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  
•       •       •

16785 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 05:08:48 PM  

kortex: Nothing can be proven about that night, so that's why I say this trial is silly.


An armed man chased down an unarmed teenager and shot him.  That part isn't even a question, it's without any dispute.  That's a pretty good reason to have a trial.

frepnog: actually, a man with no evidence against him that he committed a crime is MORE THAN LIKELY going to walk, and rightfully so.


No evidence of a crime?  Dead body, smoking gun, and a recording made minutes before the shooting saying "He's trying to run away, I'm following him".  Sure, nothing to be suspicious about at all.
 
2013-06-03 05:09:04 PM  

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

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

What a bunch of children in this thread.


And Trayvon did physically defend himself from Zimmerman when Zimmerman was following him. Instead he ran away from him, and Zimmerman confirms this on the 911 tape. He defended himself when zimmerman ran after him and caught him.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Trayvon tried to avoid Zimmerman?
 
2013-06-03 05:09:27 PM  

Elegy: I have no problem with a fair fight between two consenting adults, but if one party is screaming "stop" or "help" then the fight clearly should is over. "The fight has gone out of him," as we say. If the beating continues after the point that one party is screaming for help, that party has a clear and obvious fear for their physical health and/or life, and should have the legal recourse to protect themselves from serious I jury or death under the law.

I guess I feel that civilization has rules governing the use of violence, one one of those rules is that if one person screams "no more" then the second person has an obligation to stop. I feel the Florida law approaches this question in a sensible manner.


Because NO ONE has EVER said "no more", and then attacked. No one. Especially no one with a gun.

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger.
 
2013-06-03 05:11:30 PM  

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

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

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


Why is it that when the talk about Zimmerman should have waited in his car, it's all about the right to investigate and protect your neighborhood, but when it's about Martin doing the same thing, he should have had the good sense to put his hands up in the air and wait? Martin was in the neighborhood legitimately. It's a stupid farking argument because it's a double standard.
 
2013-06-03 05:11:43 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This cas ...


Lolbertarians who invent words like "statism" are are always white people i know who are racist.  Because before the state you were happy to enslave and oppress brown people all over the world, just like Zimmerman was excercising his "right" to oppress some brown person walking around his own neighborhood at night.  You hate the fact that the State now intervenes when things like job applications or seperate water fountains come up. You would be happy to go back to those "stateless days" when Martin would have been bagged up and tossed no questions asked.

Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore. I suggest you start being nice to the Treyvon Martins walking around you neighborhood because, yes, the STATE will arrest you when you chase down and murder a child in cold blood.
 
2013-06-03 05:12:55 PM  

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

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


I think you make a valid point, and there are plenty here who have said "Zimmerman got what he deserved for not doing what a 9/11 dispatcher told him to do". And I agree that there is a real problem with the too prevelant notion that a good citizen does not act independently.

But for a lot of people, this is ENTIRELY about race, and for some people it is ENTIRELY about gun rights.

fredklein: Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??


Yes. Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn;t finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.
 
2013-06-03 05:13:06 PM  

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

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

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


By every account, Martin tried to avoid a confrontation.  It was Zimmerman who followed and confronted him.

Zimmerman is a coward, so he carries a gun.  If he wasn't a coward, he would have taken his licks licks a man and Martin would still be alive, albeit charged with assault.
 
2013-06-03 05:14:36 PM  
ChuDogg

Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore.

We're the ones who made spaceships. Your low-rider zoot-boosters simply don't have the range to follow us.
 
2013-06-03 05:14:55 PM  

soaboutthat: This is were it gets hazy. If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.


No it's not.

If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."

No it's not.

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


Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn't finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.
 
2013-06-03 05:15:47 PM  
KrustyKitten:  There you go.

According to you, Zimmerman went back to his vehicle.  According to where the body was found, he never went back to his vehicle.  And despite you claim that he said he would go back to his vehicle, he never actually said he would.  He specifically did *not* agree on a location to meet the cops and told them to call when he got there.

So you're a farking liar.
 
2013-06-03 05:16:33 PM  
When I'm on patrol in my neighborhood, I gauge my level of suspicion on others' efforts to evade me.

So far I've found the young, pretty females to be the most suspicious.

/not a cop
 
2013-06-03 05:18:32 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: When I'm on patrol in my neighborhood, I gauge my level of suspicion on others' efforts to evade me.

So far I've found the young, pretty females to be the most suspicious.

/not a cop


Do you chase them down with your gun in your hand?

b.vimeocdn.com
 
2013-06-03 05:18:56 PM  

kirlian: Y'know, if you guys could arrange to have these threads / discussions at Fark meetups, I'd definitely start going.

