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 673
    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»



673 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
 
2013-06-23 12:13:42 AM  
Have the racists expressed their glee in this thread at killing a black kid yet?

/ Of course they have.
 
2013-06-23 12:15:33 AM  
Satan's Girlfriend: Since I am a minority myself I can not by definition be racist.

If by "minority" you mean "retarded" I agree.
 
2013-06-23 12:16:04 AM  

jaytkay: Have the racists expressed their glee in this thread at killing a black kid yet?

/ Of course they have.


Have the racists expressed their glee in this thread at sending a Hispanic to jail on speculation?

/of course they have
 
2013-06-23 12:16:28 AM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Except that's not the scenario you brought up. Stop trying to move the target and be consistent.
You said when the other person draws their gun, not when you start losing the fight, there's a big difference.

When the other side pulls a weapon, I'm losing the fist fight. What's the saying- 'never bring a knife to a gunfight'?

Fine, then, be pedantic.

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losinghe pulls a weapon and I fear for my life, what is my disincentive to start fights? I'll either win, or... win.

If I start a fight and CANNOT simply kill the other guy if I start losinghe pulls a weapon and I fear for my life... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.
Sheesh.


Your disincentive to start a fight is that the other person may be quicker on the trigger than you are, thus rendering you dead.
 
2013-06-23 12:17:33 AM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Except that's not the scenario you brought up. Stop trying to move the target and be consistent.
You said when the other person draws their gun, not when you start losing the fight, there's a big difference.

When the other side pulls a weapon, I'm losing the fist fight. What's the saying- 'never bring a knife to a gunfight'?

Fine, then, be pedantic.

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losinghe pulls a weapon and I fear for my life, what is my disincentive to start fights? I'll either win, or... win.

If I start a fight and CANNOT simply kill the other guy if I start losinghe pulls a weapon and I fear for my life... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.
Sheesh.


Do you read what you type or do you just kinda bang your face into the keyboard until something that looks passable shows up?
 
2013-06-23 12:18:08 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You are forgetting that at the moment that Zimmerman would have been in fear of death or great bodily harm, it is alleged that Martin was on top of him, slamming his head into the pavement. What reasonable measure of escape was there available to Zimmerman other than the use of force that he believed was equal in nature to the force being applied to him?


A reasonable means to escape danger... is not to get into dangerous situations. "The only winning move is not to play."

Did Zimmerman say "I give up"?

If it was in fact his voice on the tape saying "stop," then he satisfies 2(b) of that statute: (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.


Saying "Stop" does not mean 'I wish to withdraw'. In fact, far from 'terminate the use of force', Zimmerman escalated again, to deadly force, killing Trayvon.

Or, how about not putting oneself into such a position to begin with? I'd say that's a very reasonable way to escape danger- not get into dangerous situations to begin with. Gee, if only Zimmerman had done that....

There is no indication that Zimmerman put himself in any position to warrant deadly force being used against him.


He followed Trayvon, by vehicle and on foot, with a gun on his hip, chasing after one of "these assholes" who "always get away". That's how he 'put himself in position'.
 
2013-06-23 12:20:16 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.


That makes sense in the context of 2(b) of the FL statute, but doesn't address 2(a), which is the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. If Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the shoulder to stop him and ask what he is doing in the neighborhood, thus provoking the aggression against him, but Martin immediately gains the upper hand and begins to exert what a reasonable person may construe as deadly force, Zimmerman has no reasonable means to escape, therefore the provisions of 2(a) for justifiable use of deadly force come into play.
 
2013-06-23 12:21:41 AM  

Mrtraveler01: To be honest, neither of their past records in relevant in this case. Trayvon could be Bart Simpson hopped up on Steroids and Cocaine for all I care, but if he wasn't doing anything illegal that night, that still doesn't justify him getting killed.


What would?
 
2013-06-23 12:22:04 AM  
Zimmerman supporters are not getting the respect they deserve in this thread.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 12:23:15 AM  

jaytkay: Zimmerman supporters are not getting the respect they deserve in this thread.


Lol u mad.
 
2013-06-23 12:23:52 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: Have the racists expressed their glee in this thread at killing a black kid yet?

/ Of course they have.

