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.

(Newser)   George Zimmerman's legal team has been digging up some less-than-flattering background information about Trayvon Martin-but one story that made the rounds Friday, turns out not to be true   (newser.com) divider line 579
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

16769 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-03 11:31:33 AM  
They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth
 
2013-06-03 11:43:52 AM  

ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth


The issue seems was over the sequence of events and how they misinterpreted the evidence. That's not a lie.

If it was then the farkers who supported Trayvon would be labeled liars because of their poor rationalization skills.
 
2013-06-03 11:50:10 AM  

Mrbogey: ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth

The issue seems was over the sequence of events and how they misinterpreted the evidence. That's not a lie.

If it was then the farkers who supported Trayvon would be labeled liars because of their poor rationalization skills.


Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?
 
2013-06-03 11:58:04 AM  
you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?
 
2013-06-03 11:58:28 AM  
None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.
 
2013-06-03 12:08:31 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


Oh you and your crazy rational discourse!
 
2013-06-03 12:10:06 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

ginandbacon: Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?


You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.
 
2013-06-03 12:14:13 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.
 
2013-06-03 12:20:19 PM  
So it was not in any way the fault of Zimmerman, or his defense team. Now watch how many people blame them for this.
 
2013-06-03 12:22:43 PM  

FlashHarry: you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?


There was a black comedian that did a great skit on the number of black people named Trayvon that had been shot in the past 6 months.  That name is just bad luck.  Like being named Stark on Game of Thrones.
 
2013-06-03 12:22:45 PM  
Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?
 
2013-06-03 12:22:52 PM  

Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,


He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-03 12:23:06 PM  

Mrbogey: It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.


Just like raping a slutty girl.

Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter.  If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case.  What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude.  But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past.  It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.
 
2013-06-03 12:24:16 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.


He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.
 
2013-06-03 12:27:25 PM  
Was one of the reports that Trayvon was a negro? 'Cause, I heard that he was black.
 
2013-06-03 12:29:24 PM  

Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?


I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.
 
2013-06-03 12:30:51 PM  

Mrbogey: nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

ginandbacon: Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?

You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.


The anti-Zimmerman crowd? Pretty sure you mean the let's not murder teenagers for walking at night wearing a hoodie crowd
 
2013-06-03 12:31:08 PM  

Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect).  If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.

If they wanted the separate self-defense hearing, they should have taken it; they didn't because they knew they'd give up ANY chance of putting this nonsense in front of a jury.  Now, they're trying to make the prosecution look good by showing a lack of solid understanding of the law.
 
2013-06-03 12:31:19 PM  

Tatsuma: but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation.


Most of the stuff I have seen that the defense wants to introduce has more prejudicial value than probative value on that issue.  Seems like it's mostly a bunch Facebook photos and whatnot.  Granted, I'm not following this all that closely, but a Facebook photo of a gun or a pot plant or a text message conversation about purple drank is not meant to be probative.  It is meant to prejudice the decision-maker.
 
2013-06-03 12:32:24 PM  

nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.


I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.
 
2013-06-03 12:33:06 PM  

Tatsuma: So it was not in any way the fault of Zimmerman, or his defense team. Now watch how many people blame them for this.


In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.
But in Sunday's statement, O'Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

So in court they "mistakenly" describe a video that they have in their possession as Trayvon video taping his friends beating up a homeless man, and it is not their fault? And they wait until Sunday to make release a correction to that statement they made in court on the previous Tuesday regarding a video they had for weeks?

You got to be either naive, dumb, or just plain intellectually dishonest to say that you don't believe that the defense intentionally made a false statement regarding the video in court because they knew it would hit the media like wildfire.
 
2013-06-03 12:33:47 PM  

mattharvest: Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect). If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.


This is a case of whether this was self-defense or not. It's absolutely relevant. That's why the judge is allowing them to present this as evidence.
 
2013-06-03 12:35:06 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.


So Zimmerman chasing him doesn't justify him defending himself ?
 
2013-06-03 12:35:09 PM  

Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


This how I see it.  If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine.  But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.
 
2013-06-03 12:35:56 PM  

nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.


There will be winners, at least in their mind. The pro gun crowd. This case is like cat nip to them. If he walks, the SYG crowd will go bonkers. You can stalk someone, chase them down, confront them then take a punch or two and you can kill them and walk
 
2013-06-03 12:37:43 PM  

I_C_Weener: This how I see it. If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine. But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.


Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.
 
2013-06-03 12:39:01 PM  
Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.
 
2013-06-03 12:40:00 PM  
Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?
 
2013-06-03 12:42:47 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.


But if he were brought up on assault charges, he would NOT face the death penalty for that.  Did Martin attack Zimmerman?  Very possibly, we'll never know the whole truth.  Was that a mistake?  You bet!  A certain degree of blame does certainly fall on Martin for making a few poor decisions, but nothing that he ought to have been killed for.  Both parties made errors in judgment.  The kid didn't need to die, and it's pretty sad.  While I don't believe  a murder charge is warranted, Zimmerman was WAY over-zealous.
 
2013-06-03 12:44:08 PM  

nekom: There are no winners here at all.


There are all kinds of winners here. Think about how many revenge fantasies have been vicariously fulfilled. You can practically see people in some of these threads playing the role of Zimmerman in their full-length Travis Bickle mirrors.
 
2013-06-03 12:44:43 PM  

Tatsuma: Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.


Why?  Depends on relevance.  Sometimes one person's past is relevant and the other's is not.  Again, I don't know everything about that case, but to say "that's not how it works" is simply wrong.
 
2013-06-03 12:45:06 PM  

coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?


Well, just because you parked at the McDonald's and got out doesn't mean you ordered food.  Now, if you went in observed, then went back out AND then an employee attacked you shoving a Big Mac down your throat, who is the aggressor?
 
2013-06-03 12:45:08 PM  
DRINK!
 
2013-06-03 12:49:02 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.

There will be winners, at least in their mind. The pro gun crowd. This case is like cat nip to them. If he walks, the SYG crowd will go bonkers. You can stalk someone, chase them down, confront them then take a punch or two and you can kill them and walk


And I wonder if there would be riots similar to the ones after the OJ case.
 
2013-06-03 12:50:27 PM  
I meant Rodney King case.

/moron
 
2013-06-03 12:50:46 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!


Thank you.
 
2013-06-03 12:57:40 PM  

nekom: But if he were brought up on assault charges, he would NOT face the death penalty for that. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Very possibly, we'll never know the whole truth. Was that a mistake? You bet! A certain degree of blame does certainly fall on Martin for making a few poor decisions, but nothing that he ought to have been killed for. Both parties made errors in judgment. The kid didn't need to die, and it's pretty sad. While I don't believe a murder charge is warranted, Zimmerman was WAY over-zealous.


Yeah I more or less agree with you. You'll notice I wasn't able to bring myself to type the words 'he deserved to die' either. It's more that Martin was justified in fearing for his life and defending himself (even with lethal force) than Martin had to die for it.
 
2013-06-03 01:00:09 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.




The problem is that Zimmerman instigated it. He notified the authorities. The dispatcher told him to remain in the car. That ended his duty as a self proclaimed neighborhood watch. He decided to peruse a kid who had every right to be there.

If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

At the very least, he should face involuntary manslaughter for ending a fight he instigated.
 
2013-06-03 01:07:01 PM  

Tatsuma: I_C_Weener: This how I see it. If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine. But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.

Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.


The thing is to be used as evidence in court it has to have context. For example the judge ruled that the pictures and text from Trayvon's cellphone can be used if the defense can show them in some type of context relative to the case. They can't, so they aren't admissible. On the other hand Zimmerman's arrest record can be used because it is a court record documenting his behavior. Now if they had a juvenile record for Trayvon it would be admissible, but their is none. That is why the defense is releasing these pictures to the press and intentionally misrepresented the video. They know they aren't going to get it in at trial and are trying to influence the jury pool.
 
2013-06-03 01:08:05 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: The problem is that Zimmerman instigated it. He notified the authorities. The dispatcher told him to remain in the car. That ended his duty as a self proclaimed neighborhood watch. He decided to peruse a kid who had every right to be there.


That's false. The police suggested to him to stay in the car, but he was under no legal obligation to.

Someone has a right to follow you in the street and look at what you're doing as long as they are not trespassing. This is not instigating anything.
 
2013-06-03 01:12:31 PM  
Dammit. I'm at work, I can't drink now!
 
2013-06-03 01:15:27 PM  

ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth


it doesn't work this way in court.  the judge can throw evidence out.
 
2013-06-03 01:16:44 PM  

SlothB77: ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth

it doesn't work this way in court.  the judge can throw evidence out.


It doesn't matter if the judge throws the evidence out as long as somebody reports the lie and the lie is believed by the jury pool.
 
2013-06-03 01:34:54 PM  

Tatsuma: It's more that Martin was justified in fearing for his life and defending himself (even with lethal force) than Martin had to die for it.


That's exactly what a jury will have to determine.  My understanding is that their law is fairly similar to ours in PA in that you have to demonstrate to a jury that at the precise moment the decision to use lethal force was made, any reasonable person would have felt that themselves or someone else was in danger of death or serious bodily harm.  That's not going to be a very difficult bar to meet *IF* things are kept clinical.  The prosecution's only hope really is to get the jury emotionally involved to a point where they overlook the letter of the law.
 
2013-06-03 01:50:07 PM  
I don't see how the fark this should matter. IANAL but I cannot imagine the defense allowing the prosecution to paint Martin as an angel as it would be prejudicial to his client. Barring that, what the fark does it matter if Martin was the douchiest douche ever to douche or not?
 
2013-06-03 01:50:28 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


Except that if they go for self defense, the first thing the prosecutor is going to say in his opening statement is "...then why didn't he use our Stand Your Ground law to prevent this from even going to trial?"

/Which he could have done.
 
2013-06-03 01:50:43 PM  
Because we saw how effective attacking Casey Anthony's character worked for the prosecution team.

Why not try it again?
 
2013-06-03 01:52:07 PM  
I think this has been done, maybe the material needs to be updated for the digital age

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

www.kapelovitz.com
 
2013-06-03 01:53:47 PM  
Well, diverting attention from the defendant worked for O.J. No way Simpson's defense team was going to stick with "OJ is innocent". Was much easier to throw up things like the LAPD farked up the investigation and Furman was racist.

I supposed digging up dirt on Zimmerman means that his lawyers may think they would have a hard time saying Zimmerman is innocent and has a good story to back it up.
 
2013-06-03 01:53:50 PM  
I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason.  It reminds me of the Naked Gun joke when he was being awarded for killing his 100th drug dealer and he said "in all fairness the last two I happened to run over with my car, we realized he was a drug dealer after the fact."
 
2013-06-03 01:54:16 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)
 
2013-06-03 01:55:09 PM  
What does any of this  have to do wwith what we already know to be facts? Martin was where he was allowed to be. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman was a self-appointed "neighborhood watch" guy who took it upon himseld to be armed and who gave himself the title of "captain." Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin. Zimmerman was armed and pursued anyway. Zimmerman made hotheaded remarks. Zimmerman shot Martin to death.
 
2013-06-03 01:55:22 PM  

I_C_Weener: coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?

Well, just because you parked at the McDonald's and got out doesn't mean you ordered food.  Now, if you went in observed, then went back out AND then an employee attacked you shoving a Big Mac down your throat, who is the aggressor?


Yeah, because lots of people go to McDonalds to "observe", and not to actually, you know, order food.

Just like lots of guys will chase after a darkie in their neighborhood to 'follow and report to police', and not, you know, to confront the "asshole" who "always get away".
 
2013-06-03 01:55:30 PM  

Mrbogey: You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.


And that he followed a youth and shot him dead.
 
2013-06-03 01:55:39 PM  

nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.


Which law? He's not taking a Stand Your Ground defense.
 
2013-06-03 01:55:43 PM  

AiryAnne: You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)


Yeah this is pretty farking ridiculous.
 
2013-06-03 01:55:56 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Just like raping a slutty girl.


Not in the least.

If a guy walks around hitting people, his behavior is relevant to whether he went and hit one specific person. Your analogy would have to be tweaked to make it into whether or not a girl who has falsely accused people of rape is accusing someone of rape.

Three Crooked Squirrels: If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case.


And he is by using Trayvon's past propensity for violence along with how there were no wounds on either indicating that Zimmerman did anything to provoke Trayvon.

Three Crooked Squirrels: But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.


Unfortunately for Zimmerman. If he had known how violent Trayvon was, he'd have given him a wider berth.

Likewise, Trayvon didn't know that years ago Zimmerman got into an argument with some cops and yet that was blared everywhere in order to get everyone to believe the hispanic guy was a violent man.

Peter von Nostrand: Pretty sure you mean the let's not murder teenagers for walking at night wearing a hoodie crowd


Nobody murdered anyone for wearing a hoodie. You got to be trolling with that comment.

ongbok: So Zimmerman chasing him doesn't justify him defending himself ?


If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...

pxlboy: I meant Rodney King case.

/moron


I guarantee you morons will be proclaiming how it's legal to kill black people in Florida. The butthurt will be tremendous because the Social Justice Warriors live vicariously through St. Trayvon.
 
2013-06-03 01:57:27 PM  

Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...


Really? That's the justification? He had a chance to run away from the guy who was stalking him?

Jesus Christ, man. Give it up.
 
2013-06-03 01:58:27 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.


Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.
 
2013-06-03 01:58:40 PM  

coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?



Getting out of your car does not pose an imminent threat of serious injury or death.  Not in general, and not in this particular case.

Therefore, it is not a legitimate form of self-defense to use force on a person merely because he's car-exiter.

Also, instructions made by 911 dispatchers, or even the sort of vague advisory comment made by this one, do not qualify as lawful orders of the police.  Even if Zimmerman had disregarded it (which he did not), doing so has no legal significance whatsoever.
 
2013-06-03 01:59:18 PM  

Phinn: vague advisory comment made by this one


How is "we don't need for you to do that" in any way a vague comment? What else could she have meant?
 
2013-06-03 01:59:50 PM  

Tatsuma: mattharvest: Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect). If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.

This is a case of whether this was self-defense or not. It's absolutely relevant. That's why the judge is allowing them to present this as evidence.


(a) You're either not a lawyer, or a terrible one.  In no jurisdiction is a victim's past behavior admissible to prove a particular instance of self-defense unless it establishes habit/modus operandi.
(b) Here, the judge is doing the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.  He excluded it unless the defense team can get the State to open the door as well as clearing some other authentication issues.  They're specifically barred from referencing it at all in opening.

Since you were wrong about EVERYTHING in this post, you might want to reconsider your views here.
 
2013-06-03 02:00:28 PM  

AiryAnne: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)


What do you have against Jeff?
 
2013-06-03 02:01:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.

Which law? He's not taking a Stand Your Ground defense.


No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide.  His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.
 
2013-06-03 02:02:23 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


Hey now, we'll have none of that here. This is about emotion and fear, not rationality. Now scram.
 
2013-06-03 02:02:33 PM  

nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.


The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.
 
2013-06-03 02:02:43 PM  

dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.


Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.
 
2013-06-03 02:03:22 PM  
Let me know when he digs up a story in which he doesn't shoot and kill an un-armed teenager.


I legally carry. (Texas CHL)
I don't care how "thug like" that kid was or how savagely he beat Zimmerman.
Zimmerman WAS the aggressor. He should NOT have pursued. Period.
 
2013-06-03 02:03:48 PM  
His attorney knows what he's up against and that passions are high in this case. Attorney's are, for the most part, educated people...He is well aware that the damage has already been done. "Oops! 'misinterpreted' that...sorry".

I have to give them props for being slick, but they should be chucked out of the courthouse door if anything else is found to be "misinterpreted".

Rule#1 - discredit the victim.
 
2013-06-03 02:04:02 PM  

Phinn: coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?

Getting out of your car does not pose an imminent threat of serious injury or death.  Not in general, and not in this particular case.

Therefore, it is not a legitimate form of self-defense to use force on a person merely because he's car-exiter.

Also, instructions made by 911 dispatchers, or even the sort of vague advisory comment made by this one, do not qualify as lawful orders of the police.  Even if Zimmerman had disregarded it (which he did not), doing so has no legal significance whatsoever.


I'm not saying that the 911 dispatch was a legal order. What I'm saying is that from what evidence we have, including that call, it appears as though Zimmerman knowingly entered into a situation which he had already expressed aggression about (again, from the call).
 
2013-06-03 02:04:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.


seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.
 
2013-06-03 02:04:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: vague advisory comment made by this one

How is "we don't need for you to do that" in any way a vague comment? What else could she have meant?



I believe it was a "he."

It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.

It was probably good advice.

Disregarding it, however, was neither illegal nor does it constitute aggression.  Zimmerman was allowed to do legal things, however unnecessary they were from the perspective of the 911 dispatcher.  The police had no authority to issue such an order, even if it had been explicit.

(Actually, I'm not sure it was 911.  It may have been the "non-emergency" number.  I don't know for certain.)

Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.

It's annoying, insulting, vexing, intrusive and irritating, but not illegal.
 
2013-06-03 02:05:41 PM  

Phinn: It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.


And in what way is that a "vague" comment? Seems you interpreted it just fine.

Phinn: Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.


Never heard of "harassment" or "stalking," have you.
 
2013-06-03 02:06:24 PM  

nekom: No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide. His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger. So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened. It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead. Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.


cameroncrazy1984: The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.



Both of you are wrong.  The burden is on the State that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense.

Presumption of innocence, and all that.
 
2013-06-03 02:06:30 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:
The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.

What I SUSPECT happened was Martin either attacked him or he attacked Martin who later got the upper hand.  Obviously a poor decision for Martin, but what the hell do 17 year old kids know?  But that doesn't really matter, it's all about what the situation was at the moment he made the decision to use his firearm, that's what the jury will have to consider.
 
2013-06-03 02:06:33 PM  

nekom: No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide. His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger. So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened. It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead. Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.


Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.
 
2013-06-03 02:06:43 PM  
Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.
 
2013-06-03 02:07:00 PM  

ongbok: Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

So Zimmerman chasing him doesn't justify him defending himself ?


You're telling me that ANY black man couldn't outrun a white man?
 
2013-06-03 02:07:09 PM  

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.


No they don't. The prosecution just has to prove that there is no evidence of justification.
 
2013-06-03 02:07:15 PM  
George Zimmerman is living proof on why I don't trust vigilantes with my life.
 
2013-06-03 02:07:45 PM  

Tatsuma: Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.


Except that no, they don't.
 
2013-06-03 02:07:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.

No they don't. The prosecution just has to prove that there is no evidence of justification.


which would entail proving he was not on his back getting pummeled - if that is the defense's argument - wouldn't you say?
 
2013-06-03 02:07:59 PM  

nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.


He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.
 
2013-06-03 02:08:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.


Well, we *KNOW* that one of the two was on his back, getting beaten by the other.  There is credible testimony to that.

Zimmerman had numerous injuries to his face, and the back of his head.  The back of his jacket was wet, like he had lain on his back in the grass.  Martin didn't have any injuries apart from a minor hand injury, and a bullet wound to the chest.

Which makes more sense to you?  That the person who had almost no injuries was on his back, getting beaten, or the one who had a number of head injuries was o his back, getting beaten?
 
2013-06-03 02:08:27 PM  

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: vague advisory comment made by this one

How is "we don't need for you to do that" in any way a vague comment? What else could she have meant?

I believe it was a "he."

It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.

It was probably good advice.

Disregarding it, however, was neither illegal nor does it constitute aggression.  Zimmerman was allowed to do legal things, however unnecessary they were from the perspective of the 911 dispatcher.  The police had no authority to issue such an order, even if it had been explicit.

(Actually, I'm not sure it was 911.  It may have been the "non-emergency" number.  I don't know for certain.)

Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.

It's annoying, insulting, vexing, intrusive and irritating, but not illegal.


He didn't choose to ask him what he was doing. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out and he ran away. When somebody is running away from you, you don't chase them unless you want an altercation. Trayvon was trying to avoid a conflict, Zimmerman was trying to initiate one at that point.
 
2013-06-03 02:08:46 PM  
cache.boston.com

Jack Litman, is the fellow with glasses on, he was the hired gun to find when you absolutely positively did commit the murder. He beat up victims pretty well, back in his day.
 
2013-06-03 02:08:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.

And in what way is that a "vague" comment? Seems you interpreted it just fine.

Phinn: Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.

Never heard of "harassment" or "stalking," have you.



Just because following Martin was unnecessary does not mean it was illegal or aggressive.

Neither harassment nor stalking are grounds for the use of force in self-defense.  Posing an imminent threat of injury or death is.
 
2013-06-03 02:09:16 PM  
If they can only prove that he deserved to be murdered, then everything's OK.
 
2013-06-03 02:10:23 PM  
TFA's comments make me want to not live on this planet any more.
 
2013-06-03 02:10:29 PM  

Mrtraveler01: George Zimmerman is living proof on why I don't trust vigilantes with my life.


At the very least, I wouldn't trust them to give you oral sex

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-03 02:10:53 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide. His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger. So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened. It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead. Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.


9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
 
2013-06-03 02:11:09 PM  
I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.
 
2013-06-03 02:11:21 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.


Do you have a link that a witness said Zimmerman was screaming for help? All the witnesses said somebody was screaming for help, but couldn't say who.
 
2013-06-03 02:12:02 PM  

nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.


Unquestionably he should under law. The physical evidence says that he never laid a hand on Martin, while getting the crap beat out of him. He has witnesses who side with him and support his story that he was the one on the ground screaming for help.

I certainly don't celebrate Martin's death - at all - but the case is a good illustration of why florida law works the way it does, regardless of who started the fight. The implicit assumption in Florida law concerning the use of deadly force is that one party can end the fight at any time, and if it doesn't stop, the use of deadly force is justified.

