Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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 589
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

16787 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 02:04:50 PM  
Why are we still doing this?

A snotty 17 year old thug doesn't like being "fronted" by a self professed neighborhood nanny. Afro boy lays down an ass whippin' on Mr. Community Safety Patrol. Safetyman gets his ass kicked and pulls his penis extension and kills Afro boy.

Take the Manslaughter offer and request protective custody.
 
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 02:06:51 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.


Of course he attacked Martin after being warned by police who were in route.
This is a Manslaughter case.
Take the plea.
 
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 02:09:52 PM  

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.
 
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 02:11:27 PM  

Phinn: 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.


In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report