Have the racists expressed their glee in this thread at sending a Hispanic to jail on speculation?

/of course they have


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 12:23:57 AM  

ChaosStar: Yeah. no, sorry. That argument doesn't work.
Reasonable means of retreat, it's part of the law. You stopped after one punch, he can walk away, there is no threat to his life.
Do try again though.


So, I can't follow him, hit him again? I can't grab a weapon myself? Considering I'm (in this hypothetical) evidently crazy enough to start a fight for no good reason, I don't see why he wouldn't be in fear. What if my punch knocked him down. Can't 'walk away' then, can he?

Even worse is the fact that if what you said were true, I could go around all day punching people (once!) and no one could do anything to me. Is that the way you want things to be? I attack you, then throw my hands up in "surrender", and you are powerless to respond?? Even if i do it to you again and again?
 
2013-06-23 12:24:04 AM  

fredklein: A reasonable means to escape danger... is not to get into dangerous situations. "The only winning move is not to play."


How erudite. By your logic, there is no need for the statute in the first place, since everyone should just avoid everyone else on the off chance that an altercation may ensue.

fredklein: Saying "Stop" does not mean 'I wish to withdraw'. In fact, far from 'terminate the use of force', Zimmerman escalated again, to deadly force, killing Trayvon.


What does "Stop" mean, then? "Please continue to pummel my face until I have either blacked out or died?" As for your second "point," it is so mind bogglingly stupid as to not warrant an intelligent response.

fredklein: He followed Trayvon, by vehicle and on foot, with a gun on his hip, chasing after one of "these assholes" who "always get away". That's how he 'put himself in position'.


None of which is illegal, nor rises to the level at which Martin would be justified in beating Zimmerman to the point where he felt in fear for his life. If you feel that being followed by someone with a gun on their hip is justification for beating the crap out of them, I suggest you try this on your nearest law enforcement official and see how far you get with it.
 
2013-06-23 12:25:14 AM  

fredklein: Thingster: Every state I've lived in has a "you can start a fight, but if you back away and the other guy keeps after you, he's the aggressor" law.

So, I can slap you, then quickly step back. And if you hit me back, you are the aggressor.
Cool. So, I step forward and punch you, and quickly step back, and if you hit me back, you are the aggressor.
I step forward and shoot you, and quickly step back, and if you shoot me back, you are the aggressor.

Does this make any sense?


No it doesn't. But then again, I trust quite a few things make no sense to a man of your... capabilities.
 
2013-06-23 12:27:26 AM  
Still relatively new to fark but is there are way to do a poll, i am curious as to what people think the outcome would be
between

Guilty, Not guilty, Hung, or Mistrial?  I personally think it will end up as not guilty or hung
 
2013-06-23 12:28:12 AM  

fredklein: I attack you, then throw my hands up in "surrender", and you are powerless to respond?? Even if i do it to you again and again?


Powerless to respond? My response would be to call the police and inform them that a crazy person is running around punching people in the face and that someone should come get them before they get hurt by someone that isn't as nice as I am. But again, we are only reading one part of the Florida self-defense statute.

Here is the non first aggressor portion of the statute, the one that would apply to me if you had punched me in the face:

776.012Use of force in defense of person.-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

I can defend myself against your assault, but I cannot allow it to rise to the level of deadly force unless I feel my life or home is in danger.
 
2013-06-23 12:28:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.



THANK YOU.
 
2013-06-23 12:29:35 AM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Yeah. no, sorry. That argument doesn't work.
Reasonable means of retreat, it's part of the law. You stopped after one punch, he can walk away, there is no threat to his life.
Do try again though.

So, I can't follow him, hit him again? I can't grab a weapon myself? Considering I'm (in this hypothetical) evidently crazy enough to start a fight for no good reason, I don't see why he wouldn't be in fear. What if my punch knocked him down. Can't 'walk away' then, can he?

Even worse is the fact that if what you said were true, I could go around all day punching people (once!) and no one could do anything to me. Is that the way you want things to be? I attack you, then throw my hands up in "surrender", and you are powerless to respond?? Even if i do it to you again and again?


Buddy boy, I'm thinking you've got some serious mental issues.
You could go around all day punching people and no one could do anything to you?
Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?