It took two idiots to get into the situation, but the ultimate fatal decision was when Zimmerman was on the ground and screaming for help and Martin continued the beating rather than stop. That's what gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot and kill him. I regret that Martin was killed, but I agree with the way the law works.

/sorry for the lecture
//I still want to bet with someone on the outcome.
 
2013-06-03 02:12:15 PM  

Tatsuma: Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.


Isn't there some rule in your religion about lying? For someone that censors the "o" out of God, I'd have figured you'd take it easy on the blatant lying.
 
2013-06-03 02:12:32 PM  

Tigger: 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness


Are you saying that they are lying? What proof do you have for that?

The only two witnesses we know lied were people who said Zimmerman attacked Martin when they later admitted they didn't see the altercation only heard the gunshot.
 
2013-06-03 02:12:37 PM  

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


Yeah gee, it's almost as if he felt threatened or something. If only there was some word for that.
 
2013-06-03 02:13:32 PM  

AiryAnne: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)


Everyone but the Asian in that list is white. This isn't "das Vaterland," we're all mutts here.
 
2013-06-03 02:13:34 PM  

obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.


The guy with the gun was more afraid of the unarmed kid he was following. The unarmed high school kid had no reason to fear the adult with the gun that was following him for a couple blocks.
 
2013-06-03 02:13:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No they don't. The prosecution just has to prove that there is no evidence of justification.



You should stop.  You are wrong.

See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).  The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

Zimmerman does NOT need to present any evidence.  He may choose to do so, but the burden is definitely on the State to disprove his claim of self-defense.
 
2013-06-03 02:14:01 PM  

Mrbogey: This comment you made is one of the largest "head in the sand" moments I've ever seen on Fark. Zimmerman was pinned under Martin. Accept it and form your opinions around the facts and stop trying to form the facts around your opinions.


What's the proof? You have zero proof of this assertion, and neither does the defendant. Accept it and...oh who am I kidding, you're religious. You believe anything without evidence as long as it confirms your biases.
 
2013-06-03 02:14:03 PM  

Mrbogey: Would you be okay with someone punching you in the face for about 40 seconds or so while you're pinned to the ground? If not, then you're on Zimmerman's side here.


To me, it honestly depends on who instigated the fight.

If it was Martin, then I would be sympathetic to Zimmerman. But if it was Zimmerman who started the fight, then I have no sympathy over the fact that he got himself into a dangerous situation that he had every chance to avoid.
 
2013-06-03 02:14:13 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Tatsuma: nekom:If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.


The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:12 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


Of course he is.  You can't have a case based on racism unless at least one of the people involved is a white male.  I think that's in the Constitution, somewhere in the back.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:15 PM  

ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.


From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


That's Florida law, but every state I'm aware of has a similar provision.  Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:31 PM  

Phinn: The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

Zimmerman does NOT need to present any evidence.  He may choose to do so, but the burden is definitely on the State to disprove his claim of self-defense.


In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.
 
2013-06-03 02:16:04 PM  
I forget, what kind of past dirt has been dug up on Zimmerman?  Just wondering if the smear campaign goes both ways.
 
2013-06-03 02:16:59 PM  

Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


Except that Zimmerman has already stated that he initiated the confrontation.


Other than that, you're spot on.
 
2013-06-03 02:17:10 PM  

dittybopper: That's Florida law, but every state I'm aware of has a similar provision.  Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.


I've seen no such proof or evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw.
 
2013-06-03 02:17:21 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.


You have a right to confront someone with gun drawn? Really?
 
2013-06-03 02:18:06 PM  
The question shouldn't be if Zimmerman is Guilty, he is definitely guilty as hell.

You cannot provoke a confrontation and then yell Self defense, self defense. He left his home armed. He stalked a teenager. He was told by police not to pursue. He chose to pursue, he chose to confront and he chose to end a confrontation he provoked with deadly force.

How this is even being argued is stupid. It is at the very least manslaughter and worst murder. He should be locked up it is just a matter of for how many years.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:52 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:
In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.

First of all, I don't think it matters who actually started the fight.  What matters is whether or not a jury believes that a person in his position at that exact moment could reasonably fear for his life.  Second of all, it is not AT ALL clear who started the fight.  Of the two people who saw the whole thing, one is dead and the other is being tried for murder in his death.  So unfortunately, we'll never know the entire truth with any degree of certainty.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mrbogey: This comment you made is one of the largest "head in the sand" moments I've ever seen on Fark. Zimmerman was pinned under Martin. Accept it and form your opinions around the facts and stop trying to form the facts around your opinions.

What's the proof? You have zero proof of this assertion, and neither does the defendant. Accept it and...oh who am I kidding, you're religious. You believe anything without evidence as long as it confirms your biases.


What's the proof? The head injuries consistent with the story. The witnesses who saw someone pinned. The 911 calls where Zimmerman can be heard yelling. If Zimmerman was on top of Martin and punching him, Martin must have near Wolverine level healing powers. I'd be amazed a bullet took down such a tough guy.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:57 PM  

MFAWG: Except that Zimmerman has already stated that he initiated the confrontation.


No he did not. He said Martin attacked him.
 
2013-06-03 02:19:05 PM  

ongbok: Tatsuma: nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.

Do you have a link that a witness said Zimmerman was screaming for help? All the witnesses said somebody was screaming for help, but couldn't say who.


A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911".[149] He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Just below the links to the 911 calls, you can follow the citations yourself. There was at least one other witness that said Zimmerman was the one on the bottom, IIRC. And even if you disregard the witness testimony, the physical evidence says that Zimmerman did not fight back at all - there wasn't a mark on Martin.
 
2013-06-03 02:19:47 PM  

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


Oooh.  That's a *PERFECT* troll.  Kudos.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:02 PM  

obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.


And that amount of defense is limited to the amount of force used against you.

That's what's at question here, and will be a major part of the case.  Who struck who first.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:13 PM  

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:15 PM  

obamadidcoke: dittybopper: ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is li ...


No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.

Well, if you can do that, you might as well just skip the formalities and just start shooting.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:19 PM  
Personally I think that the fact that we get to use the tragic death of a young man to fling poo at each other is the silver lining in this story
 
2013-06-03 02:22:18 PM  
Fight!! Fight!!
A black and a white
If the white don't win
We all jump in
 
2013-06-03 02:22:22 PM  
He's gonna walk, that's for certain. The only thing undecided at this point is if the media is able to whip people into enough of a frenzy over the verdict that they riot. I know they'll sure as hell try.
 
2013-06-03 02:22:24 PM  

AiryAnne: White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)


www.whitehouse.gov
 
2013-06-03 02:23:01 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Darth_Lukecash: Tatsuma: nekom:If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.


You don't think it matters how you confront somebody on the street?

For example if you come running full speed at somebody yelling at them, if they knock you out, are they in the wrong? Where they wrong to fear you and defend themselves?

Or if you are following a person at night for a few blocks on an empty street, and don't say word to them, and you don't decide to confront them until they get freaked out and run from you, are they wrong to think you are a threat and defend themselves?

We all know that Zimmerman didn't walk up to Trayvon and say, "hey kid do you live here?" or "What are you doing here?" He waited until he was freaked out and running from him to "confront" him.
 
2013-06-03 02:23:16 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.


Without defending Zimmerman, or even having an opinion on this, that's odd reasoning. I am not aware that any citizen needs "authorization" to approach another citizen. Nor is there any such concept that a 9/11 dispatcher can tell a private citzen what they can and cannot do.

It may be a poor word choice, but it is alarming to see someone so willing to say that a policeman on a phone could take away your "right" to confront someone.
 
2013-06-03 02:23:19 PM  

Mrbogey: The witnesses who saw someone pinned. The 911 calls where Zimmerman can be heard yelling.


There are not multiple witnesses. You and Tats seem to be inventing tons of backstory allowing you to hold a false position.

There is one anonymous witness that has never been heard from again that exactly mirrors Zimmerman's story.

The other witnesses vary from being a small kid that was pressured in to providing information, two people that heard screaming and saw Zimmerman in the aftermath, and one person that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin but claimed it was too dark to see anything else. And, of course, someone on the phone with Martin that states Zimmerman initiated a confrontation.

Multiple witnesses seeing Zimmerman pinned is not (nor has it ever been) true.
 
2013-06-03 02:23:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.



Again you are wrong.  Literally everything you have said here has been wrong.

First, as a matter of evidence, there is none (that has been released to the media) that says that anyone other than Zimmerman and Martin know who "started the confrontation."  That's actually a very poor use of words to describe the REAL legal question here -- who first reasonably believed that the other posed a credible threat of imminent injury or death?

No one (that I know of) saw that happen, other than Martin and Zimmerman.  Martin is dead.  Even DeeDee the girlfriend only heard them saying "Why are you following me?" followed by "What are you doing here?," which is how Zimmerman described the events, too.  That alone is perfectly legal, and not grounds for either to use force.

As a result, no one is alive to offer proof that Zimmerman posed an imminent threat to Martin, sufficient to justify Martin's use of force.

Also, even if Zimmerman had (as is often imagined here on Fark) initiated a physical, imminent threat by grabbing Martin, then Zimmerman could STILL use lethal force if he had no opportunity to retreat.  See F.S. sec. 766.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor).
 
2013-06-03 02:24:33 PM  

PsyLord: I forget, what kind of past dirt has been dug up on Zimmerman?  Just wondering if the smear campaign goes both ways.


His arrest record, for one.
 
2013-06-03 02:24:51 PM  

obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.


You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.
 
2013-06-03 02:25:16 PM  

missiv: Jack Litman, is the fellow with glasses on, he was the hired gun to find when you absolutely positively did commit the murder. He beat up victims pretty well, back in his day.


The guy with the glasses on is clearly Stephen Colbert from the year 2025.
 
2013-06-03 02:25:49 PM  

obamadidcoke: No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Did you not just read the black-and-white law I just farkin' quoted you?

Yes, you can, under some narrow circumstances.  All you have to do is convince the jury of 2 things:

1. That you couldn't retreat, and
2. That you were in reasonable fear of either death or great bodily harm.

It would seem that based upon the eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence, Zimmerman could claim both.

You are correct in that you can't generally start a fight and then claim self-defense, but there are circumstances where you can because the law recognizes that starting a fist-fight with someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense if there are no other options.
 
2013-06-03 02:26:17 PM  

dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.


So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?
 
2013-06-03 02:26:18 PM  

kortex: I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.


Ah, well, if possible...try to remember what else you saw that night when you were there. It'd be much help to the court case!

Given Zimmerman's account, it is kind of hard to see how he could have possibly shot Martin without the gun already out. He was struck from behind, then Martin was on top of him smashing his head in to the sidewalk. Through all of this...he pulled his weapon and shot Martin in the chest. So, he pulled the gun out, got it between him and Martin, shot him in the chest, and then had Martin fall backwards. That's pretty damn impressive.
 
2013-06-03 02:26:33 PM  

kortex: Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.


Martin had a right to "stand his ground", did he not?
 
2013-06-03 02:27:04 PM  

PacificaFitz: I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason."


Yeah, getting your head bashed against the sidewalk is no reason to do anything.
 
2013-06-03 02:29:33 PM  

obamadidcoke: Not true. If you chase me with a bat I can defend myself with anything from a shotgun to a flame thrower. The law doesn't require proportionality in defense.



The law separates force into two catagories -- lethal and non-lethal.  Only threats of serious bodily injury or death justify the use of lethal force in self-defense.  Non-lethal threats only justify the use of non-lethal force.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman posed a threat of any imminent injury, much less serious injury or death, to Martin prior to the physical contact.  Is it plausible that Zimmerman did so?  Maybe.  Sure.  But the presumption is that he didn't, and there's no evidence to prove he did.

However, once the violence had progressed to the point where Martin was pounding a man's head on the concrete, then the use of lethal force was legal.
 
2013-06-03 02:29:40 PM  

Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles.  When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion.  Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?
 
2013-06-03 02:29:49 PM  

obamadidcoke: No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Yes you can. (In certain circumstances, and if a Jury or judge agrees after exploring the facts of the case.)

Let's say you pass the on a sidewalk, and you say "That Bojangles is a big fat asshole, who should DIAF" and I say "Excuse me mutherfarker?" and you say "You heard me, you turd" and push me. So you initiated a conflict.

If I then start beating the shiat our of you, and you try to escape, but I grab you and drag you back and now I'm really farking you up and you think I'm going to kill you, and you manage to get a hold of something pointy and stab me and kill me, that's actually self defense.

Why? Because even though YOU started it, I was not in fear of my life. Even though you started it, if I had killed you, I would have no self defense claim. But YOU would, because you had a reasonable fear that I was going to kill you.

(Of course, a judge and hury have to ve convinced of the specifics.)
 
2013-06-03 02:30:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.


Well, the defense has  this witness.  GZ's account matches very well.

The defense also GZ's has injuries and TM's lack of them.  Also GZ's back was damp from being on the ground.

Somebody was crying for help for 40+ seconds on the 911 call.  GZ says it was him, the witness said it was GZ.  It's difficult to imagine an assailant screaming like that while administering a beat down... very easy to imagine the recipient of the beating screaming for help.
 
2013-06-03 02:30:14 PM  

obamadidcoke: dittybopper: ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause ...

No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Yes you can. You can't commit a felony and claim self defense - hit a cop, or fire a gun at someone, or even hit them with a weapon - and then shoot them.

You can certainly start a fist fight, lose, shoot them and still claim self defense if they don't stop beating you when you cry uncle.

You might not feel it's morally right, but that is how the law works in Florida.
 
2013-06-03 02:30:46 PM  

WelldeadLink: PacificaFitz: I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason."

Yeah, getting your head bashed against the sidewalk is no reason to do anything.



776.012
Use of force in defense of person.-
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:


(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Martin was exercising his rights.  He was attempting to beat to death a man who was about to shoot him.
 
2013-06-03 02:31:16 PM  
Yet another picture of 4 pound, 3 ounce, premature baby Trayvon Martin right before he was gunned down in coldest blood by one Hernando-Jiminez Silversteinfarb.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-03 02:31:56 PM  

fredklein: So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?



No, the use of force against an LEO to resist a lawful arrest is a specially-defined crime.  Punching the cop meant he had the right to use whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest.  Cops have that special statutory protection.
 
2013-06-03 02:32:12 PM  

Cupajo: All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles. When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?


He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin, nor was he told by the 911 operator to not draw his gun.

You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.
 
2013-06-03 02:33:02 PM  

Tatsuma: He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin


Tatsuma: You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.


I...uh...well...Geez dude. Be less ironical.
 
2013-06-03 02:33:32 PM  

Tigger: Tatsuma: nekom: No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide. His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger. So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened. It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead. Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness


And then Zimmerman's body was torn apart and paraded triumphantly through the streets, really! Dang savages!
 
2013-06-03 02:33:39 PM  

Phinn: Getting out of your car does not pose an imminent threat of serious injury or death.  Not in general, and not in this particular case.

Therefore, it is not a legitimate form of self-defense to use force on a person merely because he's car-exiter.


"getting out of you car" is not the same as following someone in your car, then getting out to continue to pursue them on foot when they move to evade you, then running them down after they start running still trying to get away from you.

 if you can't see that through your racist blinkers, then just think about what would happen if you had a black dude do the same to you when you were walking along minding your own business, then chased you down when you tried to avoid him. in short, you would be making arguments how it was ok to shoot him then, too.

tl,dr; no matter what foot the shoe is on, shooting the black dude is always the answer. amiright?
 
2013-06-03 02:34:04 PM  

Elegy: ongbok: Tatsuma: nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.

Do you have a link that a witness said Zimmerman was screaming for help? All the witnesses said somebody was screaming for help, but couldn't say who.

A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911".[149] He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Just below the links to the 911 calls, you can follow the citations yourself. There was at least one other witness that said Zimmerman was the one on the bottom, IIRC. And even if you disregard the witness testimony, the physical evidence says that Zimmerman did not fight back at all - there wasn't a mark on Martin.


I never said that Martin wasn't on top, I just didn't remember anybody saying they could identify who was yelling for help. Only thing that Martin being on top shows is that he got the better of Zimmerman. It doesn't say who started the fight.
 
2013-06-03 02:34:34 PM  

Mrbogey: If a guy walks around hitting people, his behavior is relevant to whether he went and hit one specific person.


Not correct:

Florida Statute 90.404:     Character evidence; when admissible

(2)OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.-
(a)Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is . . . inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Di splay_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.404.html
 
2013-06-03 02:34:58 PM  
Elegy:
You can certainly start a fist fight, lose, shoot them and still claim self defense if they don't stop beating you when you cry uncle.
You might not feel it's morally right, but that is how the law works in Florida.


This is where a lot of wires seem to get crossed.  One can defend his position legally while disapproving of his choices.  That's where I stand.  I believe that legally he is not guilty of murder.  I also believe that he was an overzealous wanna-be cop sticking his nose where it didn't belong and the entire thing never needed to happen.  As a juror, I would acquit.  As a human, I wouldn't invite him to my BBQ.
 
2013-06-03 02:35:17 PM  

fredklein: dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.

So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?


Punching a cop is felony. You cannot commit a felony in Florida and still claim self defense.

You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of them, provided at some point you tried to stop the fight and you had a legitimate fear for you life at the time.

I distinctly remember going over this with you in the last Zimmerman thread, even providing chapter and verse in Florida law and explaining all of the ramifications to you.

So I ask you - are you trolling, or are you just stupid?
 
2013-06-03 02:35:32 PM  

Mrbogey: nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

ginandbacon: Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?

You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.


Last I checked being a poor student is not a good enough reason to kill someone. Nor is it admissible as evidence.
there is a reason 17 is still a minor.

what suddenly it's ok to gun down every teenager who's been in a couple brawls and skipped some classes.
boys will be boys. Doesnt give anyone the right to arbitrarily gun the kid down. Nor does it give anyone the right to accost them in the night.

Only person defending himself was trayvon. Despite george's good intentions he farked up every step of the way. A kid is dead and it would not have happend had george rememberd that he is no cop. Regardless of what crime you want to say he commited the fact remains his ass should do some time.
punishment for the public menace he became that night.
 
2013-06-03 02:35:33 PM  

tricycleracer: WelldeadLink: PacificaFitz: I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason."

Yeah, getting your head bashed against the sidewalk is no reason to do anything.


776.012
Use of force in defense of person.-
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Martin was exercising his rights.  He was attempting to beat to death a man who was about to shoot him.


That was his mistake, bring fists to a gun fight (unless you are Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee, this may be your last mistake you'll ever make).
 
2013-06-03 02:36:17 PM  

meathome: obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.

And that amount of defense is limited to the amount of force used against you.

That's what's at question here, and will be a major part of the case.  Who struck who first.


In the end, that's actually irrelevant.

If the prosecution says "Hey, you threw the first punch", he can always claim self-defense under Florida Statute 776.041.

I suspect that both the prosecution and the defense know this, but both have their motives for going forward with a trial:  The prosecution is doing it for political reasons, because dropping the case now would look really, really bad for them, and might result in riots.  Don't forget that most prosecutors are looking at higher office.  If they go to trial and lose, they can always blame the jury.

The defense wants to go to trial because they know they have a pretty good case for self-defense based upon the evidence and eye-witness testimony, none of which contradicts Zimmerman's basic story.  They'll argue self-defense under FL 776.012 (the main self-defense statute), but will also point out that based upon the known circumstances based upon eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence, FL 776.041 would apply even if the jury believes Zimmerman started the physical altercation.

Because a "Not Guilty" jury verdict holds a lot more legal weight in proceedings like wrong death suits than administrative findings by a judge, the defense wants to take it to trial, because they feel they have a damned good case, and that will help down the road against the inevitable civil suit.
 
2013-06-03 02:36:46 PM  

bulldg4life: kortex: I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.

Ah, well, if possible...try to remember what else you saw that night when you were there. It'd be much help to the court case!

Given Zimmerman's account, it is kind of hard to see how he could have possibly shot Martin without the gun already out. He was struck from behind, then Martin was on top of him smashing his head in to the sidewalk. Through all of this...he pulled his weapon and shot Martin in the chest. So, he pulled the gun out, got it between him and Martin, shot him in the chest, and then had Martin fall backwards. That's pretty damn impressive.


You could do it with right type of holster.  Maybe the gun was in his hand but not out?  You shouldn't judge unless you know.  Nothing can be proven about that night, so that's why I say this trial is silly.
 
2013-06-03 02:36:46 PM  

bulldg4life: kortex: I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.

Ah, well, if possible...try to remember what else you saw that night when you were there. It'd be much help to the court case!

Given Zimmerman's account, it is kind of hard to see how he could have possibly shot Martin without the gun already out. He was struck from behind, then Martin was on top of him smashing his head in to the sidewalk. Through all of this...he pulled his weapon and shot Martin in the chest. So, he pulled the gun out, got it between him and Martin, shot him in the chest, and then had Martin fall backwards. That's pretty damn impressive.


eh, single kick/push off with your legs..person is going backwards, draw gun, shoot, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part
 
2013-06-03 02:37:12 PM  

tricycleracer: Martin was exercising his rights.  He was attempting to beat to death a man who was about to shoot him.


Wow. Someone really lost.
 
2013-06-03 02:37:28 PM  

Heinrich von Eckardt: cameroncrazy1984: The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

Well, the defense has  this witness.  GZ's account matches very well.

The defense also GZ's has injuries and TM's lack of them.  Also GZ's back was damp from being on the ground.

Somebody was crying for help for 40+ seconds on the 911 call.  GZ says it was him, the witness said it was GZ.  It's difficult to imagine an assailant screaming like that while administering a beat down... very easy to imagine the recipient of the beating screaming for help.


