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 687
    More: Obvious, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, the weekend, jury, screaming  
•       •       •

6076 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2013 at 7:47 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 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 02:33:21 AM

Loaded Six String: And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence


From what he personally has said so far, his own multiply contradictory statements may do him more damage than anything else, since there is no real hard evidence of what really did occur in the alley. Who knows how that will play out.
 
2013-06-23 02:34:25 AM

Loaded Six String: fredklein: Loaded Six String: The only problem is everything you just typed is speculation, not evidence or fact

Of course. But the speculative parts match what we do know, and are not contradicted by any of the facts.

[img.fark.net image 800x302]

And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence it is the duty of any knowledgeable jury to find him not guilty. Even your speculation does not breach "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the legal threshold necessary to find a guilty verdict. At least for Murder 2. Manslaughter is a different matter.


A clarification: the legal threshold being beyond a reasonable doubt is the same, however, it would be easier to prove manslaughter than Murder 2.
 
2013-06-23 02:37:29 AM

CliChe Guevara: Loaded Six String: And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence

From what he personally has said so far, his own multiply contradictory statements may do him more damage than anything else, since there is no real hard evidence of what really did occur in the alley. Who knows how that will play out.


*Shrugs* I don't know, but I'll be glad when it's over, especially if there is no violent civil unrest over the deliberation.
 
2013-06-23 02:37:54 AM

CliChe Guevara: his own multiply contradictory statements


Oh boy, here we go. Lets hear examples of all these contradictory statements.
 
2013-06-23 02:40:13 AM

CliChe Guevara: Loaded Six String: And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence

From what he personally has said so far, his own multiply contradictory statements may do him more damage than anything else, since there is no real hard evidence of what really did occur in the alley. Who knows how that will play out.


While it's not admissible in court AFAIK, he did pass a lie detector test with "No Deception Indicated."

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/george-zimmerman-told-truth-abo ut -trayvon-martin-shooting-documents-state-77322.html
 
2013-06-23 02:45:02 AM

Popcorn Johnny: CliChe Guevara: his own multiply contradictory statements

Oh boy, here we go. Lets hear examples of all these contradictory statements.


 its not like they haven't been discussed - and covered in the news - to death. if the cognitive dissonance is so strong with you that this well documented aspect of the case hasn't registered with you at all, you won't believe quotes from me anymore than you will believe them straight from any 'lie-beral media' sources either.
 go do your own damn research. preferably not on conservapedia.
 
2013-06-23 02:51:44 AM

CliChe Guevara: its not like they haven't been discussed - and covered in the news - to death. if the cognitive dissonance is so strong with you that this well documented aspect of the case hasn't registered with you at all, you won't believe quotes from me anymore than you will believe them straight from any 'lie-beral media' sources either.
 go do your own damn research. preferably not on conservapedia.


I'm well aware of the statements and interviews Zimmerman gave to the police. You're talking shiat about things you know nothing about and expect us to believe what you have to say.
 
2013-06-23 02:54:18 AM

PKY: Occam's razor tells me the troubled teen turned violent. End of story.


you mean, like he grabbed a gun and tried running a stranger down at night? like that?
 
2013-06-23 03:03:07 AM

PKY: CliChe Guevara: PKY: Occam's razor tells us the gangster in training

occams razor only tells us here that you are a racist shiathead to refer to the black person as a 'gangster in training' and the non-black vigilante as the 'neighborhood watch guy' (an organization which he has clearly been shown -not- to have been affiliated with)

So a guy living and embracing the gansta life style is not a gangster in training? The guy volunteering his time to keep his neighborhood safe is deemed a bad guy and probable assaulter, while the "troubled teen" heading down the wrong path is the good guy and probable victim here. That's a completely bizarre and illogical conclusion. Occam's razor tells me the troubled teen turned violent. End of story.


The troubled teed ran away, his murderer admitted to the 911 operator that he ran away and he had no idea where he'd gone, He obviously tracked him down, when he had no authority to and was specifically told that he shouldn't. Florida has a stand your ground law that says if you've tried everything within your power to get away from someone and they follow you, you are allowed to defend yourself with everything up to and including deadly force. Trayvon was stalked, tried to get away, was stalked some more and stood his ground. Martin murdered someone he was stalking, open and shut.
 
