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)   The audio "expert" who claims it was Trayvon and not Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 tape will not be allowed to testify at trial   (usatoday.com) divider line 677
    More: Obvious, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, the weekend, jury, screaming  
•       •       •

6086 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2013 at 7:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-22 08:43:07 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: If Johnny ever had credibility, that would be the end of it.


Maybe you should stop posting until you've actually taken 10 minutes to learn the basic facts of the case. You still think that a police officer ordered Zimmerman not to leave his vehicle, don't you?

You're also not paying very close attention. Unlike the frothing at the mouth mob, I label things as fact or speculation.
 
2013-06-22 08:43:43 PM  

Mugato: Livingroom: no, i wouldnt be wearing a goddamn hoody slinking through a rich neighbourhood at night IN THE SUMMER. that spells disaster, always has, always will.

He was slinking? Did he make it all the way down the stairs? Cause I could never make that thing slink all the way down the stairs before it stopped. Maybe if my Slinky was black.


You know how I know you're black? Black kids didn't have Slinkys.
 
2013-06-22 08:44:23 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Lionel Mandrake: If Johnny ever had credibility, that would be the end of it.

Maybe you should stop posting until you've actually taken 10 minutes to learn the basic facts of the case. You still think that a police officer ordered Zimmerman not to leave his vehicle, don't you?

You're also not paying very close attention. Unlike the frothing at the mouth mob, I label things as fact or speculation.


We get it.  You didn't intend for it to be a factual statement.
 
2013-06-22 08:44:46 PM  

jaytkay: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Do you even know who Alan Dershowitz is?

Shill for Israel. Helped OJ Simpson walk. Vocal advocate for torture.

Reliable "liberal" for FOX News.

[i4.ytimg.com image 320x180]


Vehemently against the censorship of pornography, wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yes, these are the views of a "FoxNews 'liberal'."
 
2013-06-22 08:45:04 PM  
 
2013-06-22 08:46:11 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bontesla: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jaytkay: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts have even suggested that she should face sanctions for bringing charges in this case, given the lack of evidence.

The FOX News legal experts, or the ones on AM radio?

How about Alan Dershowitz?

Unless he's gone over all of the depositions and the evidence catalog, he's talking out of his ass.

He's basing his opinion on the probable cause affidavit and all of the evidence that has been released. He charges that Corey filed a false affidavit because it did not include all known evidence at the time.


Er. If you understood his argument and the implications then I'm pretty sure that, alone, would make you lose faith in what he's saying. Do a little research and then we'll talk.
 
2013-06-22 08:46:27 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: shower_in_my_socks: There is a very narrow window for legally shooting someone. Zimmerman was not dragged out of his vehicle by Trayvon while waiting for the police. Nor was he preventing Trayvon from committing a violent crime, or in fact ANY crime.

Well actually the window is pretty farking big, especially in Florida. A person can use deadly force to protect themselves from great bodily harm, even if they're the aggressor.


No, Florida state law specifically cites that an aggressor cannot claim self defense except in very narrow circumstances.
 
2013-06-22 08:48:07 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: jaytkay: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Do you even know who Alan Dershowitz is?

Shill for Israel. Helped OJ Simpson walk. Vocal advocate for torture.

Reliable "liberal" for FOX News.

[i4.ytimg.com image 320x180]

Vehemently against the censorship of pornography, wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yes, these are the views of a "FoxNews 'liberal

Him

from the huffington post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/prosecutor-angela-corey - r_b_1571942.html  talking about the whole angela corey thing actually a good read
 
2013-06-22 08:49:32 PM  

Bravo Two: No, Florida state law specifically cites that an aggressor cannot claim self defense except in very narrow circumstances.


I said the window for self defense was big, not for the use of force by the aggressor. The use of deadly force by an aggressor is permitted when they have no means of escape. Considering the eyewitness that saw Trayvon on top moments before the gunshot, I'd say that qualifies.