Stop it with your "facts" and "eyewitness testimony"!  There's a gun control and racism issue here.  Can't you see the whackjobs are in a frenzy?
 
2013-06-03 02:37:41 PM  

tricycleracer: kortex: Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.

Martin had a right to "stand his ground", did he not?


Doesn't the stand your ground law apply to when you are being attacked?  Followed and harassed is not being attacked.
 
2013-06-03 02:37:45 PM  

kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.


And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?
 
2013-06-03 02:38:11 PM  

obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.



I have no idea what state you're in, but you're being too vague in your language here.  Some acts of stalking or harassment may constitute a threat of imminent injury.  But they don't necessarily have to.  And some acts of aggression constitute a clear threat, but may not constitute harassment or stalking.  The two sets of behaviors are defined differently.

What matters in fatal self-defense cases is whether the State has sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant did not reasonably believe he was under an imminent threat of serious injury or death.  They don't.

That's it.  That's all that matters.

All this noise about stalking is nonsense.
 
2013-06-03 02:38:16 PM  

Cupajo: Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.

All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles.  When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion.  Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?


Because the kid was blah he must be guilty.
zimmerman aint even a white guy. Why whitey wants to defend him is beyond me.
 
2013-06-03 02:38:55 PM  
Zmmerman's background should have some bearing as well.

For instance, based on his past, there is no way that Zimmerman initiated a violent confrontation with Trayvon Martin. History indicates he only perpetrates violence against women.
 
2013-06-03 02:39:06 PM  

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.

Again you are wrong.  Literally everything you have said here has been wrong.

First, as a matter of evidence, there is none (that has been released to the media) that says that anyone other than Zimmerman and Martin know who "started the confrontation."  That's actually a very poor use of words to describe the REAL legal question here -- who first reasonably believed that the other posed a credible threat of imminent injury or death?

No one (that I know of) saw that happen, other than Martin and Zimmerman.  Martin is dead.  Even DeeDee the girlfriend only heard them saying "Why are you following me?" followed by "What are you doing here?," which is how Zimmerman described the events, too.  That alone is perfectly legal, and not grounds for either to use force.

As a result, no one is alive to offer proof that Zimmerman posed an imminent threat to Martin, sufficient to justify Martin's use of force.

Also, even if Zimmerman had (as is often imagined here on Fark) initiated a physical, imminent threat by grabbing Martin, then Zimmerman could STILL use lethal force if he had no opportunity to retreat.  See F.S. sec. 766.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor).


BS. His girlfriend telling him to run when they spoke of a creepy guy following him. Trayvon did in fact run away to try to put distance between him and the person following him. THAT IS AS CLEAR AS IT GETS. Zimmerman was following another person so much that it caused Trayvon to be alarmed and to remove himself from what appeared to be danger. So the kid runs to try to get home and away from his PURSUER. At that point it could have just been a mistake, Trayvon could have been completely unfounded in the danger presented by Zimmerman, he runs home thinking scary guy but nothing happens and thats it. BUT he runs to get away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman corners him or atleast prevents Trayvon from reaching his home.

The confrontation began as soon as Zimmerman caused Trayvon to be alarmed enough to run away. As soon as he ran, Zimmerman became the predator and Trayvon the prey.

If Trayvon had run in to traffic and was killed because he was running from Zimmerman, would the Zimmerman apologists still say he didn't do anything wrong ?
 
2013-06-03 02:39:58 PM  

ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?


Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.
 
2013-06-03 02:40:12 PM  

nekom: Elegy:
You can certainly start a fist fight, lose, shoot them and still claim self defense if they don't stop beating you when you cry uncle.
You might not feel it's morally right, but that is how the law works in Florida.

This is where a lot of wires seem to get crossed.  One can defend his position legally while disapproving of his choices.  That's where I stand.  I believe that legally he is not guilty of murder.  I also believe that he was an overzealous wanna-be cop sticking his nose where it didn't belong and the entire thing never needed to happen.  As a juror, I would acquit.  As a human, I wouldn't invite him to my BBQ.


You, sir. I could have a beer with you. You just expressed exactly how I feel about this case.
 
2013-06-03 02:40:27 PM  

kortex: You could do it with right type of holster.  Maybe the gun was in his hand but not out?  You shouldn't judge unless you know.  Nothing can be proven about that night, so that's why I say this trial is silly.


Yes, you shouldn't judge unless you know. That's sort of my point. You claimed facts when there is nothing but Zimmerman's story. In fact, has there ever been any discussion about a holster of any kind anywhere? I'm glad you're back to the "nothing can be proven" instead of the previous "this is what I remember as facts from that night".

Heathen: eh, single kick/push off with your legs..person is going backwards, draw gun, shoot, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part


He did this fast enough to shoot Martin from 18" away?
 
2013-06-03 02:44:01 PM  

bulldg4life: kortex: You could do it with right type of holster.  Maybe the gun was in his hand but not out?  You shouldn't judge unless you know.  Nothing can be proven about that night, so that's why I say this trial is silly.

Yes, you shouldn't judge unless you know. That's sort of my point. You claimed facts when there is nothing but Zimmerman's story. In fact, has there ever been any discussion about a holster of any kind anywhere? I'm glad you're back to the "nothing can be proven" instead of the previous "this is what I remember as facts from that night".

Heathen: eh, single kick/push off with your legs..person is going backwards, draw gun, shoot, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part

He did this fast enough to shoot Martin from 18" away?


The same can be said for you, automatically assuming the Zimmerman is in the wrong.  Zimmerman did have wounds and the kid was shot dead.  We also know the kid viewed himself as a gangster.  We'll never know what actually happened, you're right.  That's why this is a silly trial.
 
2013-06-03 02:44:17 PM  
Still want some of you folks that are so convinced Zimmerman is LEGALLY guilty of murder to put your money where your farking mouth is.

*If Zimmerman walks, you buy me 1 month of TF.
*If Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2, I'll buy you a month of TF.
*If any other outcome (hung jury, plea down, etc) no one wins.

Zimmerman is going to walk. Legally he is the right.

Come bet me, bro.
 
2013-06-03 02:44:53 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


Racial fear comes in different levels to white racists:
White =  "best race because it's what we are"
Indian = "Peaceniks who worship cows. No threat to white people. Safer than Native Americans."
Native American = "no real threat left, so we're not afraid anymore. Safer than Asians."
Asian = "Not dangerous unless they know chop-socky martial arts stuff. Safer than Jews"
Jew = "Usually looks white, but they killed Jesus. Using Hollywood, not violence. Still safer than Arabs."
Arab = "Scary terrorists. Safer than Latinos, though."
Latino = "Foreigners who take our jobs and commit lots of crimes, but they look kind of white so they're safer than Black people"
Black = "Few 'good ones' don't make up for the rest of them. More dangerous than any other race."

How you can't understand this is beyond me. Bigots and racists don't just lump all outsiders into one pile and hate them equally. They have different tiers of hate, and if someone from a higher tier does wrong to someone of a lower tier, the racists will no doubt side with the higher-tier person and temporarily give them a pass for being "one of the good ones" or at least "not as bad as that other group."

How can you live in the world and not know this?
 
2013-06-03 02:44:58 PM  

AngryDragon: Heinrich von Eckardt: cameroncrazy1984: The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

Well, the defense has  this witness.  GZ's account matches very well.

The defense also GZ's has injuries and TM's lack of them.  Also GZ's back was damp from being on the ground.

Somebody was crying for help for 40+ seconds on the 911 call.  GZ says it was him, the witness said it was GZ.  It's difficult to imagine an assailant screaming like that while administering a beat down... very easy to imagine the recipient of the beating screaming for help.

Stop it with your "facts" and "eyewitness testimony"!  There's a gun control and racism issue here.  Can't you see the whackjobs are in a frenzy?


It was about 18 seconds. And the FBI was unable to determine who's voice it was because they couldn't match it to Zimmerman's and they didn't have a long enough sample from Martin.
 
2013-06-03 02:45:44 PM  
This still sounds like first degree murder to me.  He inserted himself into the situation, escalated it, and then killed the kid when the kid tried to defend himself.

The kids background is not relevant to this case.  All that should matter is the order of events, none of which favor GZ.
 
2013-06-03 02:46:13 PM  

nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.


I see it as a tough situation, and dont envy the jury at all. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin in self defense, yes. Which would allow him to walk. However, his following of Martin did provoke the confrontation. That puts a different angle on it. The deciding factor is how did it go from a simple confrontation to a fight. This is where Zimmermans trump card lies, as Martin is not alive to provide his account of the situation. Dead men tell no tales. If Zimmermans legal team can make a convincing enough story of it, he will walk.

IMO theres a lesson here for people...

For concealed carry folks, this is a lesson in what not to do. You dont grab your gun and follow people. Especially after the police dispatcher tells you officers are on the way. Stay the hell in your house, car, etc.

For the little brat teens, the thug types, etc...be careful who you "step up" to, they might be carrying a gun, and it might end badly for you.
 
2013-06-03 02:46:46 PM  
bulldg4life:

Heathen: eh, single kick/push off with your legs..person is going backwards, draw gun, shoot, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part

He did this fast enough to shoot Martin from 18" away?


not saying how it happened, just pointing it out that it's more than possible.  so even from 18 inches away, Martin could have started coming back at Z, Z sticks his knees out to block incoming haymakers, fire, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part.

just so you know, I don't care.
 
2013-06-03 02:47:02 PM  

kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.


The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?
 
2013-06-03 02:47:26 PM  

Tatsuma: Cupajo: All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles. When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?

He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin, nor was he told by the 911 operator to not draw his gun.

You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.


"Holding" does not necessarily mean "in your hand", you halfwit.  You knew exactly what I meant.
 
2013-06-03 02:48:15 PM  

CliChe Guevara: "getting out of you car" is not the same as following someone in your car, then getting out to continue to pursue them on foot when they move to evade you, then running them down after they start running still trying to get away from you.

if you can't see that through your racist blinkers, then just think about what would happen if you had a black dude do the same to you when you were walking along minding your own business, then chased you down when you tried to avoid him. in short, you would be making arguments how it was ok to shoot him then, too.

tl,dr; no matter what foot the shoe is on, shooting the black dude is always the answer. amiright?



First of all, there's no evidence that Zimmerman "ran Martin down."  That kind of sloppy, hyperbolic language may make you feel better, but it's not legally meaningful.

The evidence (and Zimmerman's own admission, not to mention the recorded call) is that he followed Martin, on foot, and ran after Martin ran.  Then Zimmerman stopped running, when he got out of breath, and lost sight of Martin altogether.  Then Zimmerman hung up with the police, so we don't have any clear evidence of what happened next.

The best evidence, such as it is, comes from DeeDee the girlfriend, who (she says) advised Martin to flee, but he said no.  She also said that Martin was the first one to speak, asking Zimmerman why he was following him.  In other words, their first direct contact was VERBAL.  Zimmerman did not chase Martin to the point of physically catching up with him or "running him down."  Zimmerman responded to Martin's question not with a gunshot, but a question -- What are you doing here?

Then a scuffle. 

Who attacked whom?

We don't know.  No one but Zimmerman and Martin saw it, and Martin isn't talking.

That's a bitter pill for the Lynch Zimmerman crowd to swallow, but it means that the State has NO EVIDENCE of who first posed the threat of injury to the other.  Zimmerman's following Martin and asking him what he was doing is not an imminent threat.
 
2013-06-03 02:48:18 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.

I see it as a tough situation, and dont envy the jury at all. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin in self defense, yes. Which would allow him to walk. However, his following of Martin did provoke the confrontation. That puts a different angle on it. The deciding factor is how did it go from a simple confrontation to a fight. This is where Zimmermans trump card lies, as Martin is not alive to provide his account of the situation. Dead men tell no tales. If Zimmermans legal team can make a convincing enough story of it, he will walk.

IMO theres a lesson here for people...

For concealed carry folks, this is a lesson in what not to do. You dont grab your gun and follow people. Especially after the police dispatcher tells you officers are on the way. Stay the hell in your house, car, etc.

For the little brat teens, the thug types, etc...be careful who you "step up" to, they might be carrying a gun, and it might end badly for you.


Doesn't matter.  By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.  If not convicted, it sets bad presedent where in anyone coudl start a fight, wait for the victim to fight back, then shoot and kill them, and claim self defense.
 
2013-06-03 02:48:44 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?


Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.
 
2013-06-03 02:49:08 PM  

Cupajo: "Holding" does not necessarily mean "in your hand", you halfwit. You knew exactly what I meant.


No, when you say 'while holding a gun' you clearly are saying he went out with a gun in his hand. You didn't mean 'with a gun in his holster'.
 
2013-06-03 02:49:09 PM  
FlashHarry [TotalFark]
2013-06-03 11:58:04 AM


you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?

No, more like the one with a gun .. that isn't a fake.

This story is the press going forward with an unverified story and no evidence.

This is more akin to the fark favorite "Zimmerman is a racist" ...
..who just happens to mentor black children
..and protested the beating of an black man by FL police.
 
2013-06-03 02:49:17 PM  

Elegy: fredklein: dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.

So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?

Punching a cop is felony. You cannot commit a felony in Florida and still claim self defense.

You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of them, provided at some point you tried to stop the fight and you had a legitimate fear for you life at the time.

I distinctly remember going over this with you in the last Zimmerman thread, even providing chapter and verse in Florida law and explaining all of the ramifications to you.

So I ask you - are you trolling, or are you just stupid?


I'm sure it varies by state, but isn't aggravated assault a felony? Perhaps depending on how it went down, initiating the fight while armed with a deadly weapon might be enough to meet that?
 
2013-06-03 02:50:43 PM  

Phinn: CliChe Guevara: "getting out of you car" is not the same as following someone in your car, then getting out to continue to pursue them on foot when they move to evade you, then running them down after they start running still trying to get away from you.

if you can't see that through your racist blinkers, then just think about what would happen if you had a black dude do the same to you when you were walking along minding your own business, then chased you down when you tried to avoid him. in short, you would be making arguments how it was ok to shoot him then, too.

tl,dr; no matter what foot the shoe is on, shooting the black dude is always the answer. amiright?

First of all, there's no evidence that Zimmerman "ran Martin down."  That kind of sloppy, hyperbolic language may make you feel better, but it's not legally meaningful.

The evidence (and Zimmerman's own admission, not to mention the recorded call) is that he followed Martin, on foot, and ran after Martin ran.  Then Zimmerman stopped running, when he got out of breath, and lost sight of Martin altogether.  Then Zimmerman hung up with the police, so we don't have any clear evidence of what happened next.

The best evidence, such as it is, comes from DeeDee the girlfriend, who (she says) advised Martin to flee, but he said no.  She also said that Martin was the first one to speak, asking Zimmerman why he was following him.  In other words, their first direct contact was VERBAL.  Zimmerman did not chase Martin to the point of physically catching up with him or "running him down."  Zimmerman responded to Martin's question not with a gunshot, but a question -- What are you doing here?

Then a scuffle. 

Who attacked whom?

We don't know.  No one but Zimmerman and Martin saw it, and Martin isn't talking.

That's a bitter pill for the Lynch Zimmerman crowd to swallow, but it means that the State has NO EVIDENCE of who first posed the threat of injury to the other.  Zimmerman's following Martin and asking him wh ...


And a bitter pill for black people America.  I would expect riots if Zimmerman walks, which he should.  The trial is only to please the lynch mob and is definitely a farce.
 
2013-06-03 02:51:12 PM  

Antimatter: This still sounds like first degree murder to me. He inserted himself into the situation, escalated it, and then killed the kid when the kid tried to defend himself.


Then I suspect that you have a poor understanding of what ACTUALLY constitutes first degree murder.
 
2013-06-03 02:52:04 PM  

kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.


Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.
 
2013-06-03 02:52:06 PM  
I think if anyone was "standing his ground" it was Martin, who was being followed by a creep. If Martin did throw some punches, they were to defend himself against Zimmerman who he believed to be a bad guy.

However, I still doubt Zimmerman's wounds were inflicted by Martin. It doesn't take much to realize you need an excuse, slam the back of your head against the pavement, and make up a pretty good story that you spend the next several weeks editing and changing.

Either way, Zimmerman was the aggressor here. He started it. Martin had reason to believe his life was in danger, so he stood his ground... And THEN Zimmerman shot him.
 
2013-06-03 02:52:24 PM  

Antimatter: By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.



You are wrong on both the facts and the law.  The proposition you just asserted has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever. 

ProfessorOhki: isn't aggravated assault a felony?



Prove that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault, please.
 
2013-06-03 02:53:19 PM  

fredklein: dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.

So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?


Nope.  Read the statute I linked to:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


Note that as that law is written, if you are committing a forcible felony you have no right to self-defense.

Under Florida State Law, if you actually *PUNCH* a police officer, that's a felony:

784.07 Assault or battery of law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical care providers, public transit employees or agents, or other specified officers; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentences.-
...
(2) Whenever any person is charged with knowingly committing an assault or battery upon a law enforcement officer,
... (big list of other people like firefighters and EMS snipped)...

 the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(a) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(b) In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.


So if you actually land a punch on a cop in Florida, you've committed a forcible felony under the law, and you absolutely lose your right to self-defense in that case.

Seriously, this shiat ain't hard to figure out.  Just read the farkin' laws.
 
2013-06-03 02:54:06 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

BS. If he has a history of beating people who "disrespected" him (like the individual he bragged about beating on twitter) and a history of jumping people who he feels are "snitching" on him, like he bragged about in IM's to his wanna be gang-stu buddies, it does lend credence to the story that he jumped some "white guy" he felt was disrespecting and snitching on him.
 
2013-06-03 02:54:26 PM  

kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.


Did GZ, or did he not, get out of a car, confront and then chase down a fleeing kid, while he himself was armed with a deadly weapon?

TM isn't some thug.  Someone was chasing him late at night, to do god knows what to him, so IMHO, he had every right to fight back when escape was no longer possible.  GZ never shoudl have inserted himself into the situation to begin with.
 
2013-06-03 02:54:54 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.


Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.
 
2013-06-03 02:55:08 PM  
Sultan Of Herf:

For concealed carry folks, this is a lesson in what not to do. You dont grab your gun and follow people. Especially after the police dispatcher tells you officers are on the way. Stay the hell in your house, car, etc.

For the little brat teens, the thug types, etc...be careful who you "step up" to, they might be carrying a gun, and it might end badly for you.


Couldn't agree more.  Both Zimmerman and Martin made what I consider to be errors in judgment.  I am among the ranks of American gun owners, and I pray that if I ever need to grab my 12 gauge the mere sight of it will be enough to diffuse the situation.  I'd hate to have to kill somebody and would take every opportunity to retreat (not going to kill somebody over my stuff, only my family), AND afford them every opportunity.  I know these things happen in an instant and Zimmerman didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we all do at that time, but I'd like to think that if I were in that situation, I'd have displayed the firearm and yelled something to the effect of "Get off of me or you're dead!" and give him a chance to flee.

And of course the flip side, don't go attacking people (if that's indeed what happened) who follow you, because you never know who has a gun or what sort of a person they are.  Definitely a couple of teachable moments.
 
2013-06-03 02:55:58 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: For concealed carry folks, this is a lesson in what not to do. You dont grab your gun and follow people. Especially after the police dispatcher tells you officers are on the way. Stay the hell in your house, car, etc.

For the little brat teens, the thug types, etc...be careful who you "step up" to, they might be carrying a gun, and it might end badly for you.


I heartily approve of both sentences.
 
2013-06-03 02:56:17 PM  

Heathen: bulldg4life:

Heathen: eh, single kick/push off with your legs..person is going backwards, draw gun, shoot, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part

He did this fast enough to shoot Martin from 18" away?

not saying how it happened, just pointing it out that it's more than possible.  so even from 18 inches away, Martin could have started coming back at Z, Z sticks his knees out to block incoming haymakers, fire, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part.

just so you know, I don't care.


The forensic report said something like Martin was shot at "intermediate range, 1"-18"" based on the powder burns on the hoody.

The autopsy report showed that Martin had powder burns on his skin.

So claiming the gun was fired from 18" is cherry picking the data, kinda like reading a poll the has "Mitt Romney at 48 points (+/- 10 points)" and claiming that Mitt Romney is clearly in the lead with 58%.

The physical evidence suggests the gun was fired at near point blank range, as it would be in a struggle.
 
2013-06-03 02:56:44 PM  
I can't understand why this story is still in the news, particularly since the original "story" put out by MSNBC had been debunked.  The evidence suggests Martin was on top of him and caving his face in when he shot.  I don't see how any reasonable person could say that shooting wasn't justified.
 
2013-06-03 02:57:16 PM  

Antimatter: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did GZ, or did he not, get out of a car, confront and then chase down a fleeing kid, while he himself was armed with a deadly weapon?

TM isn't some thug.  Someone was chasing him late at night, to do god knows what to him, so IMHO, he had every right to fight back when escape was no longer possible.  GZ never shoudl have inserted himself into the situation to begin with.


It's a matter of opinion here.  I believe he was a thug, you don't.  He made a mistake and attacked someone with a gun.
 
2013-06-03 02:57:19 PM  

OnlyM3: nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.
BS. If he has a history of beating people who "disrespected" him (like the individual he bragged about beating on twitter) and a history of jumping people who he feels are "snitching" on him, like he bragged about in IM's to his wanna be gang-stu buddies, it does lend credence to the story that he jumped some "white guy" he felt was disrespecting and snitching on him.


Disrespecting him and snitching on him? Do you even know what those words mean? He attacked a guy for chasing him.
Big difference. And even if the kid was a career criminal the fact that he is on the street and not in jail means he is afforded the same protection by law as anybody else.
 
