win, win, any way ya look at it. Now granted he's not a border jumper but still a Mexican, one is as good as another.


/Yeah very got damn prejudice, what about it?
 
2012-05-23 04:49:34 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe:
Zimmerman was in a place he was legally allowed to be. He has injuries consistent with an attack (his a attorneys will argue that the extent of the injuries are consistent with the statutory definition of aggravated battery, a felony) and he reasonably believed he was justified to use deadly force. He doesn't have to show in retrospect he was justified, only at the time he reasonably believed he was. The reasonable man standard isn't a steep threshold to clear.

Maybe not, but if Witness 13 is telling the truth when he says that just after the shooting Zimmerman said that he had to shoot Martin "because he was beating up on me," I don't think he'll be able to clear it. That statute you cited required Zimmerman reasonably to believe he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm before he could legally fire his pistol. Getting "beat up on"--this allegedly Zimmerman's *subjective* belief rather than the objective belief required by the statute--is, I suggest, in most cases far from necessarily being in imminent danger of great bodily harm.

I am nowhere nearly as sure as you are that Martin was committing aggravated battery according to Florida law.

784.045Aggravated battery.-(1)(a)A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1.Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2.Uses a deadly weapon.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut e &URL=0700-0799/0784/0784.html
 
2012-05-23 04:53:44 PM  

tirob: Giant Clown Shoe:
Zimmerman was in a place he was legally allowed to be. He has injuries consistent with an attack (his a attorneys will argue that the extent of the injuries are consistent with the statutory definition of aggravated battery, a felony) and he reasonably believed he was justified to use deadly force. He doesn't have to show in retrospect he was justified, only at the time he reasonably believed he was. The reasonable man standard isn't a steep threshold to clear.

Maybe not, but if Witness 13 is telling the truth when he says that just after the shooting Zimmerman said that he had to shoot Martin "because he was beating up on me," I don't think he'll be able to clear it. That statute you cited required Zimmerman reasonably to believe he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm before he could legally fire his pistol. Getting "beat up on"--this allegedly Zimmerman's *subjective* belief rather than the objective belief required by the statute--is, I suggest, in most cases far from necessarily being in imminent danger of great bodily harm.

I am nowhere nearly as sure as you are that Martin was committing aggravated battery according to Florida law.

784.045Aggravated battery.-(1)(a)A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1.Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2.Uses a deadly weapon.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut e &URL=0700-0799/0784/0784.html


We're really guessing what "beating up on me" means now?

To one person it could mean pounding your head into the ground. To another it could mean pushing and shoving...

Those words aren't damning of Zimmerman in any way whatsoever.

I think that the Dr.'s report of two black eyes, fractured nose and head lacerations coupled with the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "MMA style" is more than enough to establish that a reasonable person would think that great bodily harm or death were possibly imminent.
 
2012-05-23 04:59:51 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: First guy has cuts on back of head, broke nose. Grass stains on back of coat. Obviously got beat up.

Other guy shot at very close range. Not from a distance like he was stalked, but at very close range.

It's obvious what happened there. No murder conviction.


Not every unlawful homicide is a murder. Have a look at Florida's manslaughter statute.
 
2012-05-23 05:06:27 PM  

LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.


This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.
 
2012-05-23 05:10:38 PM  

cretinbob: CheapEngineer: HAMMERTOE: ...if only Kennedy had gotten out of the car...
...if only Dale Earnhardt had gotten out of the car...
...if only Stevie Ray Vaughan had gotten out of the helicopter...
...if only 17 Arabs hadn't gotten into 3 airliners...
...if only Whitney Houston had gotten out of the bathtub...


...if only 22 clowns hadn't gotten out of the clown-car...

[images.eonline.com image 425x315]

If Michelle Duggar just kept her legs shut...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x205]

If global warming had happened sooner


If Zimmerman had been carrying pepper spray instead of a pistol...
 
2012-05-23 05:10:52 PM  

tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.


How is observing and reporting suspicious persons in your neighborhood in any way stupid?

How is it at all clear that this is manslaughter? The prosecution has admitted that Zimmerman's story is pretty much how things went down. There's no contradictory evidence and corroborating witness testimony that comes down on the side of Zimmerman. That doesn't meet the definition of manslaughter in any state.
 
2012-05-23 05:13:46 PM  

tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.


Bolded are speculative and not supported by any publicly known evidence.
 
