If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   George Zimmerman's legal team has been digging up some less-than-flattering background information about Trayvon Martin-but one story that made the rounds Friday, turns out not to be true   (newser.com) divider line 589
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

16764 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-03 07:16:35 PM

jso2897: 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.


I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.
 
2013-06-03 07:18:06 PM

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 payers money because one less thug will be in the prison system.

So baseless ...

Forget it, hes probably some stormfronter who is just glad to see another dead black youth.  No reason to debate him further.

Yep you are right. Lets face it if trayvon was a white kid all these defenders of zimmerman would not have shiat to say on the matter.


If Trayvon had been white nobody would have ever heard of either of these guys

same thing if both had been black
 
2013-06-03 07:19:28 PM

Elegy: 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.


Here's a cite for the lead investigator comment. It's the first one that came up.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16011674&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google . com%2Fm%3Fq%3Dlead%2Bhomicide%2Binvestigator%2Bwanted%2Bto%2Bcharge%2B zimmerman
 
2013-06-03 07:19:38 PM

JWideman: It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him.


No, that's absolutely not true.  It is not legal to start a fight with someone because they are walking behind you.  Only if Zimmerman hit him first could he claim self-defense.
 
2013-06-03 07:21:30 PM

Lsherm: JWideman: It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him.

No, that's absolutely not true.  It is not legal to start a fight with someone because they are walking behind you.  Only if Zimmerman hit him first could he claim self-defense.


It looks like TM's knuckles are inconclusive so we'll likely hear about them being both offensive and defensive wounds.
 
2013-06-03 07:23:01 PM
I love how so many here are fully understanding of the thought processes of both of the parties in this incident.
 
2013-06-03 07:26:50 PM

Lsherm: jso2897: 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.

I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.


Pussy. That would only piss off half the people that a hung jury would. We need to get the maximum number of opinionated idiots who think they know what happened here poutraged and ranting.
Convict or acquit, and it's over. Booooooring.
Let's face it - nobody cares what happens to this ugly, stupid, fat little asshole - and the other asshole involved is dead - so who really gives a shiat?
I'm just in it for the entertainment value.
 
2013-06-03 07:29:26 PM

Lsherm: JWideman: It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him.

No, that's absolutely not true.  It is not legal to start a fight with someone because they are walking behind you.  Only if Zimmerman hit him first could he claim self-defense.


Just walking behind you, sure. Obviously stalking you, however, is a different story. They are initiating the conflict. If, in the course of kicking their ass, they pull out a gun and you wrestle it away from them and they end up dead, I can't see how that would not be self-defense.
And of course there's Florida's SYG, which pretty much makes it legal to kill people if you feel threatened by them.
 
2013-06-03 07:30:32 PM

Lsherm: JWideman: It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him.

No, that's absolutely not true.  It is not legal to start a fight with someone because they are walking behind you.  Only if Zimmerman hit him first could he claim self-defense.


This is the insane part to me, the amount of people that think you have a right to physically assault someone because they are following you or say something you dont like or ask a question you dont like, you do have the right to ignore them keep walking and call the police, if you feel threatened, or just to have them come check it out.
 
2013-06-03 07:30:43 PM

Mr. Eugenides: I love how so many here are fully understanding of the thought processes of both of the parties in this incident.


My wife and I call this Charles Manson Syndrome (could make a good band name).  It's as if some here are inside one or the other parties heads, sometimes both.  Lots of fabrication going on, that's for sure.
 
2013-06-03 07:31:39 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The trial starts in a couple weeks, right? Fark is going to be fun for the next few months.


Fun if you are ready to laugh at the utter stupidity regurgitated from every Trayvon Apologist. The derp from those folks will blow out Fark servers

I just want to see the Trademark supporters looks when their hero prosecutor looks like Tobias Funke and Nancy Grace is a Trademark supporter
 
2013-06-03 07:33:55 PM

ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth


We've always been at war with Eastasia
 
2013-06-03 07:34:36 PM

jso2897: Lsherm: jso2897: 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.

I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.

