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  
•       •       •

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 05:53:30 PM  

StaleCoffee: 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?


I don't know.  Fabricate something.  It's all the rage.
 
2013-06-03 05:54:24 PM  
So, did we ever find out what "suspicious" activity Trayvon was doing that night? Zimmerman said that he was being "suspicious", did he give out any specifics? Was Trayvon prowling through yards, casing houses? Was he examining the windows on the houses? Stopping every few steps to stand and stare at each house?

Based on Zimmerman's angry call to the 911 operator, with choice words as "these assholes always get away", he'd already deemed Trayvon guilty of being part of some break-ins that had occurred previously.
 
2013-06-03 05:54:32 PM  

MFAWG: 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.


I think the fact that they decided again a SYG defense is pretty telling. I think he'll see time but probably through a plea.
 
2013-06-03 05:55:24 PM  

JuggleGeek: 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.


I never said that Zimmerman went back to his vehicle.  Zimmerman never even said he went back to his vehicle.  Zimmerman was told that he didn't need to follow Martin.  He stated "ok".
I suggested that he had stopped following Martin and was headed back to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

Try calming the fark down and actually reading before you spew all over the thread.
 
2013-06-03 05:56:23 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


Yeah, you're right. Those photographs prove everything he said is true. We shouldn't even bother investigating this shiat. Let's just hand him back his gun and clap him on the back for a job well-done.

You are a genius.
 
2013-06-03 05:58:09 PM  

biyaaatci: Thou shalt not kill.


I'm told by people who read the original language it's actually "Thou shalt not murder", which means no illegal killings.
That opens the door to judicial executions, abortions, battlefield killings, self-defense...and, presumably, the Holocaust, since the Germans made THAT legal.

Kind of a useless admonition, in that respect.
 
2013-06-03 06:01:25 PM  

Tatsuma: Someone has a right to follow you in the street


I'm going to go to your house, wait outside until you come out and follow you around once you hit public property.

Because it's my right.
 
2013-06-03 06:03:09 PM  

StaleCoffee: 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.


Got a link to said autopsy?  I'd think the angle of the gunshot wound would be helpful; straight in, would support your "he got up and shot him" argument, but if the bullet entered from below the heart, at an upward angle, it's more likely Martin was straddling Zimmerman, yes?

Not dispositive either way, but useful evidence.
 
2013-06-03 06:04:05 PM  

FlashHarry: you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?


Is that so?  Hadn't heard THAT wrinkle...somebody's in for a suing, if that's true.
 
2013-06-03 06:05:19 PM  

Triple Oak: 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 can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.


Um, that's not how burden of proof works in this country...
 
2013-06-03 06:05:28 PM  

ProfessorOhki: 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?


Because nothing is for certain in a criminal trial for murder. It's a pageant of the first order, with each side slandering the other as much as possible. You can bet the prosecution will try to make Zimmerman look as bad as possible; it's the defense's job to make Martin look as bad as possible.

NightOwl2255: 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.


Got it. And you're probably right. There are a few extreme cases where beating someone until they die is morally justifiable. But the law is only infrequently moral, and the law in Florida and the evidence in this case support Zimmerman.

My fault, for introducing the word "moral" rather than using "legal."
 
2013-06-03 06:06:34 PM  

Elegy: 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?


It is logical to pound someone unconscious because they were chasing you, and have a gun.

It is not logical to chase someone while armed, then get all shooty because they defended themselves.
 
2013-06-03 06:06:38 PM  

PunGent: biyaaatci: Thou shalt not kill.

I'm told by people who read the original language it's actually "Thou shalt not murder", which means no illegal killings.
That opens the door to judicial executions, abortions, battlefield killings, self-defense...and, presumably, the Holocaust, since the Germans made THAT legal.

Kind of a useless admonition, in that respect.


Actually, it's "Thou shalt not kill Hebrews" in the OT text, paraphrasing of course. If they're a Heathen, Outsider, Sinner, or otherwise non-Hebrew, according to the crazy-book, yeah, they're okay to murder.
 
