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  
•       •       •

6083 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
 
2013-06-22 12:16:37 PM
Just what I said would happen.
 
2013-06-22 12:18:03 PM

"We need more ice." ~ Midget passenger aboard the Titanic.



This isn't going to end well.
 
2013-06-22 12:21:36 PM
The paid liar will not be able to lie in court.
 
2013-06-22 01:01:13 PM

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

This isn't going to end well.


I don't really care what the verdict is, I just want to see some good legal wrangling. The judge sounds level-headed, the prosecutor and defense are both pros, and unless there's someone with an axe to grind on the jury, chances are good they'll arrive at a verdict. That ends well.
 
2013-06-22 01:24:49 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 01:26:34 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Just what I said would happen.


Tell us more about the Blackhawk's chances in the playoffs.
 
2013-06-22 01:39:20 PM

bronyaur1: Tell us more about the Blackhawk's chances in the playoffs.


The Bruins are going to beat them like Trayvon beating Zimmernan.
 
2013-06-22 02:08:55 PM
I guess that makes sense.  It's pretty hard to scream for help when you just got shot in the chest.
 
2013-06-22 04:15:19 PM
So, what are the Vegas odds of a murder2 conviction? 10-1? 50-1? Murder 2 is a bridge too far and he is gonna walk because Prosecutors, under political pressure, overcharged him.
 
2013-06-22 04:16:50 PM
The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.
 
2013-06-22 04:18:22 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: So, what are the Vegas odds of a murder2 conviction? 10-1? 50-1? Murder 2 is a bridge too far and he is gonna walk because Prosecutors, under political pressure, overcharged him.


As I've said before, I'm just glad that the criminal justice system is handling it.  This is not a country where we shoot first and never ask questions.
 
2013-06-22 04:20:18 PM
He added that trying to determine whose voice is on the call is a "waste of time."

This coming from the defense attorney, it was the kid's voice
 
2013-06-22 04:28:37 PM

Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.


What kind of jury should a Hispanic-American have, 6 African-Americans?
 
2013-06-22 04:30:56 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.

What kind of jury should a Hispanic-American have, 6 African-Americans?


Just making a simple observation.
 
2013-06-22 04:33:50 PM

Mugato: Just making a simple observation.


What's really interesting about the jury, in my opinion, is that it's all women.
 
2013-06-22 04:47:41 PM
He'll get off.  White guys who shoot black guys always do.  It's the code of the country.
 
2013-06-22 04:50:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: bronyaur1: Tell us more about the Blackhawk's chances in the playoffs.

The Bruins are going to beat them like Trayvon beating Zimmernan.


So the hawks are going to win, then.
 
2013-06-22 04:52:31 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-22 04:53:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: bronyaur1: Tell us more about the Blackhawk's chances in the playoffs.

The Bruins are going to beat them like Trayvon beating Zimmernan.

So the hawks are going to win, then.


Even better, the Blackhawks will emerge with only superficial scratches and then receive hundreds of thousands of dollars they'll subsequently hide.
 
2013-06-22 04:57:27 PM

GreenAdder: [i.imgur.com image 275x305]


i970.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-22 04:57:35 PM

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?
 
2013-06-22 04:58:58 PM

GreenAdder: [i.imgur.com image 275x305]


Each thread brings in new information, including this bit of humor FTA:

[Zim attorney] O'Mara said he would have liked to have found someone who could testify that it was Zimmerman screaming for help but evaluating the call was impossible.

I just love the idea of a defense attorney talking about what he'd like.  Johnny Cochran: "Boy, would I love to have an uninterrupted two-hour video of O.J. watch TV while those people were being killed."
 
2013-06-22 05:00:23 PM

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?


Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...
 
2013-06-22 05:06:04 PM

gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...


Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.
 
2013-06-22 05:08:17 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.


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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.
 
2013-06-22 05:08:43 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?


No, he was obligated to stay in the car like he was told to instead of stalking the kid for no reason.
 
2013-06-22 05:11:03 PM

Mugato: Popcorn Johnny: Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

No, he was obligated to stay in the car like he was told to instead of stalking the kid for no reason.


Hey!  It wasn't for no reason.  Martin was WALKING.  In public, no less!  And he was wearing a hoodie.  Be fair.
 
2013-06-22 05:11:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: bronyaur1: Tell us more about the Blackhawk's chances in the playoffs.

The Bruins are going to beat them like Trayvon beating Zimmernan.

So the hawks are going to win, then.


PJ just wants to grind your gonads. He believes himself to be adequate.
 
2013-06-22 05:16:53 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 05:18:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 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


That's how the jury will see it. The pussy gun nuts will win again.
 
2013-06-22 05:18:05 PM

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.


I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?
 
2013-06-22 05:19:41 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.


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.
 
2013-06-22 05:20:50 PM

gimmegimme: 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.

I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?


it wouldnt be to turn around and beat the hell out of my follower, thats for damn sure.
 
2013-06-22 05:22:53 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.


February is summer for you?  Do you live in the Southern Hemisphere?

Livingroom: gimmegimme: 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.

I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?

it wouldnt be to turn around and beat the hell out of my follower, thats for damn sure.


Friend, in the United States have a right to self-defense.
 
2013-06-22 05:24:20 PM

gimmegimme: I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?


Trayvon never knew he was being followed on foot, he took off running around a corner before Zimmerman exited his vehicle.

As for your question. I'm 6'2, 210 pounds and very capable of defending myself. If I was walking home from the store and suddenly thought I was being followed, or even chased and was in fear for my life, here's what I would do. First I would take off running, calling 911 at the same time. I would also be shouting my ass off for help while running through the neighborhood. I'd also start banging on the nearest door screaming for help if I couldn't make it home.

Now let me ask you, if Trayvon was a scared little kid, why didn't he do any of these things?
 
2013-06-22 05:24:50 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 05:27:35 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?

Trayvon never knew he was being followed on foot, he took off running around a corner before Zimmerman exited his vehicle.