Seriously guy, just stop with the stupid alright?
 
2013-06-23 12:33:14 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.


I think your crime pro professor either missed some key words in the law or he's talking about a different situation.
You can't reasonably escape when someone is sitting on you and hitting you.
Zimmerman is facing a murder charge because of social pressure on the authorities.
 
2013-06-23 12:36:19 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: That's not exactly how it goes. While flawed, the law was obviously written so a person couldn't kill somebody for shoving them.

If you don't go around shoving people, you don't need to worry about things like ... people killing you for shoving them.

Problem solved.

So, who shoved who in this case?


Zimmerman 'shoved' Trayvon. By following him around for no legitimate reason. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman (the girlfriend says she heard Trayvon say something like 'Why you following me?') because Zimmerman was following Trayvon. We don't know what happened next, but things evidently escalated, and Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

One theory (that fits all the facts) is that Trayvon saw the crazy guy following him was armed (How? Who knows? Zimmerman flashed his gun? Trayvon saw it when Zimmerman put his cell phone in his pocket? Doesn't matter.), and decided to defend himself from the crazy guy following him with a gun.

To put it simply:
A shoves B.
B, fearing for his life, fights A, gets A down, starts to win.
A kills B.

Zimmerman follows Trayvon.
Trayvon,fearing for his life, fights Zimmerman, gets Zimmerman down, starts to win.
Zimmerman kills Trayvon.

If A didn't shove B, there would be no fight, no death.

if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.
 
2013-06-23 12:36:42 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.


Also, this is untrue in almost every jurisdiction in the United States if you fear for your life or fear that great bodily harm will be done to you. The duty to retreat cannot apply in Zimmerman's case because he did not experience the mortal peril until such time as it was already set upon him. At that point, according to accounts, there was no reasonable means of escaping the danger.
 
2013-06-23 12:38:09 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.


Yes that is why Greyston Garcia successfully invoked Florida's SYG law despite running after a burglar while holding a knife.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133
 
2013-06-23 12:38:27 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Your disincentive to start a fight is that the other person may be quicker on the trigger than you are, thus rendering you dead.


But I have the drop on him- I know I'm going to start the fight, and I know I'm going to 'fear for my life' and kill him. Thus, I can react faster.
 
2013-06-23 12:38:59 AM  

fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.


Normal people understand this.
 
2013-06-23 12:39:05 AM  
My viewpoint is completely irrelevant because I'm a white male! Good, now that I have that bit of trolling out of the way I can continue on. This entire thing is a clusterfark because there is not enough solid evidence. Obviously there needs to be an extensive CCTV network throughout every zip code in the U.S. covering every 100 sq. ft. Won't somebody think of the children!

/Been drinking. Feeling kinda punchy.
//Disappointed there hasn't been an appropriate thread for me to ask for opinions on my one and only pistol purchased a few months ago.
/// I apologize for threadshiatting, but the Zimmerman/Martin threads depress me, so I shall refrain from posting again and go watch Star Trek and dream of a better planet Earth.
 
2013-06-23 12:39:13 AM  

fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: That's not exactly how it goes. While flawed, the law was obviously written so a person couldn't kill somebody for shoving them.

If you don't go around shoving people, you don't need to worry about things like ... people killing you for shoving them.

Problem solved.

So, who shoved who in this case?

Zimmerman 'shoved' Trayvon. By following him around for no legitimate reason. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman (the girlfriend says she heard Trayvon say something like 'Why you following me?') because Zimmerman was following Trayvon. We don't know what happened next, but things evidently escalated, and Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

One theory (that fits all the facts) is that Trayvon saw the crazy guy following him was armed (How? Who knows? Zimmerman flashed his gun? Trayvon saw it when Zimmerman put his cell phone in his pocket? Doesn't matter.), and decided to defend himself from the crazy guy following him with a gun.

To put it simply:
A shoves B.
B, fearing for his life, fights A, gets A down, starts to win.
A kills B.

Zimmerman follows Trayvon.
Trayvon,fearing for his life, fights Zimmerman, gets Zimmerman down, starts to win.
Zimmerman kills Trayvon.

If A didn't shove B, there would be no fight, no death.

if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.


