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.

(Time)   *Knock knock* Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Congrats, you're on the jury   (newsfeed.time.com) divider line 65
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman, jury selection, Angela Corey, racial tensions  
•       •       •

3978 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2013 at 8:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-10 08:14:24 AM
Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence will come in the form of testimony from "Witness 8," Martin's girlfriend. She was on the phone with Martin when he was walking from a convenience store to his father's home and spotted Zimmerman. A recording of their conversation reveals that the two were talking when Martin said that he saw someone following him. The sound of a struggle begins, and the call cuts off.

This clearly shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman while on the phone and holding the phone in his hand. With hand number two and three he grabbed Zimmerman's head and banged it on the ground.
 
2013-06-10 08:39:12 AM
I don't believe for a second that all that's being asked for is a trial. Anything short of a conviction and a harsh sentence will result in riots.
 
2013-06-10 08:39:27 AM
Is this the thread were if you think Zimmerman is not guilty your branded a racist? I've been looking for it
 
2013-06-10 08:41:07 AM
Just ask Holder to send you a transcript of the call to the girlfriend.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-10 08:42:20 AM
Not Guilty by reason of piss poor law.
 
2013-06-10 08:44:31 AM

hinten: Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence will come in the form of testimony from "Witness 8," Martin's girlfriend. She was on the phone with Martin when he was walking from a convenience store to his father's home and spotted Zimmerman. A recording of their conversation reveals that the two were talking when Martin said that he saw someone following him. The sound of a struggle begins, and the call cuts off.

This clearly shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman while on the phone and holding the phone in his hand. With hand number two and three he grabbed Zimmerman's head and banged it on the ground.


Or M drops his phone, and lays into Z.  Call cuts out when the phone hits the ground.
IOW, that isn't going to be enough, by itself, to get past a half-awake defense attorney.

You'd something more, like Witness 8 testifying that M yelled over the phone "he's coming at me with a gun" or something.

Which, who knows, could happen.
 
2013-06-10 08:44:52 AM
Technically correct is the best kind of correct, especially if you're the only one alive after the technical difficulties.
 
2013-06-10 08:46:04 AM
I always thought this fool was in his 40s. He's 29?
 
2013-06-10 08:47:15 AM
It boggles the mind that the prosecution went for murder two. Manslaughter would be a slam dunk, but murder two there is a good chance he could walk.
 
2013-06-10 08:47:20 AM
A key part of the prosecution's case will likely be a recording to police dispatchers in which Zimmerman said that he was going to pursue Martin, despite being advised to the contrary. Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who is leading the state's case, has insisted that if Zimmerman had adhered to the dispatcher's advice and let police handle the situation, there would have been no conflict.

/Indeed. The kid was guilty of no more than being black and walking down the street. Zimmerman escalated the confrontation, when there was no need, and no law broken that would justify him following / apprehending him in the first place, so he pretty much just was strutting around his neighborhood, saw a black kid, and decided to fark with him. Unfortunately, Martin wasn't putting up with his bullshiat, and fought back, and instead of just fist fighting him in a confrontation that wasn't necessary anyway, he shot him like a little pussy when he started losing.
 
2013-06-10 08:48:39 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: I always thought this fool was in his 40s. He's 29?


If he was in his 40s this wouldn't have happened, he would have just followed him in his car.

/38, bike 30 miles a day, and I sure as hell ain't running after a teenager.
 
2013-06-10 08:49:13 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: The kid was guilty of no more than


You know this, how?
 
2013-06-10 08:50:07 AM
This is the jury I least want to be on. Of all of them.
 
2013-06-10 08:51:16 AM

PunGent: hinten: Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence will come in the form of testimony from "Witness 8," Martin's girlfriend. She was on the phone with Martin when he was walking from a convenience store to his father's home and spotted Zimmerman. A recording of their conversation reveals that the two were talking when Martin said that he saw someone following him. The sound of a struggle begins, and the call cuts off.

This clearly shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman while on the phone and holding the phone in his hand. With hand number two and three he grabbed Zimmerman's head and banged it on the ground.

Or M drops his phone, and lays into Z.  Call cuts out when the phone hits the ground.
IOW, that isn't going to be enough, by itself, to get past a half-awake defense attorney.

