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  
•       •       •

7126 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 10:01:27 PM
Hey, where did you go, counselor? This was getting interesting.
 
2013-05-26 10:02:04 PM

duffblue: teenage mutant ninja rapist: duffblue: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Face it guys. Zimmerman tried to be charles bronson and it blew up in his face big time.

his only defence now is the "Iam a great big pus*y" defence.

followed a kid while armed. Picks a fight. Gets beat up. Shoots the kid. Even if trayvon did pick the fight. He was being stalked by an armed stranger. So you cant really blame him.

when did it become ok for someone to pick a fight. Get beat up. Shoot the guy that beat him up and call it self defence?

thats all he has. Iam a great big pus*y that watched to many death wish movies. And boy did I fark up. Have mercy please.

So assaulting somebody because they are following you is ok now?

I would say it certainly warrants confrontation.

I mean if you were a young girl and some guy you dont know followed you. You would be frightend and re act.

anyways had zimmerman kept his fat ass in the car and on the phone. None of this would have happend.

so it's all on george one way or another

So it's ok to assault somebody who is following you because you feel intimidated?


trayvon never would have had to attack zimmerman in the first place. If zimmerman stayed in the car.

full responsibility is on george. Because trayvon wouldnt have been able to attack a guy who had stayed in his car.

the entire scene never would have happend had george been responsible.

george instigated it the minute he followed the kid. Right or wrong after the fact doesnt matter. Cause it would not have happend if he stayed behind.

besides that a guy who got beat up by a 17 year old probably shouldnt be following people in the first place
 
2013-05-26 10:03:13 PM

Smackledorfer: bugontherug: Smackledorfer: 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.

Do you think the jury should have convicted OJ Simpson? Because the only disputed fact right now is whether or not Zimmerman started the fight. But in OJ's case, there were a lot more disputed facts. If we applied the standard of evidence people are demanding in this case to every case, we'd practically never convict anyone of anything.

There are almost always alternative interpretations of evidence. But they have to rise to a level of plausibility before they constitute a reasonable doubt. So help me understand what evidence creates a doubt in your mind you regard as reasonable.

A. I wasn't on the jury.
B. I only mildly followed the case.
C. I believe that the jury went not guilty more to send a message to the law enforcememt about conduct than whether they really believed he was not guilty, iirc.

As for what 'creates doubt' you have the process backwards. Don't try to force me to prove innocence. You prove guilt to me, and I already said what my sticking point is.

Finally, come on man, you ignored like my whole post and jumped into an oj rant. Which of my doubts was unclear?


I just lost a substantial though succinct post responding to this, which takes the fight out me for tonight. But I didn't mean to rant about OJ: I just meant to point out that there are alternative theories and interpretations of evidence in every case. They don't always add up to reasonable doubt.

Now I'm going to bed. Good night.
 
2013-05-26 10:04:02 PM
teenage mutant ninja rapist:

I mean if you were a young girl and some guy you dont know followed you. You would be frightend and re act.

By beating up the person following you?  I don't think so.

anyways had zimmerman kept his fat ass in the car and on the phone. None of this would have happend.

Sure, and if his dad never farked his mom, he wouldn't have been born and it wouldn't have happened either, but that is as irrelevant as your comment.
 
2013-05-26 10:04:45 PM

Hobodeluxe: 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.

Where is the part that shows he continued following?

that part where he is standing over a dead body


Incorrect. Feel free to offer actual evidence of continued pursuit.
 
2013-05-26 10:05:13 PM
I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.
 
2013-05-26 10:07:37 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.


god damn you're stupid.
 
2013-05-26 10:08:01 PM

bugontherug: Smackledorfer: bugontherug: Smackledorfer: 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.

Do you think the jury should have convicted OJ Simpson? Because the only disputed fact right now is whether or not Zimmerman started the fight. But in OJ's case, there were a lot more disputed facts. If we applied the standard of evidence people are demanding in this case to every case, we'd practically never convict anyone of anything.

There are almost always alternative interpretations of evidence. But they have to rise to a level of plausibility before they constitute a reasonable doubt. So help me understand what evidence creates a doubt in your mind you regard as reasonable.

A. I wasn't on the jury.
B. I only mildly followed the case.
C. I believe that the jury went not guilty more to send a message to the law enforcememt about conduct than whether they really believed he was not guilty, iirc.

As for what 'creates doubt' you have the process backwards. Don't try to force me to prove innocence. You prove guilt to me, and I already said what my sticking point is.

