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 169
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

16762 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-03 11:58:28 AM
20 votes:
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.
2013-06-03 12:23:06 PM
10 votes:

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


Just like raping a slutty girl.

Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter.  If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case.  What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude.  But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past.  It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.
2013-06-03 11:31:33 AM
8 votes:
They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth
2013-06-03 01:53:50 PM
5 votes:
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.  It reminds me of the Naked Gun joke when he was being awarded for killing his 100th drug dealer and he said "in all fairness the last two I happened to run over with my car, we realized he was a drug dealer after the fact."
2013-06-03 01:07:01 PM
5 votes:

Tatsuma: I_C_Weener: This how I see it. If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine. But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.

Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.


The thing is to be used as evidence in court it has to have context. For example the judge ruled that the pictures and text from Trayvon's cellphone can be used if the defense can show them in some type of context relative to the case. They can't, so they aren't admissible. On the other hand Zimmerman's arrest record can be used because it is a court record documenting his behavior. Now if they had a juvenile record for Trayvon it would be admissible, but their is none. That is why the defense is releasing these pictures to the press and intentionally misrepresented the video. They know they aren't going to get it in at trial and are trying to influence the jury pool.
2013-06-03 01:00:09 PM
5 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 12:40:00 PM
5 votes:
Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?
2013-06-03 12:30:51 PM
5 votes:

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

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

ginandbacon: Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?

You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.


The anti-Zimmerman crowd? Pretty sure you mean the let's not murder teenagers for walking at night wearing a hoodie crowd
2013-06-03 12:29:24 PM
5 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 12:08:31 PM
5 votes:

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.


Oh you and your crazy rational discourse!
2013-06-03 02:03:22 PM
4 votes:
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.
2013-06-03 01:59:50 PM
4 votes:

Tatsuma: mattharvest: Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect). If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.

This is a case of whether this was self-defense or not. It's absolutely relevant. That's why the judge is allowing them to present this as evidence.


(a) You're either not a lawyer, or a terrible one.  In no jurisdiction is a victim's past behavior admissible to prove a particular instance of self-defense unless it establishes habit/modus operandi.
(b) Here, the judge is doing the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.  He excluded it unless the defense team can get the State to open the door as well as clearing some other authentication issues.  They're specifically barred from referencing it at all in opening.

Since you were wrong about EVERYTHING in this post, you might want to reconsider your views here.
2013-06-03 12:33:06 PM
4 votes:

Tatsuma: So it was not in any way the fault of Zimmerman, or his defense team. Now watch how many people blame them for this.


In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.
But in Sunday's statement, O'Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

So in court they "mistakenly" describe a video that they have in their possession as Trayvon video taping his friends beating up a homeless man, and it is not their fault? And they wait until Sunday to make release a correction to that statement they made in court on the previous Tuesday regarding a video they had for weeks?

You got to be either naive, dumb, or just plain intellectually dishonest to say that you don't believe that the defense intentionally made a false statement regarding the video in court because they knew it would hit the media like wildfire.
2013-06-03 12:32:24 PM
4 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 12:31:19 PM
4 votes:

Tatsuma: but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation.


Most of the stuff I have seen that the defense wants to introduce has more prejudicial value than probative value on that issue.  Seems like it's mostly a bunch Facebook photos and whatnot.  Granted, I'm not following this all that closely, but a Facebook photo of a gun or a pot plant or a text message conversation about purple drank is not meant to be probative.  It is meant to prejudice the decision-maker.
2013-06-03 12:31:08 PM
4 votes:

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

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


Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect).  If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.

If they wanted the separate self-defense hearing, they should have taken it; they didn't because they knew they'd give up ANY chance of putting this nonsense in front of a jury.  Now, they're trying to make the prosecution look good by showing a lack of solid understanding of the law.
2013-06-03 11:58:04 AM
4 votes:
you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?
2013-06-03 04:57:57 PM
3 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Zimmerman had had a shiny badge and a government salary, these same Statists wouldn't blink twice about this case.
2013-06-03 03:09:44 PM
3 votes:

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Lets face it if trayvon was a white kid all these defenders of zimmerman would not have shiat to say on the matter.


You are correct.  There wouldn't be shiat to say because if a clearly innocent black man had shot a white punk in an obvious case of self defense, he would not have been charged.  The story would not have made it past page 3 of the local paper.
2013-06-03 02:44:53 PM
3 votes:

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


Racial fear comes in different levels to white racists:
White =  "best race because it's what we are"
Indian = "Peaceniks who worship cows. No threat to white people. Safer than Native Americans."
Native American = "no real threat left, so we're not afraid anymore. Safer than Asians."
Asian = "Not dangerous unless they know chop-socky martial arts stuff. Safer than Jews"
Jew = "Usually looks white, but they killed Jesus. Using Hollywood, not violence. Still safer than Arabs."
Arab = "Scary terrorists. Safer than Latinos, though."
Latino = "Foreigners who take our jobs and commit lots of crimes, but they look kind of white so they're safer than Black people"
Black = "Few 'good ones' don't make up for the rest of them. More dangerous than any other race."

How you can't understand this is beyond me. Bigots and racists don't just lump all outsiders into one pile and hate them equally. They have different tiers of hate, and if someone from a higher tier does wrong to someone of a lower tier, the racists will no doubt side with the higher-tier person and temporarily give them a pass for being "one of the good ones" or at least "not as bad as that other group."

How can you live in the world and not know this?
2013-06-03 02:08:27 PM
3 votes:

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: vague advisory comment made by this one

How is "we don't need for you to do that" in any way a vague comment? What else could she have meant?

I believe it was a "he."

It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.

It was probably good advice.

Disregarding it, however, was neither illegal nor does it constitute aggression.  Zimmerman was allowed to do legal things, however unnecessary they were from the perspective of the 911 dispatcher.  The police had no authority to issue such an order, even if it had been explicit.

(Actually, I'm not sure it was 911.  It may have been the "non-emergency" number.  I don't know for certain.)

Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.

It's annoying, insulting, vexing, intrusive and irritating, but not illegal.


He didn't choose to ask him what he was doing. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out and he ran away. When somebody is running away from you, you don't chase them unless you want an altercation. Trayvon was trying to avoid a conflict, Zimmerman was trying to initiate one at that point.
2013-06-03 01:58:27 PM
3 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.


Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.
2013-06-03 12:44:08 PM
3 votes:

nekom: There are no winners here at all.