2012-05-23 05:16:48 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter

Incorrect.

I'm allowed to ask you a question without getting punched in the face. When someone punches you in the face in FL and you are somewhere where you're legally allowed to be you are legally allowed to defend yourself with force up to and including deadly force.


According to which statute?
 
2012-05-23 05:26:10 PM  

tirob: According to which statute?


Depends. There is case law that states that if you lose a tooth, then you are the victim of great bodily harm. So according to one of the 776's that have been posted a million times in these threads, I think you an shoot 'em.
 
2012-05-23 05:27:45 PM  

Phinn: This is why the evidence in the Zimmerman case doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman acted within the bounds of well-established legal principles regarding the use of force. The fact is that he did it himself. He got out of the car. He investigated. He acted in a way that only government employees get to act.

It's why everything that happened from that moment until the gun went off doesn't matter to them at all.


Whether Zimmerman acted within the Florida statute regarding the legal use of deadly force is the *only* issue here for *this* deluded liberal.
 
2012-05-23 05:37:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: CheapEngineer: Facetious_Speciest: monoski

He was on the phone with 911 and self reported in a recorded conversation that he was in his vehicle. It is undeniable he left the vehicle and shot Martin, that is not "Standing your ground" that is taking the law into your own hands.

Not the first time you've said this. The fact remains that regardless of where he walked, if Martin attacked him as he claims, defending himself was justified.

You don't forfeit the right to defend yourself because you get out of your car.

Neither person knew if the other was armed.

One person knew *he* was armed, and capable of ending a life.

If you carry a weapon, do you not need to behave differently in a confrontation, knowing your decisions weigh more heavily because another persons life is at stake? Much like driving an 18-wheeler through a school zone, should you not be especially careful?

If your *only* thought when carrying a weapon is "That MFer better not start anything with me, or I'll kill him", perhaps you shouldn't carry that weapon, or put yourself into those situations. Zimmerman *put himself* into that situation, intentionally. Whether he intended to be the aggressor or not, he had the responsibility to walk into that situation knowing that any decision he made *wrong* would be fatal.

If you're that scared of "what that kid is up to", then let the police handle it. If you feel qualified enough, because you posses a deadly weapon, to challenge strangers alone at night and gamble whether they are armed as well or not, then you are creating a "situation" where none existed before.

At what point does the possibility of foiling a possible future robbery become worth generating a confrontation that easily could result in someone's death? Especially when you are not trained or qualified to do this job?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400]

\I don't know what happened either
\\but zimmerman was not the police, but seemed intent on acting like one
\\\and obviously he failed tha ...


Giant Clown Shoe: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter

Incorrect.

I'm allowed to ask you a question without getting punched in the face. When someone punches you in the face in FL and you are somewhere where you're legally allowed to be you are legally allowed to defend yourself with force up to and including deadly force. The "advice" of the dispatcher didn't make Zimmerman's location or the question he asked any less legal.


And yet *everyone* who is here white-knighting for Zimmerman is taking his unverified version of the story as the gospel, and basing all decisions and opinions on the case that it is true, and it's not possible that it could be *untrue*.

*If* all this story is true, exactly as Zimmerman related it, then *perhaps* he gets away with it, even though following the kid pushed the situation.

If.
 
2012-05-23 05:38:21 PM  

LordJiro: Like Zimmerman wasn't?


There are only 2 people who witnessed the confrontation and one of them is dead.

Those who have convicted zimmerman from the start believe that after spitting out his chewing tobacco, he shouted, "now a listen here boy", brandished his pistol and chased after martin

He may very well have just approached him and asked him how he was and who he knew in the neighborhood. That sort of contact is not provocation which a CCW holder must avoid. If a burger king clerk leaps over the counter and attacks me with a knife it isn't my fault for first asking for a whopper and fries
 
2012-05-23 05:40:18 PM  

Phinn: CheapEngineer: If you're that scared of "what that kid is up to", then let the police handle it.

And .... that's the nut of it, right there.

(large pile of crap)


I could come up with a long list of responses to that ridiculous rambling diatribe that went *everywhere* but on the subject at hand, so I'll just condense it to something you might understand and call you personally an asshole.
 
2012-05-23 05:40:51 PM  

vrax: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Who started the altercation is pretty much irrelevant, despite the assertions from several that it makes a difference. All that matters is that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life at the time he pulled the trigger.

Bullshiat! There is no way that SYG would apply to Zimmerman then. He should go to prison for the assault and homicide in that case.