Didn't I tell you to stop the with stupid?
You're approaching full retard....
 
2013-06-23 12:42:06 AM  

jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.


Good point, if following was illegal.
 
2013-06-23 12:46:49 AM  
ChaosStar: Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?

Seriously guy, just stop with the stupid alright?


WOW. You're kinda dim, aren't you. If you saw a serial slapper, called the cops, and was advised to leave him alone... Would you continue to follow him? You just said you'd let the cops handle it. So you're either a liar or a troll.
 
2013-06-23 12:51:21 AM  

Mugato: Damn, no wonder he lost him in the night.


Domo arigato  Mr Mugato
 
2013-06-23 12:51:25 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.


No, good point if wannabe-a-cop had no hobby of stalking random black kids.
 
2013-06-23 12:54:36 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.


Stalking someone is totally legal.
 
2013-06-23 12:55:32 AM  

Satan's Girlfriend: Popcorn Johnny: Satan's Girlfriend: The Z supporters are only happy since a black child was murdered.

You're only outraged because a black kid was killed. You're a goddamn racist and don't even realize it.

Racism is privileged combined with power. Since I am a minority myself I can not by definition be racist. I can forgive your ignorance as you probably never went to college. Consider this a lesson learned.


Racism is hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Privilege and power might enable racism, or institutionalize it, but your alternative definition is a license to be a bigot, and that's just perverse.
 
2013-06-23 01:00:53 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: fredklein: A reasonable means to escape danger... is not to get into dangerous situations. "The only winning move is not to play."

How erudite. By your logic, there is no need for the statute in the first place, since everyone should just avoid assaulting everyone else on the off chance that an altercation may ensue.


FTFY.

fredklein: Saying "Stop" does not mean 'I wish to withdraw'. In fact, far from 'terminate the use of force', Zimmerman escalated again, to deadly force, killing Trayvon.

What does "Stop" mean, then?

It means "Stop". it means that the one speaking wishes that the one being spoken to would cease doing what they are doing.

Nothing there about "withdrawing"

fredklein: He followed Trayvon, by vehicle and on foot, with a gun on his hip, chasing after one of "these assholes" who "always get away". That's how he 'put himself in position'.

None of which is illegal, nor rises to the level at which Martin would be justified in beating Zimmerman to the point where he felt in fear for his life. If you feel that being followed by someone with a gun on their hip is justification for beating the crap out of them, I suggest you try this on your nearest law enforcement official and see how far you get with it.


There is a certain amount of time during which we do not have any idea what happened. I certainly find it possible that Zimmerman tried to take Trayvon into custody, perhaps by flashing his gun. IF that happened, would you not agree that, IN THAT CASE, Trayvon would have been justified in fearing for his life? I mean, Trayvon's just walking home when a guy who was following him in a car, got out and followed him on foot, and is now confronting him, showing a gun? I think any reasonable person would fear for their life. Would you?

Now, the real question is, is that (or something similar) what actually happened? To judge that, we need to look at Zimmerman's actions and mental being. He was upset, cursing at at "these assholes" who "always get away". This is consistent with him confronting Trayvon, He was following Trayvon. Well, one doesn't follow someone to avoid them- one avoids someone by going the opposite way. So, while it doesn't prove he wanted to confront Trayvon, his following Trayvon means he didn't not want to confront Trayvon. ... and there's more. Zimmerman's being 'neighborhood watch leader', his owning (and carrying) a gun, etc. All these thing paint a picture of a man who, well... wanted to confront Trayvon that night.

Is it proven? Nope. But it's consistent with what we know.

Or... you can believe that the gun carrying, self-identified Neighborhood Watch leader, despite being upset about 'these assholes' who 'always get away', and despite following Trayvon by car and on foot, just... gave up, and was innocently walking back to his truck, when Trayvon, who did nothing wrong, and has been fleeing from him this whole time, and was just yards from his home, suddenly decided to jump Zimmerman for no good reason. In other words, not one, but both of them suddenly did complete 180's in how they were acting, at the same exact time.
 
2013-06-23 01:02:50 AM  

fredklein: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You are saying that you do not agree with a law that permits you to use force that is equal to the force that is being used against you. You would prefer to be shot and killed for simply punching someone in the face rather than have the ability to meet force with equal force.