There are all kinds of winners here. Think about how many revenge fantasies have been vicariously fulfilled. You can practically see people in some of these threads playing the role of Zimmerman in their full-length Travis Bickle mirrors.
2013-06-03 12:14:13 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 12:10:06 PM
3 votes:

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


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

ginandbacon: Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?


You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.
2013-06-03 11:50:10 AM
3 votes:

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

The issue seems was over the sequence of events and how they misinterpreted the evidence. That's not a lie.

If it was then the farkers who supported Trayvon would be labeled liars because of their poor rationalization skills.


Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?
2013-06-04 12:24:40 AM
2 votes:
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).
2013-06-03 08:28:42 PM
2 votes:

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 06:44:37 PM
2 votes:

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 05:08:11 PM
2 votes:
Martin is walking home, Zimmerman follows Martin(even though he was told not to), Martin tries to break contact with Zimmerman.  Zimmerman chases Martin. A fight ensues.

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

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

I don't know how FL laws works but everywhere else I know of if I start and fight while carrying and end up using the gun, it cannot be self-defense.
2013-06-03 05:06:44 PM
2 votes:

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

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

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some


he did run, thought he lost him (as per Zimmerman and corroborated by the GF's deposition ) then stopped to call his girlfriend back when Zimmerman confronted him. What I think happened was Zimmerman had his gun out and was going to detain him for the cops but Trayvon punched him in the nose then proceeded to kick his ass. George instead of fighting back like a man shot him like the pussy he was.
2013-06-03 04:07:09 PM
2 votes:
Just can't wait till he is cleared, and he sues all kinds of people and corporations for brazillions.

Major media outlet doctoring 911 tapes on national TV to make George look bad is going to be worth a very large sum of money.

Still amazes me how stupid liberals are with their weird version of events and made up laws, to defend a gangsta who got killed. Not only do you ignore all evidence, you actually make up your own and really believe it. Crazy.
2013-06-03 03:55:02 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

You really are a psychopath, you know?


Why?  Because someone is using facts instead of emotional reasoning like you?  Or what he says makes you mad :(?  Facts are what stand up, not your emotions.
2013-06-03 03:22:06 PM
2 votes:

MFAWG: Profiling is actually part of the prosecutions case, so I'm betting I'm on solid ground here.


Yeah an African-American pastor coming out and saying he knows him and he was always nice and never showed any bigotry versus you thinking he's a bigot.

STrong farking case.
2013-06-03 03:16:35 PM
2 votes:

coco ebert: How does Zimmerman's racial background matter? People of color can be racist or bigoted against other people of color. Is this shocking or something?


By painting Zimmerman as white, they can pretend that what he was doing was racially motivated and another example of yet another racist white man scared of a black man.

They are desperate to turn this into a racial thing instead of a neighborhood watch versus teenager. They are almost Cartman like in their desire of this turning into race riots.
2013-06-03 03:10:07 PM
2 votes:

LrdPhoenix: It's more like if you stopped at McDonalds at night, went inside and started following an employee around, and then when they ran into the back to get away from you, you followed them back there too, and then when they tried to defend themselves against your obviously crazy self, you shot them dead.


Your analogy falls on multiple levels:

McDonalds is a private property, not a public one.
You are not allowed to go into the back where employees are.
You have no proofs that Zimmerman was 'acting crazy' nor attacked him
2013-06-03 03:08:57 PM
2 votes:

Antimatter: He had no reason, nor authority, to chase him down and confront him. You can't chase someone down, confront them, and then kill them when they fight back against you. That just doesn't make sense and is far too easy to abuse. When chased by an armed man late at night who runs you down when you try to flee is grounds for self defense, not anything of what GZ did.



As much as his behavior bothers you, it's not illegal.  The only authority he needed was the freedom we all have to do anything that's not illegal or threatening to others.

Following someone to ask him what he's doing is not illegal or imminently threatening.  GZ needed no special authority to do these things.

You should study the criminal law before you write posts about what the criminal law says.
2013-06-03 03:07:45 PM
2 votes:

OnlyM3: Racism is oh so funny when TotalFarkers do it.


There are some minorities where it's acceptable to make fun on Fark. You can for example make racist comments about Zimmerman, but he would be blowing up with rage if a guy was making a racist comment in a thread about republicans trying to kick illegals out of Arizona.
2013-06-03 03:01:24 PM
2 votes:

Tatsuma: Cupajo: All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles. When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?

He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin, nor was he told by the 911 operator to not draw his gun.

You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.


I have said it before - there is a reason Zim was not arrested the night of the incident - because there was no indication whatsoever that Zim had committed a crime.

Zim saw Martin acting suspiciously and called the cops.  He tried to keep him in sight and was flollowing to do when dispatch told him "you don't need to do that".  ZIm complied and was going back to his vehicle.  Zim was confronted by Martin and it became physical.  Zim was on his back being beaten and shot Martin in self defense.

EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE that has so far been revealed supports NOTHING but that version of the night in question.

Seriously, why do people think there is any more to it?  Zim shot Martin in self defense.  PERIOD.  There is only a case against Zim right now because the mob demanded that he be charged, evidence be damned.
2013-06-03 02:46:13 PM
2 votes:

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

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


I see it as a tough situation, and dont envy the jury at all. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin in self defense, yes. Which would allow him to walk. However, his following of Martin did provoke the confrontation. That puts a different angle on it. The deciding factor is how did it go from a simple confrontation to a fight. This is where Zimmermans trump card lies, as Martin is not alive to provide his account of the situation. Dead men tell no tales. If Zimmermans legal team can make a convincing enough story of it, he will walk.

IMO theres a lesson here for people...

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.
2013-06-03 02:44:01 PM
2 votes:

bulldg4life: kortex: You could do it with right type of holster.  Maybe the gun was in his hand but not out?  You shouldn't judge unless you know.  Nothing can be proven about that night, so that's why I say this trial is silly.

Yes, you shouldn't judge unless you know. That's sort of my point. You claimed facts when there is nothing but Zimmerman's story. In fact, has there ever been any discussion about a holster of any kind anywhere? I'm glad you're back to the "nothing can be proven" instead of the previous "this is what I remember as facts from that night".

Heathen: eh, single kick/push off with your legs..person is going backwards, draw gun, shoot, energy + gravity take care of the impressive part

He did this fast enough to shoot Martin from 18" away?