2013-06-03 02:57:27 PM  

Phinn: Antimatter: By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.

You are wrong on both the facts and the law.  The proposition you just asserted has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever. 

ProfessorOhki: isn't aggravated assault a felony?

Prove that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault, please.


He committed a crime by inserting himself into a situation that he had no business being in, and then running down a victim trying to escape, while armed with a deadly weapon.

That sounds like he planned to do violence to me, and self defense cannot be premeditated like that.
 
2013-06-03 02:57:43 PM  

kortex: Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.


You're getting more and more reasonable with every post.
 
2013-06-03 02:57:53 PM  

ongbok: It was about 18 seconds. And the FBI was unable to determine who's voice it was because they couldn't match it to Zimmerman's and they didn't have a long enough sample from Martin.


The screaming lasted at least 45 seconds.

If GZ was not the one screaming, perhaps TM was in the habit of screaming like a girl while beating people senseless. The prosecution might bring in witnesses to some of his MMA exploits to verify this.
 
2013-06-03 02:58:39 PM  

kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.


So baseless accusations are grounds for muder in your eyes?
 
2013-06-03 02:59:37 PM  

Antimatter: Did GZ, or did he not, get out of a car, confront and then chase down a fleeing kid, while he himself was armed with a deadly weapon?



He got out of his car, followed on foot, and pursued a fleeing teenager while attempting to report that teenager's location to the police.

There is no evidence, other than Zimmerman's statement and DeeDee the earwitness, as to who confronted whom, but the statement of DeeDee, coached and delayed and untrustworthy as it is, still says that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first, that Zimmerman responded with a question, and that a physical struggle followed.

Following and observing suspicious people is not illegal, nor does it constitute a threat of imminent injury sufficient to justify force in self-defense.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon does not change the law that defines when self-defense is legal.
 
2013-06-03 02:59:48 PM  

Tatsuma: MFAWG: Except that Zimmerman has already stated that he initiated the confrontation.

No he did not. He said Martin attacked him.


Yes. He. Did.

He confronted Martin while he was still in the car, and then got out of the car and followed Martin up the footpath.
 
2013-06-03 03:00:04 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.

So baseless ...


Forget it, hes probably some stormfronter who is just glad to see another dead black youth.  No reason to debate him further.
 
2013-06-03 03:00:15 PM  

ZeroCorpse: It doesn't take much to realize you need an excuse, slam the back of your head against the pavement, and make up a pretty good story


pjmedia.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

Twice...and then broke his own nose.
 
2013-06-03 03:00:21 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.

So baseless ...


Self Defense, not murder.  I believe he was justified in the shooting.  No one knows though.
 
2013-06-03 03:00:28 PM  

Triple Oak [TotalFark]

You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.
I see the tf badge indicating a lack of basic comprehension, so I'll help you out.

Who exactly has the "burden of proof"?
 
2013-06-03 03:00:54 PM  

Tatsuma: Cupajo: "Holding" does not necessarily mean "in your hand", you halfwit. You knew exactly what I meant.

No, when you say 'while holding a gun' you clearly are saying he went out with a gun in his hand. You didn't mean 'with a gun in his holster'.


Uhh, nope.
 
2013-06-03 03:01:24 PM  

Tatsuma: Cupajo: All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles. When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?

He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin, nor was he told by the 911 operator to not draw his gun.

You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.


I have said it before - there is a reason Zim was not arrested the night of the incident - because there was no indication whatsoever that Zim had committed a crime.

Zim saw Martin acting suspiciously and called the cops.  He tried to keep him in sight and was flollowing to do when dispatch told him "you don't need to do that".  ZIm complied and was going back to his vehicle.  Zim was confronted by Martin and it became physical.  Zim was on his back being beaten and shot Martin in self defense.

EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE that has so far been revealed supports NOTHING but that version of the night in question.

Seriously, why do people think there is any more to it?  Zim shot Martin in self defense.  PERIOD.  There is only a case against Zim right now because the mob demanded that he be charged, evidence be damned.
 
2013-06-03 03:01:42 PM  

Antimatter: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.

So baseless ...

Forget it, hes probably some stormfronter who is just glad to see another dead black youth.  No reason to debate him further.


Yep you are right. Lets face it if trayvon was a white kid all these defenders of zimmerman would not have shiat to say on the matter.
 
2013-06-03 03:02:43 PM  
A lot of emotional investment in this case. i hope it ends in a hung jury, and the prosecution decides to try him again, and it stretches out for years and years. i think that would piss off the largest quantity of self-righteous assholes, and give me the most amusement.
 
2013-06-03 03:02:44 PM  

Phinn: Antimatter: Did GZ, or did he not, get out of a car, confront and then chase down a fleeing kid, while he himself was armed with a deadly weapon?

He got out of his car, followed on foot, and pursued a fleeing teenager while attempting to report that teenager's location to the police.

There is no evidence, other than Zimmerman's statement and DeeDee the earwitness, as to who confronted whom, but the statement of DeeDee, coached and delayed and untrustworthy as it is, still says that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first, that Zimmerman responded with a question, and that a physical struggle followed.

Following and observing suspicious people is not illegal, nor does it constitute a threat of imminent injury sufficient to justify force in self-defense.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon does not change the law that defines when self-defense is legal.


Shouldn't matter.  He had no reason, nor authority, to chase him down and confront him.  You can't chase someone down, confront them, and then kill them when they fight back against you.  That just doesn't make sense and is far too easy to abuse.  When chased by an armed man late at night who runs you down when you try to flee is grounds for self defense, not anything of what GZ did.
 
2013-06-03 03:03:42 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Elegy: fredklein: dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.

So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?

Punching a cop is felony. You cannot commit a felony in Florida and still claim self defense.

You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of them, provided at some point you tried to stop the fight and you had a legitimate fear for you life at the time.

I distinctly remember going over this with you in the last Zimmerman thread, even providing chapter and verse in Florida law and explaining all of the ramifications to you.

So I ask you - are you trolling, or are you just stupid?

I'm sure it varies by state, but isn't aggravated assault a felony? Perhaps depending on how it went down, initiating the fight while armed with a deadly weapon might be enough to meet that?


Aggravated Assault statue supplies that aggravated assault is
An "aggravated assault" is an assault:
(a)With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b)With an intent to commit a felony.

Hitting someone with your fist is simple battery, unless you have a prior conviction for simple battery, in which case you can be charged with a felony on your second offense.
 
2013-06-03 03:03:57 PM  

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.


You mean like the lack of bruises on his back because you know if you fall on your back on a hard ground there would be some bruising.  Also if he shot Martin while the guy was on top of him, you'd expect some blood to fall on him since he was so close, was there any of Martins blood on him?
 
2013-06-03 03:04:24 PM  

Phinn: Antimatter: By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.

You are wrong on both the facts and the law.  The proposition you just asserted has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever.
ProfessorOhki: isn't aggravated assault a felony?

Prove that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault, please.


I've got no interest in proving it either way. I'm only saying that arguing that a felony was being committed is one avenue the prosecution has for shutting down the self-defense claim. I'm just wondering aloud what approach the attorneys will take.

Speaking of adopting a defensive posture without merit though... good job on the reading there.
 
2013-06-03 03:04:29 PM  

Antimatter: He committed a crime by inserting himself into a situation that he had no business being in, and then running down a victim trying to escape, while armed with a deadly weapon.

That sounds like he planned to do violence to me, and self defense cannot be premeditated like that.



This is all completely incorrect.

"Inserting" yourself "into a situation" is not a meaningful legal standard of behavior.  It may annoy you, but it means nothing in terms of criminal law.

"Running down a victim" is also not remotely legally relevant.

The question is who posed an imminent threat of injury.  Asking people what they're doing does not qualify.

The bigger question is what evidence is there to prove an answer to that question, one way or the other.

The State simply does not have evidence to disprove the self-defense claim, unless they have more than has been revealed.
 
2013-06-03 03:04:36 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Antimatter: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug w ...


Black thug or white thug...it they are both trash to me.  The law must be upheld and a judgement must be made on only facts.  There aren't enough facts to convict (except with a jury of you guys).  They would win on an appeal anyway.  Lib on, friends.
 
2013-06-03 03:04:45 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: I can't understand why this story is still in the news, particularly since the original "story" put out by MSNBC had been debunked.  The evidence suggests Martin was on top of him and caving his face in when he shot.  I don't see how any reasonable person could say that shooting wasn't justified.


Most people jumped to a conclusion when this incident first took place. As the evidence came out suggesting that this wasn't what it first appeared to be, they kept hanging onto their original opinion, rather than actually looking at the mounting evidence. At some point, the hole became so deep that they figured "fark it, too late to change now" and are sticking to their guns.
 
2013-06-03 03:05:09 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Lets face it if trayvon was a white kid all these defenders of zimmerman would not have shiat to say on the matter.


Bahhhh.......imagine if it were these guys..........
marc.merlins.org
It would be the most epic thread ever.
 
2013-06-03 03:05:22 PM  

MFAWG: He confronted Martin while he was still in the car, and then got out of the car and followed Martin up the footpath.


There is not a single court that will ever consider 'walking behind someone on the street to make sure they are not committing a crime' to be initiating a confrontation.

frepnog: Seriously, why do people think there is any more to it? Zim shot Martin in self defense. PERIOD. There is only a case against Zim right now because the mob demanded that he be charged, evidence be damned.


Yep.

He's going to walk, too, then have a target on his back for the next decade.
 
2013-06-03 03:06:14 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom [TotalFark]
2013-06-03 12:39:01 PM


Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.

I'd bet you'd be screaming bloody murder -and hitting the report button- if some fool said something about t.martin and fried chicken & watermelon.

Racism is oh so funny when TotalFarkers do it.
 
2013-06-03 03:06:25 PM  

Antimatter: Doesn't matter. By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.


That is really poor reasoning. First it assumes that yje "escalation" was initiated by Zimmerman. It may have been, it may have been Martin, it may have been both assholes talking smack to each other. But talking, even yelling at each other, is not of consequence here.

We don't know who threw the first punch and who made it physical. And even then, that's not the key fact of the case. The question is who thought they were in danger for their life. If Martin saw that Zimmerman was armed and was being beligerant and threatening and couldn't get away, he would have been justified in attacking Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was attacked, and was on the losing end and thought HIS life was in danger, then he would have been justified in using his gun.

IF, IF, IF. We don't know, and will likely never know what happened. I suspect that we had two men, each overburdened with their own bad-assedness who got into an altercation that probably could have been easily avoided by either or both of them, but wasn't and now one is dead.

This is fundamentaly no different than a bar fight gone bad, and it is dissapointing that for months parties with ulterior motives and biases have been going to great lengths to turn this into a divisive political issue for racism, for gun-control, for stand-your-ground laws, or whatever else.

But hey. That advertising isn't going to sell itself!
 
2013-06-03 03:06:45 PM  

I_C_Weener: coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?

Well, just because you parked at the McDonald's and got out doesn't mean you ordered food.  Now, if you went in observed, then went back out AND then an employee attacked you shoving a Big Mac down your throat, who is the aggressor?


It's more like if you stopped at McDonalds at night, went inside and started following an employee around, and then when they ran into the back to get away from you, you followed them back there too, and then when they tried to defend themselves against your obviously crazy self, you shot them dead.
 
2013-06-03 03:07:45 PM  

OnlyM3: Racism is oh so funny when TotalFarkers do it.


There are some minorities where it's acceptable to make fun on Fark. You can for example make racist comments about Zimmerman, but he would be blowing up with rage if a guy was making a racist comment in a thread about republicans trying to kick illegals out of Arizona.
 
2013-06-03 03:08:45 PM  
So, what are the odds of rioting in FL if he is found not guilty?
 
2013-06-03 03:08:57 PM  

Antimatter: He had no reason, nor authority, to chase him down and confront him. You can't chase someone down, confront them, and then kill them when they fight back against you. That just doesn't make sense and is far too easy to abuse. When chased by an armed man late at night who runs you down when you try to flee is grounds for self defense, not anything of what GZ did.



As much as his behavior bothers you, it's not illegal.  The only authority he needed was the freedom we all have to do anything that's not illegal or threatening to others.

Following someone to ask him what he's doing is not illegal or imminently threatening.  GZ needed no special authority to do these things.

You should study the criminal law before you write posts about what the criminal law says.
 
2013-06-03 03:09:44 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Lets face it if trayvon was a white kid all these defenders of zimmerman would not have shiat to say on the matter.


You are correct.  There wouldn't be shiat to say because if a clearly innocent black man had shot a white punk in an obvious case of self defense, he would not have been charged.  The story would not have made it past page 3 of the local paper.
 
2013-06-03 03:10:07 PM  

LrdPhoenix: It's more like if you stopped at McDonalds at night, went inside and started following an employee around, and then when they ran into the back to get away from you, you followed them back there too, and then when they tried to defend themselves against your obviously crazy self, you shot them dead.


Your analogy falls on multiple levels:

McDonalds is a private property, not a public one.
You are not allowed to go into the back where employees are.
You have no proofs that Zimmerman was 'acting crazy' nor attacked him
 
2013-06-03 03:10:47 PM  

Heinrich von Eckardt: You are correct. There wouldn't be shiat to say because if a clearly innocent black man had shot a white punk in an obvious case of self defense, he would not have been charged. The story would not have made it past page 3 of the local paper.


ZIMMERMAN IS NOT WHITE.
 
2013-06-03 03:11:21 PM  

kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Antimatter: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax payers money because one less thug w ...

Black thug or white thug...it they are both trash to me.  The law must be upheld and a judgement must be made on only facts.  There aren't enough facts to convict (except with a jury of you guys).  They would win on an appeal anyway.  Lib on, friends.


Just because you call him a thug does not make it so.
being armed with a firearm puts a certain responsibility on george from the get go. And he farked up. Any result either then george doing some time will be a travesty of justice.
 
2013-06-03 03:11:28 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Phinn: Antimatter: By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.

You are wrong on both the facts and the law.  The proposition you just asserted has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever.
ProfessorOhki: isn't aggravated assault a felony?

Prove that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault, please.

I've got no interest in proving it either way. I'm only saying that arguing that a felony was being committed is one avenue the prosecution has for shutting down the self-defense claim. I'm just wondering aloud what approach the attorneys will take.

Speaking of adopting a defensive posture without merit though... good job on the reading there.


If they were going to use that avenue, they would have charged him with an additional felony already. They can't just magically claim he was committing another felony at trial because they say so without charging the man.

So no.
 
2013-06-03 03:12:13 PM  

Elegy: ongbok: Tatsuma: nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.

Do you have a link that a witness said Zimmerman was screaming for help? All the witnesses said somebody was screaming for help, but couldn't say who.

A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911".[149] He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Just below the links to the 911 calls, you can follow the citations yourself. There was at least one other witness that said Zimmerman was the one on the bottom, IIRC. And even if you disregard the witness testimony, the physical evidence says that Zimmerman did not fight back at all - there wasn't a mark on Martin.


Other than that bullet hole.
 
2013-06-03 03:13:09 PM  

Phinn: fredklein: So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?

No, the use of force against an LEO to resist a lawful arrest is a specially-defined crime.  Punching the cop meant he had the right to use whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest.  Cops have that special statutory protection.


I said nothing about being under arrest.
 
2013-06-03 03:14:53 PM  
How does Zimmerman's racial background matter? People of color can be racist or bigoted against other people of color. Is this shocking or something?
 
2013-06-03 03:15:54 PM  

Tatsuma: Heinrich von Eckardt: You are correct. There wouldn't be shiat to say because if a clearly innocent black man had shot a white punk in an obvious case of self defense, he would not have been charged. The story would not have made it past page 3 of the local paper.

ZIMMERMAN IS NOT WHITE.


What percentage of the close to 50 911 calls Zimmerman made that are on tape reference 'suspicious white guys'?

I'm willing to bet it's less than 10 pct.
 
2013-06-03 03:16:02 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


Agreed.  It doesn't matter if Travon was white or black or what color Zimmerman was either.  It has nothing to do with Skittles, or what a police dispatcher said and for farks sake no one cares that obama thinks he looks like the son he never had. In fact it was completey irresponsible for him to say such a dick ass thing.

Was it self defense or not?
 
2013-06-03 03:16:10 PM  

Elegy: Aggravated Assault statue supplies that aggravated assault is
An "aggravated assault" is an assault:
(a)With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b)With an intent to commit a felony.

Hitting someone with your fist is simple battery, unless you have a prior conviction for simple battery, in which case you can be charged with a felony on your second offense.


Yep... where assault is:
(1)An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

So, if an "assault" is an unlawful threat by word or act to do violence with the ability to do so. And such an assault with a deadly weapon is aggravated and a felony... then unlawfully pointing a gun at someone as a threat ("stop moving or I shoot") would be a felony and invalidate a claim to self defense, would it not?

Again, not claiming that's what happened, only considering what laws might be brought up during trial.
 
2013-06-03 03:16:35 PM  

coco ebert: How does Zimmerman's racial background matter? People of color can be racist or bigoted against other people of color. Is this shocking or something?


By painting Zimmerman as white, they can pretend that what he was doing was racially motivated and another example of yet another racist white man scared of a black man.

They are desperate to turn this into a racial thing instead of a neighborhood watch versus teenager. They are almost Cartman like in their desire of this turning into race riots.
 
2013-06-03 03:17:36 PM  

MFAWG: What percentage of the close to 50 911 calls Zimmerman made that are on tape reference 'suspicious white guys'?

I'm willing to bet it's less than 10 pct.


So you actually have no clues, you just 'feel' it must be that way. Zimmerman was not a racist and many figures from the African-American community came out in his favor and said they knew him and he never demonstrated any hatred.
 
2013-06-03 03:17:52 PM  

Elegy: ProfessorOhki: Phinn: Antimatter: By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.

You are wrong on both the facts and the law.  The proposition you just asserted has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever.
ProfessorOhki: isn't aggravated assault a felony?

Prove that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault, please.

I've got no interest in proving it either way. I'm only saying that arguing that a felony was being committed is one avenue the prosecution has for shutting down the self-defense claim. I'm just wondering aloud what approach the attorneys will take.

Speaking of adopting a defensive posture without merit though... good job on the reading there.

If they were going to use that avenue, they would have charged him with an additional felony already. They can't just magically claim he was committing another felony at trial because they say so without charging the man.

So no.


That's certainly a fair point. I haven't been paying attention to this stuff outside of the occasional Fark thread TBH.
 
2013-06-03 03:18:30 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Yep you are right. Lets face it if trayvon was a white kid all these defenders of zimmerman would not have shiat to say on the matter.


dude, I am whiter than mayonnaise and I am telling you that Martin's skin color made ZERO difference in this case.  Had he been white and jumped on Zimmerman and was beating his head against the concrete, I would still say Zim was justified in shooting him, because that is just a fact.

The only reason a race card is being played here is because of the initial bullshiat reporting that the media is guilty of, when the media claimed a small innocent black child was gunned down in cold blood by a white male aggressor, a version of the night's events that is more fictional than the latest Stephen King novel.
 
2013-06-03 03:19:56 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Antimatter: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax ...


Please, enlighten Fark on what those responsibilities are.
 
2013-06-03 03:20:39 PM  

Tatsuma: MFAWG: What percentage of the close to 50 911 calls Zimmerman made that are on tape reference 'suspicious white guys'?

I'm willing to bet it's less than 10 pct.

So you actually have no clues, you just 'feel' it must be that way. Zimmerman was not a racist and many figures from the African-American community came out in his favor and said they knew him and he never demonstrated any hatred.


Profiling is actually part of the prosecutions case, so I'm betting I'm on solid ground here.
 
2013-06-03 03:21:06 PM  
bulldg4life
2013-06-03 02:11:09 PM


I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.

Yes, Z approached Martin with his gun drawn, that's how martin -using his super powers- was able to close the distance, jump on top of martin, knock him to the ground, mount him, punch him several times, grab his head, slam his head into the cement several times... he was just that good.


Kinda like superman.
 
2013-06-03 03:21:52 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I think if anyone was "standing his ground" it was Martin, who was being followed by a creep. If Martin did throw some punches, they were to defend himself against Zimmerman who he believed to be a bad guy.

Wrong.  Being followed does not qualify for self-defense or "stand-your-ground".  It is also not a justification to begin a physical struggle.  That's assault.  Once he started beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete, putting him in a position of enduring great bodily harm or death, self-defense with lethal force became justified.  I will be shocked if this turns out any other way given the evidence.

Martin should have just gone home like his girlfriend told him to.

 
2013-06-03 03:22:06 PM  

MFAWG: Profiling is actually part of the prosecutions case, so I'm betting I'm on solid ground here.


Yeah an African-American pastor coming out and saying he knows him and he was always nice and never showed any bigotry versus you thinking he's a bigot.

STrong farking case.
 
2013-06-03 03:22:18 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

Racial fear comes in different levels to white racists:
White =  "best race because it's what we are"
Indian = "Peaceniks who worship cows. No threat to white people. Safer than Native Americans."
Native American = "no real threat left, so we're not afraid anymore. Safer than Asians."
Asian = "Not dangerous unless they know chop-socky martial arts stuff. Safer than Jews"
Jew = "Usually looks white, but they killed Jesus. Using Hollywood, not violence. Still safer than Arabs."
Arab = "Scary terrorists. Safer than Latinos, though."
Latino = "Foreigners who take our jobs and commit lots of crimes, but they look kind of white so they're safer than Black people"
Black = "Few 'good ones' don't make up for the rest of them. More dangerous than any other race."

How you can't understand this is beyond me. Bigots and racists don't just lump all outsiders into one pile and hate them equally. They have different tiers of hate, and if someone from a higher tier does wrong to someone of a lower tier, the racists will no doubt side with the higher-tier person and temporarily give them a pass for being "one of the good ones" or at least "not as bad as that other group."