As for your question. I'm 6'2, 210 pounds and very capable of defending myself. If I was walking home from the store and suddenly thought I was being followed, or even chased and was in fear for my life, here's what I would do. First I would take off running, calling 911 at the same time. I would also be shouting my ass off for help while running through the neighborhood. I'd also start banging on the nearest door screaming for help if I couldn't make it home.



Why would he "take off running behind a corner" unless he feared for his safety, knowing he was in danger?


Now let me ask you, if Trayvon was a scared little kid, why didn't he do any of these things?

Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.
 
2013-06-22 05:29:08 PM

Popcorn Johnny: As for your question. I'm 6'2, 210 pounds and very capable of defending myself. If I was walking home from the store and suddenly thought I was being followed, or even chased and was in fear for my life, here's what I would do. First I would take off running, calling 911 at the same time. I would also be shouting my ass off for help while running through the neighborhood. I'd also start banging on the nearest door screaming for help if I couldn't make it home.

Now let me ask you, if Trayvon was a scared little kid, why didn't he do any of these things?


Okay so Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground because when he was stalking Trayvon, Trayvon refused to scream and find a phone to call 911 and chose to stand his ground.

This argument is a Mobius strip.
 
2013-06-22 05:29:57 PM

gimmegimme: Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.

February is summer for you?  Do you live in the Southern Hemisphere?

Livingroom: gimmegimme: 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.

I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?

it wouldnt be to turn around and beat the hell out of my follower, thats for damn sure.

Friend, in the United States have a right to self-defense.


self defense  does not mean preemptively attacking somebody just "because they're following you" hoodie or not. self defense is what zimmerman did: after suffering a broken nose and having his head bashed in, he used self defense.
 
2013-06-22 05:32:05 PM

Livingroom: self defense does not mean preemptively attacking somebody just "because they're following you" hoodie or not. self defense is what zimmerman did: after suffering a broken nose and having his head bashed in, he used self defense.


Let me guess, you think Martin was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?
 
2013-06-22 05:39:28 PM

gimmegimme:


Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...


Looks like he finished the fight to me.
 
2013-06-22 05:46:33 PM

One Bad Apple: gimmegimme:


Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Looks like he finished the fight to me.


Gun always beats Skittles.
 
2013-06-22 05:51:34 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.

February is summer for you?  Do you live in the Southern Hemisphere?

Livingroom: gimmegimme: 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.

I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?

it wouldnt be to turn around and beat the hell out of my follower, thats for damn sure.

Friend, in the United States have a right to self-defense.

self defense  does not mean preemptively attacking somebody just "because they're following you" hoodie or not. self defense is what zimmerman did: after su ...



Should Zimmerman have even been following him to get into that position?Under the law it seems like the shooting was justified if he was being attacked. However, there could be a case made that it was Zimmerman's own negligence that put him in a position where he could be attacked in the first place. If he initiated the encounter with Trayvon, criminally negligent manslaughter should be on the table.
 
2013-06-22 06:04:58 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Should Zimmerman have even been following him to get into that position?Under the law it seems like the shooting was justified if he was being attacked. However, there could be a case made that it was Zimmerman's own negligence that put him in a position where he could be attacked in the first place. If he initiated the encounter with Trayvon, criminally negligent manslaughter should be on the table.


It's obvious to me, based upon the 911 call and Zimmerman's own wannabe cop background, that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the incident. As such he wasn't neither standing his ground nor defending others when he fired his weapon.

I hope it's also obvious to the jury by the time they go into deliberations.
 
2013-06-22 06:36:38 PM

gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.


So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.
 
2013-06-22 06:42:18 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.


As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conjecture that Martin was the aggressor, seeing as how Zim was the one on a lengthy armed pursuit (that seems pretty aggressive to me!), but I can at least hold the ideas you're saying in my head.

This is intelligence: being able to hold conflicting ideas in one's head.
 
2013-06-22 06:43:41 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.


The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway.  While Trayvon may have started the physical altercation later, none of it would have happened had Zimmerman just phoned in the suspicious person sighting and let the police handle it from there.
 
2013-06-22 06:44:54 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.

The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to follow Trayvon, but he does anyway.  While Trayvon may have started the physical altercation later, none of it would have happened had Zimmerman just phoned in the suspicious person sighting and let the police handle it from there.


FTFM, left a word out earlier.
 
2013-06-22 06:45:14 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.

The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway.  While Trayvon may have started the physical altercation later, none of it would have happened had Zimmerman just phoned in the suspicious person sighting and let the police handle it from there.


Think about what you're saying and the consequences.  If Zim had let Martin get away, the kid would have eaten Skittles and had some Arizona while watching the second half of a basketball game.
 
2013-06-22 06:50:05 PM

gimmegimme: As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conjecture that Martin was the aggressor, seeing as how Zim was the one on a lengthy armed pursuit (that seems pretty aggressive to me!), but I can at least hold the ideas you're saying in my head.

This is intelligence: being able to hold conflicting ideas in one's head.


We don't know who started the fight, I've said that many times in these threads. You keep saying "armed pursuit" and that's not what happened. Zimmerman was never perusing Martin, he briefly followed him around a corner. You seem to want to make it out as if Zimmerman was running through the neighborhood, gun drawn, in pursuit of Trayvon. The reality is that he ran for less than 10 seconds after exiting his vehicle when Trayvon took off running and disappeared around the side of one of the buildings. After that, there's no evidence that Zimmerman regained sight of Trayvon and followed, or chased after him.
 
2013-06-22 06:53:24 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway.


No, what the call recording (it was the non-emergency number) has is an operator hearing Zimmerman exit his vehicle and take off running. The operator asks if Zimmerman is following and Zimmerman replies "yes". The operator then says "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman replies "okay" and stops running.

So you see how you've just misrepresented the facts of the case, right?
 
2013-06-22 06:56:38 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conjecture that Martin was the aggressor, seeing as how Zim was the one on a lengthy armed pursuit (that seems pretty aggressive to me!), but I can at least hold the ideas you're saying in my head.

This is intelligence: being able to hold conflicting ideas in one's head.