2013-06-03 06:08:59 PM  
I'm not sure (I have a pretty good idea, but trying to read people's minds is always a bad idea) what makes people think that Zimmerman can't be guilty of anything. The morons trying to make him sort of vigilante hero taking a bite out of crime are both amusing and frightening. I wonder if their neighbors (esp. their non-white neighbors) are aware of their clearly deep desire to kill another person. I wonder how long before we'll be reading about some of them on Fark, maybe another "Man shot by police after brandishing gun" story.

I'm honestly kind of surprised that Zimmerman was charged with murder. I was expecting manslaughter. So either the DA has some awesome evidence of murder or he/she is an idiot (and after the Anthony clusterfark, I'm leaning towards the latter). Because absent any evidence that Zimmerman meant to kill the kid, I don't see this as a murder. I see it as a terrible choice by a person who should not be allowed to carry a gun, ever. He can be guilty of doing something extremely stupid that resulted in the death of another person and still not be a murderer.

That'd make more sense to me: convict on manslaughter and revoke his gun license.

I think he will be acquitted. But that's just me.
 
2013-06-03 06:10:09 PM  

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


Wanting to ignore evidence doesn't make you unique in this thread.
 
2013-06-03 06:10:19 PM  

vharshyde: PunGent: biyaaatci: Thou shalt not kill.

I'm told by people who read the original language it's actually "Thou shalt not murder", which means no illegal killings.
That opens the door to judicial executions, abortions, battlefield killings, self-defense...and, presumably, the Holocaust, since the Germans made THAT legal.

Kind of a useless admonition, in that respect.

Actually, it's "Thou shalt not kill Hebrews" in the OT text, paraphrasing of course. If they're a Heathen, Outsider, Sinner, or otherwise non-Hebrew, according to the crazy-book, yeah, they're okay to murder.


Yep. In quite a few belief systems, killing non-members is often given a pass. It's a lovely way to direct aggression if you're building a society. "Our deity says you cannot kill members of the tribe. However, you can kill those who threaten the tribe, or the tribe's beliefs."
 
2013-06-03 06:10:46 PM  

ChuDogg: As a white male and historical oppressor of indigenous brown people worldwide


Yeah that's Jews historically alright.
 
2013-06-03 06:11:12 PM  

MFAWG: 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.


Got you booked into my profile so I won't forget. Trial date is set for next week and looks like no continuances are going to be allowed [bruce_buffer_here_we_go.jpg]. FYI I'll be out of town for work next week, so if I'm not around much in the trial threads, I'm not disappearing on you (not that we should see a verdict that quickly).

Anyone other Martin supporters want a piece of this action? I'll take 3 or 4 more on the same terms.
 
2013-06-03 06:11:40 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: I'm going to go to your house, wait outside until you come out and follow you around once you hit public property.

Because it's my right.


Sure, why not? If I get bored, I'll just get a restraining order.
 
2013-06-03 06:13:20 PM  

Tatsuma: 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.


If he did initiate it.

Martin being on top of Zimmerman only means that Zimmerman was (probably) losing the fight at that point.
It says nothing as to who started it.
 
2013-06-03 06:14:20 PM  

PacificaFitz: I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason.


Well, I guess it doesn't matter to YOU, since you've already rendered your verdict...some of us are still groping around for evidence.

Kind of old-fashioned, I know...
 
2013-06-03 06:15:46 PM  

CliChe Guevara: 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.


Both men were clearly running that evening. Fortunately for GZ, running is still legal.

I wanted to be more clear and explicit about what the evidence shows (or fails to show), and "A ran down B" is not only unclear, it's misleading.

It implies that A ran after B, AND that A caught up to B in such a way that forced B to stop running, either by falling, exhaustion, or pushing B to the ground in mid-stride. That's what the "down" part of "run down" means.

It's a total fantasy to believe the evidence in this case proves a scenario like that. Furthermore, the evidence wholly corroborates GZ's statement that he ran after Martin, lost sight of him, started walking back to his truck, when Martin approached him. Even DeeDee's statement corroborates that version, and since the burden is on the State to disprove that scenario, there simply isn't evidence to do so.

