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.

(USA Today)   Hey, where the white women at?   (usatoday.com) divider line 200
    More: Interesting, George Zimmerman, Relay For Life, jury  
•       •       •

12768 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jun 2013 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 12:58:28 PM  

gimmegimme: Nutsac_Jim: gimmegimme: Phinn: gimmegimme: If following someone for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot does not qualify as "pursuit"...well, maybe English is not your first language.

If you think that "pursuit" always means "imminent attack," then you should probably brush up on your English, too.

At least you're agreeing that Zimmy was engaged in an armed pursuit of the teenager he eventually shot to death at close range.

 Ahh..  Now i understand whats going on here.  GimmieGimmie is a mind reader and knows what people are thinking.  Thats how GimmieGimmie knows how Treyvon Martin requested that Zimmerman stop following him and who started throwing punches first.

I don't know where you're getting that.

Armed: Zimmy had a gun.

Pursuit: Zimmy was following Martin around, pursuing him.

Armed pursuit.  (Sounds like a Van Damme movie.)


An like most movies it's been reveiwed on fark  ad nauseum..
 
2013-06-21 12:59:32 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Thug acted all gangster


Mid_mo_mad_man: If it wasn't for Jesse Jackass and the like this would have never gone to trail.


Your stormfront is showing.
 
2013-06-21 12:59:59 PM  

tblax: Black kid walking down the street? License to kill


-2

Would not reply
 
2013-06-21 01:07:48 PM  

gimmegimme: KrustyKitten: gimmegimme: Nutsac_Jim:

No.. I am not criticizing Martin.  I am criticizing you for asserting that the reason for assaulting Zimmerman was because clearly zimmerman would not stop following him.    I think it is fine to assault a person that follows you after you express that you do not like his behavior and you find it threatening.

You're putting too much of a burden on the victim.  An adult doesn't have to be told not to follow people around.  Adults understand that is unpleasant and suspicious behavior.  If I follow a 17-year-old woman in a vehicle and then on foot, the police will have a talk with me.

I have no evidence that Martin demanded Zimmerman stop.  I have no evidence that Martin didnt hide in the bushes and give Zimmerman a donkey punch.
Neither do you.

'Armed pursuit' is loaded.  This makes it sound like someone hunted the other down 'like a dog'.
He was simply following someone and happened to be carrying.  That's it.


Zimmy was armed.  He was clearly in pursuit.  I'm sorry if you don't like words.

Calling someone a pussy for carrying is also loaded.

No, a pussy starts a fistfight and then grabs his gun when he's losing.


Sure was, right up to the point when he agreed with the operator that he didn't have to do that, gave up pursuit and was circling back to his truck.  You know, right before Martin jumped him and got shot for initiating a physical confrontation.

Now, I don't know that this actually happened, but it does appear just a likely as the scenario you've put out today, so I thought I'd contribute.

/making up stuff and pretending it's true is fun!

If following someone for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot does not qualify as "pursuit"...well, maybe English is not your first language.



I take issue with your implication that GZ was actively in pursuit of Martin when the physical confrontation occurred.
 Ironic that you mock me be for being an immigrant, in this thread especially.
 
2013-06-21 01:09:36 PM  

gimmegimme: Hey, it's not me determining the extent of Zimmy's injuries. The doctors kept him in the hospital for several weeks for a reason, right? The surgeons who put his face back together knew what they were doing. They're heroes.



You still haven't read a single word of criminal law, have you?

There's no shame in that.  But it does make you look very silly when you pretend to know things you clearly don't.

For the 80th time today, the legal standard is not based on whether Martin actually caused fatal, or even potentially fatal, injuries to GZ.  The issue is whether GZ reasonably believed that Martin was imminently threatening to.

You don't actually have to wait until your skull opens before you are allowed to exercise your right to self-defense.
 
2013-06-21 01:12:05 PM  

KrustyKitten: gimmegimme: KrustyKitten: gimmegimme: Nutsac_Jim:

No.. I am not criticizing Martin.  I am criticizing you for asserting that the reason for assaulting Zimmerman was because clearly zimmerman would not stop following him.    I think it is fine to assault a person that follows you after you express that you do not like his behavior and you find it threatening.

You're putting too much of a burden on the victim.  An adult doesn't have to be told not to follow people around.  Adults understand that is unpleasant and suspicious behavior.  If I follow a 17-year-old woman in a vehicle and then on foot, the police will have a talk with me.

I have no evidence that Martin demanded Zimmerman stop.  I have no evidence that Martin didnt hide in the bushes and give Zimmerman a donkey punch.
Neither do you.

'Armed pursuit' is loaded.  This makes it sound like someone hunted the other down 'like a dog'.
He was simply following someone and happened to be carrying.  That's it.


Zimmy was armed.  He was clearly in pursuit.  I'm sorry if you don't like words.

Calling someone a pussy for carrying is also loaded.

No, a pussy starts a fistfight and then grabs his gun when he's losing.


Sure was, right up to the point when he agreed with the operator that he didn't have to do that, gave up pursuit and was circling back to his truck.  You know, right before Martin jumped him and got shot for initiating a physical confrontation.

