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.

(Yahoo)   Hit Parade: Bloody new photo of George Zimmerman has been released   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 477
    More: Followup, killer, neighborhood watch, race war, douglas, profiteers, Look Like  
•       •       •

16825 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Dec 2012 at 11:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-03 08:57:09 PM
Trayvon Martin still dead.
 
2012-12-03 09:02:34 PM
DRINK!
 
2012-12-03 09:04:22 PM

edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.


Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana
 
2012-12-03 09:07:38 PM
Must be that time of the month . . .
 
2012-12-03 09:19:30 PM
I will need more than 8 and less than 10 beers to deal with this thread.
 
2012-12-03 09:26:18 PM
quick, somebody call 9beers
 
2012-12-03 09:33:35 PM

borg: quick, somebody call 9beers


I'm sure his Zimmeradar will alert him quickly enough
 
2012-12-03 09:57:07 PM

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Moe importantly, he was a negro.
 
2012-12-03 10:01:56 PM
FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?
 
2012-12-03 10:08:40 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!


OH THANK GOD!

I've been so thirsty these many months!
 
2012-12-03 10:22:06 PM

Shostie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!

OH THANK GOD!

I've been so thirsty these many months!


I don't know about you, but after the debate, campaign and election drinking games, I seriously needed to dry out for a day or two

/thankfully THAT little nightmare is over now
 
2012-12-03 10:22:11 PM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.
 
2012-12-03 10:22:35 PM
i780.photobucket.com

ZIMMERMAN THREAD!!!
 
2012-12-03 10:24:19 PM

jmadisonbiii: [i780.photobucket.com image 397x247]

ZIMMERMAN THREAD!!!

 
2012-12-03 11:01:14 PM
A bloody nose?

That's a killin'
 
2012-12-03 11:06:59 PM
In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.
 
2012-12-03 11:09:20 PM
Wow. Police Photoshop editors sure work slow.

Maybe they forgot to update the tutorials on Storm Front.
 
2012-12-03 11:23:08 PM
A rebuttal to the picture can be found here - Link

Of note - But today's bloody photo doesn't solve the mystery of Trayvon's hands. There were "No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin" found on them.
 
2012-12-03 11:32:25 PM
To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.
 
2012-12-03 11:41:43 PM
I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.
 
2012-12-03 11:42:52 PM
Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.
 
2012-12-03 11:42:59 PM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


There was no need to murder the kid. Period. Had he attacked me, I would've beaten him to death. I would've made no mistake.
 
2012-12-03 11:43:50 PM
Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.
 
2012-12-03 11:43:58 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: borg: quick, somebody call 9beers

I'm sure his Zimmeradar will alert him quickly enough


QUICK, DEAD BOY! TO THE ZIMMERMOBILE!
 
2012-12-03 11:45:01 PM
If two people are standing there ground and no one else is there to see it, does the tree make a sound?
 
2012-12-03 11:46:38 PM

Fark Me To Tears: So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


If you have to get out of your car to "defend yourself" from a guy who is several feet away and unarmed, you're doing it wrong.
 
2012-12-03 11:46:52 PM

borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?
 
2012-12-03 11:47:30 PM
I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.
 
2012-12-03 11:48:55 PM

Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.


I can count up to around 4 [citation needed]s in your post.

Can you find them all?
 
2012-12-03 11:48:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.


Martin didn't assault him. Zimmerman shot an unarmed guy who was minding his own business on a public street, probably injured himself in the process, and is now continuing to attempt to lawyer the case in the media.

Putzes, racists and asswits are helping him.
 
2012-12-03 11:49:07 PM
pixels

/experience
 
2012-12-03 11:49:29 PM
Why didn't he have that bloody and swollen nose in the police station video taken the same night?
 
2012-12-03 11:49:49 PM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


So, Zimmerman's "right to defend himself" includes stalking a black kid, losing him, searching for him, finding him again, confronting him, and then once he starts getting his ass kicked, murdering him?

Is that the logic there?
 
2012-12-03 11:50:06 PM
Probably the only other pile of feathers on the Internet that can give the GOP's treatment of Obama's birth certificate a run for its money.
 
2012-12-03 11:50:08 PM

super_grass: Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.


Absolutely. When unjust laws mean that children can be killed in the street for no reason, the responsible thing for the media to do is to avoid drawing any attention to it.
 
2012-12-03 11:50:20 PM

super_grass: Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

I can count up to around 4 [citation needed]s in your post.

Can you find them all?


1) An unarmed man was shot by an armed man for walking on a city street. Had Zimmerman remained in his vehicle there would have been no incident, or police could have arrived to make a professional determination.

What else do you need here, except the fact there is an internet tough guy on the loose white knighting against the victim of a murder?
 
2012-12-03 11:51:06 PM
Clearly self-inflicted.

www.vh1.com
 
2012-12-03 11:51:13 PM

Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


Following Mister Martin for several blocks and getting out of his car and confronting Martin with a gun.
 
2012-12-03 11:51:14 PM

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Pick a fist fight with a guy carrying a gun and you run the risk of winning a casket and an all expense paid trip to six feet under.

The kid probably didn't deserve to die, but the neighborhood watch cop wanna be didn't deserve to get his ass kicked either, whether he was stalking Martin through his neighborhood or not.

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


We don't know that Martin was doing that at that point. There's lots of holes here and depending upon how you fill in the blanks, you end up with two completely different answers.

A normal jury would find enough reasonable doubt based on what we know so far that Zimmerman should walk. I doubt that things will be left that way even if a jury declines to find him guilty. I can already hear Eric Holder's people warming up in the bullpen.
 
2012-12-03 11:51:46 PM

Communist_Manifesto: If two people are standing there ground and no one else is there to see it, does the tree make a sound?


Does the Pope shiat in the woods?
 
2012-12-03 11:51:50 PM
I've looked worse than that after pick-up basketball games. What a friggin pussy.
 
2012-12-03 11:52:13 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.


Actually, all this proves is that he had a broken nose. And that he hadn't washed his face like he had in the shot the police took for evidence the night he shot Martin.

For your comparison:

i.huffpost.com

All this means is that Zimmerman had a broken nose, the above picture shows that was clearly not as bad as this picture portrays it as, since they were both taken the same night. It also doesn't mean anything in terms of explaining what happened, or why Treyvon Martin is dead. Since what happened that night is pretty much dependent on what Zimmerman is claiming it was, all this is is an emotional appeal using a face with blood on it.
 
2012-12-03 11:52:16 PM

Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.


Zimmerman has a different story in which he was the one attacked. Without seeing all the evidence unfiltered by the press, there's no way to make an assessment right now. That's the purpose the trial will serve.
 
2012-12-03 11:52:30 PM

Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.


Do they call people stalkers for trying to lose people that are stalking them?
 
2012-12-03 11:52:36 PM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


No, the only logic needed here is knowing that a boy was KILLED for walking though a neighborhood. Does a bloody nose change that? You sir have a twisted sense of "logic".
 
2012-12-03 11:52:39 PM
So he shot the guy. What a murdering puss.
 
2012-12-03 11:54:05 PM

fusillade762: Clearly self-inflicted.

[www.vh1.com image 550x325]


Gun recoil. Or the kid hit him in the face, after he confronted him for no reason for minding his own business on a city public street.

Nothing changes the fact the idiot in the SUV gets out of his vehicle to confront the minor who is minding his own business on a public street.

The rest of this is internet tough guy noise and bullsh*t the right wing keeps fanning the flames with.
 
2012-12-03 11:54:27 PM

skandalus: In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.


Martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost him, the operator asks if he's going to be waiting where he currently is for the officer, he says, "no have him call me when he gets here." The next thing that happens is that Martin is dead. If you're still trying to figure out who the aggressor is, you're an idiot. Sorry, that's the only explanation. You aren't defending yourself of standing your ground when you're actively searching for and confronting someone by your own recorded admission.
 
2012-12-03 11:54:43 PM
Surely there's been a more interesting potentially-racial murder or other serious crime since then?
I'll tell you who the real murderers are, the "journalists" trying to kill me of boredom with this crap.
 
2012-12-03 11:55:31 PM

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


The Traybots appear to be deploying their talking points more quickly than the Zimmerbots at this stage. Be interesting to check back later.
 
2012-12-03 11:56:09 PM
All I know is that Trayvon has not refuted charges yet that he attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.
 
2012-12-03 11:56:22 PM
www.washingtonpost.com

static1.businessinsider.com

"If I had a nose, it would look like George Dimmerman's".
 
2012-12-03 11:56:41 PM
..and the reason we know that's not Martin's blood all over Zimmerman's face is...?


/I'm trollin'
 
2012-12-03 11:56:47 PM
Oh, boo hoo. I got worse than that and laughed in my assailant's face.
 
2012-12-03 11:57:11 PM
And btw, if that guy was chasing me for no apparent reason, id stop and kick his ass also. I hope the bastard rots in prison in between anal assaults.
 
2012-12-03 11:57:14 PM

Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


Stalking. If someone I don't know is following me in a car and gets out and heads towards me I'm going to assume they have something bad planned.
 
2012-12-03 11:57:44 PM

Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


Stalking. Zimmerman admits Martin ran away and he lost him, what part of oops the kid who I told you ran away from me is now dead by my hands?
 
2012-12-03 11:58:22 PM
The Picture in Question:

www.washingtonpost.com

Police Evidence Photo taken that same night, two hours later:

i.huffpost.com

SO THAT'S WHY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS BEING PERSECUTED SO MUCH! HE'S REALLY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. LOOK AT THOSE MIRACULOUS HEALING POWERS!
 
2012-12-03 11:59:07 PM

Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?



He was WHITE!

If that isn't aggressive, I don't know what is.
 
2012-12-03 11:59:18 PM
The more pertinent question here may be: worst lawyers ever or grounds for appeal?
 
2012-12-04 12:00:20 AM
I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?
 
2012-12-04 12:00:26 AM
Remember everyone, if you agree that zimmerman had cause to defend himself, your a Racist. Now I hope nobody overreacts like Trayvon.
 
2012-12-04 12:00:34 AM
Closer photo of the nose, taken around two hours after the incident at the police precinct.
 
2012-12-04 12:00:42 AM

TalenLee: super_grass: Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.

Absolutely. When unjust laws mean that children can be killed in the street for no reason, the responsible thing for the media to do is to avoid drawing any attention to it.


You must be suffering from serious sleep deprivation if you pay attention to every death being investigated in the US for several months.

How else would someone see a questionable application of a self defense law by some trigger happy neighborhood watch and conclude that there's a law on the books that allow people to hunt down children for no reason?
 
2012-12-04 12:01:23 AM
Never bring a punch in the nose to a gunfight.
 
2012-12-04 12:01:37 AM
Guess "no limit n*gga" should have known not to bring skittles to a gun fight.
 
2012-12-04 12:03:03 AM
Here it comes ...

i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-04 12:03:08 AM
Everyone realizes twayvon was a criminal right? I'm not saying gz was brilliant or anything but he definitely had legal and moral right to kill tway tway.
 
2012-12-04 12:03:14 AM
Damnit! Preview button for a reason, Bronymedic.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

For Comparison:

www.washingtonpost.com

Moral of the Story: Facial Lacs and Bloody Noses look horrible before you clean them up,
 
2012-12-04 12:04:01 AM

EnderX: Remember everyone, if you agree that zimmerman had cause to defend himself, your a Racist. Now I hope nobody overreacts like Trayvon.


"We don't need you to do that, sir"

/thread
 
2012-12-04 12:05:10 AM

Amos Quito: Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


He was WHITE!

If that isn't aggressive, I don't know what is.


And, y'know, he got out of his car to deliberately pursue an unarmed teenager, against the 911 dispatcher's advice. But I'm sure Trayvon just ambushed and assaulted the armed jackass for no good reason. It's not like Zimmerman had a history of aggression issues and paranoia regarding black people or anything.
 
2012-12-04 12:05:49 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Everyone realizes twayvon was a criminal right? I'm not saying gz was brilliant or anything but he definitely had legal and moral right to kill tway tway.


Getting popped with a dime bag makes someone a hardened, violent criminal worth being shot in the chest?

I see you're posting from Delaware. I would have thought Beijing, Myself.
 
2012-12-04 12:06:15 AM
Man, I'd love to be Zimmerman's attorney right about now.

I'd already have my appeal framing the "Unable to get a fair trial" argument drafted and sealed, ready for the Appellate Court.
 
2012-12-04 12:07:09 AM
Hello, Earth?

No one else was there. No one else knows what happened.

Trayvon was just a kid. George is not racist. Look it up.

Hear-say... Conjecture... The corner stones of bad litigation.
 
2012-12-04 12:07:09 AM
Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing in no way justifies getting beat up. Trayvon jumped the gun and paid the price for it. He could have said "hey stay away!" or anything verbal to diffuse a situation but instead chose to attack. That's not self defense. You can't sanely argue that.

/bring on the racism.
 
2012-12-04 12:07:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

1:50 sounds of heavy breathing from Zimmerman as he admits he's following Martin.

2:09 "He ran", no more heavy breathing as Zimmerman is no longer running after Martin who ran away.

2:20 do you want to meet with the officer by the mailbox? "Ya"

2:36 No wait have him call me when he gets here.

Yep, standing his ground against an aggressor.
 
2012-12-04 12:07:36 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: skandalus: In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.

Martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerm ...


This.

It doesn't matter if Martin robbed a little old lady, tore her clothes off, and snorted coke off of her wrinkly ass. You can't chase down someone and shoot them, even if they are a criminal.

/something something the cops hate the competition
 
2012-12-04 12:08:12 AM

borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor


upload.wikimedia.org

R.I.P Robert Zimmerman
 
2012-12-04 12:09:44 AM
What impresses me is that so many people here have all the facts.

Why aren't you down there helping? I would imagine one or the other party would benefit from your knowledge...
 
2012-12-04 12:10:02 AM

violentsalvation: To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.


Attacking someone who asked you a quetion is assault. Slamming their face into concrete is attempted murder. Using violence on a person asking you a question is not defense. It's thuggery.
 
2012-12-04 12:11:01 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing in no way justifies getting beat up. Trayvon jumped the gun and paid the price for it. He could have said "hey stay away!" or anything verbal to diffuse a situation but instead chose to attack. That's not self defense. You can't sanely argue that.

/bring on the racism.


This.

I don't even have the energy to argue with these fools anymore though. They are willfully ignorant about the case, and continue to use the narrative that Jesse Jackson told them to use 8 months ago.
 
2012-12-04 12:11:31 AM
Zimmerman was initially just following Martin but it devolved into stalking, and Zimmerman was told by dispatchers to not pursue Martin, but to instead wait for the police. Zimmerman is the aggressor because he was being a stalker and confronted Martin. If a guy was following me around in his truck and then on foot and started interrogating me, I'd feel threatened too.

Whether or not the kid physically struck first or Zimmerman was in mortal danger from the fight, Zimmerman was the first one being aggressive in his behavior. It was Martin who lost the fight, but Zimmerman who really triggered the fight.

Had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's instructions and waited for the police to arrive, Martin would probably be alive still, Zimmerman would feel a bit stupid because he would find out he'd been following a kid with Skittles and tea, but no one would be hurt. Zimmerman might still be up on stalking charges, but certainly not murder.

Stalking is hostile behavior.
 
2012-12-04 12:11:38 AM

Kevin72: Never bring a punch in the nose to a gunfight.


Frank N Stein: Guess "no limit n*gga" should have known not to bring skittles to a gun fight.


14-second simulpost
 
2012-12-04 12:12:39 AM

LordJiro: Amos Quito: Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


He was WHITE!

If that isn't aggressive, I don't know what is.


And, y'know, he got out of his car to deliberately pursue an unarmed teenager, against the 911 dispatcher's advice.



Dimmerman was already out of said vehicle and following said "teenager" before said 911 dispatcher gave said ADVICE.



But I'm sure Trayvon just ambushed and assaulted the armed jackass for no good reason.


That's what the available evidence would seem to show, yes.


It's not like Zimmerman had a history of aggression issues and paranoia regarding black people or anything.


No, it's not like that at all.

Voluntarily mentoring black youths in his spare time DOES make him seem like a KKK Grand Wizard, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-04 12:13:20 AM

BronyMedic: Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.

Actually, all this proves is that he had a broken nose. And that he hadn't washed his face like he had in the shot the police took for evidence the night he shot Martin.

For your comparison:

[i.huffpost.com image 664x1000]

All this means is that Zimmerman had a broken nose, the above picture shows that was clearly not as bad as this picture portrays it as, since they were both taken the same night. It also doesn't mean anything in terms of explaining what happened, or why Treyvon Martin is dead. Since what happened that night is pretty much dependent on what Zimmerman is claiming it was, all this is is an emotional appeal using a face with blood on it.


That's not even a broken nose. Or if it is, the man has "Wolverine" level healing abilities.

I've broken my nose (and seen a friend's nose broken). When it breaks, there's a LOT more blood. Also, there should be much more swelling than what you see in the photo taken two hours later. I don't know if it would show up within two hours, but I do recall something almost like "black eyes" developing afterward, as well.

In any case, from the looks of that photo, he doesn't look like someone who's nose has been broken.
 
2012-12-04 12:13:28 AM
1) Dude was told by law enforcement to back off following a guy just walking around in public.

2) Did not obey law enforcement.

3) Can't own up to his own responsibility for not backing off

4) And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him why?
 
2012-12-04 12:13:50 AM

BronyMedic: [i.huffpost.com image 664x1000]

 

www.xvcd.de
 
2012-12-04 12:13:58 AM
Here is Zimmerman in the picture they show in the article:

www.washingtonpost.com

The police picture is this one:

i.huffpost.com

This is Andrew Zimmerman, chef and host of a hit show on the Travel Channel.
media.tumblr.com

This is a fairly accurate drawing of a tomato. The tomato is a vegetable that has many uses in various recipes, most notably Italian.
content.answcdn.com
 
2012-12-04 12:15:06 AM
Well, what are the axioms? Certainly GZ had no authority do demand a hostile interview of TM.
 
2012-12-04 12:15:28 AM

ohokyeah: Zimmerman was initially just following Martin but it devolved into stalking, and Zimmerman was told by dispatchers to not pursue Martin, but to instead wait for the police. Zimmerman is the aggressor because he was being a stalker and confronted Martin. If a guy was following me around in his truck and then on foot and started interrogating me, I'd feel threatened too.

Whether or not the kid physically struck first or Zimmerman was in mortal danger from the fight, Zimmerman was the first one being aggressive in his behavior. It was Martin who lost the fight, but Zimmerman who really triggered the fight.

Had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's instructions and waited for the police to arrive, Martin would probably be alive still, Zimmerman would feel a bit stupid because he would find out he'd been following a kid with Skittles and tea, but no one would be hurt. Zimmerman might still be up on stalking charges, but certainly not murder.

Stalking is hostile behavior.


I don't agree. The only thing that matters is which one struck first. Following someone and asking them questions is obnoxious behavior on Zimmerman's part, but Martin should have just told him to fark off. And he may have, I suppose. I don't know for sure who struck first. But, whoever it was, that's who is to blame.
 
2012-12-04 12:15:41 AM

phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?


To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.
 
2012-12-04 12:16:23 AM

ohokyeah: Stalking is hostile behavior.


Just because you call it stalking doesn't mean that it falls within the legal definition of stalking. Just to let you know.
 
2012-12-04 12:16:31 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: violentsalvation: To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.

Attacking someone who asked you a quetion is assault. Slamming their face into concrete is attempted murder. Using violence on a person asking you a question is not defense. It's thuggery.


According to Zimmerman he didn't ask him a question. According to Zimmerman he never confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Trayvon attacked him from behind while he was looking at street signs trying to figure out what street he was on.

Now even you don't seem to think that Zimmerman's explanation of events isn't believable. So why would Zimmerman lie if all he did was politely walk up to Trayvon and ask him what he was doing? Because it is more plausible that after following Trayvon, Trayvon ran and Zimmerman got out of his car and ran after him and was able to cut him off because Trayvon had stopped running once he saw Zimmerman wasn't behind him anymore. That isn't asking somebody a question.
 
2012-12-04 12:16:43 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: violentsalvation: To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.

Attacking someone who asked you a quetion is assault. Slamming their face into concrete is attempted murder. Using violence on a person asking you a question is not defense. It's thuggery.


So you do you tell your children to be polite to weirdos who slowly follow them around dark, rainy neighborhoods at night? And then if the kid runs, they gun the engine to catch up to them? Just tell your kids to sweetly answer any questions the drivers may have, maybe get real close to the car? fark you. That kid was scared. Now he's dead. If any of Zimmerman's blood was spilled it was self defense.
 
2012-12-04 12:16:44 AM
Ah...yes the bromance with Trayvon continues.....


Say, anybody see how the LIVING manning is doing????
What ??? No outrage???? Oh that's right he ain't no negro.......
 
2012-12-04 12:16:57 AM
Amos Quito: Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


He was WHITE!

If that isn't aggressive, I don't know what is.

LordJiro: And, y'know, he got out of his car to deliberately pursue an unarmed teenager, against the 911 dispatcher's advice. But I'm sure Trayvon just ambushed and assaulted the armed jackass for no good reason. It's not like Zimmerman had a history of aggression issues and paranoia regarding black people or anything.


Uh.

"George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.

"I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white," Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. "It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/23/zimmerman-complained-about-sanf or d-police-in-2011/
 
2012-12-04 12:17:13 AM
He was telling the truth after all, and the race pimps all prejudged him.
 
2012-12-04 12:17:51 AM
Double down Trayvon supporters.

Christ, do you morons listen to yourselves or is this retardation a god-given talent?

All you Trayvon supporters ONLY support him because he was a black youth killed by a non-black. You don't give a damn about black kids killed by other black kids. You don't care about anything except what you can latch onto to make YOURSELVES look good. This is why the majority of people laugh at you moronic Social Justice Warriors. Your lives are pathetic and you need something to make it worthwhile. Just do the damn dishes and visit grandma at the rest home and stop latching onto the flavor of the month.


lohphat: Why didn't he have that bloody and swollen nose in the police station video taken the same night?


Oh yea... that low resolution grainy video... why couldn't we see it!!!??? Please, you make birthers look respectable when you latch onto that.

BronyMedic: Police Evidence Photo taken that same night, two hours later:

i.huffpost.com

SO THAT'S WHY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS BEING PERSECUTED SO MUCH! HE'S REALLY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. LOOK AT THOSE MIRACULOUS HEALING POWERS!


Maybe you should do a research paper on how cleaning away blood and applying a cold pack can reduce swelling and ameliorate minor to moderate damage. It'll revolutionize medicine.
 
2012-12-04 12:18:00 AM
George Zimmerman is being persecuted for living the American dream...

/ ... of the average NRA member.
 
2012-12-04 12:18:44 AM

phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?


/I'm OK with this
 
2012-12-04 12:19:06 AM

God-is-a-Taco: The tomato is a vegetable that has many uses in various recipes, most notably Italian.


The tomato is a goddamn FRUIT, motherfarker. Its a modified ovary. If it makes seeds, its a fruit.

/just trying to raise the thread pressure here
 
2012-12-04 12:19:37 AM

God-is-a-Taco: Here is Zimmerman in the picture they show in the article:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 224x300]

The police picture is this one:
[i.huffpost.com image 664x1000]

This is Andrew Zimmerman, chef and host of a hit show on the Travel Channel.
[media.tumblr.com image 300x300]

This is a fairly accurate drawing of a tomato. The tomato is a vegetable that has many uses in various recipes, most notably Italian.
[content.answcdn.com image 500x476]


So you're saying Treyvon should have tried to get Zimmerman to ketchup to him sooner?
 
2012-12-04 12:20:55 AM
Still deserves the FLORIDA tag.
 
2012-12-04 12:21:01 AM
Black kid still dead
 
2012-12-04 12:21:48 AM
As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter one lick who started the altercation. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman escalated what could have been nothing more than a fistfight by pulling out a firearm. Too many people with guns in this country have no self-control and would rather take someones life than just take getting beaten up like a man.
 
2012-12-04 12:22:11 AM

schubie: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: violentsalvation: To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.

Attacking someone who asked you a quetion is assault. Slamming their face into concrete is attempted murder. Using violence on a person asking you a question is not defense. It's thuggery.

So you do you tell your children to be polite to weirdos who slowly follow them around dark, rainy neighborhoods at night? And then if the kid runs, they gun the engine to catch up to them? Just tell your kids to sweetly answer any questions the drivers may have, maybe get real close to the car? fark you. That kid was scared. Now he's dead. If any of Zimmerman's blood was spilled it was self defense.


I have asked this same question many times in many different Zimmerman threads, and guess what? None of the Zimmerman supporters will ever answer it. They all know damn well if they were in the same situation they would have done the same thing as Trayvon.
 
2012-12-04 12:22:30 AM

Somacandra: God-is-a-Taco: The tomato is a vegetable that has many uses in various recipes, most notably Italian.

The tomato is a goddamn FRUIT, motherfarker. Its a modified ovary. If it makes seeds, its a fruit.

/just trying to raise the thread pressure here


avocado
 
2012-12-04 12:22:39 AM
Poor Borge Gimmerman.
 
2012-12-04 12:22:49 AM
Any farkers been accused of murder? Would competent investigators check your face for gunpowder residue, or only your hands? Does having an incompetent police force give more legitimacy to vigilantes like Zimmerman? How many teeth will the jury have? Forget it, Jake Bob. It's the South.
 
2012-12-04 12:23:07 AM

SweetDickens: Ah...yes the bromance with Trayvon continues.....


Say, anybody see how the LIVING manning is doing????
What ??? No outrage???? Oh that's right he ain't no negro.......


Wait, we can only be upset about one thing at a time?

Well, it's a real shame this thread was posted because I'd been planning on volunteering with a senior literacy program this weekend, and now I can't be concerned about that.
 
2012-12-04 12:23:08 AM

Mrbogey: Maybe you should do a research paper on how cleaning away blood and applying a cold pack can reduce swelling and ameliorate minor to moderate damage. It'll revolutionize medicine.


I could, on the other hand, tell you why a bloody noseis considered a "Distracting Injury" by both the Advanced Trauma Life Support, and the Prehospital Trauma Life Support curriculum , and point out that an ice pack will not reduce the hematoma and swelling that develops from a fractured nasal bone in the first few hours after an injury, it's a long-term (6-12 hour) intervention which reduces pain and discomfort, and reduces the size of the hematoma by constricting blood vessels.

Had his nose actually been that large, it would have been bruised and massively swollen after two hours. Ice wouldn't do shiat to bring it down that drastically.

I could also point out how you're being fooled by what is known as a "Fat Girl Angle Shot (NSFW, link to Encyclopedia Dramatica)", where the angle of the camera makes something appear larger or smaller than it actually is.
 
2012-12-04 12:23:10 AM

Sherman Potter: Why aren't you down there helping?


Some of us don't do FLORIDA.

/don't want to catch the derp
 
2012-12-04 12:23:26 AM

RogermcAllen: This.

It doesn't matter if Martin robbed a little old lady, tore her clothes off, and snorted coke off of her wrinkly ass. You can't chase down someone and shoot them, even if they are a criminal.



He didn't "chase down someone and shoot them".

He put a slug in a thug who was trying to beat his brains out.


/G'night, Trayvon
 
2012-12-04 12:23:40 AM

El Morro: God-is-a-Taco: Here is Zimmerman in the picture they show in the article:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 224x300]

The police picture is this one:
[i.huffpost.com image 664x1000]

This is Andrew Zimmerman, chef and host of a hit show on the Travel Channel.
[media.tumblr.com image 300x300]

This is a fairly accurate drawing of a tomato. The tomato is a vegetable that has many uses in various recipes, most notably Italian.
[content.answcdn.com image 500x476]

So you're saying Treyvon should have tried to get Zimmerman to ketchup to him sooner?


No, he's saying the shots were fired he should've called the

seemslegit.com
 
2012-12-04 12:23:50 AM

Mrbogey: All you Trayvon supporters ONLY support him because he was a black youth killed by a non-black. You don't give a damn about black kids killed by other black kids. You don't care about anything except what you can latch onto to make YOURSELVES look good. This is why the majority of people laugh at you moronic Social Justice Warriors. Your lives are pathetic and you need something to make it worthwhile. Just do the damn dishes and visit grandma at the rest home and stop latching onto the flavor of the month.


Well put.
 
2012-12-04 12:24:30 AM

Generation_D: probably


GED law degrees ain't what they used to be.

Zimmerman was already out of his car when the dispatcher advised him he didn't have to go to the effort of following Martin, and there is NO evidence that he continued pursuit from that point on.
 
2012-12-04 12:25:15 AM

ongbok: According to Zimmerman he didn't ask him a question. According to Zimmerman he never confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Trayvon attacked him from behind while he was looking at street signs trying to figure out what street he was on.


You forgot the asterisk. You know the "not intended to be a factual statement" one.

Frank N Stein: Just because you call it stalking doesn't mean that it falls within the legal definition of stalking. Just to let you know.


I think America's problem with idiots could be easily solved if they acted on their legal beliefs here. Go on and try and assault people who are following you. Let's see how that court case is going to go.

El Morro: That's not even a broken nose. Or if it is, the man has "Wolverine" level healing abilities.


Uh huh... You get your doctorate in video medical diagnosis? I think "internet doctor" makes "internet lawyer" look like a genius.
 
2012-12-04 12:26:00 AM

Frank N Stein: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing in no way justifies getting beat up. Trayvon jumped the gun and paid the price for it. He could have said "hey stay away!" or anything verbal to diffuse a situation but instead chose to attack. That's not self defense. You can't sanely argue that.