No, the Florida justifiable use of force statute permits an aggressor who winds up reasonably fearing for his life to use deadly force in some cases.
 
2012-05-23 05:46:47 PM  

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - a hypothetical:

Someone is walking around your car on a public street - checking it out. Could be anyone. There have been several cars stolen in your neighborhood. You ask the person what they are doing. Said person turns on you and starts beating the holy fark out of you and starts pounding your head on the sidewalk. You have a legally concealed firearm.

Am I hearing that the beatdown is deserved? Assuming so, how far do you allow yourself to be beaten? Is your firearm off limits at this point because you asked someone what they were doing when checking your car out (which could be admiration - who could know without asking)?

Very curious to hear the responses from the Martin defenders.


transitionculture.org
 
2012-05-23 05:50:21 PM  

tirob: vrax: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Who started the altercation is pretty much irrelevant, despite the assertions from several that it makes a difference. All that matters is that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life at the time he pulled the trigger.

Bullshiat! There is no way that SYG would apply to Zimmerman then. He should go to prison for the assault and homicide in that case.

No, the Florida justifiable use of force statute permits an aggressor who winds up reasonably fearing for his life to use deadly force in some cases.


Yeah, it makes me want to put my head through a wall that it would stand in that case, but it seems so. Pretty pathetic. Makes it really easy to pick fights and murder people if you have something against them and get off. Hell, you could do it repeatedly and probably get off with how farked Florida is.
 
2012-05-23 05:51:58 PM  

CheapEngineer: Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - a hypothetical:

Someone is walking around your car on a public street - checking it out. Could be anyone. There have been several cars stolen in your neighborhood. You ask the person what they are doing. Said person turns on you and starts beating the holy fark out of you and starts pounding your head on the sidewalk. You have a legally concealed firearm.

Am I hearing that the beatdown is deserved? Assuming so, how far do you allow yourself to be beaten? Is your firearm off limits at this point because you asked someone what they were doing when checking your car out (which could be admiration - who could know without asking)?

Very curious to hear the responses from the Martin defenders.

[transitionculture.org image 333x500]


=======================================

Cheap Engineer, just stop okay. Clearly you do not even know what a strawman argument is, and most likely it is just some cool term to you that you picked up on the intertubes and like to use because you think it makes you sound smart. It does not. Stop.
 
2012-05-23 05:58:21 PM  

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - a hypothetical:

Someone is walking around your car on a public street - checking it out. Could be anyone. There have been several cars stolen in your neighborhood. You ask the person what they are doing. Said person turns on you and starts beating the holy fark out of you and starts pounding your head on the sidewalk. You have a legally concealed firearm.

Am I hearing that the beatdown is deserved? Assuming so, how far do you allow yourself to be beaten? Is your firearm off limits at this point because you asked someone what they were doing when checking your car out (which could be admiration - who could know without asking)?

Very curious to hear the responses from the Martin defenders.


If the assailant is pounding your head into the pavement you almost certainly have the right to shoot him, because you could reasonably be killed or seriously injured by having your head slammed against concrete.

In this case, however, the only evidence that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement consists of assertions that come from Zimmerman's family. According to Witness 13 (cited in TFA), Zimmerman said, in what I assume was an excited utterance very soon after he shot Martin, that Martin was "beating up on" him. Appears at first glance to me as if Zimmerman implied that Martin had been punching him (this is consistent with what the eyewitness "John" said he saw, BTW); Witness 13 did not report Zimmerman as having said anything about having his head slammed into concrete.
 
2012-05-23 06:03:06 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: tirob: liam76: tirob: Jesus tapdancing Alou, if this witness is telling the truth, this is a classic manslaughter case. You can't legally shoot someone to death, even in Florida, for "beating up on you."

So you really think if you have a gun and someone is on top of you beating you on the ground legally you have to just sit there and take it?

Even without the stand your ground law you woudl be allowed to use a gun in a case like that.

According to which Florida statute are you allowed to use deadly force if someone is "beating up on you."?

The answer to your question is no, you don't have to sit there and take it. You can shield your face with your arms, for example. You can try to escape or turn yourself over. But I can find no provision in the Florida statutes that permits you legally to kill someone just because they are "beating up on you."

Didn't read the thread, eh? I posted the answer to that a while back.


I did. I guess I missed your post. Could you please post it again? Thank you.
 