So, yes, you ought to stop using sloppy language to portray some imagined series of events. The same goes for "hunting a child" or that "Trayvon was gunned down in an alley/back yard" or "GZ initiated the conflict."

None of these colorful phrases comport with the operative legal parameters of self-defense.
 
2013-06-03 06:15:49 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.

Ohh so one has to be armed to be a threat? Hopefully you and your loved ones get to experience how wrong you are.
 
2013-06-03 06:17:15 PM  

PunGent: FlashHarry: you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?

Is that so?  Hadn't heard THAT wrinkle...somebody's in for a suing, if that's true.


You seriously didn't know that the gangster pics being thrown around by the pro-zimmerman crown were not the same person?

They just pulled the most threatening-looking things they could find off of other peoples Facebooks, got the media to post it up everywhere, then went 'oops, our bad, made a mistake'.

/Just like this latest 'oops'. Two black kids beating up a homeless adult (three people on screen) is a really hard thing to confuse with two adult homeless people fighting (two people on screen).
//The damage is done though, just as they intended, and the right wingers that want to believe it are already forwarding emails about it to their relatives. All according to plan.
 
2013-06-03 06:18:50 PM  

craigdamage: Let me know when he digs up a story in which he doesn't shoot and kill an un-armed teenager.


I legally carry. (Texas CHL)
I don't care how "thug like" that kid was or how savagely he beat Zimmerman.
Zimmerman WAS the aggressor. He should NOT have pursued. Period.


Well...did he "pursue"? or did he just follow Martin down the street?  what's the difference? because beating a guy for the latter DOES trigger self-defense, imho.  It doesn't make you an "aggressor" without something more.

The fact that Martin was a teenager is regrettable, but not legally relevant; he wasn't a toddler, ffs, he was big enough to knock down Zimmerman (apparently).  And being unarmed doesn't make you magically immune to triggering someone's right to self-defense...IF you beat on them without justification.

Which seems to be what this whole thing turns on, if we can put the racial crap aside.
 
2013-06-03 06:19:10 PM  

Phinn: CliChe Guevara: 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.

Both men were clearly running that evening. Fortunately for GZ, running is still legal.

I wanted to be more clear and explicit about what the evidence shows (or fails to show), and "A ran down B" is not only unclear, it's misleading.

It implies that A ran after B, AND that A caught up to B in such a way that forced B to stop running, either by falling, exhaustion, or pushing B to the ground in mid-stride. That's what the "down" part of "run down" means.

It's a total fantasy to believe the evidence in this case proves a scenario like that. Furthermore, the evidence wholly corroborates GZ's statement that he ran after Martin, lost sight of him, started walking back to his truck, when Martin approached him. Even DeeDee's statement corroborates that version, and since the burden is on the State to disprove that scenario, there simply isn't evidence to do so.

So, yes, you ought to stop using sloppy language to portray some imagined series of events. The same goes for "hunting a child" or that "Trayvon was gunned down in an alley/back yard" or "GZ initiated the conflict."

None of these colorful phrases comport with the operative legal parameters of self-defense.


Ah, so you have to create weak straw men, then attack them in the same post, for your assertions to make any sense. Got it.
 
2013-06-03 06:20:07 PM  

Triple Oak: 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 can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.


I may be cracked in the head, but I don't believe that's how our courts are supposed to work. All the defense has to do is plant doubt in the jury's minds. The prosecutor is supposed to be the one doing the proving, beyond doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty.
 
2013-06-03 06:21:54 PM  

CliChe Guevara: PunGent: FlashHarry: you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?

Is that so?  Hadn't heard THAT wrinkle...somebody's in for a suing, if that's true.

You seriously didn't know that the gangster pics being thrown around by the pro-zimmerman crown were not the same person?

They just pulled the most threatening-looking things they could find off of other peoples Facebooks, got the media to post it up everywhere, then went 'oops, our bad, made a mistake'.

/Just like this latest 'oops'. Two black kids beating up a homeless adult (three people on screen) is a really hard thing to confuse with two adult homeless people fighting (two people on screen).
//The damage is done though, just as they intended, and the right wingers that want to believe it are already forwarding emails about it to their relatives. All according to plan.