Pussy. That would only piss off half the people that a hung jury would. We need to get the maximum number of opinionated idiots who think they know what happened here poutraged and ranting.
Convict or acquit, and it's over. Booooooring.
Let's face it - nobody cares what happens to this ugly, stupid, fat little asshole - and the other asshole involved is dead - so who really gives a shiat?
I'm just in it for the entertainment value.


A hung jury wouldn't result in a riot, it would just piss people off.  That's not very entertaining.
 
2013-06-03 07:36:04 PM

jso2897: Lsherm: jso2897: 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.

I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.

Pussy. That would only piss off half the people that a hung jury would. We need to get the maximum number of opinionated idiots who think they know what happened here poutraged and ranting.
Convict or acquit, and it's over. Booooooring.
Let's face it - nobody cares what happens to this ugly, stupid, fat little asshole - and the other asshole involved is dead - so who really gives a shiat?
I'm just in it for the entertainment value.


Which I may add has been of very high value thus far.
 
2013-06-03 07:43:14 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: jso2897: Lsherm: jso2897: 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.

I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.

Pussy. That would only piss off half the people that a hung jury would. We need to get the maximum number of opinionated idiots who think they know what happened here poutraged and ranting.
Convict or acquit, and it's over. Booooooring.
Let's face it - nobody cares what happens to this ugly, stupid, fat little asshole - and the other asshole involved is dead - so who really gives a shiat?
I'm just in it for the entertainment value.

Which I may add has been of very high value thus far.


They said on the news last night he still as the right to invoke the immunity hearing in case of a hung jury , so you may still get fireworks
 
2013-06-03 07:52:20 PM

Lsherm: jso2897: Lsherm: jso2897: 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.

I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.

Pussy. That would only piss off half the people that a hung jury would. We need to get the maximum number of opinionated idiots who think they know what happened here poutraged and ranting.
Convict or acquit, and it's over. Booooooring.
Let's face it - nobody cares what happens to this ugly, stupid, fat little asshole - and the other asshole involved is dead - so who really gives a shiat?
I'm just in it for the entertainment value.

A hung jury wouldn't result in a riot, it would just piss people off.  That's not very entertaining.


Yeah, but I'm not feelin' the "riot" thing, this time around. Maybe a few loud demonstrations - but i think that the Internet may have destroyed to Good Old American Riot as an institution. We haven't had a decent one in L.A. for twenty years. These kids with their I-phones and their Bookface and Twatter and stuff don't have the enterprise or drive to have a proper riot. They just snivel on the Internet - in 140 characters or less.
Lazy little bastards.
And jive-ass cosplayers like the New Black Panthers are a joke, if you want any real trouble. They're too busy trying to figure out how to pay off their student loans.
It's a sad, boring world for an old sixties radical, my friend.
 
2013-06-03 07:55:58 PM

Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?


If the choice is solely between murder and acquittal, then he'll probably walk.

Just because he walks on murder charges doesn't mean he gets away with it. The civil case will not go well against him.
 
2013-06-03 08:01:11 PM

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

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

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


Racist
 
2013-06-03 08:02:30 PM

nekom: Sultan Of Herf:

For concealed carry folks, this is a lesson in what not to do. You dont grab your gun and follow people. Especially after the police dispatcher tells you officers are on the way. Stay the hell in your house, car, etc.

For the little brat teens, the thug types, etc...be careful who you "step up" to, they might be carrying a gun, and it might end badly for you.

Couldn't agree more.  Both Zimmerman and Martin made what I consider to be errors in judgment.  I am among the ranks of American gun owners, and I pray that if I ever need to grab my 12 gauge the mere sight of it will be enough to diffuse the situation.  I'd hate to have to kill somebody and would take every opportunity to retreat (not going to kill somebody over my stuff, only my family), AND afford them every opportunity.  I know these things happen in an instant and Zimmerman didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we all do at that time, but I'd like to think that if I were in that situation, I'd have displayed the firearm and yelled something to the effect of "Get off of me or you're dead!" and give him a chance to flee.

And of course the flip side, don't go attacking people (if that's indeed what happened) who follow you, because you never know who has a gun or what sort of a person they are.  Definitely a couple of teachable moments.