The same can be said for you, automatically assuming the Zimmerman is in the wrong.  Zimmerman did have wounds and the kid was shot dead.  We also know the kid viewed himself as a gangster.  We'll never know what actually happened, you're right.  That's why this is a silly trial.
2013-06-03 02:32:12 PM
2 votes:

Cupajo: All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles. When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?


He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin, nor was he told by the 911 operator to not draw his gun.

You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.
2013-06-03 02:24:51 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 02:18:56 PM
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Mrbogey: This comment you made is one of the largest "head in the sand" moments I've ever seen on Fark. Zimmerman was pinned under Martin. Accept it and form your opinions around the facts and stop trying to form the facts around your opinions.

What's the proof? You have zero proof of this assertion, and neither does the defendant. Accept it and...oh who am I kidding, you're religious. You believe anything without evidence as long as it confirms your biases.


What's the proof? The head injuries consistent with the story. The witnesses who saw someone pinned. The 911 calls where Zimmerman can be heard yelling. If Zimmerman was on top of Martin and punching him, Martin must have near Wolverine level healing powers. I'd be amazed a bullet took down such a tough guy.
2013-06-03 02:12:15 PM
2 votes:

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


Isn't there some rule in your religion about lying? For someone that censors the "o" out of God, I'd have figured you'd take it easy on the blatant lying.
2013-06-03 02:12:02 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 02:04:26 PM
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: vague advisory comment made by this one

How is "we don't need for you to do that" in any way a vague comment? What else could she have meant?



I believe it was a "he."

It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.

It was probably good advice.

Disregarding it, however, was neither illegal nor does it constitute aggression.  Zimmerman was allowed to do legal things, however unnecessary they were from the perspective of the 911 dispatcher.  The police had no authority to issue such an order, even if it had been explicit.

(Actually, I'm not sure it was 911.  It may have been the "non-emergency" number.  I don't know for certain.)

Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.

It's annoying, insulting, vexing, intrusive and irritating, but not illegal.
2013-06-03 01:58:40 PM
2 votes:

coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?



Getting out of your car does not pose an imminent threat of serious injury or death.  Not in general, and not in this particular case.

Therefore, it is not a legitimate form of self-defense to use force on a person merely because he's car-exiter.

Also, instructions made by 911 dispatchers, or even the sort of vague advisory comment made by this one, do not qualify as lawful orders of the police.  Even if Zimmerman had disregarded it (which he did not), doing so has no legal significance whatsoever.
2013-06-03 01:55:56 PM
2 votes:

Three Crooked Squirrels: Just like raping a slutty girl.


Not in the least.

If a guy walks around hitting people, his behavior is relevant to whether he went and hit one specific person. Your analogy would have to be tweaked to make it into whether or not a girl who has falsely accused people of rape is accusing someone of rape.

Three Crooked Squirrels: If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case.


And he is by using Trayvon's past propensity for violence along with how there were no wounds on either indicating that Zimmerman did anything to provoke Trayvon.

Three Crooked Squirrels: But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.


Unfortunately for Zimmerman. If he had known how violent Trayvon was, he'd have given him a wider berth.

Likewise, Trayvon didn't know that years ago Zimmerman got into an argument with some cops and yet that was blared everywhere in order to get everyone to believe the hispanic guy was a violent man.

Peter von Nostrand: Pretty sure you mean the let's not murder teenagers for walking at night wearing a hoodie crowd


Nobody murdered anyone for wearing a hoodie. You got to be trolling with that comment.

ongbok: So Zimmerman chasing him doesn't justify him defending himself ?


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

pxlboy: I meant Rodney King case.

/moron


I guarantee you morons will be proclaiming how it's legal to kill black people in Florida. The butthurt will be tremendous because the Social Justice Warriors live vicariously through St. Trayvon.
2013-06-03 01:55:09 PM
2 votes:
What does any of this  have to do wwith what we already know to be facts? Martin was where he was allowed to be. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman was a self-appointed "neighborhood watch" guy who took it upon himseld to be armed and who gave himself the title of "captain." Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin. Zimmerman was armed and pursued anyway. Zimmerman made hotheaded remarks. Zimmerman shot Martin to death.
2013-06-03 12:49:02 PM
2 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: 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.

There will be winners, at least in their mind. The pro gun crowd. This case is like cat nip to them. If he walks, the SYG crowd will go bonkers. You can stalk someone, chase them down, confront them then take a punch or two and you can kill them and walk


And I wonder if there would be riots similar to the ones after the OJ case.
2013-06-03 12:44:43 PM
2 votes:

Tatsuma: Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.


Why?  Depends on relevance.  Sometimes one person's past is relevant and the other's is not.  Again, I don't know everything about that case, but to say "that's not how it works" is simply wrong.
2013-06-03 12:37:43 PM
2 votes:

I_C_Weener: This how I see it. If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine. But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.


Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.
2013-06-03 12:35:56 PM
2 votes:

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.


There will be winners, at least in their mind. The pro gun crowd. This case is like cat nip to them. If he walks, the SYG crowd will go bonkers. You can stalk someone, chase them down, confront them then take a punch or two and you can kill them and walk
2013-06-03 12:35:06 PM
2 votes:

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.


So Zimmerman chasing him doesn't justify him defending himself ?
2013-06-03 12:24:16 PM
2 votes:

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


He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.
2013-06-03 12:20:19 PM
2 votes:
So it was not in any way the fault of Zimmerman, or his defense team. Now watch how many people blame them for this.
2013-06-04 08:18:03 AM
1 votes:

Without Fail: I'm sure he would like to be. But some asshole shot him because he was black.


Someone other than Zim shot him?  Say what you want about him, but being black is not why Martin got shot.  It may be why he was followed, but that makes sense.  There had been a series of break-ins in the the area.  These break-ins had been down by black men.  Zim sees a black man he doesn't recognize.  That's not profiling, that's putting two and two together.

There is no proof that Zim is a racist, unless you count the call to the police.  Are you talking about the call to the police dispatcher?  The one that was edited by NBC to make him look like a racist.
2013-06-04 01:41:59 AM
1 votes:
And the Chinese Jewish Redneck judge has it:
3 for the prosecutions emotional pleadings to convict.
7 for the defense's facts on file, and of course the 2 point loss for failing to deploy mud in the proper direction.
Currently we favor Zim walks over the warm invitations of the torch and pitchfork crowd.