We don't know who started the fight, I've said that many times in these threads. You keep saying "armed pursuit" and that's not what happened. Zimmerman was never perusing Martin, he briefly followed him around a corner. You seem to want to make it out as if Zimmerman was running through the neighborhood, gun drawn, in pursuit of Trayvon. The reality is that he ran for less than 10 seconds after exiting his vehicle when Trayvon took off running and disappeared around the side of one of the buildings. After that, there's no evidence that Zimmerman regained sight of Trayvon and followed, or chased after him.


I have never believed that Zimmy pursued Martin with gun drawn.  You are having trouble with words.

Armed: Zimmy had a gun and knew it.

Pursuit: "carrying out of a plan, design, order, etc.; the action of proceeding or acting in accordance with a plan, method"  Zimmy PLANNED to keep himself aware of Martin's whereabouts and acted in accordance with that plan.

It was an armed pursuit.

The evidence is incontrovertible, friend.
 
2013-06-22 06:57:11 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Mugato: Just making a simple observation.

What's really interesting about the jury, in my opinion, is that it's all women.


The sammiches should be awesome in the jury room.
 
2013-06-22 06:58:23 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conjecture that Martin was the aggressor, seeing as how Zim was the one on a lengthy armed pursuit (that seems pretty aggressive to me!), but I can at least hold the ideas you're saying in my head.

This is intelligence: being able to hold conflicting ideas in one's head.

We don't know who started the fight, I've said that many times in these threads. You keep saying "armed pursuit" and that's not what happened. Zimmerman was never perusing Martin, he briefly followed him around a corner. You seem to want to make it out as if Zimmerman was running through the neighborhood, gun drawn, in pursuit of Trayvon. The reality is that he ran for less than 10 seconds after exiting his vehicle when Trayvon took off running and disappeared around the side of one of the buildings. After that, there's no evidence that Zimmerman regained sight of Trayvon and followed, or chased after him.


According to this timeline there is a period of about 5 minutes between when the dispatcher told Zimmerman he doesn't need to follow Trayvon and when the fight broke out.  Now, it's possible that Zimmerman was just hanging out on the sidewalk during those five minutes, but why would he do that when he was right by his truck?   Why not get in and continue on his way?  What seems more likely - that he just decided to chill out on the sidewalk or that he was still searching for Martin?
 
2013-06-22 06:59:26 PM

Popcorn Johnny: TuteTibiImperes: The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway.

No, what the call recording (it was the non-emergency number) has is an operator hearing Zimmerman exit his vehicle and take off running. The operator asks if Zimmerman is following and Zimmerman replies "yes". The operator then says "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman replies "okay" and stops running.

So you see how you've just misrepresented the facts of the case, right?


Are you aware that phone calls are only audio?
 
2013-06-22 07:02:43 PM

TuteTibiImperes: What seems more likely - that he just decided to chill out on the sidewalk or that he was still searching for Martin?


I'm not saying that he didn't continue looking around the area for Trayvon. Seems like a bit of a coincidence that the altercation took place in pretty much the same spot Zimmerman was when he finished his call to police, but it could have happened. Even if he lingered in the area looking for Trayvon, what does that mean when it comes to his claim that Trayvon attacked him and that he was in fear for his life when he took out his gun and fired?
 
2013-06-22 07:04:14 PM

Popcorn Johnny: TuteTibiImperes: What seems more likely - that he just decided to chill out on the sidewalk or that he was still searching for Martin?

I'm not saying that he didn't continue looking around the area for Trayvon. Seems like a bit of a coincidence that the altercation took place in pretty much the same spot Zimmerman was when he finished his call to police, but it could have happened. Even if he lingered in the area looking for Trayvon, what does that mean when it comes to his claim that Trayvon attacked him and that he was in fear for his life when he took out his gun and fired?


I dunno.  Zimmerman has a documented history of violence and a documented history of lying to the court; he's not very trustworthy.
 
2013-06-22 07:05:55 PM

gimmegimme: Are you aware that phone calls are only audio?


Are you aware that you can clearly hear Zimmerman slamming a car door and that if you were on the phone with a person that was running, you would be able to tell?

Are you seriously trying to claim that Zimmerman may have kept running after Trayvon for the additional 2 minutes that he was on the phone with the police?
 
2013-06-22 07:07:44 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Are you aware that phone calls are only audio?

Are you aware that you can clearly hear Zimmerman slamming a car door and that if you were on the phone with a person that was running, you would be able to tell?

Are you seriously trying to claim that Zimmerman may have kept running after Trayvon for the additional 2 minutes that he was on the phone with the police?


No, I am saying that Zimmy's "OK" does not prove anything.  Why don't we stick to the facts of the case?

Not only that, Zimmerman has a documented history of violence and a documented history of lying to the court; he's not very trustworthy.
 
2013-06-22 07:10:53 PM

gimmegimme: No, I am saying that Zimmy's "OK" does not prove anything.  Why don't we stick to the facts of the case?


It does prove something, that he stopped running after the person on the other end of the phone said that he didn't need to be following. We also know that Zimmerman reported losing sight of Trayvon and that he stayed on the phone for almost two minutes after that.

How about you lay some facts out that prove that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, rather than defending himself from a violent assault? Remember, we don't need to prove that Zimmerman is innocent, we need to prove he's guilty. Now's your chance to do that.
 
2013-06-22 07:14:31 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: No, I am saying that Zimmy's "OK" does not prove anything.  Why don't we stick to the facts of the case?

It does prove something, that he stopped running after the person on the other end of the phone said that he didn't need to be following. We also know that Zimmerman reported losing sight of Trayvon and that he stayed on the phone for almost two minutes after that.

How about you lay some facts out that prove that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, rather than defending himself from a violent assault? Remember, we don't need to prove that Zimmerman is innocent, we need to prove he's guilty. Now's your chance to do that.


Duder, I can speak the words "I had sex with Kristen Bell for several years in the early-to-mid 2000s," but that doesn't prove anything, does it?  Zimmy lied to the court about how much money he had and that wasn't exactly true, was it?

And I never said that Zimmerman is guilty of murder; can we stick to the facts of what I'm saying?