Mind you, we don't know that Zimmerman initiated the fight.
 
2013-06-22 08:50:32 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Tat'dGreaser: I don't think there is enough evidence to clearly show Zimmerman instigated the fight. All that matters is he was being attacked and defended himself.

Did he instigate it? Probably. Was he getting his butt kicked? Yes. Guns are the great equalizer, that's why they're perfect for self defense. All that will be be proven is he feared for his life and used his gun.

There is a very narrow window for legally shooting someone. Zimmerman was not dragged out of his vehicle by Trayvon while waiting for the police. Nor was he preventing Trayvon from committing a violent crime, or in fact ANY crime. Zimmerman pursued his victim and then shot him when he got the fight he was looking for. It may not be straight up murder, but a civilized society can't tolerate vigilantes like this moron trying to play cop. And no responsible gun owner, myself included, should be throwing their lot in with this a-hole.


Excuse me, but there's an awful fine line here between attempting to protect one's neighbors and "vigilantism".

Ignoring the altercation, Zimmerman did what most responsible neighbors do: looked out for each other, identified a suspicious person, and checked to make sure that he wasn't hurting someone or actively doing something while reporting to police.

The altercation came when he exited his vehicle and continued on foot. If anything, he should have stayed in his vehicle, that would have been smart.
 
2013-06-22 08:51:14 PM  

Bontesla: She doesn't have a history of overcharging so why start now?


She charged a woman with aggravated assault when the woman discharged her firearm into a wall to escape her abusive husband. She charged a 12 year old kid with homicide and aggravated child abuse and had him charged as an adult. She charged Ronald Thompson with aggravated assault when he discharged his firearm into the ground, garnering a 20 year sentence. The judge thought that ridiculous and gave him 3 years. She appealed and won the 20 years she was looking for. Thankfully THAT decision was overturned and Thompson is free pending a new trial by Corey's office.

So yeah, she kinda DOES have a history of overcharging cases.
 
2013-06-22 08:51:41 PM  

WillofJ2: Him from the huffington post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/prosecutor-angela-corey - r_b_1571942.html  talking about the whole angela corey thing actually a good read


The biatch is obviously pushing her own agenda. Funny that she never filed libel and slander charges.
 
2013-06-22 08:52:44 PM  
Here are the facts:

Zimmerman claimed to be a neighborhood watch captain when he really wasn't.
Zimmerman called 911 like 50 times in a year.
Zimmerman had a history of violence and racist remarks.
Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to stand down.
Zimmerman was armed with a gun. Martin was armed with Skittles and tea.
Martin had no bruises on his knuckles, inconsistent with the assault narrative.
Zimmerman had only minor injuries, and did not even require medical assistance.
Voice experts have unanimously confirmed the voice screaming for help was Martin.
Zimmerman has constantly changed his version of events that night.

I could go on and on. This should be an open and shut case. My only concern is Zimmerman walking due to the white privileged system that traditionally rewards his kind of behavior. Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is.
 
2013-06-22 08:54:37 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bontesla: She doesn't have a history of overcharging so why start now?

She charged a woman with aggravated assault when the woman discharged her firearm into a wall to escape her abusive husband. She charged a 12 year old kid with homicide and aggravated child abuse and had him charged as an adult. She charged Ronald Thompson with aggravated assault when he discharged his firearm into the ground, garnering a 20 year sentence. The judge thought that ridiculous and gave him 3 years. She appealed and won the 20 years she was looking for. Thankfully THAT decision was overturned and Thompson is free pending a new trial by Corey's office.

So yeah, she kinda DOES have a history of overcharging cases.


You'd think that a history of overcharging would be reflected in that record, no?
 
2013-06-22 08:55:32 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Lionel Mandrake: If Johnny ever had credibility, that would be the end of it.