You'd something more, like Witness 8 testifying that M yelled over the phone "he's coming at me with a gun" or something.

Which, who knows, could happen.


Jury will like the recording (for whatever it's worth), but other than that the GF is useless to the prosecution because of some stupid defense trick where they'll point out she lied under oath in a sworn statement, or some technical BS like that, which shouldn't matter.
 
2013-06-10 08:53:57 AM

hinten: Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence will come in the form of testimony from "Witness 8," Martin's girlfriend. She was on the phone with Martin when he was walking from a convenience store to his father's home and spotted Zimmerman. A recording of their conversation reveals that the two were talking when Martin said that he saw someone following him. The sound of a struggle begins, and the call cuts off.

This clearly shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman while on the phone and holding the phone in his hand. With hand number two and three he grabbed Zimmerman's head and banged it on the ground.


srsly. how can her testimony be worth anything when she's already recorded?
 
2013-06-10 08:55:12 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: A key part of the prosecution's case will likely be a recording to police dispatchers in which Zimmerman said that he was going to pursue Martin, despite being advised to the contrary. Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who is leading the state's case, has insisted that if Zimmerman had adhered to the dispatcher's advice and let police handle the situation, there would have been no conflict.

/Indeed. The kid was guilty of no more than being black and walking down the street. Zimmerman escalated the confrontation, when there was no need, and no law broken that would justify him following / apprehending him in the first place, so he pretty much just was strutting around his neighborhood, saw a black kid, and decided to fark with him. Unfortunately, Martin wasn't putting up with his bullshiat, and fought back, and instead of just fist fighting him in a confrontation that wasn't necessary anyway, he shot him like a little pussy when he started losing.




By bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement Martin was trying to kill him. Martin could have just walked home. Could have lived if he had went home instead of jumping Zimmerman,
 
2013-06-10 08:59:59 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems common sense that ANY interpretation of the "stand your ground" law would be mitigated by "forcing a confrontation" that wasn't justified in the first place. You can't attack someone for no legal reason, then kill them and say "i was standing my ground". Your initial illegal contact with the person vitiates any following legal defense. In other words, you cant attack/re strain a person for doing nothing but walking down the street, and when they defend themselves against your illegal and unjustified attack, kill them and say "i was defending myself, in fear of my life." You initiated the problem with your illegal confrontation, and just because you started losing the fight, doesn't give you Prima facie right to use deadly force, as the initial contact was in itself illegal.

That defense would be like a burglar breaking into someone's home..and when the homeowner attempts to restrain/arrest the suspect, the suspect kills him, using a "stand your ground" defense. To me, this defense is not unlike the "poisonous fruits" rule..which states that any "evidence" gained through illegal or unconstitutional means is "poisoned" by your illegal actions, and therefore, you may not use it in court.

But as i said, I'm not a lawyer, and i thought they would find OJ guilty, so what the hell do i know.
 
2013-06-10 09:01:29 AM
This is the state that let Casey Anthony walk and there was more evidence in that case than this one... I don't believe what Zimmerman did was right at all, but I wouldn't put anything past Floridians.
 
2013-06-10 09:04:02 AM
From TFA:  "A key part of the prosecution's case will likely be a recording to police dispatchers in which Zimmerman said that he was going to pursue Martin, despite being advised to the contrary."

From Zimmerman's call :

1911:57    - 2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
1911:59    - 2:25 GZ: yeah
1912:00    - 2:26 Dispatcher: We don't need you to do that
1912:02    - 2:28 GZ: ok

That's some fine reporting.
 
2013-06-10 09:04:35 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Bit'O'Gristle: A key part of the prosecution's case will likely be a recording to police dispatchers in which Zimmerman said that he was going to pursue Martin, despite being advised to the contrary. Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who is leading the state's case, has insisted that if Zimmerman had adhered to the dispatcher's advice and let police handle the situation, there would have been no conflict.

/Indeed. The kid was guilty of no more than being black and walking down the street. Zimmerman escalated the confrontation, when there was no need, and no law broken that would justify him following / apprehending him in the first place, so he pretty much just was strutting around his neighborhood, saw a black kid, and decided to fark with him. Unfortunately, Martin wasn't putting up with his bullshiat, and fought back, and instead of just fist fighting him in a confrontation that wasn't necessary anyway, he shot him like a little pussy when he started losing.

By bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement Martin was trying to kill him. Martin could have just walked home. Could have lived if he had went home instead of jumping Zimmerman,


/thats if you believe Zimmerman's story.  IMO, zimmerman was the instigator, and when he started losing the fight, killed the victim with a handgun.  But who knows? Neither of us was there, we don't know all the facts, and its all conjecture at this point.
 
2013-06-10 09:04:37 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: stand your ground


Not in play in this case.
This is a "self defense" defense.
 
2013-06-10 09:05:43 AM

Heinrich von Eckardt: From TFA:  "A key part of the prosecution's case will likely be a recording to police dispatchers in which Zimmerman said that he was going to pursue Martin, despite being advised to the contrary."

From Zimmerman's call :

1911:57    - 2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
1911:59    - 2:25 GZ: yeah
1912:00    - 2:26 Dispatcher: We don't need you to do that
1912:02    - 2:28 GZ: ok

That's some fine reporting.

"prosecuting"
 
2013-06-10 09:05:59 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems common sense that ANY interpretation of the "stand your ground" law would be mitigated by "forcing a confrontation" that wasn't justified in the first place. You can't attack someone for no legal reason, then kill them and say "i was standing my ground". Your initial illegal contact with the person vitiates any following legal defense. In other words, you cant attack/re strain a person for doing nothing but walking down the street, and when they defend themselves against your illegal and unjustified attack, kill them and say "i was defending myself, in fear of my life." You initiated the problem with your illegal confrontation, and just because you started losing the fight, doesn't give you Prima facie right to use deadly force, as the initial contact was in itself illegal.

That defense would be like a burglar breaking into someone's home..and when the homeowner attempts to restrain/arrest the suspect, the suspect kills him, using a "stand your ground" defense. To me, this defense is not unlike the "poisonous fruits" rule..which states that any "evidence" gained through illegal or unconstitutional means is "poisoned" by your illegal actions, and therefore, you may not use it in court.

But as i said, I'm not a lawyer, and i thought they would find OJ guilty, so what the hell do i know.


If I don't have a prima facie right to shoot you, and I shoot you, that doesn't necessarily mean I committed a crime.  While, at first blush, there might be some doubt as to whether or not I should have shot you, it turns out that facts x, y, and z, discovered later, made my actions OK.
 
2013-06-10 09:06:17 AM

cookiefleck: This is the state that let Casey Anthony walk and there was more evidence in that case than this one... I don't believe what Zimmerman did was right at all, but I wouldn't put anything past Floridians.


Also there is so much media attention on this case, the jury will be unpredictable.
 
2013-06-10 09:06:43 AM

s2s2s2: Bit'O'Gristle: stand your ground

Not in play in this case.
This is a "self defense" defense.


/ "self defense " is moot if you initiate an illegal confrontation.
 
2013-06-10 09:08:26 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems common sense that ANY interpretation of the "stand your ground" law would be mitigated by "forcing a confrontation" that wasn't justified in the first place. You can't attack someone for no legal reason, then kill them and say "i was standing my ground". Your initial illegal contact with the person vitiates any following legal defense. In other words, you cant attack/re strain a person for doing nothing but walking down the street, and when they defend themselves against your illegal and unjustified attack, kill them and say "i was defending myself, in fear of my life." You initiated the problem with your illegal confrontation, and just because you started losing the fight, doesn't give you Prima facie right to use deadly force, as the initial contact was in itself illegal.

That defense would be like a burglar breaking into someone's home..and when the homeowner attempts to restrain/arrest the suspect, the suspect kills him, using a "stand your ground" defense. To me, this defense is not unlike the "poisonous fruits" rule..which states that any "evidence" gained through illegal or unconstitutional means is "poisoned" by your illegal actions, and therefore, you may not use it in court.

But as i said, I'm not a lawyer, and i thought they would find OJ guilty, so what the hell do i know.


Because confronting someone isn't illegal, and breaking into someones home is committing a felony. Self defense isn't allowed when in the commission of a felony.

Walking up to someone and punching them in the face isn't a felony.  So if i came up to you, punched you in the face for no reason, then you began beating the ever loving shiat out of me to the point of where i thought you were going to kill me, then I could shoot you and it would be self defense.

You may not agree with it, but that's the law.
 