/Been a while since I've seen a good ol' bar fight.


"Stop following me!"

"But I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

"Why are you HITTING YOURSELF!?!?!"
 
2013-06-03 05:20:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: soaboutthat: This is were it gets hazy. If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.

No it's not.

If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."

No it's not.

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

Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn't finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.


Why does Martin not get to stand his ground?  Answer me that.  He tried to break contact and was chased down.  Why can't he defend himself?
 
2013-06-03 05:20:19 PM  

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

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

Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??


In what would does "chasing" equal to "starting physical violence?" One of these things is more wrong than the other.

And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"

Justify your stance, please.
 
2013-06-03 05:20:53 PM  

ongbok: Do you chase them down with your gun in your hand?


Gun is for fun!
 
2013-06-03 05:20:55 PM  
The amount of liberal wrong in this thread is staggering.
 
2013-06-03 05:21:32 PM  

soaboutthat: Why does Martin not get to stand his ground? Answer me that. He tried to break contact and was chased down. Why can't he defend himself?


Because it's not illegal to follow someone in the street.

How hard is that to understand?
 
2013-06-03 05:21:40 PM  

soaboutthat: Martin is walking home, Zimmerman follows Martin(even though he was told not to), Martin tries to break contact with Zimmerman.  Zimmerman chases Martin. A fight ensues.

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

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

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


You're right. You don't know how florida law works. In fact, you don't know how self-defense laws work in many US states.
 
2013-06-03 05:22:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn;t finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.


I'd think the world would be a nicer place if 'assholes who start fights they can't finish' all got beaten to death.
 
2013-06-03 05:22:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

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

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


I just picked this post at random because it highlights the divide in this case. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you say it loud and proud. In Florida, it doesn't matter who started the fight. No matter the reason, you can defend yourself using deadly force if you feel your life could be in danger. There is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him by Martin. You could suspend logic and common sense and dispute the witness claim that it was Zimmerman shouting for help while getting his ass beat. That's up to you. But with a broken nose, two blacks eyes, cuts on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back, pretty much everything Zimmerman says can be substantiated. Conversely, Angela Corey STILL doesn't even have probable cause - let alone evidence - to indict someone for murder.

But hey, if convicting innocent people helps you feel better about race relations, knock yourself out.
 
2013-06-03 05:22:29 PM  

Thunderpipes: The amount of liberal wrong in this thread is staggering.


How is we shouldn't case down and shoot people for walking home a liberal idea?
 
2013-06-03 05:23:12 PM  
ChuDogg:
Well race is a social construct so i don't think it's a race it's an ethnicity but one that belongs to the indigenous of the land not white people who immigrated.  White racists like to use both sides of the same coin but that's not the case. People like Zimmerman shouldn't claim to be hispanic when they are clearly white.

I guess it also depends on how you view who 'belongs' to a race/ethnicity.  I was reading the webpage of a Cherokee man once and his opinion was that blood quantums (how they determine who is "in" some tribes) pretty much suck.  I guess you have to have a government certificate of Indian blood before you can do certain things, yet for contrast any black person can put "black owned" on their business sign without having to prove their blackness.  In that respect, race/ethnicity is way more cultural than scientific, we're all the same species capable of reproducing viable offspring.  His take on it was that you belong where your mother belonged, or some cultures where your father belonged.
 
2013-06-03 05:23:15 PM  
The trial starts in a couple weeks, right? Fark is going to be fun for the next few months.
 
2013-06-03 05:23:34 PM  

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

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

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


Because it's really hard to charge a dead guy?
 
2013-06-03 05:23:48 PM  

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

Just like raping a slutty girl.

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


Its some thing like a he said/she said.  The facts of the attack are all out there.  There is likely not much new that will come up at trial.  Either Trayvon got tired of being followed and attacked Zimmerman.  Or Zimmerman got tired of following Trayvon and attacked him.  Past behavior will play a big part in deciding who 'started it'.
 
2013-06-03 05:24:48 PM  

frepnog: Smelly Pirate Hooker: You'd think one person being unarmed and dead and the other person being alive with a gun would have made this a relatively simple manslaughter case.

actually you would think that all the evidence pointing to self defense (and the fact that the police did not find evidence that a crime was committed and so did not arrest or charge Zimmerman at the scene) would have made this a relatively simple self-defense case.  Which it was until the media claimed a white male had gunned down a small black child in cold blood and the mob demanded that Zimmerman be charged.