Finally, come on man, you ignored like my whole post and jumped into an oj rant. Which of my doubts was unclear?

I just lost a substantial though succinct post responding to this, which takes the fight out me for tonight. But I didn't mean to rant about OJ: I just meant to point out that there are alternative theories and interpretations of evidence in every case. They don't always add up to reasonable doubt.

Now I'm going to bed. Good night.


Gnight.
 
2013-05-26 10:08:39 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: duffblue: teenage mutant ninja rapist: duffblue: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Face it guys. Zimmerman tried to be charles bronson and it blew up in his face big time.

his only defence now is the "Iam a great big pus*y" defence.

followed a kid while armed. Picks a fight. Gets beat up. Shoots the kid. Even if trayvon did pick the fight. He was being stalked by an armed stranger. So you cant really blame him.

when did it become ok for someone to pick a fight. Get beat up. Shoot the guy that beat him up and call it self defence?

thats all he has. Iam a great big pus*y that watched to many death wish movies. And boy did I fark up. Have mercy please.

So assaulting somebody because they are following you is ok now?

I would say it certainly warrants confrontation.

I mean if you were a young girl and some guy you dont know followed you. You would be frightend and re act.

anyways had zimmerman kept his fat ass in the car and on the phone. None of this would have happend.

so it's all on george one way or another

So it's ok to assault somebody who is following you because you feel intimidated?

Self defence I would call it. Trayvon defended himself from a stranger that followed him. Yeah self defence.

tell you what. Go outside at night. Start following people for 5 mabey 10 mins at a time. Bet someone attacks before you get to 3 people.


The law would not support your claim of self defense, if you attack someone for following you. It would, oddly enough, support their shooting you if they were pinned under you, during the attack.
 
2013-05-26 10:08:42 PM

Azlefty: 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.


Again, punching someone because they were following you is not justifiable self defense.

You don't realize, but the more you postulate on Martin "defending himself" against Zimmerman, the more you undermine the states case against Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman didn't attempt to use force, or threaten to use force against Martin, and Martin used force against Zimmerman, Martin illegally attacked Zimmeran granting Zimmerman the right to use force in return.  Here' the super kicker.. Even if ZImmerman did start the fight by grabbing Marin or throwing a punch, Martin could only respond with force, not lethal force.  Once Martin started bouncing Zimmermans head off the pavement, he escalated the altercation to lethal force, allowing Zimmerman to use lethal force in defense, even if Zimmerman started the fight.

So, even if Martin had a legal claim to self defense, which he most likely didn't, he loses his claim when he uses lethal force and ZImmerman was justified to use lethal force.  Unless the state produces some significant as of yet revealed evidence that Zimmerman used lethal force first... which would make it hard to explain how he got his head bounced on the pavement if he just outright shot Martin.

Not saying that Zimmerman was smart, or acted properly.  He's a frakking idiot who did everything wrong.  But, unless the state has something really good up their sleeve, Zimmerman is going to walk.
 
2013-05-26 10:09:34 PM
Sleep tight, counselor!
 
2013-05-26 10:10:06 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: teenage mutant ninja rapist:

I mean if you were a young girl and some guy you dont know followed you. You would be frightend and re act.

By beating up the person following you?  I don't think so.

anyways had zimmerman kept his fat ass in the car and on the phone. None of this would have happend.

Sure, and if his dad never farked his mom, he wouldn't have been born and it wouldn't have happened either, but that is as irrelevant as your comment.


No it isnt. Not at all. But lets not let things like common sense get in the way of sticking up for a borderline retard.

anyways Im not going to engage in a battle of wits with an opponent that is obviously unarmed.
 
2013-05-26 10:11:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.


No, that won't be his defense.
It looks like they will try to first establish that he was beaten up.
They will establish that the person who beat him up was capable of doing so (being hopped up on skittles, past behavior, etc).
Since the gun was fired anywhere from 1 to 18 inches from Martin, it will be interesting to see if they try to say that the gun went off during the fight and he was only trying to scare Martin away from him as he was being beaten.
Or they might go with he was desperate to get Martin off him and fired a warning shot, that unfortunately hit Martin.
 
2013-05-26 10:13:30 PM

bugontherug: Smackledorfer: bugontherug: Smackledorfer: 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.