BETS?
There is a line in Vegas.
I'm in.
/FT
\FM
?
/FYT
2013-06-04 01:22:32 AM
1 votes:

Antimatter: This still sounds like first degree murder to me.  He inserted himself into the situation, escalated it, and then killed the kid when the kid tried to defend himself.

The kids background is not relevant to this case.  All that should matter is the order of events, none of which favor GZ.


If he planned to execute him, then he would have had his gun out when he was' hunting him down like a dog'  When hunting a dog, you dont let the dog get close enough to bite you first.

There is no first degree murder even remotely possible.
2013-06-04 12:40:13 AM
1 votes:

bubo_sibiricus: 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.


We're not talking about a guy following me once, we're talking about a guy following me every day.
2013-06-04 12:39:22 AM
1 votes:

I sound fat: So people who are any part white are considered white now?  So we can claim the president?

...
 / we all know if he had done something to uplift society, he would be latino, as he identifies himself.  Since they can blame this on the "evil white man's prejudices" they are going to media firestorm the hell out of his whiteness.


If Zim was the victim and Whitey McWhiterson was the shooter, you can guarantee he would be referred to as hispanic.
2013-06-04 12:37:19 AM
1 votes:
So people who are any part white are considered white now?  So we can claim the president?

...
 / we all know if he had done something to uplift society, he would be latino, as he identifies himself.  Since they can blame this on the "evil white man's prejudices" they are going to media firestorm the hell out of his whiteness.
2013-06-04 12:26:12 AM
1 votes:

soporific: 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.


Actually...Zimm looks to win the civil case.  It will be easier for Trayvon violent past to get admitted into trial...and...the Martins and their atty have pretty much slandered Zimm throughout the media.   Zill could win via countersuing the Martins
2013-06-03 10:20:07 PM
1 votes:

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 09:54:18 PM
1 votes:

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 09:14:29 PM
1 votes:
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 09:11:46 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:20 PM
1 votes:

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 08:07:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:59 PM
1 votes:
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 05:26:57 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

If its logical to pound someone unconscious because they have a gun, how is it illogical to shoot the guy that's trying to cripple you?
2013-06-03 05:25:28 PM
1 votes:

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

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

What a bunch of children in this thread.


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


Fark logic in action.
Makes sense.
2013-06-03 05:22:10 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

But hey, if convicting innocent people helps you feel better about race relations, knock yourself out.
2013-06-03 05:20:55 PM
1 votes:
The amount of liberal wrong in this thread is staggering.
2013-06-03 05:16:33 PM
1 votes:
When I'm on patrol in my neighborhood, I gauge my level of suspicion on others' efforts to evade me.

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

/not a cop
2013-06-03 05:11:43 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This cas ...


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

Keep living in fear white boys, your own demographics are changing and you won't have anywhere to "white flight' to anymore. I suggest you start being nice to the Treyvon Martins walking around you neighborhood because, yes, the STATE will arrest you when you chase down and murder a child in cold blood.
2013-06-03 05:09:27 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

You see, a trigger isn't that hard to pull. If a guy with a knife attacks you, you can knock him down and step back, and he's no longer an immediate threat- he needs to be within arms reach to slice you. But a guy with a gun- he can be 100 feet away, with both legs and one arm broken... and still kill you. So, if you're fighting a guy with a gun, you really can't 'stop' until you're SURE he's not a threat. So, hell YES, I'd keep beating his head against the ground, even if he was shouting "No more!". As long as he is conscious, he can pull that trigger.
2013-06-03 05:01:58 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Why is not the question. The moron (Thunderpipes) uses them to call Martin a thief. The fact is, there has been no crime associated with them. That's just a pesky fact.
2013-06-03 05:01:55 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So unless you believe that he decided to hide and jump a person while he was on the phone with his girlfriend, the idea that he jumped him on the way back to his car is pretty stupid.
2013-06-03 05:00:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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



ftfy
2013-06-03 05:00:22 PM
1 votes:

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


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

/Maybe the purple drank slowed him down some
2013-06-03 04:55:40 PM
1 votes:

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


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

/thanks for the idea, cats!
2013-06-03 04:45:19 PM
1 votes:

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


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

What a bunch of children in this thread.
2013-06-03 04:41:56 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Because Martin jumped Zimmerman before he made it back to the vehicle?
2013-06-03 04:40:34 PM
1 votes:

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


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

People are really hating on facts in this thread.
2013-06-03 04:38:43 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Citation needed.
There's no evidence that Zimmerman was not on his way back the truck when the confrontation occurred.
2013-06-03 04:31:36 PM
1 votes:
Half-white guy is elected president: C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

Half-white guy shoots a black kid: OMG WHITE RACIST!

Seems consistent.
2013-06-03 04:20:31 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


That doesn't matter. How many times do we have to go over this. The only things that matter are:

-Zimmerman's story that he was on the ground screaming for help while Martin pummeled him

-Zimmerman's copious physical injuries and defensive wounds versus Martin's none (barring the gunshot wound)

-The witness that corroborate it was Zimmerman on the ground screaming for help and getting pummeled for Martin.

Answer me this: why does Zimmerman get all the blame for following Martin, yet Martin gets none of the blame for continuing to beat on Zimmerman? Because it would seem to me that (following a person
2013-06-03 04:17:23 PM
1 votes:

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]



"At least he's not jewish", is what you're saying?
2013-06-03 04:14:16 PM
1 votes:

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?


There will be a riot.  Florida will even prepare for one.  Or are you saying a bunch of people already using emotional reasoning won't make another emotional choice and riot because they don't understand how this could have happened?  Derp.
2013-06-03 04:03:29 PM
1 votes:
You guys wouldn't be arguing like this if Trayvon Martin was a German Shepherd and George Zimmerman was a perfectly-cooked and seasoned, medium-rare rib eye steak!
2013-06-03 04:02:34 PM
1 votes:

Mambo Bananapatch: He will write a book, sell the story rights to Steven Spielberg, and become very wealthy.


Honestly?  After his character assassination, the guy deserves it.
2013-06-03 04:00:59 PM
1 votes:

PsyLord: So basically, you can be a hired hitman and 'bump' into someone 'accidentally'. Get into an argument, let the guy start pounding on you, then pull out your weapon and 'defend yourself' (with extreme prejudice).


Ummm. No.

BojanglesPaladin: Unless it was your INTENT to do that and kill the person, yes. In certain circumstances, and if you can convince investigators, DAs, a judge and jury that you did not INTEND to kill that person, yes.