Actually - the lead homicide detective wanted to arrest Zimmerman after having questioned him at the police station. I'm posting a link below but this is being posted from my cell so I'm not sure if it will be eaten. GIS if it does.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16011674&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fm.dailykos . com%2Fstory%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F1078334%2F-Homicide-detective-wanted-Ge orge-Zimmerman-charged-with-manslaughter-but-prosecutors-said-no
 
2013-06-03 05:25:00 PM  

Elegy: And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"


Already answered:
"Because NO ONE has EVER said "no more", and then attacked. No one. Especially no one with a gun.

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger."
 
2013-06-03 05:25:28 PM  

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

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

What a bunch of children in this thread.


Don't drive EVAR!  You might pull into traffic and accidentally get behind someone which will fault you for following them and initiating a confrontation, and that's grounds for a beatin'!  If you're in front of someone while driving and you suspect someone is behind you following you in their vehicle, you then have the right to stop your car in the middle of the road, remove the other person from their vehicle, and give them a beatin'.  Also avoid lines, or just stay inside forever.  The potential to be following someone is every where.


Fark logic in action.
Makes sense.
 
2013-06-03 05:26:57 PM  

fredklein: Elegy: I have no problem with a fair fight between two consenting adults, but if one party is screaming "stop" or "help" then the fight clearly should is over. "The fight has gone out of him," as we say. If the beating continues after the point that one party is screaming for help, that party has a clear and obvious fear for their physical health and/or life, and should have the legal recourse to protect themselves from serious I jury or death under the law.

I guess I feel that civilization has rules governing the use of violence, one one of those rules is that if one person screams "no more" then the second person has an obligation to stop. I feel the Florida law approaches this question in a sensible manner.

Because NO ONE has EVER said "no more", and then attacked. No one. Especially no one with a gun.

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger.


And there you are. You just made my point for me.

Fear for seriously bodily injury is a valid reason to pull a gun a shoot someone attack you, especially if you are screaming "stop" at the time. Continuing to pounding someone's head into the pavement until they are unconscious has a high probability of causing serious bodily injury.

If its logical to pound someone unconscious because they have a gun, how is it illogical to shoot the guy that's trying to cripple you?
 
2013-06-03 05:27:25 PM  

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

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

Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??

In what would does "chasing" equal to "starting physical violence?" One of these things is more wrong than the other.

And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"

Justify your stance, please.


Here's a scenario. No matter how how it it happened, GZ and TM met up. TM asks, WTF are you follow me? GZ says something like there's been break-ins. TM says fark this and turns to leave. GZ grabs TM and says, you're not leaving while lifting up his shirt to show TM his firearm. At this point GZ has committed an assault and battery and TM would be justified to be in fear of his life. In that case he would be justified in beating GZ nearly to death, knowing that he's armed, and to eliminate the threat, just as in shooting till the threat is eliminated.
 
2013-06-03 05:28:38 PM  

fredklein: You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger."


ITG here.

If a guy with a gun was following you, you'd end up on your knees crying and blubbering for him not to shoot you.
 
2013-06-03 05:31:01 PM  

soaboutthat: Why does Martin not get to stand his ground? Answer me that. He tried to break contact and was chased down. Why can't he defend himself?


What he doesn't realize is that "Assault" requires power + privilege. (edit: don't anybody throw dictionary definitions written by white men at me).  Treyvon Martin had neither wandering around his own neighborhood, and George Zimmerman knew that. Thus, regardless of who confronted whom they keep berating, Treyvon Martin really couldn't have assaulted him.  Zimmerman and every other whiteboy should recongize their historical status as oppressors when dealing with people of color.  If Treyvon Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman first, he was in no position to use "self defense" against some claimed "assault". It's ridiculous and offensive to all the true victims of assault which result from white people's prejudice against people of color world wide.
 
2013-06-03 05:31:28 PM  

soaboutthat: How is we shouldn't case down and shoot people for walking home a liberal idea?


That's what happened, really?
 
2013-06-03 05:32:00 PM  
Thou shalt not kill.
 
2013-06-03 05:34:29 PM  
So he wasn't on top of Zimmerman and pummeling him into the ground?
 
2013-06-03 05:34:32 PM  

ChuDogg: What he doesn't realize is that "Assault" requires power + privilege. (edit: don't anybody throw dictionary definitions written by white men at me). Treyvon Martin had neither wandering around his own neighborhood, and George Zimmerman knew that. Thus, regardless of who confronted whom they keep berating, Treyvon Martin really couldn't have assaulted him. Zimmerman and every other whiteboy should recongize their historical status as oppressors when dealing with people of color. If Treyvon Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman first, he was in no position to use "self defense" against some claimed "assault". It's ridiculous and offensive to all the true victims of assault which result from white people's prejudice against people of color world wide.


