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  
•       •       •

16764 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 04:33:42 PM  

AngryDragon: ChuDogg: BojanglesPaladin: I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

Apparently you don't know the LAW and can't use simple LOGIC! If you somebody is following you and looking at you the wrong way you should absolutely have every right to defend yourself and attack them. Treyvon was standing HIS ground from some freaky white guy giving him the stink eye.  And Martin was unarmed so Zimmerman has no right to use his gun for self defense.   That's the LAW.  He shouldn't have been waving around menacing in the first place.  Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a man if you lost the fight after looking at the wrong dude the wrong way. That's life.

You couldn't possibly have been wrong on any more of your points.  You cannot attack for being followed.  Your assailant being armed has NOTHING to to with self-defense legally, fear of death or great bodily harm does. There is no indication that Zimmerman had his firearm out before the final confrontation.  You condone someone aggressively attacking for "looking at the wrong dude the wrong way" but vilify reasonable self-defense?  I really hope you don't work for the legal system.


Actually I'm studying law, but focusing on Immigration law as the child of illegal immigrants my goal is to reduce our racist immigration and justice system.  Face the FACTS: Zimmerman is on trial, so that would tell me I am RIGHT and YOU are WONG! It is illegal to follow somebody and when you do you should expect to get beaten up!!! Otherwise you racist white might just find yourself on trial for murder. Check your privilege.
 
2013-06-03 04:34:28 PM  

Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.

You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.

No.  I would not defend myself just because they caught up to  me.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.  You do not have the right to defend yourself (physically) until it becomes evident that the other person is going to harm you.  Paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are chasing after you isn't enough.  As I said earlier, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to need to speak with you.  Punching someone who caught up to you so they could tell you someone just sideswiped your parked car is a crime.


So you are going to stick with that lie to defend your stance. Now that is dedication. I hope you don't give your kids that same advice.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:01 PM  

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

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


Which of the multiple witnesses, of whom zero have confirmed such a thing are you referring to. Not a one of them could say with a certainty that was the case, all of them questioned said this.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:09 PM  

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

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


Seriously - Zimmerman has to be white to fit the narrative. If we can't make this thing about race what are we talking about here? Black kids shoot other black kids all day long every day. Come on - no one cares about that.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:35 PM  
What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.
 
2013-06-03 04:35:43 PM  

ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.


Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?
 
2013-06-03 04:36:14 PM  

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


Looks caucasian to me.
 
2013-06-03 04:38:04 PM  

Gunslinger013: AngryDragon: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

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

Seriously - Zimmerman has to be white to fit the narrative. If we can't make this thing about race what are we talking about here? Black kids shoot other black kids all day long every day. Come on - no one cares about that.


And here we go again with this lie.

So you think because there is a lot of black on black crime we shouldn't care if a black who is minding his walking down the street minding his own business is killed by a non black person?
 
2013-06-03 04:38:43 PM  

ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

I think Zimmerman is to bolame here just as much as Martin, but yo9u seem to be arguing that Zimmerman following Martin gave Martin carte blanche to do whatever. Is that your position? Could you clarify?

This went past Zimmerman following him. At a point Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman, clearly showing he feared Zimmerman and was trying to avoid a confrontation with him. Zimmerman even said he is running away on the 911 call. Zimmerman chased him and caught him. At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you decided to run away from a person and they caught up to you.

Or are you going to deny that Trayvon ran away from him?


Citation needed.
There's no evidence that Zimmerman was not on his way back the truck when the confrontation occurred.
 
2013-06-03 04:39:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: By Gangsta, I mean pot dealing, theft, getting kicked out of school, and jumping a guy for fun.

Dealing? Cite please.
Jumping a guy for FUN? Cite please?

I am not aware of anything that has been presented that puts Martin substantially out of the norm for your average white suburban kid of any reace or ethnicity.


Don't you know how things work in Thundy's head?

A bag that may have held weed = Drug dealer.
Possession of jewelry that has never been associated with a crime = Thief.
Suspended from school = Getting kicked out.
Tweet from his cousin = Jumping a guy for fun.

See how that works?
 