/bring on the racism.

This.

I don't even have the energy to argue with these fools anymore though. They are willfully ignorant about the case, and continue to use the narrative that Jesse Jackson told them to use 8 months ago.



You underestimate the orgasmic pleasure that asshat doo-gooders derive from calling someone else "racist".
 
2012-12-04 12:26:32 AM

Esroc: As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter one lick who started the altercation. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman escalated what could have been nothing more than a fistfight by pulling out a firearm. Too many people with guns in this country have no self-control and would rather take someones life than just take getting beaten up like a man.


Well, Zimmerman was an overzealous mall cop wannabe. Odds are he already had some inadequacy issues, and thus, needed a gun to go from a gated community to the grocery store and back.
 
2012-12-04 12:26:54 AM

Kevin72: avocado


Avocados are also fruits. 

/'Avocado Zimmerman' is my new secret alias
 
2012-12-04 12:26:58 AM

Mrbogey: All you Trayvon supporters ONLY support him because he was a black youth killed by a non-black. You don't give a damn about black kids killed by other black kids. You don't care about anything except what you can latch onto to make YOURSELVES look good. This is why the majority of people laugh at you moronic Social Justice Warriors. Your lives are pathetic and you need something to make it worthwhile. Just do the damn dishes and visit grandma at the rest home and stop latching onto the flavor of the month.


Or it could be the fact that his story doesn't add up given the evidence, that he was never as badly injured as he claimed (Oh, I can't wait for the EMS field report to come out at trial.), that he repeatedly disobeyed someone giving him advice to say in his vehicle and not pursue someone on foot, and that now one person is dead, and the other person is in a situation where it's his story as the only narrative of what happened.

Or it could also be the fact that Zimmerman was known as someone who had anger management, and authority issues, and fancied himself a wannabe cop.
 
2012-12-04 12:27:12 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?

To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.


In Florida, yes you can.
 
2012-12-04 12:28:02 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: violentsalvation: To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.

Attacking someone who asked you a quetion is assault. Slamming their face into concrete is attempted murder. Using violence on a person asking you a question is not defense. It's thuggery.


Get your dog whistle tuned, us non-dogs can hear it.

/"attacking" someone who was following you in a car, stopped the car, got out of the car, was actively searching for you while you were hiding in a back alley and then found you is called "standing your ground"
 
2012-12-04 12:28:28 AM

ongbok: So you do you tell your children to be polite to weirdos who slowly follow them around dark, rainy neighborhoods at night? And then if the kid runs, they gun the engine to catch up to them? Just tell your kids to sweetly answer any questions the drivers may have, maybe get real close to the car? fark you. That kid was scared. Now he's dead. If any of Zimmerman's blood was spilled it was self defense.

I have asked this same question many times in many different Zimmerman threads, and guess what? None of the Zimmerman supporters will ever answer it. They all know damn well if they were in the same situation they would have done the same thing as Trayvon.


No, I would not have started a fight with some stranger who I thought was following me. Not unless I was cornered.

Running would have been a good idea, if Trayvon was actually scared.
 
2012-12-04 12:28:32 AM
Reminds me of the Ashley Todd story. In 2008, a McCain campaign volunteer claimed she was attacked by a Obama supporter, in which he supposedly robbed her, carved a backward letter 'B' on her face, and blacked her eyes. It turned out to be total bullshiat. She had carved the B on her face herself. It didn't say what she did to blacken her eyes, but she did that also.

Young Republican who claimed Obama supporter carved letter 'B' on her face during robbery made the story up, police say

Trayvon's autopsy report completely refutes what George Zimmernan claims to have happened.

Link

Link

So, you've just killed a kid that you have been chasing. The one that the person on the 911 call told you to quit following. You have to somehow say it was self-defense, or you are going to prison, maybe even face the death penalty. What to do?

A person looking at that would probably be highly motivated to try to provide some type of evidence that he shot in self-defense. Maybe lay down on the sidewalk and slam his head back a few times. Get a nearby rock or other object and hits himself hard on the nose.

Problem is, just like the girl who claimed she was jumped by a Obama supporter, when you look at the evidence and the science, it's not adding up.
 
2012-12-04 12:29:09 AM
If you don't want to get shot, don't grab the guy whose ass you are kicking's gun.
 
2012-12-04 12:29:33 AM
Can't we all just kill each other??
 
2012-12-04 12:31:37 AM

Frank N Stein: /bring on the racism.
This.
I don't even have the energy to argue with these fools anymore though. They are willfully ignorant about the case, and continue to use the narrative that Jesse Jackson told them to use 8 months ago.


He doesn't have to be a racist to be a dipshiat gun-nut who far exceeded his authority and ended up killing a kid.

And I've never said that he was a racist. He is undeniably an idiot.

/And oh yeah---hahahahahaahaha, his life is ruined, no matter how the trial goes.
 
2012-12-04 12:31:50 AM

BronyMedic: Or it could be the fact that his story doesn't add up given the evidence, that he was never as badly injured as he claimed (Oh, I can't wait for the EMS field report to come out at trial.),


The broken nose(hospital records, not just an EMT report) is in the record. I guess it could be a conspiracy. Yeah, go with that.
 
2012-12-04 12:33:25 AM
Is this a Trayvon Martin thread? Hmm


ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Skittles

he was a negro.


Generation_D:

He was black, Zimmerman shot him

shot a black man in cold blood.


Generation_D: racists


squirrelflavoredyogurt: stalking a black kid?


God-is-a-Taco: potentially-racial murder .


super_grass: hunt down children


Somacandra:

2) Did not obey law enforcement.



valar_morghulis: Black kid still dead


Dear Jerk: It's the South.



Yep!
 
2012-12-04 12:33:36 AM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


You'll hear people vehemently insisting that's exactly the case and that that's not the case, but in reality frankly it's not actually particularly clear-cut.

Stand your ground justification doesn't really apply to confrontations you intentionally initiate away from your own property. Self-defense in general is sort of maybe/maybe not applicable in this case since, again, the killer intentionally sought out the confrontation, but the boy was apparently also trespassing and, once he was losing the fight, technically Zimmerman is legally allowed to fight back.

By the same token, second-degree murder is a sack of crap. The dude very clearly wasn't out to kill someone, he was out to start a fight, got what he wanted, realized he'd gotten himself in too deep, and responded with lethal force. I'd say that being farking stupid isn't illegal, but...

... manslaughter, wherein you cause someone's death by being farking stupid, is in fact illegal. He's pretty obviously guilty of this one, and it's a 10 to 15 years deal, maybe more since you can legitimately tag aggravated assault on there. Since the prosecutor decided to add to the stupid involved by going for a harsher charge just to get her name in the headlines, ironically Zimmerman's probably going to get off completely free (after all, second-degree murder is bollocks) instead of getting that decade he deserves. farking Florida lawyers.

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?

To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.


No. The answer is "it depends on your state". Use google, look up deadly force statutes. Appropriate/legal uses of deadly force range from "only to prevent your own murder" in the most stupid restrictive states, to preventing Murder, rape, or battery to yourself or another in the vast majority of states, to preventing anything down to robbery and burglary in the significant minority of more permissive states.

In the latter states, it's actually perfectly legal to shoot a mugger in the back once his back is turned and he's absconding with his loot. Obviously there will still be an investigation to verify, but it's legal.

Which states allow broader and which narrower uses of lethal force don't fall easily into the usual stereotypes, so you really need to look them up. California, for instance, allows you to legally kill anyone in the process of committing any felony, against you or anyone else, regardless of your relationship to the victim, making it by far one of the most forgiving states where the use of lethal force is concerned.
 
2012-12-04 12:35:16 AM

Dear Jerk: Any farkers been accused of murder? Would competent investigators check your face for gunpowder residue, or only your hands? Does having an incompetent police force give more legitimacy to vigilantes like Zimmerman? How many teeth will the jury have? Forget it, Jake Bob. It's the South.


Pft. IF the case goes to trial, and IF he gets convicted, he will be freed on appeal with even a half-competent attorney on grounds of being unable to receive a fair trial anywhere in the solar system, after the contamination of the sentient jury pool with this tripe. There is no place on the planet they can get a decent jury, and everyone knows it...except the goons who keep plastering this crap all over the Internet (unless, and it's not unlikely, it's being done by Zimmerman's own attorneys). Everytime this hits the Intertubes, the range for "change of venue" gets smaller and smaller. There's no place in Florida he can get a fair trial, nobody in the whole state who can say with a straight face, "No, your Honor, I've never heard of 'George Zimmerman...'"

And if he's not brought up soon, he'll have a pretty decent challenge for delay of trial. He's been charged, so the clock is ticking. It would serve all these idiots who are SURE he's guilty (or not) right if the case had to be dismissed under a 6th Amd. violation of his right to a speedy trial because of all this nattering.
 
2012-12-04 12:36:02 AM

BronyMedic: I could, on the other hand, tell you why a bloody noseis considered a "Distracting Injury" by both the Advanced Trauma Life Support, and the Prehospital Trauma Life Support curriculum


Finally, the one we are going to talk about more in depth this week is those patients who have Distracting Injuries. You know what I am talking about; those angulated fractures, those more grotesque injuries that make you stop in your tracks and stare. Just because it doesn't look pretty though doesn't mean it needs to be off the scene immediately.

What about it? People rarely die from getting their nose broke, true. But that doesn't matter. The argument is that Zimmerman was on his back with his head on the ground and Martin was punching him.

1. Does the injury support that allegation.

Yes.

2. Can strikes to the head cause injury that can kill?

Why yes... yes it can.

3. Can someone use lethal force if their life is in danger and they can't flee... why yes... in ALL 50 states a person can kill an assailant who is using force that could reasonably lead to death or extreme injury.

Your argument amount to "the injury isn't as bad as it seems ergo...." which is just ridiculous. Nothing has come out to support the Trayvon self-defense argument since this case hit the national news so I can understand the desperation but Zimmerman is going to walk free. Murder II at this rate is an impossibility and Manslaughter is slowly sailing out of sight.
 
2012-12-04 12:36:36 AM
So, here's what I've got so far:

1) Zimmerman decides to stand up and take responsibility to stop crime in his neighborhood.

2) He sees a suspicious character. Gets on the phone with the cops, asking them to send out the cops.

3) Zimmerman is pretty sure this guy may well be one of those responsible for a string of crimes in his neighborhood, and sees him getting away. He gets out on foot to follow the guy so the cops will be able to find the guy.

4) Martin is on the phone with his girlfriend. He sees this guy who's taking an undue interest in him. He decides to try and shake the tail.

5) They stumble into each other. Zimmerman sees the physically fit Martin but feels emboldened by his pistol. Martin doesn't know exactly what to make of Zimmerman.

6) Speculative Scenario 1:
Zimmerman: "What are you doing here?"
Martin, thinking the best defense is a good offense, takes a swing. Fight breaks out.

Speculative Scenario 2:
Martin, startled, thinks the best defense is a good offense, attacks. Fight breaks out.

Speculative Scenario 3:
Zimmerman, startled, attacks Martin. Fight breaks out.

7) Conclusion: I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had no intent to shoot Martin when he got out of his vehicle. I think it's probably true that Zimmerman was mouthier and bolder than he would have been without the gun. And I think Martin probably thought the best defense was a good offense.
 
2012-12-04 12:36:43 AM

Frank N Stein: /bring on the racism.

This.

I don't even have the energy to argue with these fools anymore though. They are willfully ignorant about the case, and continue to use the narrative that Jesse Jackson told them to use 8 months ago.


You thought Romney was going to win in a landslide, didn't you?

You sound like that type.
 
2012-12-04 12:37:22 AM

Mrbogey: You don't care about anything except what you can latch onto to make YOURSELVES look good. This is why the majority of people laugh at you moronic Social Justice Warriors. Your lives are pathetic and you need something to make it worthwhile. Just do the damn dishes and visit grandma at the rest home and stop latching onto the flavor of the month.



s9.postimage.org

Sorry this isn't yet another Benghazi thread.
 
2012-12-04 12:38:34 AM
I'm white, about to be fifty-three years old. If you start a confrontation with me on the street and you are not a uniformed police officer, things are going to get very violent nearly immediately. I am going to make no presumptions but that you are crazy and ill-intended. I know better than to wait 'til the situation deteriorates. I don't know that your buddies aren't about to turn the corner. I will do the best I can to separate my attacker (fighting words are beyond adequate) from his senses just as quickly as possible.

//not an ITG,
//just a guy from the West Side.
 
2012-12-04 12:38:42 AM
People seem to think that 911 dispatchers have actual authority.

"He did it even when 911 told him not to."

Most 911 dispatchers are exactly that: dispatchers. They don't really have any authority, and even if they did you can just hang up the phone and ignore them.
 
2012-12-04 12:40:33 AM

Gyrfalcon: Man, I'd love to be Zimmerman's attorney right about now.

I'd already have my appeal framing the "Unable to get a fair trial" argument drafted and sealed, ready for the Appellate Court.


On the other hand, the legislature are full of hard-core Teabagger Republicans, and the governor is one as well. Chances are if George Zimmerman is found guilty, Rick Scott will pardon him before his lawyers got a chance to appeal, just to spite black people. And the GOP-controlled state legislature would pass a law that would prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing Zimmerman, his lawyers, the Sanford cops or anybody else involved in this case (again, purely out of spite).

/they're already on record as explicitly hating blacks, having openly admitted that the reduction in early voting hours and days was for the express purpose of making it harder for them to vote
 
2012-12-04 12:40:49 AM
As 9beers' spokesman I have been informed that he has no comment at this time.

/beer
 
2012-12-04 12:41:05 AM

signaljammer: I'm white, about to be fifty-three years old. If you start a confrontation with me on the street and you are not a uniformed police officer, things are going to get very violent nearly immediately. I am going to make no presumptions but that you are crazy and ill-intended. I know better than to wait 'til the situation deteriorates. I don't know that your buddies aren't about to turn the corner. I will do the best I can to separate my attacker (fighting words are beyond adequate) from his senses just as quickly as possible.

//not an ITG,
//just a guy from the West Side.


For some reason I read this in Liam Neeson's voice
 
2012-12-04 12:41:21 AM

Amos Quito: He put a slug in a thug who was trying to beat his brains out.


Amos Quito: You underestimate the orgasmic pleasure that asshat doo-gooders derive from calling someone else racists "racist".


/if the hood fits...
//also, read NextChapter's links and learn something like how does the Martin's DNA not be on the weapon fired at point blank with Martin on top of Zimmerman? Not logical.
///unless you're late for a cross burning or something
 
2012-12-04 12:41:24 AM

garkola: "He did it even when 911 told him not to."


Not to mention there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Zimmerman continued pursuit after the dispatcher's admonition.
 
2012-12-04 12:41:27 AM
When all is said and done, this will result in a riot because of the Not Guilty verdict.
 
2012-12-04 12:41:55 AM

Mrbogey: Your argument amount to "the injury isn't as bad as it seems ergo...."


Is the injury to Martin as bad as it seems?
 
2012-12-04 12:42:22 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Not logical


Why not?
 
HBK
2012-12-04 12:42:25 AM

Jim_Callahan: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

You'll hear people vehemently insisting that's exactly the case and that that's not the case, but in reality frankly it's not actually particularly clear-cut.

Stand your ground justification doesn't really apply to confrontations you intentionally initiate away from your own property. Self-defense in general is sort of maybe/maybe not applicable in this case since, again, the killer intentionally sought out the confrontation, but the boy was apparently also trespassing and, once he was losing the fight, technically Zimmerman is legally allowed to fight back.

By the same token, second-degree murder is a sack of crap. The dude very clearly wasn't out to kill someone, he was out to start a fight, got what he wanted, realized he'd gotten himself in too deep, and responded with lethal force. I'd say that being farking stupid isn't illegal, but...

... manslaughter, wherein you cause someone's death by being farking stupid, is in fact illegal. He's pretty obviously guilty of this one, and it's a 10 to 15 years deal, maybe more since you can legitimately tag aggravated assault on there. Since the prosecutor decided to add to the stupid involved by going for a harsher charge just to get her name in the headlines, ironically Zimmerman's probably going to get off completely free (after all, second-degree murder is bollocks) instead of getting that decade he deserves. farking Florida lawyers.



You're not a lawyer, are you?
 
2012-12-04 12:43:09 AM

Frank N Stein: Guess "no limit n*gga" should have known not to bring skittles to a gun fight.


I agree with you...Trayvon should've been armed.
 
2012-12-04 12:43:12 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Is the injury to Martin as bad as it seems?


Emotional appeal. Overruled.
 
2012-12-04 12:43:57 AM

s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: Is the injury to Martin as bad as it seems?

Emotional appeal. Overruled.


Are we in a court of law?

Are you a judge?
 
2012-12-04 12:44:38 AM

BronyMedic: Mrbogey: All you Trayvon supporters ONLY support him because he was a black youth killed by a non-black. You don't give a damn about black kids killed by other black kids. You don't care about anything except what you can latch onto to make YOURSELVES look good. This is why the majority of people laugh at you moronic Social Justice Warriors. Your lives are pathetic and you need something to make it worthwhile. Just do the damn dishes and visit grandma at the rest home and stop latching onto the flavor of the month.

Or it could be the fact that his story doesn't add up given the evidence, that he was never as badly injured as he claimed (Oh, I can't wait for the EMS field report to come out at trial.), that he repeatedly disobeyed someone giving him advice to say in his vehicle and not pursue someone on foot, and that now one person is dead,



Except that he was ALREADY OUT OF HIS VEHICLE TRYING TO EYEBALL MARTIN so that he could direct POLICE to his location when the advice was uttered.

Read the 9-11 transcripts, and see if you continue to hold to the lies that you currently espouse.

Keep farkin' that chicken, BronyMedic. Given your description of your occupation AND the neighborhoods that you claim to service, I should think that you'd be a bit more understanding of the dangers present.

Good luck, and godspeed, Ambulad.
 
2012-12-04 12:44:40 AM

JungleBoogie: 7) Conclusion: I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had no intent to shoot Martin when he got out of his vehicle. I think it's probably true that Zimmerman was mouthier and bolder than he would have been without the gun. And I think Martin probably thought the best defense was a good offense.


So, again, killing people by being reckless and stupid is called "manslaughter", and it's usually 10-15 years, sometimes more if you were under the influence. Second-degree murder being a stretch doesn't mean the idiot doesn't need to cool his heels in a cell for a few years and be banned form owning a gun ever again. I mean, he clearly lacks the basic judgement and temperament to be trusted around firearms.
 
2012-12-04 12:44:43 AM

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.


So that makes it okay to murder the kid, right?
 
2012-12-04 12:44:54 AM

garkola: Most 911 dispatchers are exactly that: dispatchers. They don't really have any authority, and even if they did you can just hang up the phone and ignore them.


911 is called to report a crime and to save life or property. When you call 911 and they tell you to do something in the name of the authority and you don't do it, you'd better have a really good reason or you could definitely end up in a lot of trouble. Once you pick up that phone, you are deferring to the public authorities. That's why misuse of 911 can itself be a crime.
 
2012-12-04 12:45:36 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Are we in a court of law?


Nope.

Lionel Mandrake: Are you a judge?


I'm really judgmental. Also, I'm a Libra, so...kinda?
 
2012-12-04 12:45:56 AM

BronyMedic: Or it could be the fact that his story doesn't add up given the evidence...


First, I recommend you actually read the evidence. What you believe happened has no legal weight. There's nothing he said that was contradictory. A lot of the things that Trayvon supporters say he said is damning... but lucky for Zimmerman, they also have no weight against what actually happened.

BronyMedic: that he was never as badly injured as he claimed (Oh, I can't wait for the EMS field report to come out at trial.)


Cuts to the back of the head and injuries to the face. I guess you don't know that a person doesn't actually have to wait for serious bodily harm to defend themselves. Oh, I know... right now you're cursing that tricky George Zimmerman for using his hispano-black-jew magic to trick poor Trayvon into knocking him onto the ground and striking him.

As long as the EMS field report is in concurrence with the facts that establish Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman striking him in the face against a hard surface... you have nothing. NOTHING. Now if that field report says that Zimmerman used that hispano-black-jew voodoo to conjure up facial injuries that can't be explained by his story (the one that has not deviated from the original story he told) then you have something.

BronyMedic: that he repeatedly disobeyed someone giving him advice to say in his vehicle and not pursue someone on foot


Here's some advice, don't walk down dark alleys. Now if you should disobey my advice you must accept any negative consequences.

Advice is advice... no weight.

BronyMedic: Or it could also be the fact that Zimmerman was known as someone who had anger management, and authority issues, and fancied himself a wannabe cop.


And? Is that gonna get Joe Biden a Trans-Am? Yea, you go and try to run a prosecution based solely on character arguments.

"Your honor, I know we have no evidence this man is guilty of the crime...but look at him! He's clearly an asshole! C'mon! C'mon... let's teach this asshole a lesson. The prosecution rests."
 
2012-12-04 12:46:30 AM

s2s2s2: Karma Curmudgeon: Not logical

Why not?


Gravity
 
2012-12-04 12:46:34 AM
I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.
 
2012-12-04 12:47:35 AM

Jim_Callahan: clearly


Good evidence you don't see things "clearly".
 
2012-12-04 12:48:28 AM

garkola:
Most 911 dispatchers are exactly that: dispatchers. They don't really have any authority, and even if they did you can just hang up the phone and ignore them.


True, but often times they give very sound and prescient advice...like in this case.
 
2012-12-04 12:48:43 AM

Somacandra: you don't do it,


Citation needed.

Karma Curmudgeon: Gravity


Explain further.
 
2012-12-04 12:49:09 AM

HBK: You're not a lawyer, are you?


No. I'm just very familiar with this branch of law because you have to be to maintain a TX or GA equivalent CCP.

I've also seen this song and dance from my own state's dumbass prosecutors when they're trying to set up a future run for office. We had an extra-special lawyer grandstanding case recently when a criminal court judge tried to get out of a damned speeding ticket by continual delays based on legal technicalities, basically to advertise how smart he was. Didn't work for him either.

//Used that example because the examples of prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves with murder cases are less funny and more depressing.
 
2012-12-04 12:49:12 AM

garkola: People seem to think that 911 dispatchers have actual authority.

"He did it even when 911 told him not to."



The issue isn't that he "disobeyed" the 911 dispatcher. The issue is what his failure to heed the dispatcher's suggestion tells us about his willingness to confront. Regardless of whether or not they "have to," the fact is, most people obey when the police tell them to do something. Yet Zimmerman didn't.

Add to that the known facts that Zimmerman was armed, that he was so enraged that he couldn't keep from uttering profanity when on the phone with the police, that Trayvon sought to avoid confrontation, and was unarmed, and it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
 
2012-12-04 12:49:51 AM
to the people in this thread:

if you have more loyalty to your race than you do to law and justice then you are part of the problem.
 
2012-12-04 12:50:42 AM

I Browse: True, but often times they give very sound and prescient advice...like in this case.


And a quick listen to the 911 recordings will show that GZ's response was "OK". What evidence do you have that he continued to pursue Trayvon?
 
2012-12-04 12:51:14 AM

Somacandra: 911 is called to report a crime and to save life or property. When you call 911 and they tell you to do something in the name of the authority and you don't do it, you'd better have a really good reason or you could definitely end up in a lot of trouble. Once you pick up that phone, you are deferring to the public authorities.


If you're going to be an internet lawyer at least google-search before issuing declarations of what the law says.

Though Godspeed on your deeply held convictions on what you believe the law says.

Hint: operators don't have the legal authority to do as you claimed.
 
2012-12-04 12:51:33 AM
"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", how does that work?

It means shut your damn mouths. Who gives a rat's ass if the corpse is black or white? A neighborhood guardian was involved in an altercation with a citizen he was monitoring, and the citizen lost in the ensuing struggle. From here on, it is up to a court, not some armchair experts on race, skittles, and baby-daddying.
 
2012-12-04 12:52:22 AM

s2s2s2: Jim_Callahan: clearly

Good evidence you don't see things "clearly".


Dispatcher tells you police are on their way, advises against engaging suspect.

When police arrives you've gotten in a damned fist-fight with suspect and one of you is dead.

You proceed to lie about your assets to a judge with access to your bank records at your bail hearing, and don't disclose basic facts or provide testimony to your own lawyers.

Pretty clear, man.
 
2012-12-04 12:52:41 AM

s2s2s2: Not to mention there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Zimmerman continued pursuit after the dispatcher's admonition.


There may be something to that---given that there was no DNA foreign to Martin positively identified on his body or clothing. It doesn't really help Mr. Zimmerman's story, though.
 
2012-12-04 12:52:42 AM

mittromneysdog: The issue is what his failure to heed the dispatcher's suggestion


There is no evidence for your assertion. This shows your willingness to take people's word for it that haven't done even a little research into that portion of the 911 recording.
 
2012-12-04 12:54:04 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.


It's called lithium. When you hear things that aren't being said and seeing things not actually posted, it's a disturbing sign of a serious illness. Seek help.

Kudos to you for taking a stand against something that hasn't actually happened.
 
2012-12-04 12:54:15 AM
JungleBoogie: 7) Conclusion: I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had no intent to shoot Martin when he got out of his vehicle. I think it's probably true that Zimmerman was mouthier and bolder than he would have been without the gun. And I think Martin probably thought the best defense was a good offense.

Jim_Callahan:So, again, killing people by being reckless and stupid is called "manslaughter", and it's usually 10-15 years, sometimes more if you were under the influence. Second-degree murder being a stretch doesn't mean the idiot doesn't need to cool his heels in a cell for a few years and be banned form owning a gun ever again. I mean, he clearly lacks the basic judgement and temperament to be trusted around firearms.


How was he being reckless and stupid?

"You don't need to do that sir" in response to telling the dispatcher he was getting out of his vehicle to look for what he perceived to be a suspicious character is not being reckless or stupid. He doesn't want the guy to get away. Some people keep insisting that he was "told" to stay in his car, and that's just factually false.

Zimmerman stood up and tried to take responsibility for stopping crime in his neighborhood. Which resulted in a terribly unfortunate series of unintended consequences.

Fact: Two guys, keyed up for different reasons, stumbled into each other.
Fact: A fight breaks out.
Fact: Zimmerman was being beaten.
Fact: Zimmerman shot Martin.
 
2012-12-04 12:54:31 AM
Hilarious to see all the Black Racists and White Guilt Liberals spin this for their hero Trayvon Martin. What a bunch of Hypocrites

If Trayvon Martin was white...the same Racists/WGLs would be cheering Zimmerman for capping TMs arse.

Just a matter of time before this case is tossed out of court...or the prosecution drops the case. You cannot convict someone just on the racist rantings of Al Sharpton and the New Black KKK...er New Black Panthers.

Or are the prosecutors that dumb to put Chris Serino and "Dee Dee" on the stand? This will be fun
 
2012-12-04 12:55:08 AM
Now this is pretty interesting.

"Exhibit ME-2," fingernail scrapings from Trayvon, only showed the presence of blood from his right hand. "No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin ...were found..

"Exhibit ME-12," Trayvon's hoodie, had no traces of Zimmerman's blood on it. There were three stains, two of which "gave chemical indications for the presence of blood." Only one had a partial DNA profile that matched Trayvon. The right cuff, left cuff and lower sleeves of both arms of the hoodie found "No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

Link

With all of the punching that Trayvon did to his face and slamming his head into the side walk, it is amazing that he was able to avoid getting Zimmerman's DNA on him except for on his right hand.

It is also amazing that he avoided getting his DNA on Zimmerman's gun despite struggling with him for it.
 
2012-12-04 12:55:15 AM

s2s2s2: The broken nose(hospital records, not just an EMT report) is in the record. I guess it could be a conspiracy. Yeah, go with that.


Zimmerman refused treatment on scene, and only went to the hospital the next day on advice of his lawyer. He was asked to go to the hospital three times on scene, which he refused repeatedly.

Mrbogey: Finally, the one we are going to talk about more in depth this week is those patients who have Distracting Injuries. You know what I am talking about; those angulated fractures, those more grotesque injuries that make you stop in your tracks and stare. Just because it doesn't look pretty though doesn't mean it needs to be off the scene immediately.

What about it? People rarely die from getting their nose broke, true. But that doesn't matter. The argument is that Zimmerman was on his back with his head on the ground and Martin was punching him.



Oh, God. You're going to make me go to my bookshelf. -sigh-

"Obvious, but non-life threatening injuries can distract the Paramedic. These injuries may prevent a Paramedic from doing a more through assessment for more serious problems. Examples include open fractures, and facial bleeding that is profuse." - Page 301, Assessment Based Managment, Mosby's Paramedic Textbook, Third Edition, ISBN:978-0-323-04691-6

Zimmerman was offered hospital treatment, and scene transport by Paramedics three times. He continually refused. In addition, scene responders clearly thought his injuries were not life threatening, as they allowed him to be DNT-AMA (Did not transport, Against Medical Advice) on the scene of his own accord.

Mrbogey:
1. Does the injury support that allegation.

Yes.


The injury alone does not support the allegation. All it means is that Zimmerman hit something. In addition, the attempt by the defense attorney to portray his injuries as more severe than they actually were is a telling indicator that something's not kosher. For all we know, he tripped and fell on the ground. There are no witnesses to the event. Only Martin and Zimmerman. And one of those are dead. While the injuries SUGGEST his story could be factual, the scene evidence, forensic evidence, and the reconstruction of events do not support his verbatim recollection of the incident.