Y U ACKNOWLEDGE ASSAULT OF MARTIN ON ZIMMY

BUT NO ACCEPT AT LEAST POSSIBILITY OF ASSAULT OF ZIMMY ON MARTIN, ESPECIALLY WITH FATAL GUNSHOT WOUND?

Y U UNDERSTAND HOW ZIMMY COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED

BUT NO UNDERSTAND HOW MARTIN COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED?
 
2013-06-22 07:19:21 PM

gimmegimme: Duder, I can speak the words "I had sex with Kristen Bell for several years in the early-to-mid 2000s," but that doesn't prove anything, does it?  Zimmy lied to the court about how much money he had and that wasn't exactly true, was it?


What does the lying about his bank account have to do with what you're claiming in regards to Zimmerman remaining on the phone with the police for 2 minutes after he stopped running? Come on man, lets hear where you're going with this. Are you saying that the whole time he was on the phone, he had Trayvon in his sights and was just waiting to end his call before pulling out his gun and busting a cap?
 
2013-06-22 07:21:42 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Duder, I can speak the words "I had sex with Kristen Bell for several years in the early-to-mid 2000s," but that doesn't prove anything, does it?  Zimmy lied to the court about how much money he had and that wasn't exactly true, was it?

What does the lying about his bank account have to do with what you're claiming in regards to Zimmerman remaining on the phone with the police for 2 minutes after he stopped running? Come on man, lets hear where you're going with this. Are you saying that the whole time he was on the phone, he had Trayvon in his sights and was just waiting to end his call before pulling out his gun and busting a cap?


I am saying we don't know the facts.  All we have is testimony from a demonstrably unreliable and obviously biased witness.

What worries me most is your lack of empathy.  Even if you think Zimmy should walk free and clear, that's fine.  But you should be able to understand the possibility that Martin was scared for his life.
 
2013-06-22 07:27:51 PM

gimmegimme: Y U UNDERSTAND HOW ZIMMY COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED

BUT NO UNDERSTAND HOW MARTIN COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED?


Look how black that guy is:
img.photobucket.com

Now we know that Zimmy should have been scared; he was dealing with a very dark black man. But Martin shouldn't have been scared at all; Zimmerman's not dark at all.
 
2013-06-22 07:28:56 PM

gimmegimme: I am saying we don't know the facts.  All we have is testimony from a demonstrably unreliable and obviously biased witness.


We also have an eyewitness that say Trayvon on top of Zimmerman throwing punches just before the gunshot was fired. In the end, that's all that matters.

gimmegimme: What worries me most is your lack of empathy.  Even if you think Zimmy should walk free and clear, that's fine.  But you should be able to understand the possibility that Martin was scared for his life.


If Martin was scared for his life, he would have been home long before Zimmerman even finished his phone call. You are aware that when Trayvon went running around the corner of the building, he was less than 100 yards away from home right? Aside from the proximity to his home, Martin didn't call 911, run around screaming for help, or bang on doors looking for help. There's not one bit of evidence that he was scared, and a whole lot that he wasn't.
 
2013-06-22 07:29:13 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: gimmegimme: Y U UNDERSTAND HOW ZIMMY COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED

BUT NO UNDERSTAND HOW MARTIN COULD HAVE BEEN SCARED?

Look how black that guy is:
[img.photobucket.com image 634x474]

Now we know that Zimmy should have been scared; he was dealing with a very dark black man. But Martin shouldn't have been scared at all; Zimmerman's not dark at all.


Good point.  Zimmerman could easily have been terrified of having darts thrown at him, too.
 
2013-06-22 07:30:47 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: I am saying we don't know the facts.  All we have is testimony from a demonstrably unreliable and obviously biased witness.

We also have an eyewitness that say Trayvon on top of Zimmerman throwing punches just before the gunshot was fired. In the end, that's all that matters.

gimmegimme: What worries me most is your lack of empathy.  Even if you think Zimmy should walk free and clear, that's fine.  But you should be able to understand the possibility that Martin was scared for his life.

If Martin was scared for his life, he would have been home long before Zimmerman even finished his phone call. You are aware that when Trayvon went running around the corner of the building, he was less than 100 yards away from home right? Aside from the proximity to his home, Martin didn't call 911, run around screaming for help, or bang on doors looking for help. There's not one bit of evidence that he was scared, and a whole lot that he wasn't.


If I'm being chased by a potential rapist or murderer, someone who is making me fear for my life, I'm certainly not going to lead that creepy weirdo to my loved ones.

Seriously, it's disturbing that you can't even understand how Martin could have been afraid, even if you don't think he was.
 
2013-06-22 07:32:21 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Now we know that Zimmy should have been scared; he was dealing with a very dark black man


Damn, no wonder he lost him in the night.
 
2013-06-22 07:34:15 PM

gimmegimme: If I'm being chased by a potential rapist or murderer, someone who is making me fear for my life, I'm certainly not going to lead that creepy weirdo to my loved ones.


Yes, a scared kid is thinking about anything other than getting back to the safety of their home and family.
 
2013-06-22 07:36:33 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: If I'm being chased by a potential rapist or murderer, someone who is making me fear for my life, I'm certainly not going to lead that creepy weirdo to my loved ones.

Yes, a scared kid is thinking about anything other than getting back to the safety of their home and family.


By your logic, Zimmy was not scared.  He did not stay in his car.  He did not tell 911 where he would be waiting for the police.

If Zimmy no scared, Zimmy no self-defense?
 
2013-06-22 07:39:38 PM

gimmegimme: By your logic, Zimmy was not scared.  He did not stay in his car.  He did not tell 911 where he would be waiting for the police.

If Zimmy no scared, Zimmy no self-defense?


See, now you're just being a moron. Zimmerman was being assaulted and had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself. If all you're interested in is trolling, find somebody else.
 
2013-06-22 07:44:34 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: By your logic, Zimmy was not scared.  He did not stay in his car.  He did not tell 911 where he would be waiting for the police.

If Zimmy no scared, Zimmy no self-defense?

See, now you're just being a moron. Zimmerman was being assaulted and had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself. If all you're interested in is trolling, find somebody else.