2013-06-03 04:40:14 PM  

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

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

Which of the multiple witnesses, of whom zero have confirmed such a thing are you referring to. Not a one of them could say with a certainty that was the case, all of them questioned said this.


Do not pay attention to Tatsuma. He hates everyone who is not jewish.  In this case he just hates black people more than he hates hispanics.
 
2013-06-03 04:40:33 PM  

Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?


If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.
 
2013-06-03 04:40:34 PM  

Nacc: Which of the multiple witnesses, of whom zero have confirmed such a thing are you referring to. Not a one of them could say with a certainty that was the case, all of them questioned said this.


There are 8 witnesses, and the only three who actually saw them in the middle of the altercation all said that Martin was on top.

People are really hating on facts in this thread.
 
2013-06-03 04:40:39 PM  

Mock26: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

Looks caucasian to me.


As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.
 
2013-06-03 04:41:56 PM  

ongbok: Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?

If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.


Because Martin jumped Zimmerman before he made it back to the vehicle?
 
2013-06-03 04:42:13 PM  

NightOwl2255: Possession of jewelry that has never been associated with a crime = Thief.


The guy had a screwdriver and pieces of women's jewellery in his locker.
 
2013-06-03 04:42:49 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.


Yes, you are right. There is absolutely no physical evidence that Zimmerman took a beating without fighting back.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

None whatsoever.
/bonus: google the Martin autopsy report and read it (not sure if safe to link)
//Martin had no wounds besides the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his hand
///so tell me again about that lack of evidence
 
2013-06-03 04:44:18 PM  

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


In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away.  He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes".  We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.

AngryDragon:  If someone attacks you, you have the ability to defend yourself with lethal force if you are at risk of death or great bodily harm.  PERIOD.

Except when the guy who gets attacked is a black kid minding his own business.  Martin wasn't doing anything but walking home when Zimmerman chased him down and started this, but according to you Martin is wrong for defending himself, and since Martin was winning when it was a fistfight, Zimmerman gets to move on to "Shoot you dead".

Apparently you think everyone who thinks this is wrong is some kind of gun control nut.  I've lived in Texas all my life, I'm a big believer in owning guns and in the right to self defense.  But self defense is a lot different from "I'm going to strap on a gun, chase a kid down, start a fight, then shoot him and claim self defense".

That's what stand-your-ground is.  It is not all of these paranoid fantasies of people instigating fights and then shooting the other guys and yelling "He was coming right at us!" South Park style and getting away with it.

In this case, it *is* a guy who went and instigated a fight then shot the other guy and screamed "He was coming right for me", and many of you seem to think he should get away with it.
 
2013-06-03 04:45:19 PM  

JuggleGeek: In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away. He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes". We all know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call makes it clear.


Following someone is not initiating a confrontation, nor is it illegal, nor is it license to assault.

What a bunch of children in this thread.
 
2013-06-03 04:45:54 PM  
Y'know, if you guys could arrange to have these threads / discussions at Fark meetups, I'd definitely start going.

/Been a while since I've seen a good ol' bar fight.
 
2013-06-03 04:46:04 PM  
I don't care what evidence they let in or not as long as Martin gets what's coming to him.
 
2013-06-03 04:46:10 PM  
ChuDogg:
As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.

You might just be the perfect person to settle this then:  Some people have said that hispanic is NOT a race, but rather a cultural distinction.  Do you feel that's true or is that off base?

My understanding is that there is a much higher percentage of indigenous people or mixed race people than the U.S. or Canada.  Of these two, who is hispanic?  1.  A Peruvian who can trace his lineage to the Inca, 2.  A Mexican who can trace his lineage to a Spanish immigrant.  Which one (or both) is hispanic?
 
2013-06-03 04:46:16 PM  
I have about the same amount of hair as Zimmerman. I hit my head hard enough to cause bleeding at least once a month. My point? Scalp lacs aren't good evidence of a severe beating (on a bald guy).

That nose is JACKED UP though!
 
2013-06-03 04:46:26 PM  

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


"Bu...but...he lighter colored! Dat mean partial priv'lidge, righ? He still partial white!"
 