Do you think the jury should have convicted OJ Simpson? Because the only disputed fact right now is whether or not Zimmerman started the fight. But in OJ's case, there were a lot more disputed facts. If we applied the standard of evidence people are demanding in this case to every case, we'd practically never convict anyone of anything.

There are almost always alternative interpretations of evidence. But they have to rise to a level of plausibility before they constitute a reasonable doubt. So help me understand what evidence creates a doubt in your mind you regard as reasonable.

A. I wasn't on the jury.
B. I only mildly followed the case.
C. I believe that the jury went not guilty more to send a message to the law enforcememt about conduct than whether they really believed he was not guilty, iirc.

As for what 'creates doubt' you have the process backwards. Don't try to force me to prove innocence. You prove guilt to me, and I already said what my sticking point is.

Finally, come on man, you ignored like my whole post and jumped into an oj rant. Which of my doubts was unclea ...


i411.photobucket.com

/just because i watched tombstone while hungover today
 
2013-05-26 10:16:05 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.

No, that won't be his defense.
It looks like they will try to first establish that he was beaten up.
They will establish that the person who beat him up was capable of doing so (being hopped up on skittles, past behavior, etc).
Since the gun was fired anywhere from 1 to 18 inches from Martin, it will be interesting to see if they try to say that the gun went off during the fight and he was only trying to scare Martin away from him as he was being beaten.
Or they might go with he was desperate to get Martin off him and fired a warning shot, that unfortunately hit Martin.


His story is that trayvon saw the gun in the holster, grabbed at it, said "you're going to die..." At which point GZ grabbed it, and shot.

If he goes with your version, now, that would prove to me he's a liar deserving of conviction.
 
2013-05-26 10:16:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.

No, that won't be his defense.
It looks like they will try to first establish that he was beaten up.
They will establish that the person who beat him up was capable of doing so (being hopped up on skittles, past behavior, etc).
Since the gun was fired anywhere from 1 to 18 inches from Martin, it will be interesting to see if they try to say that the gun went off during the fight and he was only trying to scare Martin away from him as he was being beaten.
Or they might go with he was desperate to get Martin off him and fired a warning shot, that unfortunately hit Martin.


And of course Mr. Zimmerman will; be happy to have his past flawless behavior examined in excruciating detail since it would show that he's never be the type to attack someone. He was a pacifist, who merely preached love and understanding to all.

Dripping sarcasm aside, all Zimmerman is attempting to do is to taint the jury pool. And gauging from this thread, It is working quite well.
 
2013-05-26 10:18:07 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: tenpoundsofcheese: teenage mutant ninja rapist:

I mean if you were a young girl and some guy you dont know followed you. You would be frightend and re act.

By beating up the person following you?  I don't think so.

anyways had zimmerman kept his fat ass in the car and on the phone. None of this would have happend.

Sure, and if his dad never farked his mom, he wouldn't have been born and it wouldn't have happened either, but that is as irrelevant as your comment.

No it isnt. Not at all. But lets not let things like common sense get in the way of sticking up for a borderline retard.

anyways Im not going to engage in a battle of wits with an opponent that is obviously unarmed.


meh.
You are so unarmed that you don't know when to use "lets" vs "let's" or "that" vs "who".
Is English your first language?
 
2013-05-26 10:18:08 PM

redmid17: gblive: thenumber5: redmid17: thenumber5: Alonjar: overzealous neighborhood watch people

the funny thing is, Zimmerman was not a member of any Neighborhood watch.

http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-n ei ghborhood-watch-organization/

and even if he was he violated nearly ever "rule" covering Neighborhood watch groups

I know it's impressively difficult to remain so ignorant of something that has been shoved down Farks throat for over a year, but I'll just leave you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background _of_ the_shooting

In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. As the only volunteer, Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival,

Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2.

Zimmerman had been licensed to carry a firearm since November 2009. In response to Zimmerman's multiple reports regarding a loose Although neighborhood watch volunteers are not encouraged to carry weapons, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee acknowledged that Zimmerman had a legal right to carry his firearm on the night of the shooting.

"Neighborhood Watch" is an organization that Zimmerman was not part of

he was little more then a local vigilant with a chip on his ...