No, I'd missed that gem completely.  This case gets more screwed up by the week.  Wonder if that will backfire on the defense; if they get a smart enough jury, the members could start asking "why did they need to pull THAT stunt?"...
 
2013-06-03 06:22:19 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Yeah, you're right. Those photographs prove everything he said is true. We shouldn't even bother investigating this shiat. Let's just hand him back his gun and clap him on the back for a job well-done.

You are a genius.


I wasn't the genius that said there was no corroborating physical evidence to Zimmerman's story without knowing the first damn fact about the case. And I also never suggested that the incident should not be investigated, or that Zimmerman should be given a pass for shooting someone. It's going to trial, and I'm happy it's going to trial and not being dismissed in a SYG hearing. I've studied the available physical evidence, witness testimonies, and Florida law, and I don't give a shiat about race or either of the principle's backgrounds. I simply don't think Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder.

Sorry I'm not a partisan hack like you that lets his emotions get in the way of things like research and facts.

Bontesla: I think the fact that they decided again a SYG defense is pretty telling. I think he'll see time but probably through a plea.


I think it was tactical, quite frankly. While I do think that Zimmerman could have had a successful SYG hearing under normal circumstances, no judge in their right mind was going to waive trail for Zimmerman and be the sole focus for 100% of the national fury that resulted, especially given the media attention the case has drawn. Instead, the logical move for a judge in that position is to bounce it to trial and take the heat off themselves and diffuse it to a jury.

I think the defense team realized this, and realized that a negative SYG ruling would have not been in their favor at a trial. Even though a negative SYG hearing isn't supposed to bias the jury against the defendant, I think that they realized it would, and that they had more to lose than to gain from the situation.
 
2013-06-03 06:23:47 PM  
*Whew*

I haven't seen one of these Martin/Zimmerman threads in a while.
 
2013-06-03 06:24:46 PM  

OnlyM3: 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.
Ohh so one has to be armed to be a threat? Hopefully you and your loved ones get to experience how wrong you are.


Yeah, that's always the reasonable and intelligent way to respond, wish for the deaths of someone and their family because they made a statement about armed and unarmed.

Go back to 4chan's /b/, dumbass.
 
2013-06-03 06:24:52 PM  

Elegy: MFAWG: 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.

Got you booked into my profile so I won't forget. Trial date is set for next week and looks like no continuances are going to be allowed [bruce_buffer_here_we_go.jpg]. FYI I'll be out of town for work next week, so if I'm not around much in the trial threads, I'm not disappearing on you (not that we should see a verdict that quickly).

Anyone other Martin supporters want a piece of this action? I'll take 3 or 4 more on the same terms.


I wouldn't be so cocky.

The special prosecutor, Angela Corey, had the highest conviction rate among her peers. It's easy to sit back and say that she's reaching but she doesn't have a strong history of reaching.
 
2013-06-03 06:27:18 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, did we ever find out what "suspicious" activity Trayvon was doing that night? Zimmerman said that he was being "suspicious", did he give out any specifics? Was Trayvon prowling through yards, casing houses? Was he examining the windows on the houses? Stopping every few steps to stand and stare at each house?

Based on Zimmerman's angry call to the 911 operator, with choice words as "these assholes always get away", he'd already deemed Trayvon guilty of being part of some break-ins that had occurred previously.


My guess is that he was either wandering around aimlessly because he got lost in his dad!s girlfriend's cookie-cutter neighborhood, or he was on his phone, and not in a rush to get back and have that convo in front of everyone.

Wandering around a gated residential area with no clear direction or purpose, at night, in a hoodie, as a teenager, alone, is suspicious. It is, however, explained by several non-criminal possibities.
 
2013-06-03 06:30:29 PM  
poot_rootbeer

PsyLord: So, what are the odds of rioting in FL if he is found not guilty?

Why are you so eager to see people with certain characteristics behave shamefully because it would reinforce your prejudicial opinions of them?