2013-06-10 09:12:14 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: s2s2s2: Bit'O'Gristle: stand your ground

Not in play in this case.
This is a "self defense" defense.

/ "self defense " is moot if you initiate an illegal confrontation.


There is an exception to that rule.  The key to lawful self defense despite illegal initiation is that the initiator must retreat after the illegal initiation and before the self-defense.
 
2013-06-10 09:13:44 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: "self defense " is moot if you initiate an illegal confrontation.


That is neither completely true under the law, nor a given in this case.
 
2013-06-10 09:14:03 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: By bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement Martin was trying to kill him. Martin could have just walked home. Could have lived if he had went home instead of jumping Zimmerman,


I know you're a Zimmerman thread troll account, but...

Wouldn't Martin have the right to stand his ground and defend himself?  After all, he wasn't breaking any laws and there was a strange adult following him with a gun.
 
2013-06-10 09:16:29 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: / "self defense " is moot if you initiate an illegal confrontation.


Not true.


The 2012 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
 
2013-06-10 09:19:31 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Wouldn't Martin have the right to stand his ground and defend himself?


Yes, and once that self defense turned to applying lethal force, he would be giving Zimmerman the right to shoot him.

The law should never compel you to die for making a mistake.
 
2013-06-10 09:34:31 AM

s2s2s2: Satanic_Hamster: Wouldn't Martin have the right to stand his ground and defend himself?

Yes, and once that self defense turned to applying lethal force, he would be giving Zimmerman the right to shoot him.

The law should never compel you to die for making a mistake.


Wait.

So it is your troll contention that I can defend myself with lethal force, but if I do so, it's legal for my attacker, who is committing a crime, to use lethal force on me now?

So under your legal theory, if a man is raping a woman, he's allowed to kill her if she pulls a knife or gun out of her purse?
 
2013-06-10 09:37:34 AM

Satanic_Hamster: So under your legal theory, if a man is raping a woman, he's allowed to kill her if she pulls a knife or gun out of her purse?


That is basically the idea.  If at any time anyone feels their life is in danger, they have the right to defend themselves by killing their attacker.
 
2013-06-10 09:55:20 AM

gadian: That is basically the idea. If at any time anyone feels their life is in danger, they have the right to defend themselves by killing their attacker.


Thems sounds like fighting words.
 
2013-06-10 09:59:24 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Thems sounds like fighting words.


Oh god, don't shoot! I left my semi-automatic self-defense weapon in my other coat and I'm really not strong enough to bash you with a rock.
 
2013-06-10 10:03:21 AM

gadian: Oh god, don't shoot! I left my semi-automatic self-defense weapon in my other coat and I'm really not strong enough to bash you with a rock.


My revolver is in the car, but I do have rocks, a rock bolt (steel bar), and a hammer available.

And one of these chunks of calcite/lead ore is pretty pointy.  Could do some damage with it.
 
2013-06-10 10:07:18 AM

Satanic_Hamster: gadian: Oh god, don't shoot! I left my semi-automatic self-defense weapon in my other coat and I'm really not strong enough to bash you with a rock.

My revolver is in the car, but I do have rocks, a rock bolt (steel bar), and a hammer available.

And one of these chunks of calcite/lead ore is pretty pointy.  Could do some damage with it.


Hmmm. I have an old school cellphone.  I've got one good toss with it.  Feelin' lucky, punk?
 
2013-06-10 10:07:28 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Is this the thread were if you think Zimmerman is not guilty your branded a racist? I've been looking for it


They're both guilty. So now it comes down to which one is guiltier.
 
2013-06-10 10:19:25 AM

nytmare: Mid_mo_mad_man: Is this the thread were if you think Zimmerman is not guilty your branded a racist? I've been looking for it

They're both guilty. So now it comes down to which one is guiltier.


I don't think "being followed" is a crime, there,  nytmare.
 
2013-06-10 10:20:37 AM

gadian: Hmmm. I have an old school cellphone. I've got one good toss with it. Feelin' lucky, punk?


I think rock beats cellphone..
 
2013-06-10 10:21:07 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Mid_mo_mad_man: By bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement Martin was trying to kill him. Martin could have just walked home. Could have lived if he had went home instead of jumping Zimmerman,

I know you're a Zimmerman thread troll account, but...