 "The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program," NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) said in the press statement. "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-n ei ghborhood-watch-organization/a wiki link doesn't override the head of the organization
 
2013-05-26 10:18:25 PM
Here is the thing.  The evidence that Zimmerman wants in likely isn't seen as relevant and will probably be ruled as inadmissible.  That isn't the point of this motion although if it gets in, it is gravy.  This is all about leaking information to the public to try and affect the jury pool.  Get it in the minds of potential jurors now that Martin was a violent thug that had it coming as shown by the pictures and messages on the phone.  Even if he loses the motion (as is likely) this is all about positioning for the trial.  It is used to counter some of the other statements and pictures of a younger Martin who looks innocent and tends to suggest that all Zimmerman was doing was out to beat up and kill a black person.

Will it work?  Who knows, but it is a smart move as far as positioning Zimmerman for the trial to dirty up the victim.  Just as the prosecution and other parties have been dirtying up Zimmerman in the preceeding months.  It just goes to show the sausage making that is the justice system in the US.  Who cares about the truth, its all about the perceptions of the victim and/or the defendant.
 
2013-05-26 10:21:39 PM

ChaosStar: tirob:
1. That doesn't allow him to resort to violence, and gives Zimmerman the stand your ground law to protect him.
2. How else would there be lacerations on the back of his head? There was grass, there was concrete, and the only weapon was a gun.
3. Friend how long do you think this fight lasted? Zimmerman ended his phone call with the dispatcher at 7:15pm, the first officer arrived on the scene at 7:17pm. This wasn't something he had the chance to mull over, he was scared for his life and reacted.

On June 26, 2012, the prosecution released the results of a voice stress test is a type of test used to measure deceptive or psychological stress in the human voice in response to questions. Zimmerman was asked, "Did you confront the guy you shot?", to which Zimmerman answered, "No." Zimmerman was asked, "Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?", to which Zimmerman answered, "Yes." The examiner concluded that Zimmerman "told substantially the complete truth" in the examination, and Zimmerman was classified as "No Deception Indicated (NDI)" according to the report.


a voice stress test is about as accurate as a polygraph, both are a lot of BS that people use to justify there hunches
 
2013-05-26 10:21:55 PM

s2s2s2: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.

No, that won't be his defense.
It looks like they will try to first establish that he was beaten up.
They will establish that the person who beat him up was capable of doing so (being hopped up on skittles, past behavior, etc).
Since the gun was fired anywhere from 1 to 18 inches from Martin, it will be interesting to see if they try to say that the gun went off during the fight and he was only trying to scare Martin away from him as he was being beaten.
Or they might go with he was desperate to get Martin off him and fired a warning shot, that unfortunately hit Martin.

His story is that trayvon saw the gun in the holster, grabbed at it, said "you're going to die..." At which point GZ grabbed it, and shot.

If he goes with your version, now, that would prove to me he's a liar deserving of conviction.


Ok.  I didn't know that was his story.
The 1 to 18 inches will be interesting.  Did Martin grab the gun when he was on top of Zimmerman?
I could see that scenario working in that case.  A little harder to see if they were facing each other.
 
2013-05-26 10:22:45 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: Where's the Fark thread filled with outrage about the innocent white folks killed by gun-toting black thugs?

Oh, right, silly me, this is Fark, that thread would be "racist."

That said, if you're all so worried about a teenage black thug getting gunned down I sure as shiat hope you never read the news, because, you know, it happens every single day.

Remind me again why this one is worth anybody's attention?

There are plenty of other black thugs out there who will be killed  - many even today, as you read this thread. Don't bogart your pretend outrage.


mostly because the local police tried the bury the case and ignore it
 
2013-05-26 10:26:33 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: I'll be interested to see if the Zimmerman defense that it is legal for civilians to hunt down and execute anyone who has smoked pot in the past will stand up in court.; I'm certain Mr. Zimmerman is eager to have all his past actions, statements and photographs reviewed in court as well. being the heroic, sinless force of justice and retribution that he is.

No, that won't be his defense.
It looks like they will try to first establish that he was beaten up.
They will establish that the person who beat him up was capable of doing so (being hopped up on skittles, past behavior, etc).
Since the gun was fired anywhere from 1 to 18 inches from Martin, it will be interesting to see if they try to say that the gun went off during the fight and he was only trying to scare Martin away from him as he was being beaten.
Or they might go with he was desperate to get Martin off him and fired a warning shot, that unfortunately hit Martin.

And of course Mr. Zimmerman will; be happy to have his past flawless behavior examined in excruciating detail since it would show that he's never be the type to attack someone. He was a pacifist, who merely preached love and understanding to all.

Dripping sarcasm aside, all Zimmerman is attempting to do is to taint the jury pool. And gauging from this thread, It is working quite well.