2013-06-23 03:04:47 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: PKY: CliChe Guevara: PKY: Occam's razor tells us the gangster in training

occams razor only tells us here that you are a racist shiathead to refer to the black person as a 'gangster in training' and the non-black vigilante as the 'neighborhood watch guy' (an organization which he has clearly been shown -not- to have been affiliated with)

So a guy living and embracing the gansta life style is not a gangster in training? The guy volunteering his time to keep his neighborhood safe is deemed a bad guy and probable assaulter, while the "troubled teen" heading down the wrong path is the good guy and probable victim here. That's a completely bizarre and illogical conclusion. Occam's razor tells me the troubled teen turned violent. End of story.

The troubled teed ran away, his murderer admitted to the 911 operator that he ran away and he had no idea where he'd gone, He obviously tracked him down, when he had no authority to and was specifically told that he shouldn't. Florida has a stand your ground law that says if you've tried everything within your power to get away from someone and they follow you, you are allowed to defend yourself with everything up to and including deadly force. Trayvon was stalked, tried to get away, was stalked some more and stood his ground. Martin murdered someone he was stalking, open and shut.


In addition to the numerous assumptions made inferences not well supported by available evidence, I don't think you are conveying what you think you are conveying.
 
2013-06-23 03:07:56 AM

redmid17: Trayvon was stalked, tried to get away, was stalked some more and stood his ground.


nope, its only 'stalking' if you are black and doing it. if you are not black its called 'legally observing'.

same with 'standing your ground'. martin was black, so that was 'being a violent gangster'. its only standing your ground if you are not black.

are you new here or something? this is pretty remedial stuff here dude.
 
2013-06-23 03:09:40 AM

CliChe Guevara: redmid17: Trayvon was stalked, tried to get away, was stalked some more and stood his ground.

nope, its only 'stalking' if you are black and doing it. if you are not black its called 'legally observing'.

same with 'standing your ground'. martin was black, so that was 'being a violent gangster'. its only standing your ground if you are not black.

are you new here or something? this is pretty remedial stuff here dude.


fark learn how to use the reply or quote button. It's not that difficult
 
2013-06-23 03:16:11 AM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: superficial scratches

Yes, a broken nose and bleeding wounds to the back of the head are "superficial". Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?


You mean a broken nose and bleeding wounds that required exactly no medical attention? I was all cut up and bloody but I totally refused medical treatment because I'm that much of a bad ass. Zimmerman refusing medical attention either shows that he wasn't badly hurt or proves that he's one of the dumbest human being on the planet. I just shot and killed someone in "self defense" but hey he didn't even hurt me bad enough that I want a doctor to check me out.
 
2013-06-23 03:19:22 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: superficial scratches

Yes, a broken nose and bleeding wounds to the back of the head are "superficial". Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

You mean a broken nose and bleeding wounds that required exactly no medical attention? I was all cut up and bloody but I totally refused medical treatment because I'm that much of a bad ass. Zimmerman refusing medical attention either shows that he wasn't badly hurt or proves that he's one of the dumbest human being on the planet. I just shot and killed someone in "self defense" but hey he didn't even hurt me bad enough that I want a doctor to check me out.


Other than the EMTs that stitched him up and his doctor visit the next day? Maybe he didn't want to pay $600+ for an ambulance ride...
 
2013-06-23 03:59:10 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Florida has a stand your ground law that says if you've tried everything within your power to get away from someone and they follow you, you are allowed to defend yourself with everything up to and including deadly force.


Florida's law says no such thing, and "following" doesn't even begin to approach the threshold actually defined in the law.  I still haven't figured out why all of the folks that believe Zimmerman deliberately stalked and murdered the kid think that anyone would do such a thing while on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, knowing full well the call was being recorded and also knowing full well that the police would be arriving very shortly.  I mean, when I set out to kill someone in cold blood, I always want to make sure there's a recording being made of it, and that the police will be along in a moment.
 