By your own admission, Zimmy left his car and "followed" Martin.  You said he was just standing around for a while...that's fine.  If you're scared of someone, do you just stand around?  These are not the actions of a man who is scared.  Martin ran away from Zimmy...this is something a scared person does, right?

I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understand your inability to empathize.  Your inability---even if you remain a Zim fan---to understand how Martin may have been defending himself.
 
2013-06-22 07:52:15 PM

gimmegimme: By your own admission, Zimmy left his car and "followed" Martin.  You said he was just standing around for a while...that's fine.  If you're scared of someone, do you just stand around?  These are not the actions of a man who is scared.  Martin ran away from Zimmy...this is something a scared person does, right?


So because Zimmerman wasn't too scared to leave his vehicle and follow Martin, he shouldn't have been scared while being assaulted? Is that what you're trying to say here?

gimmegimme: I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understand your inability to empathize.  Your inability---even if you remain a Zim fan---to understand how Martin may have been defending himself.


Even if he was, Zimmerman also has the right to defend himself, right? I see no evidence that Trayvon was anything other than a violent attacker. A scared kid had a lot of options, none of which Trayvon exercised.
 
2013-06-22 07:52:55 PM
Tayvarn must have been smiling or wearing blingings because otherwise Zimm wouldn't have even seen him that night.
 
2013-06-22 07:54:21 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.If you're black.

 
2013-06-22 07:54:32 PM
If you stalk someone, instigate a confrontation, and then shoot them when you start to lose the fight, you deserve to go to prison. I don't know for how long, but we all know Zimmerman wouldn't have said shiat to that kid if he wasn't packing heat.
 
2013-06-22 07:54:56 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: No, I am saying that Zimmy's "OK" does not prove anything.  Why don't we stick to the facts of the case?

It does prove something, that he stopped running after the person on the other end of the phone said that he didn't need to be following. We also know that Zimmerman reported losing sight of Trayvon and that he stayed on the phone for almost two minutes after that.

How about you lay some facts out that prove that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, rather than defending himself from a violent assault? Remember, we don't need to prove that Zimmerman is innocent, we need to prove he's guilty. Now's your chance to do that.


Popcorn Johnny, an affirmative response (especially one as weak as OK) over the phone is not proof of anything. I can't see if someone complied over the phone. It certainly isn't definitive proof that he stopped following or even running after Trayvon. In fact, since Zimmerman ended up in an confrontation of some sort with Trayvon, there is an implication that he did not comply. This should be basic common sense.

You need to stop and re-evaluate your logical methods before contributing. As it is right now someone with your primitive understanding of cause and effect, and your tenuous grasp of the facts, need not comment.
 
2013-06-22 07:55:51 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: By your own admission, Zimmy left his car and "followed" Martin.  You said he was just standing around for a while...that's fine.  If you're scared of someone, do you just stand around?  These are not the actions of a man who is scared.  Martin ran away from Zimmy...this is something a scared person does, right?

So because Zimmerman wasn't too scared to leave his vehicle and follow Martin, he shouldn't have been scared while being assaulted? Is that what you're trying to say here?

gimmegimme: I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understand your inability to empathize.  Your inability---even if you remain a Zim fan---to understand how Martin may have been defending himself.

Even if he was, Zimmerman also has the right to defend himself, right? I see no evidence that Trayvon was anything other than a violent attacker. A scared kid had a lot of options, none of which Trayvon exercised.


Okay, let's try this.  For the time being, forget the fatal confrontation, no matter who caused it.  Just for now.

Zimmy did not go home.  He left his car to figure out where Martin was and at some point stopped.

Behavior of someone who is scared?  I dunno, 1-10?

Martin did not go home.  He ran away, trying to elude the person who was "following him."

Behavior of someone who is scared?  1-10?
 
2013-06-22 07:58:18 PM
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.
 
2013-06-22 07:58:44 PM
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.
 
2013-06-22 07:58:57 PM
Less than stellar decisions were made by Zimmerman, but it's not illegal to follow someone (in this instance) and the 911 operator has no legal authority to give an order so he didn't break the law. I think he'll walk, second degree murder is a bridge too far.
 
2013-06-22 07:59:33 PM

Alunan: It certainly isn't definitive proof that he stopped following or even running after Trayvon.


That's just flat out ridiculous. A marathon runner wouldn't be able to carry on a phone conversation without the person on the other end of the line knowing they were running and you think it's possible for a chubby, out of shape guy to do it.
 
2013-06-22 08:00:37 PM
Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".
 
2013-06-22 08:01:35 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: If I'm being chased by a potential rapist or murderer, someone who is making me fear for my life, I'm certainly not going to lead that creepy weirdo to my loved ones.

Yes, a scared kid is thinking about anything other than getting back to the safety of their home and family.


Yeah, some creepy guy is following me around and his first thought is, "This is my opportunity to beat the shiat out of someone!". Maybe he was hopped up on those Skittles.
 
2013-06-22 08:02:32 PM

Alunan: In fact, since Zimmerman ended up in an confrontation of some sort with Trayvon, there is an implication that he did not comply.


See, this is more bullshiat speculation. All we know is that Zimmerman and Trayvon ended up meeting at some point after Zimmerman hangs up the phone and that that meeting happened very close to where Zimmerman was while on the phone.
 
2013-06-22 08:02:45 PM

Popcorn Johnny: So which one is your side going with


It is so beyond pathetic and sad that you look at this case in this way.
 
2013-06-22 08:02:47 PM

DoomPaul: Less than stellar decisions were made by Zimmerman, but it's not illegal to follow someone (in this instance) and the 911 operator has no legal authority to give an order so he didn't break the law. I think he'll walk, second degree murder is a bridge too far.


Florida DA seem to have a real problem with trying to convict with a way too high of a charge with little to no evidence. Casey Anthony for instance. Oh she had something to do with her kid dying, no question, but she probably didn't plan it.
 
2013-06-22 08:03:32 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.


You know how I know you're racist?

/either that, or a fashionista to the point of retardation
//pick one
 
2013-06-22 08:03:49 PM

jaytkay: Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".