Now, I don't know that this actually happened, but it does appear just a likely as the scenario you've put out today, so I thought I'd contribute.

/making up stuff and pretending it's true is fun!

If following someone for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot does not qualify as "pursuit"...well, maybe English is not your first language.


I take issue with your implication that GZ was actively in pursuit of Martin when the physical confrontation occurred.
 Ironic that you mock me be for being an immigrant, in this thread especially.


First of all, I would never mock people who learn English as a Second Language.  I have a great deal of patience when I learn that someone with whom I am talking may not have a solid grasp of English.  This kind of understanding allows people to communicate.  I am very glad that many states offer robust ESL programs to folks of all ages.

As for whether his armed pursuit was "active," you're splitting hairs.  If I break into my neighbor's house, can I just tell him that I'm on my way out so he won't call the police?  It's no longer an active burglary, after all.  All we have to determine these things are Zimmerman's contradictory statements.
 
2013-06-21 01:15:00 PM  

Phinn: gimmegimme: Hey, it's not me determining the extent of Zimmy's injuries. The doctors kept him in the hospital for several weeks for a reason, right? The surgeons who put his face back together knew what they were doing. They're heroes.

You still haven't read a single word of criminal law, have you?

There's no shame in that.  But it does make you look very silly when you pretend to know things you clearly don't.

For the 80th time today, the legal standard is not based on whether Martin actually caused fatal, or even potentially fatal, injuries to GZ.  The issue is whether GZ reasonably believed that Martin was imminently threatening to.

You don't actually have to wait until your skull opens before you are allowed to exercise your right to self-defense.


For the eightieth time, I'm very happy we'll have the criminal justice system sort the issue out.  (I just wish Zimmerman had allowed police to sort things out that night instead of taking things into his own history-of-violence hands...)

You must admit that some of your self-defense discussion applies to Martin.  He didn't know what the fark Zimmy was up to.  He didn't know if Zimmy wanted to kidnap him, rape him, shoot him...whatever.  If Zimmy had a right to self-defense, why didn't Martin?
 
2013-06-21 01:18:55 PM  

gimmegimme: KrustyKitten: gimmegimme: KrustyKitten: gimmegimme: Nutsac_Jim:

No.. I am not criticizing Martin.  I am criticizing you for asserting that the reason for assaulting Zimmerman was because clearly zimmerman would not stop following him.    I think it is fine to assault a person that follows you after you express that you do not like his behavior and you find it threatening.

You're putting too much of a burden on the victim.  An adult doesn't have to be told not to follow people around.  Adults understand that is unpleasant and suspicious behavior.  If I follow a 17-year-old woman in a vehicle and then on foot, the police will have a talk with me.

I have no evidence that Martin demanded Zimmerman stop.  I have no evidence that Martin didnt hide in the bushes and give Zimmerman a donkey punch.
Neither do you.

'Armed pursuit' is loaded.  This makes it sound like someone hunted the other down 'like a dog'.
He was simply following someone and happened to be carrying.  That's it.


Zimmy was armed.  He was clearly in pursuit.  I'm sorry if you don't like words.

Calling someone a pussy for carrying is also loaded.

No, a pussy starts a fistfight and then grabs his gun when he's losing.


Sure was, right up to the point when he agreed with the operator that he didn't have to do that, gave up pursuit and was circling back to his truck.  You know, right before Martin jumped him and got shot for initiating a physical confrontation.

Now, I don't know that this actually happened, but it does appear just a likely as the scenario you've put out today, so I thought I'd contribute.

/making up stuff and pretending it's true is fun!

If following someone for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot does not qualify as "pursuit"...well, maybe English is not your first language.


I take issue with your implication that GZ was actively in pursuit of Martin when the physical confrontation occurred.
 Ironic that you mock me be for being an immigrant, in this thread especially.

...


I'm trying to say that I don't believe that there's any proof that Z was actively pursuing Martin when the confrontation occurred.  If you are bothered that someone is following you home and two blocks before you get there, that person turns around and walks away, do you still get to follow them and beat them up?
Obviously, I feel this is relevant and not splitting hairs.  Actually, I think it makes all the difference in a situation like this.
 
2013-06-21 01:22:35 PM  

KrustyKitten: I'm trying to say that I don't believe that there's any proof that Z was actively pursuing Martin when the confrontation occurred. If you are bothered that someone is following you home and two blocks before you get there, that person turns around and walks away, do you still get to follow them and beat them up?
Obviously, I feel this is relevant and not splitting hairs. Actually, I think it makes all the difference in a situation like this.


How the heck was Martin supposed to know that his stalker was done stalking?  How was he to know that the stalker was alone?  How was he to know if the stalker was armed?  Or how well armed?  He seems to have seen the stalker on the phone...was the stalker talking to someone else in a van that could be used to whisk him away?

Martin had no idea what was going on, only that he was being stalked by some weirdo.  If I follow a 17-year-old girl around for twenty minutes and then stop to tie my shoe, I can't complain if I get Maced.
 
