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.

(New York Daily News)   George Zimmerman's legal team has been given the green light to present the "the victim was an angry black kid, so it's okay that I shot him" defense   (nydailynews.com) divider line 693
    More: Obvious, George Zimmerman, smoke rings, murder trial, Benjamin Crump, Cannabis smoking, Mark O'Mara  
•       •       •

7132 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2013 at 5:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-26 08:48:19 PM  

EvilIguana966: Oh Hai Guys.  Is this the thread where Fark Liberals(TM) conveniently forget that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that a plausible alternative theory of the crime constitutes the type of reasonable doubt that is supposed to result in an exoneration?


Keyword being "plausible." Zimmerman's claims and those of his partisans are implausible.
 
2013-05-26 08:48:40 PM  

BolloxReader: Someone holding a gun at me comes within arms reach, I'm going to try to take him out. Why? You never draw a firearm without intending to use it. At least that is the rule that every gun owner I have known has told me. Never aim it at another person without the intent to kill them. Because if you don't intend to kill them, you might do so accidentally. Thus, even in dealing with responsible gun owners, I know that if they aim a gun at me, they will be shooting me. Only irresponsible gun owners would draw without intending to kill me.


Yeah, but my bet is that the vast majority of shootings are done by "irresponsible gun owners".

If they were responsible, they won't shoot you.
 
2013-05-26 08:49:58 PM  

LegacyDL: So by that logic if the kid was a drunk abusive Irish man that beat his wife it would be okay to shoot him as well.

When did text messages become de facto proof that warrants killing people?


You seem to be confused as the how western court systems work.

The defense does not have to prove 100% down to the position of every atom that their story is the true one.  They have to present a story consistent with the evidence that is feasible enough that a reasonable person might have some doubt regarding the prosecution's story that Zimmerman simply decided he felt like killing someone and set out to do it.

The victim having a history of starting or escalating fights is a pretty good reasonable-doubt-sized hole in the defense's contention that the kid had nothing to do with the initiation or escalation of the fight.
 
2013-05-26 08:50:26 PM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around  to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins  in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent brea ...


Best post in this thread.
 
2013-05-26 08:51:09 PM  

gblive: Alonjar: gblive: One of the primary reasons that Zimmerman will avoid conviction is because the over-zealous state prosecutor charged with him with murder and is unwilling to consider lesser charges. A more appropriate charge would be manslaughter in this case; murder is obviously an 'over-charging'. If you asked me at this point if the state would be able to assemble a reasonable jury that would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter - I would tell you the probability is about 20% IMO (but this is not the charge the state is pursuing).

Florida also did the same thing with Casey Anthony.  Over charging lost them the case.


In the Casey Anthony case the prosecution was one of the least effective that I have ever seen.  They seemed to be trying to make a case that Casey Anthony was a bad mother therefore she was a criminal.  The prosecution needed to focus on the evidence in the case which they failed to do.


You can't get a murder conviction or even a manslaughter conviction if you can't even prove the child's cause of death. That case should never have been prosecuted at all.

As for this one, they went with 2nd degree to give some room for a possible plea deal . Has anyone said if a manslaughter charge is completely off the table? In Texas this year, a man was being tried for murder for shooting his wife, thinking she was an intruder. He was aquitted on the murder charge, but the judge did allow the jury to consider manslaughter, which he was convicted of and sentenced to 5 years.
 
2013-05-26 08:51:37 PM  

Tatsuma: Walter Paisley: Back to the topic at hand, how would Martin's intent of taking codeine or his fondness for pot translate into violent tendencies? How is experimenting with drugs out of the norm for a teenager? Zimmerman's defense seems to be more based upon playing up fears in which drug users and young black males are demonized.

I was just correcting what he was saying. It's not the drug use, it's the picture of him with a gun, his claims of beating a snitch and being a gangsta, his having stolen property in his locker, his texts about buying a gun, it's really about all of these things.

gimmegimme: Otherwise, why would you care?

It's about establishing character.

Wolf_Blitzer: Again, I have recent photos firing a machine gun, guess you'd better just kill me now.