Stop being unfair to Responsible Gun Owners™.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 08:04:03 PM
Zimmerman is going to prison. I'm not sure if he's going to plea or be convicted but I'd wager (if I had money) that Zimmerman is going to prison.
 
2013-06-22 08:04:44 PM

Electrify: Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.

You know how I know you're racist?

/either that, or a fashionista to the point of retardation
//pick one


You're forgetting the part where he thought February was summer.
 
2013-06-22 08:04:45 PM

Garble: It is so beyond pathetic and sad that you look at this case in this way.


What's pathetic is that people like you want to send a person to prison based on speculation. It's pretty much the most disgusting thing I can imagine.
 
2013-06-22 08:05:05 PM

Tat'dGreaser: Guns are the great equalizer, that's why they're perfect for self defense.


Almost by definition it isn't, unless the other person also has a gun.
 
2013-06-22 08:05:53 PM
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.
 
2013-06-22 08:06:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Alunan: It certainly isn't definitive proof that he stopped following or even running after Trayvon.

That's just flat out ridiculous. A marathon runner wouldn't be able to carry on a phone conversation without the person on the other end of the line knowing they were running and you think it's possible for a chubby, out of shape guy to do it.


I would concede that point, but obviously he kept following Trayvon. Your inability to address the structural problems of your argument, and in fact exclusively concentrate on a non-critical fact, reinforces my earlier assertion that you shouldn't be part of this conversation.

You are incapable of comprehending the base logic necessary to contribute in a constructive way. At this point while you have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, you have an obligation to the community and society to refrain from exercizing it. Much in the same way someone with no medical experience shouldn't be shouting at a surgeon about the best way to make an incision.
 
2013-06-22 08:06:23 PM

Kome: Almost by definition it isn't, unless the other person also has a gun.


Well if you're 5'5" 98lbs being attacked by a 6'6" 230lbs attacker, you're now sort of equal.
 
2013-06-22 08:06:30 PM

Kome: Tat'dGreaser: Guns are the great equalizer, that's why they're perfect for self defense.

Almost by definition it isn't, unless the other person also has a gun.


Stop being silly.  Deer hunters are just defending themselves against the deer.
 
2013-06-22 08:07:16 PM

Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.


And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?
 
2013-06-22 08:07:38 PM

Kome: Tat'dGreaser: Guns are the great equalizer, that's why they're perfect for self defense.

Almost by definition it isn't, unless the other person also has a gun.


To be fair to Zimmerman, most urban youths do carry guns. He was just playing the odds.
 
2013-06-22 08:07:50 PM

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.


You're a racist, you realize that, right?
 
2013-06-22 08:08:59 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:09:04 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Kome: Tat'dGreaser: Guns are the great equalizer, that's why they're perfect for self defense.

Almost by definition it isn't, unless the other person also has a gun.

To be fair to Zimmerman, most urban youths do carry guns. He was just playing the odds.


That's the big lesson of the Trayvon Martin case.  If you're a skinny black 17-year-old, you better have a gun because you know the other guy has one.
 
2013-06-22 08:09:16 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: So, what are the Vegas odds of a murder2 conviction? 10-1? 50-1? Murder 2 is a bridge too far and he is gonna walk because Prosecutors, under political racial pressure, overcharged him.


FTFY
 
2013-06-22 08:09:19 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 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.

You're a racist, you realize that, right?


When was the last time a white person was found guilty for murder? Don't bother looking it up, because the answer is never.
 
2013-06-22 08:09:38 PM

Tat'dGreaser: DoomPaul: Less than stellar decisions were made by Zimmerman, but it's not illegal to follow someone (in this instance) and the 911 operator has no legal authority to give an order so he didn't break the law. I think he'll walk, second degree murder is a bridge too far.

Florida DA seem to have a real problem with trying to convict with a way too high of a charge with little to no evidence. Casey Anthony for instance. Oh she had something to do with her kid dying, no question, but she probably didn't plan it.


Ya, I work in Downtown Orlando near the courthouse so I was near that clown show far too often. I guess the prosecutors really love trying to make a name for themselves with overcharging on popular cases. One of the prosecutors ended up using the case to run for state attorney in my district and won.
 
2013-06-22 08:09:57 PM

Alunan: but obviously he kept following Trayvon.


That is so wrong, and I'm boggled that you can say that and actually believe it. There is absolutely no proof that Zimmerman ever followed Trayvon after reporting that he had lost sight of him. All we know is that around 6 minutes after Zimmerman hung up the phone, they ended up in a confrontation in the same area that Zimmerman was while on the phone.
 
2013-06-22 08:10:00 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Garble: It is so beyond pathetic and sad that you look at this case in this way.

What's pathetic is that people like you want to send a person to prison based on speculation. It's pretty much the most disgusting thing I can imagine.


Remember when people would want the guilty guy to go free if there wasn't enough evidence instead of wrongly convicting an innocent man?

All evidence points to it being a righteous shoot.

If speculation was enough evidence to convict a person then Obama could have been impeached a couple scandals ago.

Is the speculation as evidence bit really what people want for our justice system?
 
2013-06-22 08:10:37 PM

Bontesla: Zimmerman is going to prison. I'm not sure if he's going to plea or be convicted but I'd wager (if I had money) that Zimmerman is going to prison.


I would wager you *glances at profile* something really inappropriate and piggish that he'll walk but I'm not going to.

But he'll walk. Pre-order your riot gear now.
 
2013-06-22 08:10:39 PM

Mugato: Popcorn Johnny: Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

No, he was obligated to stay in the car like he was told to instead of stalking the kid for no reason.


First, he was "told" by a dispatcher, who is not a cop, they are civilians, and second, he wasn't "told" (ordered), what was said was 'We don't need you to do that' which is more of a suggestion, and not a command.

But keep letting the media distort the story for you. The "told not to follow" line that gets repeated ad nauseum is one of the biggest lies of this whole trial.
 
2013-06-22 08:11:24 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.

And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?


Shows Trayvon had a habit of starting fights with people.

Why would he not start a fight with Zimmerman?
 
2013-06-22 08:11:33 PM

Tat'dGreaser: Kome: Almost by definition it isn't, unless the other person also has a gun.