2013-06-21 01:28:09 PM  

gimmegimme: KrustyKitten: I'm trying to say that I don't believe that there's any proof that Z was actively pursuing Martin when the confrontation occurred. If you are bothered that someone is following you home and two blocks before you get there, that person turns around and walks away, do you still get to follow them and beat them up?
Obviously, I feel this is relevant and not splitting hairs. Actually, I think it makes all the difference in a situation like this.

How the heck was Martin supposed to know that his stalker was done stalking?  How was he to know that the stalker was alone?  How was he to know if the stalker was armed?  Or how well armed?  He seems to have seen the stalker on the phone...was the stalker talking to someone else in a van that could be used to whisk him away?

Martin had no idea what was going on, only that he was being stalked by some weirdo.  If I follow a 17-year-old girl around for twenty minutes and then stop to tie my shoe, I can't complain if I get Maced.




Following does not equal stalking. As I pointed out earlier Martin wasn't scared. The gf's statement proves as much
 
2013-06-21 01:28:36 PM  

gimmegimme: For the eightieth time, I'm very happy we'll have the criminal justice system sort the issue out.



That's patently untrue.  You're making dozens of assertions about the legal significance of everything from GZ's conversation with the police, to GZ's car, his gun, and his movements, etc.  All of which have been completely wrong.

You're clearly not waiting for the criminal justice system to operate.  You have reached a highly-emotional, ill-informed, legally-baseless conclusion about Zimmerman's supposed guilt, and you're defending it like it's the last shred of your dignity.

gimmegimme: You must admit that some of your self-defense discussion applies to Martin.



I do.  The law applies to everyone, all the time.  Unfortunately, you don't know what the law is, and so in the place of that knowledge, all you have are wild guesses and a profoundly contorted sense of equity.

gimmegimme: He didn't know what the fark Zimmy was up to. He didn't know if Zimmy wanted to kidnap him, rape him, shoot him...whatever. If Zimmy had a right to self-defense, why didn't Martin?



Not knowing what someone is up to is not the same thing as an imminent threat of bodily harm.  It's suspicion.  Why can't you understand this basic concept?

Martin DID have the right to self-defense.  And, more importantly, if he had lived and GZ had died, he would also have the presumption of innocence as to any self-defense claim he may have made.

The problem you have been unable to resolve is that there is no evidence to disprove GZ's claim that he acted in self-defense.
 
2013-06-21 01:31:30 PM  

Phinn: gimmegimme: For the eightieth time, I'm very happy we'll have the criminal justice system sort the issue out.

That's patently untrue.  You're making dozens of assertions about the legal significance of everything from GZ's conversation with the police, to GZ's car, his gun, and his movements, etc.  All of which have been completely wrong.

You're clearly not waiting for the criminal justice system to operate.  You have reached a highly-emotional, ill-informed, legally-baseless conclusion about Zimmerman's supposed guilt, and you're defending it like it's the last shred of your dignity.

gimmegimme: You must admit that some of your self-defense discussion applies to Martin.

I do.  The law applies to everyone, all the time.  Unfortunately, you don't know what the law is, and so in the place of that knowledge, all you have are wild guesses and a profoundly contorted sense of equity.

gimmegimme: He didn't know what the fark Zimmy was up to. He didn't know if Zimmy wanted to kidnap him, rape him, shoot him...whatever. If Zimmy had a right to self-defense, why didn't Martin?

Not knowing what someone is up to is not the same thing as an imminent threat of bodily harm.  It's suspicion.  Why can't you understand this basic concept?

Martin DID have the right to self-defense.  And, more importantly, if he had lived and GZ had died, he would also have the presumption of innocence as to any self-defense claim he may have made.

The problem you have been unable to resolve is that there is no evidence to disprove GZ's claim that he acted in self-defense.


You must be psychic, as I assure you that I am quite glad that there will be a trial and I am pleased that the system will follow the verdict, whatever it might be.  That's what we do in this country.  (We don't take the law into our own hands.)

And you acknowledge Martin had a right to self-defense.  If the seventeen-year-old African American males of Sanford, Florida have learned nothing else, it's that they must be armed at all times for their own protection.
 
2013-06-21 01:38:37 PM  
Zimmerman is a murderer.
Such a simple case, yet obstruction of justice may happen by playing the emotion and 'white Mexican could never be a racist' card.

/Up next on the docket: Old fat white racist sheriff in Arizona to be tried on abusing the power of his office, plus his hiring pedophiles to patrol little kids schools.
//But first: Massive man hunt underway to find the owner of the dog poop that keeps being placed on the corner of Elm and First.
 
2013-06-21 01:44:18 PM  

jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: gimmegimme: Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted.

Nutsac_Jim: I know of no people who assert that Zimmerman did not kill Martin

Is that an ignorant response or intentional dishonesty?

OK.  Show me one person post in this thread or some other thread that says
that the one armed man killed Treyvon Martin, not Zimmerman.

So dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.


Show me the post in this thread that states that someone else killed Treyvon or else you are a sac of dung.
 
2013-06-21 01:47:04 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: gimmegimme: Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted.

Nutsac_Jim: I know of no people who assert that Zimmerman did not kill Martin

Is that an ignorant response or intentional dishonesty?