2012-05-23 06:08:10 PM  

tirob: Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - a hypothetical:

Someone is walking around your car on a public street - checking it out. Could be anyone. There have been several cars stolen in your neighborhood. You ask the person what they are doing. Said person turns on you and starts beating the holy fark out of you and starts pounding your head on the sidewalk. You have a legally concealed firearm.

Am I hearing that the beatdown is deserved? Assuming so, how far do you allow yourself to be beaten? Is your firearm off limits at this point because you asked someone what they were doing when checking your car out (which could be admiration - who could know without asking)?

Very curious to hear the responses from the Martin defenders.

If the assailant is pounding your head into the pavement you almost certainly have the right to shoot him, because you could reasonably be killed or seriously injured by having your head slammed against concrete.

In this case, however, the only evidence that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement consists of assertions that come from Zimmerman's family. According to Witness 13 (cited in TFA), Zimmerman said, in what I assume was an excited utterance very soon after he shot Martin, that Martin was "beating up on" him. Appears at first glance to me as if Zimmerman implied that Martin had been punching him (this is consistent with what the eyewitness "John" said he saw, BTW); Witness 13 did not report Zimmerman as having said anything about having his head slammed into concrete.


I think that Zimmerman hit his head on a couple of pebbles on the pavement and thus some blood came out and streaked down his sweaty head. That would make me want to kill someone too. If I was 5.
 
2012-05-23 06:08:12 PM  

Silly Jesus:
if Witness 13 is telling the truth when he says that just after the shooting Zimmerman said that he had to shoot Martin "because he was beating up on me," I don't think he'll be able to clear it. That statute you cited required Zimmerman reasonably to believe he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm before he could legally fire his pistol. Getting "beat up on"--this allegedly Zimmerman's *subjective* belief rather than the objective belief required by the statute--is, I suggest, in most cases far from necessarily being in imminent danger of great bodily harm.

I am nowhere nearly as sure as you are that Martin was committing aggravated battery according to Florida law.

784.045Aggravated battery.-(1)(a)A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1.Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2.Uses a deadly weapon.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut e &URL=0700-0799/0784/0784.html

We're really guessing what "beating up on me" means now?

To one person it could mean pounding your head into the ground. To another it could mean pushing and shoving...

Those words aren't damning of Zimmerman in any way whatsoever.

I think that the Dr.'s report of two black eyes, fractured nose and head lacerations coupled with the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "MMA style" is more than enough to establish that a reasonable person would think that great bo ...


Question for the trier of fact IMHO. I don't think that is true as a matter of law.
 
2012-05-23 06:17:05 PM  

vrax: It was on a weekend, dumbass.


He was staying with Dad & Dad's girlfriend for his suspension. So what if it was a weekend? Friday: suspended. Monday: suspended.

/double dumbass on you!
 
2012-05-23 06:23:17 PM  

s2s2s2: tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.

Bolded are speculative and not supported by any publicly known evidence.


Go over the last ~forty seconds of Zimmerman's 911 call. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he will meet the cops by the mailboxes, then changes his mind and tells the dispatcher that he would prefer that the cops call him when they get there and that he will tell them his location. In my mind this is evidence that Zimmerman intended to continue following Martin after having indicated to the dispatcher a minute or two earlier that he would stop his pursuit.
 
2012-05-23 06:26:41 PM  

peterthx: vrax: It was on a weekend, dumbass.

He was staying with Dad & Dad's girlfriend for his suspension. So what if it was a weekend? Friday: suspended. Monday: suspended.

/double dumbass on you!


No human could possibly know that a suspension from school would lead down an oddly random path to their death. Zimmerman, the idiot, absolutely knew that what he was doing could lead to a confrontation. If that was something he never cared about he wouldn't be armed in the first place. The guy is prepared for confrontation.
 
2012-05-23 06:35:45 PM  

s2s2s2: tirob: According to which statute?

Depends. There is case law that states that if you lose a tooth, then you are the victim of great bodily harm. So according to one of the 776's that have been posted a million times in these threads, I think you an shoot 'em.