Well if you're 5'5" 98lbs being attacked by a 6'6" 230lbs attacker, you're now sort of equal.


No. Guns are great for self-defense because they turn the situation from imbalanced against your favor to imbalanced in your favor; regardless of a large number of variables (though not all variables; for example close proximity can sometimes trump trying to pull the weapon out and take aim). It's a minor point, but I have noticed a trend lately in a few contexts where people use the word incorrectly. It's mildly irritating to me, as it's being used to mean the antithesis of what it actually means.

I'm not saying your other points are valid or invalid, I was just pointing out that you used a word incorrectly such that it detracts from the very point you were trying to make.
 
2013-06-22 08:11:37 PM
Nobody knows dick about what happened except Zimmerman. And Trayvon but he won't be testifying.

I believe Zimmerman will be found innocent of murder and then many African Americans, who also know dick about what really happened, will riot and actively target any Caucasians in sight.

Since I live near Atlanta I will make sure I am armed at the end of the trial and hope to hell I do not experience any altercation.
 
2013-06-22 08:12:05 PM

Giltric: All evidence points to it being a righteous shoot.


No. It's the lack of evidence that keeps the prosecutor from saying that the claim its a "righteous shoot" is a load of bunk.

That's probably what's going to happen and Zimmerman is going to be found not guilty as a result.
 
2013-06-22 08:12:25 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:12:43 PM

gimmegimme: 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?

Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...


Looks like Zimmy did finish it.

/ain't read the whole thread yet.
 
2013-06-22 08:12:45 PM
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.
 
2013-06-22 08:13:08 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.

And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?

Shows Trayvon had a habit of starting fights with people.

Why would he not start a fight with Zimmerman?


Zimmerman had fights with people too. So should that be considered as well?
 
2013-06-22 08:13:13 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: TuteTibiImperes: What seems more likely - that he just decided to chill out on the sidewalk or that he was still searching for Martin?

I'm not saying that he didn't continue looking around the area for Trayvon. Seems like a bit of a coincidence that the altercation took place in pretty much the same spot Zimmerman was when he finished his call to police, but it could have happened. Even if he lingered in the area looking for Trayvon, what does that mean when it comes to his claim that Trayvon attacked him and that he was in fear for his life when he took out his gun and fired?

I dunno.  Zimmerman has a documented history of violence and a documented history of lying to the court; he's not very trustworthy.


And Martin was a teenager. They're not known for great decision making. That doesn't mean Zimmerman is guilty.

/I also think the Special Prosecutor wouldn't have brought charges if she didn't have the evidence. She has a brilliant reputation and one of the highest conviction rate among her peers. She doesn't have a reputation for bringing charges that she can't prove in court.

She's also calling Zimmerman's family to testify for the prosecution.
 
2013-06-22 08:13:36 PM

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. 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.


I'm speaking purely about this case. I believe Zimmerman should NOT have pursued Martin. Regarding this case though, 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.

There was a case up in Rochester, NY where a black guy shot a white kid outside of his home. That kid and his friends were breaking into cars, he went out to confront them and the kid charged him. The debate was that he shouldn't have gone out there to begin with. He ended up being cleared of all charges because the cops moved the body since the position clearly showed the kid charged the guy. Self defense, clear cut.
 
2013-06-22 08:13:45 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.


you will be sadly disappint.
 
2013-06-22 08:13:53 PM

Kyosuke: TuteTibiImperes: Should Zimmerman have even been following him to get into that position?Under the law it seems like the shooting was justified if he was being attacked. However, there could be a case made that it was Zimmerman's own negligence that put him in a position where he could be attacked in the first place. If he initiated the encounter with Trayvon, criminally negligent manslaughter should be on the table.

It's obvious to me, based upon the 911 call and Zimmerman's own wannabe cop background bits and pieces of information spoon-fed by the media rather than factual information, that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the incident. As such he wasn't neither standing his ground nor defending others when he fired his weapon.

I hope it's also obvious to the jury by the time they go into deliberations.


FTFY.

For the rest of you arguing his guilt/innocence, take it from someone who's had to deal with daily Casey Anthony and now George Zimmerman updates every time they take a crap.  Both people were tried in the court of public opinion and judged guilty before ever having a single day in court.  And y'know what it accomplished?  Not a damn thing.  So get off your high and mighty horses.  Wait until the factual information comes out at the trial, THEN launch into vitriolic-laced threads.

/Lives in central Florida, though seriously considering moving out of state just to get away from the constant updates.
//Went on vacation and still saw this as news on both Kentucky and Michigan news stations.
///Has to drive by the exit for the court house on the way to work, which sucks given the media storm.
////Slashies!
 
2013-06-22 08:14:26 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.

And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?

Shows Trayvon had a habit of starting fights with people.

Why would he not start a fight with Zimmerman?

Zimmerman had fights with people too. So should that be considered as well?


Sure...should a backpack containing jewelry of questionable ownership and burglary tools be included?
 
2013-06-22 08:14:26 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.

And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?

Shows Trayvon had a habit of starting fights with people.

Why would he not start a fight with Zimmerman?


How did Martin start a fight with a guy who stayed in his car and didn't decide he was judge, jury and...yes...executioner?
 
xcv
2013-06-22 08:14:45 PM

gimmegimme: If Zim had let Martin get away, the kid would have added a bottle of cough syrup to the other 2 ingredients he just purchased and made some deliciously sweet purple drank.

 eaten Skittles and had some Arizona while watching the second half of a basketball game.
 
2013-06-22 08:15:02 PM
thisthreadagain.jpg

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

Zimmermen got out of his car to follow Trayvon. Trayvon rounds a corner and hides. Zimmerman rounds the corner, and walks past the hiding Trayvon. He agrees to discontinue pursuit, hangs up with the police, and turns to start walking back. Trayvon sees Zimmerman suddenly turn around and start walking back in his direction, and assumes he's been found (or is about to be). He confronts Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulls his gun. Trayvon, seeing the gun, jumps Zimmerman and attempts to neutralize the threat (ie: pounds Zimmerman's head into the ground to knock him unconscious. Which is the only real way to neutralize a man with a gun, other than take the gun away, which Zimmerman also says Trayvon attempted.) Zimmermen shoots Trayvon.
 