OK.  Show me one person post in this thread or some other thread that says
that the one armed man killed Treyvon Martin, not Zimmerman.

So dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Show me the post in this thread that states that someone else killed Treyvon or else you are a sac of dung.


I think part of the confusion is that the original word was "assaulted" and then you changed it to "killed."
 
2013-06-21 01:51:57 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: gimmegimme: Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted.

Nutsac_Jim: I know of no people who assert that Zimmerman did not kill Martin

Is that an ignorant response or intentional dishonesty?

OK.  Show me one person post in this thread or some other thread that says
that the one armed man killed Treyvon Martin, not Zimmerman.

So dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Show me the post in this thread that states that someone else killed Treyvon or else you are a sac of dung.


Someone states the obvious - "Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted".

And you pretend they said, "Zimmerman did not kill Martin".

And you are deeply offended that someone notices your dishonesty. Man up. Act like an adult.
 
2013-06-21 01:57:51 PM  

gimmegimme: I am quite glad that there will be a trial and I am pleased that the system will follow the verdict, whatever it might be. That's what we do in this country. (We don't take the law into our own hands.)


 
You just can't stop spewing your ignorance, can you?  Trials are not supposed to be an opportunity to reveal all the evidence, and to investigate the facts.  They exist only when there is ALREADY a body of evidence in existence that is sufficient to convict (which in this case includes evidence sufficient to disprove self-defense).


The prosecution is SUPPOSED to weigh this evidence independently, with the understanding of the presumption of innocence against them, AND the standard of proof that is stacked against them.  They are not supposed to even ATTEMPT to bring a case to trial unless they are already convinced that there is evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  Trials do not exist to test their theories, or to investigate the facts, or to just roll the dice and see how things play out.  Trials are held because prosecutors are fallible, and their judgment as to what constitutes sufficient evidence may be faulty.  But the basic principle is clear -- charges should not be filed and a trial should not be held on the basis of a mere possibility or opinion of guilt.

Trials should not be a 50-50 chance of conviction versus non-conviction.  Among the set of cases that go all the way to a trial, there is supposed to be a strong selection bias in favor of guilty verdicts.  This is because only the cases where there is extremely solid proof of guilt are even supposed to go to trial, and the rest either dismissed or dropped.  As a result, the way it's supposed to work is that most full-trial prosecutions should result in convictions.

This trial, however, is a sham.  It's a politically-motivated witch hunt.  There is clearly insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense.  At least it's clear among people who understand the law and look at the evidence objectively.

And, yes, you do get to "take the law into your own hands."  Self-defense is a basic human right, and killing in self-defense is 100% lawful and proper. It's not merely wrong-but-we'll-let-this-one-slide.  It's not merely bad-but-excusable.  It's completely just and right.

And you aren't obligated to check with the police beforehand, nor are you required to prove yourself after the fact.  The State must disprove the claim that your act was in self-defense.  That's what the "presumption of innocence" means.
 
2013-06-21 01:58:41 PM  

tblax: See I'm not gonna get anywhere arguing with the likes of you because I know we have different opinions on who initiated the conflict, something which is currently unknowable with the available evidence.


The likes of you.  what the eff.

I have reasons to believe Martin started it.  I have reasons to believe Zimmerman started it.

If one has no evidence, then one can't find guilty of murder simply because he got out of his car and you would not have.

Zimmerman followed him.  That is clear.  Hunted down?  No, not unless Zimmerman is the smartest of hunters and enticed Martin to engage in fisticuffs enough to get all bloody, then issuing the killing round.

Zimmerman does not seem to be that smart to me.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, at best.  Murder, nope.
 
2013-06-21 02:10:34 PM  

jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: gimmegimme: Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted.

Nutsac_Jim: I know of no people who assert that Zimmerman did not kill Martin

Is that an ignorant response or intentional dishonesty?

OK.  Show me one person post in this thread or some other thread that says
that the one armed man killed Treyvon Martin, not Zimmerman.

So dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Show me the post in this thread that states that someone else killed Treyvon or else you are a sac of dung.

Someone states the obvious - "Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted".

And you pretend they said, "Zimmerman did not kill Martin".

And you are deeply offended that someone notices your dishonesty. Man up. Act like an adult.


What the eff are you smoking.  NOBODY is saying that Zimmerman and Martin were not fighting.  NOBODY.  Zimmerman himself states they were fighting.  Why would anyone argue otherwise.

Yes, it is such an **asinine** statement, that I thought no person that can count to potato would make it.
 
2013-06-21 02:16:26 PM  

gimmegimme: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: gimmegimme: Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted.

Nutsac_Jim: I know of no people who assert that Zimmerman did not kill Martin

Is that an ignorant response or intentional dishonesty?

OK.  Show me one person post in this thread or some other thread that says
that the one armed man killed Treyvon Martin, not Zimmerman.

So dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Show me the post in this thread that states that someone else killed Treyvon or else you are a sac of dung.

I think part of the confusion is that the original word was "assaulted" and then you changed it to "killed."


OK.  Clearly, please back up your initial statement that I misread.   Show me one person in this thread that said that Zimmerman never came in contact with Martin.   Hell, go find any thread.     They were clearly fighting.  Witnesses state it.  Zimmerman states it.
 