2013-06-03 04:46:59 PM  

Tatsuma: NightOwl2255: Possession of jewelry that has never been associated with a crime = Thief.

The guy had a screwdriver and pieces of women's jewellery in his locker.


Actually it was in backpack. That screwdriver has been magically turned into "burglary tools" and the jewelry has never been associated with any crime. What was that about facts you were saying?
 
2013-06-03 04:47:38 PM  
The MEDIA says that this guy is "white hispanic", but i've never heard of that term so it doesn't exist.

I've heard that the "Census Bureau" has been recording this "white hispanic" information for over 40 years, but I've never heard of this "Census Bureau".

I've heard that there's even a wikipedia article where they explain what a white hispanic is, but I only read conservapedia.

I've also heard that there's some country called "Argentina" that is filled with them, but the only countries I know are U, S, and A.

I've heard that there's some guy named Emilio Estevez that is one of them, but I only watch Charlie Sheen.

Nice try, libbos.
 
2013-06-03 04:48:28 PM  

stonelotus: I don't care what evidence they let in or not as long as Martin gets what's coming to him.


Yeah, let's dig up the kid's corpse and traipse it around the town square... maybe light it on fire.

Or maybe you got your names mixed up?
 
2013-06-03 04:50:26 PM  

ChuDogg:


As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.


Obviously Not Hispanic.

 
2013-06-03 04:50:36 PM  

coco ebert: What I'm saying is that from what evidence we have, including that call, it appears as though Zimmerman knowingly entered into a situation which he had already expressed aggression about (again, from the call).


I've done that before.  Just didn't kill anyone.
 
2013-06-03 04:50:38 PM  

NightOwl2255: Actually it was in backpack. That screwdriver has been magically turned into "burglary tools" and the jewelry has never been associated with any crime. What was that about facts you were saying?


You're right, it was in his bag, not his locker. I was thinking about the locker he defaced and he got suspended for.

And they weren't associated with any crime because they didn't go to the police, there's fark all you can do in that situation. Why would he have 12 pieces of women's jewellery and a screwdriver on him?
 
2013-06-03 04:50:44 PM  

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

In Zimmerman's phone call, he says that Martin is trying to get away.  He says "He's running" and "He ran" and "I don't know where this guy is", and when asked if he's following, he says "Yes".  The dispatacher told Zimmerman that he doesn't need to follow Martin.  Zimmerman says "ok" and(according to Zimmerman) stops following Martin and starts to work his way back to his vehicle. We all don't know who initiated the confrontation, because the phone call does not come anywhere close to making makes it clear.


There you go.
 
2013-06-03 04:51:02 PM  
Rapmaster2000

Mestizos are of mixed races.

[themoreyouknow.jpg]
 
2013-06-03 04:51:20 PM  

ongbok: Gunslinger013: AngryDragon: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

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

Seriously - Zimmerman has to be white to fit the narrative. If we can't make this thing about race what are we talking about here? Black kids shoot other black kids all day long every day. Come on - no one cares about that.

And here we go again with this lie.

So you think because there is a lot of black on black crime we shouldn't care if a black who is minding his walking down the street minding his own business is killed by a non black person?


Where exactly is the lie? The manufactured racial component is playing a bigger part in this case than the facts.  You think we would be still reading about this if zimmerman was black?
 
2013-06-03 04:52:57 PM  

AngryDragon: Martin wasn't simply warding off an attacker. He was on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the concrete.


Was this ever established as the end of it? Because what it looks like to me is Zimmerman started shiat, got his ass knocked back with a hit to the nose and fell on his ass, got up pissed off and shot the kid from a foot away in a rage.

I read the autopsy, I don't understand how you manage a perfect heart shot from a minimum distance of six inches, max 30, while that person is supposedly beating you so violently you are afraid for your life. If Zimmerman was THAT badass a shot he'd have thrown the farking kid.

Yeah, they could have been fighting. What those wounds do not look like are wounds that conjure images of life threatening danger.
 