No, I'm saying I WOULDN'T punch anyone in the face to begin with.

See how that resolves the whole situation??


Now, if only Mr Martin had learned that one trick.
 
2013-06-23 01:02:58 AM  
They both stood their ground. One with fists, one with a gun.  Both were justified in doing so, at the time of occurrence.
 
2013-06-23 01:03:21 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: My response would be to call the police and inform them that a crazy person is running around punching people in the face and that someone should come get them


So you believe Zimmerman should have done that- Call the police and wait for them to come. Cool, then we agree.
 
2013-06-23 01:03:46 AM  

Shaddup: ChaosStar: Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?

Seriously guy, just stop with the stupid alright?


WOW. You're kinda dim, aren't you. If you saw a serial slapper, called the cops, and was advised to leave him alone... Would you continue to follow him? You just said you'd let the cops handle it. So you're either a liar or a troll.


I see you caught the stupid too.
First, Zimmerman wasn't advised to leave him alone, so you drawing a parallel to this hypothetical situation is pointless.
To answer your question, yes, I would continue to follow him because I want to be able to point to him when the police arrive and say "that's him, and yes I want to press charges" instead of "well, he was here 15-30 minutes ago when I called you guys but now I've got no idea where he went so you can go drive around the area for five minutes then return to whatever speed trap you were sitting in.
Letting the cops handle it doesn't mean I stop gathering information to help with my battery charge, idiot.
 
2013-06-23 01:05:17 AM  

Mrtraveler01: To be honest, neither of their past records in relevant in this case. Trayvon could be Bart Simpson hopped up on Steroids and Cocaine for all I care, but if he wasn't doing anything illegal that night, that still doesn't justify him getting killed.


I think it is illegal to be punching someone in the face, unless, of course, the recipient wants it, of course.
 
2013-06-23 01:05:29 AM  

ChaosStar: You could go around all day punching people and no one could do anything to you?
Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?



But that's the whole point- Zimmerman didn't call the cops and let them handle it. He chased Trayvon on his own. Thank you for agreeing he was wrong to do so.
 
2013-06-23 01:07:52 AM  

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.

Stalking someone is totally legal.


If what Zimmerman's actions had amounted to stalking or could be even remotely legally construed as such, do you think that Angela Corey would have omitted it in the affadavit of probably cause or that the police would have left it out of all the police reports?

Zero mention of it in the affadavit:  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.ht ml?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-d ocument.ht ml?_r=0

The only places you're going to find mention of stalkings are on random blogs.
 
2013-06-23 01:08:15 AM  

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.

Stalking someone is totally legal.


But enough about your love life.
 
2013-06-23 01:09:23 AM  

fredklein: The_Six_Fingered_Man: fredklein: A reasonable means to escape danger... is not to get into dangerous situations. "The only winning move is not to play."

How erudite. By your logic, there is no need for the statute in the first place, since everyone should just avoid assaulting everyone else on the off chance that an altercation may ensue.

FTFY.

fredklein: Saying "Stop" does not mean 'I wish to withdraw'. In fact, far from 'terminate the use of force', Zimmerman escalated again, to deadly force, killing Trayvon.

What does "Stop" mean, then?

It means "Stop". it means that the one speaking wishes that the one being spoken to would cease doing what they are doing.

Nothing there about "withdrawing"

fredklein: He followed Trayvon, by vehicle and on foot, with a gun on his hip, chasing after one of "these assholes" who "always get away". That's how he 'put himself in position'.

None of which is illegal, nor rises to the level at which Martin would be justified in beating Zimmerman to the point where he felt in fear for his life. If you feel that being followed by someone with a gun on their hip is justification for beating the crap out of them, I suggest you try this on your nearest law enforcement official and see how far you get with it.

There is a certain amount of time during which we do not have any idea what happened. I certainly find it possible that Zimmerman tried to take Trayvon into custody, perhaps by flashing his gun. IF that happened, would you not agree that, IN THAT CASE, Trayvon would have been justified in fearing for his life? I mean, Trayvon's just walking home when a guy who was following him in a car, got out and followed him on foot, and is now confronting him, showing a gun? I think any reasonable person would fear for their life. Would you?