If you follow someone be prepared to be attacked
 
2013-06-03 08:07:36 PM

WillofJ2: Lsherm: JWideman: It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him.

No, that's absolutely not true.  It is not legal to start a fight with someone because they are walking behind you.  Only if Zimmerman hit him first could he claim self-defense.

This is the insane part to me, the amount of people that think you have a right to physically assault someone because they are following you or say something you dont like or ask a question you dont like, you do have the right to ignore them keep walking and call the police, if you feel threatened, or just to have them come check it out.


Zimmerman was armed. The prosecution could argue that Martin felt that his life was threatened and his attack on Zimmerman was "Standing his ground."
 
2013-06-03 08:13:49 PM

Tatsuma: 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.


You think you're going to get a restraining order against someone that is just quietly following you on public property who has never offered you any threat of physical violence or harm? Did you go to the Skinnyhead school of law? That's absolutely farking stupid.
 
2013-06-03 08:14:54 PM

ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth


You just described all religions, ever.
 
2013-06-03 08:19:57 PM

soporific: WillofJ2: Lsherm: JWideman: It doesn't matter if Martin attacked him first, because he initiated the conflict by pursuing him.

No, that's absolutely not true.  It is not legal to start a fight with someone because they are walking behind you.  Only if Zimmerman hit him first could he claim self-defense.

This is the insane part to me, the amount of people that think you have a right to physically assault someone because they are following you or say something you dont like or ask a question you dont like, you do have the right to ignore them keep walking and call the police, if you feel threatened, or just to have them come check it out.

Zimmerman was armed. The prosecution could argue that Martin felt that his life was threatened and his attack on Zimmerman was "Standing his ground."


for that wouldnt they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Martin knew he was armed?  I honestly dont know how that works with evidence
 
2013-06-03 08:20:05 PM

Bender The Offender: You think you're going to get a restraining order against someone that is just quietly following you on public property who has never offered you any threat of physical violence or harm?


Stalking is absolutely a good reason enough to have a restraining order signed against someone.
 
2013-06-03 08:26:20 PM

Tatsuma: Bender The Offender: You think you're going to get a restraining order against someone that is just quietly following you on public property who has never offered you any threat of physical violence or harm?

Stalking is absolutely a good reason enough to have a restraining order signed against someone.


http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/ st alking-laws/criminal-stalking-laws-by-state/florida  Dont think it fits the definition for the term "Stalking"
 
2013-06-03 08:28:42 PM

Tatsuma: Bender The Offender: You think you're going to get a restraining order against someone that is just quietly following you on public property who has never offered you any threat of physical violence or harm?

Stalking is absolutely a good reason enough to have a restraining order signed against someone.


Oh lord, you don't know what the word "stalking" means. Protip, "stalking", as defined by the courts, isn't someone just following you around.
 
2013-06-03 08:36:02 PM
The tricky part will be proving George Zimmerman knew about any of it before he shot an unarmed teen.
 
2013-06-03 08:49:04 PM

TheYeti: 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!?!?!"


Adding (more) alcohol to these conversations would be just... amazing.

/Also, someone should be selling popcorn, pls.
 
2013-06-03 09:06:24 PM

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

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

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

The problem is that Zimmerman instigated it. He notified the authorities. The dispatcher told him to remain in the car. That ended his duty as a self proclaimed neighborhood watch. He decided to peruse a kid who had every right to be there.

If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

At the very least, he should face involuntary manslaughter for ending a fight he instigated.


He was never told to stay in the car.

He was not, by the evidence, "chasing" or "persuing", merely following.  There is a difference that your side, from the beginning, has tried to establish as "truth" is not recorded.

It could have been X or Z.  You justify your outrage at a dead youth by pretending Z is not possible, and X happened(as if there is evidence to prove it).  The truth is, the evidence as we know it does not necessitate either.  If it were so, your side would have a swift prosecution victory.  If it were clear self defense, it would have been a swift defense victory.

Neither is the case.  It is humorous that even after this long people like you prove your prejudice post after post.  You "know"(rather: BelieveTM) that your version of events is "truth"(rather: Gospel).