2013-06-23 04:23:29 AM
So, subby, why does the white person have a surname and the black person only have a first name?
 
2013-06-23 04:26:04 AM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Friend, a random citizen took it upon himself to follow a kid around in armed pursuit in a vehicle and then on foot.  The target didn't know if he was going to be raped or kidnapped or stabbed or shot in the chest from a few inches away.

A concerned citizen, who happened to be armed, reported a suspicious person to the police and then attempted to regain sight of that person after they fled. The suspicious person then launched a violent assault on the citizen, leading the concerned citizen to pull their legally carried firearm and defend them self from great bodily harm or possibly death.


Oh yeah, he was 'concerned' all right. Enough to force a confrontation after being advised not to.

That sounds sensible.
 
drp
2013-06-23 04:34:44 AM
I think I'm going to open a Preparation-H e-store and buy ads on Fark.

I'll make a killing off the butthurt the day Zimmerman is acquited.
 
2013-06-23 04:54:43 AM

sheep snorter: What?? Hasn't Zimmerman been executed yet for his malicious stalking and then murder of an innocent person?

/Oh right, Zimmerman is white enough to get a free pass for his committing murder.


No, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty beyond a readonable doubt in a court of law, not guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.

Lots of so-called facts flying around in this case. Whether the whole truth will come out or not may remain a mystery, but it will be up to the prosecution to prove that what Z did was criminal.

Of course, you may be trolling, in which case I give you a 9/10.
 
2013-06-23 04:58:12 AM
This wouldn't have happened in Britain, cause they don't have guns or gay people like martin
 
2013-06-23 05:05:03 AM
what kind of moran attacks a guy with a gun, and then yells "help!"  a gay man that's who
 
2013-06-23 05:10:31 AM
when someone points a GUN at you.  standard protocol is to put your hands in the farking air and wave em like you don't care.  not to be a punk kid and be like "the guns just a prop yo i can kick this guys ass".  seriously if that was the case why would we even have GUNS?

court rules in favor of Zimmerman
case closed
 
2013-06-23 05:31:06 AM
This entire case has been OJ'ed.

If you attempt to understand what is really happening then you will get suck down to the bottom by pr agents for hire and Nancy Grace.

/Just stay away
 
2013-06-23 05:57:49 AM

Nutsac_Jim: Shaddup: 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.

For what?  The above scenerio does not apply.  Zimmerman didnt assault  Martin, get his ass kicked, and then and then shoot Martin..

I mean, unless one asserts that following Martin IS assault.  Now, I will admit that i have seen that here as a justification to assault Zimmerman.


The "initial aggressor" situation I used was in response to somebody's idiot suggestion above, that they could start a fight, let themselves get beat up for a while, and then shoot the other person on the grounds that that person had "escalated" the fight. In that situation, the burden would be on the "initial aggressor" to indicate he had clearly disengaged after starting the altercation.

In Zimmerman's case, things are much more murky, but then he (Zimmerman) isn't using an initial aggressor defense (as far as I know). He's using a straight not-guilty to 2d degree murder with a pure self-defense (none of the stand-your-ground b/s). Much lower bars in both cases. The burden here is on the prosecutor first of all to prove Zimmerman guilty of 2d degree murder; and if that can even be done, Zimmerman has the affirmative burden of proving he was in fear of his life. Much lower burden on him than that he had no duty to retreat.
 
2013-06-23 06:08:05 AM
I almost feel bad that I no longer care if he is guilty or not,  I have moved my anticipation to the reaction of the verdict.

Guilty -

 All kinds of esteemed leaders of the "Black Community" stand up, give speaches do the talk show  circuit applauding unity and justice.  A victory for minorities.

Conservatives lament the fall of freedom and the inability to bust a cap in a bruthas ars.


Not Guilty -

All kinds of esteemed leaders of the "Black Community" stand up, give speaches do the talk show  circuit condeming the lack of unity and justice. A defeat for minorities.

Conservatives rejoice in the value of a just system.

Possible Riots...Sure its a bad thing, but makes for good TV.