If you were a HITMAN, then it would be your INTENT to kill that person, and you would presumably not be in fear for your life.

You would also be a particularly stupid and inept hitman, becasue you would be intentionally involving authorities, put yourself through a whiole investigation and trial, and rack up enormous legal fees, and probably ruin your life.

But you probably already knew that. Are we arguing ad absurdim here?
2013-06-03 03:59:40 PM
1 votes:

A. Snatchfold: frepnog: because the jury let the race card play when race had FARK-ALL to do with it the LAPD  and DA farked up the case.


Think what you want.  OJ walked because he was black.  No more, no less.  Had he been white he would probably still be sitting on death row (or whatever version of that is in Cali).

/think LAPD and DA DID fark up, but the mountain of evidence against OJ mitigated that, or SHOULD have.  Jury let OJ walk IN SPITE of all evidence showing that OJ CLEARLY committed the crime he was accused of.
2013-06-03 03:58:45 PM
1 votes:

Elegy: CrazyCracka420: To the people saying Zimmerman had injuries so that proves his case...logic isn't your strong suit.  You can start a fight with someone, and still get your ass kicked.  Just because you get your ass handed to you, doesn't mean you couldn't have still been the aggressor.

Just because you are the aggressor, doesn't mean you can't claim self defense.

Lrn2law


And it's a ridiculous law and why "stand your ground" is a farking retarded.

Start a fight
Get ass kicked
Pull out a gun
Shoot the person you attacked
?
Profit
2013-06-03 03:56:30 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: fredklein: Fine. Change it to "I can walk up to and punch a random citizen, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?"

Unless it was your INTENT to do that and kill the person, yes. In certain circumstances, and if you can convince investigators, DAs, a judge and jury that you did not INTEND to kill that person, yes.

Otherwise, you would be submitting to being killed if you got into a fistfight with someone with a gun whether you knew it or not.

YOU ARE ALWAYS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DEFEND YOUR OWN LIFE *

/* Unless, in certain circumstances, you have willingly put that life in jeapordy in the commision of a felony.


So basically, you can be a hired hitman and 'bump' into someone 'accidentally'.  Get into an argument, let the guy start pounding on you, then pull out your weapon and 'defend yourself' (with extreme prejudice).
2013-06-03 03:54:28 PM
1 votes:

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


actually you would think that all the evidence pointing to self defense (and the fact that the police did not find evidence that a crime was committed and so did not arrest or charge Zimmerman at the scene) would have made this a relatively simple self-defense case.  Which it was until the media claimed a white male had gunned down a small black child in cold blood and the mob demanded that Zimmerman be charged.
2013-06-03 03:50:21 PM
1 votes:

CWeinerWV: A man who committed a serious crime is going to walk, and sadly, rightfully so.


actually, a man with no evidence against him that he committed a crime is MORE THAN LIKELY going to walk, and rightfully so.  I say more than likely because you just never know what is going to happen.  There was a MOUNTAIN of forensic evidence proving that OJ killed two people, and he walked because the jury let the race card play when race had FARK-ALL to do with it.
2013-06-03 03:26:01 PM
1 votes:
At this point, I'm REALLY wishing hard for a hung jury. For this to end in a manner emotionally unsatisfactory to all the dipshiats who care about it would be just too delicious.
2013-06-03 03:22:48 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


books.google.com

Pay attention to the last sentence. And here is the link.
2013-06-03 03:18:30 PM
1 votes:

teenage mutant ninja rapist: 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.


dude, I am whiter than mayonnaise and I am telling you that Martin's skin color made ZERO difference in this case.  Had he been white and jumped on Zimmerman and was beating his head against the concrete, I would still say Zim was justified in shooting him, because that is just a fact.

The only reason a race card is being played here is because of the initial bullshiat reporting that the media is guilty of, when the media claimed a small innocent black child was gunned down in cold blood by a white male aggressor, a version of the night's events that is more fictional than the latest Stephen King novel.
2013-06-03 03:17:36 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: What percentage of the close to 50 911 calls Zimmerman made that are on tape reference 'suspicious white guys'?

I'm willing to bet it's less than 10 pct.


So you actually have no clues, you just 'feel' it must be that way. Zimmerman was not a racist and many figures from the African-American community came out in his favor and said they knew him and he never demonstrated any hatred.
2013-06-03 03:10:47 PM
1 votes:

Heinrich von Eckardt: You are correct. There wouldn't be shiat to say because if a clearly innocent black man had shot a white punk in an obvious case of self defense, he would not have been charged. The story would not have made it past page 3 of the local paper.


ZIMMERMAN IS NOT WHITE.
2013-06-03 03:06:25 PM
1 votes:

Antimatter: Doesn't matter. By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.


That is really poor reasoning. First it assumes that yje "escalation" was initiated by Zimmerman. It may have been, it may have been Martin, it may have been both assholes talking smack to each other. But talking, even yelling at each other, is not of consequence here.

We don't know who threw the first punch and who made it physical. And even then, that's not the key fact of the case. The question is who thought they were in danger for their life. If Martin saw that Zimmerman was armed and was being beligerant and threatening and couldn't get away, he would have been justified in attacking Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was attacked, and was on the losing end and thought HIS life was in danger, then he would have been justified in using his gun.

IF, IF, IF. We don't know, and will likely never know what happened. I suspect that we had two men, each overburdened with their own bad-assedness who got into an altercation that probably could have been easily avoided by either or both of them, but wasn't and now one is dead.

This is fundamentaly no different than a bar fight gone bad, and it is dissapointing that for months parties with ulterior motives and biases have been going to great lengths to turn this into a divisive political issue for racism, for gun-control, for stand-your-ground laws, or whatever else.

But hey. That advertising isn't going to sell itself!
2013-06-03 03:06:14 PM
1 votes:
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom [TotalFark]
2013-06-03 12:39:01 PM


Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.

I'd bet you'd be screaming bloody murder -and hitting the report button- if some fool said something about t.martin and fried chicken & watermelon.

Racism is oh so funny when TotalFarkers do it.
2013-06-03 03:05:22 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: He confronted Martin while he was still in the car, and then got out of the car and followed Martin up the footpath.


There is not a single court that will ever consider 'walking behind someone on the street to make sure they are not committing a crime' to be initiating a confrontation.

frepnog: Seriously, why do people think there is any more to it? Zim shot Martin in self defense. PERIOD. There is only a case against Zim right now because the mob demanded that he be charged, evidence be damned.