What's funny, is that you're so irrational and simply cannot see it.  Typical lynch mob mentality, even after you've repeatedly been shown reason when apart from the crowd.(unless this is your first exposure to the case and these threads, unlikely as that is).

That is the clinical definition of insanity.  To be shown reason and deny it, to instead feed your emotions and warped perception of reality.  Here's a newsflash, repetition of the lie does not necessitate it's existence as a truth.

----

Here is the case as it actually does stand, the two possibilities:

Self defense on Zimmerman's part follows a rational story, and is possible, regardless of your opinion(which is borderline religion):
He followed the suspect, to re-establish visual contact after he has lost it. He came around the corner after and was confronted by TM(who should have been much farther along unless he stopped with purpose).  A tussle ensued where the only damage was to Zimmerman's head and Martin's knuckles.  Zimm was in a position where he was pinned down and getting beat(as the real evidence does match), feared for his life, and employed deadly self defense with a fire-arm he was legally carrying.

The other possible scenerio
Zimmerman sprinted after Martin, screaming racial obscenities and donning a white hood, took only a moment to carve and erect a burning cross from the saplings he had available, and of course, we cannot forget how he had to locate a coat hanger with which to pull Treyvon from his mothers womb before punting him around the courtyard and then shooting him eight hundred and forty-three times.  A baby died and someone must hang for this trajedy!

Now, of course I'm making that up.  The funny thing is that I'm only enhancing what we know by a coonthair more than you were with the second scenario. Both of which are making many more assumptions and leaps in logic than the story of the defense.

Was the fear in that moment, when Zimm was on the ground and under TM, was there a legitimate fear of imminent severe harm or death?

You think he should just take a beating like that "like a man" ?
You have a thing against gun rights and jump on any case to make them look bad?

Whatever your motivation is, it's clear that you have one, you need some motivation to stick to the crazy like you do.

I can't blame the defense for grasping at straws.  They're trying to save a man who, within all realms of legitimate reasoning,  may well have been within his rights, as it seems public opinion has altered how the case is progressing.  Too much emotional outrage willing to lock someone, anyone, away for closure, regardless of that troublesome "beyond a shadow of a doubt".  Too much fear of riots or some other ignorant societal rebellion.

Too much akin to locking up anyone without convincing proof.  Allegation of rape?  Good enough, cut his balls off.  Nevermind that she was seen with her hands in his pants all night, bragging about how she was going to bag him, led him into the broom closet herself while already hiking her dress up and pulling his belt out of it's loops, and then bowed like a performer when she came out of the closet after a few minutes..............
............She said so afterwards, when she sobered up, that it was rape, so, get the rubber bands and the scissors, we'll make it quick and dirty, he doesn't deserve anything better.

White (guilt)Knights of the internet, unite!

Yeah, get a rope indeed.  Tragedy happened, someone must pay!  Someone is always at fault.  Earthquake?  Yeah, it musta been the tits, now that you mention it.  Nothing else explains it!And with my IQ being barely over my shoe size, I should know what all possibilities are.  If I cannot conceive of it, it cannot exist, period.

This is how ridiculous you people sound every time you spout your nonsense.  Sometimes I think it's a wonder you have made it through life without spending copious amounts of time in a straight jacket.

And then I remember how religious the majority of humanity tends to be, and realize that i've conveniently forgotten how naively ignorant man desires to keep himself, to maintain that idyllic bliss that he has things figured out so that he can feel superior to every one he chooses at whim.

So, in a way, even I find myself pretending reality is not what it is.  It's a human frailty, but there are some of us who manage to keep it under control and don't let it run/ruin our lives and/or the lives of others.  We are capable of feeling that kind of responsibility and wanting to avoid such situations.  The sociopaths in hiding, such as yourself, apparently do not have such restrictions.
 
2013-06-03 09:11:46 PM

Surool: The tricky part will be proving George Zimmerman knew about any of it before he shot an unarmed teen.


I'm not sure Zimmerman has to prove he knew anything...unless I'm missing something, all the defense has to do is prove he was injured in a manner consistent with someone straddling him and hitting him...which those photos do.  Zimmerman doesn't even have to take the stand.