2013-06-03 04:53:10 PM  

nekom: ChuDogg:
As somebody of latino american ancestry i can confirm that he is definitely not hispanic. If he was hispanic, his name wouldn't be "Zimmerman".  I mean how obvious can you get? He's probably like 1/10th Navajo like all white people claim.

You might just be the perfect person to settle this then:  Some people have said that hispanic is NOT a race, but rather a cultural distinction.  Do you feel that's true or is that off base?

My understanding is that there is a much higher percentage of indigenous people or mixed race people than the U.S. or Canada.  Of these two, who is hispanic?  1.  A Peruvian who can trace his lineage to the Inca, 2.  A Mexican who can trace his lineage to a Spanish immigrant.  Which one (or both) is hispanic?


Well race is a social construct so i don't think it's a race it's an ethnicity but one that belongs to the indigenous of the land not white people who immigrated.  White racists like to use both sides of the same coin but that's not the case. People like Zimmerman shouldn't claim to be hispanic when they are clearly white.
 
2013-06-03 04:53:35 PM  

Elegy: Are you suggesting Zimmerman beat himself up?


No. I am sayin that who was on top, and who was yelling for help should not be considered to be PROVEN. What is proven is that Zimmerman was injured, and aside from the fatal gunshot would, Martin was not, so you are likely correct, but it has not been adjuticated and is therefore only alleged,

A Minor quibble. But I would personally avoid stating as fact that Martin was "hitting someone over and over who is on the ground and clearly doesn't want to fight anymore".

ongbok: We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.


All well and good (Althopugh it is not proven that Martin didn't go and find Zimmerman at the final confrontation, but let's skip that). You seem to be advocating that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman for following him. I don't that makes much sense, but if Martin was justified in beating up Zimmerman for simply following and presumably 'harrasing' him, then surely Zimmerman was justified in defending himself against a potentially fatal beat-down? You can't have it both ways.
 
2013-06-03 04:55:40 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.


I'll let him slide for that. Leaving aside anything, I can't even imagine how stressful it would be to have reporters and thousands of people that want to hurt you dogging your every move. I don't think I'd try to eat myself to death, but I sure know I'd spend most of my time in a dark hidden corner somewhere until it blew over!

/thanks for the idea, cats!
 
2013-06-03 04:57:57 PM  

tricycleracer: BojanglesPaladin: What exactly are you arguing here? That *IF* Zimmerman, did in fact "chase" Martin down, that Martin was justified in administering a beating?
(and that while Martin was justified in giving a beating for being "chased", that Zimmerman, was NOT justified in shooting Martin even while being beaten, and should have just taken that beating, because after all - he chased a guy?

It shows the idiocy of SYG laws.  You can pick fights and shoot your way out of them when you're losing.


If I had a nickel for every assertion of criminal law that was just plain wrong, I'd have enough nickels to replenish Zimmerman's defense fund.

This isn't an SYG case. It's just straightforward self-defense.

But, the old rule requiring a person to retreat (or be unable to retreat) before defending himself is still around, actually -- it applies to aggressors.

Coincidentally, Zimmerman also meets the statutory standard for self-defense even if he were the aggressor here, since Martin had him pinned and he was trying to disengage. Zimmerman walks either way.

But this case isn't about gun rights. It isn't even about race.

It's about the individual and the role of the State.

It utterly GALLS some people that Zimmerman got out of his car to investigate. That he was armed. That he was advised to stop following a suspicious person.

In the mind of the hard-core, indoctrinated Statist, only police can do these things. We ordinary mortals cannot assert ourselves. We must cower to criminals, and alert our betters, and wait for them to handle all our problems.

Even these Statists recognize that total pacifism is unworkable, so they begrudge us the tiniest sliver of room to defend ourselves, but only as a very last resort.

And if you have the temerity to do this, to lift your head up and protect yourself, then the Statist reflexively assumes that the rule ought to be that the burden falls on the defendant to prove his innocence, for having such audacity.

This case highlights the Statist's unquestioned, unexamined assumption that we are subservient to officialdom, that people live their lives only by official permission, that the State defines what we can and can't do, that pretending to usurp the State is an act of hubris, and must be punished.