I think I have made this point here before, and perhaps to you, but loss of an eyetooth (one of the front four teeth, top or bottom, IIRC) was considered maiming at common law; i.e. the equivalent of losing a finger or a foot. IANAL, but I would guess that the concept of "great bodily harm" in Florida is derived from common law maiming. Zimmerman did not emerge from his fight with Martin maimed according to common law AFAIK. Whether his injuries constituted great bodily harm per Florida law, or, alternatively, whether he had reason in light of his injuries to fear imminent great bodily harm, per Florida law, is another question. If I am reading Florida justifiable use of force statute correctly, the answer to this question is maybe, and I therefore think that a trier of fact will ultimately decide whether Z's self-defense claim is legit.
 
2012-05-23 06:54:14 PM  

gimmegimme: Good point. I'm not really sure how a guy who rolls around town with a loaded weapon and following people could be viewed as a violent aggressor.


So every CCW holder involved in a fatal shooting is a murderer?

Are all assault victims who fight back a criminal or just the ones who offend your political sensibilities?
 
2012-05-23 07:04:01 PM  

Mrbogey: gimmegimme: Good point. I'm not really sure how a guy who rolls around town with a loaded weapon and following people could be viewed as a violent aggressor.

So every CCW holder involved in a fatal shooting is a murderer?

Are all assault victims who fight back a criminal or just the ones who offend your political sensibilities?


If they are the instigator they should be tried for murder. By carrying they should be held to a very high level of personal responsibility. Truly defend yourself, fine. You don't start shiat or go looking for trouble.
 
2012-05-23 07:07:17 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Does he have any defenders that aren't right-wing, authoritarian, violent, racist dickbags? Do they realise that they're not helping his case at all?


I'm practically a commie, but I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder, though he is probably guilty of a lesser manslaughter charge.
 
2012-05-23 07:10:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.

How is observing and reporting suspicious persons in your neighborhood in any way stupid?


If that's all Zimmerman had been doing, it wouldn't have been stupid. Running after a suspicious person is stupid. Even the dispatcher commented unfavorably on that particular move. And unfortunately for Zimmerman, the "suspicious person" was not an adult, was an invitee in the gated community, and had committed no crime that we know of there. One of the chances you take when you observe and report (and follow) suspicious people is that they won't be what you think they are. Another is that they may react as if they believe that you are doing something wrong or that you may even be about to commit a crime. Zimmerman had the misfortune of finding all of this out the hard way.

Silly Jesus: tirob: How is it at all clear that this is manslaughter? The prosecution has admitted that Zimmerman's story is pretty much how things went down. There's no contradictory evidence and corroborating witness testimony that comes down on the side of Zimmerman. That doesn't meet the definition of manslaughter in any state.


It isn't. But I don't think that it is clear that it is *not* manslaughter either. I'll say it again--for this to have been justifiable homicide under Florida law I think that Zimmerman is going to have to do more than prove that Martin was "beating up on" him (v. Witness 13's statement in TFA). If the Florida legislature had wanted to make beating up on someone grounds for the justifiable use of deadly force, I think they would have written the statute accordingly. Voluntary manslaughter is traditionally a homicide by someone who had been subjected to an act that would provoke a reasonable person to anger; cases where someone has his nose fractured and his face punched several times, and where that person then pulls a gun and shoots the person who slugged him, are *stereotypical* incidents of voluntary manslaughter.
 
2012-05-23 07:20:06 PM  

Phinn: There's no evidence that Zimmerman detained Martin.


Uh . . .Trayvon was most certainly - still there - when the cops arrived.

And he was about as detained as a person can get.

Considering he wasn't "going anywhere" ever again.
 
2012-05-23 07:24:02 PM  

vrax: tirob:
I think that Zimmerman hit his head on a couple of pebbles on the pavement and thus some blood came out and streaked down his sweaty head.


Surmise. We don't know.

vrax: That would make me want to kill someone too. If I was 5.


Even Florida has a manslaughter statute that theoretically criminalizes acts like that, and I suspect that the same statute would also cover someone who shoots to death another person who punched him in the face several times and fractured his nose--this assuming of course that that is all that happened, or was going to happen, in this case.
 
2012-05-23 07:29:22 PM  

vrax: You don't start shiat or go looking for trouble.


There's nothing to indicate Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He didn't approach Martin. Martin approached him .

And before you claim that's in dispute. It's the only way to explain how Zimmerman "caught up" with Martin. Martin would have had to have doubled back and approached Zimmerman for them to have their fatal contact where it occurred.

As it stands, Zimmerman and Martin both did dumb things... however Martin's dumb thing was assault while Zimmerman's was getting out of his car. Only one of those acts justifies a defensive response.
 