That triggers self-defense, and that makes shooting Martin legal.   (maybe not ethical, not happy-feel-good, but legal)

The prosecution has a MUCH harder case, seems to me...they've got to get inside Zimmerman's head, and show malice, or something, to overcome the above physical evidence.  Z following M around isn't enough to do that, unless they've got a witness that can show Z instigating the fight.  The facts that M was unarmed, and a teenager, also aren't enough to overcome the physical evidence I've seen so far.
 
2013-06-03 09:14:29 PM
regardless of any of this,i believe the case is simply this,two punks walk into thunderdome,on punk leaves. simple as that. age and race have nothing to do with this. just two hotheads getting into a fight,both thinking justified,and one got the upper hand. nothing here that even justifies charges. self defense all the way.
 
2013-06-03 09:19:17 PM
everyone seems to be missing the point here which is...

as evidenced by this case, brown people on brown people violence is out of control.
 
2013-06-03 09:22:48 PM

Elegy: nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

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

Unquestionably he should under law. The physical evidence says that he never laid a hand on Martin, while getting the crap beat out of him. He has witnesses who side with him and support his story that he was the one on the ground screaming for help.

I certainly don't celebrate Martin's death - at all - but the case is a good illustration of why florida law works the way it does, regardless of who started the fight. The implicit assumption in Florida law concerning the use of deadly force is that one party can end the fight at any time, and if it doesn't stop, the use of deadly force is justified.

It took two idiots to get into the situation, but the ultimate fatal decision was when Zimmerman was on the ground and screaming for help and Martin continued the beating rather than stop. That's what gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot and kill him. I regret that Martin was killed, but I agree with the way the law works.

/sorry for the lecture
//I still want to bet with someone on the outcome.


So if martin had chosen to shoot him when he felt threatened instead of beating zimmerman up, he would be free and clear, right? Does the florida law allow deadly force only in the form of a firearm? What about fists? Do we know if zimmerman might have flashed the gun beforehand and maybe martin thought subduing zimmerman was his best chance at survival? This is why a stand your ground law is problematic in my eyes. You can easily argue that it applies to zimmerman. You could also easily argue that it could have applied to martin. That being the case, you punish the guy who instigated the whole thing.
 
2013-06-03 09:54:18 PM

Latinwolf: You mean like the lack of bruises on his back because you know if you fall on your back on a hard ground there would be some bruising. Also if he shot Martin while the guy was on top of him, you'd expect some blood to fall on him since he was so close, was there any of Martins blood on him?


don't know. It was a discussion about how our legal system works. The defense doesn't have to prove its story, it just has to sow reasonable doubt in the prosecution's.
 
2013-06-03 10:18:56 PM

jso2897: Lsherm: jso2897: Lsherm: jso2897: 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.

I'm hoping for a not guilty.  We haven't had a good race riot in a while.

Pussy. That would only piss off half the people that a hung jury would. We need to get the maximum number of opinionated idiots who think they know what happened here poutraged and ranting.
Convict or acquit, and it's over. Booooooring.
Let's face it - nobody cares what happens to this ugly, stupid, fat little asshole - and the other asshole involved is dead - so who really gives a shiat?
I'm just in it for the entertainment value.

A hung jury wouldn't result in a riot, it would just piss people off.  That's not very entertaining.

Yeah, but I'm not feelin' the "riot" thing, this time around. Maybe a few loud demonstrations - but i think that the Internet may have destroyed to Good Old American Riot as an institution. We haven't had a decent one in L.A. for twenty years. These kids with their I-phones and their Bookface and Twatter and stuff don't have the enterprise or drive to have a proper riot. They just snivel on the Internet - in 140 characters or less.
Lazy little bastards.
And jive-ass cosplayers like the New Black Panthers are a joke, if you want any real trouble. They're too busy trying to figure out how to pay off their student loans.
It's a sad, boring world for an old sixties radical, my friend.


I encourage a riot. The goverment should feel the anger of the people every time they fark up.
 
2013-06-03 10:20:07 PM

CliChe Guevara: 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.



No, I just pointed out that your phrase "ran him down" is unsupported by the evidence.  That means that you implied things that are untrue, or at least unproven.