Experience?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_1964_race_riot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Riot_of_1964

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_1964_race_riot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_Riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1968

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Washington,_D.C._riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Chicago_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escambia_High_School_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_blackout_of_1977

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_Riot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_riots_of_1992

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#Looting_and_violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

How many times do you need to repeat history before you learn?
 
2013-06-03 06:40:14 PM  

Elegy: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Yeah, you're right. Those photographs prove everything he said is true. We shouldn't even bother investigating this shiat. Let's just hand him back his gun and clap him on the back for a job well-done.

You are a genius.

I wasn't the genius that said there was no corroborating physical evidence to Zimmerman's story without knowing the first damn fact about the case. And I also never suggested that the incident should not be investigated, or that Zimmerman should be given a pass for shooting someone. It's going to trial, and I'm happy it's going to trial and not being dismissed in a SYG hearing. I've studied the available physical evidence, witness testimonies, and Florida law, and I don't give a shiat about race or either of the principle's backgrounds. I simply don't think Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder.

Sorry I'm not a partisan hack like you that lets his emotions get in the way of things like research and facts.

Bontesla: I think the fact that they decided again a SYG defense is pretty telling. I think he'll see time but probably through a plea.

I think it was tactical, quite frankly. While I do think that Zimmerman could have had a successful SYG hearing under normal circumstances, no judge in their right mind was going to waive trail for Zimmerman and be the sole focus for 100% of the national fury that resulted, especially given the media attention the case has drawn. Instead, the logical move for a judge in that position is to bounce it to trial and take the heat off themselves and diffuse it to a jury.

I think the defense team realized this, and realized that a negative SYG ruling would have not been in their favor at a trial. Even though a negative SYG hearing isn't supposed to bias the jury against the defendant, I think that they realized it would, and that they had more to lose than to gain from the situation.


The judge would be obligated to waive a trail if Zimmerman met the burden of proof needed (which is fairly low) for the SYG hearing. By waiving SYG and opting for a self-defense trial - the burden shifts to the prosecution. Previous judges for the state of Florida have ruled in favor of SYG in far more controversial cases (see the Greyston Garcia case).

Further - the lead homicide investigator argued that there was sufficient evidence to actually charge Zimmerman with murder after talking with Zimmerman the night of the incident. The lead investigator was instructed not to pursue the charge.

Pair this information with the prosecutor's history and conviction rate. She's considered the best among her peers (in Florida). A case like this - one in which a nation is watching - could break your career if you overcharge and end up losing the case. So while the pressure would certainly be on - behaving recklessly could literally destroy any potential for higher office or appointment.

I also find it interesting that the prosecution intends on calling Zimmerman's family (wife, brother, and mother) to testify. What could they possibly add that would benefit the second degree murder charge? The biggest challenge the prosecution faces is establishing that Zimmerman meant "ill will" toward Martin (a general "ill will" that doesn't require prior knowledge of Martin).

This case is anything but straight forward and we've only seen a fraction of the evidence that will be presented.
 
2013-06-03 06:41:17 PM  
Look at it this way - if Zimmerman walks - killers walk every day. It's no big deal.
If he gets locked up - better people go to jail for less every day - no big deal either.
Everybody chill out, and let the law (and karma) take it's course.
 
2013-06-03 06:44:37 PM  

ChuDogg: 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.


This is just beautiful, man.

I can't speak for every other whiteboy, but in my experience as a historical oppressor, people of color are fully capable of committing assaults.

In point of fact, in these United States, people of color commit a disproportionate number of assaults, and violent crimes generally, compared to people without color, and an even greater disproportion of crimes specifically against whites than vice versa. (That's a phrase meaning "the other way around," taken from a somewhat archaic language that was devised by white oppressors.)

Anyhoo, I'm off to exercise some privilege and read some Law for White People. The brown people of the world aren't going to oppress themselves, amiright?
 
2013-06-03 06:48:26 PM  

Bontesla: I wouldn't be so cocky.

The special prosecutor, Angela Corey, had the highest conviction rate among her peers. It's easy to sit back and say that she's reaching but she doesn't have a strong history of reaching.