Yep.

He's going to walk, too, then have a target on his back for the next decade.
2013-06-03 03:04:45 PM
1 votes:

Pumpernickel bread: I can't understand why this story is still in the news, particularly since the original "story" put out by MSNBC had been debunked.  The evidence suggests Martin was on top of him and caving his face in when he shot.  I don't see how any reasonable person could say that shooting wasn't justified.


Most people jumped to a conclusion when this incident first took place. As the evidence came out suggesting that this wasn't what it first appeared to be, they kept hanging onto their original opinion, rather than actually looking at the mounting evidence. At some point, the hole became so deep that they figured "fark it, too late to change now" and are sticking to their guns.
2013-06-03 03:04:29 PM
1 votes:

Antimatter: He committed a crime by inserting himself into a situation that he had no business being in, and then running down a victim trying to escape, while armed with a deadly weapon.

That sounds like he planned to do violence to me, and self defense cannot be premeditated like that.



This is all completely incorrect.

"Inserting" yourself "into a situation" is not a meaningful legal standard of behavior.  It may annoy you, but it means nothing in terms of criminal law.

"Running down a victim" is also not remotely legally relevant.

The question is who posed an imminent threat of injury.  Asking people what they're doing does not qualify.

The bigger question is what evidence is there to prove an answer to that question, one way or the other.

The State simply does not have evidence to disprove the self-defense claim, unless they have more than has been revealed.
2013-06-03 03:00:15 PM
1 votes:

ZeroCorpse: It doesn't take much to realize you need an excuse, slam the back of your head against the pavement, and make up a pretty good story


pjmedia.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

Twice...and then broke his own nose.
2013-06-03 02:59:37 PM
1 votes:

Antimatter: Did GZ, or did he not, get out of a car, confront and then chase down a fleeing kid, while he himself was armed with a deadly weapon?



He got out of his car, followed on foot, and pursued a fleeing teenager while attempting to report that teenager's location to the police.

There is no evidence, other than Zimmerman's statement and DeeDee the earwitness, as to who confronted whom, but the statement of DeeDee, coached and delayed and untrustworthy as it is, still says that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first, that Zimmerman responded with a question, and that a physical struggle followed.

Following and observing suspicious people is not illegal, nor does it constitute a threat of imminent injury sufficient to justify force in self-defense.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon does not change the law that defines when self-defense is legal.
2013-06-03 02:52:24 PM
1 votes:

Antimatter: By bearing arms and escalating the confrontation, GZ should automatically be in the wrong here.



You are wrong on both the facts and the law.  The proposition you just asserted has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever. 

ProfessorOhki: isn't aggravated assault a felony?



Prove that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault, please.
2013-06-03 02:52:06 PM
1 votes:
I think if anyone was "standing his ground" it was Martin, who was being followed by a creep. If Martin did throw some punches, they were to defend himself against Zimmerman who he believed to be a bad guy.

However, I still doubt Zimmerman's wounds were inflicted by Martin. It doesn't take much to realize you need an excuse, slam the back of your head against the pavement, and make up a pretty good story that you spend the next several weeks editing and changing.

Either way, Zimmerman was the aggressor here. He started it. Martin had reason to believe his life was in danger, so he stood his ground... And THEN Zimmerman shot him.
2013-06-03 02:49:09 PM
1 votes:
FlashHarry [TotalFark]
2013-06-03 11:58:04 AM


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

No, more like the one with a gun .. that isn't a fake.

This story is the press going forward with an unverified story and no evidence.

This is more akin to the fark favorite "Zimmerman is a racist" ...
..who just happens to mentor black children
..and protested the beating of an black man by FL police.
2013-06-03 02:49:08 PM
1 votes:

Cupajo: "Holding" does not necessarily mean "in your hand", you halfwit. You knew exactly what I meant.


No, when you say 'while holding a gun' you clearly are saying he went out with a gun in his hand. You didn't mean 'with a gun in his holster'.
2013-06-03 02:48:44 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 02:48:15 PM
1 votes:

CliChe Guevara: "getting out of you car" is not the same as following someone in your car, then getting out to continue to pursue them on foot when they move to evade you, then running them down after they start running still trying to get away from you.

if you can't see that through your racist blinkers, then just think about what would happen if you had a black dude do the same to you when you were walking along minding your own business, then chased you down when you tried to avoid him. in short, you would be making arguments how it was ok to shoot him then, too.

tl,dr; no matter what foot the shoe is on, shooting the black dude is always the answer. amiright?



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.  Then Zimmerman stopped running, when he got out of breath, and lost sight of Martin altogether.  Then Zimmerman hung up with the police, so we don't have any clear evidence of what happened next.

The best evidence, such as it is, comes from DeeDee the girlfriend, who (she says) advised Martin to flee, but he said no.  She also said that Martin was the first one to speak, asking Zimmerman why he was following him.  In other words, their first direct contact was VERBAL.  Zimmerman did not chase Martin to the point of physically catching up with him or "running him down."  Zimmerman responded to Martin's question not with a gunshot, but a question -- What are you doing here?

Then a scuffle. 

Who attacked whom?

We don't know.  No one but Zimmerman and Martin saw it, and Martin isn't talking.

That's a bitter pill for the Lynch Zimmerman crowd to swallow, but it means that the State has NO EVIDENCE of who first posed the threat of injury to the other.  Zimmerman's following Martin and asking him what he was doing is not an imminent threat.
2013-06-03 02:45:44 PM
1 votes:
This still sounds like first degree murder to me.  He inserted himself into the situation, escalated it, and then killed the kid when the kid tried to defend himself.

The kids background is not relevant to this case.  All that should matter is the order of events, none of which favor GZ.
2013-06-03 02:39:58 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-03 02:38:55 PM
1 votes:
Zmmerman's background should have some bearing as well.

For instance, based on his past, there is no way that Zimmerman initiated a violent confrontation with Trayvon Martin. History indicates he only perpetrates violence against women.
2013-06-03 02:38:16 PM
1 votes:

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

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

All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles.  When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion.  Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?


Because the kid was blah he must be guilty.
zimmerman aint even a white guy. Why whitey wants to defend him is beyond me.
2013-06-03 02:37:28 PM
1 votes:

Heinrich von Eckardt: cameroncrazy1984: The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

Well, the defense has  this witness.  GZ's account matches very well.

The defense also GZ's has injuries and TM's lack of them.  Also GZ's back was damp from being on the ground.