This is way beyond grasping at straws, its pathetic really.

Well if you also have many texts sent to strangers about beating up people, doing drugs and being a gangsta, don't get into an assault without witnesses around or you'll be farked if the other guy is not an idiot and doesn't have incriminating stuff lying around to show him to be a violent shiathead.


So he was shot for trying to up his street cred by B.S? Derp meet more derp. Teens lie constantly about the "bad" things they've done to impress their peers. I once took on a cougar with a Swiss army knife when I was sixteen. Then when the game warden got sassy I slapped him out with her purse. I deserve to be shot.
True story!
 
2013-05-26 08:52:37 PM  
People are going to have Casey Anthony style shiat fits when Zimmerman walks aren't they?
 
2013-05-26 08:53:58 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The defense does not have to prove 100% down to the position of every atom that their story is the true one.


Neither does the prosecution. There can be some doubt in the jury's mind. But if it isn't a reasonableone, guilt is proven. Zimmerman's own character for violence cancels out Trayvon's. This is a tie, and no inference can be drawn either way.

All of the other evidence says Zimmerman started the fight.
 
2013-05-26 08:54:41 PM  

Abox: Imagine a road rage incident where you chase a guy down because what the hell you have a gun, you get into a fight, and you shoot the guy dead because you were losing the fight.  B-b-b-but I was standing my ground!


This is it right here
 
2013-05-26 08:56:18 PM  

You Cant Explain That: Abox: Imagine a road rage incident where you chase a guy down because what the hell you have a gun, you get into a fight, and you shoot the guy dead because you were losing the fight.  B-b-b-but I was standing my ground!

This is it right here


You know, except for the fact they aren't using the 'Stand your ground' defense...
 
2013-05-26 08:56:43 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-26 08:56:52 PM  
Zimmerman will walk. The prosecution has a thin case to build and has to sell it to twelve people, down to every last detail. The defense needs to sway only one person out of those twelve. (I'm assuming he asked for a jury trial.)
 
2013-05-26 08:59:12 PM  
It pretty much says it all that Zimmerman's peeps are trying desperately to ignore bugontherug's post. It demolishes basically all the arguments that Trayvon started the fight.
 
2013-05-26 09:00:51 PM  

Baz744: It pretty much says it all that Zimmerman's peeps are trying desperately to ignore bugontherug's post. It demolishes basically all the arguments that Trayvon started the fight.


It's less that they're "trying desperately to ignore it," and more that they lack the attention span to digest it.
 
2013-05-26 09:01:13 PM  
One thing I know for sure: If the kid had been packing and blown Zimmerman away in self-defense after being stalked through a dark neighborhood, he'd already be in prison for life.
 
2013-05-26 09:02:18 PM  

bugontherug: Baz744: It pretty much says it all that Zimmerman's peeps are trying desperately to ignore bugontherug's post. It demolishes basically all the arguments that Trayvon started the fight.

It's less that they're "trying desperately to ignore it," and more that they lack the attention span to digest it.


Your jibb, I like the cut of it.
 
2013-05-26 09:03:17 PM  

Nabb1: Zimmerman will walk. The prosecution has a thin case to build and has to sell it to twelve people, down to every last detail. The defense needs to sway only one person out of those twelve. (I'm assuming he asked for a jury trial.)


That's a hung jury. That's neither legally nor morally the same as an acquittal.
 
2013-05-26 09:04:35 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Kahabut: These threads are always amusing.

I can tell which people are children, and which ones are "minorities" and which ones are just plain bleeding hearts.

Ah, nice quotation marks, there. That tells us all we need to know about you, too.


I'm curious just how good you are at this.  So tell me, what does it say about me?

My guess is you are going to miss the mark by a ways, but I'll play fair.  Lets here it.
 
2013-05-26 09:04:41 PM  
I dont think zim should get found guilty of murder (not nearly enough evidence), but many of the posters defending him are insane.

That is all.
 
2013-05-26 09:05:48 PM  

Baz744: It pretty much says it all that Zimmerman's peeps are trying desperately to ignore bugontherug's post. It demolishes basically all the arguments that Trayvon started the fight.