Martin or Zimmerman's race, as you suggested earlier, are irrelevant. His past confrontational behavior, and the history of abuse of power Zimmerman displayed however, are not.

Mrbogey: 2. Can strikes to the head cause injury that can kill?

Why yes... yes it can.


Of course they can. However, unless you have an AVM, are on blood thinners, are either an infant or the elderly, or someone who's trained as a special forces hand to hand combatant training, a single punch to the nose is not going to kill anyone. Even then, there would be signs and symptoms that EMS would have picked up on, and - since he was technically in custody during their assessment - he could have been forced to go against his will for treatment.

Mrbogey: 3. Can someone use lethal force if their life is in danger and they can't flee... why yes... in ALL 50 states a person can kill an assailant who is using force that could reasonably lead to death or extreme injury.

Your argument amount to "the injury isn't as bad as it seems ergo...." which is just ridiculous. Nothing has come out to support the Trayvon self-defense argument since this case hit the national news so I can understand the desperation but Zimmerman is going to walk free. Murder II at this rate is an impossibility and Manslaughter is slowly sailing out of sight.


Except for forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence on Zimmerman that, in context, doesn't add up. If you have someone on the ground, punching them with a bloody face, SOME forensic evidence is going to be transferred to Martin's hands.

There wasn't anything found.

So are you suggesting that Martin wore gloves that Zimmerman hid after the shooting?
 
2012-12-04 12:55:27 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Amos Quito: He put a slug in a thug who was trying to beat his brains out.

Amos Quito: You underestimate the orgasmic pleasure that asshat doo-gooders derive from calling someone else racists "racist".

/if the hoodie fits...



FTFY


//also, read NextChapter's links and learn something like how does the Martin's DNA not be on the weapon fired at point blank with Martin on top of Zimmerman? Not logical.


Why SHOULD it be logical that Martin's DNA would be on the gun? Was he naked?

No, he was clothed - wearing a HOODIE (among other things). Consider the laws of physics and get back to us. 


something something CROSS BURNING something


I think I see where you're coming from.

Thanks for that.
 
2012-12-04 12:56:13 AM
This:

Jim_Callahan: Dispatcher tells you police are on their way, advises against engaging suspect.


And a big old gap, signifying nothing about whether or not the admonition to cease pursuit was respected, then:

Jim_Callahan: When police arrives you've gotten in a damned fist-fight with suspect and one of you is dead.


Jim_Callahan: You proceed to lie about your assets to a judge with access to your bank records at your bail hearing, and don't disclose basic facts or provide testimony to your own lawyers.


Knowing your life is over, and wanting to have as much money as you can if and when you get through the ordeal you are going through...

= not clear.

Desperate times...
 
2012-12-04 12:57:12 AM

Somacandra: There may be something to that---given that there was no DNA foreign to Martin positively identified on his body or clothing. It doesn't really help Mr. Zimmerman's story, though.


Hell of a qualifier you have there.
 
2012-12-04 12:57:48 AM

s2s2s2: mittromneysdog: The issue is what his failure to heed the dispatcher's suggestion

There is no evidence for your assertion. This shows your willingness to take people's word for it that haven't done even a little research into that portion of the 911 recording.


This shows your willingness to make personal what could and should be a cool conversation about facts. That in turn speaks poorly of your moral character, and consequently of the veracity of your factual statements like "there is no evidence for your assertion."
 
2012-12-04 12:58:45 AM

croesius: "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", how does that work?

It means shut your damn mouths. Who gives a rat's ass if the corpse is black or white? A neighborhood guardian was involved in an altercation with a citizen he was monitoring, and the citizen lost in the ensuing struggle. From here on, it is up to a court, not some armchair experts on race, skittles, and baby-daddying.


Innocent until proven guilty is only in a court of law. In the court of public opinion you can say he's guilty all you want.
 
2012-12-04 12:59:36 AM
This is probably the funniest thread I've read in a while. Everyone's looking for the monster here. Maybe there isn't one.

What if I told you
img254.imageshack.us
Nothing is ever that simple.

rip-roaring good time chaps. Many thanks for the laughs.
 
2012-12-04 01:00:06 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.


motores.com.py
 
2012-12-04 01:00:07 AM

s2s2s2: Explain further.


Martin is allegedly on top of Zimmerman with enough leverage to both hold Zimmerman down and slam his head into the pavement*. This would mean that Martin is directly over Zimmerman and Zimmerman would be firing upwards at Martin and it defies logic to somehow think that Martins guts being splayed in every direction somehow defied laws of gravity putting any of Martins DNA on the gun or in the barrel.

/I've seen people get their head slammed into to concrete. They looked nothing like George Zimmerman. I've also seen people punched in the nose. They looked exactly like George Zimmerman.
 
2012-12-04 01:00:41 AM

mittromneysdog: make personal


I'm sorry I used your logic in a response to you. I was not saying you are incapable of learning what the tapes show, just that you haven't yet.

Nothing I say will ever be enough to make a fact out of the claim that Zimmerman pursued after it was suggested it was unnecessary for him to do so.

"We don't need you to do that." -Dispatcher

"Ok" -Zimmerman
 
2012-12-04 01:00:42 AM

JungleBoogie:
LordJiro: And, y'know, he got out of his car to deliberately pursue an unarmed teenager, against the 911 dispatcher's advice. But I'm sure Trayvon just ambushed and assaulted the armed jackass for no good reason. It's not like Zimmerman had a history of aggression issues and paranoia regarding black people or anything.

Uh.

"George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.

"I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white," Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. "It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/23/zimmerman-complained-about-sanf or d-police-in-2011/


Doesn't mean he's not racist. It does show that he isn't a complete waste of space and that in his own way he meant well, but still doesn't prove he's not racist.

I have a good friend who is retired. He loves to tell stories about when he was a supervisor at his job: the black men who worked for him adored him because he was the only supervisor there who gave them a chance rather than treating them as worthless based on their color.

Two sentences later he will tell you that he refused to attend one of his friend's weddings last year because she "married a n*gg*r."

/If you treat people of racial groups well as long as they stay in their place, you're still a racist.
//Though really, I don't think it matters if you're racist or not: if you kill someone, you've killed someone. I feel bad for both the men in this scenario. One was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the other was delusional (doesn't matter to me why), thought he was doing the right thing, and made a really awful mistake.
 
2012-12-04 01:01:40 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Martins guts being splayed in every direction


This did not happen. You watch too many movies.
 
2012-12-04 01:02:16 AM

JungleBoogie:
Fact: Two guys, keyed up for different reasons, stumbled into each other.
Fact: A fight breaks out.
Fact: Zimmerman was being beaten.
Fact: Zimmerman shot Martin.


What you're describing is, quite literally, manslaughter. A fight that "gets out of hand" and results in a dead body is still a crime even if there is not a clear-cut single aggressor. Added to forensic evidence, that pretty much shows Zimmerman's story of it totally being the other guy's fault to be complete shiate (intentionally or unintentionally) and we're back to him being liable enough for manslaughter. You don't get any bonus points for being stupid enough to genuinely believe that you weren't doing nothing, you only get to use self-defense as a justification if that is actually the case. In reality. Not in your imagination.
 
2012-12-04 01:02:47 AM

UCFRoadWarrior: Hilarious to see all the Black Racists and White Guilt Liberals spin this for their hero Trayvon Martin. What a bunch of Hypocrites

If Trayvon Martin was white...the same Racists/WGLs would be cheering Zimmerman for capping TMs arse.

Just a matter of time before this case is tossed out of court...or the prosecution drops the case. You cannot convict someone just on the racist rantings of Al Sharpton and the New Black KKK...er New Black Panthers.

Or are the prosecutors that dumb to put Chris Serino and "Dee Dee" on the stand? This will be fun


If you have this amazing power to read minds and know what everyone thinks and believes, maybe you could use it to read Zimmerman's mind and find out exactly what happened instead of posting retarded race-baiting comments.
 
2012-12-04 01:03:09 AM

croesius: "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", how does that work?

It means shut your damn mouths. Who gives a rat's ass if the corpse is black or white? A neighborhood guardian was involved in an altercation with a citizen he was monitoring, and the citizen lost in the ensuing struggle. From here on, it is up to a court, not some armchair experts on race, skittles, and baby-daddying.


The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman did shoot Trayvon Martin. No one has disputed that, ever. Since he is trying to use the self-defense plea, the burden of proof is on him to show the shooting was justified.
 
2012-12-04 01:04:18 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: /I've seen people get their head slammed into to concrete. They looked nothing like George Zimmerman. I've also seen people punched in the nose. They looked exactly like George Zimmerman.


I almost lost my life because I fell(passed out) backward into a cabinet with a fire safety edge on the door.
I have a tiny little scar on the back of my head where the simple fact that I fell backward, and bumped my head severed 4 arteries in my scalp. I nearly bled out before I got to the hospital. I needed 5 pints of blood.
 
2012-12-04 01:04:26 AM

Amos Quito: Keep farkin' that chicken, BronyMedic. Given your description of your occupation AND the neighborhoods that you claim to service, I should think that you'd be a bit more understanding of the dangers present.

Good luck, and godspeed, Ambulad.


Yeah. You're right. I wouldn't shove my Browning Hi-Power in my waistband, follow someone in a neighborhood, and then get out on foot and pursue them when they go around a house. That's just me, though. Then again, I'm not an idiot hanging around neighborhoods with high gang activity thinking I'm a law enforcement officer.

Mrbogey: And? Is that gonna get Joe Biden a Trans-Am? Yea, you go and try to run a prosecution based solely on character arguments.

"Your honor, I know we have no evidence this man is guilty of the crime...but look at him! He's clearly an asshole! C'mon! C'mon... let's teach this asshole a lesson. The prosecution rests."


You're actually typing this with a straight face, aren't you?

So if I have a history of roughing people up who smarted off to me as a security guard to the point where I was fired from that position, had a history of self-admittedly patrolling my gated community with my concealed weapon, and if I had been arrested for assault before, if I end up shooting someone I was following on foot, with no witnesses to corroborate any story I tell, that wouldn't' be relevant to my mentality at the time of the shooting?

Really?

static.someecards.com

Mrbogey: Cuts to the back of the head and injuries to the face. I guess you don't know that a person doesn't actually have to wait for serious bodily harm to defend themselves. Oh, I know... right now you're cursing that tricky George Zimmerman for using his hispano-black-jew magic to trick poor Trayvon into knocking him onto the ground and striking him.

As long as the EMS field report is in concurrence with the facts that establish Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman striking him in the face against a hard surface... you have nothing. NOTHING. Now if that field report says that Zimmerman used that hispano-black-jew voodoo to conjure up facial injuries that can't be explained by his story (the one that has not deviated from the original story he told) then you have something.


Wow. Just wow.

I've never even brought Martin, or Zimmerman's race up at all. I've brought up the credibility of his story, multiple times on FARK, along with his history of being a wacker-wannabe rent-a-cop, but I've never even mentioned his race.

You, on the other hand, have stated in this very thread "The only reason people don't believe he's not guilty is because they're social justice white knights who think because he shot a black kid, he's guilty".

Mrbogey: Here's some advice, don't walk down dark alleys. Now if you should disobey my advice you must accept any negative consequences.

Advice is advice... no weight.


You're right. You're under no criminal obligation to obey a 911 dispatcher giving you advice.

Civilly, however, it's another matter. It all depends on whether they accept the defense of Stand your ground, or not whether that avenue can be pursued.
 
2012-12-04 01:04:27 AM

Esroc: As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter one lick who started the altercation. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman escalated what could have been nothing more than a fistfight by pulling out a firearm. Too many people with guns in this country have no self-control and would rather take someones life than just take getting beaten up like a man.


You realize that a single punch can kill you, right?

Or that a person who beats you may not stop there.

Don't ever assume someone who starts a fight with you is honorable or knows how to restrict himself. Most likely, they don't. My neighbor took one single blow to the head in a bar. He's farking dead.
 
2012-12-04 01:05:22 AM

s2s2s2:

And a quick listen to the 911 recordings will show that GZ's response was "OK". What evidence do you have that he continued to pursue Trayvon?



I have no evidence, I wasn't there. Like most of us when we heard this story, I can only imagine myself in the same scenario and wonder what I would do (both as Zimmerman and Martin). If I were Zimmerman...I would've felt I'd done my civic duty once I placed the call to 911. I would trust the police to handle it from there. I can't imagine any scenario where I would've gotten out of my car in the first place. So if the dispatcher advised me not to pursue, I would've told them I have no intention of pursuing and meant it.

If I were Martin...I probably would've just run. And although I would've been apprehensive about leading a stranger to my dad's gf's home, I'd rather be safe inside than dealing with a stranger outside.
 
2012-12-04 01:05:43 AM

s2s2s2: Karma Curmudgeon: Martins guts being splayed in every direction

This did not happen. You watch too many movies.

This did not happen. You watch too many movies./i>

Within the two square feet where Zimmerman's story takes place, that's exactly what would have happened. Physics.
 
2012-12-04 01:07:42 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Everyone realizes twayvon was a criminal right? I'm not saying gz was brilliant or anything but he definitely had legal and moral right to kill tway tway.


For being a "criminal"? That gives him a "legal and moral right" to stalk and murder an unarmed teenager?
 
2012-12-04 01:07:56 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.

[motores.com.py image 535x356]


I'm the one trolling? I recall a certain 9beers stating many, many times that Trayvon was an evil Negro demon that was seconds away from attacking and looting every house on that street and we should thank the Lord that the avenging knight Zimmerman was there to destroy the foul child of Satan before he could do his vicious deeds. And many of the people in here going "ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST ZIMMERMAN IS A REVERSE RACIST!" and "LOL WORSHIPING YOUR DEAD BLACK HERO, LIBTARDS!" were agreeing with him. And they're certainly still going at it right now.
 
2012-12-04 01:08:38 AM

Amos Quito: Keep farkin' that chicken, BronyMedic. Given your description of your occupation AND the neighborhoods that you claim to service, I should think that you'd be a bit more understanding of the dangers present.

Good luck, and godspeed, Ambulad.


I'm sorry. This is bothering me, Amos, because you're one of the biggest Palestinian white knights on FARK, I find this in particular rather telling, and I'm sincerely hoping you're wrong on this one.

Because I work in the Frayser-Northhaven Area primarily on a 911 unit (an economically disadvantaged, primarily African American area of Memphis, for those unfamiliar with it), I'm supposed to be scared of the demographic that live there? Or I'm supposed to have an itchy trigger finger because of it?

What "Dangers" Amos?

"They" don't mess with us, Amos. "They" like us there, because we're the ones keeping them alive when they OD, or get shot.
 
2012-12-04 01:08:53 AM

BronyMedic: Oh, God. You're going to make me go to my bookshelf. -sigh-

"Obvious, but non-life threatening injuries can distract the Paramedic. These injuries may prevent a Paramedic from doing a more through assessment for more serious problems. Examples include open fractures, and facial bleeding that is profuse." - Page 301, Assessment Based Managment, Mosby's Paramedic Textbook, Third Edition, ISBN:978-0-323-04691-6

Zimmerman was offered hospital treatment, and scene transport by Paramedics three times. He continually refused. In addition, scene responders clearly thought his injuries were not life threatening, as they allowed him to be DNT-AMA (Did not transport, Against Medical Advice) on the scene of his own accord.



Stop trying to impress with medical knowledge. That's not the the issue. You're arguing that post hoc knowledge should have been known during and prior. Zimmerman doesn't have to wait till his injuries are severe. The severity of Zimmerman's injuries post fight have absolutely dick to do with the legality of his response.

As it stands, his injuries are in line with the expected injuries of someone pinned down and getting struck in the face. To which it's legal in all 50 states to use lethal force in defense.

BronyMedic: All it means is that Zimmerman hit something.


So he injured himself directly before the fight? Because the eyewitnesses certainly didn't see him flailing his head into things afterwards.

BronyMedic: In addition, the attempt by the defense attorney to portray his injuries as more severe than they actually were is a telling indicator that something's not kosher.


No, it means everything with the defense is kosher. That's what defenses do. They act as PR agents as well as legal debaters in the court. Same as how Crumb and family released a pic of Trayvon from 5 years ago to try and paint the picture of a sweet mellow boy who never harmed anyone.

BronyMedic: For all we know, he tripped and fell on the ground. There are no witnesses to the event. Only Martin and Zimmerman.


Uh huh... George tripped and Trayvon, being a good citizen, was helping him up. Uh huh.

BronyMedic: While the injuries SUGGEST his story could be factual, the scene evidence, forensic evidence, and the reconstruction of events do not support his verbatim recollection of the incident.


I again refer you back to the actual evidence and not the evidence you want to believe exists.

BronyMedic: Of course they can.


Yes.. indeed. That's all you had to say. All the "buts" in the world don't matter. Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was in danger.

BronyMedic: If you have someone on the ground, punching them with a bloody face, SOME forensic evidence is going to be transferred to Martin's hands.


Yes, but unlike the show CSI, it's not always picked up. Luckily Trayvon had bruised knuckles. Let me guess... Zimmerman stomped them to create the injury post death.
 
2012-12-04 01:09:17 AM

s2s2s2: Karma Curmudgeon: /I've seen people get their head slammed into to concrete. They looked nothing like George Zimmerman. I've also seen people punched in the nose. They looked exactly like George Zimmerman.

I almost lost my life because I fell(passed out) backward into a cabinet with a fire safety edge on the door.
I have a tiny little scar on the back of my head where the simple fact that I fell backward, and bumped my head severed 4 arteries in my scalp. I nearly bled out before I got to the hospital. I needed 5 pints of blood.


Cool story, bro. How many stitches did Zimmerman need?
 
2012-12-04 01:10:24 AM

UCFRoadWarrior: Hilarious to see all the Black Racists and White Guilt Liberals spin this for their hero Trayvon Martin. What a bunch of Hypocrites

If Trayvon Martin was white...the same Racists/WGLs would be cheering Zimmerman for capping TMs arse.

Just a matter of time before this case is tossed out of court...or the prosecution drops the case. You cannot convict someone just on the racist rantings of Al Sharpton and the New Black KKK...er New Black Panthers.

Or are the prosecutors that dumb to put Chris Serino and "Dee Dee" on the stand? This will be fun


Okay. Your race baiting is noted. Now you can log in as DancingElkCondor and post the exact same thing.
 
2012-12-04 01:10:45 AM

I Browse: I have no evidence, I wasn't there. Like most of us when we heard this story, I can only imagine myself in the same scenario and wonder what I would do (both as Zimmerman and Martin). If I were Zimmerman...I would've felt I'd done my civic duty once I placed the call to 911.


You and me, both. Total agreement.

I Browse: I can't imagine any scenario where I would've gotten out of my car in the first place.


Still. 100% with you.

I Browse: If I were Martin...I probably would've just run. And although I would've been apprehensive about leading a stranger to my dad's gf's home, I'd rather be safe inside than dealing with a stranger outside.


Amen.

Well, looks like I wouldn't have shot you, and you wouldn't have punched me.

I also wouldn't have eaten your face off because I was high on bath salts, because I don't do them.

I wouldn't have shot a famous ex-NFL star who was getting upset and vocal about how the war was BS and pretended he was a hero in a cover up, because I'm not in the military or a totally corrupt piece of shiat in the government conspiring with other totally corrupt pieces of shiat in the government.

People do stupid shiat.
 
2012-12-04 01:11:06 AM

I Browse: s2s2s2:

And a quick listen to the 911 recordings will show that GZ's response was "OK". What evidence do you have that he continued to pursue Trayvon?


I have no evidence, I wasn't there. Like most of us when we heard this story, I can only imagine myself in the same scenario and wonder what I would do (both as Zimmerman and Martin). If I were Zimmerman...I would've felt I'd done my civic duty once I placed the call to 911. I would trust the police to handle it from there. I can't imagine any scenario where I would've gotten out of my car in the first place. So if the dispatcher advised me not to pursue, I would've told them I have no intention of pursuing and meant it.

If I were Martin...I probably would've just run. And although I would've been apprehensive about leading a stranger to my dad's gf's home, I'd rather be safe inside than dealing with a stranger outside.


Problem is, Zimmerman didn't believe that the police could do their duty, as his "These *expletive*s always get away" remark shows.
 
2012-12-04 01:11:32 AM

SweetDickens: Ah...yes the bromance with Trayvon continues.....


Say, anybody see how the LIVING manning is doing????
What ??? No outrage???? Oh that's right he ain't no negro.......


Why don't you just come out and say what really bothers you about all this
 
2012-12-04 01:11:50 AM
It will heal. Let's compare it to photos after he's had medical treatment. Nothing to see here. Proves nothing. He should toughen up. He had it coming.

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-04 01:12:46 AM

s2s2s2: mittromneysdog: make personal

I'm sorry I used your logic in a response to you. I was not saying you are incapable of learning what the tapes show, just that you haven't yet.


Comedy gold. He uses the fact that I argue a relevant issue--Zimmerman's willingness to confront--to justify a personal attack on me! You do understand that we're arguing about Zimmerman, that Zimmernan's state of mind is relevant to what we're arguing about, and that my purported willingness to rely on what uninformed strangers say is irrelevant to that discussion, right?

Nothing I say will ever be enough to make a fact out of the claim that Zimmerman pursued after it was suggested it was unnecessary for him to do so.

"We don't need you to do that." -Dispatcher

"Ok" -Zimmerman


But the fact of your poor moral character does call into question the veracity of your implicit claim that you've sufficiently evaluated the evidence to know whether or not there is evidence for it.

I'll grant, I haven't personally reviewed every document in the case file. But I do know that:

1) the prosecutor has alleged that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher advised him not to,

2) that the ethics of her profession require her to have a good faith basis for making such an allegation, and

3) that the only evidence to the contrary comes from Zimmerman, who has demonstrated a troubled relationship with the truth.

So not only have you turned personal what could have been a cool discussion about facts, but the substance of your personal attack, that I've based this on things other people said who haven't researched the case, is inaccurate. Rather, I've based this on things the prosecution itself has alleged, which are not contradicted by credible evidence, and which I have every reason to believe will be proved at trial. 

So not only are you a bad person, but you're a stupid and wrong person too.
 
2012-12-04 01:13:09 AM

BronyMedic: So if I have a history of roughing people up who smarted off to me as a security guard to the point where I was fired from that position, had a history of self-admittedly patrolling my gated community with my concealed weapon, and if I had been arrested for assault before, if I end up shooting someone I was following on foot, with no witnesses to corroborate any story I tell, that wouldn't' be relevant to my mentality at the time of the shooting?


This story is well known enough that you've just got to be willfully lying. Witnesses caught the tail end of the confrontation.

Again, you're proving my argument about all you have is a character argument. That alone isn't going to win a case.

BronyMedic: You, on the other hand, have stated in this very thread "The only reason people don't believe he's not guilty is because they're social justice white knights who think because he shot a black kid, he's guilty".


So? It's true.

BronyMedic: Civilly, however, it's another matter. It all depends on whether they accept the defense of Stand your ground, or not whether that avenue can be pursued.


When you're pinned, SYG doesn't come into play.
 
2012-12-04 01:13:29 AM

Frank N Stein: ohokyeah: Stalking is hostile behavior.

Just because you call it stalking doesn't mean that it falls within the legal definition of stalking. Just to let you know.


Except that he disobeyed police in order to follow the guy.
 
2012-12-04 01:14:19 AM
Turn out the little shiat stain was good at something after all.

Too bad "breaking noses" isn't a respectable career and will get you shot. Well, not too bad always, in this case it is hilarious.
 
2012-12-04 01:14:25 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.

[motores.com.py image 535x356]

I'm the one trolling? I recall a certain 9beers stating many, many times that Trayvon was an evil Negro demon that was seconds away from attacking and looting every house on that street and we should thank the Lord that the avenging knight Zimmerman was there to destroy the foul child of Satan before he could do his vicious deeds. And many of the people in here going "ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST ZIMMERMAN IS A REVERSE RACIST!" and "LOL WORSHIPING YOUR DEAD BLACK HERO, LIBTARDS!" were agreeing with him. And they're certainly still going at it right now.


Come on man, 9beers hasn't posted in months, and no one in here is coming close to saying "n*gger thugs deserved to be executed." Regardless of which side you're on, that's not helping.
 
2012-12-04 01:15:23 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.

[motores.com.py image 535x356]

I'm the one trolling? I recall a certain 9beers stating many, many times that Trayvon was an evil Negro demon that was seconds away from attacking and looting every house on that street and we should thank the Lord that the avenging knight Zimmerman was there to destroy the foul child of Satan before he could do his vicious deeds. And many of the people in here going "ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST ZIMMERMAN IS A REVERSE RACIST!" and "LOL WORSHIPING YOUR DEAD BLACK HERO, LIBTARDS!" were agreeing with him. And they're certainly still going at it right now.

Come on man, 9beers hasn't posted in months, and no one in here is coming close to saying "n*gger thugs deserved to be executed." Regardless of which side you're on, that's not helping.


Well, looks like I spoke to soon
 
2012-12-04 01:16:15 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Cool story, bro. How many stitches did Zimmerman need?


If only that was relevant to the moment in which he was sustaining repeated injuries, with no end in sight.
Perhaps Trayvon had told him?

"I'm just gonna scuff you up, and break your nose, ok? Let's not let this get out of hand. I'm a promising young athlete and I think we'd all like to see me lead the Canes back to prominence, we cool?"
 
2012-12-04 01:16:31 AM

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Well he had the right to KILL Zimmerman, yes, as a reasonable person would believe Martin was in danger when accosted on the street by a stranger with a gun.

Of course, Martin would not need to wait for Zimmerman to kill him to establish that Martin's life was in danger. That would be absurd to wait for it to be proven after it'd already happened. But in the end we DID establish that Zimmerman posed a threat to Martin's life, didn't we? Thus Martin was within his rights to curb-stomp this gun approaching him with a gun.

But by just punching Zimmerman, he established Zimmerman's right to defend himself with a gun...

I don't like Stand Yet Ground's logic. It creates an absurd situation where everyone can kill everyone, because anyone else COULD kill them... because, well, the law even says that the other person may legally kill you, so you can legally kill them. My head hurts.
 
2012-12-04 01:16:34 AM

Somacandra: God-is-a-Taco: The tomato is a vegetable that has many uses in various recipes, most notably Italian.

The tomato is a goddamn FRUIT, motherfarker. Its a modified ovary. If it makes seeds, its a fruit.

/just trying to raise the thread pressure here


Intelligence is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad.
 
2012-12-04 01:17:51 AM

Somacandra: s2s2s2: Not to mention there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Zimmerman continued pursuit after the dispatcher's admonition.

There may be something to that---given that there was no DNA foreign to Martin positively identified on his body or clothing. It doesn't really help Mr. Zimmerman's story, though.


So your saying that Travyon's plan was to jerk off all over George after he smashed his head in?
I can see know why some Farkers are outragedes that George shot him.

/no slow trollin' here
 
2012-12-04 01:18:27 AM

Abacus9: Except that he disobeyed police in order to follow the guy.


Here's some advice.

These are not cops:

upload.wikimedia.org
www.smokeybear.com
 
2012-12-04 01:18:32 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.

[motores.com.py image 535x356]

I'm the one trolling? I recall a certain 9beers stating many, many times that Trayvon was an evil Negro demon that was seconds away from attacking and looting every house on that street and we should thank the Lord that the avenging knight Zimmerman was there to destroy the foul child of Satan before he could do his vicious deeds. And many of the people in here going "ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST ZIMMERMAN IS A REVERSE RACIST!" and "LOL WORSHIPING YOUR DEAD BLACK HERO, LIBTARDS!" were agreeing with him. And they're certainly still going at it right now.

Come on man, 9beers hasn't posted in months, and no one in here is coming close to saying "n*gger thugs deserved to be executed." Regardless of which side you're on, that's not helping.

Well, looks like I spoke to soon


Look through the posts and tell me there aren't people either saying Trayvon deserved to die, going off about racists and liberals, or both at the same time.
 
2012-12-04 01:18:45 AM
There is no way this will ever get a "fair" trial. If he walks, the supporters of Mr. Martin are going to scream injustice. If he's found guilty (which I doubt he will) the supporters of Zimmerman are going to scream the same. I see it probably a hung jury.
 
2012-12-04 01:19:38 AM

Mrbogey: Stop trying to impress with medical knowledge. That's not the the issue. You're arguing that post hoc knowledge should have been known during and prior. Zimmerman doesn't have to wait till his injuries are severe. The severity of Zimmerman's injuries post fight have absolutely dick to do with the legality of his response.

As it stands, his injuries are in line with the expected injuries of someone pinned down and getting struck in the face. To which it's legal in all 50 states to use lethal force in defense.


You were the one that wanted to pedantically argue what a "Distracting Injury" was, when I pointed out the photo of Zimmerman was nothing but an appeal to emotion. That was not an argument of "medical knowledge", that was an argument about your pedantry. As for "medical knowledge", you were the one that insinuated that a bag of ice can magically fix a swollen, broken nose in a space of less than two hours.

The entire argument is not that, if Zimmerman was being attacked, it wasn't a justified use of force. The entire argument is that Zimmerman's story is not corroborated by the evidence at hand. And if Zimmerman initiated the conflict himself by following or provoking Martin, then the claim of self defense does not apply, as it was Assault at that point.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. It makes you look like an idiot.