In case you were wondering, my phrase "unsupported by the evidence" means that you have poor-to-non-existent reasoning skills.
 
2013-06-03 10:35:36 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Rapmaster2000

Mestizos are of mixed races.

[themoreyouknow.jpg]


I never heard of mestizos.  Therefore they don't exist.  Suck it, libbo.
 
2013-06-03 10:37:08 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.



It was the State that mandated separate water fountains.  It was the State that mandated the rules about seats on buses.  That was your precious, benevolent State, doing what it always does -- intervening.  The bus companies were the ones who objected to the intervention, and wanted to be left alone, to exercise their right to free association.  They wanted to stop being forced to racially discriminate against their customers.  They were the ones asking for a reduction in the level of State intervention in their businesses, so they could be left alone to serve people without racial restrictions.  Restaurants and hotels, too.  Those rules requiring discrimination were imposed on them, by the STATE.

There was never a time in US history when the State wasn't "intervening," and instead merely allowed people to exercise their human right of free association.  It hasn't really happened yet, much less for the multi-generational time frame that's necessary for cultural values to change.  The scumbags of the world have, like you, been addicted to State power for the whole of this country's history.

A fat lot of good it's done you.
 
rpl
2013-06-03 10:53:10 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.


Actually, it's just "Thou shalt not murder", in both Exodus and Deuteronomy. Killing in battle or to defend yourself/your kin didn't count as murder, Neither did executing sinners (which was done by the authorities anyway). Randomly murdering non-Hebrews was a no-no as well, according to the crazy-book. Sorry to disappoint.
 
2013-06-03 11:09:42 PM
Maybe Florida prosecutors have finally found the one defense team stupid enough that they can beat in court.
 
2013-06-03 11:10:08 PM

Cataholic: Paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are chasing after you isn't enough.


On the other hand, paranoid delusions of what someone might do to you because they are breaking into your home IS enough, according to typical castle doctrine formulations.

Actually, I think I'd personally feel more threatened by the stranger following me around at night than the one sneaking into my living room.  The latter is most likely just there because he wants to steal my stuff; I have no idea what the former's intentions are.
 
2013-06-03 11:20:54 PM

NightOwl2255: 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.


Why are we writing Zimmerman/Martin fanfic now?

There are multiple accounts of what happened, and they will be evaluated as part of the murder trial.  The events you described are not supported by any of the accounts.
 
2013-06-03 11:50:16 PM

Tatsuma: Sure, why not? If I get bored, I'll just get a restraining order.


But this would be you admitting that you'd be threatened.  Restraining orders (peace orders in Canada and the Empire) are easy to get, but they have to put down at least one reason why you want one.

Following people makes them feel threatened.  Trayvon Martin obviously felt threatened by the threatening and erratic behavior of the pretend-cop.
 
2013-06-03 11:50:52 PM

poot_rootbeer: NightOwl2255: 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.

Why are we writing Zimmerman/Martin fanfic now?

There are multiple accounts of what happened, and they will be evaluated as part of the murder trial.  The events you described are not supported by any of the accounts.


Watch headline news after dark, did that tonight wow these people are now protected by the anonymity of the internet and they are saying some really wild things
 
2013-06-04 12:12:51 AM
If I ever see Zimmerman on the street, I'll feel threatened.

Anyone would.
 
2013-06-04 12:14:34 AM

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

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

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


What's your view on responding with violence if an entire ethnic group moves into your homeland at the behest of foreign powers and then proceeds to force you into second class citizenship?

/don't worry, it wasn't really a question but a sardonic comment, feel free to press your 'ANTI SEMITE' button as always for that warm glow of moral rectitude
 
2013-06-04 12:21:28 AM

ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth


Kinda like you want to believe this report even though it is simply a denial?
 
2013-06-04 12:23:53 AM
So the only evidence that Martin 'attacked' Zimmerman first is Zimmerman's word?

I find it odd that conservative people assume Zimmerman's injuries 'prove' Martin initiated the combat.

They don't, they just prove that Martin was a more capable physical combatant.