But isn't that how it works?
The State needs to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense doesn't need to prove innocence, only convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

The tainting started long ago when the media edits the 911 tape and portrays Martin as a cute little 14 year old kid.
Both sides put out things to influence the public.
Neither side is there to find the truth.  One side is there to get a conviction, the other side to get an acquittal.
 
2013-05-26 10:27:15 PM

thenumber5: Oh_Enough_Already: Where's the Fark thread filled with outrage about the innocent white folks killed by gun-toting black thugs?

Oh, right, silly me, this is Fark, that thread would be "racist."

That said, if you're all so worried about a teenage black thug getting gunned down I sure as shiat hope you never read the news, because, you know, it happens every single day.

Remind me again why this one is worth anybody's attention?

There are plenty of other black thugs out there who will be killed  - many even today, as you read this thread. Don't bogart your pretend outrage.

mostly because the local police tried the bury the case and ignore it


That is incorrect. The police wanted to charge him. Charges were never brought, because the case against GZ was too weak. It still is.
 
2013-05-26 10:28:48 PM

thenumber5: redmid17: gblive: thenumber5: redmid17: thenumber5: Alonjar: overzealous neighborhood watch people

the funny thing is, Zimmerman was not a member of any Neighborhood watch.

http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-n ei ghborhood-watch-organization/

and even if he was he violated nearly ever "rule" covering Neighborhood watch groups

I know it's impressively difficult to remain so ignorant of something that has been shoved down Farks throat for over a year, but I'll just leave you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background _of_ the_shooting

In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. As the only volunteer, Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival,

Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2.

Zimmerman had been licensed to carry a firearm since November 2009. In response to Zimmerman's multiple reports regarding a loose Although neighborhood watch volunteers are not encouraged to carry weapons, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee acknowledged that Zimmerman had a legal right to carry his firearm on the night of the shooting.

"Neighborhood Watch" is an organization that Zimmerman was not part of

he was little more then a local vigilant with a c ...


Look. You can have a neighborhood watch without being an explicit member of the Neighborhood Watch (TM) program. I'm not disagreeing with you he was acting outside of neighborhood watch rules. I'm saying that his neighborhood set up a watch program and he was recognized as a neighborhood watch member by the Sanford PD and their program coordinator.  It's like saying someone isn't a college athlete because they didn't attend an NCAA school.
 
2013-05-26 10:30:05 PM

ravenlore: Here's one way a concerned neighbor (NW wannabe) could have confronted Martin:

*Zimmerman rolls down window* "Hey, kid, it's getting late. You should head home. I don't think I know you, are you new to the neighborhood? I'm George, btw."

Martin: "Dude wtf? I was going to the store and now I'm going to my Dad's. Mind your own damn business."

*Zimmerman rolls up window* "Damn kids these days!"

And nobody dies.

You can be a "concerned neighbor" without following and confronting a young person while you are armed.


/At BEST Zimmerman utterly FAILS  at NW
//I hope the jury is allowed to consider voluntary manslaughter
///IMHO that would still be getting away easy


It's the best possible outcome. Calling Zimmerman a murderer is a stretch, but he has proven himself to be dangerous and reckless when it comes to firearms. Manslaughter or negligent homicide is a fair punishment.

I have no problem with him getting 2-3 years in prison and never being allowed to own a gun again. Having a gun for protection does not mean you go out looking for trouble.
 
2013-05-26 10:44:16 PM
Not being from an insane, gun-worshipping nation, I wonder -

What is the appropriate reaction when confronted by someone, possibly armed, who has been stalking you at night through the suburbs?

Especially when any commentary from that person as to why they are following you will, with the lack of any other possibility, refer to them stalking you based on the colour of your skin?

In a sane nation, you'd be EXPECTED to punch the crazy racist stalker in the face.

I wonder if this story, and the reactions of conservatives, would be different if Martin was

a) White

b) A woman

or

c) A white woman

Oh wait, I don't wonder at all and neither does anyone else.
 
2013-05-26 10:46:56 PM
Another thing just because it's legal to do so, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
 
2013-05-26 10:48:43 PM

s2s2s2: thenumber5: Oh_Enough_Already: Where's the Fark thread filled with outrage about the innocent white folks killed by gun-toting black thugs?

Oh, right, silly me, this is Fark, that thread would be "racist."