Mrbogey: No, it means everything with the defense is kosher. That's what defenses do. They act as PR agents as well as legal debaters in the court. Same as how Crumb and family released a pic of Trayvon from 5 years ago to try and paint the picture of a sweet mellow boy who never harmed anyone.


So releasing a photo intentionally meant to have Zimmerman's injuries appear worse than they actually were, and making a public appeal to emotion isn't a desperation move?

Mrbogey: So he injured himself directly before the fight? Because the eyewitnesses certainly didn't see him flailing his head into things afterwards.


You're either being willfully disingenuous, or you're someone with a learning disability that makes them unable to read. All it means is SOMETHING occurred. It doesn't illustrate the circumstances around how and why it occurred. Yet you're latching onto this as further proof of his story, when in reality it's neither proof of disproof.

Mrbogey: Uh huh... George tripped and Trayvon, being a good citizen, was helping him up. Uh huh.


people.virginia.edu

Remember what I said about putting words in my mouth, and you looking like an idiot?

It means that an altercation occurred. It doesn't illustrate the reasons behind it, or the actions during it any more than anything else. The only thing that would do that would be an actual eyewitness, or corroborating physical evidence. There is none of the first, and the second does not support his original story.

Mrbogey: Yes.. indeed. That's all you had to say. All the "buts" in the world don't matter. Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was in danger.


Actually they do. Because if, in reality, Zimmerman instigated the fight, it doesn't matter if he thought his life was in danger or not.

Mrbogey: Yes, but unlike the show CSI, it's not always picked up. Luckily Trayvon had bruised knuckles. Let me guess... Zimmerman stomped them to create the injury post death.


Remember how you said real life is not like CSI? Google Post-Mortem changes. Again, all it means is that a fight occured. It does not support Zimmerman's account of events.
 
2012-12-04 01:19:39 AM
JungleBoogie:
Fact: Two guys, keyed up for different reasons, stumbled into each other.
Fact: A fight breaks out.
Fact: Zimmerman was being beaten.
Fact: Zimmerman shot Martin.

Jim_Callahan: What you're describing is, quite literally, manslaughter. A fight that "gets out of hand" and results in a dead body is still a crime even if there is not a clear-cut single aggressor.


Actually, it depends on the state statutes. According to the homicide statues in Florida (located here - http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter782 ), there's something called "Excusable Homicide", which actually fits much more closely. It's left as an exercise to the readers to determine which is a better description of the incident.

Here's the "Excusable Homicide" statute - http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/782.03.

Here's the "Manslaughter" statute - http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/782.07


Added to forensic evidence, that pretty much shows Zimmerman's story of it totally being the other guy's fault to be complete shiate (intentionally or unintentionally) and we're back to him being liable enough for manslaughter.

This is simply not true.
 
2012-12-04 01:19:48 AM
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom

Come on man, 9beers hasn't posted in months, and no one in here is coming close to saying "n*gger thugs deserved to be executed." Regardless of which side you're on, that's not helping.

I'm guessing 9beers has been posting in this thread under his regular username I think he got tired of his alt.
 
2012-12-04 01:20:35 AM

s2s2s2: Karma Curmudgeon: Cool story, bro. How many stitches did Zimmerman need?

If only that was relevant to the moment in which he was sustaining repeated injuries, with no end in sight.
Perhaps Trayvon had told him?

"I'm just gonna scuff you up, and break your nose, ok? Let's not let this get out of hand. I'm a promising young athlete and I think we'd all like to see me lead the Canes back to prominence, we cool?"


If only he hadn't killed Trayvon so we could know more about what happened. But since Zimmerman is the only witness of any substance, and he's lied before...
 
2012-12-04 01:20:38 AM

WaffleStomper: There is no way this will ever get a "fair" trial. If he walks, the supporters of Mr. Martin are going to scream injustice. If he's found guilty (which I doubt he will) the supporters of Zimmerman are going to scream the same. I see it probably a hung jury.


The jury dynamics do favor Zimmerman. Even if 11 people go into deliberations bent on convicting, all it takes is 1 bent on acquitting to hang the jury.
 
2012-12-04 01:21:54 AM

Frank N Stein: Mrbogey: All you Trayvon supporters haters ONLY support hate him because he was a black youth killed by a non-black. You don't give a damn about black kids killed by other black kids. You don't care about anything except what you can latch onto to make YOURSELVES look good. This is why the majority of people laugh at you moronic Social Justice Warriors bigots. Your lives are pathetic and you need something to make it worthwhile. Just do the damn dishes and visit grandma at the rest home and stop latching onto the flavor of the month.

Well put How insane.

 
HBK
2012-12-04 01:23:20 AM

Abacus9: Frank N Stein: ohokyeah: Stalking is hostile behavior.

Just because you call it stalking doesn't mean that it falls within the legal definition of stalking. Just to let you know.

Except that he disobeyed police in order to follow the guy.


No, no he didn't. See upthread, this has already been explained. A dispatcher is a call center employee that makes $12/hour- not a cop. They have no authority. They're the same as a taxi dispatcher.
 
2012-12-04 01:23:32 AM

Amos Quito: He put a slug in a thug who was trying to beat his brains out.


Yet no DNA of Zimmerman's on Martin's hands, and Martins arms were under him when the police arrived.

Man oh man is your racism showing.

Thug!
 
2012-12-04 01:23:39 AM

Amos Quito: Karma Curmudgeon: Amos Quito: He put a slug in a thug who was trying to beat his brains out.

Amos Quito: You underestimate the orgasmic pleasure that asshat doo-gooders derive from calling someone else racists "racist".

/if the hoodie fits...


FTFY


//also, read NextChapter's links and learn something like how does the Martin's DNA not be on the weapon fired at point blank with Martin on top of Zimmerman? Not logical.


Why SHOULD it be logical that Martin's DNA would be on the gun? Was he naked?

No, he was clothed - wearing a HOODIE (among other things). Consider the laws of physics and get back to us. 


something something CROSS BURNING something


I think I see where you're coming from.

Thanks for that.


Why don't you actually READ the links before posting?! It might bring you half a step up from the 'DumbAss' category.

"Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear sight and the hammer."

The DNA evidence released by the prosecution two weeks ago revealed that Trayvon's DNA was not on Zimmerman's gun


If you have a rat's ass knowledge of science, in any shape, form or fashion, you might realize that if you have grabbed a gun so hard, that the other guy is stating, "Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun." You are going to have epithelial cells left behind on the gun. So, one more time, let's try this:

Zimmerman's statement, and what the evidence shows.
 
2012-12-04 01:24:24 AM

mittromneysdog: WaffleStomper: There is no way this will ever get a "fair" trial. If he walks, the supporters of Mr. Martin are going to scream injustice. If he's found guilty (which I doubt he will) the supporters of Zimmerman are going to scream the same. I see it probably a hung jury.

The jury dynamics do favor Zimmerman. Even if 11 people go into deliberations bent on convicting, all it takes is 1 bent on acquitting to hang the jury.


I thought Florida only needed 6 jurors. Could be wrong of course. That would make it harder for the defense for sure.
 
2012-12-04 01:24:58 AM

Mrbogey: BronyMedic: You, on the other hand, have stated in this very thread "The only reason people don't believe he's not guilty is because they're social justice white knights who think because he shot a black kid, he's guilty".

So? It's true.


Yeah. You keep farkin' that chicken.

people.virginia.edu

hypervocal.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

Mrbogey thinks only the REAL RACISTS would disagree with him, clearly.
 
2012-12-04 01:25:43 AM

Mrbogey: So? It's true.


No DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's hands. Martin's arms UNDER his body when the cops arrived.

But YOU know "the truth" and call others willfully ignorant...

Dude, just come out and say it: That n*gger deserved it, right?
 
2012-12-04 01:26:41 AM

mittromneysdog: the fact of your poor moral character


Nah, you got nothing there. Facts seems to be a concept that eludes you. It won't become a fact when you read the transcripts, nor when you listen to the audio. I read, and listened. They were facts when they happened. The fact that they are recorded, and you would, instead of availing yourself of them, continue to refer to "my moral character" isn't saying a damned thing about "my" moral character.

mittromneysdog: I'll grant, I haven't personally reviewed every document in the case file. But I do know that:

1) the prosecutor has alleged that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher advised him not to,

2) that the ethics of her profession require her to have a good faith basis for making such an allegation, and

3) that the only evidence to the contrary comes from Zimmerman, who has demonstrated a troubled relationship with the truth.


1) alleged ≠ fact

2) Duke rape case, Michael Morton conviction, so on, so forth (re: prosecutorial ethics) LOL. It's about conviction percentages, not ethics.

3) the evidence of which I speak comes from a recording not done by Zimmerman, nor trnascribed by Zimmerman.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don't need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:

George. He ran.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don't need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:

George. He ran.


Feel free to read the rest for yourself. I don't care if it changes your mind, but it will certainly help you understand the facts(as opposed to assumptions).
 
2012-12-04 01:27:52 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah:

Problem is, Zimmerman didn't believe that the police could do their duty, as his "These *expletive*s always get away" remark shows.



Aye, therein lies the rub.
 
2012-12-04 01:28:26 AM

s2s2s2: 911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don't need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:

George. He ran.


So what Florida Statute allows someone, who is not a law enforcement officer, not on his own property to pursue someone running from him?
 
2012-12-04 01:28:54 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If only he hadn't killed Trayvon so we could know more about what happened. But since Zimmerman is the only witness of any substance, and he's lied before...


Yeah, and since. Doesn't mean much.
 
2012-12-04 01:29:05 AM

mediablitz: Mrbogey: So? It's true.

No DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's hands. Martin's arms UNDER his body when the cops arrived.

But YOU know "the truth" and call others willfully ignorant...

Dude, just come out and say it: That n*gger deserved it, right?


Actually Zimmerman's DNA was on Martin's right hand, only his right hand. None on his hoodie or any other part of his body. That doesn't jive at all with Zimmerman's story of Martin sitting on him punching him, slamming his head into the ground and covering his mouth up.
 
2012-12-04 01:30:44 AM

mediablitz: No DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's hands. Martin's arms UNDER his body when the cops arrived.


Yeah, no one that has just been shot in the front has ever put their hands near the wound, then fallen on them. Great detectiving.

BronyMedic: So what Florida Statute allows someone, who is not a law enforcement officer, not on his own property to pursue someone running from him?


Even better: What law forbids it?
 
HBK
2012-12-04 01:30:55 AM

s2s2s2: 2) Duke rape case, Michael Morton conviction, so on, so forth (re: prosecutorial ethics) LOL. It's about conviction percentages, not ethics.


It's not usually about conviction percentages.

Your other instinct was better. This case is going forward because of the media pressure rather than the facts of the case. It's why they re-hired a prosecutor they already fired once- so they can refire her when she loses.

What happened to who and when are not clear from the evidence. Who initiated the assault may never be proven. What will be clear by the end of all this, however, is how poorly drafted Florida's SYG statute is.
 
2012-12-04 01:31:10 AM

BronyMedic: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Everyone realizes twayvon was a criminal right? I'm not saying gz was brilliant or anything but he definitely had legal and moral right to kill tway tway.

Getting popped with a dime bag makes someone a hardened, violent criminal worth being shot in the chest?

I see you're posting from Delaware. I would have thought Beijing, Myself.


He was serving a suspension for beating a bus driver and he's dead because he beat an armed citizen.
 
2012-12-04 01:31:41 AM

s2s2s2: Karma Curmudgeon: Cool story, bro. How many stitches did Zimmerman need?

If only that was relevant to the moment in which he was sustaining repeated injuries, with no end in sight.
Perhaps Trayvon had told him?

"I'm just gonna scuff you up, and break your nose, ok? Let's not let this get out of hand. I'm a promising young athlete and I think we'd all like to see me lead the Canes back to prominence, we cool?"


That's a lot of deflection for '0'. Maybe Martin would still be alive if everyday hero George Zimmerman wasn't such a pussy he could actually take a punch from the 17 year old kid he was tailing for no frkking reason.

Zimmerman's story does not add up. Not in common sense and not in the forensics. So yes you can say we don't know what really happened, which is true. But of what we DO KNOW what happened, none of that makes what Zimmmerman did, defensible.

/but keep trying, I'm going to bed
 
2012-12-04 01:32:04 AM

s2s2s2: Keizer_Ghidorah: If only he hadn't killed Trayvon so we could know more about what happened. But since Zimmerman is the only witness of any substance, and he's lied before...

Yeah, and since. Doesn't mean much.


Hey, when the only person who was there and survived won't tell the truth, you have to reconstruct it from other means and sources.
 
2012-12-04 01:32:41 AM

ongbok: Actually Zimmerman's DNA was on Martin's right hand, only his right hand. None on his hoodie or any other part of his body. That doesn't jive at all with Zimmerman's story of Martin sitting on him punching him, slamming his head into the ground and covering his mouth up


And the absence of it on his left hand proves nothing, nor does it disprove anything.
 
2012-12-04 01:32:44 AM

s2s2s2: Even better: What law forbids it?


I think that was my point. He had no legal right to pursue someone who was on private property just because "He didn't know him". The fact that he was chasing after Martin in and of its self, after following Martin in his vehicle and after he ran (Personally, if I realized someone was following me in a vehicle, I'd run too. -I'D- Be in fear of my life at that point.) goes towards his mentality and motive.

He was a wannabe-wacker who thought he was a cop, and wasn't willing to allow the police to do the job they were intended for.
 
2012-12-04 01:33:23 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: BronyMedic: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Everyone realizes twayvon was a criminal right? I'm not saying gz was brilliant or anything but he definitely had legal and moral right to kill tway tway.

Getting popped with a dime bag makes someone a hardened, violent criminal worth being shot in the chest?

I see you're posting from Delaware. I would have thought Beijing, Myself.

He was serving a suspension for beating a bus driver and he's dead because he beat an armed citizen.


Since you know so much about what happened, maybe you should testify.
 
2012-12-04 01:33:50 AM

HBK: What will be clear by the end of all this, however, is how poorly drafted Florida's SYG statute is.


Perhaps.

I am in total agreement with the unquoted portion of your response to me.
 
2012-12-04 01:34:29 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: He was serving a suspension for beating a bus driver and he's dead because he beat an armed citizen.


So he deserved to die because he got in a fight on the bus?

Something no other teenager that has turned out to be anything but a gangbanging thug has done, right?

Just like smoking pot makes him a hardened, violent criminal?

And he's dead because - well, we really don't know what happened. We have Zimmerman's word (Which we've already seen how much that's worth), and a lot of circumstantial evidence leading up to the gunshot.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 01:35:31 AM

BronyMedic: s2s2s2: Even better: What law forbids it?

I think that was my point. He had no legal right to pursue someone who was on private property just because "He didn't know him". The fact that he was chasing after Martin in and of its self, after following Martin in his vehicle and after he ran (Personally, if I realized someone was following me in a vehicle, I'd run too. -I'D- Be in fear of my life at that point.) goes towards his mentality and motive.

He was a wannabe-wacker who thought he was a cop, and wasn't willing to allow the police to do the job they were intended for.



That actually did the opposite of proving your point. You have the right to do anything that's not illegal.
 
2012-12-04 01:35:49 AM
Trayvon Martin was a thug who got exactly what was coming to him. Period.
 
2012-12-04 01:36:29 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: won't tell the truth


...about some other shiat, we can assume what we want!

fair enough.

BronyMedic: He had no legal right to pursue someone


No, the point was that there is no law preventing him from having done so, therefore, he has the right to follow someone. I mean, the dispatcher DID ask him to observe and report any changes in Trayvon's actions/location. Maybe if the dispatcher had EVER been clear on exactly what they wanted George to do....
 
2012-12-04 01:37:03 AM

Mrbogey: Abacus9: Except that he disobeyed police in order to follow the guy.

Here's some advice.

These are not cops:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 261x385]
[www.smokeybear.com image 280x179]


I wasn't talking about Zimmerman, who wasn't even 'neighborhood watch'. I was referring to his call to the police.
/Observe and Report
 
2012-12-04 01:37:18 AM
Are they charging him with murder 1, 2 or manslaughter. I haven't payed that much attention to the case. Maybe someone could tell me.
 
2012-12-04 01:38:13 AM

BoobySnacks: Trayvon Martin was a thug who got exactly what was coming to him. Period.


Aren't you a little late to be trying this level of trolling?
 
2012-12-04 01:38:57 AM

HBK: That actually did the opposite of proving your point. You have the right to do anything that's not illegal.


Uh, actually no. According to Florida Law, it's a big deal when you've just killed someone.

782.11Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.-Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.-s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136.


Zimmerman stated himself that he was following Martin because he thought he was going to commit a crime.

And, look at this:

782.02Justifiable use of deadly force.-The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.
 
2012-12-04 01:39:01 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Are they charging him with murder 1, 2 or manslaughter. I haven't payed that much attention to the case. Maybe someone could tell me.


2nd degree murder
 
2012-12-04 01:39:53 AM
Oh, what if.............!

thegrio.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-04 01:40:00 AM

BronyMedic: So he deserved to die


Deserved is a tricky word. If a really really nice man walks up to a light socket, and sticks his wet finger in it to check for a current, I wouldn't say he deserved to die, but it WOULD be his fault for making a bad decision.

I don't know what happened after the 911 call ended, aside from Z got injured, and M got shot. It is a tragedy, no matter how you slice it, or who is telling the truth.
 
2012-12-04 01:41:08 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bigdogdaddy: Are they charging him with murder 1, 2 or manslaughter. I haven't payed that much attention to the case. Maybe someone could tell me.

2nd degree murder


Kthanx
 
2012-12-04 01:42:51 AM

Matthew Keene: Oh, what if.............!

[thegrio.files.wordpress.com image 487x365]


No trial. Zim-zim would have been shot while "resisting arrest."
 
HBK
2012-12-04 01:42:53 AM

BronyMedic: HBK: That actually did the opposite of proving your point. You have the right to do anything that's not illegal.

Uh, actually no. According to Florida Law, it's a big deal when you've just killed someone.

782.11Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.-Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.-s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136.

Zimmerman stated himself that he was following Martin because he thought he was going to commit a crime.

And, look at this:

782.02Justifiable use of deadly force.-The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.


What do either of those statutes have to do with following someone who's suspicious? How is it "a big deal?"
 
2012-12-04 01:43:08 AM

BronyMedic: unnecessarily kill another


this statute is trumped by

BronyMedic: The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him


George claims he was resisting a felony being committed upon himself.
 
2012-12-04 01:43:19 AM
I love these threads. I always get to Red5 the race-baiting FARKers. Always interesting to compare them with posts in other threads when you know who to look for.

s2s2s2: Deserved is a tricky word. If a really really nice man walks up to a light socket, and sticks his wet finger in it to check for a current, I wouldn't say he deserved to die, but it WOULD be his fault for making a bad decision.


So he deserved to die because he was a teenager who smoked pot, and because he got on a fight on the bus? This made him a violent, hardened criminal?

That was the inferring of that poster I responded to.
 
2012-12-04 01:43:50 AM

Matthew Keene: Oh, what if.............!

[thegrio.files.wordpress.com image 487x365]


Hey, why does George look so innocent in that picture?!
 
2012-12-04 01:45:38 AM

s2s2s2: mediablitz: No DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's hands. Martin's arms UNDER his body when the cops arrived.

Yeah, no one that has just been shot in the front has ever put their hands near the wound, then fallen on them. Great detectiving.

BronyMedic: So what Florida Statute allows someone, who is not a law enforcement officer, not on his own property to pursue someone running from him?

Even better: What law forbids it?




Actually Zimmerman claims that after he fired his gun Martin sat up and said you got me. Zimmerman then claims that he didn't know he shot Martin and got up and restrained him with Martin's arms out until the police got there. He explains this starting at 5:54

He even claims that there was a witness who came outside and saw this, and another one that came outside and saw martin pounding his head into the ground and told him he was going to call the police. All of this we know is not true because Martin was found with on his stomach with his arms under him, and we also know that none of the witnesses have claimed to have talked to Zimmerman during the confrontation.
 
2012-12-04 01:49:46 AM
Um, what?


BronyMedic: So he deserved to die because he was a teenager who smoked pot, and because he got on a fight on the bus? This made him a violent, hardened criminal?


s2s2s2: I don't know what happened after the 911 call ended, aside from Z got injured, and M got shot. It is a tragedy, no matter how you slice it, or who is telling the truth.



I certainly don't think pot use is relevant, unless the lies george said are relevant to whether or not he was being beaten when he shot the martin. If one guy is likely guilty because he has lied about stuff, then why isn't the other guy potentially guilty of kicking ass for being a "plays by his own rules" kinda guy?

I think both points are worthless. George's lies about money have little bearing on the events of the evening in question. Just like Martin's past infractions with weed have little bearing on the violence he is accused of by george. I don't even know if that bus driver thing is true.
 
2012-12-04 02:00:48 AM

Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.


that wins the award for herpiest derp of the thread. for him to get a broken nose from the recoil of the gun he would have had to fire it with his tongue while holding the butt of the gun with his teeth. I know you're the gun expert but that is not the standard firing stance for a handgun. even if there was a struggle for the gun and it went off near his face there would be a cartoonish black smudge all over his cheek from the flash, or maybe a semi-circle from the shell casing burning him.


and as for "HURRR NO BLOOD ON TRAYVONS HANDS" you need to know that the first few punches to the face won't splatter blood everywhere like a Gallagher show, in fact the swelling in the nose would stop most of the bleeding because of the compressed blood vessels. as the swelling goes down the vessels open up and pour wherever gravity tells them to. and for everyone wharblegarbleing about his miraculous healing in two hours, most of the damage in the bloodied picture is his swollen nose. two hours of an ice pack with q-tips in the nostrils will bring the swelling down and stop the bleeding.

from the new picture: nose probably not broken, no major bruising around the eyes that usually accompanies a broken nose/septum.
 
2012-12-04 02:00:55 AM

ongbok: He even claims


No chance Martin could have withdrawn his arms with his remaining energy? Continued nervous reactions? Could having been through a traumatic even messed with Zimm's recall?

Inquiring minds... Listening now.

Man, Zimm sounds out of breath just walking. ;)

"I don't remember exactly"

As to the lack of DNA on Martin's left hand. I wonder if that hoodie was one of the fashionably loose ones that could have covered his left hand when he was grabbing at George. Was any of Zimm's DNA found on the sleeve of Martin's hoodie?

"Stain E" on the jacket showed the presence of "at least two individuals." The major contributor was Zimmerman. The profile of the minor contributor "could not be determined."

"Stain N" showed the presence of "at least two individuals." Zimmerman was the major contributor. The "partial minor DNA profile match" was that of Trayvon.

"Stain U" showed the presence of "at least two individuals." Trayvon is "a possible contributor" to the DNA mix. But "no determination" could be made about the "possible contribution" of Zimmerman to the DNA profile.

Source article is skeptical of Zimmerman's story

Some of the DNA was not determinable. The DNA issue isn't a strong one for the prosecution.
 
2012-12-04 02:07:51 AM

s2s2s2: ongbok: He even claims

No chance Martin could have withdrawn his arms with his remaining energy? Continued nervous reactions? Could having been through a traumatic even messed with Zimm's recall?

Inquiring minds... Listening now.

Man, Zimm sounds out of breath just walking. ;)

"I don't remember exactly"

As to the lack of DNA on Martin's left hand. I wonder if that hoodie was one of the fashionably loose ones that could have covered his left hand when he was grabbing at George. Was any of Zimm's DNA found on the sleeve of Martin's hoodie?

"Stain E" on the jacket showed the presence of "at least two individuals." The major contributor was Zimmerman. The profile of the minor contributor "could not be determined."

"Stain N" showed the presence of "at least two individuals." Zimmerman was the major contributor. The "partial minor DNA profile match" was that of Trayvon.

"Stain U" showed the presence of "at least two individuals." Trayvon is "a possible contributor" to the DNA mix. But "no determination" could be made about the "possible contribution" of Zimmerman to the DNA profile.

Source article is skeptical of Zimmerman's story

Some of the DNA was not determinable. The DNA issue isn't a strong one for the prosecution.


If you read the article you would have read that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on the hoodie. Zimmerman's DNA was only found on Martin's right hand. It is kind of hard to cover a persons nose and mouth and not get their DNA on you.
 
2012-12-04 02:09:28 AM
Damn Zimmerman and his addiction to Skittles!
 
2012-12-04 02:11:00 AM

TheHappyCanadian: Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

that wins the award for herpiest derp of the thread. for him to get a broken nose from the recoil of the gun he would have had to fire it with his tongue while holding the butt of the gun with his teeth. I know you're the gun expert but that is not the standard firing stance for a handgun. even if there was a struggle for the gun and it went off near his face there would be a cartoonish black smudge all over his cheek from the flash, or maybe a semi-circle from the shell casing burning him.


and as for "HURRR NO BLOOD ON TRAYVONS HANDS" you need to know that the first few punches to the face won't splatter blood everywhere like a Gallagher show, in fact the swelling in the nose would stop most of the bleeding because of the compressed blood vessels. as the swelling goes down the vessels open up and pour wherever gravity tells them to. and for everyone wharblegarbleing about his miraculous healing in two hours, most of the damage in the bloodied picture is his swollen nose. two hours of an ice pack with q-tips in the nostrils will bring the swelling down and stop the bleeding.

from the new picture: nose probably not broken, no major bruising around the eyes that usually accompanies a broken nose/septum.


He had Zimmerman's blood on his right hand. The thing that contradicts Zimmerman's story is the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found anywhere on Martin except for his right hand. Now tell me how can you cover a person's nose and mouth, like Zimmerman claims happened to him, without getting any of the persons DNA on you or your clothes? Or have this epic battle for your life and only leave your DNA on one of their hands?
 
2012-12-04 02:11:46 AM

ongbok: If you read the article you would have read that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on the hoodie. Zimmerman's DNA was only found on Martin's right hand. It is kind of hard to cover a persons nose and mouth and not get their DNA on you.


But not impossible. It is also CLEARLY possible to get DNA on someone's jacket, and the majority of it not be identifiable, like on George's jacket.

47 stains with potentially 5 different people's DNA on it and only a few were identifiable = the lack of identifiable DNA is a weak case.
 
2012-12-04 02:13:17 AM

ongbok: Now tell me how


Because maybe it was there, they just couldn't identify it?
 
HBK
2012-12-04 02:13:45 AM

ongbok: He had Zimmerman's blood on his right hand. The thing that contradicts Zimmerman's story is the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found anywhere on Martin except for his right hand. Now tell me how can you cover a person's nose and mouth, like Zimmerman claims happened to him, without getting any of the persons DNA on you or your clothes? Or have this epic battle for your life and only leave your DNA on one of their hands?


Have you ever covered someone's nose and mouth? It only takes one hand.
 
2012-12-04 02:15:55 AM

HBK: Abacus9: Frank N Stein: ohokyeah: Stalking is hostile behavior.

Just because you call it stalking doesn't mean that it falls within the legal definition of stalking. Just to let you know.

Except that he disobeyed police in order to follow the guy.

No, no he didn't. See upthread, this has already been explained. A dispatcher is a call center employee that makes $12/hour- not a cop. They have no authority. They're the same as a taxi dispatcher.


The dispatcher was speaking on behalf of the cops, whether he himself had the authoritah or not.
 
2012-12-04 02:19:44 AM
Summary of DNA and GSR Evidence*

1. Trayvon Martin's shirt (ME-8)

Four stains tested positive for blood. Trayvon Martin is the source of two stains. George Zimmerman is the source for another and the fourth stain is a mixed sample containing DNA from both individuals.

2. Trayvon Martin's hoodie (ME 12)

Two stains test positive for blood. Trayvon is the source of one and no DNA result on the other.

4. George Zimmerman's shirt (DMS-16) and jacket (DMS-19).

Thirteen bloodstains on the jacket contain Zimmerman's DNA. Trayvon Martin's DNA is present in four of them (mixed samples) and his DNA was detected in one mixed sample where the other contributor could not be identifies.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 02:21:42 AM

Abacus9: The dispatcher was speaking on behalf of the cops, whether he himself had the authoritah or not.


That's not how it works.
 
2012-12-04 02:25:21 AM
Poor baby. He still killed a kid. Put him in general pop
 
2012-12-04 02:27:11 AM
Where I live, the dispatcher is a cop

/Most of the time
 
2012-12-04 02:27:44 AM

Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.


And a broken farking nose?! Look at that photo again - motherfarker's nose is broken!

Now, I have fired every gun there is. The only one that had enough recoil to make me think twice was a .357 handcannon my granddad had me fire when I was TWELVE. Because I had a proper grip, the recoil sent my spindly little twelve year old arms up over my head. The second time I fired, I was better prepared and the recoil only took my arms up about six inches. No other weapon I have ever fired - including a Desert Eagle - has ever done that since. Assuming that since Zimmerman had a concealed-carry license and was former military, he had at least some small idea how to handle a pistol, and was not doing the gangbanger Hollywood special, it's highly unlikely the recoil caused that shiat.

Having said that, I wasn't there to witness whether there was a fistfight between Zimmerman and Martin or Zimmerman's injuries were caused by other means, but rather than villify either man while this plays out in the media, I think I'll wait for the trial and see what the actual evidence is. I do find it terribly interesting, though, that the press runs headlines like "Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer released" rather than the more neutral and less prejudicial and inflammatory "New evidence/photo in Zimmerman case released." It's almost as if they've come to a conclusion based on the race of the two men involved! Don't know about FL, but around here, blacks and Mexicans are very much racist towards each other - more so than either are towards whites, and far, FAR more than whites are towards either group. It's been that way most places I've lived. You think maybe the press could be race baiting a little bit?