Maybe you should stop posting until you've actually taken 10 minutes to learn the basic facts of the case. You still think that a police officer ordered Zimmerman not to leave his vehicle, don't you?


No.  They told him he "didn't need to do that."  That bit of misinformation has always bugged me, too.

You're also not paying very close attention. Unlike the frothing at the mouth mob, I label things as fact or speculation.

You assuming I didn't know something =/= me not paying attention.

Your lack of credibility deepens...
 
2013-06-22 08:57:27 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: WillofJ2: Him from the huffington post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/prosecutor-angela-corey - r_b_1571942.html  talking about the whole angela corey thing actually a good read

The biatch is obviously pushing her own agenda. Funny that she never filed libel and slander charges.


Agree with you , I just wondered if he claims all this does the florida bar just ignore it?  He really claims some amazingly inappropriate and unethical things, the fact that she hasnt seemed to fight it is there no national or state oversight for lawyers to look into it?
 
2013-06-22 08:57:44 PM  

Bontesla: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bontesla: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jaytkay: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts have even suggested that she should face sanctions for bringing charges in this case, given the lack of evidence.

The FOX News legal experts, or the ones on AM radio?

How about Alan Dershowitz?

Unless he's gone over all of the depositions and the evidence catalog, he's talking out of his ass.

He's basing his opinion on the probable cause affidavit and all of the evidence that has been released. He charges that Corey filed a false affidavit because it did not include all known evidence at the time.

Er. If you understood his argument and the implications then I'm pretty sure that, alone, would make you lose faith in what he's saying. Do a little research and then we'll talk.


The implication being that Corey perjured herself by presenting a false affidavit? I'm actually somewhat of a Dershowitz fan, so I know exactly what he was implying. I also know that if what he says is true and that she was in possession of, or had knowledge of, the photos that were released of Zimmerman from that night and did not include those facts in her affidavit, that what Dershowitz claims is absolutely correct and that she omitted relevant facts from her affidavit, the same affidavit that persuaded the judge to allow this to go to trial. It is no coincidence that her office will face a sanction hearing after this trial because they allegedly deliberately withheld evidence from the defense.
 
2013-06-22 08:57:59 PM  
Off to play Halo now. Have fun.
 
2013-06-22 08:58:58 PM  

Satan's Girlfriend: Zimmerman claimed to be a neighborhood watch captain when he really wasn't.
Zimmerman called 911 like 50 times in a year.
Zimmerman had a history of violence and racist remarks.
Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to stand down.
Zimmerman was armed with a gun. Martin was armed with Skittles and tea.
Martin had no bruises on his knuckles, inconsistent with the assault narrative.
Zimmerman had only minor injuries, and did not even require medical assistance.
Voice experts have unanimously confirmed the voice screaming for help was Martin.
Zimmerman has constantly changed his version of events that night.


I started to respond to your points, but then realized how ignorant of the actual facts you are that it wasn't worth the time. I'm amazed that there can still be people in these threads with your level of ignorance.
 
2013-06-22 09:00:39 PM  
hmm i dont know
hm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc0_1371690036">http://www.liveleak.c om/view?i=bc0_1371690036
 
2013-06-22 09:01:07 PM  

WillofJ2: Agree with you , I just wondered if he claims all this does the florida bar just ignore it?  He really claims some amazingly inappropriate and unethical things, the fact that she hasnt seemed to fight it is there no national or state oversight for lawyers to look into it?


Nobody in Florida wants to touch this case with a 10 foot pole, especially if it were to go after the prosecutor for ethics violations. If anything were to happen, it would be long after the case was over, in my opinion.
 
2013-06-22 09:01:11 PM  

Mugato: Mrtraveler01: Yeah, it's a horribly written law since both of them could have used the Stand Your Ground claim.

I don't think anyone will argue that it isn't a horribly written law. Except the gun nuts who fap to the thought of being able to gun someone down legally.


Wow, a lot of hate for gun owners, eh mugato?
 