Now, the real question is, is that (or something similar) what actually happened? To judge that, we need to look at Zimmerman's actions and mental being. He was upset, cursing at at "these asshole ...

"his owning (and carrying) a gun, etc. All these thing paint a picture of a man who, well... wanted to confront Trayvon that night."

If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.
 
2013-06-23 01:09:29 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.


Firstly, Stalking.

Second, there are plenty of 'perfectly legal' things one can do that would cause fear and apprehension in someone.

Thirdly, there is a time frame during which we don't know what happened. But, based upon the known actions of the two involved (Zimmerman pursuing, Trayvonfleeing), we can make an educated guess as to what happened.
 
2013-06-23 01:11:20 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: No, I'm saying I WOULDN'T punch anyone in the face to begin with.

See how that resolves the whole situation??

Now, if only Mr Martin had learned that one trick.


You got it backwards. Zimmerman was the one who started it all, by following Trayvon.
 
2013-06-23 01:12:39 AM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: You could go around all day punching people and no one could do anything to you?
Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?


But that's the whole point- Zimmerman didn't call the cops and let them handle it. He chased Trayvon on his own. Thank you for agreeing he was wrong to do so.


No, he followed Trayvon and reported what he saw to the dispatcher, just like the dispatcher asked him to do when he told Zimmerman to "let me know if he does anything".
Notice I never said anywhere in your quote I wouldn't do the same thing? That's because I would.
With a hand not very far from my concealed Glock 23, should Mr serial puncher decide to turn and escalate the situation to a level requiring deadly force.
 
2013-06-23 01:14:26 AM  

fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.

Firstly, Stalking.

Second, there are plenty of 'perfectly legal' things one can do that would cause fear and apprehension in someone.

Thirdly, there is a time frame during which we don't know what happened. But, based upon the known actions of the two involved (Zimmerman pursuing, Trayvonfleeing), we can make an educated guess as to what happened.


Corey can and will prove the stalking charge she filed in the affidavit of probable cause

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document. ht ml?_r=0

Ctrl+F: "stalk"

0 results

Oops, I guess I must have missed that part
 
2013-06-23 01:15:58 AM  

Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.


Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.
 
2013-06-23 01:17:22 AM  

fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.


Oh man
I'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky
 
2013-06-23 01:21:53 AM  

gimmegimme: Y U UNDERSTAND HOW ZIMMY COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED

BUT NO UNDERSTAND HOW MARTIN COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED?


because of teh black.

sorry, but its true. the one consistent factor in all of these threads is that the people ignoring that martin could have legitimately felt threatened also are, to the last ITG, people who would also claim the right to self-defense to shoot a black man pursuing them in the same aggressive manner that martin was pursued by zimmerman.

/if in doubt, shoot the negro. also, its always his fault.  thats pretty much the takeaway from all these ardent zimmerman defenders the last few months
 
2013-06-23 01:23:45 AM  

ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: You could go around all day punching people and no one could do anything to you?
Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?

But that's the whole point- Zimmerman didn't call the cops and let them handle it. He chased Trayvon on his own. Thank you for agreeing he was wrong to do so.

No, he followed Trayvon


Chased: "To follow rapidly in order to catch or overtake; pursue: chased the thief."

and reported what he saw to the dispatcher, just like the dispatcher asked him to do when he told Zimmerman to "let me know if he does anything".

"We don't need you to do that".

Notice I never said anywhere in your quote I wouldn't do the same thing? That's because I would.
With a hand not very far from my concealed Glock 23, should Mr serial puncher decide to turn and escalate the situation to a level requiring deadly force.


Funny, because in this hypothetical scenario, You are Trayvon. And you just said that you'd be prepared to defend yourself, with lethal force, if Zimmerman 'decide[d] to turn and escalate the situation'. And Zimmerman's story is he 'turned to go back to his truck'. This ties in nicely with my theory that Trayvon was hiding, Zimmerman passed him, and when Zimmerman turned to go back to his truck, Trayvon thought Zimmerman had found him and was turning and coming back to get him, and so defended himself.
 
Displayed 50 of 673 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 »






Report