You think maybe some people are so eager to be "socially just" that they don't give a fark about the circumstances, they only care about "OMG, he had a guy and shot a black kid!"

Zimmerman had a gun (legally licensed and registered), was part of a neighborhood watch, and saw a guy he didn't recognize late at night in the neighborhood (he didn't give the guy's color until ASKED BY THE 911 DISPATCHER, despite what the doctored audio tapes stated. Several people were disciplined for that doctored audio tape)? News flash -- I was out smoking last night at 1 am, saw a black teenager in a hoodie that I didn't recognize as belonging in the neighborhood walking down the street, and I kept my eye on him until he was out of the neighborhood. I've done the same thing to white teenagers in hoodies at 1am who don't belong in the neighborhood. Get a farking grip and wait for the actual evidence, not the bullshiat the press spoonfeeds you. I swear, if 90% of you were in the courtroom, the trial would be more like "bring the guilty son of a biatch in here and let's give him a fair trial" than an actual court proceeding. I pray none of you ever needs a fair trial because karma is a real biatch.
 
2012-12-04 02:30:21 AM
One person walked to the store for Skittles and a bottle of tea... One person was driving around with a gun looking for trouble.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 02:37:00 AM

technicolor-misfit: One person walked to the store for Skittles and a bottle of tea... One person was driving around with a gun looking for trouble.


One person attacked a stranger... one person had to shoot a man to save his own life.
 
2012-12-04 02:39:10 AM

HBK: Abacus9: The dispatcher was speaking on behalf of the cops, whether he himself had the authoritah or not.

That's not how it works.


Then what is the point of telling him not to follow Martin if they have no authority to say so?
 
HBK
2012-12-04 02:41:20 AM

Abacus9: HBK: Abacus9: The dispatcher was speaking on behalf of the cops, whether he himself had the authoritah or not.

That's not how it works.

Then what is the point of telling him not to follow Martin if they have no authority to say so?


CYA for when shiat like this happens.

People tell you to do stuff all the time that they have no authority to tell you. Like the receipt checkers at Walmart.
 
2012-12-04 02:48:38 AM

EnderX: Remember everyone, if you agree that zimmerman had cause to defend himself, your a Racist. Now I hope nobody overreacts like Trayvon.


Well several pro Zimmerman twats on here would instead be calling for his head if Trayvon was a white kid. You can practically smell their distaste for black people in their posts and that's the only thing keeping them on zimmerman's side. Go ahead. Try to play it off as a joke, but a racist is a racist and they out themselves through their own hatred. How can you stick up for a man that killed a kid that was minding his own business and walking home? Zimmerman man followed him, lost him, found him, got out of his car and confronted Trayvon for no reason. Zimmerman was told to stop following Trayvon and to go home, but he didn't listen.

Zimmerman is a hot headed murderer. He was looking to play hero cop no matter the consequences. Well here you go.

How the fark can you defend that? Oh, that's right. Trayvon was black so he must have been up to no good and deserved to be murdered. If he was a white kid named Brian it would allllll be different.
 
2012-12-04 02:49:31 AM

Abacus9: HBK: Abacus9: The dispatcher was speaking on behalf of the cops, whether he himself had the authoritah or not.

That's not how it works.

Then what is the point of telling him not to follow Martin if they have no authority to say so?


What they said was, "we don't need you to do that."

That's not even authoritative, in keeping with the dispatcher's having no authority.
 
2012-12-04 02:51:13 AM

HBK: Abacus9: HBK: Abacus9: The dispatcher was speaking on behalf of the cops, whether he himself had the authoritah or not.

That's not how it works.

Then what is the point of telling him not to follow Martin if they have no authority to say so?

CYA for when shiat like this happens.

People tell you to do stuff all the time that they have no authority to tell you. Like the receipt checkers at Walmart.


Receipt checkers at Walmart have the authority to permaban you from Walmart if you don't show your receipt when asked.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 02:54:31 AM

Abacus9:

Receipt checkers at Walmart have the authority to permaban you from Walmart if you don't show your receipt when asked.


that sounds like an urban legend. I honestly don't know if that's a store policy because I haven't been to a Walmart in 6 years. But I know Fry's doesn't ban you and they have ZERO authority to detain you if you refuse. If you refuse and they detain you, YOU can sue them.
 
2012-12-04 02:54:49 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing in no way justifies getting beat up. Trayvon jumped the gun and paid the price for it. He could have said "hey stay away!" or anything verbal to diffuse a situation but instead chose to attack. That's not self defense. You can't sanely argue that.

/bring on the racism.


How the holy fark do you know that that's what happened???
 
2012-12-04 02:56:58 AM

BronyMedic: Getting popped with a dime bag makes someone a hardened, violent criminal worth being shot in the chest?

I see you're posting from Delaware. I would have thought Beijing, Myself.


I think it's pretty clear that one's a farking troll. Please label it as such for future reference.
 
2012-12-04 03:00:12 AM

johne3819: Where I live, the dispatcher is a cop

/Most of the time


They may not be a cop/sheriff deputy on the street with a gun but in most places dispatchers fall under the category of "LEO" and most centrally have the authority tell you what to do.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 03:02:17 AM

Phoenix_M: johne3819: Where I live, the dispatcher is a cop

/Most of the time

They may not be a cop/sheriff deputy on the street with a gun but in most places dispatchers fall under the category of "LEO" and most centrally have the authority tell you what to do.


Pretty much the same authority as the janitor at the police station has to ask you to flush the toilet.
 
2012-12-04 03:09:20 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?

To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.


I don't agree. Zimmerman was playing cop and with his behavior then and in the past, something like this was bound to happen. He wanted to play hero and it took him killing an innocent 17 year old kid to play out his fantasy.
So an innocent kid had to pay with his life because Zimmerman has major issues and wanted to play hero and live out a fantasy in his own mind? Seriously?
 
2012-12-04 03:10:47 AM
I still don't understand why the cop wannabe thought he had any right to stop the kid and ask what he was doing there, to start with. You just don't do that, I don't care how scared and paranoid of robbers you are. That person has as much right to be there and be unquestioned as you do, unless they prove otherwise. Or you're in a top secret facility and they've just morphed into human form from a silver goo. Then you can ask what they're up to, but politely.

I wonder if Zimmerman was polite and courteous when he stopped the kid. He should have been, if out of good manners rather than inherent respect. "Excuse me Sir," and all that.
 
2012-12-04 03:10:59 AM

HBK: Abacus9:

Receipt checkers at Walmart have the authority to permaban you from Walmart if you don't show your receipt when asked.

that sounds like an urban legend. I honestly don't know if that's a store policy because I haven't been to a Walmart in 6 years. But I know Fry's doesn't ban you and they have ZERO authority to detain you if you refuse. If you refuse and they detain you, YOU can sue them.


Absolutely. They have no right to detain you and you can sue them if they try. But they also have the right to refuse service to you ever again, just as if you bounce a check and they put your picture on the wall. They do have the authority to kick you out, permanently. Just as police dispatch has the authority to tell you to stay put until police arrive, so as not to make a potential situation worse.
 
2012-12-04 03:14:03 AM
Don't ask black people questions. They chimp out at any perceived slight no matter how asinine.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 03:15:29 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?

To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.


Varies by jurisdiction. Check your local laws. For example, my local laws say:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

So, if someone is walking away with your property in TX, you can use force to recover it. So you would be allowed to tackle that person. BUT, deadly force is a different story. So you probably cannot shoot someone in the back after they rob you.
 
2012-12-04 03:22:14 AM
This is funny. The gz is innocent team argues that the facts are facts. The tway team argues that vague speculation trumps facts therefore racism. Hilarious.
 
2012-12-04 03:24:39 AM

Mrbogey: ongbok: According to Zimmerman he didn't ask him a question. According to Zimmerman he never confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Trayvon attacked him from behind while he was looking at street signs trying to figure out what street he was on.

You forgot the asterisk. You know the "not intended to be a factual statement" one.Frank N Stein: Just because you call it stalking doesn't mean that it falls within the legal definition of stalking. Just to let you know.

I think America's problem with idiots could be easily solved if they acted on their legal beliefs here. Go on and try and assault people who are following you. Let's see how that court case is going to go.

El Morro: That's not even a broken nose. Or if it is, the man has "Wolverine" level healing abilities.

Uh huh... You get your doctorate in video medical diagnosis? I think "internet doctor" makes "internet lawyer" look like a genius.


Apparently he got his doctorate the same place you got yours. You're mocking someone but yet you're doing the exact same thing you're mocking him for.

He's not a doctor and neither the fark are you. STFU.
 
2012-12-04 03:28:54 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: This is funny. The gz is innocent team argues that the facts are facts. The tway team argues that vague speculation trumps facts therefore racism. Hilarious.


Fact 1: Zimmerman observes Martin and totally overreacts by calling police.
Fact 2: Police dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him, that they will take care of the situation (if one exists).
Fact 3: Zimmerman decides to follow Martin anyway.
Fact 4: ???
Fact 5: Zimmerman shoots Martin to death.

The only vague speculation here is what happened after Zimmerman followed Martin and before Zimmerman shot him. Based on facts 1 through 3, it doesn't really matter. It was clearly murder.
 
2012-12-04 03:32:29 AM

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


And you'd know because you were there. Oh, wait...
 
2012-12-04 03:34:20 AM
I just sent a grand to his legal defense fund.

Maybe if you guys work a double at Starbucks you could send a hundy to the Prosecutors.
 
2012-12-04 03:34:42 AM
I love how all the Zimmerman attackers went from screeching that it was all a bald faced lie and that he was never even even been hit to... Admitting they were wrong and with holding judgement until later... Oh who am I kidding? They took one look in the mirror and then howled in rage that their forehead wasn't large enough to accommodate a larger size font of the world "FOOL" before going back to their computers to scream some more because they think they have a point.

And they don't.
 
HBK
2012-12-04 03:38:13 AM

Abacus9: The only vague speculation here is what happened after Zimmerman followed Martin and before Zimmerman shot him. Based on facts 1 through 3, it doesn't really matter. It was clearly murder.


That's not really how the law works. You can ask somebody their business. Asking someone their business isn't grounds for someone to physically assault you. If someone attacks you, you can protect yourself.

If what Zimmerman says is true, this is not murder. And, it seems more likely than not that what Zimmerman said is probably mostly true, embellished, but mostly true. If, however, Zimerman restrained the kid and the kid punched him, then yes, Zimmerman is a murderer.
 
2012-12-04 03:47:02 AM
Zimmerman get attacked from behind and kills the attacker? Good. No pity here for dead trash
 
2012-12-04 03:48:00 AM

Sherman Potter: I just sent a grand to his legal defense fund.

Maybe if you guys work a double at Starbucks you could send a hundy to the Prosecutors.


So you're suggesting we should be more bootstrappy to make more money? Unlike Zimmerman, who needs to beg for money from people like you?
 
2012-12-04 03:48:01 AM
I dont CARE if he is innocent or guilty (well, I do, but it doesent enter into this point). The media is guilty here. Someone in the MEDIA needs to go to prison.

Trying to sensationalize a news story is one thing, but to handle the pictures and assumptions the way BOTH sides did in this case, with impact to ANY potential juror, with no other reason but to stir people up is criminal.
 
2012-12-04 03:51:50 AM

HBK: Abacus9: The only vague speculation here is what happened after Zimmerman followed Martin and before Zimmerman shot him. Based on facts 1 through 3, it doesn't really matter. It was clearly murder.

That's not really how the law works. You can ask somebody their business. Asking someone their business isn't grounds for someone to physically assault you. If someone attacks you, you can protect yourself.

If what Zimmerman says is true, this is not murder. And, it seems more likely than not that what Zimmerman said is probably mostly true, embellished, but mostly true. If, however, Zimerman restrained the kid and the kid punched him, then yes, Zimmerman is a murderer.


No, you're really not allowed to follow and harass people on a public street especially minors.
/admit it HBK you're 9beers.
 
2012-12-04 03:53:42 AM

BronyMedic: I love these threads. I always get to Red5 the race-baiting FARKers. Always interesting to compare them with posts in other threads when you know who to look for.


I just go through these threads and flat out ignore those folks. Why even bother?
 
HBK
2012-12-04 03:54:53 AM

borg: No, you're really not allowed to follow and harass people on a public street especially minors.
/admit it HBK you're 9beers.


Show me a single law that says that and I will agree with you. And what is this "harassing?" When did that get added to the narrative?

/not 9beers, that guy's a tad wacky. I'm objective about the facts.
 
2012-12-04 03:55:00 AM

HBK: Abacus9: The only vague speculation here is what happened after Zimmerman followed Martin and before Zimmerman shot him. Based on facts 1 through 3, it doesn't really matter. It was clearly murder.

That's not really how the law works. You can ask somebody their business. Asking someone their business isn't grounds for someone to physically assault you. If someone attacks you, you can protect yourself.

If what Zimmerman says is true, this is not murder. And, it seems more likely than not that what Zimmerman said is probably mostly true, embellished, but mostly true. If, however, Zimerman restrained the kid and the kid punched him, then yes, Zimmerman is a murderer.


It just doesn't make sense that someone shoots an unarmed person and tries to claim self-defense. Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.
 
2012-12-04 04:11:13 AM

HBK: borg: No, you're really not allowed to follow and harass people on a public street especially minors.
/admit it HBK you're 9beers.

Show me a single law that says that and I will agree with you. And what is this "harassing?" When did that get added to the narrative?

/not 9beers, that guy's a tad wacky. I'm objective about the facts.


Really? you think there's no laws against following and harassing people on a public street? really?? and you think it's ok to harass minors on the street? really??
 
HBK
2012-12-04 04:13:57 AM

borg: HBK: borg: No, you're really not allowed to follow and harass people on a public street especially minors.
/admit it HBK you're 9beers.

Show me a single law that says that and I will agree with you. And what is this "harassing?" When did that get added to the narrative?

/not 9beers, that guy's a tad wacky. I'm objective about the facts.

Really? you think there's no laws against following and harassing people on a public street? really?? and you think it's ok to harass minors on the street? really??


You made the contention that it's illegal. You prove it. And where is the "harassing" coming from? You are allowed to talk to strangers, even ask them questions.
 
2012-12-04 04:24:21 AM
hasn't Darwin already handed down his ruling on this case?
 
2012-12-04 04:34:50 AM
I think the only thing I've been convinced of so far is that there needs to be an intelligence test before any of you are allowed to vote. Seriously, some of you are so pants-droppingly retarded that I'm expecting to see crayon-friendly, droolproof ballot forms in the next decade or so. The best arguments are coming from "wait for all the evidence" camp; everyone else is speculating.

This isn't even a fun drinking game anymore. Shuddup and wait for the goddamn trial.

/Or find some way to turn this into a thread about cheerleaders or something. That's a good plan B.
//Plan B should always involve cheerleaders.
 
2012-12-04 04:41:30 AM
Most of the comments on fark have been of the let's hang Zimmerman type. What's going to happen when he is found not guilty?
 
2012-12-04 04:59:18 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: What's going to happen when he is found not guilty?


there will be riots that will make Black Friday look like Cyber Monday.
 
2012-12-04 05:00:32 AM

ohokyeah: Zimmerman was initially just following Martin but it devolved into stalking, and Zimmerman was told by dispatchers to not pursue Martin, but to instead wait for the police. Zimmerman is the aggressor because he was being a stalker and confronted Martin. If a guy was following me around in his truck and then on foot and started interrogating me, I'd feel threatened too.

Whether or not the kid physically struck first or Zimmerman was in mortal danger from the fight, Zimmerman was the first one being aggressive in his behavior. It was Martin who lost the fight, but Zimmerman who really triggered the fight.

Had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's instructions and waited for the police to arrive, Martin would probably be alive still, Zimmerman would feel a bit stupid because he would find out he'd been following a kid with Skittles and tea, but no one would be hurt. Zimmerman might still be up on stalking charges, but certainly not murder.

Stalking is hostile behavior.


Stalking isn't following someone one time. Stalking is a criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person
 
2012-12-04 06:02:41 AM
I cant wait for the TV trial of this case and the corresponding live Fark threads.
 
2012-12-04 06:20:21 AM
The reaction of someone when being followed by an obvious threat wouldn't be to get into a fist fight with that person. Most people would run towards safety or intentionally keep their distance.
Since a lengthy chase scene didn't ensue: I'm thinking that Trayvon wanted to rough Zimmerman up real good to prove a point, and all he proved was that attacking strangers is a bad idea.

All these photos prove is that he got a few licks in before the punch line.

/yea, Martin was just a kid.
/kids are stupid sometimes.
 
2012-12-04 07:12:36 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?

To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.


Incorrect. In certain states you can use deadly force to retrieve your property. We had a 'tard get shot in the back of the head running away with a gentleman's Iphone a couple of years ago in San Antonio. If the only reasonable expectation you have of recovering your property is to kill them, then you should have every right to do so.

How about people just stop taking other peoples shiat and expecting to live through it?
 
2012-12-04 07:15:08 AM
Clearly, injury = innocence.

Nice job, defense.
 
2012-12-04 07:27:01 AM

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Of course he did. He just didn't exercise it.
 
2012-12-04 07:28:01 AM

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Well he should have just called the cops or walked away to diffuse the situation.......oh wait......

The kid was looking for shiat to snatch and got called on it, I will make sure I am safe at home when the verdict is read so I can avoid the riots for him being found not guilty.
 
2012-12-04 07:28:11 AM
This guy was pronounced guilty by Fark months ago. Why hasn't he been executed already?
 
2012-12-04 07:37:20 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: phunkey_monkey: I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?

To answer your question. The answer is no. If you get robbed and the person is leaving, you can't attack. Only to save yourself. Not your property. You can threaten th to stay and wait for cops. That's it.


There is no clear legal call for when they are leaving.

You don't know if they are turing their back to leave, or to pick something up to bash you with.

If I was on a jury and some guy was violently attacked, then defended himself and the person who initiated violence was killed, I likely don't see my self convicting.
 
2012-12-04 07:41:59 AM

lordjupiter: Clearly, injury = innocence.


No it doesn't, but it throws a kink in the claim that a white racist Zimmerman simply gunned down the first black kid he saw.
Now we clearly know it was a fight, and the proper followup question is "who started it" and if Zimmerman was in the right to protect himself from further harm.

/It could go either way.
/I don't particularly care about the outcome, since its not a SYG case.
/It might still be self defense since there is no duty to accept the beat down you initiated.
 
2012-12-04 07:42:26 AM
I wonder how many people here still think following someone and asking what they are doign somewhere is illegal and somehow gives the person being asked the question the right to attack?
 
2012-12-04 07:44:45 AM

way south: /I don't particularly care about the outcome, since its not a SYG case.


How do you figure?

Now I am not saying I know for a fact it is, but if all zimmerman did was follow him and ask him a question, and some evidence indicates it was Martin who re-established contact with Zimmerman) and he was then attacked I think it falls under SYG.
 
2012-12-04 07:53:08 AM
www.washingtonpost.com

That's not Zimmerman. The media told me he was a heavy set ex-con. He was wearing the orange jumpsuit and everything in the photo they kept showing.

Besides, I don't see believe a twelve-year-old Trayvon (according to the photo the media showed me) could rough Zimmerman up so badly anyway. 

You people are all gullible sheep. 


/RIP Trayvon. May Allah grant you your 72 virgins once you hit puberty in heaven.
 
2012-12-04 07:54:09 AM

stoli n coke:

Well, Zimmerman was an overzealous mall cop wannabe. Odds are he already had some inadequacy issues, and thus, needed a gun to go from a gated community to the grocery store and back.



I'm an overzealous billionaire playboy wannabe with some inadequacy issues, and I'd want a gun, too, if some ghetto thug was pounding on my face and banging my head on a sidewalk. So I can empathize.
 
2012-12-04 07:56:13 AM
imageshack.us
 
2012-12-04 07:59:34 AM
Has anyone mentioned this case yet:

Link

Seems like a scene out of the movie Copland. Blame the media all you want, but the way this Stand Your Ground law is being used, these stories need to be told.
 
2012-12-04 08:01:19 AM
I still can't believe Emilio Goldstein murdered that innocent eight year old Zambian boy while he was simply walking through down the street eating a bag of Everlasting Gobstoppers and drinking a Tab.
 
2012-12-04 08:02:46 AM
There never was a good case to build against Zimmerman.

The only thing the picture does is wreck the foolish assumptions of all the race-baiter believers and other droolers.

Which is why the fark-brigade is all stirred up by it.

Zimmerman will walk. I doubt there will even be one day of trial. There will be black riots of course, there always is... but then THIS will happen again.

imageshack.us

And it won't just be Saint Tray Tray the Angelic that dies. It'll be baby-mommas and memaws and guys just trying to get to work.

So keep squabbling you fools, you are just loading more powder into your own petard.
 
2012-12-04 08:06:16 AM
Let's face the facts here:

Juan Rabinowitz murdered that 4'3, 75 pound zygote while he was simply listening to Color Me Badd on his Walkman, eating a bag of Mr. Phipps Pretzel chips, and drinking a carafe of lukewarm goat's milk.
 
2012-12-04 08:09:11 AM
imageshack.us

Newly released photo of Jeorge McZimmerstien.
 
2012-12-04 08:10:16 AM
obviously a photoshop. skittles and ice tea do not work that way
 
2012-12-04 08:11:53 AM
imageshack.us

George Zimmerman running down TrayChild the Infant in his car.

Next, Zimmerman confronts Traychild just before mercilessly killing him in cold blood from fourty yards in a slow, jerky animated stick figure way.

imageshack.us
 
2012-12-04 08:16:10 AM
Not trolling. Just trying to ad a little reality to the group fantasy.

The crazy group think of India seems a little less crazy now that we have been able to witness it first hand. Only instead of rumors in the market, it's generated by liberal mass media.

upload.wikimedia.org

Delusions, even when shared amongst crowds, are still delusions.
 
2012-12-04 08:21:16 AM

BronyMedic: So what Florida Statute allows someone, who is not a law enforcement officer, not on his own property to pursue someone running from him?


Because the only freedoms we have are those specifically enumerated by statute, amirite?
 
2012-12-04 08:24:13 AM
Sorry, people. This is still the United States. Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Right or wrong, if there's enough physical evidence to convince a jury that there's a reasonable doubt that the specific charges pressed against Zimmerman "could" be false, he'll go free. Those charges have to be very specific, so the jury can't simply rule that Zimmerman was wrong "somehow."

/ notice I didn't take a side, just presented facts that are being forgotten.
 
2012-12-04 08:25:40 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I see the "Trayvon was a n*gger thug who deserved to be executed" crowd is out and about, and they're just as farktarded as ever.

 

images.wikia.com
 
2012-12-04 08:28:32 AM

topcon: Let's face the facts here:

Juan Rabinowitz murdered that 4'3, 75 pound zygote while he was simply listening to Color Me Badd on his Walkman, eating a bag of Mr. Phipps Pretzel chips, and drinking a carafe of lukewarm goat's milk.


Color Me Badd on his Walkman -this line got the LOL, don't know if it was the color me bad, or the walkman...
 
2012-12-04 08:32:49 AM

JungleBoogie: JungleBoogie: 7) Conclusion: I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had no intent to shoot Martin when he got out of his vehicle. I think it's probably true that Zimmerman was mouthier and bolder than he would have been without the gun. And I think Martin probably thought the best defense was a good offense.

Jim_Callahan:So, again, killing people by being reckless and stupid is called "manslaughter", and it's usually 10-15 years, sometimes more if you were under the influence. Second-degree murder being a stretch doesn't mean the idiot doesn't need to cool his heels in a cell for a few years and be banned form owning a gun ever again. I mean, he clearly lacks the basic judgement and temperament to be trusted around firearms.

How was he being reckless and stupid?

"You don't need to do that sir" in response to telling the dispatcher he was getting out of his vehicle to look for what he perceived to be a suspicious character is not being reckless or stupid. He doesn't want the guy to get away. Some people keep insisting that he was "told" to stay in his car, and that's just factually false.

Zimmerman stood up and tried to take responsibility for stopping crime in his neighborhood. Which resulted in a terribly unfortunate series of unintended consequences.

Fact: Two guys, keyed up for different reasons, stumbled into each other.was stalked by the other
Fact: The stalked one was black.
Fact: The stalker ignored instructions by the 911 dispatcher he called

Fact: A fight breaks out.
Fact: Zimmerman was being beaten.
Fact: Zimmerman shot Martin.


FTFY
 
2012-12-04 08:34:53 AM
Did Zimmerman "profile" Martin?

Well, if he thought Martin was a drug user, he was correct. If he thought Martin was a thief, he was correct. If he thought Martin might violently attack someone, he was correct. Is profiling wrong when it's right?
 
2012-12-04 08:38:27 AM
Juan-Pablo Lansky saw a nubile, innocent, 3', 9" 47 pound Trayvon Martin, who was at least 100 yards away, gnawing away at a Bonker's Fruit Chew, drinking a tallboy of Crystal Pepsi, when Juan-Pablo pulled his weapon, brought it up into sight focus, resting on his forearm, saying "I am the angel of death, the time of purification is at hand," and shot Trayvon right in the head. When the paramedics found Trayvon, Exile's album "Kentucky Hearts" was still playing on his iPod.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-04 08:46:38 AM

hdhale: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

We don't know that Martin was doing that at that point. There's lots of holes here and depending upon how you fill in the blanks, you end up with two completely different answers.


My initial thoughts on this case were, based upon early reporting, that a Mall Ninja wannabe shot some kid in cold blood.

Then that narrative started falling apart:

1. The initial photos of Zimmerman and Martin used by the press gave an extremely distorted view of their relative ages and sizes. Initial advantage: Martin.

2. The alleged use of the words "farkin' coons" by Zimmerman in his call with the police dispatcher that proved to be false. Initial advantage: Martin

3. The selective editing of that call by some in the news media to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist. Initial advantage: Martin.

4. The release of very low quality video and still photos which were alleged to show that Zimmerman hadn't been injured, which subsequent higher quality images (like this one) showed to be false. Initial advantage: Martin.

5. The allegation that the screaming heard on the 9/11 call was Trayvon based upon pseudoscience, and in direct contravention to eyewitness accounts. Initial advantage: Martin.

6. The claim that Martin had been suspended from school for 10 days for "being in an unauthorized area", when it turned out that it was for possession of trace amounts of marijuana. Initial advantage: Martin.

7. The false story that Zimmerman had called 911 46 times in a year, when in fact it was over the span of 10 years. Initial advantage: Martin.

I could go on with more examples, but it seems like every time there is an allegation or circumstance that favors Martin as being the completely innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, it is later proved to be outright false, or a significant distortion. On the other hand, no one has come up with any convincing evidence that disproves Zimmerman's story about the incident, and nothing he has claimed in his testimony to the police has been proven to be false.

So, if all the initial advantages fall on one side, and they are all later shown to be false or significant distortions, at some point you *HAVE* to be skeptical of the narrative that Martin had zero responsibility for his own death.

My person thoughts are this: Martin may or may not have been "up to no good" that night. That, however, is completely irrelevant. What matters is what happened when they crossed paths that last time. I suspect that Martin, being 17 years old and in good shape, saw this guy who was following him who was shorter and pudgier, and decided that he wasn't going to take any shiat from him. I had a similar attitude when I was that age, I like to call it "testosterone poisoning", and it's a very common attribute among young males (that's why the military likes to enlist people at that age). Zimmerman was armed, and Zimmerman obviously knew that, but Martin didn't because Zimmerman was carrying concealed. We don't know who threw the first punch, but it's irrelevant for self-defense purposes: Even if you start a fight, if you retreat, or if you *CAN'T* retreat, you can still use deadly force to defend yourself. This is true even in jurisdictions where you have a duty to retreat. Martin was on top of Zimmerman, preventing him from escaping, and beating him hard enough to cause a number of injuries (as confirmed by eyewitness testimony and physical evidence).
 
2012-12-04 08:53:58 AM

jjorsett: Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.

Zimmerman has a different story in which he was the one attacked. Without seeing all the evidence unfiltered by the press, there's no way to make an assessment right now. That's the purpose the trial will serve.


I applaud a voice of reason in the wilderness of ignorance on this thread.

Remember, it's not what people don't know that causes problems. It's what they do know that just isn't so. 
 
2012-12-04 08:59:07 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

1:50 sounds of heavy breathing from Zimmerman as he admits he's following Martin.

2:09 "He ran", no more heavy breathing as Zimmerman is no longer running after Martin who ran away.

2:20 do you want to meet with the officer by the mailbox? "Ya"

2:36 No wait have him call me when he gets here.

Yep, standing his ground against an aggressor.


Zimmerman confused Treyvon being lost in the neighborhood because it was his first night there (suspended from school for likely selling weed, remember) with Treyvon scoping out houses for a robbery.

Treyvon saw Zimmerman was following him, ran around a corner, and hid. Treyvon and Zimmerman's adrenaline were pumping. Zimmerman continues looking for him , getting close to Treyvon but not knowing it. He's talking on the phone and Treyvon can hear that they are talking about looking for him. Once Zimmerman hangs up the phone Treyvon comes out of hiding and is like "why the fark are you following me?" Zimmerman doesn't ID himself as a neighborhood watchman because hes an amateurish idiot and instead asks Treyvon what he's doing in the neighborhood in an aggressive tone. Treyvon points out its none of his business. Whether Treyvon physically attacks first or Zimmerman grabs Treyvons shirt first we'll never know.