2013-06-22 09:01:40 PM  
Suppose this whole incident didn't happen. Suppose Trayvon found another community to rob. Support the Mexican dude was just watching TV that day.

Who would end up standing trial, who would end up in prison, who would be a thug you would have never have heard of out of those two? Yeah.
 
2013-06-22 09:02:39 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Vehemently against the censorship of pornography, wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yes, these are the views of a "FoxNews 'liberal'."


1)
Porn consumption (like divorce, and child abuse) is higher in Red States. Hardly a liberal issue.

2)
Dershowitz claims to want the 2nd amendment repealed
WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN

3)
At the same time Dershowitz advocates for gun rights under current law
LIKE FLORIDA'S "STAND YOUR GROUND"

Dershowitz is a FOX News "liberal". He's there to make conservatives feel "Fair and Balanced".

Normal people know better.
 
2013-06-22 09:02:53 PM  

Bontesla: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bontesla: She doesn't have a history of overcharging so why start now?

She charged a woman with aggravated assault when the woman discharged her firearm into a wall to escape her abusive husband. She charged a 12 year old kid with homicide and aggravated child abuse and had him charged as an adult. She charged Ronald Thompson with aggravated assault when he discharged his firearm into the ground, garnering a 20 year sentence. The judge thought that ridiculous and gave him 3 years. She appealed and won the 20 years she was looking for. Thankfully THAT decision was overturned and Thompson is free pending a new trial by Corey's office.

So yeah, she kinda DOES have a history of overcharging cases.

You'd think that a history of overcharging would be reflected in that record, no?


What is this record you are speaking of? The one where she has tried a record number of juveniles as adults? I can't find her "conviction record" anywhere. Maybe you'd care to point me to it?
 
2013-06-22 09:03:32 PM  

Satan's Girlfriend: Here are the facts:

Zimmerman claimed to be a neighborhood watch captain when he really wasn't....and?
Zimmerman called 911 like 50 times in a year....and?
Zimmerman had a history of violence and racist remarks....Trayvon has a history of violence and possession of burglary tools
Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to stand down....not a police order, a suggestion by a radio room clerk
Zimmerman was armed with a gun. Martin was armed with Skittles and tea.....Your point?
Martin had no bruises on his knuckles, inconsistent with the assault narrative.......heart has to be pumping to create bruises, Trayvon was killed thus not enough time to bruise
Zimmerman had only minor injuries, and did not even require medical assistance.....broken nose and open head trauma does not require medical assistance? He did seek medical assistance
Voice experts have unanimously confirmed the voice screaming for help was Martin....Trayvons own father said it was not his sons voice when they played the other guys 9-11 call reporting the incident
Zimmerman has constantly changed his version of events that night....citations?

I could go on and on. This should be an open and shut case. My only concern is Zimmerman walking due to the white privileged system that traditionally rewards his kind of behavior. Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is.

 
2013-06-22 09:03:40 PM  

Bravo Two: Wow, a lot of hate for gun owners, eh mugato?


No, just gun nuts. I own a  Walther myself.
 
2013-06-22 09:06:57 PM  

Satan's Girlfriend: Here are the facts:

Zimmerman claimed to be a neighborhood watch captain when he really wasn't.
Zimmerman called 911 like 50 times in a year.
Zimmerman had a history of violence and racist remarks.
Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to stand down.
Zimmerman was armed with a gun. Martin was armed with Skittles and tea.
Martin had no bruises on his knuckles, inconsistent with the assault narrative.
Zimmerman had only minor injuries, and did not even require medical assistance.
Voice experts have unanimously confirmed the voice screaming for help was Martin.
Zimmerman has constantly changed his version of events that night.

I could go on and on. This should be an open and shut case. My only concern is Zimmerman walking due to the white privileged system that traditionally rewards his kind of behavior. Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is.


It's tough to take you seriously when you continue to repeat things that are very, very, very easy to unequivocally show to not be true.
 