Wouldn't Martin have the right to stand his ground and defend himself?  After all, he wasn't breaking any laws and there was a strange adult following him with a gun.


Martin would have had the right to defend himself IF certain things happened, such as...

1. If Zimmerman brandished his firearm.
2. If Zimmerman used fighting words.
3. If Zimmerman physically attacked Martin first or tried to physically restrain Martin.

If Zimmerman only followed Martin, though, and the confrontation was only verbal, and didn't involve any fighting words or gun brandishing on Zimmerman's part, then Martin did not have a right to respond with physical violence.
 
2013-06-10 10:22:41 AM

Satanic_Hamster: gadian: Hmmm. I have an old school cellphone. I've got one good toss with it. Feelin' lucky, punk?

I think rock beats cellphone..


Wait, dammit, do I need to play Spock or Lizard?
 
2013-06-10 10:41:08 AM

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a Zimmerman thread troll account, but...

Wouldn't Martin have the right to stand his ground and defend himself?  After all, he wasn't breaking any laws and there was a strange adult following him with a gun.


I know you're not smart enough to be a troll, but...

Since when does going up to someone in your neighborhood that you don't recognize and asking them what they are doing in the area require that person to physically and violently defend themselves?  Last time I checked, asking someone an innocuous question doesn't give you the right to jump them, punch them in the face, break their nose, and then start bashing their head into a concrete sidewalk.
 
2013-06-10 10:41:10 AM

gadian: Wait, dammit, do I need to play Spock or Lizard?


That or get a piece of paper.
 
2013-06-10 10:44:33 AM

Satanic_Hamster: gadian: Wait, dammit, do I need to play Spock or Lizard?

That or get a piece of paper.


My life saved by the annoying receipt tape that I distinctly asked not to be given, but I was handed it anyway so I shoved it into my pocket in disgust!
 
2013-06-10 10:55:43 AM

gadian: My life saved by the annoying receipt tape that I distinctly asked not to be given, but I was handed it anyway so I shoved it into my pocket in disgust!


Only if the paper is bigger then my rock.   It has to be able to cover it.

Eponymous: I know you're not smart enough to be a troll, but...

Since when does going up to someone in your neighborhood that you don't recognize and asking them what they are doing in the area require that person to physically and violently defend themselves? Last time I checked, asking someone an innocuous question doesn't give you the right to jump them, punch them in the face, break their nose, and then start bashing their head into a concrete sidewalk.


So, based on all of Zimmerman's statements on how he was chasing a scumbag criminal who always escapes, you believe that when he caught up to him after following him on car and foot, he politely questioned him?
 
2013-06-10 11:00:49 AM
INNOCENT!

(bangs gavel)

You're free to go, Mr. Zimmerman.
 
2013-06-10 11:42:58 AM

another cultural observer: PunGent: hinten: Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence will come in the form of testimony from "Witness 8," Martin's girlfriend. She was on the phone with Martin when he was walking from a convenience store to his father's home and spotted Zimmerman. A recording of their conversation reveals that the two were talking when Martin said that he saw someone following him. The sound of a struggle begins, and the call cuts off.

This clearly shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman while on the phone and holding the phone in his hand. With hand number two and three he grabbed Zimmerman's head and banged it on the ground.

Or M drops his phone, and lays into Z.  Call cuts out when the phone hits the ground.
IOW, that isn't going to be enough, by itself, to get past a half-awake defense attorney.

You'd something more, like Witness 8 testifying that M yelled over the phone "he's coming at me with a gun" or something.

Which, who knows, could happen.

Jury will like the recording (for whatever it's worth), but other than that the GF is useless to the prosecution because of some stupid defense trick where they'll point out she lied under oath in a sworn statement, or some technical BS like that, which shouldn't matter.


Um..."lying under oath" isn't exactly "technical BS" in my book, if it's specifically about the incident in question.

Lying about her tax returns ten years ago?  sure...irrelevant.  I'd even consider granting a prosecution motion to exclude mention of that by the defense, as unduly prejudicial.

But changing her story about THIS event, under oath or not?  the defense gets to be all over that.  That's the whole point of cross-examination.
 
2013-06-10 12:00:34 PM
I think "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"  will result in acquittal.
 
2013-06-10 12:05:12 PM
My prediction: Zimmerman will walk.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report