Unfortunately what happened at this point is critical to deciding where the guilt is laid.

Next thing you know treyvon is on top of Zimmerman pounding him mma style and Zimmerman is in fear of his life. If we go by what we know publicly Zimmerman will walk on stand your ground laws.

Notice how assholes tend to find each other?
 
2012-12-04 09:01:43 AM

dittybopper: hdhale: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

We don't know that Martin was doing that at that point. There's lots of holes here and depending upon how you fill in the blanks, you end up with two completely different answers.

My initial thoughts on this case were, based upon early reporting, that a Mall Ninja wannabe shot some kid in cold blood.

Then that narrative started falling apart:

1. The initial photos of Zimmerman and Martin used by the press gave an extremely distorted view of their relative ages and sizes. Initial advantage: Martin.

2. The alleged use of the words "farkin' coons" by Zimmerman in his call with the police dispatcher that proved to be false. Initial advantage: Martin

3. The selective editing of that call by some in the news media to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist. Initial advantage: Martin.

4. The release of very low quality video and still photos which were alleged to show that Zimmerman hadn't been injured, which subsequent higher quality images (like this one) showed to be false. Initial advantage: Martin.

5. The allegation that the screaming heard on the 9/11 call was Trayvon based upon pseudoscience, and in direct contravention to eyewitness accounts. Initial advantage: Martin.

6. The claim that Martin had been suspended from school for 10 days for "being in an unauthorized area", when it turned out that it was for possession of trace amounts of marijuana. Initial advantage: Martin.

7. The false story that Zimmerman had called 911 46 times in a year, when in fact it was over the span of 10 years. Initial advantage: Martin.

I could go on with more examples, but it seems like every time there is an allegation or circumstance that favors Martin as being the completely innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, it is later proved to be outright false, or a significant distortion. On the other hand, no one has come up with any convincing evidence that disproves Zimmerman's sto ...


Racist...
 
2012-12-04 09:04:25 AM

Eve L. Koont: I don't agree. Zimmerman was playing cop and with his behavior then and in the past, something like this was bound to happen. He wanted to play hero and it took him killing an innocent 17 year old kid to play out his fantasy.
So an innocent kid had to pay with his life because Zimmerman has major issues and wanted to play hero and live out a fantasy in his own mind? Seriously?


Eve L. Koont: How the holy fark do you know that that's what happened???


Go on, answer the question.
 
2012-12-04 09:04:28 AM

liam76: way south: /I don't particularly care about the outcome, since its not a SYG case.

How do you figure?

Now I am not saying I know for a fact it is, but if all zimmerman did was follow him and ask him a question, and some evidence indicates it was Martin who re-established contact with Zimmerman) and he was then attacked I think it falls under SYG.


The problem is in proving that Martin threw the first punch when the best witness is Zimmerman himself.
They both had a right to walk in public space. Either one was free to approach the other.
Without proof, we'd be condemning Martin to say this is SYG for Zimmerman.
If Zim started the fight and tray took the shot, SYG could even be in favor of Trayvon.

It's easier to write this up as a self defense issue, in my view.
 
2012-12-04 09:08:46 AM
One dead, one in prison, and nothing of value was lost.
 
2012-12-04 09:08:56 AM

Abacus9: Fact 3: Zimmerman decides to follow Martin anyway.


This falls under the vague speculation. If you disagree, I'd like to hear your proof.
 
2012-12-04 09:12:06 AM

Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.


Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.
 
2012-12-04 09:14:40 AM

way south: liam76: way south: /I don't particularly care about the outcome, since its not a SYG case.

How do you figure?

Now I am not saying I know for a fact it is, but if all zimmerman did was follow him and ask him a question, and some evidence indicates it was Martin who re-established contact with Zimmerman) and he was then attacked I think it falls under SYG.

The problem is in proving that Martin threw the first punch when the best witness is Zimmerman himself.
They both had a right to walk in public space. Either one was free to approach the other.
Without proof, we'd be condemning Martin to say this is SYG for Zimmerman.
If Zim started the fight and tray took the shot, SYG could even be in favor of Trayvon.

It's easier to write this up as a self defense issue, in my view.


Who is at fault depends on how you want to frame the narrative.

At one level we have a boy who is walking home from the store with skittles and iced tea who ends up dead because another man confronted him. For most here all other facts are irrelevant and brushed off.

At another level we have two people who get into an argument and one is extremely physically aggressive and the other shoots him in some self defense.

Then throw in random factoids about each of them, everyone filling in knowledge gaps with their own assumptions, and we have the clusterfark that is this thread.
 
2012-12-04 09:17:01 AM

Oblio13: Did Zimmerman "profile" Martin?

Well, if he thought Martin was a drug user, he was correct. If he thought Martin was a thief, he was correct. If he thought Martin might violently attack someone, he was correct. Is profiling wrong when it's right?


I don't know you, but I think I love you.
 
2012-12-04 09:19:54 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Oblio13: Did Zimmerman "profile" Martin?

Well, if he thought Martin was a drug user, he was correct. If he thought Martin was a thief, he was correct. If he thought Martin might violently attack someone, he was correct. Is profiling wrong when it's right?

I don't know you, but I think I love you.


I thought Treyvon had only trace amounts of weed in his system.

Since he was suspended from school for having an empty baggie that smelled like weed it is more likely he was a drug dealer.
 
2012-12-04 09:27:03 AM

gh0strid3r: just presented facts that are being forgotten.


If you believe in the need for rigorous scientific data regarding climate change and evolution, and you refuse to accept silliness like ID and GCC denialism, you MUST fall on the side of Trayvon.

This is is just how it is on Fark. Facts are for debunking ID and GCC Deniers, NOT for analyzing this case.
 
2012-12-04 09:33:10 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing in no way justifies getting beat up. Trayvon jumped the gun and paid the price for it. He could have said "hey stay away!" or anything verbal to diffuse a situation but instead chose to attack. That's not self defense. You can't sanely argue that.

/bring on the racism.


This.

Haven't we had enough of these circle jerk threads?

/not guilty... book it.
 
2012-12-04 09:40:24 AM

flamingboard: Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?

Stalking. If someone I don't know is following me in a car and gets out and heads towards me I'm going to assume they have something bad planned.


"Excuse me sir but you dropped your wallet back there. I was going to give it to you, but you punched me in the face."
 
2012-12-04 09:41:50 AM
Martin was never going to contribute any thing to society. Nothing of use was lost
 
2012-12-04 09:43:26 AM
phunkey_monkey

I wonder-- if I were a victim of a mugger and just as the mugger turned his/her back to me, do I have the right to stand up and tackle them to the ground and bash their head on the ground until they were dead?
Only if he's black and has a history of felonies.
 
2012-12-04 09:49:54 AM

way south: liam76: way south: /I don't particularly care about the outcome, since its not a SYG case.

How do you figure?

Now I am not saying I know for a fact it is, but if all zimmerman did was follow him and ask him a question, and some evidence indicates it was Martin who re-established contact with Zimmerman) and he was then attacked I think it falls under SYG.

The problem is in proving that Martin threw the first punch when the best witness is Zimmerman himself.
They both had a right to walk in public space. Either one was free to approach the other.
Without proof, we'd be condemning Martin to say this is SYG for Zimmerman.
If Zim started the fight and tray took the shot, SYG could even be in favor of Trayvon.

It's easier to write this up as a self defense issue, in my view.


The witness "Dee Dee" says specifically Martin hung up the phone with her to go confront Zimmerman. After she begged him to call the police or run away. Strange, how Martin's phone call with someone telling him to disengage doesn't bare any weight around here...

It's not a SYG case until the defense makes it an SYG case. They don't need to so there's no point to it. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him. Simple self-defense is all that's needed in this case.

Somehow I think the prosecution's own witness, the injuries, and Zimmerman's statements are going to show irrefutably that Martin started the physical fight.
 
2012-12-04 10:10:53 AM
The Trayvon vs. Zimmerman argument on FARK boils down to people on the anti-Zimmerman side believing that people should not have the right to defend themselves unless they are comic book superheroes following pre-scripted plots in which the bad guys are always defeated with nobody getting hurt or killed (or if the bad guys do get killed, the hero is perfectly blameless in every possible way), versus people on the pro-Zimmerman side who think being imperfect doesn't invalidate a person's right to use lethal force to escape being beaten to death.

/not even if the beating was a direct result of offending someone with their imperfections
//if people had the right to beat other people to death for offending them, I'd have died the first time I won a two-player video game of at the local arcade
///got punched in the face and my glasses broken, but at least the fear that I might have a gun and use it made the attacker run off instead of pin me down
 
2012-12-04 10:26:06 AM
I'll be so glad when this turd is tossing salads, so he will disappear from the intertubes once and for all.
 
2012-12-04 10:35:15 AM
I honestly don't care either way and I'd bet neither do most of you. Trayvon Martin isn't going to have your guns taken away. Regardless of whether stand your ground gets repealed or not is entirely irrelevant. You still retain a right to use deadly force if it is reasonable in the circumstance. A man comes into your house at night you can still turn him into pink mist. A man pulls a knife on you in the street, feel free to light him up. This will always be the case in places like Florida. If you live in New York or Chicago, it doesn't matter the provocation, you can't do anything. Nothing's changed really. My guess is this was a battle of two tough guys. Trayvon was 17 and thought he was a bad ass and would teach whitey, I mean white Hispanic whatever that is (white just needs to be in the description), a lesson and Zimmerman is a 5 foot nothing Napoleon complexed man with a pistol. Sad story all around, boo hoo, I still have my guns, they aren't going anywhere. Nor do I walk around with my guns either, so I'm like the majority of gun owning Americans. This is much ado about nada (a nod to all the white Hispanics out there). Meanwhile in Chicago another 156 blacks were killed over the weekend even though Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country but no one cares because blacks killing each other is only to be expected and it isn't a crime to kill black people unless whites, or white Hispanics do it. "But trayvon was unarmed", yeah, so were half of the victims in Chicago, many of them are just collateral damage.
 
2012-12-04 10:37:37 AM

occamswrist: Treyvon saw Zimmerman was following him, ran around a corner, and hid.


Why?

When you look at the Google map of the neighborhood and the position of Zimmerman's vehicle, the house where Martin was staying (Brandy Green's residence) and where Zimmerman was when he finished the 911 call, would Martin have not gone back to the house and instead 'hid'?

Zimmerman's route east would not have intersected Martin's path to Green's townhouse. The only way they cross paths from where Zimmerman finishes his 911 call and turns around to head west back to his truck is if Martin is moving away from Green's house and toward Zimmerman.
 
2012-12-04 10:44:01 AM

HBK: ongbok: He had Zimmerman's blood on his right hand. The thing that contradicts Zimmerman's story is the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found anywhere on Martin except for his right hand. Now tell me how can you cover a person's nose and mouth, like Zimmerman claims happened to him, without getting any of the persons DNA on you or your clothes? Or have this epic battle for your life and only leave your DNA on one of their hands?

Have you ever covered someone's nose and mouth? It only takes one hand.


Except for Zimmerman claims that Martin used one hand to cover his nose and one to cover his mouth. Check the video I posted earlier of Zimmerman walking the police through what happened. Nothing he says about the incident makes any sense.
 
2012-12-04 10:47:32 AM
Zimmerman should have no trouble convincing a jury that at the moment that he shot, he felt he was in grave danger. Whether his account is accurate or not, there doesn't appear to be any evidence to the contrary. He's going to walk, and as a strictly legal matter, he should.

Still doesn't change the fact that he should have been minding his own business in the first place. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical.
 
2012-12-04 10:54:23 AM

Frank N Stein: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing in no way justifies getting beat up. Trayvon jumped the gun and paid the price for it. He could have said "hey stay away!" or anything verbal to diffuse a situation but instead chose to attack. That's not self defense. You can't sanely argue that.

/bring on the racism.

This.

I don't even have the energy to argue with these fools anymore though. They are willfully ignorant about the case, and continue to use the narrative that Jesse Jackson told them to use 8 months ago.


Yep and yep.

It's crazy how this has turned otherwise logical people into mouth breathing morons. They ignore all the facts, decry Zimmerman's story which is backed up by every single witness, and simultaneously invent their own version of mythical events to support their bias view that "a child was murdered."

You can't argue with stupid.
 
2012-12-04 11:17:47 AM

edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.


This.
 
2012-12-04 11:20:40 AM

heili skrimsli: occamswrist: Treyvon saw Zimmerman was following him, ran around a corner, and hid.

Why?

When you look at the Google map of the neighborhood and the position of Zimmerman's vehicle, the house where Martin was staying (Brandy Green's residence) and where Zimmerman was when he finished the 911 call, would Martin have not gone back to the house and instead 'hid'?

Zimmerman's route east would not have intersected Martin's path to Green's townhouse. The only way they cross paths from where Zimmerman finishes his 911 call and turns around to head west back to his truck is if Martin is moving away from Green's house and toward Zimmerman.


http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimme rman-map-with-911-call-timing.jpg

Trayvon hid along the north/south pedestrian walkway and approached Zimmerman from the south (Zimmerman's left side) as Zimmerman walked west back to his car.

I think we're saying close to the same thing.
 
2012-12-04 11:26:22 AM

occamswrist: I think we're saying close to the same thing.


It makes absolutely no sense that he would hide in such an instance when he had time and a clear path back to his house, and Zimmerman was to the east finishing his 911 call if Martin actually was afraid of Zimmerman.

The timing and the relative distances mean that I cannot figure out why Martin would be shot closer to Zimmerman's vehicle than Green's house when someone of Martin's physical condition could have easily covered the distance and been inside his house before Zimmerman would have made it to the sidewalk on which Martin was shot.
 
2012-12-04 11:32:05 AM

dittybopper: I suspect that Martin, being 17 years old and in good shape, saw this guy who was following him who was shorter and pudgier, and decided that he wasn't going to take any shiat from him. I had a similar attitude when I was that age, I like to call it "testosterone poisoning", and it's a very common attribute among young males (that's why the military likes to enlist people at that age).


While that's true, you are forgetting one important fact, Martin had no history of aggression or violence. Zimmerman has a rather long history of aggression and violence. And let's not forget his "these assholes always get away". I think the question of who threw the first punch is very much in question. But, you are correct, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. According to the laws of Florida once Martin started the beat down, Zimmerman had the legal right to shoot.
 
2012-12-04 11:45:18 AM

ongbok: Except for Zimmerman claims that Martin used one hand to cover his nose and one to cover his mouth. Check the video I posted earlier of Zimmerman walking the police through what happened. Nothing he says about the incident makes any sense.


A second set of DNA was found on the hoodie sleeve. It could not be identified. That is a weak case as "proof" GZ DNA was NOT present.

Reasonable doubt.
 
2012-12-04 11:47:59 AM
FTA: "Zimmerman's murder trial is set for June 2013."

The trial will be short, the news coverage hysterical, and Zimmerman will walk.

I for one am glad to see that they have postponed the trial until June. Wintertime race riots really suck, as the cold weather really dampens the spirits and reduces the turnout of the rioters.

/Gonna' be a HOT summer
 
2012-12-04 11:53:13 AM

dittybopper: Then that narrative started falling apart:


Aren't you the one that kept posting about how Martin was 6'4", when in fact he was 5'10"? I notice you left that out of your narrative.
 
2012-12-04 11:54:21 AM

s2s2s2: ongbok: Except for Zimmerman claims that Martin used one hand to cover his nose and one to cover his mouth. Check the video I posted earlier of Zimmerman walking the police through what happened. Nothing he says about the incident makes any sense.

A second set of DNA was found on the hoodie sleeve. It could not be identified. That is a weak case as "proof" GZ DNA was NOT present.

Reasonable doubt.



GZ's DNA also found on TM's shirt BENEATH his hoodie. Explanation? None.

Also, 911 calls from eyewitnesses reported Martin on top of Dimmerman wailing the shiat out of him as Dimmerman screamed for help.

But they ignore that.
 
2012-12-04 11:57:07 AM

occamswrist: squirrelflavoredyogurt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

1:50 sounds of heavy breathing from Zimmerman as he admits he's following Martin.

2:09 "He ran", no more heavy breathing as Zimmerman is no longer running after Martin who ran away.

2:20 do you want to meet with the officer by the mailbox? "Ya"

2:36 No wait have him call me when he gets here.

Yep, standing his ground against an aggressor.

Zimmerman confused Treyvon being lost in the neighborhood because it was his first night there (suspended from school for likely selling weed, remember) with Treyvon scoping out houses for a robbery.

Treyvon saw Zimmerman was following him, ran around a corner, and hid. Treyvon and Zimmerman's adrenaline were pumping. Zimmerman continues looking for him , getting close to Treyvon but not knowing it. He's talking on the phone and Treyvon can hear that they are talking about looking for him. Once Zimmerman hangs up the phone Treyvon comes out of hiding and is like "why the fark are you following me?" Zimmerman doesn't ID himself as a neighborhood watchman because hes an amateurish idiot and instead asks Treyvon what he's doing in the neighborhood in an aggressive tone. Treyvon points out its none of his business. Whether Treyvon physically attacks first or Zimmerman grabs Treyvons shirt first we'll never know.

Unfortunately what happened at this point is critical to deciding where the guilt is laid.

Next thing you know treyvon is on top of Zimmerman pounding him mma style and Zimmerman is in fear of his life. If we go by what we know publicly Zimmerman will walk on stand your ground laws.

Notice how assholes tend to find each other?


Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stan d -your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-kill ing-trayvon-martin/

You know what though, I bet the scenario you laid out for us is the truth though, because you probably know better than the guy who wrote the law what the intent of it is, right?

Because running after someone who is running from you, when you have no authority to chase them is an act of self defense.
 
2012-12-04 12:01:23 PM
We need more Zimmermans.

He did the right thing, put down a nasty punk who would have just got worse with time. No_Limit brutally attacked someone because he thought he was gangsta. He lost. Woot.

Liberals hate it because it shows that their chosen race is actually pretty violent, which statistics back up big time. You are wrong. Sorry guys.
 
2012-12-04 12:03:09 PM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: I suspect that Martin, being 17 years old and in good shape, saw this guy who was following him who was shorter and pudgier, and decided that he wasn't going to take any shiat from him. I had a similar attitude when I was that age, I like to call it "testosterone poisoning", and it's a very common attribute among young males (that's why the military likes to enlist people at that age).

While that's true, you are forgetting one important fact, Martin had no history of aggression or violence. Zimmerman has a rather long history of aggression and violence. And let's not forget his "these assholes always get away". I think the question of who threw the first punch is very much in question. But, you are correct, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. According to the laws of Florida once Martin started the beat down, Zimmerman had the legal right to shoot.


Martin:

- organized neighborhood fights
- took a swing (and connected) with an adult bus driver
- got caught with burglar tools
- sullied up twitter and facebook with thuggish shiat
- got caught with drugs at school, twice
- is on record on twitter organizing a drug deal
- is on video at the store buying watermelon iced tea, and attempting to buy cough syrup to make "purple drank" (a drug that can cause extra aggressiveness)
- ignores his girlfriends pleas not to start a fight
- starts a fight

Zimmerman;

- organized action against the Samford PD for beating up a homeless black man
- mentored black kids
- fought off a random guy in a bar who turned out to be an asshole police officer that didn't identify himself before assulting bar patrons
- tried to clean up his neighborhood
- ends a fight, righteously I might add.

You were saying?
 
2012-12-04 12:04:18 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Is this a Trayvon Martin thread? Hmm


No, it's a thread about photography of George Zimmerman. The guy has done one thing that has made him newsworthy of anything above the local level and we're just not supposed to talk about it right? If there was no Trayvon Martin, there wouldn't have been a story to have a thread, but yes that would have been preferable.
 
2012-12-04 12:06:43 PM

jafiwam: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: I suspect that Martin, being 17 years old and in good shape, saw this guy who was following him who was shorter and pudgier, and decided that he wasn't going to take any shiat from him. I had a similar attitude when I was that age, I like to call it "testosterone poisoning", and it's a very common attribute among young males (that's why the military likes to enlist people at that age).

While that's true, you are forgetting one important fact, Martin had no history of aggression or violence. Zimmerman has a rather long history of aggression and violence. And let's not forget his "these assholes always get away". I think the question of who threw the first punch is very much in question. But, you are correct, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. According to the laws of Florida once Martin started the beat down, Zimmerman had the legal right to shoot.

Martin:

- organized neighborhood fights
- took a swing (and connected) with an adult bus driver
- got caught with burglar tools
- sullied up twitter and facebook with thuggish shiat
- got caught with drugs at school, twice
- is on record on twitter organizing a drug deal
- is on video at the store buying watermelon iced tea, and attempting to buy cough syrup to make "purple drank" (a drug that can cause extra aggressiveness)
- ignores his girlfriends pleas not to start a fight
- starts a fight

Zimmerman;

- organized action against the Samford PD for beating up a homeless black man
- mentored black kids
- fought off a random guy in a bar who turned out to be an asshole police officer that didn't identify himself before assulting bar patrons
- tried to clean up his neighborhood
- ends a fight, righteously I might add.

You were saying?


Libs don't listen to reason
 
2012-12-04 12:10:11 PM
If a white guy was walking down the street minding his own business and then noticed some black guy following him for a distance, and then confronted that person, many of the white persons in this thread would not question him getting physical with the person following him.
 
2012-12-04 12:15:11 PM

heili skrimsli: occamswrist: I think we're saying close to the same thing.

It makes absolutely no sense that he would hide in such an instance when he had time and a clear path back to his house, and Zimmerman was to the east finishing his 911 call if Martin actually was afraid of Zimmerman.

The timing and the relative distances mean that I cannot figure out why Martin would be shot closer to Zimmerman's vehicle than Green's house when someone of Martin's physical condition could have easily covered the distance and been inside his house before Zimmerman would have made it to the sidewalk on which Martin was shot.


I agree that trayvon COULD have made it back to his house but because he didn't, he must have double backed.

Are you asking why he double backed? Fight or flight instincts kicked in and he decided to fight. Similar to how Zimmerman at first locked his car doors (flight) but then decided to follow (fight).
 
2012-12-04 12:17:49 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: occamswrist: squirrelflavoredyogurt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

1:50 sounds of heavy breathing from Zimmerman as he admits he's following Martin.

2:09 "He ran", no more heavy breathing as Zimmerman is no longer running after Martin who ran away.

2:20 do you want to meet with the officer by the mailbox? "Ya"

2:36 No wait have him call me when he gets here.

Yep, standing his ground against an aggressor.

Zimmerman confused Treyvon being lost in the neighborhood because it was his first night there (suspended from school for likely selling weed, remember) with Treyvon scoping out houses for a robbery.

Treyvon saw Zimmerman was following him, ran around a corner, and hid. Treyvon and Zimmerman's adrenaline were pumping. Zimmerman continues looking for him , getting close to Treyvon but not knowing it. He's talking on the phone and Treyvon can hear that they are talking about looking for him. Once Zimmerman hangs up the phone Treyvon comes out of hiding and is like "why the fark are you following me?" Zimmerman doesn't ID himself as a neighborhood watchman because hes an amateurish idiot and instead asks Treyvon what he's doing in the neighborhood in an aggressive tone. Treyvon points out its none of his business. Whether Treyvon physically attacks first or Zimmerman grabs Treyvons shirt first we'll never know.

Unfortunately what happened at this point is critical to deciding where the guilt is laid.

Next thing you know treyvon is on top of Zimmerman pounding him mma style and Zimmerman is in fear of his life. If we go by what we know publicly Zimmerman will walk on stand your ground laws.

Notice how assholes tend to find each other?

Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stan d -your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-kill ing-trayvon-martin/

You know what though, I bet the scenario you laid out for us is the truth though, because you probably know better than the guy who wrote the law what the intent of it is, right?

Because running after someone who is running from you, when you have no authority to chase them is an act of self defense.


The author of the law has one thing in mind but the way the law is read and interpreted is another.

Try again.
 
2012-12-04 12:19:53 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".


Good thing the defense isn't using SYG defense, but instead the statutes that relate to use of deadly force when losing a fight.
 
2012-12-04 12:21:31 PM

Latinwolf: If a white guy was walking down the street minding his own business and then noticed some black guy following him for a distance, and then confronted that person, many of the white persons in this thread would not question him getting physical with the person following him.


But you would.
 
2012-12-04 12:23:14 PM
Pedro Rothstein killed that poor boy.
 
2012-12-04 12:24:54 PM

Latinwolf: If a white guy was walking down the street minding his own business and then noticed some black guy following him for a distance, and then confronted that person, many of the white persons in this thread would not question him getting physical with the person following him.


Race doesn't have anything to do with it. Confronting someone when following you is a dangerous hobby, you never know who has a gun in this country.

Problem is, we don't have a real clear picture of exactly what led up to the encounter. Who `pushed first', what all was said, etc. So it's really hard to say exactly whether or not Martin's actions were reasonable. There's a big difference between yelling "Hey man, why are you following me?" and attacking someone.
 
2012-12-04 12:29:22 PM

Generation_D: fusillade762: Clearly self-inflicted.

Gun recoil. Or the kid hit him in the face, after he confronted him for no reason for minding his own business on a city public street.

Since when is a private road, inside a gated community, a "city public street"?

 
2012-12-04 12:32:10 PM
George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed. He was told not to by the authorities. This is also undisputed. I don't see how him getting hurt in that fight before he murdered that boy is relevant. What exactly is wrong with people who think that is a defense? Was Martin going to kill Zimmerman with his farking skittles? The person who got Zimmerman in trouble and in a position where his life was in danger was Zimmerman. What a dumbass. It would be funny if he hadn't murdered that boy. The fact that he gets anything short of the death penalty is a mercy to him and all of his other good deeds don't mean shiat!
 
2012-12-04 12:34:59 PM

plewis: George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed. He was told not to by the authorities. This is also undisputed. I don't see how him getting hurt in that fight before he murdered that boy is relevant. What exactly is wrong with people who think that is a defense? Was Martin going to kill Zimmerman with his farking skittles? The person who got Zimmerman in trouble and in a position where his life was in danger was Zimmerman. What a dumbass. It would be funny if he hadn't murdered that boy. The fact that he gets anything short of the death penalty is a mercy to him and all of his other good deeds don't mean shiat!


I think you might have skipped over a few details in your story.
 
2012-12-04 12:37:04 PM

jafiwam: You were saying?


Wow, that is some serious bullshiat there.

Let's take a look at it:

- organized neighborhood fights - Zero proof.
- took a swing (and connected) with an adult bus driver - Zero proof.
- got caught with burglar tools - A single screwdriver now equals burglar tools? And how does that prove aggression and violence?
- sullied up twitter and facebook with thuggish shiat - And how does that prove aggression and violence?
- got caught with drugs at school, twice - And how does that prove aggression and violence?
- is on record on twitter organizing a drug deal - And how does that prove aggression and violence?
- is on video at the store buying watermelon iced tea, and attempting to buy cough syrup to make "purple drank" (a drug that can cause extra aggressiveness) - Total made up bullshiat
- ignores his girlfriends pleas not to start a fight - Zero proof
- starts a fight - Zero Proof

Well, I feel dirty just having to wade through your BS.

Now, let's take a look at Zimmerman:
- organized action against the Samford PD for beating up a homeless black man - How does that prove he is not a violent person?
- mentored black kids - How does that prove he is not a violent person?
- fought off a random guy in a bar who turned out to be an asshole police officer that didn't identify himself before assaulting bar patrons - The officer testified that he told Zimmerman he was an office to which Zimmerman relied "I don't care who you are". This is on record. Not made up BS. As a result Zimmerman was required by the court to take anger management classes.
- tried to clean up his neighborhood - Yes, by shooting and killing an unarmed resident.
- ends a fight, righteously I might add. - Yes, by shooting and killing an unarmed resident.

Now, let's talk about what you left off.
Zimmerman assaulted his GF, twice. Again, there are police record to prove this, not made up BS that you love so much.
This is what a co-worker had to say about him; "Usually he was just a cool guy," said the former co-worker,.. "But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped." "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted," he said. "It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
And there is the the motorist that Zimmerman was so aggressive with the man feared that Zimmerman was going to attack him. Again, there are police records of this incident.
And there is the resident that had called the police due to Zimmerman's aggression.
And there is the co worker that said that "Zimmerman singled him out because he was Middle Eastern, calling him a "farking moron" and mocking him with the voice of "Achmed the terrorist." He said Zimmerman would also tell stories and make jokes about "bombing" and other "Middle Eastern stuff."
And there is the fact he shot and killed an unarmed person that had ever legal right to be where he was.

A real angel that Zimmerman.
 
2012-12-04 12:39:23 PM

plewis: George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed.


Chased down is very disputed. Oh, wait. Do you have proof? Please show it.
 
2012-12-04 12:41:47 PM

plewis: George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed. He was told not to by the authorities. This is also undisputed. I don't see how him getting hurt in that fight before he murdered that boy is relevant. What exactly is wrong with people who think that is a defense? Was Martin going to kill Zimmerman with his farking skittles? The person who got Zimmerman in trouble and in a position where his life was in danger was Zimmerman. What a dumbass. It would be funny if he hadn't murdered that boy. The fact that he gets anything short of the death penalty is a mercy to him and all of his other good deeds don't mean shiat!


He didn't chase him down, Martin had ample time and opportunity to escape.
He wasn't told not to by "authority," dispatchers are not authority.
Martin assaulted Zimmerman with his fists, also corroborated by his GF whom he was on the phone with.
It must be funny to you, because he didn't murder that boy. He legally defended himself with lethal force.