How can you live in the world and not know this?


Because a lot of people do this:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-03 03:22:48 PM  

kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.


books.google.com

Pay attention to the last sentence. And here is the link.
 
2013-06-03 03:23:42 PM  

Tatsuma: MFAWG: Profiling is actually part of the prosecutions case, so I'm betting I'm on solid ground here.

Yeah an African-American pastor coming out and saying he knows him and he was always nice and never showed any bigotry versus you thinking he's a bigot.

STrong farking case.


What's with the non-sequitur response?
 
2013-06-03 03:24:39 PM  

ongbok: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

[books.google.com image 453x252]

Pay attention to the last sentence. And here is the link.


Good luck convincing the court
 
2013-06-03 03:26:01 PM  
At this point, I'm REALLY wishing hard for a hung jury. For this to end in a manner emotionally unsatisfactory to all the dipshiats who care about it would be just too delicious.
 
2013-06-03 03:26:27 PM  

nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.


I hate to agree here.  Murder? You gonna prove that was what occurred BEYOND a reasonable doubt? Not really a tough call.  Is that really the case? Probably.  But it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was.  Not guilty doesn't equal innocent, but that's just the way it is.
 
2013-06-03 03:27:31 PM  

kortex: Antimatter: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did GZ, or did he not, get out of a car, confront and then chase down a fleeing kid, while he himself was armed with a deadly weapon?

TM isn't some thug.  Someone was chasing him late at night, to do god knows what to him, so IMHO, he had every right to fight back when escape was no longer possible.  GZ never shoudl have inserted himself into the situation to b ...


What does that make Zimmerman? He has a we documented history of violence against people when he doesn't get his way.
 
2013-06-03 03:27:32 PM  

nekom: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.

Which law? He's not taking a Stand Your Ground defense.

No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide.  His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.


Sorry, no go.

By this reasoning (it doesn't matter how he got in the situation) I could walk into a bank with a gun out, shout "I am robbing this bank", then shoot the security guard when he reaches for his gun.... And claim it was self defense.

Sorry, the law does not allow for a valid claim of self defense while in the commission of a violent crime, and ZImmerman's problem is that it is his word against that of a dead person that he murdered. Given that the dead person can't speak for himself, and that Zimmerman by his own admission did something insanely risky and entirely unnecessary that contributed very very very heavily to the confrontation, and now someone else is dead as a result... He should likely be found of guilty of manslaughter at the very least.

If he walks on this it basically sends the message.. "Get someone alone, provoke them, and if that doesn't work push them (which leaves no defensive wounds, but is battery), and once they get a few good hits on you, kill them and you walk away clean."
 
2013-06-03 03:30:55 PM  

arentol: By this reasoning (it doesn't matter how he got in the situation) I could walk into a bank with a gun out, shout "I am robbing this bank", then shoot the security guard when he reaches for his gun.... And claim it was self defense.


Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal that's a shiat example.
 
2013-06-03 03:32:23 PM  
WHAT IF TRAYVON WAS TRYING TO GET MURDERED DID YOU EVERN THINK OF THAT
 
2013-06-03 03:32:49 PM  
And Zimmermann knew this "bad" information at the time he played cop, judge, jury, and executioner? How is it pertinent if he didn't?

As soon as he started in on Trayvon, Trayvon was within HIS rights to beat or even kill Georgie. To stand HIS ground.

Time to get old sparky fired up for Georgie.And charge his estate for the electricity.

/ccw holder
 
2013-06-03 03:34:43 PM  
kindms

He was told by police not to pursue.

A double -possible triple- lie . Your opinions can now be whole discarded as liars have nothing worthwhile to add.
1) 911 operators are not the police and have no authority to issue any orders.
2) The 911 operator stated "we don't need you to do that," "... which is not an order


3) 911 call shows Zimmerman stopped following Martin after dispatcher's request, corroborates story
 
2013-06-03 03:34:56 PM  

Elegy: You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of [you]


...and THAT is what's wrong with Florida.

/amongst all the other things
 
2013-06-03 03:38:32 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.


You really are a psychopath, you know?
 
2013-06-03 03:38:42 PM  

nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.


You speak as if it was a court case, when it's really a cottage industry that's always looking for more funding.
 
2013-06-03 03:39:36 PM  
Wait, you mean that the "he's black" defense is not working?
 
2013-06-03 03:40:26 PM  
How long does Zimmerman last in GP at Starke?
 
2013-06-03 03:40:27 PM  

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.


It's unfortunate but that's how our pesky judicial system works.  The prosecution has to prove their point, not the other way around.  Most of this discussion is irrelevant.  Can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that murder, not even manslaughter, occurred?  He's probably going to walk, and once again, the state of Florida will have to deal with the fact that they botched another one by overcharging.  A man who committed a serious crime is going to walk, and sadly, rightfully so.
 
2013-06-03 03:41:19 PM  

dittybopper: fredklein: dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.

So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?

Nope.


Fine. Change it to "I can walk up to and punch a random citizen, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?" (I only chose 'cop' to begin with because they're always armed.)
 
2013-06-03 03:42:00 PM  

ongbok: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

[books.google.com image 453x252]

Pay attention to the last sentence. And here is the link.


Much more simply, you could have gone with Florida's definition.

784.011Assault.-
(1)An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

If you want to argue that running toward someone (absent anything else)  constitutes assault within the meaning of this statute, be my guest.
 
2013-06-03 03:42:12 PM  
CWeinerWV:
It's unfortunate but that's how our pesky judicial system works.  The prosecution has to prove their point, not the other way around.  Most of this discussion is irrelevant.  Can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that murder, not even manslaughter, occurred?  He's probably going to walk, and once again, the state of Florida will have to deal with the fact that they botched another one by overcharging.  A man who committed a serious crime is going to walk, and sadly, rightfully so.

I realize this is all academic now but here's a question:  What lesser crime should he have been charged with specifically?
 
2013-06-03 03:43:07 PM  
teenage mutant ninja rapist

>>> OnlyM3: nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did
>>> he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is
>>> valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.
>>> BS. If he has a history of beating people who "disrespected" him (like the individual he bragged
>>> about beating on twitter) and a history of jumping people who he feels are "snitching" on him, like
>>> he bragged about in IM's to his wanna be gang-stu buddies, it does lend credence to the story
>>> that he jumped some "white guy" he felt was disrespecting and snitching on him.


Disrespecting him and snitching on him? Do you even know what those words mean? He attacked a guy
So you admit martin is the one that initiated the violent attack.

We're done here.
 
2013-06-03 03:44:12 PM  

fredklein: Elegy: You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of [you]

...and THAT is what's wrong with Florida.

/amongst all the other things


that is not how it works.  you can not punch someone and then kill them because they fight back, and then claim self defense.  However, you CAN hit someone, have them pin you down and begin to beat your head against concrete, and you, with no avenue of escape, can shoot them dead because it IS self-defense.

Zimmerman did not in fact chase Martin down and shoot him in cold blood.  This is nothing but fiction and in no way resembles any of the evidence so far exhibited.

It is why Zimmerman was not charged with a crime the night of the incident - because there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.
 
2013-06-03 03:45:05 PM  
To the people saying Zimmerman had injuries so that proves his case...logic isn't your strong suit.  You can start a fight with someone, and still get your ass kicked.  Just because you get your ass handed to you, doesn't mean you couldn't have still been the aggressor.
 
2013-06-03 03:45:56 PM  

OnlyM3: BS. If he has a history of beating people who "disrespected" him (like the individual he bragged about beating on twitter) and a history of jumping people who he feels are "snitching" on him, like he bragged about in IM's to his wanna be gang-stu buddies, it does lend credence to the story that he jumped some "white guy" he felt was disrespecting and snitching on him.


Sorry to post this twice in the same thread, but it seems necessary:

Not correct:

Florida Statute 90.404: Character evidence; when admissible

(2)OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.-
(a)Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is . . . inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mo de=Di splay_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.404.html


Evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to prove a particular event occured.
 
2013-06-03 03:46:04 PM  

Tatsuma: LrdPhoenix: It's more like if you stopped at McDonalds at night, went inside and started following an employee around, and then when they ran into the back to get away from you, you followed them back there too, and then when they tried to defend themselves against your obviously crazy self, you shot them dead.

Your analogy falls on multiple levels:

McDonalds is a private property, not a public one.
You are not allowed to go into the back where employees are.
You have no proofs that Zimmerman was 'acting crazy' nor attacked him


He's the one who brought McDonalds into it.
Following someone around is pretty damned crazy.
 
2013-06-03 03:46:13 PM  

Elegy: nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.

Unquestionably he should under law. The physical evidence says that he never laid a hand on Martin, while getting the crap beat out of him. He has witnesses who side with him and support his story that he was the one on the ground screaming for help.

I certainly don't celebrate Martin's death - at all - but the case is a good illustration of why florida law works the way it does, regardless of who started the fight. The implicit assumption in Florida law concerning the use of deadly force is that one party can end the fight at any time, and if it doesn't stop, the use of deadly force is justified.

It took two idiots to get into the situation, but the ultimate fatal decision was when Zimmerman was on the ground and screaming for help and Martin continued the beating rather than stop. That's what gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot and kill him. I regret that Martin was killed, but I agree with the way the law works.

/sorry for the lecture
//I still want to bet with someone on the outcome.


The truth about the "law": If the races were reversed, the shooter would be on death row by now.
 
2013-06-03 03:46:30 PM  

Cataholic: ongbok: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

[books.google.com image 453x252]

Pay attention to the last sentence. And here is the link.

Much more simply, you could have gone with Florida's definition.

784.011Assault.-
(1)An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

If you want to argue that running toward someone (absent anything else)  constitutes assault within the meaning of this statute, be my guest.


So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.
 
2013-06-03 03:46:32 PM  

fredklein: Fine. Change it to "I can walk up to and punch a random citizen, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?"


Unless it was your INTENT to do that and kill the person, yes. In certain circumstances, and if you can convince investigators, DAs, a judge and jury that you did not INTEND to kill that person, yes.

Otherwise, you would be submitting to being killed if you got into a fistfight with someone with a gun whether you knew it or not.

YOU ARE ALWAYS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DEFEND YOUR OWN LIFE *

/* Unless, in certain circumstances, you have willingly put that life in jeapordy in the commision of a felony.
 
2013-06-03 03:50:02 PM  
You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.

But it is Florida, and apparently there's nothing so simple that Florida lawmakers can't fark it up.
 
2013-06-03 03:50:21 PM  

CWeinerWV: A man who committed a serious crime is going to walk, and sadly, rightfully so.


actually, a man with no evidence against him that he committed a crime is MORE THAN LIKELY going to walk, and rightfully so.  I say more than likely because you just never know what is going to happen.  There was a MOUNTAIN of forensic evidence proving that OJ killed two people, and he walked because the jury let the race card play when race had FARK-ALL to do with it.
 
2013-06-03 03:52:25 PM  
Kibbler:
The truth about the "law": If the races were reversed, the shooter would be on death row by now.

Actually, that's more the truth about juries than the law.  Juries contain people.  Many people are racist.  That's not a flaw in any part of the law per se, that's a fundamental flaw of the jury system.  An alternative solution that would mitigate this would be a panel of judges who clinically apply the letter of the law, but even that doesn't solve it 100% because a judge can be racist too.
 
2013-06-03 03:52:47 PM  

fredklein: Elegy: You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of [you]

...and THAT is what's wrong with Florida.

/amongst all the other things


I'm personally OK with the way the self-defense law works in Florida. Two people fighting by consent until one of them drops? I'm ok with this.

Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

In this case, I do feel the use of lethal force is justified by the person on the bottom.

It mystifies me that - given the anti-authority and anti-violence stance you typically take on Fark - you have a problem with this. Just because you hit me doesn't magically give me the right to send you to the hospital or kill you in retaliation.

I have no problem with a fair fight between two consenting adults, but if one party is screaming "stop" or "help" then the fight clearly should is over. "The fight has gone out of him," as we say. If the beating continues after the point that one party is screaming for help, that party has a clear and obvious fear for their physical health and/or life, and should have the legal recourse to protect themselves from serious I jury or death under the law.

I guess I feel that civilization has rules governing the use of violence, one one of those rules is that if one person screams "no more" then the second person has an obligation to stop. I feel the Florida law approaches this question in a sensible manner.
 
2013-06-03 03:53:17 PM  

nekom: What lesser crime should he have been charged with specifically?


Involuntary manslaughter, or perhaps negligent homocide?

ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.


Of course it doesn't. Otherwise football is a felony act en masse every Sunday. Or chasing someone to give them back a wallet they dropped is not assault, even if that person misunderstands and flees the crazy. yelling hand-waving person. Nor is running at someone minding their own business to push them out of the way of a truck, or to stop a runaway shopping cart from hitting them. Chasing, in and of itslef, is not assault. Just as kissing someone is not assault, except when it is. It is not the act, it is the context.

If I run after you with a bat yelling, "I'm gonna fark you up!", that is assault, even if I don't lay a finger on you. If I charge you while you are minding your own business yelling "DIE DIE DIE", that is assault, though I cause you no physical harm.  Just as if I jumped you by suprise and planted a big 'ol unwanted kiss on you - that is assault.

This is not a difficult concept.
 
2013-06-03 03:53:18 PM  

CWeinerWV: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.

It's unfortunate but that's how our pesky judicial system works.  The prosecution has to prove their point, not the other way around.  Most of this discussion is irrelevant.  Can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that murder, not even manslaughter, occurred?  He's probably going to walk, and once again, the state of Florida will have to deal with the fact that they botched another one by overcharging.  A man who committed a serious crime is going to walk, and sadly, rightfully so.


The jury can also find him guilty of manslaughter. It is also on the table.
 
2013-06-03 03:53:46 PM  

frepnog: because the jury let the race card play when race had FARK-ALL to do with it the LAPD  and DA farked up the case.

 
2013-06-03 03:54:28 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.


actually you would think that all the evidence pointing to self defense (and the fact that the police did not find evidence that a crime was committed and so did not arrest or charge Zimmerman at the scene) would have made this a relatively simple self-defense case.  Which it was until the media claimed a white male had gunned down a small black child in cold blood and the mob demanded that Zimmerman be charged.
 
2013-06-03 03:55:01 PM  
Speaking of farking things up - meant to say: the LAPD and DA farked up the case.
 
2013-06-03 03:55:02 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

You really are a psychopath, you know?


Why?  Because someone is using facts instead of emotional reasoning like you?  Or what he says makes you mad :(?  Facts are what stand up, not your emotions.
 
2013-06-03 03:55:40 PM  

ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.


If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?
 
2013-06-03 03:56:08 PM  

CrazyCracka420: To the people saying Zimmerman had injuries so that proves his case...logic isn't your strong suit.  You can start a fight with someone, and still get your ass kicked.  Just because you get your ass handed to you, doesn't mean you couldn't have still been the aggressor.


Just because you are the aggressor, doesn't mean you can't claim self defense.

Lrn2law
 
2013-06-03 03:56:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: fredklein: Fine. Change it to "I can walk up to and punch a random citizen, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?"

Unless it was your INTENT to do that and kill the person, yes. In certain circumstances, and if you can convince investigators, DAs, a judge and jury that you did not INTEND to kill that person, yes.

Otherwise, you would be submitting to being killed if you got into a fistfight with someone with a gun whether you knew it or not.

YOU ARE ALWAYS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DEFEND YOUR OWN LIFE *

/* Unless, in certain circumstances, you have willingly put that life in jeapordy in the commision of a felony.


So basically, you can be a hired hitman and 'bump' into someone 'accidentally'.  Get into an argument, let the guy start pounding on you, then pull out your weapon and 'defend yourself' (with extreme prejudice).
 
2013-06-03 03:58:45 PM  

Elegy: CrazyCracka420: To the people saying Zimmerman had injuries so that proves his case...logic isn't your strong suit.  You can start a fight with someone, and still get your ass kicked.  Just because you get your ass handed to you, doesn't mean you couldn't have still been the aggressor.

Just because you are the aggressor, doesn't mean you can't claim self defense.

Lrn2law


And it's a ridiculous law and why "stand your ground" is a farking retarded.

Start a fight
Get ass kicked
Pull out a gun
Shoot the person you attacked
?
Profit
 
2013-06-03 03:59:09 PM  

nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law.  I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though.  A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die.  There are no winners here at all.


Other than Zimmerman, of course. If he walks. He will write a book, sell the story rights to Steven Spielberg, and become very wealthy.
 
2013-06-03 03:59:40 PM  

A. Snatchfold: frepnog: because the jury let the race card play when race had FARK-ALL to do with it the LAPD  and DA farked up the case.


Think what you want.  OJ walked because he was black.  No more, no less.  Had he been white he would probably still be sitting on death row (or whatever version of that is in Cali).

/think LAPD and DA DID fark up, but the mountain of evidence against OJ mitigated that, or SHOULD have.  Jury let OJ walk IN SPITE of all evidence showing that OJ CLEARLY committed the crime he was accused of.
 
2013-06-03 04:00:25 PM  
How many times are we going to have this thread. It's farking Florida, George will probably get manslaughter and along with time served get like 6 months in prison. Unless his lawyers really screw it up, which it sounds like they might.
 
2013-06-03 04:00:51 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.


FACT: You can't defend yourself unless your attacker is armed.
 
2013-06-03 04:00:59 PM  

PsyLord: So basically, you can be a hired hitman and 'bump' into someone 'accidentally'. Get into an argument, let the guy start pounding on you, then pull out your weapon and 'defend yourself' (with extreme prejudice).


Ummm. No.

BojanglesPaladin: Unless it was your INTENT to do that and kill the person, yes. In certain circumstances, and if you can convince investigators, DAs, a judge and jury that you did not INTEND to kill that person, yes.


If you were a HITMAN, then it would be your INTENT to kill that person, and you would presumably not be in fear for your life.

You would also be a particularly stupid and inept hitman, becasue you would be intentionally involving authorities, put yourself through a whiole investigation and trial, and rack up enormous legal fees, and probably ruin your life.

But you probably already knew that. Are we arguing ad absurdim here?
 
2013-06-03 04:02:34 PM  

Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?


So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.
 
2013-06-03 04:02:34 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: He will write a book, sell the story rights to Steven Spielberg, and become very wealthy.


Honestly?  After his character assassination, the guy deserves it.
 
2013-06-03 04:02:36 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: Other than Zimmerman, of course. If he walks. He will write a book, sell the story rights to Steven Spielberg, and become very wealthy.


That is unless he loses the civil wrongful death case. In that case, all his monies will belong to the Martin family.
 
2013-06-03 04:02:48 PM  

ChuDogg: FACT: You can't defend yourself unless your attacker is armed.


Martin had arms. Two of them.

(One holding Skittles, and one holding a Sprite)
 
2013-06-03 04:03:29 PM  
You guys wouldn't be arguing like this if Trayvon Martin was a German Shepherd and George Zimmerman was a perfectly-cooked and seasoned, medium-rare rib eye steak!
 
2013-06-03 04:04:07 PM  

ChuDogg: Smelly Pirate Hooker: You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.

FACT: You can't defend yourself unless your attacker is armed.


I really hope you are not serious.
 
2013-06-03 04:06:34 PM  

ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.


What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?
 
2013-06-03 04:07:09 PM  
Just can't wait till he is cleared, and he sues all kinds of people and corporations for brazillions.

Major media outlet doctoring 911 tapes on national TV to make George look bad is going to be worth a very large sum of money.

Still amazes me how stupid liberals are with their weird version of events and made up laws, to defend a gangsta who got killed. Not only do you ignore all evidence, you actually make up your own and really believe it. Crazy.
 
2013-06-03 04:07:18 PM  
frepnog:   Had he been white he would probably still be sitting on death row


Tell that to Casey Anthony. Sorry, but the LAPD/DA farking things up + him being a celebrity? That equals a walk. If he wasn't famous you'd better believe he'd be locked up right now.
 
2013-06-03 04:10:39 PM  

Thunderpipes: Still amazes me how stupid liberals are with their weird version of events and made up laws, to defend a gangsta who got killed.


I don't believe that there has been any evidence that Martin was a member of a gang, or had a history of violence.

Unless by "gangsta", you mean that he exhibited certain mannerisms and accoutrement common to black youth who take on certain affectations to bolster their own self image? In which case, do you mean to convey that people who act and dress in a certain way are more acceptably killed than people who act in a different way?
 
2013-06-03 04:11:14 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Elegy: CrazyCracka420: To the people saying Zimmerman had injuries so that proves his case...logic isn't your strong suit.  You can start a fight with someone, and still get your ass kicked.  Just because you get your ass handed to you, doesn't mean you couldn't have still been the aggressor.

Just because you are the aggressor, doesn't mean you can't claim self defense.

Lrn2law

And it's a ridiculous law and why "stand your ground" is a farking retarded.

Start a fight
Get ass kicked
Pull out a gun
Shoot the person you attacked
?
Profit


I have my own problems with SYG, but SYG has nothing to do with this case. Zimmerman waived his rights to a pre-trial SYG hearing.

The claim of self-defense that Zimmerman will use in trial is just that - a self-defense law. IIRC, many other states have a similar law that allow you to claim self defense even if you are the aggressor.

You can't even claim that this is the fault of "no duty to retreat" laws. If the physical evidence and witness testimony are to be believed, Zimmerman couldn't retreat once he was being pummeled.

It's just plain self defense, of the sort that has always been on the books. Sorry that doesn't advance your political agenda.
 
2013-06-03 04:11:39 PM  

PsyLord: So, what are the odds of rioting in FL if he is found not guilty?


