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 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.
 
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