If Zimmerman had had a shiny badge and a government salary, these same Statists wouldn't blink twice about this case.
 
2013-06-03 04:58:11 PM  

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

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

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

You really are a psychopath, you know?


Yet somehow didn't get any of the charisma that so often goes with it. Unfortunate.
 
2013-06-03 05:00:22 PM  

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


So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some
 
2013-06-03 05:00:25 PM  

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

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



ftfy
 
2013-06-03 05:01:03 PM  

Elegy: Smelly Pirate Hooker: What is amusing about the defense of Zimmerman by the Internet lawyers is their "reconstruction" of the crime. That Martin was "beating" on Zimmerman, therefore he deserved to get killed. Because that's how situations like this should end: the guy with the gun who followed someone through a parking lot shoots and kills the other person. That's totally a great precedent.

This despite the only "evidence" that it happened that way is Zimmerman's testimony. Which is awfully convenient, seeing as he's the only one left alive from this encounter. Too bad he killed the only other person involved. Or, I guess, good for him that the only other person involved died instead of just being wounded. Now we all have to take his word for it that it happened exactly as he said. He'd have no reason to lie. (Now, if he'd been raped by Martin, that'd be another matter, as most rape victims are lying, according to the Fark Legal Corps.)

RE the "witness" - eyewitness testimony is shiat most of the time, so I'm discounting it entirely.

Yes, you are right. There is absolutely no physical evidence that Zimmerman took a beating without fighting back.

[i.imgur.com image 300x401]

[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

None whatsoever.
/bonus: google the Martin autopsy report and read it (not sure if safe to link)
//Martin had no wounds besides the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his hand
///so tell me again about that lack of evidence


Looks like the beating to death he got was quite a bit less than this guy's:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-03 05:01:55 PM  

KrustyKitten: ongbok: Elegy: ongbok: BojanglesPaladin: ongbok: At the point Martin had reason to believe that his life was in danger, and he had every right to defend himself.

I don;t know how you get from "Hey kid!" to life endangerment, but based on your comments, you DO seem to be arguing that becasue Martin was being "chased" he was fully entitled to adminsiter a beating to Zimmerman. Fine.

But if being chased and yelled at entitles you to beat someone, surely getting physically attacked and beaten entitles a man to defend themselves as well?

Or should Zimmerman have simply said "Whelp! This head to concrete things and the broken nose sure do smart, but I guess I had it coming. After all, I did chase after the fellah. I sure do hope that he stops bludgeoning me soon. I already need medical attention, I just hope he stops before I die".

You have NO IDEA what actually went down, and neither do I.

I just find it odd that you seem to support a violent response to being chased, but apparantly NOT a violent response to being beaten. That seems weird to me.

We do have some idea of what happened. First we know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We know that Zimmerman was mad because he ran away. We know this because Zimmerman said so. We also know that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon. We know this because of where the confrontation happened.

Since you are so willing to take Zimmerman at his word, I'm sure you also believe him when he said Martin started the fight.

/why do you always refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first?

If the confrontation happened at his car, yeah then I would take him at his word, but we know that didn't happen.

Because Martin jumped Zimmerman before he made it back to the vehicle?


Except we know from Martin's girlfriend that Zimmerman confronted him while he was on the phone with her and she heard the confrontation. Also the phone logs of the phone call between the two of them show that their phone conversation ended somewhere between 7:15 and 7:16pm. The first 911 call according to police came in at 7:16:11 pm. The police report that they arrived at the scene a few seconds before 7:18pm.

So unless you believe that he decided to hide and jump a person while he was on the phone with his girlfriend, the idea that he jumped him on the way back to his car is pretty stupid.
 
2013-06-03 05:01:58 PM  

Tatsuma: NightOwl2255: Actually it was in backpack. That screwdriver has been magically turned into "burglary tools" and the jewelry has never been associated with any crime. What was that about facts you were saying?

You're right, it was in his bag, not his locker. I was thinking about the locker he defaced and he got suspended for.

And they weren't associated with any crime because they didn't go to the police, there's fark all you can do in that situation. Why would he have 12 pieces of women's jewellery and a screwdriver on him?