Somebody was crying for help for 40+ seconds on the 911 call.  GZ says it was him, the witness said it was GZ.  It's difficult to imagine an assailant screaming like that while administering a beat down... very easy to imagine the recipient of the beating screaming for help.


Stop it with your "facts" and "eyewitness testimony"!  There's a gun control and racism issue here.  Can't you see the whackjobs are in a frenzy?
2013-06-03 02:37:12 PM
1 votes:

tricycleracer: Martin was exercising his rights.  He was attempting to beat to death a man who was about to shoot him.


Wow. Someone really lost.
2013-06-03 02:35:17 PM
1 votes:

fredklein: dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.

So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?


Punching a cop is felony. You cannot commit a felony in Florida and still claim self defense.

You can, however, punch another citizen and shoot them when they beat the tar out of them, provided at some point you tried to stop the fight and you had a legitimate fear for you life at the time.

I distinctly remember going over this with you in the last Zimmerman thread, even providing chapter and verse in Florida law and explaining all of the ramifications to you.

So I ask you - are you trolling, or are you just stupid?
2013-06-03 02:34:58 PM
1 votes:
Elegy:
You can certainly start a fist fight, lose, shoot them and still claim self defense if they don't stop beating you when you cry uncle.
You might not feel it's morally right, but that is how the law works in Florida.


This is where a lot of wires seem to get crossed.  One can defend his position legally while disapproving of his choices.  That's where I stand.  I believe that legally he is not guilty of murder.  I also believe that he was an overzealous wanna-be cop sticking his nose where it didn't belong and the entire thing never needed to happen.  As a juror, I would acquit.  As a human, I wouldn't invite him to my BBQ.
2013-06-03 02:33:02 PM
1 votes:

Tatsuma: He did not have his gun drawn when he approached Martin


Tatsuma: You know when you have to lie to make your case, that shows how weak it is.


I...uh...well...Geez dude. Be less ironical.
2013-06-03 02:29:49 PM
1 votes:

obamadidcoke: No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Yes you can. (In certain circumstances, and if a Jury or judge agrees after exploring the facts of the case.)

Let's say you pass the on a sidewalk, and you say "That Bojangles is a big fat asshole, who should DIAF" and I say "Excuse me mutherfarker?" and you say "You heard me, you turd" and push me. So you initiated a conflict.

If I then start beating the shiat our of you, and you try to escape, but I grab you and drag you back and now I'm really farking you up and you think I'm going to kill you, and you manage to get a hold of something pointy and stab me and kill me, that's actually self defense.

Why? Because even though YOU started it, I was not in fear of my life. Even though you started it, if I had killed you, I would have no self defense claim. But YOU would, because you had a reasonable fear that I was going to kill you.

(Of course, a judge and hury have to ve convinced of the specifics.)
2013-06-03 02:29:40 PM
1 votes:

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

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


All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles.  When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion.  Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?
2013-06-03 02:29:33 PM
1 votes:

obamadidcoke: Not true. If you chase me with a bat I can defend myself with anything from a shotgun to a flame thrower. The law doesn't require proportionality in defense.



The law separates force into two catagories -- lethal and non-lethal.  Only threats of serious bodily injury or death justify the use of lethal force in self-defense.  Non-lethal threats only justify the use of non-lethal force.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman posed a threat of any imminent injury, much less serious injury or death, to Martin prior to the physical contact.  Is it plausible that Zimmerman did so?  Maybe.  Sure.  But the presumption is that he didn't, and there's no evidence to prove he did.

However, once the violence had progressed to the point where Martin was pounding a man's head on the concrete, then the use of lethal force was legal.
2013-06-03 02:27:04 PM
1 votes:

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."


Yeah, getting your head bashed against the sidewalk is no reason to do anything.
2013-06-03 02:26:33 PM
1 votes:

kortex: Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.


Martin had a right to "stand his ground", did he not?
2013-06-03 02:26:18 PM
1 votes:

kortex: I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.


Ah, well, if possible...try to remember what else you saw that night when you were there. It'd be much help to the court case!

Given Zimmerman's account, it is kind of hard to see how he could have possibly shot Martin without the gun already out. He was struck from behind, then Martin was on top of him smashing his head in to the sidewalk. Through all of this...he pulled his weapon and shot Martin in the chest. So, he pulled the gun out, got it between him and Martin, shot him in the chest, and then had Martin fall backwards. That's pretty damn impressive.
2013-06-03 02:26:17 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.


So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?
2013-06-03 02:23:16 PM
1 votes:

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


Without defending Zimmerman, or even having an opinion on this, that's odd reasoning. I am not aware that any citizen needs "authorization" to approach another citizen. Nor is there any such concept that a 9/11 dispatcher can tell a private citzen what they can and cannot do.

It may be a poor word choice, but it is alarming to see someone so willing to say that a policeman on a phone could take away your "right" to confront someone.
2013-06-03 02:22:22 PM
1 votes:
He's gonna walk, that's for certain. The only thing undecided at this point is if the media is able to whip people into enough of a frenzy over the verdict that they riot. I know they'll sure as hell try.
2013-06-03 02:18:57 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: Except that Zimmerman has already stated that he initiated the confrontation.


No he did not. He said Martin attacked him.
2013-06-03 02:18:06 PM
1 votes:
The question shouldn't be if Zimmerman is Guilty, he is definitely guilty as hell.

You cannot provoke a confrontation and then yell Self defense, self defense. He left his home armed. He stalked a teenager. He was told by police not to pursue. He chose to pursue, he chose to confront and he chose to end a confrontation he provoked with deadly force.

How this is even being argued is stupid. It is at the very least manslaughter and worst murder. He should be locked up it is just a matter of for how many years.
2013-06-03 02:15:31 PM
1 votes:

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

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


In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.
2013-06-03 02:14:13 PM
1 votes:

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


The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.
2013-06-03 02:14:01 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: This comment you made is one of the largest "head in the sand" moments I've ever seen on Fark. Zimmerman was pinned under Martin. Accept it and form your opinions around the facts and stop trying to form the facts around your opinions.


What's the proof? You have zero proof of this assertion, and neither does the defendant. Accept it and...oh who am I kidding, you're religious. You believe anything without evidence as long as it confirms your biases.
2013-06-03 02:13:44 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: No they don't. The prosecution just has to prove that there is no evidence of justification.



You should stop.  You are wrong.