That said, if you're all so worried about a teenage black thug getting gunned down I sure as shiat hope you never read the news, because, you know, it happens every single day.

Remind me again why this one is worth anybody's attention?

There are plenty of other black thugs out there who will be killed  - many even today, as you read this thread. Don't bogart your pretend outrage.

mostly because the local police tried the bury the case and ignore it

That is incorrect. The police wanted to charge him. Charges were never brought, because the case against GZ was too weak. It still is.




It took Jesse Jackass and Al nottosharpton stirring up the media for this to become a national case. Now the DA has to go for a murder charge or voters might toss him out of office. The DA being an elected office detrimes often which cases get tried.
 
2013-05-26 10:49:45 PM
cegorach

I wonder if this story, and the reactions of conservatives, would be different if Martin was

a) White

b) A woman


And just imagine if Zimmerman had been white, or a woman. Woof.
 
2013-05-26 10:51:35 PM

tyrajam: The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it


Skittles and iced tea?
 
2013-05-26 10:54:43 PM
I love zimmerman threads. They give me a whole new crop of white-guilt liberals and "black-people-have-it-coming" handles to put on my ignore list.

Seriously, watching stupid people yell at other stupid people was fun for the first few threads, but now it's not even worth popping popcorn.

/'til after the verdict gets handed down.
//it'll be innocent for lack of evidence
///oh, the popcorn that will be consumed...
 
2013-05-26 10:56:22 PM

redmid17: "Neighborhood Watch" is an organization that Zimmerman was not part of

he was little more then a local vigilant with a c ...

Look. You can have a neighborhood watch without being an explicit member of the Neighborhood Watch (TM) program. I'm not disagreeing with you he was acting outside of neighborhood watch rules. I'm saying that his neighborhood set up a watch program and he was recognized as a neighborhood watch member by the Sanford PD and their program coordinator.  It's like saying someone isn't a college athlete because they didn't attend an NCAA school.


Not really like that but the difference is unimportant. As you say, the name of the program is unimportant. What is important is that George attended training given by teh Sanford PD for people who perform 'neighborhood watch-like' activity. There he was told that watchers should watch and not follow or confront the people they are watching. Thus George was instructed that following and confronting people is risky behavior. Thus George is guilty of reckless behavior. We further know that George was angry based on his 911 call. We also know that George's angry and reckless behavior ultimately led to an altercation where somebody was killed. George is responsible for his behavior that led to the altercation and it is not unreasonable in these circumstances for that responsibility to manifest itself in a conviction for manslaughter. And it does not matter if any George's actions that led to the altercation were or were not prima facie illegal.
 
2013-05-26 11:00:29 PM

wademh: redmid17: "Neighborhood Watch" is an organization that Zimmerman was not part of

he was little more then a local vigilant with a c ...

Look. You can have a neighborhood watch without being an explicit member of the Neighborhood Watch (TM) program. I'm not disagreeing with you he was acting outside of neighborhood watch rules. I'm saying that his neighborhood set up a watch program and he was recognized as a neighborhood watch member by the Sanford PD and their program coordinator.  It's like saying someone isn't a college athlete because they didn't attend an NCAA school.

Not really like that but the difference is unimportant. As you say, the name of the program is unimportant. What is important is that George attended training given by teh Sanford PD for people who perform 'neighborhood watch-like' activity. There he was told that watchers should watch and not follow or confront the people they are watching. Thus George was instructed that following and confronting people is risky behavior. Thus George is guilty of reckless behavior. We further know that George was angry based on his 911 call. We also know that George's angry and reckless behavior ultimately led to an altercation where somebody was killed. George is responsible for his behavior that led to the altercation and it is not unreasonable in these circumstances for that responsibility to manifest itself in a conviction for manslaughter. And it does not matter if any George's actions that led to the altercation were or were not prima facie illegal.


Actually it does but I'll let the courts and jury decide this.
 
2013-05-26 11:01:55 PM

kirlian: I love zimmerman threads. They give me a whole new crop of white-guilt liberals and "black-people-have-it-coming" handles to put on my ignore list.

Seriously, watching stupid people yell at other stupid people was fun for the first few threads, but now it's not even worth popping popcorn.

/'til after the verdict gets handed down.
//it'll be innocent for lack of evidence
///oh, the popcorn that will be consumed...




Very adult of you. Someone has a different opinion then me. How dare they! There's no way I should open my mind to new ideas
 
2013-05-26 11:07:45 PM

redmid17: There he was told that watchers should watch and not follow or confront the people they are watching.