Go back to Tumblr, you worthless internet sjw
 
2013-06-03 05:35:02 PM  

soaboutthat: BojanglesPaladin: soaboutthat: This is were it gets hazy. If Zimmerman started the fight it is murder.

No it's not.

If Martin started the fight he was "standing his ground."

No it's not.

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

Read the thread. Just becasue you were an asshole and started a fight you couldn't finish doesn't obligate you to be beaten to death rather than defend your life.

Why does Martin not get to stand his ground?  Answer me that.  He tried to break contact and was chased down.  Why can't he defend himself?


There was a case in which there was a man who chased after a thief and then stabbed the thief to death. He took the radios off the body (not merely his but all and then sold the others) and hid the murder weapon. He was cleared under SYG in Florida. Greyston Garcia. He was later shot to death (presumably) someone else was standing their ground.
 
2013-06-03 05:36:15 PM  

NightOwl2255: Elegy: fredklein: Elegy: Two people fighting and it gets to the point where one is on the ground screaming for help with no way to defend themselves, and the other person is on top continuing to pound the guy on the bottom because of rage, or because he wants to "teach him a lesson"?

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

Even if it was the bottom one who started it all by chasing the other one??

In what would does "chasing" equal to "starting physical violence?" One of these things is more wrong than the other.

And yes, even if the person getting beat starts it. If one person cannot defend themselves and is screaming for the fight to stop (or "help" or "no" or "please"), then the fight is clearly over.

How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help? Because they "deserved it" for "following a guy?"

Justify your stance, please.

Here's a scenario. No matter how how it it happened, GZ and TM met up. TM asks, WTF are you follow me? GZ says something like there's been break-ins. TM says fark this and turns to leave. GZ grabs TM and says, you're not leaving while lifting up his shirt to show TM his firearm. At this point GZ has committed an assault and battery and TM would be justified to be in fear of his life. In that case he would be justified in beating GZ nearly to death, knowing that he's armed, and to eliminate the threat, just as in shooting till the threat is eliminated.


Fair enough. It's a good story.

But you're ignoring that - under Florida law - Zimmerman still had a right to use lethal force haunts Martin, even if he did start the fight.

Again - the physical evidence, several of the witnesses, and the Zimmerman's story all line up to indicate that Zimmerman was on his back, getting pummelled when he pulled the trigger. He could not flee and was actively screaming help for someone to intervene.

Again - even if Zimmerman started the fight as you say, it would not negate his claim of self defense under Florida law.
 
2013-06-03 05:36:50 PM  
*against, not haunts
 
2013-06-03 05:39:33 PM  

Elegy: Again - even if Zimmerman started the fight as you say, it would not negate his claim of self defense under Florida law.


I was mostly answering your question, "How is it morally right to continue to beat someone that cannot defend themselves and is screaming for help?". More of a legal reason than a moral one, but there is no doubt that beating someone to death can be justified.
 
2013-06-03 05:40:34 PM  

ChuDogg: Lolbertarians who invent words like "statism" are are always white people i know who are racist.  Because before the state you were happy to enslave and oppress brown people all over the world, just like Zimmerman was excercising his "right" to oppress some brown person walking around his own neighborhood at night.  You hate the fact that the State now intervenes when things like job applications or seperate water fountains come up. You would be happy to go back to those "stateless days" when Martin would have been bagged up and tossed no questions asked.Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore. I suggest you start being nice to the Treyvon Martins walking around you neighborhood because, yes, the STATE will arrest you when you chase down and murder a child in cold blood.


images.sodahead.com

Well played!


/Hot like under your collar
 
2013-06-03 05:41:43 PM  

Tatsuma: Go back to Tumblr, you worthless internet sjw


Ah yes, we know what your country does with those worthless brown scum.

http://forward.com/articles/177828/israel-plans-to-deport--of-eritre a- immigrants/

Your status as a religious minority does not change the fact that you are, in fact, a white male. As a white male and historical oppressor of indigenous brown people worldwide, you really aren't in a position to tell anybody to just "shut up". We aren't shutting up this time. Your demographics are changing and soon us brown people (including palestinians) will be the decision makers across the entire world. The white rape and oppression of the planet and it's environment will come to end.  At that time YOU will be asked to assimilate and submit to the will of the majority.  Your day will end. You won't have a choice.

The bizarre obsession of George Zimmerman is only the beginning of the fear and anxiety that manifests among white males.  But that day will come soon my friend.  Look at the numbers and see for yourself. Even Palestinians outnumber Israelis now.
 