It's detailed, I'll give it that. Anyone making this some sort of political issue, I tend to regard a little less seriously. If you want to know why this case will go down in flames for the prosecutors, get off FARK and go watch "Rashomon." No one can predict what jurors will do with confidence, and a one claiming they can is either insane or lying.
 
2013-05-26 09:07:05 PM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around  to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins  in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent brea ...


And that should be the state's closing argument.
 
2013-05-26 09:07:11 PM  

Smackledorfer: I dont think zim should get found guilty of murder (not nearly enough evidence), but many of the posters defending him are insane.

That is all.


If you believe Zimmerman started a fight while carrying a loaded firearm, that's enough to convict of 2nd degree murder.
 
2013-05-26 09:07:11 PM  

bugontherug: Nabb1: Zimmerman will walk. The prosecution has a thin case to build and has to sell it to twelve people, down to every last detail. The defense needs to sway only one person out of those twelve. (I'm assuming he asked for a jury trial.)

That's a hung jury. That's neither legally nor morally the same as an acquittal.

 
2013-05-26 09:08:31 PM  
Oops. Well, I am sure my legal experience pales to yours, but I can't imagine the prosecutors retrying a case if the jury is hung.
 
2013-05-26 09:09:36 PM  

ongbok: And that should be the state's closing argument.


I'd like to think it's a good first draft. : )

Thank you for the compliment.
 
2013-05-26 09:09:50 PM  

Farkage: tenpoundsofcheese: Farkage: gimmegimme: tyrajam: Yawn. Your trolling has lost its entertainment value. Nobody believes that after your head is split open you should wait for more serious damage to occur before you defend yourself.

And no one believes that if your head is "split open" that a Band-Aid will suffice.

The one big thing I've learned from your rather "interesting" comments is anyone should feel totally safe attacking you, since even if they jump on you and slam your hear into the sidewalk you apparently feel it's impolite to pull a weapon to defend yourself.

and...is it possible that the gun went off during that fight?  or was it established that Zimmerman pulled the gun, took aim and fired?

Anything is possible except if he was shot from a distance as opposed to point blank range there would be different signs, such as powder burns on Martin.  None of us were there.  With that said, most of what gimmegimme has said is misleading.  Like, for example "he was ordered to stay in the car".  He wasn't.  Period.  He was allowed to follow him by law.  While stupid, classifying it as an "armed pursuit" is laughably inflammatory.
The police weren't going to press charges until the public flipped out thanks to the inflammatory crap the media displayed, and the police LOVE arresting bad guys.  That says a lot.
This shouldn't have been national news to begin with.



"A lab report, based on an examination of the two sweatshirts Martin was wearing, found holes and gunshot residue consistent with a "contact shot," meaning the gun was pressed against Martin's chest. An autopsy report said that the gunshot wound indicated he was shot from an "intermediate range," which experts say is between one and 18 inches away."


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-17/politics/35458587_1_t ray von-martin-christopher-serino-autopsy-report
 
2013-05-26 09:10:19 PM  
Humm, 1 dead Floridian and 2 in jail. what's not to like?
 
2013-05-26 09:11:13 PM  

bugontherug: Smackledorfer: I dont think zim should get found guilty of murder (not nearly enough evidence), but many of the posters defending him are insane.

That is all.

If you believe Zimmerman started a fight while carrying a loaded firearm, that's enough to convict of 2nd degree murder.


I'd love to see the Vegas odds on that statement.
 
2013-05-26 09:11:43 PM  

soporific: Alonjar: gblive: One of the primary reasons that Zimmerman will avoid conviction is because the over-zealous state prosecutor charged with him with murder and is unwilling to consider lesser charges. A more appropriate charge would be manslaughter in this case; murder is obviously an 'over-charging'. If you asked me at this point if the state would be able to assemble a reasonable jury that would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter - I would tell you the probability is about 20% IMO (but this is not the charge the state is pursuing).

Florida also did the same thing with Casey Anthony.  Over charging lost them the case.