2013-06-21 02:19:14 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: gimmegimme: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: jaytkay: gimmegimme: Some Zim fans claim that Martin was never assaulted.

Nutsac_Jim: I know of no people who assert that Zimmerman did not kill Martin

Is that an ignorant response or intentional dishonesty?

OK.  Show me one person post in this thread or some other thread that says
that the one armed man killed Treyvon Martin, not Zimmerman.

So dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Show me the post in this thread that states that someone else killed Treyvon or else you are a sac of dung.

I think part of the confusion is that the original word was "assaulted" and then you changed it to "killed."

OK.  Clearly, please back up your initial statement that I misread.   Show me one person in this thread that said that Zimmerman never came in contact with Martin.   Hell, go find any thread.     They were clearly fighting.  Witnesses state it.  Zimmerman states it.


Now you're talking about "came in contact" and "fighting."  Words have meanings, friend.

And I don't think I got the props I deserve for this earlier exchange we had:


Nutsac_Jim:

Martin may have walked on Mars one day.  I doubt it.   He was shot in the chest after assaulting someone.  Most astronauts do not have assault on their record.

Gimmegimme:

Then I guess George Zimmerman can never be an astronaut.

 
2013-06-21 02:23:29 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: natazha: IdBeCrazyIf: I'm a little surprised they got all women

I'm not, it almost guaranties Zimmerman will walk. After all, he killed a scary, black guy.

what makes you think Trayvon wasn't 'a scary, black guy '? Were you there that night?
I may be wrong but I don't think Trayvon is a 5 ft nothing 99 ibs weakling who mannerism is that of Larry from the Stooges and speaks impeccable Shakesphearean English with like manners to boot..


Like this:
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 02:26:35 PM  
thisthreadagain.jpg

For what it's worth, here's what I think happened. It is consistent with all the known facts, AND most if not all of Zimmerman's statements (which, because he's an interested party, cannot be relied upon).

Zimmermen got out of his car to follow Trayvon. Trayvon rounds a corner and hides. Zimmerman rounds the corner, and walks past the hiding Trayvon. He agrees to discontinue pursuit, hangs up with the police, and turns to start walking back. Trayvon sees Zimmerman suddenly turn around and start walking back in his direction, and assumes he's been found (or is about to be). He confronts Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulls his gun. Trayvon, seeing the gun, jumps Zimmerman and attempts to neutralize the threat (ie: pounds Zimmerman's head into the ground to knock him unconscious. Which is the only real way to neutralize a man with a gun, other than take the gun away, which Zimmerman also says Trayvon attempted.) Zimmermen shoots Trayvon.
 
2013-06-21 02:27:20 PM  
  

gimmegimme: I think part of the confusion is that the original word was "assaulted" and then you changed it to "killed."


OK.   I apolozige.  Jaytkey was not clear in his insults as to which statement he was referring.

It is clear they were fighting.  Nobody argues otherwise.  At best, someone might say that martin didnt have a black eye.   This is not evidence they were not fighting.  It is evidence Zimmerman is a poor fighter.
 
2013-06-21 02:27:52 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: NOBODY is saying that Zimmerman and Martin were not fighting. NOBODY. Zimmerman himself states they were fighting. Why would anyone argue otherwise


Nobody is arguing otherwise outside your imagination. So you can stop being angry about it.
 
2013-06-21 02:36:36 PM  

gimmegimme: Now you're talking about "came in contact" and "fighting."  Words have meanings, friend.


I am assuming by assault, you are not referring to a verbal assault, but of battery.

You said that there are zim lovers stating that Zim did not assault Martin.

I am assuming you are not saying that they are saying Zimmerman said nothing offensive to Martin, but that
Zimmerman struck no blows on Martin.

I do not see how *anyone* can make this argument.


Perhaps you mean there are zimmerman lovers that state that zimmerman did not start the fight.  Possibly.  That is hardly an unbelievable scenario.  There are Martin lovers that state martin did not start the fight too.  Also a believable scenario.
 
2013-06-21 02:40:28 PM  

gimmegimme: Now you're talking about "came in contact" and "fighting."  Words have meanings, friend.

And I don't think I got the props I deserve for this earlier exchange we had:


Nutsac_Jim:

Martin may have walked on Mars one day.  I doubt it.   He was shot in the chest after assaulting someone.  Most astronauts do not have assault on their record.

Gimmegimme:

Then I guess George Zimmerman can never be an astronaut.



I did find this a humorous comment.
 
2013-06-21 02:41:08 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Perhaps you mean there are zimmerman lovers that state that zimmerman did not start the fight.


That's exactly what he meant.

As you stated, claiming there was no physical contact is ridiculous. Which is why nobody is claiming that.

My apologies for being a dick about it.
 
2013-06-21 02:49:00 PM  

jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: NOBODY is saying that Zimmerman and Martin were not fighting. NOBODY. Zimmerman himself states they were fighting. Why would anyone argue otherwise

Nobody is arguing otherwise outside your imagination. So you can stop being angry about it.