2013-06-22 09:07:25 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: I do not believe they will be able to prove that Zimmerman clearly instigated the end fight where Martin was shot. All that can be proven is Zimmerman was being attacked and shot Martin, that's it.


The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond whatever could of dust a gaggle of defense lawyers can kick up and call 'doubt.'" The angry, confrontational, lethally armed Zimmerman started a fight with the unarmed minor who sought to avoid confrontation, and who had no motive to start a fight. Zimmerman did so because he was angry about break-ins in his neighborhood, just knew Trayon was involved in them, and thought himself some kind of an authority figure with a right to physically detain the boy.

When Zimmerman's partisans say "there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight," they're just wrong. The only claim the defense can legitimately make is that there's no direct evidence he started the fight. There's no video recording, and no eyewitness. But there rarely is. Most criminal cases are proven by inferences from other evidence, rather than by direct evidence.

Here, there is a mountain of indirect evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman's anger, desire to confront, belief in Trayvon's criminality, and possession of a lethal weapon are all but indisputable. Just as are Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation, his lack of any weapon, and complete absence of any motive to start a fight.

When it boils down to it, only two pieces of evidence suggest Trayvon started the fight. The first is Zimmerman's self-serving, ever-evolving account which sensible people will disregard. The other is Trayvon's history of juvenile fisticuffs, which may not even enter evidence. Assuming it does, and disregarding the lack of morals assassinating the character of an unarmed boy you've shot to death shows, the fact is, it is a) a molehill of evidence only, and b) canceled out by Zimmerman's own history of violence, including violence against the police.

There is a doubt Zimmerman started the fight. It is not a reasonable one.
 
2013-06-22 09:08:38 PM  

jaytkay: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Vehemently against the censorship of pornography, wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yes, these are the views of a "FoxNews 'liberal'."

1)
Porn consumption (like divorce, and child abuse) is higher in Red States. Hardly a liberal issue.

2)
Dershowitz claims to want the 2nd amendment repealed
WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN

3)
At the same time Dershowitz advocates for gun rights under current law
LIKE FLORIDA'S "STAND YOUR GROUND"

Dershowitz is a FOX News "liberal". He's there to make conservatives feel "Fair and Balanced".

Normal people know better.


Holy crap, you actually believe he's a conservative. That's quite possibly the funniest thing I have read in these Zimmerman threads.
"Advocates for gun rights under current law." What the hell does this mean? The man is a well respected lawyer. I certainly would hope that he advocates that a citizen should be able to exercise their rights under current law. Are you saying that true liberals don't believe in an individual's gun rights under current law?
 
2013-06-22 09:10:56 PM  

bugontherug: There is a doubt Zimmerman started the fight. It is not a reasonable one.


You're a pretty good writer, but what you're saying is still bullshiat. The prosecution even admitted in the probable cause hearing that they had no evidence as to who started the fight. I'd say that makes it pretty damn reasonable.
 
2013-06-22 09:12:10 PM  

bugontherug: There is a doubt Zimmerman started the fight. It is not a reasonable one.


It also doesn't matter one whit under current Florida law if he started the altercation or not. Only whether he, or a reasonable person, felt in danger for their life at the time he pulled the trigger. Evidence will likely be introduced by the defense team that will purport to show that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was assaulting him just prior to the firearm discharge. Evidence already known to the public supports this claim by Zimmerman.

In short, it doesn't matter who started the fight. The sooner everyone understands this (and the relevant Florida statutes have been copied into these threads since they began) the sooner we can all move on from "who started it."
 
2013-06-22 09:13:11 PM  

bugontherug: Tat'dGreaser: I do not believe they will be able to prove that Zimmerman clearly instigated the end fight where Martin was shot. All that can be proven is Zimmerman was being attacked and shot Martin, that's it.