The down side to all of it is that Nancy Grace will walk away unscathed.  The nasty wench should be the one on trial.  Reguardless of your thoughts on this case her kind of media whoring has tainted this case.  She should burn in hell for praying on others misfortune...WHORE...Slut...Ok Im better.
I know shes not the only one...just the one that gets my ire.
 
2013-06-23 07:08:01 AM
tot mom
 
2013-06-23 07:24:50 AM

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: 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.........

Next up on "Are You Fkn Kidding Me??"


lantawa pleads others to stick to reality!!

(Camera focuses on jubilant audience): ""ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME??"

...brought to you tonight by Ignorant F*cker™ brand Douchebags!


I'ma hunt U down an' shove some Skittles up yo' butt, vigilante style, young Lionel Mandrake!
 
2013-06-23 07:58:41 AM
As an Aussie I really have no interest in this case. But I lived in Savannah, GA for a short while during the Reagan years and saw the white jocks at my military school taunt the black kids by saying "Your grand daddy was my grand daddies slave, boy".

I don't see that as the typical American viewpoint.

I do, however, find it quite interesting that Popcorn Johnny(who I have previously tagged as "Utter Scum" for some reason) has been continuously posting on this thread for fourteen farking hours.

Get a farking life, son.

Seriously, grow the fark up. Try to be something other than a piss poor excuse for a human being, there's a good lad.
 
2013-06-23 09:03:51 AM

Giltric: cretinbob: I can hear subby fapping all the way over here.

It was a smart ruling. Of course that means the defense can't use anyone who can say it's Zimmerman either.

Just ask the father to take the stand and ask him if he originally said it was not his sons voice.


Yes, I should have said "expert witness"

I'm debating whether or not I want to re-up my TF for the trial or not.....
On one hand, I'll miss a lot of fun if I don't. On the other, I may get a lot of stuff done......
 
2013-06-23 09:04:56 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: Trayvon died so we could make guns illegal

RIP gun laws


10/10
 
2013-06-23 09:32:16 AM

cgremlin: I still haven't figured out why all of the folks that believe Zimmerman deliberately stalked and murdered the kid think that anyone would do such a thing while on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, knowing full well the call was being recorded and also knowing full well that the police would be arriving very shortly


1) He hung up before the actual confrontation began.
2) The police were not 'arriving shortly'. In fact, he refused to tell them where he'd be. He asked them to call him when they were close, thus giving him warning they were coming.
 
2013-06-23 09:37:15 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: You mean a broken nose and bleeding wounds that required exactly no medical attention?


This is what team Trayvon actually believes.
 
2013-06-23 09:38:14 AM

fredklein: cgremlin: I still haven't figured out why all of the folks that believe Zimmerman deliberately stalked and murdered the kid think that anyone would do such a thing while on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, knowing full well the call was being recorded and also knowing full well that the police would be arriving very shortly

1) He hung up before the actual confrontation began.
2) The police were not 'arriving shortly'. In fact, he refused to tell them where he'd be. He asked them to call him when they were close, thus giving him warning they were coming.


Are you still in here being stupid?
The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call.
He didn't refuse to tell them jack shiat, he wasn't near any appreciable land marks and didn't know the name of the closest cross street so he wanted the officers to call as he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want to say his address out loud.
Seriously buddy, learn to facts of the case before you open your mouth.
 
2013-06-23 10:05:35 AM

Gyrfalcon: Nutsac_Jim: Shaddup: 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.

For what?  The above scenerio does not apply.  Zimmerman didnt assault  Martin, get his ass kicked, and then and then shoot Martin..

I mean, unless one asserts that following Martin IS assault.  Now, I will admit that i have seen that here as a justification to assault Zimmerman.

The "initial aggressor" situation I used was in response to somebody's idiot suggestion above, that they could start a fight, let themselves get beat up for a while, and then shoot the other person on the grounds that that person had "escalated" the fight. ...