GimmieGimme made the statement that some Zimmerman lovers believed Zimmerman did not assault Martin.

(assumption is that assault was used to mean striking martin with his fists, rather than a verbal assault)

I replied that nobody makes such assertions that Zimmerman did not touch Martin,( police statement, witnesses..etc)

Then, you piped in and start with the insults.
 
2013-06-21 02:56:13 PM  

jaytkay: Nutsac_Jim: Perhaps you mean there are zimmerman lovers that state that zimmerman did not start the fight.

That's exactly what he meant.

As you stated, claiming there was no physical contact is ridiculous. Which is why nobody is claiming that.

My apologies for being a dick about it.



OK.   I guess so.      I think there are zimmerman lovers who refuse to beleive zimmerman poked the bear, and martin lovers who refuse to beleive a kid chose the wrong time to be a punk kid.

 It is unfortunate.  I wish the prosecution went with manslaughter or negligence of some kind.  Murder demands much more intent.
 
2013-06-21 02:57:07 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: roddack: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I thought all trials had to have 12 jurors unless it was strictly a civil action?  Is florida different?

(I googled, but on came up with same information)

From wiki
Supreme court rulled in Williams V. Florida that six juriors was sufficent and that "the 12-man panel" is not a necessary ingredient of "trial by jury" and is not a violation of the sizth amendment

thanks!


As such, states have the right to determine the number of jurors for cases (but I believe it can not be less than 6). In Florida it's a 6 person jury unless it's a capital case (death penalty) in which case they appoint a 12 member jury.
 
2013-06-21 03:08:37 PM  

fredklein: thisthreadagain.jpg

For what it's worth, here's what I think happened. It is consistent with all the known facts, AND most if not all of Zimmerman's statements (which, because he's an interested party, cannot be relied upon).

Zimmermen got out of his car to follow Trayvon. Trayvon rounds a corner and hides. Zimmerman rounds the corner, and walks past the hiding Trayvon. He agrees to discontinue pursuit, hangs up with the police, and turns to start walking back. Trayvon sees Zimmerman suddenly turn around and start walking back in his direction, and assumes he's been found (or is about to be). He confronts Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulls his gun. Trayvon, seeing the gun, jumps Zimmerman and attempts to neutralize the threat (ie: pounds Zimmerman's head into the ground to knock him unconscious. Which is the only real way to neutralize a man with a gun, other than take the gun away, which Zimmerman also says Trayvon attempted.) Zimmermen shoots Trayvon.


I feel my version was much more plausible.  Yours involves Trayvon attacking a man that had pulled a gun.  I'm not saying that this isn't possible as all people have the "fight or flight" moment.  However, I feel that most people are smart enough to not bring a fist to a gunfight.
 
2013-06-21 04:28:30 PM  
The jury should be made up of all black people.

Just sayin.
 
2013-06-21 04:35:28 PM  

Hermione_Granger: The jury should be made up of all black people.

Just sayin.


What assumptions lead you to that conclusions?
 
2013-06-21 04:49:25 PM  

meatsack_01: Poor lil trayvon is so innocent. i'm surprised he wasn't wearing a halo.

[moonbattery.com image 500x291]


The Predator doesn't shoot unarmed men.
 
2013-06-21 04:50:13 PM  

IronOcelot: So many people are going to freak when Zimmerman walks.


There were riots for Rodney King.

If he walks, there will be riots in Florida.

Bet me on this.
 
2013-06-21 04:52:58 PM  

Hermione_Granger: The jury should be made up of all black people.

Just sayin.


Just asking: How many, if any, of the jurors are black? But then again, I doubt anyone knows yet...
 
2013-06-21 04:53:25 PM  

trickymoo: IronOcelot: So many people are going to freak when Zimmerman walks.

There were riots for Rodney King.

If he walks, there will be riots in Florida.

Bet me on this.


I'll bet you a month of TF that there aren't.
/conviction and no one pays up.
 
2013-06-21 05:14:39 PM  

Abuse Liability: fredklein: thisthreadagain.jpg

For what it's worth, here's what I think happened. It is consistent with all the known facts, AND most if not all of Zimmerman's statements (which, because he's an interested party, cannot be relied upon).

Zimmermen got out of his car to follow Trayvon. Trayvon rounds a corner and hides. Zimmerman rounds the corner, and walks past the hiding Trayvon. He agrees to discontinue pursuit, hangs up with the police, and turns to start walking back. Trayvon sees Zimmerman suddenly turn around and start walking back in his direction, and assumes he's been found (or is about to be). He confronts Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulls his gun. Trayvon, seeing the gun, jumps Zimmerman and attempts to neutralize the threat (ie: pounds Zimmerman's head into the ground to knock him unconscious. Which is the only real way to neutralize a man with a gun, other than take the gun away, which Zimmerman also says Trayvon attempted.) Zimmermen shoots Trayvon.

I feel my version was much more plausible.  Yours involves Trayvon attacking a man that had pulled a gun.  I'm not saying that this isn't possible as all people have the "fight or flight" moment.  However, I feel that most people are smart enough to not bring a fist to a gunfight.