2013-06-03 05:43:58 PM  
So wait, I really don't understand:

If someone has a history of socially reprehensible behavior, a history of violating/skirting the law, a bevy of evidence in which a person professes their love of this behavior, and has photographs of themselves acting in an aggressive, arguably violent manner, as well as having a video of two people fighting rather than a video of the person trying to stop the fight. If a person has these attributes then none of this can be admitted in court to suggest that this individual is prone to violence? That this person may have an aggressive "anti-" demeanor?

Really?

Police do it all the time, in fact one of today's regurgitated headlines is in regards to the background of an officer in Edison, NJ that firebombed his captains house. What does any of his background matter? Let's just try him for the crime, not his inclination to perform the act of harming others. Why do we even bother with court ordered psychiatric examinations? Why have an insanity plea?

Hmmmm.
 
2013-06-03 05:44:54 PM  

Elegy: But you're ignoring that - under Florida law - Zimmerman still had a right to use lethal force haunts Martin, even if he did start the fight.

Again - the physical evidence, several of the witnesses, and the Zimmerman's story all line up to indicate that Zimmerman was on his back, getting pummelled when he pulled the trigger. He could not flee and was actively screaming help for someone to intervene.

Again - even if Zimmerman started the fight as you say, it would not negate his claim of self defense under Florida law.


That's the thing that brings us to TFA: if making a case for self-defense has nothing to do with why the fight started, why is his legal team wasting their time trying to build a character case against Martin rather than investing their time in self-defense precedents or something?

You figure they're just trying to stoke the argument outside the courtroom in an effort to get more people to pump their legal fund?
 
2013-06-03 05:45:37 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except we know from Martin's girlfriend that Zimmerman confronted him while he was on the phone with her and she heard the confrontation. Also the phone logs of the phone call between the t ...


That link is to a random opinion of events interspersed with quips from the non emergency call that Zimmerman made.

From your source "or Trayvon, still on the phone with DeeDee, had in fact managed to start running on a direct path towards home, but decides to loop back to find Zimmerman again, in order to start a fight with the guy who dared to follow him."

So even your citation is just random guesswork.
 
2013-06-03 05:47:02 PM  

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

The evidence (and Zimmerman's own admission, not to mention the recorded call) is that he followed Martin, on foot, and ran after Martin ran.


So -you- are saying he ran down Martin then, you just take offense when -I- say that same thing. I see.
 
2013-06-03 05:48:19 PM  

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

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

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

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

If someone follows me from an isolated area at night into an even MORE isolated area, at what point do I assume they're not up to anything good?

Zimmerman is going to jail, and probably for a very, very long time.

Want to bet?

1 month TF.

I win if he walks.
You win if he's convicted for murder 2.
Nobody wins if he pleas out, if there's a hung jury, or if he's guilty of a lesser charge.


Bet accepted. Even Texas has had enough of swaggering tough guy gun nuts and their bullshiat.
 
2013-06-03 05:49:32 PM  

Meesterjojo: So wait, I really don't understand:

If someone has a history of socially reprehensible behavior, a history of violating/skirting the law, a bevy of evidence in which a person professes their love of this behavior, and has photographs of themselves acting in an aggressive, arguably violent manner, as well as having a video of two people fighting rather than a video of the person trying to stop the fight. If a person has these attributes then none of this can be admitted in court to suggest that this individual is prone to violence? That this person may have an aggressive "anti-" demeanor?

Really?

Police do it all the time, in fact one of today's regurgitated headlines is in regards to the background of an officer in Edison, NJ that firebombed his captains house. What does any of his background matter? Let's just try him for the crime, not his inclination to perform the act of harming others. Why do we even bother with court ordered psychiatric examinations? Why have an insanity plea?

Hmmmm.


... really? This is pretty straightforward: background of the person on trial vs. background of someone else. The analog would be asking if his captains house had a history of behavior that would justify it being firebombed. I mean, I know defendant/victim is a subtle distinction, but those legal folks seem to be a little hung up on it.
 
2013-06-03 05:50:27 PM  

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

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

What a bunch of children in this thread.

Don't drive EVAR!  You might pull into traffic and accidentally get behind someone which will fault you for following them and initiating a confrontation, and that's grounds for a beatin'!  If you're in front of someone while driving and you suspect someone is behind you following you in their vehicle, you then have the right to stop your car in the middle of the road, remove the other person from their vehicle, and give them a beatin'.  Also avoid lines, or just stay inside forever.  The potential to be following someone is every where.


Fark logic in action.
Makes sense.


So how does "Don't ever get into a fight with an aggressive asshole because he may have a gun and shoot you in the heart" not enter that rant?
 
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