Deal with it, idiot. Come back here when you have some facts. I hope you feel stupid, you are.
 
2012-12-04 12:47:53 PM

plewis: George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed.


But what is disputed is who confronted who. he was chading him but lost him. We don't know who initiated contact (Martin's GF testimony, and mpas/timelines of the area indicates it was Martin).

Also what is in dispute is who hit who first.

plewis: He was told not to by the authorities. This is also undisputed.


This is undisputed among people who think that "we don't need you to do that" is an instruction not to do something.

plewis: I don't see how him getting hurt in that fight before he murdered that boy is relevant.



If you don't see how someone beating you about the face while you are on the ground is relevant to a decision to shoot them then you are not too bright or are just dishonest. This is also undisputed
 
2012-12-04 12:56:15 PM

s2s2s2: plewis: George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed.

Chased down is very disputed. Oh, wait. Do you have proof? Please show it.


Armando Kirschenbaum killed that poor, 8 pound, six ounce boy without remorse.
 
2012-12-04 01:00:00 PM

topcon: Armando Kirschenbaum killed that poor, 8 pound, six ounce boy without remorse.


Farking Juice!
 
2012-12-04 01:01:21 PM
The only thing criminal in this entire case is that Zimmerman has been dragged through the mud by the media. Well, that and getting arrested for defending himself. Looking forward to his release.
 
2012-12-04 01:02:33 PM

topcon: Armando Kirschenbaum killed that poor, 8 pound, six ounce boy without remorse.


Well, to be fair, he did kill him and he has shown a lack of remorse. Although by now, I'm sure he wishes he would have never met Martin.
 
2012-12-04 01:02:36 PM

liam76: plewis: George Zimmerman chased down, fought with and then shot an unarmed boy. This is undisputed.

But what is disputed is who confronted who. he was chading him but lost him. We don't know who initiated contact (Martin's GF testimony, and mpas/timelines of the area indicates it was Martin).

Also what is in dispute is who hit who first.

plewis: He was told not to by the authorities. This is also undisputed.

This is undisputed among people who think that "we don't need you to do that" is an instruction not to do something.

plewis: I don't see how him getting hurt in that fight before he murdered that boy is relevant.


If you don't see how someone beating you about the face while you are on the ground is relevant to a decision to shoot them then you are not too bright or are just dishonest. This is also undisputed


Isn't it interesting how getting beat up is irrelevant to him but that Zimmerman was following Trayvon earlier is critical to the conflict?
 
2012-12-04 01:19:27 PM

I Browse: s2s2s2:

And a quick listen to the 911 recordings will show that GZ's response was "OK". What evidence do you have that he continued to pursue Trayvon?


I have no evidence, I wasn't there. Like most of us when we heard this story, I can only imagine myself in the same scenario and wonder what I would do (both as Zimmerman and Martin). If I were Zimmerman...I would've felt I'd done my civic duty once I placed the call to 911. I would trust the police to handle it from there. I can't imagine any scenario where I would've gotten out of my car in the first place. So if the dispatcher advised me not to pursue, I would've told them I have no intention of pursuing and meant it.

If I were Martin...I probably would've just run. And although I would've been apprehensive about leading a stranger to my dad's gf's home, I'd rather be safe inside than dealing with a stranger outside.


In the interest of disclosure, I tend to lean toward Zim being guilty of manslaughter. If the forensic and other reports come back confirming his injuries are consistent with his account of the encounter I'd have a hard time not seeing it as falling under the stand your ground statute as written, but I'm not a Judge.

That being said, the reading I've done on this case indicates that Zim's relationship with the police was complicated to say the least. Lots of people paint Zim as a cowboy with a cop complex, but his history of activism seems more consistent with someone who legitimately wants to make a positive difference.

It seems within the realm of possibility that he has a stronger sense of "civic duty" than the average person, reflected in his decision to proactively attend the hearing on the beating of a homeless black man by a white male relative of a Stanford police officer. He not only accused the department (and specifically the Chief) of corruption but also advocated the revocation of his pension. This is not a man trying to ingratiate himself with the police.

If you review the copious records of his calls to law enforcement, it paints the picture of a man obsessed with the security of his neighborhood. There are multiple calls for garage doors being left open or vehicles circling the neighborhood, among other things. I'd even agree it borders on paranoia if there weren't also evidence of a string of residential burglaries in that area.

While he calls the police with white and hispanic suspects, the vast majority of suspicious people seem to be black. It seems pretty clear he was profiling, but if I'm reading the call logs correctly on at least one occasion the black suspects he calls about are identified as having been involved in residential burglaries in the area.

The sad thing is we'll never know what happened, and a life was senselessly lost. It's not hard to believe that Trayvon made some poor choices that night, but it seems certain that Zim did.

It's easy for me to judge, though. I live in an extremely low crime area. If I still lived in the neighborhood back East where the heroin addicts loitered outside the convenience stores, all the windows had bars, and we'd see police with guns drawn at least once a month it would be a lot harder to take issue with Zim's proactive approach.

What if it hadn't been Trayvon, but instead was a felon up to no good, this would be a different situation.

At the end of the day, it wasn't some evil felon. At the end of the day there is no evidence that Trayvon had any ill intent. At the end of the day Zim's actions directly led to a needless death. Regardless of his pure intent that pretty tightly fits the definition of manslaughter.

Whether that holds up in court will depend on the forensic evidence. If there's compelling evidence that his injuries don't match his narrative I would hope he's convicted of manslaughter and serves a term. If not, I firmly believe innocent until proven guilty. Lacking specific evidence that he's lying I couldn't vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately nothing is going to bring Trayvon back, and that's the thing we should all remember. Outside of the trial what can be done to prevent this from happening again?
 
2012-12-04 01:52:37 PM

occamswrist: squirrelflavoredyogurt: occamswrist: squirrelflavoredyogurt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

1:50 sounds of heavy breathing from Zimmerman as he admits he's following Martin.

2:09 "He ran", no more heavy breathing as Zimmerman is no longer running after Martin who ran away.

2:20 do you want to meet with the officer by the mailbox? "Ya"

2:36 No wait have him call me when he gets here.

Yep, standing his ground against an aggressor.

Zimmerman confused Treyvon being lost in the neighborhood because it was his first night there (suspended from school for likely selling weed, remember) with Treyvon scoping out houses for a robbery.

Treyvon saw Zimmerman was following him, ran around a corner, and hid. Treyvon and Zimmerman's adrenaline were pumping. Zimmerman continues looking for him , getting close to Treyvon but not knowing it. He's talking on the phone and Treyvon can hear that they are talking about looking for him. Once Zimmerman hangs up the phone Treyvon comes out of hiding and is like "why the fark are you following me?" Zimmerman doesn't ID himself as a neighborhood watchman because hes an amateurish idiot and instead asks Treyvon what he's doing in the neighborhood in an aggressive tone. Treyvon points out its none of his business. Whether Treyvon physically attacks first or Zimmerman grabs Treyvons shirt first we'll never know.

Unfortunately what happened at this point is critical to deciding where the guilt is laid.

Next thing you know treyvon is on top of Zimmerman pounding him mma style and Zimmerman is in fear of his life. If we go by what we know publicly Zimmerman will walk on stand your ground laws.

Notice how assholes tend to find each other?

Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stan d -your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-b ...


No need, you see Florida also has stalking laws, George tells the operator he's following Trayvon. He tells the operator that Trayvon ran away. Since Trayvon is not on George's property or threatening him in any way, George hopping into his car and going after someone who hasn't committed a crime and who poses no threat is itself a crime. Killing that person once you corner them and they try to fight back is also a crime.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if your selective view that you can hassle, chase, and confront someone who's not on your property or threatening you and then shoot them in self defense. I'd offer to make a wager, but I have a moral code against profiting on someone else's ignorance.
 
2012-12-04 01:53:43 PM
holy crap! There are a lot of crazies here.

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. All you people screaming "innocent until proven guilty! !! 1" have to remember that he IS guilty. He DID kill that kid. Now it's up to him to convince us it was necessary.

/what do you mean "you people"??
 
2012-12-04 01:56:05 PM

s2s2s2: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".

Good thing the defense isn't using SYG defense, but instead the statutes that relate to use of deadly force when losing a fight.


A fight that he clearly started and had every opportunity to avoid. Armed man picks fight with unarmed minor. I bet that shiat works really well for them.
 
2012-12-04 01:59:01 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: No need, you see Florida also has stalking laws


Which you don't understand, or you wouldn't bring them up.
 
2012-12-04 02:05:18 PM

Mrbogey:
El Morro: That's not even a broken nose. Or if it is, the man has "Wolverine" level healing abilities.

Uh huh... You get your doctorate in video medical diagnosis? I think "internet doctor" makes "internet lawyer" look like a genius.


It's not like we're taking a guess about his blood sugar level or diagnosing the condition of his kidneys, here. When people break their nose, there's generally considerable bruising and a lot more bleeding.

I said it because I've had my nose broken, as did someone else I know, so I've experienced it and seen it (and the consequences) up close. I was just saying it didn't look like he broke his nose. Take it for what you will.

Not sure why you need to be such a dick about it. Try and relax. Have some skittles or something.
 
2012-12-04 02:07:57 PM

occamswrist: Are you asking why he double backed? Fight or flight instincts kicked in and he decided to fight. Similar to how Zimmerman at first locked his car doors (flight) but then decided to follow (fight).


Because going back instead of continuing on to Green's house doesn't make any sense if Martin actually was afraid of Zimmerman, yeah, I wonder why the hell he would.
 
2012-12-04 02:12:37 PM

kisseswookies: holy crap! There are a lot of crazies here.

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. All you people screaming "innocent until proven guilty! !! 1" have to remember that he IS guilty. He DID kill that kid. Now it's up to him to convince us it was necessary.

/what do you mean "you people"??


No. It is not disputed that he shot and killed Martin. It is up to the State of Florida to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful.
 
2012-12-04 02:43:20 PM

give me doughnuts: No. It is not disputed that he shot and killed Martin. It is up to the State of Florida to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful.


Which pretty much boils down to whether or not he can convince a jury that at the time of the shooting, any reasonable person would feel that they were in danger of serious bodily harm. At least, my understand of it is that will be the only thing the defense needs. It doesn't matter why he got into that situation, it might not even matter who `started' the fight. Were his actions those of a reasonable person acting out of a perfectly reasonable fear?

Given that measuring stick, I suspect he'll easily walk. It doesn't make what he did right, and I can assure you I do not hold him in any esteem at all, however per the law, I don't even understand why this hasn't been dismissed yet.
 
2012-12-04 02:43:28 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: s2s2s2: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".

Good thing the defense isn't using SYG defense, but instead the statutes that relate to use of deadly force when losing a fight.

A fight that he clearly started and had every opportunity to avoid. Armed man picks fight with unarmed minor. I bet that shiat works really well for them.


Yes, Martin did have every opportunity to get away yet he decided to assault Zimmerman instead. Big mistake. And yes he did assault him, his girlfriend's testimony on the phone validates it.

Case closed self defense.
 
2012-12-04 02:46:52 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: clearly started


How so?

squirrelflavoredyogurt: picks fight


Evidence?


squirrelflavoredyogurt: I bet that shiat works really well for them.


Living the dream, I'm sure.
 
2012-12-04 02:52:14 PM

give me doughnuts: kisseswookies: holy crap! There are a lot of crazies here.

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. All you people screaming "innocent until proven guilty! !! 1" have to remember that he IS guilty. He DID kill that kid. Now it's up to him to convince us it was necessary.

/what do you mean "you people"??

No. It is not disputed that he shot and killed Martin. It is up to the State of Florida to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful.


kisseswookies: "I am 12 years old and how does the law work?"
 
2012-12-04 02:52:30 PM

s2s2s2: Evidence?


In this thread you have asked for proof several times, always from people that are not "pro Zimmerman". Yet you never request proof from people that post outrageous BS about Martin. Why is that I wonder.
 
2012-12-04 02:57:38 PM

justtray: squirrelflavoredyogurt: s2s2s2: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Cool story bro, here's a link to the guy who wrote Florida's "Stand your ground law" and his quote about Zimmerman which is, "He has no protection under my law".

Good thing the defense isn't using SYG defense, but instead the statutes that relate to use of deadly force when losing a fight.

A fight that he clearly started and had every opportunity to avoid. Armed man picks fight with unarmed minor. I bet that shiat works really well for them.

Yes, Martin did have every opportunity to get away yet he decided to assault Zimmerman instead. Big mistake. And yes he did assault him, his girlfriend's testimony on the phone validates it.

Case closed self defense.


The logic goes something like this:

If someone is following you at night and you think they want to hurt you, you have the right to beat the shiat out of them.

If someone is beating the shiat out and you think they will kill you, you don't have the right to shoot them.

I think that pretty much sums this up.
 
2012-12-04 03:06:02 PM
Yay - another asinine thread where we can pick a side and toss arbitrary insults at the other side. Who needs facts when we can just make em up?

Will there be bonus points for circular logic and politically hip pontification?
 
2012-12-04 03:25:29 PM

Wook: Yay - another asinine thread where we can pick a side and toss arbitrary insults at the other side. Who needs facts when we can just make em up?

Will there be bonus points for circular logic and politically hip pontification?


Why do you have to come in here and shiat on our dung pile?
 
2012-12-04 03:44:34 PM
Bears repeating

Here are the only facts about the events of the night

Fact: Zimmerman observes Martin and calls police.
Fact: Police dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him.
Fact: Zimmerman decides to follow Martin anyway
Fact: Martin is shot to death (presumably by Zimmerman as he has admitted to this).
Fact: Zimmerman received injuries to his face and head.

Everything else is hearsay or circumstantial. There's plenty of physical evidence, but you can only draw conclusions from that about the events, no create facts.

Anyone claiming to have facts beyond these is either psychic or stupid.
 
2012-12-04 04:17:32 PM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Then that narrative started falling apart:

Aren't you the one that kept posting about how Martin was 6'4", when in fact he was 5'10"? I notice you left that out of your narrative.


Early reports suggested he was between 6' and 6'4". *NONE* of those reports put his height below 6'.

The coroner's report puts him at 71 inches, which is actually 5'11".

George Zimmerman is 5' 8" or 5' 7", depending on which police report you believe. Either way, that means Martin still had a 3" to 4" advantage in height.

To the degree that I was wrong, based upon incorrect media reports (including his own family reporting his height as 6'2"), I can still support my contention that Martin was significantly taller than Zimmerman.
 
2012-12-04 04:28:55 PM

Palfas: Bears repeating

Here are the only facts about the events of the night

Fact: Zimmerman observes Martin and calls police.
Fact: Police dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him.
Fact: Zimmerman decides to follow Martin anyway
Fact: Martin is shot to death (presumably by Zimmerman as he has admitted to this).
Fact: Zimmerman received injuries to his face and head.

Everything else is hearsay or circumstantial. There's plenty of physical evidence, but you can only draw conclusions from that about the events, no create facts.

Anyone claiming to have facts beyond these is either psychic or stupid.


Actually...the dispatcher says "you don't have to do that" which likely means she was trying to tell Zimmerman not to follow him but didn't want to come right and tell him directly.

What were you saying about drawing conclusions?
 
2012-12-04 04:38:20 PM

Palfas: Bears repeating

Here are the only facts about the events of the night

Fact: Zimmerman observes Martin and calls police.
Fact: Police dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him.
Fact: Zimmerman decides to follow Martin anyway


What the police dispatcher says, in response to Zimmerman confirming that he is following Martin, is "We don't need you to do that". Zimmerman then says "OK".

That response could be interpreted a number of different ways, not all of them prejudicial to Zimmerman.
 
2012-12-04 04:41:44 PM

dittybopper: Early reports suggested...

Which is my point, many of the "early reports" were wrong, about both Martin and Zimmerman.


dittybopper: George Zimmerman is 5' 8" or 5' 7", depending on which police report you believe. Either way, that means Martin still had a 3" to 4" advantage in height.

Zimmerman's arrest reports list his height as 5'9". We know for a fact that Martin was 5'11". That's 2 inches. You can repeat Martin was "significantly" taller all day, and it will still be untrue. I clearly remember you saying that Martin "towered" over Zimmerman. When the facts came out you changed that to "significantly taller". Here's an idea, stop with the height BS. It's not true (that Martin was significantly taller) and it's meaningless. The fact that Zimmerman had a history of aggression is much more significant, but you choose to ignore that.
 
2012-12-04 04:50:24 PM
Another fact is that not one of the witness testimonies are contrary to Zimmerman's version of events.

But the race card players hate facts, so they ignore that entirely and imagine their own scenarios where they can feel like an innocent child was murdered. Sad really.
 
2012-12-04 04:58:11 PM

push3r: In the interest of disclosure, I tend to lean toward Zim being guilty of manslaughter.



He isn't charged with manslaughter, but Second Degree Murder. Manslaughter is not an option for the jury to consider.


push3r: If the forensic and other reports come back confirming his injuries are consistent with his account of the encounter I'd have a hard time not seeing it as falling under the stand your ground statute as written, but I'm not a Judge.



If it were a "Stand Your Ground" case, it would not be going to trial.


push3r: While he calls the police with white and hispanic suspects, the vast majority of suspicious people seem to be black. It seems pretty clear he was profiling



Does it? First, "profiling" is a charge that is levied against police, not private citizens. Second, if you look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you'll see that, given their population percentage, blacks commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes when compared to "whites" (including Hispanics).


push3r: The sad thing is we'll never know what happened, and a life was senselessly lost. It's not hard to believe that Trayvon made some poor choices that night, but it seems certain that Zim did.



Yes, both made poor choices: Dimmerman was armed with 9mm "courage", and Martin was high on badass testosterone.


push3r: At the end of the day, it wasn't some evil felon. At the end of the day there is no evidence that Trayvon had any ill intent. At the end of the day Zim's actions directly led to a needless death. Regardless of his pure intent that pretty tightly fits the definition of manslaughter.



While there is no evidence that Martin had ill intent, there is also NO evidence that Dimmerman was doing anything other than observing and reporting what he believed to be a suspicious character WITH THE INTENT of directing POLICE to his location. There is ZERO evidence that Dimmerman EVER desired to confront Martin personally - the fact that he was on the phone with the police, AND that he followed their instructions "we don't need you to do that" "Okay" shows that he was not a vigilante out "huntin' kneegroids", but a neighborhood watchman doing what he felt was his duty to his neighbors.


push3r: Whether that holds up in court will depend on the forensic evidence. If there's compelling evidence that his injuries don't match his narrative I would hope he's convicted of manslaughter and serves a term. If not, I firmly believe innocent until proven guilty. Lacking specific evidence that he's lying I couldn't vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.



And again, Dimmerman is NOT charged with manslaughter, but second degree murder. He will be acquitted, and will have to spend the rest of his life in hiding. We'll be damned lucky if cities across the nation don't burn when the inevitable verdict is handed down.


Check out this link that shows the 911 transcript and a map of the neighborhood. It may help you better understand what happened and when.

You may change your mind about Dimmerman's intent.
 
2012-12-04 05:08:22 PM

Palfas: Bears repeating

Here are the only facts about the events of the night

Fact: Zimmerman observes Martin and calls police.
Fact: Police dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him.
Fact: Zimmerman decides to follow Martin anyway



BZZZZT!


Zimmerman was already outside his truck and was walking in the direction he saw Martin go when the 9-11 operator said:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Dimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that
Dimmerman: Okay

Dimmerman STOPPED following him as soon as the dispatcher said Okay, we don't need you to do that.


Read this, learn, and then MAYBE you can stop repeating these falsehoods.

Maybe?

(Credit: Farker ChuDogg)
 
2012-12-04 05:08:24 PM

NightOwl2255: Zimmerman's arrest reports list his height as 5'9".


No it doesn't.

His April 11th booking report shows his height as 5'8".

The original incident report lists his height as 5'7".

That still places Martin at *LEAST* 3 inches taller than Zimmerman, bare minimum.

I'm 3 inches taller than my wife, and I'm significantly taller than she is.
 
2012-12-04 05:10:51 PM

NightOwl2255: Why is that I wonder


Because it is easy to dismiss the outrageous. It is better to ignore them.

But you don't wonder, you assume.
 
2012-12-04 05:40:02 PM

s2s2s2: But you don't wonder, you assume.


No, I don't wonder, I know.
 
2012-12-04 05:53:57 PM

dittybopper: No it doesn't.


The Sanford Police report from the shooting. It list Zimmerman's height as 5'9"

And there is no doubt Zimmerman outweighed Martin.

2 inches (hell, even 3) is not significant. I know it doesn't fits your narrative that Martin towered over the tiny Zimmerman, but it's simply not significant. But, kudos for never letting go. I guess.
 
2012-12-04 09:24:41 PM

NightOwl2255: No, I don't wonder, I know.


Pray tell. What do you know? Spell it out. Be definitive.
 
2012-12-04 10:10:54 PM

cs30109: ohokyeah: Zimmerman was initially just following Martin but it devolved into stalking, and Zimmerman was told by dispatchers to not pursue Martin, but to instead wait for the police. Zimmerman is the aggressor because he was being a stalker and confronted Martin. If a guy was following me around in his truck and then on foot and started interrogating me, I'd feel threatened too.

Whether or not the kid physically struck first or Zimmerman was in mortal danger from the fight, Zimmerman was the first one being aggressive in his behavior. It was Martin who lost the fight, but Zimmerman who really triggered the fight.

Had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's instructions and waited for the police to arrive, Martin would probably be alive still, Zimmerman would feel a bit stupid because he would find out he'd been following a kid with Skittles and tea, but no one would be hurt. Zimmerman might still be up on stalking charges, but certainly not murder.

Stalking is hostile behavior.

I don't agree. The only thing that matters is which one struck first. Following someone and asking them questions is obnoxious behavior on Zimmerman's part, but Martin should have just told him to fark off. And he may have, I suppose. I don't know for sure who struck first. But, whoever it was, that's who is to blame.


Nope. If you threaten to harm someone through action, word, or deed (Following someone on foot and by automobile no matter where they go qualifies) and they believe you are indeed a threat to them, then regardless of who swings first YOU can not claim self defense. That is the issue here, and that is why regardless of who swung first Zimmerman is still guilty of manslaughter at the very least.

As an example, even if I don't intend to harm you, I can not claim self defense if I walk up to you with a baseball bat in my hand, say I am going to kill you, then draw and fire a gun at you after you pull a knife and try to cut me with it. You did so because of my threatening action, without it you would not have attacked me and so I can't claim self defense. What Zimmerman did is the same thing, just on a slightly lesser scale. By putting Martin in fear of his life for no legal reason at all he lost the right to claim self defense, even if he didn't, and didn't intend to, attack Martin.

I am a gun owner, and I carry a gun on a regular basis. I have taken the time to learn not only gun and self defense related laws in multiple states, I have taken the time to learn about actual case decision which are more important than the written laws themselves. What I have learned (and it is obvious anyway), is that gun owners and carriers have a responsibility to de-escalate and/or walk away from any situation that could potentially turn into a physical confrontation. If you escalate, if you push the situation, if you threaten, if you follow needlessly, while armed, you LOSE the right to claim self defense. (In most states a claim of self defense is what is known as an affirmative defense. This means you admit to having assaulted the other person, but you claim your action was justified as self defense. This actually means that the burden of proof changes from the prosecution proving you are guilty to your proving your actions were justified as self defense. I don't know if it works that way in Florida though.)
 
2012-12-04 10:17:35 PM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: No it doesn't.

The Sanford Police report from the shooting. It list Zimmerman's height as 5'9"


As I pointed out, that same night they also reported his height as 5'7".

I'm inclined to give more weight to the one I linked to, because it's more complete, and yours seems to be a preliminary report. The one you linked to said "PARTIAL REPORT ONLY", the one I linked to is the actual complete "OFFENSE REPORT".

As for the weight, my wife weighs more than I do. What is your point? My brother-in-law is taller, lighter, and younger than I am. He could kick my ass if he were so inclined.
 
2012-12-04 10:27:40 PM

Jim_Callahan: No. The answer is "it depends on your state". Use google, look up deadly force statutes. Appropriate/legal uses of deadly force range from "only to prevent your own murder" in the most stupid restrictive states, to preventing Murder, rape, or battery to yourself or another in the vast majority of states, to preventing anything down to robbery and burglary in the significant minority of more permissive states.

In the latter states, it's actually perfectly legal to shoot a mugger in the back once his back is turned and he's absconding with his loot. Obviously there will still be an investigation to verify, but it's legal.

Which states allow broader and which narrower uses of lethal force don't fall easily into the usual stereotypes, so you really need to look them up. California, for instance, allows you to legally kill anyone in the process of committing any felony, against you or anyone else, regardless of your relationship to the victim, making it by far one of the most forgiving states where the use of lethal force is concerned.


It it TECHNICALLY legal in a few states, but you will still be prosecuted half the time in those states if the local prosecutor has any reason at all to do so. You will be convicted half the time, and if you aren't you will still have racked up a crap-ton of legal costs worth way more than the stuff the guy was stealing. In other words, don't try it unless the mugger is the same race as you and has no family and friends in the area to put pressure on the prosecutor.
 
2012-12-04 10:32:13 PM
What do you expect from skulking around your gated community playing Batman stalking strangers based on their race?

Rot in prison, hero.
 
2012-12-04 11:15:11 PM

BuckTurgidson: What do you expect from skulking around your gated community playing Batman stalking strangers based on their race?


Um, one less stranger lurking in the dark in my gated community? 

/yeah, I know, the "stranger" was being "stalked" based on his behavior, not race
//but sometimes I like to see the trolls work up a lather
 
2012-12-04 11:33:58 PM

BuckTurgidson: What do you expect from skulking around your gated community playing Batman stalking strangers based on their race?

Rot in prison, hero.



It's a bit late in the thread for trolling, don't you think, Buck?
 
2012-12-04 11:37:47 PM

justtray: He didn't chase him down, Martin had ample time and opportunity to escape.


I just want to point out that Zimmerman's story disproves this exact argument.

Zimmerman had lived in that area for a long time, Martin for a very short time.
Zimmerman was the most active participant in the neighborhood watch and knew the area better than probably about anyone. Martin had probably been driven on one route through the neighborhood only, and had walked to the local store by one route only in the short time he had been there.
Zimmerman claims he, a person who should know the area backward and forwards, had to get out of his car to figure out where he was. Martin, who barely knows the area at all, had to run through yards he did not know to get away from a crazy bastard that was chasing him down.
If Zimmerman was that easily lost then we can readily assume Martin was lost as well, which is why he could not escape, could not go home, and quite likely was wandering around at random trying to find something he recognized.

And yes, in Zimmerman's 911 call he is CLEARLY following Martin on foot. This isn't even vaguely questionable, he outright stated he was.

Think of it this way...We only have Zimmerman's word that Martin attacked him first. If the entirety of the story was "Kid walked up to me, started beating on me for no reason, I shot him." that word and some corroborating injury, blood, and DNA evidence would likely be sufficient for a "Good shoot". However, that is not the story. The story is VERY different, and because it is that word means nothing. By his own admission Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. By his own admission Zimmerman admits to having seen a black kid doing NOTHING ILLEGAL. By Zimmerman's own admission he followed the young man in his car (in a manner you have to admit would scare anyone who was minding their own business). By his own admission Zimmerman admits the kid seemed to get spooked by him and ran away through other peoples yards (best way to get away from a creepy car). By his own admission Zimmerman followed the young man through other peoples property, lost him, and went back to his car and searched for him some more. This is all corroborated by the 911 call and by Martin's GF.

What happened after that is entirely uncorroborated. Literally all we have is Zimmerman's statement, which he would have reason to lie about if he was the initial attacker, putting it in serious doubt. Again though, that would be enough if it was just a simple "attacked and shot in defense" scenario. But it isn't. Zimmerman's admitted prior actions were highly aggressive and were actions that would put a reasonable person in fear for their safety, health, and life. His actions where those of someone trying to initiate a confrontation. He was the repeated aggressor against advice to do otherwise, and the whole time he KNEW he was armed, meaning any fight he initiated, whether directly or through inducing fear in someone else, could quickly and easily end in someone elses death. As a gun carrier he had a responsibility to avoid that situation if possible, and all indications are that his actions induced it more than avoided it.

Also, it is laughable that he had to get out of the car to figure out where he was. That rings of absolutely no truth. He should know the neighborhood better than that, it isn't that large, or he should have been able to just look at the freaking street sign. Why would he even need to know where he was anyway unless he had something he was planning on reporting to the police, which he didn't since he claims he didn't know where Martin was at that time. Sorry, but it doesn't add up, and puts the "got jumped" part of his story in even further doubt. Not that it matters, as his relentless pursuit putting Trayvon in fear for his life is aggressive enough that he has no legal right to claim self defense anyway.
 
2012-12-04 11:40:55 PM
Did they ever figure out who owned the 12 pieces of women's jewelry that campus guards found in Trayvon Martin's backpack?

You know, the 12 pieces of women's jewelry that he said he was "holding for a friend," the one he refused to identify?

Just wondering.

I don't know about any of you, but when I was in school, male teenagers walked around with 12 pieces of women's jewelry of undetermined provenance in their backpacks, like, all the time.
 
2012-12-04 11:51:04 PM

arentol: What happened after that is entirely uncorroborated. Literally all we have is Zimmerman's statement


The burden is on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.

Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to disprove a claim of self-defense (as here, which, as you said, is a case where there is no evidence of who initiated physical contact), a defendant must not only be acquitted, but the case must be dismissed. In such cases where the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is inconclusive, a person claiming self-defense cannot even be tried.