Something tells me that if a do-rag wearing negro followed a white or hispanic man around and then the two had an unwitnessed altercation that saw the negro pull a hidden gun and pop a cap, then this conversation would take a very different turn.

Also, racists - you CAN mention black crime statistics directly. It doesn't make you any less racist, so feel free to discuss the 'elephant in the room' that *explains* why it is to be expected that Zimmerman chose to follow Martin.

Yes, a young black male is statistically more likely to be possibly involved in a crime based on certain environmental factors. This isn't something that people should be tiptoeing around.

It doesn't justify what Zimmerman did in the slightest, however.
 
2013-06-04 12:24:40 AM
For all the theories and posturing on here there is one, and only one thing that is important in this case:  Was Martin on top of Zim, beating him and smashing his head into the concrete?  If the answer is yes, case closed.  If the answer is no, things get muddier, but it's still a tough road to hoe for the prosecution.

Zim could have started the fight.  Zim could have been using the N word liberally.  Zim could be a card carrying member of the KKK and none of that matters.  It doesn't matter who started the fight.  It doesn't matter that Martin was unarmed.  All that matters is if Zim had a legitimate reason to be in fear for his life.  Everything else is irrelevant.

The evidence is spotty (from what we know), and everything (once again that we know) tends to back up Zim's story.  Even coached interviews from Martin's girlfriend tend to back up what Zim stated.  The fact is we will never KNOW for sure what happened, but though he made a Jim Tressel-esque series of poor judgements, Zim did nothing illegal that night (that we know of).  It will be nearly impossible for the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Please stop referring to Martin as a kid.  He was 17.  Kid implies a child.  Though not legally an adult, he was damn close.  Much like referring to college athletes as kids, if they are old enough to (often) get charged as adults, they should not be lumped in with 12 year olds (even if the press does trot out pictures of them from when they were 12).
 
2013-06-04 12:25:48 AM

rga184: Elegy: nekom: Elegy: Zimmerman is going to walk. Anyone want to wager?

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

Unquestionably he should under law. The physical evidence says that he never laid a hand on Martin, while getting the crap beat out of him. He has witnesses who side with him and support his story that he was the one on the ground screaming for help.

I certainly don't celebrate Martin's death - at all - but the case is a good illustration of why florida law works the way it does, regardless of who started the fight. The implicit assumption in Florida law concerning the use of deadly force is that one party can end the fight at any time, and if it doesn't stop, the use of deadly force is justified.

It took two idiots to get into the situation, but the ultimate fatal decision was when Zimmerman was on the ground and screaming for help and Martin continued the beating rather than stop. That's what gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot and kill him. I regret that Martin was killed, but I agree with the way the law works.

/sorry for the lecture
//I still want to bet with someone on the outcome.

So if martin had chosen to shoot him when he felt threatened instead of beating zimmerman up, he would be free and clear, right? Does the florida law allow deadly force only in the form of a firearm? What about fists? Do we know if zimmerman might have flashed the gun beforehand and maybe martin thought subduing zimmerman was his best chance at survival? This is why a stand your ground law is problematic in my eyes. You can easily argue that it applies to zimmerman. You could also easily argue that it could have applied to martin. That being the case, you punish the guy who instigated the whole thing.


Not quite.  Self defense requires imminent threat that would inspire logical fear.

Guy following you?  No, reasonable people don't fear for their life or loss of limb in such a state or people would never venture into public.
Verbal instigation and gun flashing?  Maybe.  This would be the one time where I'd say the stand your ground law shouldn't work.
[FYI  "Other" states say an attempt to flee must be made before you employ deadly force, that is how SYG differs]

Pinned down with someone on your chest punching your face?  Yeah, that will trigger "normal" severe measures to attempt survival.
[FYI SYG has gotten passed, because in circumstances like these, you may not even be able to attempt to flee and the only course available for your survival is drastic but final.]

The problem lies in that the name "stand your ground" is misleading and people take it literally without really looking at what the law entails. It's more a revocation of the duty to retreat, than the way some people make it sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

The problem is that you have multiple people trying to make a single and vague codified law when you really can never apply it to all circumstances, and trying to fix something bent, but do so as if it was broken entirely.