Why are you so eager to see people with certain characteristics behave shamefully because it would reinforce your prejudicial opinions of them?
 
2013-06-03 04:12:02 PM  

ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.


No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.
 
2013-06-03 04:12:14 PM  

Tatsuma: arentol: By this reasoning (it doesn't matter how he got in the situation) I could walk into a bank with a gun out, shout "I am robbing this bank", then shoot the security guard when he reaches for his gun.... And claim it was self defense.

Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal that's a shiat example.




This is why we are having a trial, lots of rumors still being thrown around.

I think the issue is Martin wasn't doing anything wrong either. An argument could be made that Martin was acting in self defense. A strange man followed him in a car, then when Martin got scared and change directions, the guy followed him on foot. Perhaps he felt his life was endangered. Perhaps He saw Zimmerman had a gun and started attacking?

While I don't think Zimmerman murdered Martin, he certainly bears some sort of responsibility.Getting out of the car was the stupidest decision in the world.
 
2013-06-03 04:12:44 PM  

ChuDogg: Smelly Pirate Hooker: You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.

FACT: You can't defend yourself unless your attacker is armed.


So if a no-armed man kicks me in the balls, I have to just stand there and take it?
 
2013-06-03 04:12:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?


It shows the idiocy of SYG laws.  You can pick fights and shoot your way out of them when you're losing.
 
2013-06-03 04:13:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?


This went past Zimmerman following him. At a point Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman, clearly showing he feared Zimmerman and was trying to avoid a confrontation with him. Zimmerman even said he is running away on the 911 call. Zimmerman chased him and caught him. At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you decided to run away from a person and they caught up to you.

Or are you going to deny that Trayvon ran away from him?
 
2013-06-03 04:14:16 PM  

poot_rootbeer: PsyLord: So, what are the odds of rioting in FL if he is found not guilty?

Why are you so eager to see people with certain characteristics behave shamefully because it would reinforce your prejudicial opinions of them?


There will be a riot.  Florida will even prepare for one.  Or are you saying a bunch of people already using emotional reasoning won't make another emotional choice and riot because they don't understand how this could have happened?  Derp.
 
2013-06-03 04:17:23 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]



"At least he's not jewish", is what you're saying?
 
2013-06-03 04:17:30 PM  

tricycleracer: BojanglesPaladin: What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

It shows the idiocy of SYG laws.  You can pick fights and shoot your way out of them when you're losing.


Shows the idiocy of you, since this is what you think happened, contrary to all evidence.
 
2013-06-03 04:17:37 PM  

Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.


You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.
 
2013-06-03 04:19:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Still amazes me how stupid liberals are with their weird version of events and made up laws, to defend a gangsta who got killed.

I don't believe that there has been any evidence that Martin was a member of a gang, or had a history of violence.

Unless by "gangsta", you mean that he exhibited certain mannerisms and accoutrement common to black youth who take on certain affectations to bolster their own self image? In which case, do you mean to convey that people who act and dress in a certain way are more acceptably killed than people who act in a different way?


Is that moron still posting his same stick? I bet he included the word liberal in his post. I thought everyone had that idiot on ignore.
 
2013-06-03 04:20:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?


Apparently you don't know the LAW and can't use simple LOGIC! If you somebody is following you and looking at you the wrong way you should absolutely have every right to defend yourself and attack them. Treyvon was standing HIS ground from some freaky white guy giving him the stink eye.  And Martin was unarmed so Zimmerman has no right to use his gun for self defense.   That's the LAW.  He shouldn't have been waving around menacing in the first place.  Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a man if you lost the fight after looking at the wrong dude the wrong way. That's life.
 
2013-06-03 04:20:31 PM  

ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

This went past Zimmerman following him. At a point Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman, clearly showing he feared Zimmerman and was trying to avoid a confrontation with him. Zimmerman even said he is running away on the 911 call. Zimmerman chased him and caught him. At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you decided to run away from a person and they caught up to you.

Or are you going to deny that Trayvon ran away from him?


That doesn't matter. How many times do we have to go over this. The only things that matter are:

-Zimmerman's story that he was on the ground screaming for help while Martin pummeled him

-Zimmerman's copious physical injuries and defensive wounds versus Martin's none (barring the gunshot wound)

-The witness that corroborate it was Zimmerman on the ground screaming for help and getting pummeled for Martin.

Answer me this: why does Zimmerman get all the blame for following Martin, yet Martin gets none of the blame for continuing to beat on Zimmerman? Because it would seem to me that (following a person
 
2013-06-03 04:21:07 PM  

ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.


I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.
 
2013-06-03 04:21:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?


If someone follows me from an isolated area at night into an even MORE isolated area, at what point do I assume they're not up to anything good?

Zimmerman is going to jail, and probably for a very, very long time.
 
2013-06-03 04:21:51 PM  
Trayvon Martin beat up a homeless guy.

Trayvon Martin stole Marcellus Wallace's soul.

Trayvon Martin shot Abraham Lincoln.

Trayvon Martin is responsible for global warming and killing pandas.

Trayvon Martin is white people's excuse for everything they love to stereotype about black people.
 
2013-06-03 04:22:14 PM  
Poor Travon ...
... he just wandered over to watch some Ultimate Bum Shock Fights.

/hot like those gloves
 
2013-06-03 04:22:43 PM  

gshepnyc: What does any of this  have to do wwith what we already know to be facts? Martin was where he was allowed to be. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman was a self-appointed "neighborhood watch" guy who took it upon himseld to be armed and who gave himself the title of "captain." Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin. Zimmerman was armed and pursued anyway. Zimmerman made hotheaded remarks. Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


I think there might be some facts you're missing here...
 
2013-06-03 04:23:18 PM  

ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.

You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.


Actually, if the guy I was pounding on started screaming for help while I was on top of him, I would probably stop hitting him.

Because, you know, hitting someone over and over who is on the ground and clearly doesn't want to fight anymore is wrong.

So no, I wouldn't do what Trayvon did.
 
2013-06-03 04:23:20 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Elegy: CrazyCracka420: To the people saying Zimmerman had injuries so that proves his case...logic isn't your strong suit.  You can start a fight with someone, and still get your ass kicked.  Just because you get your ass handed to you, doesn't mean you couldn't have still been the aggressor.

Just because you are the aggressor, doesn't mean you can't claim self defense.

Lrn2law

And it's a ridiculous law and why "stand your ground" is a farking retarded.

Start a fight
Get ass kicked
Pull out a gun
Shoot the person you attacked
?
Profit


And here's the crux.   THIS is why this case is such a big farking deal.  People who are for more gun control HATE stand-your-ground.  It makes perfect sense.

If someone attacks you, you have the ability to defend yourself with lethal force if you are at risk of death or great bodily harm.  PERIOD.  That's what stand-your-ground is.  It is not all of these paranoid fantasies of people instigating fights and then shooting the other guys and yelling "He was coming right at us!" South Park style and getting away with it.

Martin wasn't simply warding off an attacker.  He was on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the concrete.  Was it smart for Zimmerman to follow him?  Maybe not.  Did that justify a severe beatdown?  Absolutely not.  Was Zimmerman justified in shooting?  According to the evidence we have seen so far, yes he was.

This case is idiotic.  If it hadn't been for the irresponsible reporting at the outset, this would have been a page 3 story.
 
2013-06-03 04:24:29 PM  
Darn, animated gif fail.

Here is a linky
 
2013-06-03 04:24:36 PM  

MFAWG: If someone follows me from an isolated area at night into an even MORE isolated area, at what point do I assume they're not up to anything good?


I think that depends on the circumstances. Can you tell me when exactly are you justified in jumping that person and beating them?
 
2013-06-03 04:24:42 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: You guys wouldn't be arguing like this if Trayvon Martin was a German Shepherd and George Zimmerman was a perfectly-cooked and seasoned, medium-rare rib eye steak!


thumbnails.hulu.com

HEY!  If George Zimmerman were made of Trayvon Martin, would you eat George Zimmerman!?  It's not rocket science!
Worried you might choose Mad Cow.

/stared at the sun with a pair of binoculars for over an hour
//friends call him whiskers
///HEY!
 
2013-06-03 04:25:11 PM  

MFAWG: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

If someone follows me from an isolated area at night into an even MORE isolated area, at what point do I assume they're not up to anything good?

Zimmerman is going to jail, and probably for a very, very long time.


Want to bet?

1 month TF.

I win if he walks.
You win if he's convicted for murder 2.
Nobody wins if he pleas out, if there's a hung jury, or if he's guilty of a lesser charge.
 
2013-06-03 04:25:16 PM  

NightOwl2255: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Still amazes me how stupid liberals are with their weird version of events and made up laws, to defend a gangsta who got killed.

I don't believe that there has been any evidence that Martin was a member of a gang, or had a history of violence.

Unless by "gangsta", you mean that he exhibited certain mannerisms and accoutrement common to black youth who take on certain affectations to bolster their own self image? In which case, do you mean to convey that people who act and dress in a certain way are more acceptably killed than people who act in a different way?

Is that moron still posting his same stick? I bet he included the word liberal in his post. I thought everyone had that idiot on ignore.


And yet I am right, 100% of the time. Burns you up huh?
By Gangsta, I mean pot dealing, theft, getting kicked out of school, and jumping a guy for fun.

Farkers just can't face facts.
 
2013-06-03 04:25:51 PM  

Elegy: So no, I wouldn't do what it is alleged that Trayvon did.


FTF&Y.
 
2013-06-03 04:26:43 PM  
Hmm, it says over 300 posts yet when I come into the thread to read it, it only says 89...I wonder why?
 
2013-06-03 04:27:01 PM  

OnlyM3: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom [TotalFark]
2013-06-03 12:39:01 PM


Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.
I'd bet you'd be screaming bloody murder -and hitting the report button- if some fool said something about t.martin and fried chicken & watermelon.

Racism is oh so funny when TotalFarkers do it.


That comment is GODDAMN HILARIOUS coming from you.
 
2013-06-03 04:27:57 PM  

ChuDogg: BojanglesPaladin: I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

Apparently you don't know the LAW and can't use simple LOGIC! If you somebody is following you and looking at you the wrong way you should absolutely have every right to defend yourself and attack them. Treyvon was standing HIS ground from some freaky white guy giving him the stink eye.  And Martin was unarmed so Zimmerman has no right to use his gun for self defense.   That's the LAW.  He shouldn't have been waving around menacing in the first place.  Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a man if you lost the fight after looking at the wrong dude the wrong way. That's life.


You couldn't possibly have been wrong on any more of your points.  You cannot attack for being followed.  Your assailant being armed has NOTHING to to with self-defense legally, fear of death or great bodily harm does. There is no indication that Zimmerman had his firearm out before the final confrontation.  You condone someone aggressively attacking for "looking at the wrong dude the wrong way" but vilify reasonable self-defense?  I really hope you don't work for the legal system.
 
2013-06-03 04:28:54 PM  

elffster: Hmm, it says over 300 posts yet when I come into the thread to read it, it only says 89...I wonder why?


comprehensive ignore list?
 
2013-06-03 04:28:56 PM  

Thunderpipes: By Gangsta, I mean pot dealing, theft, getting kicked out of school, and jumping a guy for fun.


Dealing? Cite please.
Jumping a guy for FUN? Cite please?

I am not aware of anything that has been presented that puts Martin substantially out of the norm for your average white suburban kid of any reace or ethnicity.
 
2013-06-03 04:29:33 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?


Well he's not black and that's enough for some people. There are a lot of people who seem to think they know exactly what happened and those who are far right politically know that Zimmerman is 100% innocent and those that are far left know that Zimmerman is 100% guilty.

The Freepers know Zimmerman is not only innocent but a hero for standing up to a bad black man and a good example of why we should all be heavily armed at all times. They even compiled a list of "the facts that we here on Free Republic know to be true." Apparently only facts that point to Zimmerman being innocent are known to be true.
 
2013-06-03 04:30:07 PM  

AngryDragon: You couldn't possibly have been wrong on any more of your points.


(You might want to adjust your sarcasm meter)
 
2013-06-03 04:31:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Elegy: So no, I wouldn't do what it is alleged that Trayvon did.

FTF&Y.


Are you suggesting Zimmerman beat himself up?
 
2013-06-03 04:31:36 PM  
Half-white guy is elected president: C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

Half-white guy shoots a black kid: OMG WHITE RACIST!

Seems consistent.
 
2013-06-03 04:31:42 PM  

ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.

You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.


No.  I would not defend myself just because they caught up to  me.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.  You do not have the right to defend yourself (physically) until it becomes evident that the other person is going to harm you.  Paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are chasing after you isn't enough.  As I said earlier, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to need to speak with you.  Punching someone who caught up to you so they could tell you someone just sideswiped your parked car is a crime.
 
2013-06-03 04:32:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.


We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.
 
2013-06-03 04:33:42 PM  

AngryDragon: ChuDogg: BojanglesPaladin: I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

Apparently you don't know the LAW and can't use simple LOGIC! If you somebody is following you and looking at you the wrong way you should absolutely have every right to defend yourself and attack them. Treyvon was standing HIS ground from some freaky white guy giving him the stink eye.  And Martin was unarmed so Zimmerman has no right to use his gun for self defense.   That's the LAW.  He shouldn't have been waving around menacing in the first place.  Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a man if you lost the fight after looking at the wrong dude the wrong way. That's life.

You couldn't possibly have been wrong on any more of your points.  You cannot attack for being followed.  Your assailant being armed has NOTHING to to with self-defense legally, fear of death or great bodily harm does. There is no indication that Zimmerman had his firearm out before the final confrontation.  You condone someone aggressively attacking for "looking at the wrong dude the wrong way" but vilify reasonable self-defense?  I really hope you don't work for the legal system.


Actually I'm studying law, but focusing on Immigration law as the child of illegal immigrants my goal is to reduce our racist immigration and justice system.  Face the FACTS: Zimmerman is on trial, so that would tell me I am RIGHT and YOU are WONG! It is illegal to follow somebody and when you do you should expect to get beaten up!!! Otherwise you racist white might just find yourself on trial for murder. Check your privilege.
 
2013-06-03 04:34:28 PM  

Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.

You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.

No.  I would not defend myself just because they caught up to  me.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.  You do not have the right to defend yourself (physically) until it becomes evident that the other person is going to harm you.  Paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are chasing after you isn't enough.  As I said earlier, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to need to speak with you.  Punching someone who caught up to you so they could tell you someone just sideswiped your parked car is a crime.


So you are going to stick with that lie to defend your stance. Now that is dedication. I hope you don't give your kids that same advice.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:01 PM  

Tatsuma: nekom: No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide. His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger. So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened. It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead. Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.


Which of the multiple witnesses, of whom zero have confirmed such a thing are you referring to. Not a one of them could say with a certainty that was the case, all of them questioned said this.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:09 PM  

AngryDragon: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

Of course he is.  You can't have a case based on racism unless at least one of the people involved is a white male.  I think that's in the Constitution, somewhere in the back.


Seriously - Zimmerman has to be white to fit the narrative. If we can't make this thing about race what are we talking about here? Black kids shoot other black kids all day long every day. Come on - no one cares about that.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:35 PM  
What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:43 PM  

ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.


Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?
 
2013-06-03 04:36:14 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


Looks caucasian to me.
 
2013-06-03 04:38:04 PM  

Gunslinger013: AngryDragon: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

Of course he is.  You can't have a case based on racism unless at least one of the people involved is a white male.  I think that's in the Constitution, somewhere in the back.

Seriously - Zimmerman has to be white to fit the narrative. If we can't make this thing about race what are we talking about here? Black kids shoot other black kids all day long every day. Come on - no one cares about that.


And here we go again with this lie.

So you think because there is a lot of black on black crime we shouldn't care if a black who is minding his walking down the street minding his own business is killed by a non black person?
 
2013-06-03 04:38:43 PM  

ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

This went past Zimmerman following him. At a point Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman, clearly showing he feared Zimmerman and was trying to avoid a confrontation with him. Zimmerman even said he is running away on the 911 call. Zimmerman chased him and caught him. At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you decided to run away from a person and they caught up to you.

Or are you going to deny that Trayvon ran away from him?


Citation needed.
There's no evidence that Zimmerman was not on his way back the truck when the confrontation occurred.
 
2013-06-03 04:39:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: By Gangsta, I mean pot dealing, theft, getting kicked out of school, and jumping a guy for fun.

Dealing? Cite please.
Jumping a guy for FUN? Cite please?

I am not aware of anything that has been presented that puts Martin substantially out of the norm for your average white suburban kid of any reace or ethnicity.


Don't you know how things work in Thundy's head?

A bag that may have held weed = Drug dealer.
Possession of jewelry that has never been associated with a crime = Thief.
Suspended from school = Getting kicked out.
Tweet from his cousin = Jumping a guy for fun.

See how that works?
 
2013-06-03 04:40:14 PM  

Nacc: Tatsuma: nekom: No, he's making a general claim of justifiable homicide. His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger. So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened. It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead. Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.

Which of the multiple witnesses, of whom zero have confirmed such a thing are you referring to. Not a one of them could say with a certainty that was the case, all of them questioned said this.


Do not pay attention to Tatsuma. He hates everyone who is not jewish.  In this case he just hates black people more than he hates hispanics.
 
2013-06-03 04:40:33 PM  

Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?


If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.
 
2013-06-03 04:40:34 PM  

Nacc: Which of the multiple witnesses, of whom zero have confirmed such a thing are you referring to. Not a one of them could say with a certainty that was the case, all of them questioned said this.


There are 8 witnesses, and the only three who actually saw them in the middle of the altercation all said that Martin was on top.

People are really hating on facts in this thread.
 
2013-06-03 04:40:39 PM  

Mock26: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

Looks caucasian to me.


As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.
 
2013-06-03 04:41:56 PM  

ongbok: Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?

If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.


Because Martin jumped Zimmerman before he made it back to the vehicle?
 
2013-06-03 04:42:13 PM  

NightOwl2255: Possession of jewelry that has never been associated with a crime = Thief.


The guy had a screwdriver and pieces of women's jewellery in his locker.
 
2013-06-03 04:42:49 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.


Yes, you are right. There is absolutely no physical evidence that Zimmerman took a beating without fighting back.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

None whatsoever.
/bonus: google the Martin autopsy report and read it (not sure if safe to link)
//Martin had no wounds besides the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his hand
///so tell me again about that lack of evidence
 
2013-06-03 04:44:18 PM  

Tatsuma: He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away.  He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes".  We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.

AngryDragon:  If someone attacks you, you have the ability to defend yourself with lethal force if you are at risk of death or great bodily harm.  PERIOD.

Except when the guy who gets attacked is a black kid minding his own business.  Martin wasn't doing anything but walking home when Zimmerman chased him down and started this, but according to you Martin is wrong for defending himself, and since Martin was winning when it was a fistfight, Zimmerman gets to move on to "Shoot you dead".

Apparently you think everyone who thinks this is wrong is some kind of gun control nut.  I've lived in Texas all my life, I'm a big believer in owning guns and in the right to self defense.  But self defense is a lot different from "I'm going to strap on a gun, chase a kid down, start a fight, then shoot him and claim self defense".

That's what stand-your-ground is.  It is not all of these paranoid fantasies of people instigating fights and then shooting the other guys and yelling "He was coming right at us!" South Park style and getting away with it.

In this case, it *is* a guy who went and instigated a fight then shot the other guy and screamed "He was coming right for me", and many of you seem to think he should get away with it.
 
2013-06-03 04:45:19 PM  

JuggleGeek: In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away. He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes". We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.


Following someone is not initiating a confrontation, nor is it illegal, nor is it license to assault.

What a bunch of children in this thread.
 
2013-06-03 04:45:54 PM  
Y'know, if you guys could arrange to have these threads / discussions at Fark meetups, I'd definitely start going.

/Been a while since I've seen a good ol' bar fight.
 
2013-06-03 04:46:04 PM  
I don't care what evidence they let in or not as long as Martin gets what's coming to him.
 
2013-06-03 04:46:10 PM  
ChuDogg:
As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.

You might just be the perfect person to settle this then:  Some people have said that hispanic is NOT a race, but rather a cultural distinction.  Do you feel that's true or is that off base?

My understanding is that there is a much higher percentage of indigenous people or mixed race people than the U.S. or Canada.  Of these two, who is hispanic?  1.  A Peruvian who can trace his lineage to the Inca, 2.  A Mexican who can trace his lineage to a Spanish immigrant.  Which one (or both) is hispanic?
 
2013-06-03 04:46:16 PM  
I have about the same amount of hair as Zimmerman. I hit my head hard enough to cause bleeding at least once a month. My point? Scalp lacs aren't good evidence of a severe beating (on a bald guy).

That nose is JACKED UP though!
 
2013-06-03 04:46:26 PM  

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


"Bu...but...he lighter colored! Dat mean partial priv'lidge, righ? He still partial white!"
 
2013-06-03 04:46:59 PM  

Tatsuma: NightOwl2255: Possession of jewelry that has never been associated with a crime = Thief.

The guy had a screwdriver and pieces of women's jewellery in his locker.


Actually it was in backpack. That screwdriver has been magically turned into "burglary tools" and the jewelry has never been associated with any crime. What was that about facts you were saying?
 
2013-06-03 04:47:38 PM  
The MEDIA says that this guy is "white hispanic", but i've never heard of that term so it doesn't exist.

I've heard that the "Census Bureau" has been recording this "white hispanic" information for over 40 years, but I've never heard of this "Census Bureau".

I've heard that there's even a wikipedia article where they explain what a white hispanic is, but I only read conservapedia.

I've also heard that there's some country called "Argentina" that is filled with them, but the only countries I know are U, S, and A.

I've heard that there's some guy named Emilio Estevez that is one of them, but I only watch Charlie Sheen.

Nice try, libbos.
 