I know this is frustrating for you. I know it will drive you crazy. I know you will become jaded and cynical as a result of having to confront the fact that Anglo-American law works this way. It will seem an outrage and profound injustice that a person in a two-man confrontation can kill the best witness who could have rebutted the shooter's claim of self-defense, and in so doing eliminate the very evidence that could have been used to convict him.

But you're just going to have to suck on it, because that's the way it is.
 
2012-12-05 12:14:34 AM

s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.


Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!
 
2012-12-05 12:48:14 AM

Abacus9: s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.

Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!



1) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that his SOLE purpose for following Martin was NOT to confront, but to point law enforcement to his location.

2) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that once advised to STOP following, Dimmerman did as directed.

Corroborating evidence (objective observers in separate 9-11 calls) shows that Martin was ON TOP of Dimmerman, wailing the shiat out of him BEFORE Dimmerman ended the attack with a bang.


/You planning to riot with the Jackson/Sharpton crowd come June?
//If so, I suggest a disguise
/// Al Jolson style
 
2012-12-05 12:55:05 AM

Phinn: Did they ever figure out who owned the 12 pieces of women's jewelry that campus guards found in Trayvon Martin's backpack?

You know, the 12 pieces of women's jewelry that he said he was "holding for a friend," the one he refused to identify?

Just wondering.

I don't know about any of you, but when I was in school, male teenagers walked around with 12 pieces of women's jewelry of undetermined provenance in their backpacks, like, all the time.


Citation needed.

Also, not relevent.
 
2012-12-05 01:16:36 AM

Amos Quito: Abacus9: s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.

Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!


1) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that his SOLE purpose for following Martin was NOT to confront, but to point law enforcement to his location.

2) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that once advised to STOP following, Dimmerman did as directed.

Corroborating evidence (objective observers in separate 9-11 calls) shows that Martin was ON TOP of Dimmerman, wailing the shiat out of him BEFORE Dimmerman ended the attack with a bang.

1) It doesn't matter. He is not a law enforcement officer, just a gung-ho whackjob stalking a teenager. He already told law enforcement Martin's location.
2) When the police advise you to do something, it's not a suggestion. It's an order.
3) The fact that Martin was wailing on him is irrelevant. Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not. And Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor as HE FOLLOWED MARTIN WHEN HE WAS TOLD NOT TO. His life was not threatened, and he was not "standing his ground". He was chasing Martin to new ground.

/You planning to riot with the Jackson/Sharpton crowd come June?
//If so, I suggest a disguise
/// Al Jolson style


And racism will get you nowhere.
 
2012-12-05 01:40:43 AM

Abacus9: s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.

Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!


I am suggesting that there is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after he was told "we don't need you to do that"(which was after they asked him to keep tabs on Martin). The dispatcher was vague on both counts.

If you have evidence of continued pursuit, I'd like to know what it is.
 
2012-12-05 01:41:42 AM

Abacus9: Amos Quito: Abacus9: s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.

Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!


1) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that his SOLE purpose for following Martin was NOT to confront, but to point law enforcement to his location.

2) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that once advised to STOP following, Dimmerman did as directed.

Corroborating evidence (objective observers in separate 9-11 calls) shows that Martin was ON TOP of Dimmerman, wailing the shiat out of him BEFORE Dimmerman ended the attack with a bang.

1) It doesn't matter. He is not a law enforcement officer, just a gung-ho whackjob stalking a teenager. He already told law enforcement Martin's location.
2) When the police advise you to do something, it's not a suggestion. It's an order.
3) The fact that Martin was wailing on him is irrelevant. Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not. And Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor as HE FOLLOWED MARTIN WHEN HE WAS TOLD NOT TO. His life was not threatened, and he was not "standing his ground". He was chasing Martin to new ground.

/You planning to riot with the Jackson/Sharpton crowd come June?
//If so, I suggest a disguise
/// Al Jolson style

And racism will get you nowhere.


So why are you being racist?
 
2012-12-05 01:59:31 AM

s2s2s2: Abacus9: s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.

Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!

I am suggesting that there is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after he was told "we don't need you to do that"(which was after they asked him to keep tabs on Martin). The dispatcher was vague on both counts.

If you have evidence of continued pursuit, I'd like to know what it is.


Other than the fact that Zimmerman admitted it when asked?
 
2012-12-05 02:00:30 AM

s2s2s2: Abacus9: Amos Quito: Abacus9: s2s2s2: Abacus9: Especially after following the guy, while armed, to begin with. Especially after being told not to follow the guy.

Citaton for this "fact" or stop using it.

Didn't know this was a point of contention. He was obviously armed, and the audio recording pretty clearly tells him to not follow Martin. Are you trying to argue that he didn't follow Martin?!


1) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that his SOLE purpose for following Martin was NOT to confront, but to point law enforcement to his location.

2) The evidence (9-11 tape) shows that once advised to STOP following, Dimmerman did as directed.

Corroborating evidence (objective observers in separate 9-11 calls) shows that Martin was ON TOP of Dimmerman, wailing the shiat out of him BEFORE Dimmerman ended the attack with a bang.

1) It doesn't matter. He is not a law enforcement officer, just a gung-ho whackjob stalking a teenager. He already told law enforcement Martin's location.
2) When the police advise you to do something, it's not a suggestion. It's an order.
3) The fact that Martin was wailing on him is irrelevant. Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not. And Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor as HE FOLLOWED MARTIN WHEN HE WAS TOLD NOT TO. His life was not threatened, and he was not "standing his ground". He was chasing Martin to new ground.

/You planning to riot with the Jackson/Sharpton crowd come June?
//If so, I suggest a disguise
/// Al Jolson style

And racism will get you nowhere.

So why are you being racist?


How am I racist? Citation needed.
 
2012-12-05 04:28:29 AM
In summary: The racists absolutely will NOT deviate from their position, all while claiming they aren't racist. Decency, morality and science be damned.

good thread!
 
2012-12-05 04:39:08 AM

mediablitz: In summary: The racists absolutely will NOT deviate from their position, all while claiming they aren't racist. Decency, morality and science be damned.

good thread!


You idiot.
 
2012-12-05 04:56:05 AM

Big Ramifications: mediablitz: In summary: The racists absolutely will NOT deviate from their position, all while claiming they aren't racist. Decency, morality and science be damned.

good thread!

You idiot.


Quality response. Full of factual data refuting claims.
 
2012-12-05 09:08:03 AM

Phinn: Did they ever figure out who owned the 12 pieces of women's jewelry that campus guards found in Trayvon Martin's backpack?


Well then, if he was a petty thief, I suppose he deserved the death penalty for that, right?
 
2012-12-05 09:20:20 AM

dittybopper: I'm inclined to give more weight to the one I linked to


Of course, it fits you narrative of Martin "towering" over poor, tiny Zimmerman. Because 6'2" over 5"7" is the exact same thing as 5'11" over 5'9".
Let's see, you have an armed 28 year old, 5'7" to 5'9" tall man that was determined not to let this asshole get away and a 17 year old, 5'11", unarmed, kid that was walking home from the store. Yet you insist that due to the fact of a 2-4 inch height difference Zimmerman would have been knee-knocking scared of Martin. Seems legit.
 
2012-12-05 09:50:48 AM

nekom: Well then, if he was a petty thief, I suppose he deserved the death penalty for that, right?


Don't you understand how the ZAC (Zimmerman Admiration Club) thinks?

A screwdriver equals burglary tools. I always love how one (singular) screwdriver becomes tools (plural).
Possession of woman's jewelry equals burglar. Never-mind that no crime has even been linked to the jewelry.
A nearly incoherent tweet from a cousin equals Martin attacking a bus driver.

Now when it comes to Saint Zimmerman:
GF accusing him of assaulting her equals biatches lie.
GF accusing him of assaulting her a second time equals biatches lie, all the time.
Officer accuses him of assault equals cops lie.
Co-worker accusing him of assaulting a woman equals co-workers lie.
Random motorist says Zimmerman was so aggressive he was afraid Zimmerman was going to attack him equals random motorist lie.
Lying to the judge equals being scared for his life.

Once you understand how the ZAC thinks, it's easy. Saint Zimmerman cannot do any wrong.
 
2012-12-05 10:04:08 AM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Early reports suggested...
Which is my point, many of the "early reports" were wrong, about both Martin and Zimmerman.


dittybopper: George Zimmerman is 5' 8" or 5' 7", depending on which police report you believe. Either way, that means Martin still had a 3" to 4" advantage in height.
Zimmerman's arrest reports list his height as 5'9". We know for a fact that Martin was 5'11". That's 2 inches. You can repeat Martin was "significantly" taller all day, and it will still be untrue. I clearly remember you saying that Martin "towered" over Zimmerman. When the facts came out you changed that to "significantly taller". Here's an idea, stop with the height BS. It's not true (that Martin was significantly taller) and it's meaningless. The fact that Zimmerman had a history of aggression is much more significant, but you choose to ignore that.


I linked to two different police reports reporting his height. At his booking (arrest) in April, when they had plenty of time to get things right, they listed his height as 5' 8".

That is a 3 inch advantage to Martin. That's a significant height difference. I'm 3 inches taller than my wife (I'm 5' 9", she's 5' 6"). While I don't quite *TOWER* over her like I thought Martin towered over Zimmerman (based in part on Martin's family asserting that he was 6'2"), I have a significant advantage in height. My arms are proportionally longer, and if she were a man, all else being equal, I'd have an advantage in both leverage and in strength.
 
2012-12-05 10:34:40 AM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: I'm inclined to give more weight to the one I linked to

Of course, it fits you narrative of Martin "towering" over poor, tiny Zimmerman. Because 6'2" over 5"7" is the exact same thing as 5'11" over 5'9".
Let's see, you have an armed 28 year old, 5'7" to 5'9" tall man that was determined not to let this asshole get away and a 17 year old, 5'11", unarmed, kid that was walking home from the store. Yet you insist that due to the fact of a 2-4 inch height difference Zimmerman would have been knee-knocking scared of Martin. Seems legit.


So you are saying that it's impossible that Martin, seeing a guy 3 inches shorter than him, and pudgier, didn't say "Hey, this asshole has been following me, I'm going to teach him a lesson"?

In the end though, we *KNOW* Martin had the upper hand physically: He had Zimmerman on the ground, and he broke his nose, split open the skin on the back of his head, and caused other injuries.

This is confirmed by photos of Zimmerman taken immediately after the incident, a doctors examination the next day, eyewitness testimony, and other physical evidence (like the back of Zimmerman's jacket being wet from the grass).

According to the coroner's report, the only injuries Martin sustained other than the gunshot wound was a small abrasion to one of his fingers.

Regardless of height differential, Martin was beating Zimmerman up, and it was apparent that Zimmerman couldn't escape, because Martin was on top of him. This is indisputable, based upon all the evidence. Martin was physically dominating Zimmerman so effectively that Zimmerman didn't even noticeably injure Martin (prior to shooting him, of course).

It doesn't matter who threw the first punch, either: In every state, even those where you have a duty to retreat, if you can't retreat at all, even if you started the altercation, if you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force. Here is the actual Florida Statute on this subject:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
 

In other words, given the facts that we actually know due to physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he still had a right to defend himself.

As a side note, I'll be surprised if the prosecutor isn't censured in some way. It's blatantly obvious that she has been withholding evidence that benefits the defense, like the picture in TFA: They initially released a poor black and white photocopy that doesn't show the bloody nose and mouth, and they didn't release this version originally.

i50.tinypic.com

Gee, I wonder why the person prosecuting Zimmerman would try to cover up evidence of his injuries?
 
2012-12-05 10:48:54 AM

dittybopper: That is a 3 inch advantage to Martin. That's a significant height difference. I'm 3 inches taller than my wife (I'm 5' 9", she's 5' 6"). While I don't quite *TOWER* over her like I thought Martin towered over Zimmerman (based in part on Martin's family asserting that he was 6'2"), I have a significant advantage in height. My arms are proportionally longer, and if she were a man, all else being equal, I'd have an advantage in both leverage and in strength.


In this and other threads you have inferred, and outright asserted, that you think that Zimmerman would not have been the aggressor when Zimmerman and Martin met up on the path. Your reasoning was, at first, that Martin towered over Zimmerman. After Martin's true height became known you changed towering over to significantly taller. You ignore the situation and their previous histories. It's near silly to think that a 2-3 inch height difference is of any consequence in this situation. Zimmerman was armed. He did not want this asshole to getaway. He has a history of being aggressive. If a man was acting aggressive towards your wife, would his being 6'0" tall (3 inches taller than you) influence your reaction? Would it stop you from taking physical action if needed to stop the aggressor? No, of course not. I don't know who "threw the first punch" but I don't believe for one second that their height difference had any influence on Zimmerman that night.
 
2012-12-05 10:56:05 AM

dittybopper: So you are saying that it's impossible that Martin, seeing a guy 3 inches shorter than him, and pudgier, didn't say "Hey, this asshole has been following me, I'm going to teach him a lesson"?


Now I see you're moving the goal post. I have never said, nor inferred, any such thing. For all I know, and I have said this many times, Martin may have attacked Zimmerman Pearl Harbor style. We don't know.

Let's keep on point, your (incorrect) assertion that Martin towered over Zimmerman.

You're backing-tracking so fast your feet have smoke coming off them Road Runner style.
 
2012-12-05 11:06:52 AM

dittybopper: So you are saying that it's impossible that Martin, seeing a guy 3 inches shorter than him, and pudgier, didn't say "Hey, this asshole has been following me, I'm going to teach him a lesson"?


I've admitted that possible. Now, let's see if you will admit that it's possible that the two met up on the path, Martin asked, why the fark are you following me? Zimmerman says something like your acting suspicious. Martin says screw you and turns to leave. Zimmerman grabs Martin (an assault) with one hand and puts his other hand on his gun and says you're not leaving here. Martin, in fear for his life (fully justified as we now know) and fully within his rights punches Zimmerman and jumps on top on him and trying to eliminate the threat (you know, shoot till they ain't breathing) continues to hit Zimmerman till Zimmerman kills him. Now, is that possible?
 
2012-12-05 07:10:05 PM

nekom: Well then, if he was a petty thief, I suppose he deserved the death penalty for that, right?


I don't know what he "deserved," but the fact of the matter is that Trayvon got the "death penalty" because he brought only his fists and his ghetto mouf to a gun fight.

He did not appear to be made of brains.
 
2012-12-05 08:05:37 PM

Phinn: I don't know what he "deserved," but the fact of the matter is that Trayvon got the "death penalty" because he brought only his fists and his ghetto mouf to a gun fight.

He did not appear to be made of brains.


Don't ever let it be said that the ZAC are not a classy bunch.
 
2012-12-05 08:05:45 PM
With all the evidence that has been made public, Zimmerman isn't guilty of a crime.
 
HBK
2012-12-06 12:20:23 AM

NightOwl2255: And there is the fact he shot and killed an unarmed person that had ever legal right to be where he was.


You had me going until the part about Trayvon Martin having a right to be on top of Zimmerman. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a right to be there.
 
HBK
2012-12-06 12:30:53 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: No need, you see Florida also has stalking laws, George tells the operator he's following Trayvon. He tells the operator that Trayvon ran away. Since Trayvon is not on George's property or threatening him in any way, George hopping into his car and going after someone who hasn't committed a crime and who poses no threat is itself a crime. Killing that person once you corner them and they try to fight back is also a crime.


When you mention Florida's stalking law where it is wholly inapplicable, you look like a farking moron. This goes for everyone else in the thread that don't understand the term "stalking" in its legal context.

Here, why don't you educate yourself so people won't think you're so dumb when you talk: Florida's stalking law.
 
2012-12-06 05:13:41 AM

dittybopper: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: I'm inclined to give more weight to the one I linked to

Of course, it fits you narrative of Martin "towering" over poor, tiny Zimmerman. Because 6'2" over 5"7" is the exact same thing as 5'11" over 5'9".
Let's see, you have an armed 28 year old, 5'7" to 5'9" tall man that was determined not to let this asshole get away and a 17 year old, 5'11", unarmed, kid that was walking home from the store. Yet you insist that due to the fact of a 2-4 inch height difference Zimmerman would have been knee-knocking scared of Martin. Seems legit.

So you are saying that it's impossible that Martin, seeing a guy 3 inches shorter than him, and pudgier, didn't say "Hey, this asshole has been following me, I'm going to teach him a lesson"?

In the end though, we *KNOW* Martin had the upper hand physically: He had Zimmerman on the ground, and he broke his nose, split open the skin on the back of his head, and caused other injuries.

This is confirmed by photos of Zimmerman taken immediately after the incident, a doctors examination the next day, eyewitness testimony, and other physical evidence (like the back of Zimmerman's jacket being wet from the grass).

According to the coroner's report, the only injuries Martin sustained other than the gunshot wound was a small abrasion to one of his fingers.

Regardless of height differential, Martin was beating Zimmerman up, and it was apparent that Zimmerman couldn't escape, because Martin was on top of him. This is indisputable, based upon all the evidence. Martin was physically dominating Zimmerman so effectively that Zimmerman didn't even noticeably injure Martin (prior to shooting him, of course).

It doesn't matter who threw the first punch, either: In every state, even those where you have a duty to retreat, if you can't retreat at all, even if you started the altercation, if you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force. Here is the actual Florida Statute on this subject:

776.041Use of force by ...


What those "Severe Injuries" actually look like once you take a kleenex to them:

www.wtsp.com

Say he's injured. Fine. Those aren't severe injuries. That's a nosebleed.
 
HBK
2012-12-06 06:40:15 AM

BronyMedic: dittybopper: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: I'm inclined to give more weight to the one I linked to

Of course, it fits you narrative of Martin "towering" over poor, tiny Zimmerman. Because 6'2" over 5"7" is the exact same thing as 5'11" over 5'9".
Let's see, you have an armed 28 year old, 5'7" to 5'9" tall man that was determined not to let this asshole get away and a 17 year old, 5'11", unarmed, kid that was walking home from the store. Yet you insist that due to the fact of a 2-4 inch height difference Zimmerman would have been knee-knocking scared of Martin. Seems legit.

So you are saying that it's impossible that Martin, seeing a guy 3 inches shorter than him, and pudgier, didn't say "Hey, this asshole has been following me, I'm going to teach him a lesson"?

In the end though, we *KNOW* Martin had the upper hand physically: He had Zimmerman on the ground, and he broke his nose, split open the skin on the back of his head, and caused other injuries.

This is confirmed by photos of Zimmerman taken immediately after the incident, a doctors examination the next day, eyewitness testimony, and other physical evidence (like the back of Zimmerman's jacket being wet from the grass).

According to the coroner's report, the only injuries Martin sustained other than the gunshot wound was a small abrasion to one of his fingers.

Regardless of height differential, Martin was beating Zimmerman up, and it was apparent that Zimmerman couldn't escape, because Martin was on top of him. This is indisputable, based upon all the evidence. Martin was physically dominating Zimmerman so effectively that Zimmerman didn't even noticeably injure Martin (prior to shooting him, of course).

It doesn't matter who threw the first punch, either: In every state, even those where you have a duty to retreat, if you can't retreat at all, even if you started the altercation, if you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force. Here is the actual Florida Statute on this subject:

776.041Us ...


I'd expect someone who claims to be a medic to better understand nose breaks. I've got a good handle on them because I've treated a few myself.

Here's the thing about nosebreaks: they hurt like hell, disrupt your breathing, disrupt your vision, and if you're on your back, you're sucking your own blood into your lungs. But, if you're tough, they're easy to reset. Put a styptic pencil or some superglue on it, and it looks like the above. Until the next day at least, then you'll probably have a black eye or two.

So yeah, nosebreaks can feel pretty serious. Just because they clean-up okay doesn't mean dick.
 
2012-12-06 06:56:17 AM

Fark Me To Tears: So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


Martin was minding his own business.

Zimmerman was carrying a gun, and he chased someone down at night and instigated a confrontation that led to him shooting Martin. The shooting didn't happen next to Zimmerman's vehicle, it happened in a backyard nearby, after the dispatcher had recommended that Zimmernan not follow Martin. Zimmerman refused to agree to a place to meet the police, telling the dispatcher to have them call him when they arrived in the neighborhood. It's obvious who the agressor is.


Based on the phone call Zimmerman made, we know that Zimmerman started it. We know Martin tried to run away from Zimmerman. We know Zimmerman followed Martin. And we know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

ongbok: According to Zimmerman he didn't ask him a question. According to Zimmerman he never confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Trayvon attacked him from behind while he was looking at street signs trying to figure out what street he was on.


According to where the body was found, they weren't on a street and any "I was looking at street signs" story is an obvious lie.

s2s2s2: And a quick listen to the 911 recordings will show that GZ's response was "OK". What evidence do you have that he continued to pursue Trayvon?


For one thing, there is the fact that he refused to agree to a location to meet police and told them to call when they got there. More importantly, the fact that five minutes after the phone call, he shot and killed Martin in someones backyard. If he had stopped and gone back to his car, that wouldn't have happened.
 
2012-12-06 10:05:24 AM

HBK: You had me going until the part about Trayvon Martin having a right to be on top of Zimmerman. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a right to be there.


If Zimmerman "threw the first punch" or assaulted Martin, Martin would have the legal right to be on top of him, beating him like a drum, yes?
 
2012-12-06 01:41:27 PM
So just so I have this right. If I feel like someone is following me and I think I can take them it's ok for me to jump on them and starting kicking the shiat out of them?

Conversely if I'm following someone in my neighborhood who I think might be up to some sort of criminal behavior and they attack me I can only retaliate in the same mode of attack they've perpetrated even if I'm clearly getting my ass handed to me?

It looks like many of you live in a world where real violence hasn't touched you. I'm glad for you. I have.

Most recently I was the victim of an aggravated battery by a young man who was "turning his life around" (I'm a fairly big guy, can handle myself but was alone with this guy in my bar, he blind sided me and I could've been killed... was lucky to wrestle him out the door) and hit me in the head six times w a pool ball I'll be using a hammerless .38 w/ jacketed anti personnel rounds the next time a young man, skittles or not, decides he wants to go after a guy w 25 years on him like that. And I'll empty it into him.

This is a little preemptive message for the crying mother of this "good boy" Suck my dick.
 
HBK
2012-12-06 05:22:09 PM

NightOwl2255: HBK: You had me going until the part about Trayvon Martin having a right to be on top of Zimmerman. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a right to be there.

If Zimmerman "threw the first punch" or assaulted Martin, Martin would have the legal right to be on top of him, beating him like a drum, yes?


Yes, that's what I said upthread.
 
2012-12-06 05:30:58 PM

HBK: NightOwl2255: HBK: You had me going until the part about Trayvon Martin having a right to be on top of Zimmerman. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a right to be there.

If Zimmerman "threw the first punch" or assaulted Martin, Martin would have the legal right to be on top of him, beating him like a drum, yes?

Yes, that's what I said upthread.


Well, make up your mind.
 
2012-12-06 07:32:59 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: So just so I have this right. If I feel like someone is following me and I think I can take them it's ok for me to jump on them and starting kicking the shiat out of them?

Conversely if I'm following someone in my neighborhood who I think might be up to some sort of criminal behavior and they attack me I can only retaliate in the same mode of attack they've perpetrated even if I'm clearly getting my ass handed to me?

It looks like many of you live in a world where real violence hasn't touched you. I'm glad for you. I have.

Most recently I was the victim of an aggravated battery by a young man who was "turning his life around" (I'm a fairly big guy, can handle myself but was alone with this guy in my bar, he blind sided me and I could've been killed... was lucky to wrestle him out the door) and hit me in the head six times w a pool ball I'll be using a hammerless .38 w/ jacketed anti personnel rounds the next time a young man, skittles or not, decides he wants to go after a guy w 25 years on him like that. And I'll empty it into him.

This is a little preemptive message for the crying mother of this "good boy" Suck my dick.


You really can't see the difference between some thug attacking your situation and the one in the Zimmerman/Martin case? You really think that Zimmerman, who was clearly the aggressor based on everything in his 911 call, got jumped out of the blue, blindsided? You think as soon as he hung up, he went from "Chase that guy down, I'm tired of these assholes getting away" to "get back to my car and wait for the cops", even though he refused to agree to a place to meet the cops?

You're pretending that Martin was the aggressor here, but all evidence is that he was minding his own business until the guy that shot him got involved.
 
2012-12-06 09:24:29 PM

JuggleGeek: Giant Clown Shoe: So just so I have this right. If I feel like someone is following me and I think I can take them it's ok for me to jump on them and starting kicking the shiat out of them?

Conversely if I'm following someone in my neighborhood who I think might be up to some sort of criminal behavior and they attack me I can only retaliate in the same mode of attack they've perpetrated even if I'm clearly getting my ass handed to me?

It looks like many of you live in a world where real violence hasn't touched you. I'm glad for you. I have.

Most recently I was the victim of an aggravated battery by a young man who was "turning his life around" (I'm a fairly big guy, can handle myself but was alone with this guy in my bar, he blind sided me and I could've been killed... was lucky to wrestle him out the door) and hit me in the head six times w a pool ball I'll be using a hammerless .38 w/ jacketed anti personnel rounds the next time a young man, skittles or not, decides he wants to go after a guy w 25 years on him like that. And I'll empty it into him.

This is a little preemptive message for the crying mother of this "good boy" Suck my dick.

You really can't see the difference between some thug attacking your situation and the one in the Zimmerman/Martin case? You really think that Zimmerman, who was clearly the aggressor based on everything in his 911 call, got jumped out of the blue, blindsided? You think as soon as he hung up, he went from "Chase that guy down, I'm tired of these assholes getting away" to "get back to my car and wait for the cops", even though he refused to agree to a place to meet the cops?

You're pretending that Martin was the aggressor here, but all evidence is that he was minding his own business until the guy that shot him got involved.


Why don't you believe the witnesses?
 
2012-12-06 10:48:24 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: Why don't you believe the witnesses?


Applying reason to the facts and the law would require him to change his irrational conclusion. Therefore he won't do that.

In any event, I'm waiting breathlessly for the Fark greenlight of today's Zimmerman story -- he's sued NBC for editing his audio to make him appear to be a racist. You know the one -- "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

NBC didn't bother to include the INTERVENING QUESTION from the dispatcher as to Martin's race, or even add ellipses to indicate the massive edit.

The Fark Socialist Brigade doesn't even realize the extent to which they're the media's meat-puppets. And on a site dedicated to ridiculing the news industry, of all places.

/I wonder if that counts as irony.
 
2012-12-06 11:17:36 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: Why don't you believe the witnesses?


There are no witnesses as to how Martin and Zimmerman ended up getting physical.

There is no evidence, witness or otherwise, to indicate that Martin was doing anything wrong before Zimmerman started chasing him.

Zimmerman's phone call makes it clear that Zimmerman was provoking an altercation, and that Martin was doing his best to avoid one.

Yes, they got into a fight. But putting all the blame for that fight on Martin makes no sense. Zimmerman's phone call leaves no doubt. Martin was trying to avoid Zimmerman, and ZImmerman was chasing Martin.

Pretending that's the same situation as someone hitting you from behind in your place of business is stupid.
 
2012-12-06 11:19:40 PM

Phinn: In any event, I'm waiting breathlessly for the Fark greenlight of today's Zimmerman story -- he's sued NBC for editing his audio to make him appear to be a racist. You know the one -- "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."


I think Zimmerman should rot in jail. But I'm on his side on that. NBC screwed up big time, and they should pay.
 
2012-12-06 11:58:53 PM

El Morro: Not sure why you need to be such a dick about it. Try and relax. Have some skittles or something.


Sorry. Zimmerman threads are essentially bar fights. You walk in and look cross at someone you're going to get punched.

Perhaps my tone was a little excessive.
 
2012-12-07 03:01:32 AM

JuggleGeek: Giant Clown Shoe: Why don't you believe the witnesses?

There are no witnesses as to how Martin and Zimmerman ended up getting physical.

There is no evidence, witness or otherwise, to indicate that Martin was doing anything wrong before Zimmerman started chasing him.

Zimmerman's phone call makes it clear that Zimmerman was provoking an altercation, and that Martin was doing his best to avoid one.

Yes, they got into a fight. But putting all the blame for that fight on Martin makes no sense. Zimmerman's phone call leaves no doubt. Martin was trying to avoid Zimmerman, and ZImmerman was chasing Martin.

Pretending that's the same situation as someone hitting you from behind in your place of business is stupid.


Noted conservative Allen Dershowitz has an opinion...

Link

The point about my own brush with a life or death struggle gives me perspective about how quickly real violence happens, how quickly decisions have to be made and how you have no idea how you'll react until you find yourself fighting for your life. I have no doubt Zimmerman felt he was fighting for his life.
 
2012-12-07 03:17:14 AM

Giant Clown Shoe: I have no doubt Zimmerman felt he was fighting for his life.


Probably so, after he provoked a fight.

Martin probably felt the same way. The difference is that Zimmerman had the opportunity to walk away from it, but chose to chase Martin down. Martin didn't try to have this conflict, he tried to get away.

Zimmerman was carrying a gun, provoking the conflict, and refusing to let Martin run away.

Would you really want this guy wandering around your neighborhood doing this kind of crap?

I'm not opposed to self defense. I'm certainly not anti-gun. But you shouldn't be carrying a gun, starting fights, and claiming "I had to kill him".

If a crazy man with a gun starts chasing you at night, you damn well have a right to defend yourself.
 
Displayed 477 of 477 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report