As several of the wiser people have mentioned previously, it all comes down to if Zimm's fear, at that moment, was legitimate.  Or...it should.  Not a strong case for the prosecution though, so they've gone about other avenues, and it's a stupid tit for tat battle digging up the history for both people, etc.  My angel couldn't have, VS He wasn't an angel....   and so on.

The people, and the courts, have forgotten what the trial is about, which is the actual evidence.  People have gotten away with self defense under much worse situations.  They shouldn't be trying to make an example out of the abuse of the law in a case where the defendant only has defensive wounds and the alleged aggressor is the one with offensive wounds.  Our justice system has already failed, and in this case it stands a chance to fail further, despite the actual evidence available.

The whole point of innocent until proven guilty is now, apparently, not applicable. Social outrage, partly over race, partly lies from the media that took root very early on, etc.  The state let these things get between what our justice system is supposed to do and placating the populace, which was never the intent of the justice system. Or rather ironically, it's keeping the people in line, but in a way it was not supposed to do previously, and in such a way as to make a mockery out of protecting the innocent from mob "justice".

If people take issue with the law, they should go after those cases where evidence doesn't support self defense, or god-forbid, the law itself.  No, we, as a people, need to take it up in a case that should have been much more open and shut due precisely to the evidence.  We HAVE to make race an issue, we have to make it an argument about how guns are bad, etc.

Yeah it's tragic.  Kids the world over are stupid, though, and occasionally pay the price for thinking they can beat people up.  Sorry we can't all magically be more prone to fisticuffs and just hand his ass to him and call it a day.  This is why it's illegal to hit people in the first place, shiat gets out of hand in a hurry and without meaning to, one can do some serious damage, even with fists alone.  It's actually fairly easy to kill someone with his own nose bone, or crush his throat, meaning it doesn't take a lot of force(not tough guy bragging here, just sayin').

There is no real honor in a good fist fight anymore.  Those days are gone, good as they may have been for the people at the time. And they were, some of my dads best friends came from people he'd gotten into fights with, and others were run out of town who were "dirty" and such, the tough guys only fought the tough guys, etc.  Skinny poindexter may have been laughed at but he was never attacked unless he got way out of line. Of course, that's all regional as well as 40+years ago.

People can and do kick you when you're down(or sit on your chest and pummel your face). The tough will pick on the weak.(That picking on the also tough is just too dangerous!) TM was a giant compared to ZM was he not?
People have a right to defend themselves, imo.  Be it a gun or a karate lesson.   Now picking on even the weak is dangerous, and people should maybe just gee, maybe not do it anymore....  It being illegal obviously didn't stop it, it took fear of death to slow it down for society, and in this case, the kid took the gamble and lost.

If a "kid" has to die because he thinks he's "tough" and likes to throw punches at strangers he meets at night who are shorter than him, serves him right, and it can serve as a lesson to others.  Being a tough thug can earn you respect, sure, with like minded mouth breathers, but it can also get a bullet implanted violently into your midsection.

Yeah, maybe it's a shame we have to be afraid of other people.  But we're not afraid for no reason.  People are violent farkwhits.  You'll never get rid of that until we perfect genetic manipulation and psychology, and in that case, we probably shouldn't go around lobotimizing people or further infringing on their rights as individuals.

That being the case, shiat like this is going to happen.  We can mourn here, it was tragic, but why seek vengeance?  Why not save the emotion and work towards bettering the community or society at large.  Protest the laws, get better lighting, etc.  Something constructive.

Look at the people in this thread, froth dripping from mouth to keyboard as they willfully miscontsrue what we know as fact, or fill in the blanks with lies as if it were established fact.  It's the destructive tendencies, just as they demonstrate them, that are part of the problem and not part of the solution.  Pure vitriol and bile that serve no purpose.

I would like a better justice system to function as this one was intended, seperate the criminals from society, reform if possible, and to defend the innocent.  They want a body, sometimes any body will do, swinging at the end of the rope.

If anything is going to change my opinion, it would be one tantalizing possibility, these mouth-breathing hate-spewing dickwads swaying in that rope.  Because until that happens, they're a roadblock to that rational society and responsible government.
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report