Citation for that?

Thus George was instructed that following and confronting people is risky behavior.

Citation for that?

Is risky behavior illegal?  Citation?
 
2013-05-26 11:08:19 PM

Facetious_Speciest: cegorach

I wonder if this story, and the reactions of conservatives, would be different if Martin was

a) White

b) A woman

And just imagine if Zimmerman had been white, or a woman. Woof.


Not much difference. He was the aggressor. Without his racial profiling-based stalking, nothing at all would have happened.

If he had been white (and he looks pretty white in comparison to Travyon, especially for people with certain biases) or female, that wouldn't change a thing.

(S)he would still be a crazy stalker who followed - and confronted - someone at night, while armed, based on the colour of their skin.

Yet in your country this is actually something apparently defended by law.

Someone stalks and confronts you based on the colour of your skin and you respond with unarmed violence - illegal.

You stalk and confront someone based on the colour of their skin and when they swing at you, you shoot them dead - legal.

Amazing. There's nothing you people won't do to venerate your firearms culture.
 
2013-05-26 11:10:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: redmid17: There he was told that watchers should watch and not follow or confront the people they are watching.

Citation for that?

Thus George was instructed that following and confronting people is risky behavior.

Citation for that?

Is risky behavior illegal?  Citation?


Dude learn to quote. It's not difficult.
 
2013-05-26 11:12:27 PM
2012

s17.postimg.org

2013

s3.postimg.org


I suppose anyone who is charged with murder would be stressed enough to eat but damn.
 
2013-05-26 11:15:37 PM
The most relevant of GZ's past actions, are the multiple times he called police regarding suspicious activity and didn't end up in an altercation with the suspects.
 
2013-05-26 11:16:57 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: kirlian: I love zimmerman threads. They give me a whole new crop of white-guilt liberals and "black-people-have-it-coming" handles to put on my ignore list.

Seriously, watching stupid people yell at other stupid people was fun for the first few threads, but now it's not even worth popping popcorn.

/'til after the verdict gets handed down.
//it'll be innocent for lack of evidence
///oh, the popcorn that will be consumed...

Very adult of you.


welcometofark.jpg

Someone has a different opinion then me. How dare they! There's no way I should open my mind to new ideas

More like "Someone can't use logic or apply legal standards." Also, "Someone thinks things are all about them." No popcorn for you.
 
2013-05-26 11:18:49 PM

redmid17: tenpoundsofcheese: redmid17: There he was told that watchers should watch and not follow or confront the people they are watching.

Citation for that?

Thus George was instructed that following and confronting people is risky behavior.

Citation for that?

Is risky behavior illegal?  Citation?

Dude learn to quote. It's not difficult.


sorry about that.
I was sloppy.
 
2013-05-26 11:19:08 PM
cegorach

Thanks, guy, but I'm actually from Europe. Living in the U.S. Try traveling! Lots of us do it! It's almost like you don't know what the fark you're talking about from your particular colonial Anglo shiathole. The colonial Anglo shiathole here is quite different.

By all means, though, keep up the "OMG it's legal to hunt darkies" drama llama routine.
 
2013-05-26 11:19:17 PM
If only there were some way to not attack someone who copped an attitude with you and get shot by him.

None of us are safe.
 
2013-05-26 11:20:10 PM

s2s2s2: The most relevant of GZ's past actions, are the multiple times he called police regarding suspicious activity and didn't end up in an altercation with the suspects.


That and his arrest for "assaulting a police officer" came when an undercover officer was hassling his buddy (rightfully) about underage drinking in a bar. I don't think it's out of the ordinary to confront someone who appears to be threatening your buddy.
 
2013-05-26 11:20:28 PM

Daedalus27: Who cares about the truth, its all about the perceptions of the victim and/or the defendant.


Perception has become more valuable than reality in our world.  Reality requires intelligence, scrutiny, and attention.  Perception doesnt need any of that.

Perception says Honey Booboo is a celebrity; reality is most Americans couldnt pick Joe Biden out of a lineup.
 
2013-05-26 11:27:52 PM

Facetious_Speciest: cegorach

Thanks, guy, but I'm actually from Europe. Living in the U.S. Try traveling! Lots of us do it! It's almost like you don't know what the fark you're talking about from your particular colonial Anglo shiathole. The colonial Anglo shiathole here is quite different.