So, if you were hiding from a man with a gun, and he turned around and headed right for your hiding spot, you wouldn't think you were found out, and attack him first?


Maybe Trayvon didn't see the gun... at first. Maybe he just jumped out to confront Zimmerman. IIRC, the girlfriend says she heard Trayvon say "Why are you following me?" to Zimmerman. Maybe it's only after that that Trayvon sees the gun. Doesn't change the basic scenario- Trayvon thought the guy who was following him, the guy he was hiding from, had found him, and Trayvon was in fear of him. Still fits all the known facts, and all of Zimmerman's testimony.
 
2013-06-21 05:43:52 PM  

gimmegimme: occamswrist: gimmegimme: occamswrist: MNguy: Nutsac_Jim: gimmegimme: Five of the jurors are mothers; here's hoping they'll think about what it's like when your 17-year-old kid is shot down in cold blood with a can of iced tea in his hand.

Dont forget that he was carrying his grandfathers medicine to him, and going to make a donation to Mother Teresa's charity and ignore the beating.

I thought he was casing housing to break into?

I love these threads...

Martin was probably looking around at the houses because it was his first time there and he didn't know where he was going and Zimmerman misinterpreted it as a kid unnecesarily standing around in the rain casing the houses.

There's no proof at all that Martin was "looking around at the houses."  Zimmerman told different people different things.  In the Hannity interview, Zimmy said that Martin was suspicious because he wasn't walking home fast enough in the rain AND the kid was suspicious because he was skipping.

Skipping? News to me...but then all my knowledge about the case is from fark threads...

Here's the link.  Zimmy doesn't even have the common sense to say that he wished things hadn't happened the way they had, blah blah.


OK. I watched the clip up until the skipping part. Thank Jesus it was only a few minutes into the interview because Zimmerman sounds like a retard trying to choose his words carefully and that was painful to watch. Plus fox news is painful to watch anyway.

Zimmerman said he was running and then backtracked and used the word skipping. I doubt Martin was farking skipping in the same sense we all skipped in 3rd grade. You kidding me? He was likely lightly jogging but Zimmerman isn't articulate and couldn't find the right word.

Zimmerman also said in the interview it seemed odd that martin was walking leisurely in the rain and going in between houses. So I stand by my earlier post since that was when Zimmerman became suspicious, not during the skipping part.
 
2013-06-21 06:42:56 PM  

Phinn: gimmegimme: Hey, it's not me determining the extent of Zimmy's injuries. The doctors kept him in the hospital for several weeks for a reason, right? The surgeons who put his face back together knew what they were doing. They're heroes.

You still haven't read a single word of criminal law, have you?

There's no shame in that.  But it does make you look very silly when you pretend to know things you clearly don't.

For the 80th time today, the legal standard is not based on whether Martin actually caused fatal, or even potentially fatal, injuries to GZ.  The issue is whether GZ reasonably believed that Martin was imminently threatening to.

You don't actually have to wait until your skull opens before you are allowed to exercise your right to self-defense.


Ironically, that's the exact same point the prosecution will likely argue in favor of Martin defending himself from Zimmerman.

This isn't the court of law - not a single person here is obligated to hold the opinion that Zimmerman is innocent; someone has to/is going to weigh the evidence and determine it's against Zimmerman - that's kind of the entire point of an adversarial system.

P.S. The force continuum in self-defense isn't a two-way street. If you instigate an attack, the victim has the legal right to escalate their force to match and/or exceed the aggressor in order to prevent injury; the aggressor, by law, is already committing a crime by attacking the victim and as such is  not entitled to any self-defense right with the exception of the victim exceeding what is necessary to prevent injury (IE using a gun to prevent injury from someone poking them with a blunt stick). This can obviously become a complex continuum based on what a reasonable person deems "imminent threat," but you're insane if you think a reasonable person isn't going to give benefit of the doubt to the victim first, should an aggressor be determined with sufficient probability.
 
2013-06-21 07:11:44 PM  
I guess the only question left is which cities are going to burn?
 
2013-06-21 10:34:15 PM  
 Perpetuous Procrastination: This can obviously become a complex continuum based on what a reasonable person deems "imminent threat," but you're insane if you think a reasonable person isn't going to give benefit of the doubt to the victim first, should an aggressor be determined with sufficient probability.

Yup.  Now all the prosecution has to do is come up with some evidence where Zimmerman is saying he is going to beat Martin's ass.

All we have though, is evidence where the girlfriend says that Martin refused to leave the scene.
Zimm will likely say that when the officer told him he didnt need to follow Martin, that Zimmerman turned around to go back to his car and that is when Martin jumped out and said 'why you following me' and jumped him.

Even if Zimmerman found martin, that isnt going to be said.  It will be Zimmerman's side of the story that he was just minding his own business walking back to the car.
 
2013-06-21 10:47:11 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Phinn: gimmegimme: Hey, it's not me determining the extent of Zimmy's injuries. The doctors kept him in the hospital for several weeks for a reason, right? The surgeons who put his face back together knew what they were doing. They're heroes.

You still haven't read a single word of criminal law, have you?

There's no shame in that.  But it does make you look very silly when you pretend to know things you clearly don't.