The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond whatever could of dust a gaggle of defense lawyers can kick up and call 'doubt.'" The angry, confrontational, lethally armed Zimmerman started a fight with the unarmed minor who sought to avoid confrontation, and who had no motive to start a fight. Zimmerman did so because he was angry about break-ins in his neighborhood, just knew Trayon was involved in them, and thought himself some kind of an authority figure with a right to physically detain the boy.

When Zimmerman's partisans say "there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight," they're just wrong. The only claim the defense can legitimately make is that there's no direct evidence he started the fight. There's no video recording, and no eyewitness. But there rarely is. Most criminal cases are proven by inferences from other evidence, rather than by direct evidence.

Here, there is a mountain of indirect evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman's anger, desire to confront, belief in Trayvon's criminality, and possession of a lethal weapon are all but indisputable. Just as are Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation, his lack of any weapon, and complete absence of any motive to start a fight.

When it boils down to it, only two pieces of evidence suggest Trayvon started the fight. The first is Zimmerman's self-serving, ever-evolving account which sensible people will disregard. The other is Trayvon's history of juvenile fisticuffs, which may not even enter evidence. Assuming it does, and disregarding the lack of morals assassinating the character of an unarmed boy you've shot to death shows, the fact is, it is a) a molehill of evidence only, and b) canceled out by Zimmerman's own history of violence, including violence against the police.

There is a doubt Zimmerman started the fight. It is not a reasonable one.


Holding a concealed carry permit and having a gun on you is apropos of nothing. Millions of us do it every day. Hell, I go to the grocery store sometimes while carrying a gun. Does that mean I'm out for a fight, or just exercising my right to be armed and have it as a habitual thing just like my watch, pocket knife, and multitool?
 
2013-06-22 09:13:31 PM  

Mugato: Bravo Two: Wow, a lot of hate for gun owners, eh mugato?

No, just gun nuts. I own a  Walther myself.


chick gun

/non gun nut gun owner
//ruger 9
 
2013-06-22 09:13:36 PM  

Satan's Girlfriend: Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is.


What does the National Bank of Pakistan have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
2013-06-22 09:13:38 PM  

bugontherug: Tat'dGreaser: I do not believe they will be able to prove that Zimmerman clearly instigated the end fight where Martin was shot. All that can be proven is Zimmerman was being attacked and shot Martin, that's it.

The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond whatever could of dust a gaggle of defense lawyers can kick up and call 'doubt.'" The angry, confrontational, lethally armed Zimmerman started a fight with the unarmed minor who sought to avoid confrontation, and who had no motive to start a fight. Zimmerman did so because he was angry about break-ins in his neighborhood, just knew Trayon was involved in them, and thought himself some kind of an authority figure with a right to physically detain the boy.

When Zimmerman's partisans say "there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight," they're just wrong. The only claim the defense can legitimately make is that there's no direct evidence he started the fight. There's no video recording, and no eyewitness. But there rarely is. Most criminal cases are proven by inferences from other evidence, rather than by direct evidence.

Here, there is a mountain of indirect evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman's anger, desire to confront, belief in Trayvon's criminality, and possession of a lethal weapon are all but indisputable. Just as are Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation, his lack of any weapon, and complete absence of any motive to start a fight.

When it boils down to it, only two pieces of evidence suggest Trayvon started the fight. The first is Zimmerman's self-serving, ever-evolving account which sensible people will disregard. The other is Trayvon's history of juvenile fisticuffs, which may not even enter evidence. Assuming it does, and disregarding the lack of morals assassinating the character of an unarmed boy you've shot to death shows, the fact is, it is a) a molehill of evidence only, and b) canceled out by Zimmerman's own history of violence, including violence against the police.
...

You're gonna have to help me out here.  What was Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation?
 
2013-06-22 09:14:08 PM  
Bontesla:
Hell, even Zimmerman bet against himself. If he couldn't even establish justifiable homicide under the low bar of SYG...