And you can thank people like Nancy Grace for that. From day one, Nancy Grace and her ilk were speaking as if the trial were just a formality. The idea that the she wouldn't be convicted of first-degree murder didn't even occur to them, and this is why (I suspect) the prosecutor felt pressured to go after an unattainable charge. The fact that they couldn't even conclusively prove cause of death should have been their first inkling that they were in trouble. It was groupthink, through and through.

As for Zimmerman, I agree that the charge should be manslaughter. His actions are the reason Martin is dead. If he'd stayed in the car, none of this would have happened. However, since it can be argued that at the moment he killed Martin he was defending himself, if the only options are a murder conviction and acquittal, then it's probably going to be acquittal.

That being said, even if he walks out of the courtroom a free man, there's still the civil trial, and I consider the odds very good that he will be found civilly liable for Martin's death. If his legal team has any brains, they'll try to settle. (Assuming he has any money left after the criminal trial.)


Too gaddamn rational, you are.  There is no room for you here.
 
2013-05-26 09:11:57 PM  

ChaosStar: 1. You're still lying
2. Zimmerman wasn't chasing Martin, he wasn't running full tilt after him to try and hold him down for the police. He was following, observing, and reporting what he saw to the dispatcher as he suspected Martin of being one of the people that were causing break ins in his neighborhood. There's your indication. This does not break any Florida law, and I challenge you to cite one that it does.
3. You're a tool
4. Yes, because telling Martin he thought he was a hoodlum trying to find a house to break into would really go far to not escalate the situation. Clearly he was trying to be evasive by not straight up telling Martin this and instead answering to the negative.
5. Now you're just making shiat up. Rounding a corner and meeting up with them while fleeing? Zimmerman was going in the opposite direction back to his vehicle, so unless your corner breaks the laws of time and space then you're not going to get away with that one.



1) Um no you have no clue as to what you are talking about

2) Again No, you keep ignoring that Zimmerman LEFT HIS VEHICLE TO follow him when Martin ran from him this goes beyond follow and observe due to suspicion, paranoia so not an excuse for this sorry

3) yes name calling is an effective way to prove your point

4) Nice projection there, it shows that you have a bias against Martin do to your perceptions, now how did
Zimmerman know he was a thug? Oh that's right according to Zimmerman he was one of "those people"! Also why couldn't Zimmerman when Martin asked if if he had a problem go "yes, we have been having lots of break ins and you are not from the complex, so I was wondering why you were here, are you visiting?

5) Actually we do not know what happened; you are basing it on Zimmermans less than truthful words you claimed that what I said does not constitute self defense I showed you that you were incorrect. Again you are basing your argument on what Zimmerman said and what you think the evidence shows not fact,

Again keep it up you are the best tool the prosecution has.

Remember this is not Stormfront, many of us look at what is and not what some want to be
 
2013-05-26 09:12:42 PM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around  to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins  in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent brea ...


Wrong, lets break down how you don't know what you're talking about.
1. you're reaching way to far. Revenge? Seriously? That's why he called the cops instead of just running after Martin, tackling him, and beating the crap out of him? Sure buddy.
2. Expressing frustration at police response time being so slow that these "f*cking punks" (seriously, listen to the recording, it's clear as day he says punks and not a racial slur) get away? Yeah, that's totally going into the evidence file that he started the fight.
3. You're just rehashing your second point. Zimmerman didn't even know Martin before this night so if you're somehow trying to infer that he has it out for Martin then you have shot to the top of the ignorant scoreboard.
4. Ah and here's where I know for a fact you don't know what you're talking about. He wasn't acting as part of the watch at the time, he was driving to the store, and he was never advised by police not to get out of his vehicle. In fact he was already on foot when he was talking to the dispatcher.
Note: he didn't disregard the dispatchers instructions cause, as has been pointed out many times above, the dispatcher cannot give instructions. He was told by the dispatcher that he didn't need to follow Martin, and he said ok and stopped.
5. This is just stupid