By all means, though, keep up the "OMG it's legal to hunt darkies" drama llama routine.


So you got nothing then?

Pretty much sums up the discussion here.

He hunted Martin based on skin colour. He farked up, because Martin responded to his stalking, and possible verbal aggression, with physical violence.

He was unable to physically deal with the consequences of his chosen action so he killed Martin.

Was the 'Stand your ground law' created in knowing parody of South Park's 'IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR ME' or is that just a macabre coincidence? Or were the South Park creators sensibly lampooning this insane law?
 
2013-05-26 11:31:40 PM

cegorach: Yet in your country this is actually something apparently defended by law.

Someone stalks and confronts you based on the colour of your skin and you respond with unarmed violence - illegal.

You stalk and confront someone based on the colour of their skin and when they swing at you, you shoot them dead - legal.

Amazing. There's nothing you people won't do to venerate your firearms culture.


It is not legal.  It is a potential defense that can be used if certain criteria are met and a judge or jury agree with it.  It is an excuse for conduct that otherwise would be illegal, but society decides not to punish it.  The most common one that most everyone is aware is self-defense.  The Florida stand your ground exception is a modified more expansive self defense type law which we don't know if it applies in this case yet because it hasn't been litigated. So a better catagory than legal/illegal is legal/illegal but excused if certain facts are established.

This is a very politically charged case that has been clouded by the assertions of many individuals as to what happened.  We don't know what happened that night and we need a trial to try and figure out.  The only one left who knows what happened is Zimmerman and it is in his best interest to advertise the facts in a certain way to avoid punishment.  Maybe they happened that way, maybe they didn't. All we know is Martin ended up dead by Zimmerman's hand. That doesn't mean Zimmerman should be punished necessarily, but the monday morning quarterbacks certainly seem to think they have a better understanding of the facts than anyone else.  I'll wait for the trial and verdict and predict it will satisfy few people.
 
2013-05-26 11:33:23 PM

cegorach: Facetious_Speciest: cegorach

I wonder if this story, and the reactions of conservatives, would be different if Martin was

a) White

b) A woman

And just imagine if Zimmerman had been white, or a woman. Woof.

Not much difference. He was the aggressor. Without his racial profiling-based stalking, nothing at all would have happened.

If he had been white (and he looks pretty white in comparison to Travyon, especially for people with certain biases) or female, that wouldn't change a thing.

(S)he would still be a crazy stalker who followed - and confronted - someone at night, while armed, based on the colour of their skin.

Yet in your country this is actually something apparently defended by law.

Someone stalks and confronts you based on the colour of your skin and you respond with unarmed violence - illegal.

You stalk and confront someone based on the colour of their skin and when they swing at you, you shoot them dead - legal.

Amazing. There's nothing you people won't do to venerate your firearms culture.




Gun culture? Wtf that's suppose to mean? I'm guessing your not from the USA or ever stepped ashore here.
 
2013-05-26 11:34:26 PM
sorry

Daedalus27: cegorach: Yet in your country this is actually something apparently defended by law.

Someone stalks and confronts you based on the colour of your skin and you respond with unarmed violence - illegal.

You stalk and confront someone based on the colour of their skin and when they swing at you, you shoot them dead - legal.

Amazing. There's nothing you people won't do to venerate your firearms culture.

It is not legal.  It is a potential defense that can be used if certain criteria are met and a judge or jury agree with it.  It is an excuse for conduct that otherwise would be illegal, but society decides not to punish it.  The most common one that most everyone is aware is self-defense.  The Florida stand your ground exception is a modified more expansive self defense type law which we don't know if it applies in this case yet because it hasn't been litigated. So a better catagory than legal/illegal is legal/illegal but excused if certain facts are established.

This is a very politically charged case that has been clouded by the assertions of many individuals as to what happened.  We don't know what happened that night and we need a trial to try and figure out.  The only one left who knows what happened is Zimmerman and it is in his best interest to advertise the facts in a certain way to avoid punishment.  Maybe they happened that way, maybe they didn't. All we know is Martin ended up dead by Zimmerman's hand. That doesn't mean Zimmerman should be punished necessarily, but the monday morning quarterbacks certainly seem to think they have a better understanding of the facts than anyone else.  I'll wait for the trial and verdict and predict it will satisfy few people.


Sorry, that should read illegal/illegal but excused if certain criteria are met.  Of course some iwll point out thsi reveals some subconscious racial prejdice.
 
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