His lawyers are still going to try to justify his actions based on SYG, they just won't do it until the trial starts.  They were entitled to a separate hearing on the issue earlier if they wanted it.  If they had asked for a hearing 6 months ago and lost, the jury pool would have heard that their claim of SYG was rejected every day for the last 6 months on the news and in conversations around the water cooler.  So his lawyers will wait until the jury is sequestered and then file the motion. That way if they lose the jury won't know it happened.
 
2013-06-22 09:15:04 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: The paid liar will not be able to lie in court.


jehovahs witness protection: The paid liar will not be able to lie in court.


jehovahs witness protection: The paid liar will not be able to lie in court.



Not criminal court. In civil court, Michael Jackson's ghost can testify.
 
2013-06-22 09:17:00 PM  

lantawa: Satan's Girlfriend: Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is.

What does the National Bank of Pakistan have to do with the price of tea in China?


About as much as a guy with skittles has to do with being a deadly threat.
 
2013-06-22 09:17:07 PM  

Bravo Two: bugontherug: Tat'dGreaser: I do not believe they will be able to prove that Zimmerman clearly instigated the end fight where Martin was shot. All that can be proven is Zimmerman was being attacked and shot Martin, that's it.

The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond whatever could of dust a gaggle of defense lawyers can kick up and call 'doubt.'" The angry, confrontational, lethally armed Zimmerman started a fight with the unarmed minor who sought to avoid confrontation, and who had no motive to start a fight. Zimmerman did so because he was angry about break-ins in his neighborhood, just knew Trayon was involved in them, and thought himself some kind of an authority figure with a right to physically detain the boy.

When Zimmerman's partisans say "there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight," they're just wrong. The only claim the defense can legitimately make is that there's no direct evidence he started the fight. There's no video recording, and no eyewitness. But there rarely is. Most criminal cases are proven by inferences from other evidence, rather than by direct evidence.

Here, there is a mountain of indirect evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman's anger, desire to confront, belief in Trayvon's criminality, and possession of a lethal weapon are all but indisputable. Just as are Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation, his lack of any weapon, and complete absence of any motive to start a fight.

When it boils down to it, only two pieces of evidence suggest Trayvon started the fight. The first is Zimmerman's self-serving, ever-evolving account which sensible people will disregard. The other is Trayvon's history of juvenile fisticuffs, which may not even enter evidence. Assuming it does, and disregarding the lack of morals assassinating the character of an unarmed boy you've shot to death shows, the fact is, it is a) a molehill of evidence only, and b) canceled out by Zimmerman's own history of violence, including violence against ...


can't get arrested if you don't have a gun so why not biatch
 
2013-06-22 09:19:22 PM  

bud jones: Mugato: Bravo Two: Wow, a lot of hate for gun owners, eh mugato?

No, just gun nuts. I own a  Walther myself.

chick gun

/non gun nut gun owner
//ruger 9


I bow to your enormous phallus.
 
2013-06-22 09:19:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: About as much as a guy with skittles has to do with being a deadly threat.


You know one side can't make a case when all they do is resort to cracking jokes.
 
2013-06-22 09:22:58 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: In short, it doesn't matter who started the fight. The sooner everyone understands this (and the relevant Florida statutes have been copied into these threads since they began) the sooner we can all move on from "who started it."


Legally it doesn't.

But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't matter as a form of opinion.

Who started the fight makes all the difference to me in forming my opinion of whether or not Martin deserved to get shot. If Zimmerman started the fight, then he shouldn't be able to use the self-defense excuse IMHO.

But like I said, all we got is claims from the person who didn't die in the confrontation.
 
2013-06-22 09:22:59 PM  
I think we're all going to be screaming for help by the end of this one.
 