1. Seriously? Because he didn't set down his drug mixers that's evidence he didn't want to start a fight? Try harder.
2. The medical evidence has already ruled the THC level was low enough that he couldn't have been high when all this went down, not that anyone with common sense is claiming him smoking weed made him attack Zimmerman. Good try at obfuscation though.
3. Really? His "lies" were about money that he held back to help himself live in hiding from people who were doing things like issuing bounties on his life. Yeah, forgive me if I don't condemn a man because he wanted to keep something back to save his neck from the Black Panthers.
4. His "history of violence with police officers" was him shoving a police officer, which was reduced to resisting without violence and then waived when he entered a sobriety program. He was 20 (only three years older than Martin I might add) and alcohol was involved. That's hardly a "greater demonstrated character for violence".

1. Except that he came back
2. Zimmerman was acting lawfully as well, and you're gonna have to cite a source for this "merrily skipped away" horseshiat.
3. Except, as you yourself said, he had a history of violence and was clearly willing to get in a fight
4. Martin wanting to be a "thug" and feeling that Zimmerman was slighting him by following him is motivation enough. What sort of evidence do you want about the thoughts of a dead man?

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Kiddo, you didn't even provide enough to get him charged.
 
2013-05-26 09:13:13 PM  

mittromneysdog: bugontherug: ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around  to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins  in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset tha ...


Zimmerman was most likely right Trayvon probably had done some break-ins in the neighborhood....just saying....
 
2013-05-26 09:15:45 PM  

Baz744: It pretty much says it all that Zimmerman's peeps are trying desperately to ignore bugontherug's post. It demolishes basically all the arguments that Trayvon started the fight.


not ignoring shiat, but a wall of text like that requires time to reply to proving how most of it is wrong.
 
2013-05-26 09:15:48 PM  

Nabb1: Oops. Well, I am sure my legal experience pales to yours, but I can't imagine the prosecutors retrying a case if the jury is hung.

..

Between you and me, you're the only one who made any confident predictions about jury behavior before now.

But I agree the jury will probably hang. And I agree the state won't retry. But unless Zimmerman prevails on an SYG motion, there's going to be a civil case for this too, to take away all the money Zimmerman's going to try to make off of Trayvon's death. That's a lower standard of proof, and the case that Zimmerman was at least negligent is very strong.

Nabb1: Anyone making this some sort of political issue, I tend to regard a little less seriously.


So your principle response is an ad hominem and simultaneous pretension that this case is totally apolitical.
 
2013-05-26 09:16:21 PM  

AirForceVet: If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too


And that would be all he would need, in a court of law, to justify having shot you.

Your Average Witty Fark User: Zimmerman was told to stand down. He didn't.


That is a lie.
 
2013-05-26 09:17:33 PM  

mexican bathtub cheese: Not an angry black kid, a violent and assaultive black kid.


according to the guy that stereotyped, judged,convicted,pursued and executed him.
 
2013-05-26 09:18:59 PM  

s2s2s2: AirForceVet: If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too

And that would be all he would need, in a court of law, to justify having shot you.

Your Average Witty Fark User: Zimmerman was told to stand down. He didn't.

That is a lie.


911 dispatcher: are you following him?
Zimmerman; yes
911 dispatcher: we don't need you to do that
 
2013-05-26 09:20:27 PM  

bugontherug: Try an experiment. Get a nice, soft pad, maybe a pillow, and a friend.

Lay flat on your back, and have your friend straddle you at the waist. Then have him try to "slam" your head back into the soft padding. Remind him that he's not allowed to pull your hair, because Zimmerman's head was shaved.

Without a very great difference in strength, I doubt it's even possible to slam someone's head into the ground if he offers resistance. Especially not from the position described.

And what exactly was Trayvon holding onto?


This is stupid. Lying on your back, having a friend try to slam your head is not going to yield the same results as a fight for your life situation.
 
2013-05-26 09:20:52 PM  

anindependent: bugontherug: But if he did so, we know his purpose wasn't to fight, because he was still carrying his Skittles and Arizona drink. Logic says if he had intended to start a fight, he would have set them down before tracking back. So if Trayvon did turn around, he did so most likely to observe the creepy, angry, cursing suspicious character invading his neighborhood, not start a fight with him.