2012-05-23 08:15:16 PM  

Mrbogey: There's nothing to indicate Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He didn't approach Martin. Martin approached him .

And before you claim that's in dispute. It's the only way to explain how Zimmerman "caught up" with Martin.


um, no, it is still quite a bit in dispute. and no, that is certainly not the only way it could have happened. its not even the most probable way it happened.

the only reason it is such an article of faith is because it is the only possible way one can attempt to defend zimmerman, thus has to be the central article of faith for some. not because its been proven. or even reasonably asserted for that matter.
 
2012-05-23 08:16:14 PM  

Mrbogey: There's nothing to indicate Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He didn't approach Martin. Martin approached him .
And before you claim that's in dispute. It's the only way to explain how Zimmerman "caught up" with Martin. Martin would have had to have doubled back and approached Zimmerman for them to have their fatal contact where it occurred.


No.

Martin did not double back. Martin hid. Zimmerman passed him, lost him, hung up the call, then stopped the pursuit. He was walking back to his car when he stumbled onto Martin's hiding spot. I doubt he was actively looking for Martin at that moment. It seems more likely that Martin realized the game was up and revealed himself, preparing for a confrontation like any cornered animal would do.

They likely argued first. We can speculate what they argued about, but we can assume that Zimmerman wanted Martin to stay put until the cops got there and wasn't seeking anything more. Martin objected and started to leave.

Zimmerman tried to prevent Martin from leaving. They fought. From the evidence, it does appear that Martin was getting the upper hand. We can't be sure at what point the gun came into play, but in any close-contact struggle if a gun is revealed both parties will reach for it. Zimmerman fired the gun mostly because if he didn't Martin would have gotten it.

This is seriously the most unbiased and most objective portrayal of the sequence of events I have been able to ascertain given the evidence. I am not pro or anti any of the participants, I am only seeking facts. Both parties made poor decisions; both parties escalated a confrontation that should not have been. As to whether a crime has been committed, I would say yes, although I'm unsure as to which one and by whom.
 
2012-05-23 08:37:08 PM  
Hello, cyberfriends. This is Trayvon Martin speaking to you from the other side. We don't have the internet here, but I have taken the liberty of appointing my friend Tirob as my spokesman for the day. First off, I want to say hi to Mom and Dad and my family. And the next thing I want to do is explain to you why I'm here.

As you've probably read in the papers, I was at Dad's watching the All Star game and I decided to run down to the 7-11 for some Skittles and a soft drink. I was coming back to Dad's place with my stuff when this guy passes by in a truck. I didn't think much of it at first, but then I see the guy turn his truck around and drive towards me. Slowly. As you can imagine, the experience was unnerving, and you had better believe that I checked the guy out pretty good. He looked like he was about to stop his truck near me so I decided not to take any chances and get the hell out of there. I didn't immediately go back home because for all I knew the guy would drive his truck down to the back entrance and cut me off before I got there. I didn't care about me so much, but I didn't want that creep potentially getting into Dad's place if I was careless enough to open the door while he was around. So I ran about halfway home and chilled out, keeping an eye out for the guy all the time. And a couple of minutes so later, he shows up, walking in my direction, talking to someone--I didn't know who--on his cell phone, I have no idea what the guy is all about, but the situation looks suspicious to say the least. For one thing, the guy never identifies himself and never tells me why he's following me. For another, how do I know if the person he's talking to isn't a potential accomplice in a crime, and that that potential accomplice isn't lurking somewhere near my Dad's place? After the guy finishes talking on the phone, he continues towards me. By this time, I don't think I'm left with much choice--I'd have called the cops, but I didn't think they'd get there in time--so I decide to try to take the guy's phone away from him and see what the hell is up with him. I nailed him a pretty good shot in the face, and he went down. I got on top of him and punched him in the face a few more times, and then I went for the phone. The next thing I knew he shot me in the heart, and here I am. Hope all is well with you, Trayvon.
 
2012-05-23 09:01:18 PM  

CliChe Guevara: um, no, it is still quite a bit in dispute. and no, that is certainly not the only way it could have happened. its not even the most probable way it happened.

the only reason it is such an article of faith is because it is the only possible way one can attempt to defend zimmerman, thus has to be the central article of faith for some. not because its been proven. or even reasonably asserted for that matter.



There's no sequence that squares with the conversation Martin was having and the timeline other than he went back.
 
2012-05-23 09:27:48 PM  

tirob: s2s2s2: tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.