2013-06-22 09:23:07 PM  

Bravo Two: Holding a concealed carry permit and having a gun on you is apropos of nothing. Millions of us do it every day. Hell, I go to the grocery store sometimes while carrying a gun. Does that mean I'm out for a fight, or just exercising my right to be armed and have it as a habitual thing just like my watch, pocket knife, and multitool?


It does not prove you're out to start a fight. It does prove you have every confidence in your ability to handle a fight. In conjunction with other evidence, it adds significantly to an inference that you would initiate a physical confrontation.
 
2013-06-22 09:23:31 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Satan's Girlfriend: Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is.

What does the National Bank of Pakistan have to do with the price of tea in China?

About as much as a guy with skittles has to do with being a deadly threat.


You're not getting it. Come back to reality, young Lionel Mandrake. Come back.........
 
2013-06-22 09:23:44 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: "Advocates for gun rights under current law." What the hell does this mean? The man is a well respected lawyer. I certainly would hope that he advocates that a citizen should be able to exercise their rights under current law.


He pretends to be a "reasonable" "anti-gun" guy to make Fox viewers feel good.

He claims to be for an extreme stance, 2nd amendment repeal. Which is absolutely scheduled to happen immediately after my legal polygamous marriage with Scarlett Johansson, Freida Pinto and Maria Sharapova. How brave of him.

"Look at me, I'm a far left liberal who sides with FOX viewers on every practical issue. You must all be independent thinkers!"
 
2013-06-22 09:24:16 PM  
maybe he was saying help cause he drank too much soy sauce
 
2013-06-22 09:24:34 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Bravo Two: bugontherug: Tat'dGreaser: I do not believe they will be able to prove that Zimmerman clearly instigated the end fight where Martin was shot. All that can be proven is Zimmerman was being attacked and shot Martin, that's it.

The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond whatever could of dust a gaggle of defense lawyers can kick up and call 'doubt.'" The angry, confrontational, lethally armed Zimmerman started a fight with the unarmed minor who sought to avoid confrontation, and who had no motive to start a fight. Zimmerman did so because he was angry about break-ins in his neighborhood, just knew Trayon was involved in them, and thought himself some kind of an authority figure with a right to physically detain the boy.

When Zimmerman's partisans say "there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight," they're just wrong. The only claim the defense can legitimately make is that there's no direct evidence he started the fight. There's no video recording, and no eyewitness. But there rarely is. Most criminal cases are proven by inferences from other evidence, rather than by direct evidence.

Here, there is a mountain of indirect evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman's anger, desire to confront, belief in Trayvon's criminality, and possession of a lethal weapon are all but indisputable. Just as are Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation, his lack of any weapon, and complete absence of any motive to start a fight.

When it boils down to it, only two pieces of evidence suggest Trayvon started the fight. The first is Zimmerman's self-serving, ever-evolving account which sensible people will disregard. The other is Trayvon's history of juvenile fisticuffs, which may not even enter evidence. Assuming it does, and disregarding the lack of morals assassinating the character of an unarmed boy you've shot to death shows, the fact is, it is a) a molehill of evidence only, and b) canceled out by Zimmerman's own history of violence, including violence against ...

can't get arrested if you don't have a gun so why not biatch


Wait, what?
 
2013-06-22 09:26:22 PM  

bugontherug: Bravo Two: Holding a concealed carry permit and having a gun on you is apropos of nothing. Millions of us do it every day. Hell, I go to the grocery store sometimes while carrying a gun. Does that mean I'm out for a fight, or just exercising my right to be armed and have it as a habitual thing just like my watch, pocket knife, and multitool?

It does not prove you're out to start a fight. It does prove you have every confidence in your ability to handle a fight. In conjunction with other evidence, it adds significantly to an inference that you would initiate a physical confrontation.


Have you ever heard the term "Objection, calls for speculation?" That's what you are claiming here. If a witness were to testify that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation based on what you say, that's call to speculation and would be objected to by the defense and likely upheld.
 
Displayed 50 of 677 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | 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


Report