I'm not particularly cocky - jury trials are always uncertain, that's what makes betting on them fun. I fully acknowledge that I have no concrete idea what the outcome of the trial is going to be. Small proposition bets just make kibitzing vastly more entertaining for me, and I can cover $20 out of my entertainment budget without going on a Ramen diet.

And yeah, that woman is a farking bulldog. If anyone can bring home a guilty verdict she can - she's a holy farking terror.
 
2013-06-03 06:49:11 PM  
ChuDogg: 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.

To be replaced by a nonwhite rape and oppression of the planet and its environment in which most of the oppressed will be nonwhite as well, I suspect strongly.
 
2013-06-03 06:50:39 PM  

kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Antimatter: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: teenage mutant ninja rapist: kortex: ongbok: kortex: obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.

You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.

And Martin tried to avoid the confrontation all together by running away.

So you are saying if some guy who is bigger than you is following you, then starts chasing you, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Chasing is not a physical attack.  Hitting is.  The kid decided to attack (most likely because that was the "gangster" thing to do) and was shot dead.

The gangster thing to do eh? So self preservation does not enter into your thinking?

Since when do gangsters or wanna be gangsters make intelligent decisions?  Our prisons are full of thugs and gangsters and many of them are killed on the streets.  Here is another dead one.

Did trayvon have a criminal record? Im not sure to be honest. But if his record is clean then all this gangster talk is irrelevant.

Everyone has a clean record until arrested.  It doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything wrong.  Nice try.  His death will save tax ...

Please, enlighten Fark on what those responsibilities are.


To not run around like charles bronson in death wish.
To make sure minors dont get shot and killed by your dumbass. You have a right to defend yourself. Not menace others.

Zimmerman the big man with the gun. Gets beat up by a kid and murders him. Gotta ask yourself this. If george never had a gun would he have chased trayvon on the first place?
 
2013-06-03 06:53:42 PM  
I fully expect that no matter what the verdict is, the people who are pissed off about it will undeniably be angry because of their own misunderstanding of the law.

Seriously, farkers are making absolute statements that simply aren't supported by the law.
 
2013-06-03 06:54:17 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Tatsuma: 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.

If he did initiate it.

Martin being on top of Zimmerman only means that Zimmerman was (probably) losing the fight at that point.
It says nothing as to who started it.


Sounds like there's enough evidence that it's 50/50 who through the first punch then ... which is reasonable doubt.
 
2013-06-03 06:54:57 PM  
*threw
 
2013-06-03 07:01:12 PM  
ok now it says 500 posts or nearly and only 131 in here? what gives?  what am I missing...


/a whole lot of nothing is what I am missing
 
2013-06-03 07:03:22 PM  

Triple Oak: 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 can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.


Zimmerman is not white and defendants don't have to prove their innocence (or shouldn't have to anyway).  The prosecution is supposed to prove guilt.

That can't really be done in this case.  Given the complete lack of evidence against Zimmerman I think the charges should be dropped.

His defense team is digging up everything they can, which is what they're supposed to do, but criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt and that simply doesn't exist here.
 
2013-06-03 07:07:49 PM  

Phinn: Keizer_Ghidorah: So, did we ever find out what "suspicious" activity Trayvon was doing that night? Zimmerman said that he was being "suspicious", did he give out any specifics? Was Trayvon prowling through yards, casing houses? Was he examining the windows on the houses? Stopping every few steps to stand and stare at each house?

Based on Zimmerman's angry call to the 911 operator, with choice words as "these assholes always get away", he'd already deemed Trayvon guilty of being part of some break-ins that had occurred previously.

My guess is that he was either wandering around aimlessly because he got lost in his dad!s girlfriend's cookie-cutter neighborhood, or he was on his phone, and not in a rush to get back and have that convo in front of everyone.

Wandering around a gated residential area with no clear direction or purpose, at night, in a hoodie, as a teenager, alone, is suspicious. It is, however, explained by several non-criminal possibities.


And Zimmerman immediately jumped to the criminal possibility and was determined to get someone to pay for the break-ins that had happened before, if his words are any indication. He'd already passed judgment on Trayvon and seemed to be seeking someone to punish for those incidents.
 