2013-06-03 04:48:28 PM  

stonelotus: I don't care what evidence they let in or not as long as Martin gets what's coming to him.


Yeah, let's dig up the kid's corpse and traipse it around the town square... maybe light it on fire.

Or maybe you got your names mixed up?
 
2013-06-03 04:50:26 PM  

ChuDogg:


As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.


Obviously Not Hispanic.

 
2013-06-03 04:50:36 PM  

coco ebert: What I'm saying is that from what evidence we have, including that call, it appears as though Zimmerman knowingly entered into a situation which he had already expressed aggression about (again, from the call).


I've done that before.  Just didn't kill anyone.
 
2013-06-03 04:50:38 PM  

NightOwl2255: Actually it was in backpack. That screwdriver has been magically turned into "burglary tools" and the jewelry has never been associated with any crime. What was that about facts you were saying?


You're right, it was in his bag, not his locker. I was thinking about the locker he defaced and he got suspended for.

And they weren't associated with any crime because they didn't go to the police, there's fark all you can do in that situation. Why would he have 12 pieces of women's jewellery and a screwdriver on him?
 
2013-06-03 04:50:44 PM  

JuggleGeek: Tatsuma: He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.

In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away.  He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes".  The dispatacher told Zimmerman that he doesn't need to follow Martin.  Zimmerman says "ok" and(according to Zimmerman) stops following Martin and starts to work his way back to his vehicle. We all don't know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call does not come anywhere close to making makes it clear.


There you go.
 
2013-06-03 04:51:02 PM  
Rapmaster2000

Mestizos are of mixed races.

[themoreyouknow.jpg]
 
2013-06-03 04:51:20 PM  

ongbok: Gunslinger013: AngryDragon: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

Of course he is.  You can't have a case based on racism unless at least one of the people involved is a white male.  I think that's in the Constitution, somewhere in the back.

Seriously - Zimmerman has to be white to fit the narrative. If we can't make this thing about race what are we talking about here? Black kids shoot other black kids all day long every day. Come on - no one cares about that.

And here we go again with this lie.

So you think because there is a lot of black on black crime we shouldn't care if a black who is minding his walking down the street minding his own business is killed by a non black person?


Where exactly is the lie? The manufactured racial component is playing a bigger part in this case than the facts.  You think we would be still reading about this if zimmerman was black?
 
2013-06-03 04:52:57 PM  

AngryDragon: Martin wasn't simply warding off an attacker. He was on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the concrete.


Was this ever established as the end of it? Because what it looks like to me is Zimmerman started shiat, got his ass knocked back with a hit to the nose and fell on his ass, got up pissed off and shot the kid from a foot away in a rage.

I read the autopsy, I don't understand how you manage a perfect heart shot from a minimum distance of six inches, max 30, while that person is supposedly beating you so violently you are afraid for your life. If Zimmerman was THAT badass a shot he'd have thrown the farking kid.

Yeah, they could have been fighting. What those wounds do not look like are wounds that conjure images of life threatening danger.
 
2013-06-03 04:53:10 PM  

nekom: ChuDogg:
As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.

You might just be the perfect person to settle this then:  Some people have said that hispanic is NOT a race, but rather a cultural distinction.  Do you feel that's true or is that off base?

My understanding is that there is a much higher percentage of indigenous people or mixed race people than the U.S. or Canada.  Of these two, who is hispanic?  1.  A Peruvian who can trace his lineage to the Inca, 2.  A Mexican who can trace his lineage to a Spanish immigrant.  Which one (or both) is hispanic?


Well race is a social construct so i don't think it's a race it's an ethnicity but one that belongs to the indigenous of the land not white people who immigrated.  White racists like to use both sides of the same coin but that's not the case. People like Zimmerman shouldn't claim to be hispanic when they are clearly white.
 
2013-06-03 04:53:35 PM  

Elegy: Are you suggesting Zimmerman beat himself up?


No. I am sayin that who was on top, and who was yelling for help should not be considered to be PROVEN. What is proven is that Zimmerman was injured, and aside from the fatal gunshot would, Martin was not, so you are likely correct, but it has not been adjuticated and is therefore only alleged,

A Minor quibble. But I would personally avoid stating as fact that Martin was "hitting someone over and over who is on the ground and clearly doesn't want to fight anymore".

ongbok: We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.


All well and good (Althopugh it is not proven that Martin didn't go and find Zimmerman at the final confrontation, but let's skip that). You seem to be advocating that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman for following him. I don't that makes much sense, but if Martin was justified in beating up Zimmerman for simply following and presumably 'harrasing' him, then surely Zimmerman was justified in defending himself against a potentially fatal beat-down? You can't have it both ways.
 
2013-06-03 04:55:40 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.


I'll let him slide for that. Leaving aside anything, I can't even imagine how stressful it would be to have reporters and thousands of people that want to hurt you dogging your every move. I don't think I'd try to eat myself to death, but I sure know I'd spend most of my time in a dark hidden corner somewhere until it blew over!

/thanks for the idea, cats!
 
2013-06-03 04:57:57 PM  

tricycleracer: BojanglesPaladin: What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

It shows the idiocy of SYG laws.  You can pick fights and shoot your way out of them when you're losing.


If I had a nickel for every assertion of criminal law that was just plain wrong, I'd have enough nickels to replenish Zimmerman's defense fund.

This isn't an SYG case. It's just straightforward self-defense.

But, the old rule requiring a person to retreat (or be unable to retreat) before defending himself is still around, actually -- it applies to aggressors.

Coincidentally, Zimmerman also meets the statutory standard for self-defense even if he were the aggressor here, since Martin had him pinned and he was trying to disengage. Zimmerman walks either way.

But this case isn't about gun rights. It isn't even about race.

It's about the individual and the role of the State.

It utterly GALLS some people that Zimmerman got out of his car to investigate. That he was armed. That he was advised to stop following a suspicious person.

In the mind of the hard-core, indoctrinated Statist, only police can do these things. We ordinary mortals cannot assert ourselves. We must cower to criminals, and alert our betters, and wait for them to handle all our problems.

Even these Statists recognize that total pacifism is unworkable, so they begrudge us the tiniest sliver of room to defend ourselves, but only as a very last resort.

And if you have the temerity to do this, to lift your head up and protect yourself, then the Statist reflexively assumes that the rule ought to be that the burden falls on the defendant to prove his innocence, for having such audacity.

This case highlights the Statist's unquestioned, unexamined assumption that we are subservient to officialdom, that people live their lives only by official permission, that the State defines what we can and can't do, that pretending to usurp the State is an act of hubris, and must be punished.

If Zimmerman had had a shiny badge and a government salary, these same Statists wouldn't blink twice about this case.
 
2013-06-03 04:58:11 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Tatsuma: nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

You really are a psychopath, you know?


Yet somehow didn't get any of the charisma that so often goes with it. Unfortunate.
 
2013-06-03 05:00:22 PM  

Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...


So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some
 
2013-06-03 05:00:25 PM  

Mrbogey: nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event  white boy people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, black boy it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.



ftfy
 
2013-06-03 05:01:03 PM  

Elegy: Smelly Pirate Hooker: What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.

Yes, you are right. There is absolutely no physical evidence that Zimmerman took a beating without fighting back.

[i.imgur.com image 300x401]

[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

None whatsoever.
/bonus: google the Martin autopsy report and read it (not sure if safe to link)
//Martin had no wounds besides the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his hand
///so tell me again about that lack of evidence


Looks like the beating to death he got was quite a bit less than this guy's:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-03 05:01:55 PM  

KrustyKitten: ongbok: Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?

If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.

Because Martin jumped Zimmerman before he made it back to the vehicle?


Except we know from Martin's girlfriend that Zimmerman confronted him while he was on the phone with her and she heard the confrontation. Also the phone logs of the phone call between the two of them show that their phone conversation ended somewhere between 7:15 and 7:16pm. The first 911 call according to police came in at 7:16:11 pm. The police report that they arrived at the scene a few seconds before 7:18pm.

So unless you believe that he decided to hide and jump a person while he was on the phone with his girlfriend, the idea that he jumped him on the way back to his car is pretty stupid.
 
2013-06-03 05:01:58 PM  

Tatsuma: NightOwl2255: Actually it was in backpack. That screwdriver has been magically turned into "burglary tools" and the jewelry has never been associated with any crime. What was that about facts you were saying?

You're right, it was in his bag, not his locker. I was thinking about the locker he defaced and he got suspended for.

And they weren't associated with any crime because they didn't go to the police, there's fark all you can do in that situation. Why would he have 12 pieces of women's jewellery and a screwdriver on him?


Why is not the question. The moron (Thunderpipes) uses them to call Martin a thief. The fact is, there has been no crime associated with them. That's just a pesky fact.
 
2013-06-03 05:02:20 PM  

frepnog: fredklein: Elegy: You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of [you]

...and THAT is what's wrong with Florida.

/amongst all the other things

that is not how it works.  you can not punch someone and then kill them because they fight back, and then claim self defense.  However, you CAN hit someone, have them pin you down and begin to beat your head against concrete, and you, with no avenue of escape, can shoot them dead because it IS self-defense.


If they pull a gun, I cannot escape either. No one can, unless they can outrun a bullet. So, what's the difference?

Zimmerman did not in fact chase Martin down and shoot him in cold blood.  This is nothing but fiction and in no way resembles any of the evidence so far exhibited.

Zimmerman did, in fact, chase after Trayvon, despite not needing to (as per the dispatcher). Zimmerman did, in fact, show hostility towards "these assholes" who "always get away". Zimmerman did, in fact, shoot and kill Trayvon.
 
2013-06-03 05:04:11 PM  

Elegy: Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

In this case, I do feel the use of lethal force is justified by the person on the bottom.


Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??
 
2013-06-03 05:05:12 PM  

Vector R: Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


How do you know Martin was strong and fast? By all accounts he was a bean pole. And it appears he was a weed smoker. Most weed smokers that I know who aren't actively training in a sport don't have much wind, and he hadn't played football for a few years.
 
2013-06-03 05:06:44 PM  

Vector R: Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


he did run, thought he lost him (as per Zimmerman and corroborated by the GF's deposition ) then stopped to call his girlfriend back when Zimmerman confronted him. What I think happened was Zimmerman had his gun out and was going to detain him for the cops but Trayvon punched him in the nose then proceeded to kick his ass. George instead of fighting back like a man shot him like the pussy he was.
 
2013-06-03 05:08:02 PM  

ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.

You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.

No.  I would not defend myself just because they caught up to  me.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.  You do not have the right to defend yourself (physically) until it becomes evident that the other person is going to harm you.  Paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are chasing after you isn't enough.  As I said earlier, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to need to speak with you.  Punching someone who caught up to you so they could tell you someone just sideswiped your parked car is a crime.

So you are going to stick with that lie to defend your stance. Now that is dedication. I hope you don't give your kids that same advice.


Not sure where the lie is.  I'm merely telling you what the law is.  I studied it, I practice it, I abide by it.
 
2013-06-03 05:08:11 PM  
Martin is walking home, Zimmerman follows Martin(even though he was told not to), Martin tries to break contact with Zimmerman.  Zimmerman chases Martin. A fight ensues.

This is were it gets hazy.  If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.  If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."  So, either way Zimmerman actions lead to the fight.

Zimmerman realizes he started a fight he can't finish and reaches for his gun and kills Martin.  End result is a teenager dies for walking home.

I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.
 
2013-06-03 05:08:48 PM  

kortex: Nothing can be proven about that night, so that's why I say this trial is silly.


An armed man chased down an unarmed teenager and shot him.  That part isn't even a question, it's without any dispute.  That's a pretty good reason to have a trial.

frepnog: actually, a man with no evidence against him that he committed a crime is MORE THAN LIKELY going to walk, and rightfully so.


No evidence of a crime?  Dead body, smoking gun, and a recording made minutes before the shooting saying "He's trying to run away, I'm following him".  Sure, nothing to be suspicious about at all.
 
2013-06-03 05:09:04 PM  

Tatsuma: JuggleGeek: In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away. He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes". We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.

Following someone is not initiating a confrontation, nor is it illegal, nor is it license to assault.

What a bunch of children in this thread.


And Trayvon did physically defend himself from Zimmerman when Zimmerman was following him. Instead he ran away from him, and Zimmerman confirms this on the 911 tape. He defended himself when zimmerman ran after him and caught him.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Trayvon tried to avoid Zimmerman?
 
2013-06-03 05:09:27 PM  

Elegy: I have no problem with a fair fight between two consenting adults, but if one party is screaming "stop" or "help" then the fight clearly should is over. "The fight has gone out of him," as we say. If the beating continues after the point that one party is screaming for help, that party has a clear and obvious fear for their physical health and/or life, and should have the legal recourse to protect themselves from serious I jury or death under the law.

I guess I feel that civilization has rules governing the use of violence, one one of those rules is that if one person screams "no more" then the second person has an obligation to stop. I feel the Florida law approaches this question in a sensible manner.


Because NO ONE has EVER said "no more", and then attacked. No one. Especially no one with a gun.

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger.
 
2013-06-03 05:11:30 PM  

Vector R: Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


Why is it that when the talk about Zimmerman should have waited in his car, it's all about the right to investigate and protect your neighborhood, but when it's about Martin doing the same thing, he should have had the good sense to put his hands up in the air and wait? Martin was in the neighborhood legitimately. It's a stupid farking argument because it's a double standard.
 
2013-06-03 05:11:43 PM  

Phinn: tricycleracer: BojanglesPaladin: What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

It shows the idiocy of SYG laws.  You can pick fights and shoot your way out of them when you're losing.

If I had a nickel for every assertion of criminal law that was just plain wrong, I'd have enough nickels to replenish Zimmerman's defense fund.

This isn't an SYG case. It's just straightforward self-defense.

But, the old rule requiring a person to retreat (or be unable to retreat) before defending himself is still around, actually -- it applies to aggressors.

Coincidentally, Zimmerman also meets the statutory standard for self-defense even if he were the aggressor here, since Martin had him pinned and he was trying to disengage. Zimmerman walks either way.

But this case isn't about gun rights. It isn't even about race.

It's about the individual and the role of the State.

It utterly GALLS some people that Zimmerman got out of his car to investigate. That he was armed. That he was advised to stop following a suspicious person.

In the mind of the hard-core, indoctrinated Statist, only police can do these things. We ordinary mortals cannot assert ourselves. We must cower to criminals, and alert our betters, and wait for them to handle all our problems.

Even these Statists recognize that total pacifism is unworkable, so they begrudge us the tiniest sliver of room to defend ourselves, but only as a very last resort.

And if you have the temerity to do this, to lift your head up and protect yourself, then the Statist reflexively assumes that the rule ought to be that the burden falls on the defendant to prove his innocence, for having such audacity.

This cas ...


Lolbertarians who invent words like "statism" are are always white people i know who are racist.  Because before the state you were happy to enslave and oppress brown people all over the world, just like Zimmerman was excercising his "right" to oppress some brown person walking around his own neighborhood at night.  You hate the fact that the State now intervenes when things like job applications or seperate water fountains come up. You would be happy to go back to those "stateless days" when Martin would have been bagged up and tossed no questions asked.

Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore. I suggest you start being nice to the Treyvon Martins walking around you neighborhood because, yes, the STATE will arrest you when you chase down and murder a child in cold blood.
 
2013-06-03 05:12:55 PM  

Phinn: But this case isn't about gun rights. It isn't even about race.

It's about the individual and the role of the State.


I think you make a valid point, and there are plenty here who have said "Zimmerman got what he deserved for not doing what a 9/11 dispatcher told him to do". And I agree that there is a real problem with the too prevelant notion that a good citizen does not act independently.

But for a lot of people, this is ENTIRELY about race, and for some people it is ENTIRELY about gun rights.

fredklein: Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??


Yes. Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn;t finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.
 
2013-06-03 05:13:06 PM  

Vector R: Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


By every account, Martin tried to avoid a confrontation.  It was Zimmerman who followed and confronted him.

Zimmerman is a coward, so he carries a gun.  If he wasn't a coward, he would have taken his licks licks a man and Martin would still be alive, albeit charged with assault.
 
2013-06-03 05:14:36 PM  
ChuDogg

Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore.

We're the ones who made spaceships. Your low-rider zoot-boosters simply don't have the range to follow us.
 
2013-06-03 05:14:55 PM  

soaboutthat: This is were it gets hazy. If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.


No it's not.

If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."

No it's not.

soaboutthat: I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.


Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn't finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.
 
2013-06-03 05:15:47 PM  
KrustyKitten:  There you go.

According to you, Zimmerman went back to his vehicle.  According to where the body was found, he never went back to his vehicle.  And despite you claim that he said he would go back to his vehicle, he never actually said he would.  He specifically did *not* agree on a location to meet the cops and told them to call when he got there.

So you're a farking liar.
 
2013-06-03 05:16:33 PM  
When I'm on patrol in my neighborhood, I gauge my level of suspicion on others' efforts to evade me.

So far I've found the young, pretty females to be the most suspicious.

/not a cop
 
2013-06-03 05:18:32 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: When I'm on patrol in my neighborhood, I gauge my level of suspicion on others' efforts to evade me.

So far I've found the young, pretty females to be the most suspicious.

/not a cop


Do you chase them down with your gun in your hand?

b.vimeocdn.com
 
2013-06-03 05:18:56 PM  

kirlian: Y'know, if you guys could arrange to have these threads / discussions at Fark meetups, I'd definitely start going.

/Been a while since I've seen a good ol' bar fight.


"Stop following me!"

"But I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

"Why are you HITTING YOURSELF!?!?!"
 
2013-06-03 05:20:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: soaboutthat: This is were it gets hazy. If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.

No it's not.

If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."

No it's not.

soaboutthat: I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.

Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn't finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.


Why does Martin not get to stand his ground?  Answer me that.  He tried to break contact and was chased down.  Why can't he defend himself?
 
2013-06-03 05:20:19 PM  

fredklein: Elegy: Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

In this case, I do feel the use of lethal force is justified by the person on the bottom.

Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??


In what would does "chasing" equal to "starting physical violence?" One of these things is more wrong than the other.

And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"

Justify your stance, please.
 
2013-06-03 05:20:53 PM  

ongbok: Do you chase them down with your gun in your hand?


Gun is for fun!
 
2013-06-03 05:20:55 PM  
The amount of liberal wrong in this thread is staggering.
 
2013-06-03 05:21:32 PM  

soaboutthat: Why does Martin not get to stand his ground? Answer me that. He tried to break contact and was chased down. Why can't he defend himself?


Because it's not illegal to follow someone in the street.

How hard is that to understand?
 
2013-06-03 05:21:40 PM  

soaboutthat: Martin is walking home, Zimmerman follows Martin(even though he was told not to), Martin tries to break contact with Zimmerman.  Zimmerman chases Martin. A fight ensues.

This is were it gets hazy.  If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.  If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."  So, either way Zimmerman actions lead to the fight.

Zimmerman realizes he started a fight he can't finish and reaches for his gun and kills Martin.  End result is a teenager dies for walking home.

I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.


You're right. You don't know how florida law works. In fact, you don't know how self-defense laws work in many US states.
 
2013-06-03 05:22:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn;t finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.


I'd think the world would be a nicer place if 'assholes who start fights they can't finish' all got beaten to death.
 
2013-06-03 05:22:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

Zimmerman does NOT need to present any evidence.  He may choose to do so, but the burden is definitely on the State to disprove his claim of self-defense.

In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.


I just picked this post at random because it highlights the divide in this case. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you say it loud and proud. In Florida, it doesn't matter who started the fight. No matter the reason, you can defend yourself using deadly force if you feel your life could be in danger. There is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him by Martin. You could suspend logic and common sense and dispute the witness claim that it was Zimmerman shouting for help while getting his ass beat. That's up to you. But with a broken nose, two blacks eyes, cuts on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back, pretty much everything Zimmerman says can be substantiated. Conversely, Angela Corey STILL doesn't even have probable cause - let alone evidence - to indict someone for murder.

But hey, if convicting innocent people helps you feel better about race relations, knock yourself out.
 
2013-06-03 05:22:29 PM  

Thunderpipes: The amount of liberal wrong in this thread is staggering.


How is we shouldn't case down and shoot people for walking home a liberal idea?
 
2013-06-03 05:23:12 PM  
ChuDogg:
Well race is a social construct so i don't think it's a race it's an ethnicity but one that belongs to the indigenous of the land not white people who immigrated.  White racists like to use both sides of the same coin but that's not the case. People like Zimmerman shouldn't claim to be hispanic when they are clearly white.

I guess it also depends on how you view who 'belongs' to a race/ethnicity.  I was reading the webpage of a Cherokee man once and his opinion was that blood quantums (how they determine who is "in" some tribes) pretty much suck.  I guess you have to have a government certificate of Indian blood before you can do certain things, yet for contrast any black person can put "black owned" on their business sign without having to prove their blackness.  In that respect, race/ethnicity is way more cultural than scientific, we're all the same species capable of reproducing viable offspring.  His take on it was that you belong where your mother belonged, or some cultures where your father belonged.
 
2013-06-03 05:23:15 PM  
The trial starts in a couple weeks, right? Fark is going to be fun for the next few months.
 
2013-06-03 05:23:34 PM  

Vector R: Mrbogey: If only track star Zimmerman could not have caught the parapalegic Martin who only had a minute or so headstart. If only...

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


Because it's really hard to charge a dead guy?
 
2013-06-03 05:23:48 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Mrbogey: It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

Just like raping a slutty girl.

Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter.  If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case.  What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude.  But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past.  It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.


Its some thing like a he said/she said.  The facts of the attack are all out there.  There is likely not much new that will come up at trial.  Either Trayvon got tired of being followed and attacked Zimmerman.  Or Zimmerman got tired of following Trayvon and attacked him.  Past behavior will play a big part in deciding who 'started it'.
 