For the 80th time today, the legal standard is not based on whether Martin actually caused fatal, or even potentially fatal, injuries to GZ.  The issue is whether GZ reasonably believed that Martin was imminently threatening to.

You don't actually have to wait until your skull opens before you are allowed to exercise your right to self-defense.

Ironically, that's the exact same point the prosecution will likely argue in favor of Martin defending himself from Zimmerman.

This isn't the court of law - not a single person here is obligated to hold the opinion that Zimmerman is innocent; someone has to/is going to weigh the evidence and determine it's against Zimmerman - that's kind of the entire point of an adversarial system.

P.S. The force continuum in self-defense isn't a two-way street. If you instigate an attack, the victim has the legal right to escalate their force to match and/or exceed the aggressor in order to prevent injury; the aggressor, by law, is already committing a crime by attacking the victim and as such is  not entitled to any self-defense right with the exception of the victim exceeding what is necessary to prevent injury (IE using a gun to prevent injury from someone poking them with a blunt stick). This can obviously become a complex continuum based on what a reasonable person deems "imminent threat," but you're insane if you think a reasonable person isn't going to give benefit of the doubt to the victim first, should an aggressor be determined with sufficient probability.


Fark is not a court of law, yet every two-bit nonsense-machine feels the need to hold forth on what the law actually is. I don't see a lot of ignorant losers pretending to know the intricate details of aerodynamics every time an article refers to an airplane, but when it comes to criminal law, the instant experts seem to come out in droves. They're embarassing themselves.

As it turns out, you're one of them because you're wrong too. Martin's use of (and right to) self-defense is irrelevant. He's not on trial. Martin does not need to have been within his self-defense rights for GZ to be guilty, nor vice versa. The only issue in this case is focused on GZ's perspective. More specifically, the focus of the court ought to be on the sufficiency of the evidence available to disprove GZ's claim of self-defense. It's just not there.

If there were any evidence of GZ committing a crime against Martin prior to the shooting, they'd have alleged it. But the evidence of a preceding crime is even weaker than the evidence as to the murder charge.
 
2013-06-22 03:33:26 AM  

trickymoo: IronOcelot: So many people are going to freak when Zimmerman walks.

There were riots for Rodney King.

If he walks, there will be riots in Florida.

Bet me on this.


I've put money against your mouth, yet no results! What went wrong!?!
 
2013-06-22 05:48:15 AM  

megarian: I don't really see a problem with this, but I'm not sure if this represents a jury of his peers adequately.


Well, mall cops usually work during the day...

/kidding!
 
2013-06-22 07:20:58 AM  

Magnanimous_J: gimmegimme: Five of the jurors are mothers; here's hoping they'll think about what it's like when your 17-year-old kid is shot down in cold blood with a can of iced tea in his hand.

Because appealing to illogical emotion is the only chance the prosecution has.

Or maybe the jurors will think about what it's like to be attacked in your own neighborhood by a violent thug. I hear women aren't big fans of that.


Here's hoping that both of your stereotyping of how mothers supposedly think is irrelevant to the case and that their verdict is based solely on a careful and considered analysis the facts as presented at the trial which I am confident not you, I or any of the other 'experts' in this thread actually have a full or accurate accounting of.
 
2013-06-22 10:04:35 AM  

Greymalkin: Here's hoping that... their verdict is based solely on a careful and considered analysis the facts as presented at the trial...


As someone who has been on two juries, I find this extremely funny.
 
2013-06-22 08:03:12 PM  

Greymalkin: Magnanimous_J: gimmegimme: Five of the jurors are mothers; here's hoping they'll think about what it's like when your 17-year-old kid is shot down in cold blood with a can of iced tea in his hand.

Because appealing to illogical emotion is the only chance the prosecution has.

Or maybe the jurors will think about what it's like to be attacked in your own neighborhood by a violent thug. I hear women aren't big fans of that.

Here's hoping that both of your stereotyping of how mothers supposedly think is irrelevant to the case and that their verdict is based solely on a careful and considered analysis the facts as presented at the trial which I am confident not you, I or any of the other 'experts' in this thread actually have a full or accurate accounting of.


Of three given scenarios above, I believe Greymalkin's to be the least likely.
 
2013-06-22 09:35:26 PM  

Frederick: Greymalkin: Magnanimous_J: gimmegimme: Five of the jurors are mothers; here's hoping they'll think about what it's like when your 17-year-old kid is shot down in cold blood with a can of iced tea in his hand.

Because appealing to illogical emotion is the only chance the prosecution has.

Or maybe the jurors will think about what it's like to be attacked in your own neighborhood by a violent thug. I hear women aren't big fans of that.

Here's hoping that both of your stereotyping of how mothers supposedly think is irrelevant to the case and that their verdict is based solely on a careful and considered analysis the facts as presented at the trial which I am confident not you, I or any of the other 'experts' in this thread actually have a full or accurate accounting of.

Of three given scenarios above, I believe Greymalkin's to be the least likely.


Well I did say "hoping", "expecting" would have been too optimistic.

Nonetheless those actively hoping for the justice system to be shiatty to get the outcome they want are not helping the justice system be any better.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report