This is actually pretty crushing to the claim Trayvon backtracked so he could start a fight.


Yeah, if you're a retard.
 
2013-05-26 09:21:19 PM  

Azlefty: 5) NO I wouldn't under many states laws including Florida since I could show by Zimmerman's actions that I felt fear of imminent harm. even here in good old libby lib CA it would be considered justifiable self defense since:


Speaking as a professional lethal force instructor, you have this all wrong.  Simply being followed does not raise to the level necessary to use force against a person.  The person must commit a specific articulable action that has the ability to cause immediate harm.  Even if they are walking behind you with a gun or a knife, it still doesn't raise to the level where you can use force against them.  The person would need to attempt to use the weapon against you, or take some other action which would cause you to believe that they are about to use it against you.

Simply being followed does not cross the threshold for the use of force.
 
2013-05-26 09:21:36 PM  
bugontherug:

Nabb1: Anyone making this some sort of political issue, I tend to regard a little less seriously.

So your principle response is an ad hominem and simultaneous pretension that this case is totally apolitical.


People tend to let their emotions get the better of them when they attach politics to analyzing something like this. And, I wasn't predicting what each of those jurors will do with exactitude as much as expressing confidence that the defense has enough to sway one of twelve.
 
2013-05-26 09:21:43 PM  

redmid17: bugontherug: Smackledorfer: I dont think zim should get found guilty of murder (not nearly enough evidence), but many of the posters defending him are insane.

That is all.

If you believe Zimmerman started a fight while carrying a loaded firearm, that's enough to convict of 2nd degree murder.

I'd love to see the Vegas odds on that statement.


To clarify, I think the jury will hang. But I maintain:

1) there is legally sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder. That term "legally sufficient" is a legal term with a specific meaning. It doesn't mean the jury will convict. It means the jury may permissibly conflict. Unless the judge or an appellate court dismisses for lack of evidence, that means they agree with me.

2) the case against Zimmerman for murder is substantially stronger than the case against Casey Anthony for murder.

3) the "reasonable doubt" standard is an instruction to individual jurors. So if in fact he believes beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman started the fight, then he should vote to convict.
 
2013-05-26 09:22:00 PM  

bugontherug: Smackledorfer: I dont think zim should get found guilty of murder (not nearly enough evidence), but many of the posters defending him are insane.

That is all.

If you believe Zimmerman started a fight while carrying a loaded firearm, that's enough to convict of 2nd degree murder.


I am not sure what I believe happened.

I don't disagree with the plausibility of your events layout, mind you.

What I cannot say is that I have no reasonable doubts on this one.

Fwiw I think zimmerman is a crazy motherfarker, both his history and his statements after the event. I hope I never meet him. But can I convict him with evidence that still allows for trayvon to be the first one to go physical in the confrontation? I cannot.

Neither am I on the jury, where any number of pieces of evidence could be shown to me that the interweb doesn't know about.
 
2013-05-26 09:22:06 PM  

mexican bathtub cheese: Not an angry black kid, a violent and assaultive black kid.


Whatever man. Still a kid. Plenty of farkers got into brawls as teens. And turned out to be ok adults in the end.
who the hell is zimmerman or anyone else to pass judgment on the kid? What zimmerman can defend himself. But if a black kid does than he is violent and assaultive.

fark you
 
2013-05-26 09:22:17 PM  

KimNorth: Zimmerman was most likely right Trayvon probably had done some break-ins in the neighborhood....just saying....


Probably and maybe are not admissible in court.
 
2013-05-26 09:22:43 PM  

Nabb1: People tend to let their emotions get the better of them when they attach politics to analyzing something like this.


So ad hom number too, coupled with another pretension that this case is wholly apolitical in your mind. Nice.
 
2013-05-26 09:22:55 PM  

redmid17: If you can find even one mention of Florida officials even talking about Zimmerman and assault or stalking, I'd be interested in reading it. Otherwise most of your assertions seem to be a completely incorrect application of a non applicable law.


