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  
•       •       •

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»



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 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.
 
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 »
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