Bolded are speculative and not supported by any publicly known evidence.

Go over the last ~forty seconds of Zimmerman's 911 call. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he will meet the cops by the mailboxes, then changes his mind and tells the dispatcher that he would prefer that the cops call him when they get there and that he will tell them his location. In my mind this is evidence that Zimmerman intended to continue following Martin after having indicated to the dispatcher a minute or two earlier that he would stop his pursuit.


You have no farking clue what he meant by that.
 
2012-05-23 09:32:37 PM  

tirob: Hello, cyberfriends. This is Trayvon Martin speaking to you from the other side. We don't have the internet here, but I have taken the liberty of appointing my friend Tirob as my spokesman for the day. First off, I want to say hi to Mom and Dad and my family. And the next thing I want to do is explain to you why I'm here.

As you've probably read in the papers, I was at Dad's watching the All Star game and I decided to run down to the 7-11 for some Skittles and a soft drink. I was coming back to Dad's place with my stuff when this guy passes by in a truck. I didn't think much of it at first, but then I see the guy turn his truck around and drive towards me. Slowly. As you can imagine, the experience was unnerving, and you had better believe that I checked the guy out pretty good. He looked like he was about to stop his truck near me so I decided not to take any chances and get the hell out of there. I didn't immediately go back home because for all I knew the guy would drive his truck down to the back entrance and cut me off before I got there. I didn't care about me so much, but I didn't want that creep potentially getting into Dad's place if I was careless enough to open the door while he was around. So I ran about halfway home and chilled out, keeping an eye out for the guy all the time. And a couple of minutes so later, he shows up, walking in my direction, talking to someone--I didn't know who--on his cell phone, I have no idea what the guy is all about, but the situation looks suspicious to say the least. For one thing, the guy never identifies himself and never tells me why he's following me. For another, how do I know if the person he's talking to isn't a potential accomplice in a crime, and that that potential accomplice isn't lurking somewhere near my Dad's place? After the guy finishes talking on the phone, he continues towards me. By this time, I don't think I'm left with much choice--I'd have called the cops, but I didn't think they'd ...


You made the wrong call, and beat up an innocent man. I'm sorry that bore such tragic consequences for you, young man.


But seriously, that's fnckedup, Tirob.
 
2012-05-23 09:41:32 PM  

s2s2s2: tirob: s2s2s2: tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.

Bolded are speculative and not supported by any publicly known evidence.

Go over the last ~forty seconds of Zimmerman's 911 call. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he will meet the cops by the mailboxes, then changes his mind and tells the dispatcher that he would prefer that the cops call him when they get there and that he will tell them his location. In my mind this is evidence that Zimmerman intended to continue following Martin after having indicated to the dispatcher a minute or two earlier that he would stop his pursuit.

You have no farking clue what he meant by that.


It certainly meant that he didn't want to double back to the mailboxes to meet the cops there. What reason could Z have had for changing his mind about this other than to follow Martin? To take a leak in the bushes?
 
2012-05-23 09:41:52 PM  

s2s2s2: You made the wrong call, and beat up an innocent man.


Or not. We'll find out.
 
2012-05-23 09:45:13 PM  

s2s2s2: tirob: You made the wrong call, and beat up an innocent man. I'm sorry that bore such tragic consequences for you, young man.

If Martin guessed wrong that evening, he wasn't the only one.
 
2012-05-23 09:51:35 PM  

tirob: s2s2s2: tirob: s2s2s2: tirob: LoneWolf343: Here are the facts: Zimmerman approached someone against good official advice, then killed a man when his blatant stupidity got his ass kicked. At the very least, it's manslaughter.

This is in line with all the evidence I have seen. Martin was not an adult man according to the law, however.

Bolded are speculative and not supported by any publicly known evidence.

Go over the last ~forty seconds of Zimmerman's 911 call. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he will meet the cops by the mailboxes, then changes his mind and tells the dispatcher that he would prefer that the cops call him when they get there and that he will tell them his location. In my mind this is evidence that Zimmerman intended to continue following Martin after having indicated to the dispatcher a minute or two earlier that he would stop his pursuit.

You have no farking clue what he meant by that.

It certainly meant that he didn't want to double back to the mailboxes to meet the cops there. What reason could Z have had for changing his mind about this other than to follow Martin? To take a leak in the bushes?


Because it could only be one of those. Airtight!
 
Displayed 50 of 741 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