See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).  The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

Zimmerman does NOT need to present any evidence.  He may choose to do so, but the burden is definitely on the State to disprove his claim of self-defense.
2013-06-03 02:13:34 PM
1 votes:

obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.


The guy with the gun was more afraid of the unarmed kid he was following. The unarmed high school kid had no reason to fear the adult with the gun that was following him for a couple blocks.
2013-06-03 02:13:32 PM
1 votes:

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)


Everyone but the Asian in that list is white. This isn't "das Vaterland," we're all mutts here.
2013-06-03 02:12:37 PM
1 votes:

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


Yeah gee, it's almost as if he felt threatened or something. If only there was some word for that.
2013-06-03 02:11:09 PM
1 votes:
I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.
2013-06-03 02:10:53 PM
1 votes:

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

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


9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
2013-06-03 02:08:25 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.


Well, we *KNOW* that one of the two was on his back, getting beaten by the other.  There is credible testimony to that.

Zimmerman had numerous injuries to his face, and the back of his head.  The back of his jacket was wet, like he had lain on his back in the grass.  Martin didn't have any injuries apart from a minor hand injury, and a bullet wound to the chest.

Which makes more sense to you?  That the person who had almost no injuries was on his back, getting beaten, or the one who had a number of head injuries was o his back, getting beaten?
2013-06-03 02:07:59 PM
1 votes:

nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.


He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.
2013-06-03 02:07:45 PM
1 votes:

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


Except that no, they don't.
2013-06-03 02:07:15 PM
1 votes:
George Zimmerman is living proof on why I don't trust vigilantes with my life.
2013-06-03 02:07:09 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: His claim is that Martin was on top of him and he felt his life was in danger.  So he has to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have felt threatened.  It doesn't matter how he got in that situation, not that we really know for sure as the only other witness to the entire chain of events is dead.  Again, taking out all racial components and emotions, purely based on the letter of the law itself, I suspect he'll walk.

The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.

seems like the prosecution has to prove that he wasn't.


No they don't. The prosecution just has to prove that there is no evidence of justification.
2013-06-03 02:06:43 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-06-03 02:06:33 PM
1 votes:

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


Especially since the multiple witnesses to the actual altercation all agree that he was on the ground, Martin was on top of him and Zimmerman was screaming for help.
2013-06-03 02:05:41 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: It means that the 911 dispatcher would have preferred that Zimmerman stop following the person he found suspicious.  It means that doing so was unnecessary.


And in what way is that a "vague" comment? Seems you interpreted it just fine.

Phinn: Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, approach him, and ask him what he was doing there.


Never heard of "harassment" or "stalking," have you.
2013-06-03 02:04:50 PM
1 votes:
Why are we still doing this?

A snotty 17 year old thug doesn't like being "fronted" by a self professed neighborhood nanny. Afro boy lays down an ass whippin' on Mr. Community Safety Patrol. Safetyman gets his ass kicked and pulls his penis extension and kills Afro boy.

Take the Manslaughter offer and request protective custody.
2013-06-03 02:04:02 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?

Getting out of your car does not pose an imminent threat of serious injury or death.  Not in general, and not in this particular case.

Therefore, it is not a legitimate form of self-defense to use force on a person merely because he's car-exiter.

Also, instructions made by 911 dispatchers, or even the sort of vague advisory comment made by this one, do not qualify as lawful orders of the police.  Even if Zimmerman had disregarded it (which he did not), doing so has no legal significance whatsoever.


I'm not saying that the 911 dispatch was a legal order. What I'm saying is that from what evidence we have, including that call, it appears as though Zimmerman knowingly entered into a situation which he had already expressed aggression about (again, from the call).
2013-06-03 02:02:43 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.


Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.
2013-06-03 01:57:27 PM
1 votes:

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


Really? That's the justification? He had a chance to run away from the guy who was stalking him?

Jesus Christ, man. Give it up.
2013-06-03 01:55:30 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.


And that he followed a youth and shot him dead.
2013-06-03 01:54:16 PM
1 votes:

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

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

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)
2013-06-03 01:16:44 PM
1 votes:

SlothB77: ongbok: They know that if the lie is juicy enough, and enough people want to believe it, people won't care about the truth

it doesn't work this way in court.  the judge can throw evidence out.


It doesn't matter if the judge throws the evidence out as long as somebody reports the lie and the lie is believed by the jury pool.
2013-06-03 12:57:40 PM
1 votes:

nekom: But if he were brought up on assault charges, he would NOT face the death penalty for that. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Very possibly, we'll never know the whole truth. Was that a mistake? You bet! A certain degree of blame does certainly fall on Martin for making a few poor decisions, but nothing that he ought to have been killed for. Both parties made errors in judgment. The kid didn't need to die, and it's pretty sad. While I don't believe a murder charge is warranted, Zimmerman was WAY over-zealous.


Yeah I more or less agree with you. You'll notice I wasn't able to bring myself to type the words 'he deserved to die' either. It's more that Martin was justified in fearing for his life and defending himself (even with lethal force) than Martin had to die for it.
2013-06-03 12:50:27 PM
1 votes:
I meant Rodney King case.

/moron
2013-06-03 12:45:06 PM
1 votes:

coco ebert: Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?


Well, just because you parked at the McDonald's and got out doesn't mean you ordered food.  Now, if you went in observed, then went back out AND then an employee attacked you shoving a Big Mac down your throat, who is the aggressor?
2013-06-03 12:42:47 PM
1 votes:

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.


But if he were brought up on assault charges, he would NOT face the death penalty for that.  Did Martin attack Zimmerman?  Very possibly, we'll never know the whole truth.  Was that a mistake?  You bet!  A certain degree of blame does certainly fall on Martin for making a few poor decisions, but nothing that he ought to have been killed for.  Both parties made errors in judgment.  The kid didn't need to die, and it's pretty sad.  While I don't believe  a murder charge is warranted, Zimmerman was WAY over-zealous.
2013-06-03 12:39:01 PM
1 votes:
Zimmerman got really farking fat. Good god, easy on the churros, dude.
2013-06-03 12:35:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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


This how I see it.  If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine.  But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.
2013-06-03 12:22:52 PM
1 votes:

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


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

i.imgur.com
2013-06-03 11:43:52 AM
1 votes:

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


The issue seems was over the sequence of events and how they misinterpreted the evidence. That's not a lie.

If it was then the farkers who supported Trayvon would be labeled liars because of their poor rationalization skills.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report