Why is not the question. The moron (Thunderpipes) uses them to call Martin a thief. The fact is, there has been no crime associated with them. That's just a pesky fact.
 
2013-06-03 05:02:20 PM  

frepnog: fredklein: Elegy: You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of [you]

...and THAT is what's wrong with Florida.

/amongst all the other things

that is not how it works.  you can not punch someone and then kill them because they fight back, and then claim self defense.  However, you CAN hit someone, have them pin you down and begin to beat your head against concrete, and you, with no avenue of escape, can shoot them dead because it IS self-defense.


If they pull a gun, I cannot escape either. No one can, unless they can outrun a bullet. So, what's the difference?

Zimmerman did not in fact chase Martin down and shoot him in cold blood.  This is nothing but fiction and in no way resembles any of the evidence so far exhibited.

Zimmerman did, in fact, chase after Trayvon, despite not needing to (as per the dispatcher). Zimmerman did, in fact, show hostility towards "these assholes" who "always get away". Zimmerman did, in fact, shoot and kill Trayvon.
 
2013-06-03 05:04:11 PM  

Elegy: Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

In this case, I do feel the use of lethal force is justified by the person on the bottom.


Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??
 
2013-06-03 05:05:12 PM  

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

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


How do you know Martin was strong and fast? By all accounts he was a bean pole. And it appears he was a weed smoker. Most weed smokers that I know who aren't actively training in a sport don't have much wind, and he hadn't played football for a few years.
 
2013-06-03 05:06:44 PM  

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

So much this. Martin was young, strong, and fast, yet didn't choose to run away. No, instead he started kicking the shiat out of the guy instead, and he happened to choose poorly by picking an armed guy. Why does Martin get a pass for a tremendously stupid move, but Zimmerman doesn't?

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


he did run, thought he lost him (as per Zimmerman and corroborated by the GF's deposition ) then stopped to call his girlfriend back when Zimmerman confronted him. What I think happened was Zimmerman had his gun out and was going to detain him for the cops but Trayvon punched him in the nose then proceeded to kick his ass. George instead of fighting back like a man shot him like the pussy he was.
 
2013-06-03 05:08:02 PM  

ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: Cataholic: ongbok: So chasing after somebody who is running away from you doesn't constitute an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence? Or running at somebody who is minding their own business?

Be honest here, please.

If someone comes running toward me, I don't automatically assume they are going to kill me.  Maybe I dropped my wallet and they are bringing it.  Maybe it's someone who thinks I am their long lost cousin (who looks a lot like me).  Maybe they are running from someone else and are coming to me to ask for help.  Maybe you think Hispanic people running toward you only want to do violence?

So if you are running away from a person, and they chase you down you won't do anything?

I love the complete dishonesty about this that the pro Zimmerman crowd brings to the argument.

No.  I won't.  Mainly because I don't wish to go to jail.  You have no right to punch someone just because they ran up to you.

You didn't answer the question. i asked you ran away from a person and they chased you and caught up to you would you defend yourself?

But don't worry, you will never answer the question that I asked you, you will just keep deflecting because you know you would do the same thing that Trayvon did.

No.  I would not defend myself just because they caught up to  me.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.  You do not have the right to defend yourself (physically) until it becomes evident that the other person is going to harm you.  Paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are chasing after you isn't enough.  As I said earlier, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to need to speak with you.  Punching someone who caught up to you so they could tell you someone just sideswiped your parked car is a crime.

So you are going to stick with that lie to defend your stance. Now that is dedication. I hope you don't give your kids that same advice.


Not sure where the lie is.  I'm merely telling you what the law is.  I studied it, I practice it, I abide by it.
 
2013-06-03 05:08:11 PM  
Martin is walking home, Zimmerman follows Martin(even though he was told not to), Martin tries to break contact with Zimmerman.  Zimmerman chases Martin. A fight ensues.

This is were it gets hazy.  If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.  If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."  So, either way Zimmerman actions lead to the fight.

Zimmerman realizes he started a fight he can't finish and reaches for his gun and kills Martin.  End result is a teenager dies for walking home.

I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.
 
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 »






Report