There is no affirmative burden on a criminal defendant in Florida (or any other state except for Ohio).   There is also no such thing as an initial aggressor defense.  All the defendant has to do is show some palpable evidence of self defense.  From there the State has to disprove it.  They can try to use the initial aggressor statute (which negates a justification defense) but they would have to overcome the exceptions to the exception by showing that the defendant either didn't disengage or wasn't subject to deadly force and couldn't escape.
 
2013-06-23 10:29:31 AM

ChaosStar: The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call.


A lot can (and did) happen in a minute and a half.

He didn't refuse to tell them jack shiat, he wasn't near any appreciable land marks and didn't know the name of the closest cross street so he wanted the officers to call as he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want to say his address out loud.

He could have told the police he'd meet then at a known landmark, and returned there. He didn't. He asked for them to call when they arrived in the area. Why? because he was still planning on following Trayvon, and. not knowing where Trayvon was heading, didn't know where he'd be.
 
2013-06-23 10:57:03 AM
This judge would have been the laughingstock of every lawyer and fellow judge in the district if she allowed those two quack-jobs in as expert witnesses with their junk science and "Russian owners manual".

That Tobias Funke prosecutor just got his case Analraped...of course, judging by your usual wussified White Guilt Liberal "Justice for Trayvon" supporter (Jerry Counelis, Stealth Juror, baabayy)...getting Analraped is a good thing.

This case needs to be dismissed.  They will never get a jury that will convict Zimmerman...and if they did....the appealate court would overturn the decision (they have already ruled against the prosecution twice).  This is nothing more than a Black Racist Lynching what is happening to Zimmerman
 
2013-06-23 11:05:00 AM

fredklein: ChaosStar: The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call.

A lot can (and did) happen in a minute and a half.

He didn't refuse to tell them jack shiat, he wasn't near any appreciable land marks and didn't know the name of the closest cross street so he wanted the officers to call as he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want to say his address out loud.

He could have told the police he'd meet then at a known landmark, and returned there. He didn't. He asked for them to call when they arrived in the area. Why? because he was still planning on following Trayvon, and. not knowing where Trayvon was heading, didn't know where he'd be.


Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was. What logical sense does it make, if he wanted to find Martin, to keep where he was going a secret from Martin?

Here's a map:
img.fark.net

Look at the logical path that was followed, directions per map orientation. East off the road onto the path, turning South following path. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin.
Now if Martin didn't want to start an altercation, he continues South to home (4). Instead he ends up still East of Zimmerman's vehicle where the altercation happens (3).

Perhaps they stayed on the road, following it around the curve, where Martin ducks East between the two housing buildings. Zimmerman loses sight, following him East between the two buildings but not knowing where Martin is and being advised he doesn't need to follow Martin he goes North up the path to where the altercation occurs (3) to follow the path back to the road and his truck.

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

If (3) and (4) were closer together, I would say the arguments that Zimmerman continued to chase Martin might have some validity, but the evidence just isn't there.
 
2013-06-23 11:06:20 AM

FloridaFarkTag: This case needs to be dismissed. They will never get a jury that will convict Zimmerman...and if they did....the appealate court would overturn the decision (they have already ruled against the prosecution twice). This is nothing more than a Black Racist Lynching what is happening to Zimmerman


Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.
 
2013-06-23 11:08:08 AM

Kyosuke: FloridaFarkTag: This case needs to be dismissed. They will never get a jury that will convict Zimmerman...and if they did....the appealate court would overturn the decision (they have already ruled against the prosecution twice). This is nothing more than a Black Racist Lynching what is happening to Zimmerman

Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.


Except that's not what happened, of course.
0/10
 
2013-06-23 11:35:49 AM

ChaosStar: Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was


So, he was afraid to say "Yes, officer, I've given up chasing the guy, and I'll meet you at ____", because... why? How would that info (that Zimmerman was meeting the cops) benefit Trayvon in any way? Hell, knowing the cops were coming would probably make Trayvon run away faster. (Assuming he originally had ill intent, of course.)

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

I've said it before. I believe that Trayvon, fearing to lead the crazy guy following him straight to his house, hid. Right about at '3'. Zimmerman says he followed around the corner, then lost sight of Trayvon (umm... because Trayvon was hiding!) Zimmerman continued slightly past the '3' mark. That is when Zimmerman supposedly agreed to discontinue pursuit, and turned around to return to his vehicle. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and heading back toward him, assumed the crazy guy following him has discovered his hiding place, and is coming for him. Thus, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman. This fits all the facts.
 