2013-06-03 07:09:49 PM  

Bontesla: The judge would be obligated to waive a trail if Zimmerman met the burden of proof needed (which is fairly low) for the SYG hearing. By waiving SYG and opting for a self-defense trial - the burden shifts to the prosecution. Previous judges for the state of Florida have ruled in favor of SYG in far more controversial cases (see the Greyston Garcia case).

Further - the lead homicide investigator argued that there was sufficient evidence to actually charge Zimmerman with murder after talking with Zimmerman the night of the incident. The lead investigator was instructed not to pursue the charge.

Pair this information with the prosecutor's history and conviction rate. She's considered the best among her peers (in Florida). A case like this - one in which a nation is watching - could break your career if you overcharge and end up losing the case. So while the pressure would certainly be on - behaving recklessly could literally destroy any potential for higher office or appointment.

I also find it interesting that the prosecution intends on calling Zimmerman's family (wife, brother, and mother) to testify. What could they possibly add that would benefit the second degree murder charge? The biggest challenge the prosecution faces is establishing that Zimmerman meant "ill will" toward Martin (a general "ill will" that doesn't require prior knowledge of Martin).

This case is anything but straight forward and we've only seen a fraction of the evidence that will be presented.


On the one hand, the Grayston Garcia case was an egregious miscarriage of justice and an example of everything that is wrong with SYG hearings. On the other hand, nobody was holding candlelight vigils in Manhattan over Garcia's victim, and civil rights leaders from the 60's weren't flying down to Florida to hold rallies and meeting with Garcia's victim's families, and the NBP hadn't put out a hit on Garcia either.

You're right, the burden of proof at a SYG hearing is low, but it is on the defense, not the prosecution. I still think it was a tactical move to send it to the courts rather than rely on the verdict of a single judge under and intense amount of national pressure to send it to trial. I think it was going to trial anyway, and I think the defense thought that as well, which is why they passed up the hearing.

Do you have a cite on that lead investigator resigning? Because, according to what I read, the police declined to prosecute because of lack of evidence, and the first lead investigator voluntarily took a position as a patrol cop because he didn't agree with Zimmerman's prosecution for 2nd degree murder (he felt manslaughter was justified) and felt pressured to bring charges

In any event, I'm off to run errands and do the things I need to do this evening. it's been nice having a rational discussion about this case with someone.

I'll check back later to see if there are any more takers on my little wager.
 
2013-06-03 07:09:50 PM  

Lsherm: I fully expect that no matter what the verdict is, the people who are pissed off about it will undeniably be angry because of their own misunderstanding of the law.

Seriously, farkers are making absolute statements that simply aren't supported by the law.


This is why I would love to see it end in a hung jury, the prosecutor recharge, and the whole thing drag on unsatisfactorily forever. The rage and poo-flinging will be a delight to my soul to behold. And in the larger scheme of things, of course, the outcome of the case doesn't mean shiat.
 
2013-06-03 07:10:13 PM  

Triple Oak: 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 can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.


Right...defense using "white superiority" defense for defendant who is half Hispanic and one quarter black

The Thugvon supporters are like broke frat boys...you have no case
 
2013-06-03 07:16:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, did we ever find out what "suspicious" activity Trayvon was doing that night? Zimmerman said that he was being "suspicious", did he give out any specifics? Was Trayvon prowling through yards, casing houses? Was he examining the windows on the houses? Stopping every few steps to stand and stare at each house?

Based on Zimmerman's angry call to the 911 operator, with choice words as "these assholes always get away", he'd already deemed Trayvon guilty of being part of some break-ins that had occurred previously.


Exactly this. Zimmerman's a wannabe cop. His only redeeming trait is that he isn't actually the racist NBC made him out to be. It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him. Martin was defending himself. If this had gone the other way, Martin would be the one on trial and the same defense would be used.

On the other hand, Murder 2 is a bit of a stretch. Unless the prosecution has credible evidence that contradicts the self-defense plea (good luck with that) there's no chance he'll be found guilty. However, the very fact that the defense is trying to paint the victim as a violent thug suggests that such evidence exists.
 
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