2013-06-03 05:24:48 PM  

frepnog: Smelly Pirate Hooker: You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.

actually you would think that all the evidence pointing to self defense (and the fact that the police did not find evidence that a crime was committed and so did not arrest or charge Zimmerman at the scene) would have made this a relatively simple self-defense case.  Which it was until the media claimed a white male had gunned down a small black child in cold blood and the mob demanded that Zimmerman be charged.


Actually - the lead homicide detective wanted to arrest Zimmerman after having questioned him at the police station. I'm posting a link below but this is being posted from my cell so I'm not sure if it will be eaten. GIS if it does.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16011674&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fm.dailykos . com%2Fstory%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F1078334%2F-Homicide-detective-wanted-Ge orge-Zimmerman-charged-with-manslaughter-but-prosecutors-said-no
 
2013-06-03 05:25:00 PM  

Elegy: And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"


Already answered:
"Because NO ONE has EVER said "no more", and then attacked. No one. Especially no one with a gun.

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger."
 
2013-06-03 05:25:28 PM  

Tatsuma: JuggleGeek: In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away. He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes". We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.

Following someone is not initiating a confrontation, nor is it illegal, nor is it license to assault.

What a bunch of children in this thread.


Don't drive EVAR!  You might pull into traffic and accidentally get behind someone which will fault you for following them and initiating a confrontation, and that's grounds for a beatin'!  If you're in front of someone while driving and you suspect someone is behind you following you in their vehicle, you then have the right to stop your car in the middle of the road, remove the other person from their vehicle, and give them a beatin'.  Also avoid lines, or just stay inside forever.  The potential to be following someone is every where.


Fark logic in action.
Makes sense.
 
2013-06-03 05:26:57 PM  

fredklein: Elegy: I have no problem with a fair fight between two consenting adults, but if one party is screaming "stop" or "help" then the fight clearly should is over. "The fight has gone out of him," as we say. If the beating continues after the point that one party is screaming for help, that party has a clear and obvious fear for their physical health and/or life, and should have the legal recourse to protect themselves from serious I jury or death under the law.

I guess I feel that civilization has rules governing the use of violence, one one of those rules is that if one person screams "no more" then the second person has an obligation to stop. I feel the Florida law approaches this question in a sensible manner.

Because NO ONE has EVER said "no more", and then attacked. No one. Especially no one with a gun.

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger.


And there you are. You just made my point for me.

Fear for seriously bodily injury is a valid reason to pull a gun a shoot someone attack you, especially if you are screaming "stop" at the time. Continuing to pounding someone's head into the pavement until they are unconscious has a high probability of causing serious bodily injury.

If its logical to pound someone unconscious because they have a gun, how is it illogical to shoot the guy that's trying to cripple you?
 
2013-06-03 05:27:25 PM  

Elegy: fredklein: Elegy: Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

In this case, I do feel the use of lethal force is justified by the person on the bottom.

Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??

In what would does "chasing" equal to "starting physical violence?" One of these things is more wrong than the other.

And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"

Justify your stance, please.


Here's a scenario. No matter how how it it happened, GZ and TM met up. TM asks, WTF are you follow me? GZ says something like there's been break-ins. TM says fark this and turns to leave. GZ grabs TM and says, you're not leaving while lifting up his shirt to show TM his firearm. At this point GZ has committed an assault and battery and TM would be justified to be in fear of his life. In that case he would be justified in beating GZ nearly to death, knowing that he's armed, and to eliminate the threat, just as in shooting till the threat is eliminated.
 
2013-06-03 05:28:38 PM  

fredklein: You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger."


ITG here.

If a guy with a gun was following you, you'd end up on your knees crying and blubbering for him not to shoot you.
 
2013-06-03 05:31:01 PM  

soaboutthat: Why does Martin not get to stand his ground? Answer me that. He tried to break contact and was chased down. Why can't he defend himself?


What he doesn't realize is that "Assault" requires power + privilege. (edit: don't anybody throw dictionary definitions written by white men at me).  Treyvon Martin had neither wandering around his own neighborhood, and George Zimmerman knew that. Thus, regardless of who confronted whom they keep berating, Treyvon Martin really couldn't have assaulted him.  Zimmerman and every other whiteboy should recongize their historical status as oppressors when dealing with people of color.  If Treyvon Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman first, he was in no position to use "self defense" against some claimed "assault". It's ridiculous and offensive to all the true victims of assault which result from white people's prejudice against people of color world wide.
 
2013-06-03 05:31:28 PM  

soaboutthat: How is we shouldn't case down and shoot people for walking home a liberal idea?


That's what happened, really?
 
2013-06-03 05:32:00 PM  
Thou shalt not kill.
 
2013-06-03 05:34:29 PM  
So he wasn't on top of Zimmerman and pummeling him into the ground?
 
2013-06-03 05:34:32 PM  

ChuDogg: What he doesn't realize is that "Assault" requires power + privilege. (edit: don't anybody throw dictionary definitions written by white men at me). Treyvon Martin had neither wandering around his own neighborhood, and George Zimmerman knew that. Thus, regardless of who confronted whom they keep berating, Treyvon Martin really couldn't have assaulted him. Zimmerman and every other whiteboy should recongize their historical status as oppressors when dealing with people of color. If Treyvon Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman first, he was in no position to use "self defense" against some claimed "assault". It's ridiculous and offensive to all the true victims of assault which result from white people's prejudice against people of color world wide.


Go back to Tumblr, you worthless internet sjw
 
2013-06-03 05:35:02 PM  

soaboutthat: BojanglesPaladin: soaboutthat: This is were it gets hazy. If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.

No it's not.

If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."

No it's not.

soaboutthat: I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.

Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn't finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.

Why does Martin not get to stand his ground?  Answer me that.  He tried to break contact and was chased down.  Why can't he defend himself?


There was a case in which there was a man who chased after a thief and then stabbed the thief to death. He took the radios off the body (not merely his but all and then sold the others) and hid the murder weapon. He was cleared under SYG in Florida. Greyston Garcia. He was later shot to death (presumably) someone else was standing their ground.
 
2013-06-03 05:36:15 PM  

NightOwl2255: Elegy: fredklein: Elegy: Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

In this case, I do feel the use of lethal force is justified by the person on the bottom.

Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??

In what would does "chasing" equal to "starting physical violence?" One of these things is more wrong than the other.

And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"

Justify your stance, please.

Here's a scenario. No matter how how it it happened, GZ and TM met up. TM asks, WTF are you follow me? GZ says something like there's been break-ins. TM says fark this and turns to leave. GZ grabs TM and says, you're not leaving while lifting up his shirt to show TM his firearm. At this point GZ has committed an assault and battery and TM would be justified to be in fear of his life. In that case he would be justified in beating GZ nearly to death, knowing that he's armed, and to eliminate the threat, just as in shooting till the threat is eliminated.


Fair enough. It's a good story.

But you're ignoring that - under Florida law - Zimmerman still had a right to use lethal force haunts Martin, even if he did start the fight.

Again - the physical evidence, several of the witnesses, and the Zimmerman's story all line up to indicate that Zimmerman was on his back, getting pummelled when he pulled the trigger. He could not flee and was actively screaming help for someone to intervene.

Again - even if Zimmerman started the fight as you say, it would not negate his claim of self defense under Florida law.
 
2013-06-03 05:36:50 PM  
*against, not haunts
 
2013-06-03 05:39:33 PM  

Elegy: Again - even if Zimmerman started the fight as you say, it would not negate his claim of self defense under Florida law.


I was mostly answering your question, "How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help?". More of a legal reason than a moral one, but there is no doubt that beating someone to death can be justified.
 
2013-06-03 05:40:34 PM  

ChuDogg: Lolbertarians who invent words like "statism" are are always white people i know who are racist.  Because before the state you were happy to enslave and oppress brown people all over the world, just like Zimmerman was excercising his "right" to oppress some brown person walking around his own neighborhood at night.  You hate the fact that the State now intervenes when things like job applications or seperate water fountains come up. You would be happy to go back to those "stateless days" when Martin would have been bagged up and tossed no questions asked.Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore. I suggest you start being nice to the Treyvon Martins walking around you neighborhood because, yes, the STATE will arrest you when you chase down and murder a child in cold blood.


images.sodahead.com

Well played!


/Hot like under your collar
 
2013-06-03 05:41:43 PM  

Tatsuma: Go back to Tumblr, you worthless internet sjw


Ah yes, we know what your country does with those worthless brown scum.

http://forward.com/articles/177828/israel-plans-to-deport--of-eritre a- immigrants/

Your status as a religious minority does not change the fact that you are, in fact, a white male. As a white male and historical oppressor of indigenous brown people worldwide, you really aren't in a position to tell anybody to just "shut up". We aren't shutting up this time. Your demographics are changing and soon us brown people (including palestinians) will be the decision makers across the entire world. The white rape and oppression of the planet and it's environment will come to end.  At that time YOU will be asked to assimilate and submit to the will of the majority.  Your day will end. You won't have a choice.

The bizarre obsession of George Zimmerman is only the beginning of the fear and anxiety that manifests among white males.  But that day will come soon my friend.  Look at the numbers and see for yourself. Even Palestinians outnumber Israelis now.
 
2013-06-03 05:43:58 PM  
So wait, I really don't understand:

If someone has a history of socially reprehensible behavior, a history of violating/skirting the law, a bevy of evidence in which a person professes their love of this behavior, and has photographs of themselves acting in an aggressive, arguably violent manner, as well as having a video of two people fighting rather than a video of the person trying to stop the fight. If a person has these attributes then none of this can be admitted in court to suggest that this individual is prone to violence? That this person may have an aggressive "anti-" demeanor?

Really?

Police do it all the time, in fact one of today's regurgitated headlines is in regards to the background of an officer in Edison, NJ that firebombed his captains house. What does any of his background matter? Let's just try him for the crime, not his inclination to perform the act of harming others. Why do we even bother with court ordered psychiatric examinations? Why have an insanity plea?

Hmmmm.
 
2013-06-03 05:44:54 PM  

Elegy: But you're ignoring that - under Florida law - Zimmerman still had a right to use lethal force haunts Martin, even if he did start the fight.

Again - the physical evidence, several of the witnesses, and the Zimmerman's story all line up to indicate that Zimmerman was on his back, getting pummelled when he pulled the trigger. He could not flee and was actively screaming help for someone to intervene.

Again - even if Zimmerman started the fight as you say, it would not negate his claim of self defense under Florida law.


That's the thing that brings us to TFA: if making a case for self-defense has nothing to do with why the fight started, why is his legal team wasting their time trying to build a character case against Martin rather than investing their time in self-defense precedents or something?

You figure they're just trying to stoke the argument outside the courtroom in an effort to get more people to pump their legal fund?
 
2013-06-03 05:45:37 PM  

ongbok: KrustyKitten: ongbok: Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?

If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.

Because Martin jumped Zimmerman before he made it back to the vehicle?

Except we know from Martin's girlfriend that Zimmerman confronted him while he was on the phone with her and she heard the confrontation. Also the phone logs of the phone call between the t ...


That link is to a random opinion of events interspersed with quips from the non emergency call that Zimmerman made.

From your source "or Trayvon, still on the phone with DeeDee, had in fact managed to start running on a direct path towards home, but decides to loop back to find Zimmerman again, in order to start a fight with the guy who dared to follow him."

So even your citation is just random guesswork.
 
2013-06-03 05:47:02 PM  

Phinn: First of all, there's no evidence that Zimmerman "ran Martin down."  That kind of sloppy, hyperbolic language may make you feel better, but it's not legally meaningful.

The evidence (and Zimmerman's own admission, not to mention the recorded call) is that he followed Martin, on foot, and ran after Martin ran.


So -you- are saying he ran down Martin then, you just take offense when -I- say that same thing. I see.
 
2013-06-03 05:48:19 PM  

Elegy: MFAWG: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

If someone follows me from an isolated area at night into an even MORE isolated area, at what point do I assume they're not up to anything good?

Zimmerman is going to jail, and probably for a very, very long time.

Want to bet?

1 month TF.

I win if he walks.
You win if he's convicted for murder 2.
Nobody wins if he pleas out, if there's a hung jury, or if he's guilty of a lesser charge.


Bet accepted. Even Texas has had enough of swaggering tough guy gun nuts and their bullshiat.
 
2013-06-03 05:49:32 PM  

Meesterjojo: So wait, I really don't understand:

If someone has a history of socially reprehensible behavior, a history of violating/skirting the law, a bevy of evidence in which a person professes their love of this behavior, and has photographs of themselves acting in an aggressive, arguably violent manner, as well as having a video of two people fighting rather than a video of the person trying to stop the fight. If a person has these attributes then none of this can be admitted in court to suggest that this individual is prone to violence? That this person may have an aggressive "anti-" demeanor?

Really?

Police do it all the time, in fact one of today's regurgitated headlines is in regards to the background of an officer in Edison, NJ that firebombed his captains house. What does any of his background matter? Let's just try him for the crime, not his inclination to perform the act of harming others. Why do we even bother with court ordered psychiatric examinations? Why have an insanity plea?

Hmmmm.


... really? This is pretty straightforward: background of the person on trial vs. background of someone else. The analog would be asking if his captains house had a history of behavior that would justify it being firebombed. I mean, I know defendant/victim is a subtle distinction, but those legal folks seem to be a little hung up on it.
 
2013-06-03 05:50:27 PM  

bedtundy: Tatsuma: JuggleGeek: In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away. He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes". We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.

Following someone is not initiating a confrontation, nor is it illegal, nor is it license to assault.

What a bunch of children in this thread.

Don't drive EVAR!  You might pull into traffic and accidentally get behind someone which will fault you for following them and initiating a confrontation, and that's grounds for a beatin'!  If you're in front of someone while driving and you suspect someone is behind you following you in their vehicle, you then have the right to stop your car in the middle of the road, remove the other person from their vehicle, and give them a beatin'.  Also avoid lines, or just stay inside forever.  The potential to be following someone is every where.


Fark logic in action.
Makes sense.


So how does "Don't ever get into a fight with an aggressive asshole because he may have a gun and shoot you in the heart" not enter that rant?
 
2013-06-03 05:53:30 PM  

StaleCoffee: bedtundy: Tatsuma: JuggleGeek: In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away. He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes". We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.

Following someone is not initiating a confrontation, nor is it illegal, nor is it license to assault.

What a bunch of children in this thread.

Don't drive EVAR!  You might pull into traffic and accidentally get behind someone which will fault you for following them and initiating a confrontation, and that's grounds for a beatin'!  If you're in front of someone while driving and you suspect someone is behind you following you in their vehicle, you then have the right to stop your car in the middle of the road, remove the other person from their vehicle, and give them a beatin'.  Also avoid lines, or just stay inside forever.  The potential to be following someone is every where.


Fark logic in action.
Makes sense.

So how does "Don't ever get into a fight with an aggressive asshole because he may have a gun and shoot you in the heart" not enter that rant?


I don't know.  Fabricate something.  It's all the rage.
 
2013-06-03 05:54:24 PM  
So, did we ever find out what "suspicious" activity Trayvon was doing that night? Zimmerman said that he was being "suspicious", did he give out any specifics? Was Trayvon prowling through yards, casing houses? Was he examining the windows on the houses? Stopping every few steps to stand and stare at each house?

Based on Zimmerman's angry call to the 911 operator, with choice words as "these assholes always get away", he'd already deemed Trayvon guilty of being part of some break-ins that had occurred previously.
 
2013-06-03 05:54:32 PM  

MFAWG: Elegy: MFAWG: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

If someone follows me from an isolated area at night into an even MORE isolated area, at what point do I assume they're not up to anything good?

Zimmerman is going to jail, and probably for a very, very long time.

Want to bet?

1 month TF.

I win if he walks.
You win if he's convicted for murder 2.
Nobody wins if he pleas out, if there's a hung jury, or if he's guilty of a lesser charge.

Bet accepted. Even Texas has had enough of swaggering tough guy gun nuts and their bullshiat.


I think the fact that they decided again a SYG defense is pretty telling. I think he'll see time but probably through a plea.
 
2013-06-03 05:55:24 PM  

JuggleGeek: KrustyKitten:  There you go.

According to you, Zimmerman went back to his vehicle.  According to where the body was found, he never went back to his vehicle.  And despite you claim that he said he would go back to his vehicle, he never actually said he would.  He specifically did *not* agree on a location to meet the cops and told them to call when he got there.

So you're a farking liar.


I never said that Zimmerman went back to his vehicle.  Zimmerman never even said he went back to his vehicle.  Zimmerman was told that he didn't need to follow Martin.  He stated "ok".
I suggested that he had stopped following Martin and was headed back to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

Try calming the fark down and actually reading before you spew all over the thread.
 
2013-06-03 05:56:23 PM  

Elegy: Smelly Pirate Hooker: What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.

Yes, you are right. There is absolutely no physical evidence that Zimmerman took a beating without fighting back.

[i.imgur.com image 300x401]

[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

None whatsoever.
/bonus: google the Martin autopsy report and read it (not sure if safe to link)
//Martin had no wounds besides the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his hand
///so tell me again about that lack of evidence


Yeah, you're right. Those photographs prove everything he said is true. We shouldn't even bother investigating this shiat. Let's just hand him back his gun and clap him on the back for a job well-done.

You are a genius.
 
2013-06-03 05:58:09 PM  

biyaaatci: Thou shalt not kill.


I'm told by people who read the original language it's actually "Thou shalt not murder", which means no illegal killings.
That opens the door to judicial executions, abortions, battlefield killings, self-defense...and, presumably, the Holocaust, since the Germans made THAT legal.

Kind of a useless admonition, in that respect.
 
2013-06-03 06:01:25 PM  

Tatsuma: Someone has a right to follow you in the street


I'm going to go to your house, wait outside until you come out and follow you around once you hit public property.

Because it's my right.
 
2013-06-03 06:03:09 PM  

StaleCoffee: AngryDragon: Martin wasn't simply warding off an attacker. He was on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the concrete.

Was this ever established as the end of it? Because what it looks like to me is Zimmerman started shiat, got his ass knocked back with a hit to the nose and fell on his ass, got up pissed off and shot the kid from a foot away in a rage.

I read the autopsy, I don't understand how you manage a perfect heart shot from a minimum distance of six inches, max 30, while that person is supposedly beating you so violently you are afraid for your life. If Zimmerman was THAT badass a shot he'd have thrown the farking kid.

Yeah, they could have been fighting. What those wounds do not look like are wounds that conjure images of life threatening danger.


Got a link to said autopsy?  I'd think the angle of the gunshot wound would be helpful; straight in, would support your "he got up and shot him" argument, but if the bullet entered from below the heart, at an upward angle, it's more likely Martin was straddling Zimmerman, yes?

Not dispositive either way, but useful evidence.
 
2013-06-03 06:04:05 PM  

FlashHarry: you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?


Is that so?  Hadn't heard THAT wrinkle...somebody's in for a suing, if that's true.
 
2013-06-03 06:05:19 PM  

Triple Oak: nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case.   Was he a good person?  Did he smoke weed?  None of that matters.  The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid.  It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.


Um, that's not how burden of proof works in this country...
 
2013-06-03 06:05:28 PM  

ProfessorOhki: That's the thing that brings us to TFA: if making a case for self-defense has nothing to do with why the fight started, why is his legal team wasting their time trying to build a character case against Martin rather than investing their time in self-defense precedents or something?

You figure they're just trying to stoke the argument outside the courtroom in an effort to get more people to pump their legal fund?


Because nothing is for certain in a criminal trial for murder. It's a pageant of the first order, with each side slandering the other as much as possible. You can bet the prosecution will try to make Zimmerman look as bad as possible; it's the defense's job to make Martin look as bad as possible.

NightOwl2255: I was mostly answering your question, "How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help?". More of a legal reason than a moral one, but there is no doubt that beating someone to death can be justified.


Got it. And you're probably right. There are a few extreme cases where beating someone until they die is morally justifiable. But the law is only infrequently moral, and the law in Florida and the evidence in this case support Zimmerman.

My fault, for introducing the word "moral" rather than using "legal."
 
2013-06-03 06:06:34 PM  

Elegy: If its logical to pound someone unconscious because they have a gun, how is it illogical to shoot the guy that's trying to cripple you?


It is logical to pound someone unconscious because they were chasing you, and have a gun.

It is not logical to chase someone while armed, then get all shooty because they defended themselves.
 
2013-06-03 06:06:38 PM  

PunGent: biyaaatci: Thou shalt not kill.

I'm told by people who read the original language it's actually "Thou shalt not murder", which means no illegal killings.
That opens the door to judicial executions, abortions, battlefield killings, self-defense...and, presumably, the Holocaust, since the Germans made THAT legal.

Kind of a useless admonition, in that respect.


Actually, it's "Thou shalt not kill Hebrews" in the OT text, paraphrasing of course. If they're a Heathen, Outsider, Sinner, or otherwise non-Hebrew, according to the crazy-book, yeah, they're okay to murder.
 
2013-06-03 06:08:59 PM  
I'm not sure (I have a pretty good idea, but trying to read people's minds is always a bad idea) what makes people think that Zimmerman can't be guilty of anything. The morons trying to make him sort of vigilante hero taking a bite out of crime are both amusing and frightening. I wonder if their neighbors (esp. their non-white neighbors) are aware of their clearly deep desire to kill another person. I wonder how long before we'll be reading about some of them on Fark, maybe another "Man shot by police after brandishing gun" story.

I'm honestly kind of surprised that Zimmerman was charged with murder. I was expecting manslaughter. So either the DA has some awesome evidence of murder or he/she is an idiot (and after the Anthony clusterfark, I'