2013-06-23 11:39:15 AM

ChaosStar: Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

Except that's not what happened, of course.
0/10


"Followed" while armed (and after showing ill intent toward "these assholes" who "always get away") and then, after a confrontation, killed Trayvon.

Hows that?
 
2013-06-23 12:00:34 PM

fredklein: Thus, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman


Exactly.

Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

ZImmerman said Trayvon came out and said Do you have a problem? Zimmerman said no, then Trayvon said you do now.

Fits the facts....and the upcoming acquittal.
 
2013-06-23 12:02:45 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

Except that's not what happened, of course.
0/10

"Followed" while armed (and after showing ill intent toward "these assholes" who "always get away") and then, after a confrontation, killed Trayvon.

Hows that?


Zimmerman could have been an off duty cop for all Trayvon knew.

But Trayvon is a hot head who can't not pick fights with people.

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.....you never know who is armed.
 
2013-06-23 12:12:51 PM

Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.


That's what's nuts.  Martin did have the right to stand his ground, he didn't have the right to beat Zimmerman into the ground.

Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?
 
2013-06-23 12:18:28 PM

Ricardo Klement: Summer Glau's Love Slave: "We need more ice." ~ Midget passenger aboard the Titanic.

This isn't going to end well.

Sure ain't.  I'm looking forward to the riots.


Exactly.
 
2013-06-23 12:27:40 PM
where was my Sky god when all this was going on
 
2013-06-23 12:33:22 PM

Giltric: ZImmerman said...


Oh, hell, let's call the whole thing off then. He says he's innocent, he certainly must be.
 
2013-06-23 12:39:24 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was

So, he was afraid to say "Yes, officer, I've given up chasing the guy, and I'll meet you at ____", because... why? How would that info (that Zimmerman was meeting the cops) benefit Trayvon in any way? Hell, knowing the cops were coming would probably make Trayvon run away faster. (Assuming he originally had ill intent, of course.)

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

I've said it before. I believe that Trayvon, fearing to lead the crazy guy following him straight to his house, hid. Right about at '3'. Zimmerman says he followed around the corner, then lost sight of Trayvon (umm... because Trayvon was hiding!) Zimmerman continued slightly past the '3' mark. That is when Zimmerman supposedly agreed to discontinue pursuit, and turned around to return to his vehicle. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and heading back toward him, assumed the crazy guy following him has discovered his hiding place, and is coming for him. Thus, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman. This fits all the facts.


Yes? He made that quite clear when he said:
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950, Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.
So yes, he was afraid to give out his information, because Martin could have followed him home to do anything. Giving out where he was going to be to meet the police meant Martin could have been waiting for him when he got there, or could have followed him there. Average police response time is high, he had no idea when a officer was going to show up.

Kiddo look at the map, seriously, look at it. Zoom in if you can.
Here, look at the Google map.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=203577346 16 7583507267.0004bbdcc7c71244ae865
Where is Martin hiding? It's a farking open area of lawns. Even the trees aren't big enough to hide an Ethiopian behind.
Stop making shiat up in your head and trying to put it down as logical reasoning.
 
2013-06-23 12:41:12 PM

Kyosuke: Giltric: ZImmerman said...

Oh, hell, let's call the whole thing off then. He says he's innocent, he certainly must be.


Do you have evidence that counters his claims?

Actual evidence instead of speculation, emotion etc?
 
2013-06-23 12:43:35 PM
fredklein: ChaosStar: Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

Except that's not what happened, of course.
0/10

"Followed" no quotes, he didn't allegedly follow him while armed while legally conceal carrying (and after showing ill intent expressing frustration at police response times toward "these assholes" who "always get away") and then, after a confrontation, killed Trayvon in self defense after Martin attacked him, bashed his head into the concrete, and went for his gun.

Hows that?

ftfy
 
Displayed 50 of 687 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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report