The prosecutor has questioned why Zimmerman followed him, hence part of the justification for the charges.  As for questioning someone about  assault or stalking beings the reason Martin hit Zimmerman in defense of himself that would need to be Martin and as we know he is unavailable to answer questions. While there may be no charges, if it can be shown to a reasonable person that Zimmerman's actions made Martin fearful of imminent harm -assault- then yes the law is relevant. To many want to ignore the actions that occurred before the face to face confrontation and you can't since they show intent and justification.
 
2013-05-26 09:23:36 PM  

Azlefty: ChaosStar: 1. You're still lying
2. Zimmerman wasn't chasing Martin, he wasn't running full tilt after him to try and hold him down for the police. He was following, observing, and reporting what he saw to the dispatcher as he suspected Martin of being one of the people that were causing break ins in his neighborhood. There's your indication. This does not break any Florida law, and I challenge you to cite one that it does.
3. You're a tool
4. Yes, because telling Martin he thought he was a hoodlum trying to find a house to break into would really go far to not escalate the situation. Clearly he was trying to be evasive by not straight up telling Martin this and instead answering to the negative.
5. Now you're just making shiat up. Rounding a corner and meeting up with them while fleeing? Zimmerman was going in the opposite direction back to his vehicle, so unless your corner breaks the laws of time and space then you're not going to get away with that one.


1) Um no you have no clue as to what you are talking about

2) Again No, you keep ignoring that Zimmerman LEFT HIS VEHICLE TO follow him when Martin ran from him this goes beyond follow and observe due to suspicion, paranoia so not an excuse for this sorry

3) yes name calling is an effective way to prove your point

4) Nice projection there, it shows that you have a bias against Martin do to your perceptions, now how did
Zimmerman know he was a thug? Oh that's right according to Zimmerman he was one of "those people"! Also why couldn't Zimmerman when Martin asked if if he had a problem go "yes, we have been having lots of break ins and you are not from the complex, so I was wondering why you were here, are you visiting?

5) Actually we do not know what happened; you are basing it on Zimmermans less than truthful words you claimed that what I said does not constitute self defense I showed you that you were incorrect. Again you are basing your argument on what Zimmerman said and what you think the evi ...


1. Yes you do, you were lying.
2. No, he did not. He was out of his vehicle watching Martin. He didn't come to a screeching halt, jump out, and start running him down. Ho stopped, got out to watch Martin, and called the non-emergency number for 911. It was only after that Zimmerman followed. Get it right.
3. It's not name calling if it's true.
4. Who said Zimmerman knew he was a thug? Why should Zimmerman have to give Martin any information when Martin walks up and demands to know "have you got a problem"? I doubt very seriously he asked him in a nice, respectful tone of voice and Zimmerman didn't want the situation to escalate so he does what anyone would do who didn't want it to escalate, he answers to the negative in hopes of placating.
5. Someone reaching into their pocket does not constitute a threat of violence to you. End of story. Ask anyone with a cwp, ask anyone who teaches a cwp course, ask a police officer, ask a lawyer. If you attack someone simply for reaching into their pocket because you feel it's a threat, you will be the one subject to arrest.
 
2013-05-26 09:24:57 PM  

Hobodeluxe: s2s2s2: AirForceVet: If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too

And that would be all he would need, in a court of law, to justify having shot you.

Your Average Witty Fark User: Zimmerman was told to stand down. He didn't.

That is a lie.

911 dispatcher: are you following him?
Zimmerman; yes
911 dispatcher: we don't need you to do that


Finish it. Your cut and paste is also a lie.
 
2013-05-26 09:25:13 PM  

bugontherug: Nabb1: People tend to let their emotions get the better of them when they attach politics to analyzing something like this.

So ad hom number too, coupled with another pretension that this case is wholly apolitical in your mind. Nice.


I was speaking I general terms, but if you think that shoe fits, then by all means lace it up and wear it. You seem particularly irritated by people who aren't convinced by the case you've laid out. Do you engage opposing counsel or judges with the same hostility?
 
Displayed 50 of 693 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report