2013-06-22 08:15:30 PM

Kome: I'm not saying your other points are valid or invalid, I was just pointing out that you used a word incorrectly such that it detracts from the very point you were trying to make.


I agree
 
2013-06-22 08:15:31 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:16:10 PM

Tat'dGreaser: 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. 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.

I'm speaking purely about this case. I believe Zimmerman should NOT have pursued Martin. Regarding this case though, 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.

There was a case up in Rochester, NY where a black guy shot a white kid outside of his home. That kid and his friends were breaking into cars, he went out to confront them and the kid charged him. The debate was that he shouldn't have gone out there to begin with. He ended up being cleared of all charges because the cops moved the body since the position clearly showed the kid charged the guy. Self defense, clear cut.


Sounds like the shooter in that case wasn't playing pretend cowboy cop.
 
2013-06-22 08:16:38 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: 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.

I ask out of genuine curiosity.  What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?

it wouldnt be to turn around and beat the hell out of my follower, thats for damn sure.


Some people don't live in fear.
 
2013-06-22 08:17:11 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.


Summer comes really early in Florida now a days. (02-28-2012)

/pondering whether your "slinking" description is part of you sarcastic intent
//decided I don't care as I have been turned off by people trying to make light of a questionable shooting that even the cops didn't care about until the media got involved
///yeah, yeah I know welcome to Fark
 
2013-06-22 08:17:29 PM

DoomPaul: Tat'dGreaser: DoomPaul: Less than stellar decisions were made by Zimmerman, but it's not illegal to follow someone (in this instance) and the 911 operator has no legal authority to give an order so he didn't break the law. I think he'll walk, second degree murder is a bridge too far.

Florida DA seem to have a real problem with trying to convict with a way too high of a charge with little to no evidence. Casey Anthony for instance. Oh she had something to do with her kid dying, no question, but she probably didn't plan it.

Ya, I work in Downtown Orlando near the courthouse so I was near that clown show far too often. I guess the prosecutors really love trying to make a name for themselves with overcharging on popular cases. One of the prosecutors ended up using the case to run for state attorney in my district and won.


So then you're not familiar with Angela Corey's work, then.
 
2013-06-22 08:17:33 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.

And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?

Shows Trayvon had a habit of starting fights with people.

Why would he not start a fight with Zimmerman?

Zimmerman had fights with people too. So should that be considered as well?

Sure...should a backpack containing jewelry of questionable ownership and burglary tools be included?


Were they found the night it got shot?

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:18:07 PM

Bontesla: I also think the Special Prosecutor wouldn't have brought charges if she didn't have the evidence. She has a brilliant reputation and one of the highest conviction rate among her peers. She doesn't have a reputation for bringing charges that she can't prove in court.


We know what the evidence is, there isn't any. Hell, in the probable cause hearing, they were forced to admit to having no proof of most of the points in their probable cause affidavit.

She has a reputation for bringing charges on everything, including murder charges against a 12 year old that accidentally killed their brother. Think about it, why wouldn't she bring charges? She solidifies her reputation of being tough on crime and can throw her hands up and blame the legal system when she loses the case.

Some legal experts have even suggested that she should face sanctions for bringing charges in this case, given the lack of evidence.
 
2013-06-22 08:18:23 PM

Peter von Nostrand: He added that trying to determine whose voice is on the call is a "waste of time."

This coming from the defense attorney, it was the kid's voice


This.
 
2013-06-22 08:19:02 PM

KidneyStone: many African Americans, who also know dick about what really happened, will riot and actively target any Caucasians in sight.

Since I live near Atlanta I will make sure I am armed at the end of the trial...


I'm guessing you pulled out a gun when you saw this thread, to fondle the long, long, hard shaft of your weapon
 
2013-06-22 08:19:11 PM

gimmegimme: Sounds like the shooter in that case wasn't playing pretend cowboy cop.


Actually it was the exact same situation. 911 told him not to go out there but he did. Kid (who was built like a linebacker) charged him and he defended himself.
 
2013-06-22 08:19:18 PM
I have to say as a tangential comment that these threads really bum me out in some ways.  I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specific, even the folks I've been talking to in the thread, but it really is undeniable that there is some clear and sad racism in the way people see this case.

I would go into specifics, but that would indicate I'm placing specific blame.
 
2013-06-22 08:19:40 PM
It's curious that I've seen virtually nothing written about the fact the Martin had years of football training in his past. Not only has it been documented that he was into a culture of orchestrated fight club type fighting scenes, but his football training. i.e., violent aggression training and toughening process for full contact interaction with other large and powerful young adults, also is a major factor in understanding his willingness to initial a violent confrontation.  Don't most of you understand just how completely football drilling and training separates out athletes (especially full-contact sport athletes) from the general public?  Among other things, Martin has given the youth football programs a black eye by grossly abusing and misusing his skills, power, and strength, God Rest His Soul and may he rest in peace.

Zimmerman?  Well, he's a fat and excitable young man; much fatter now that the stress factors in his life are through the roof. He had no chance in a fight with Martin. He was screaming on that tape. Any fool can hear it. He most likely WOULD have died had he not shot Martin.
 
2013-06-22 08:19:44 PM

Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.


ummm... shouldn't there be like twice that number? the others get routed to null0 or something?
 
2013-06-22 08:20:59 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/r e port6a.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L04Vh4do6bY

Trayvon has a history of putting stitches on snitches....1st link

Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone snitching on his prowling....2nd link.

And all of that is relevant to what happened the night he got killed how?

Shows Trayvon had a habit of starting fights with people.

Why would he not start a fight with Zimmerman?

Zimmerman had fights with people too. So should that be considered as well?

Sure...should a backpack containing jewelry of questionable ownership and burglary tools be included?

Were they found the night it got shot?

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.


So when past history points to Trayvon possibly burglaring things and carrying the tools of the trade you want to fold and say the past doesn't matter....
What a stand up guy you are.


The case stinks to high heaven, but all the actual evidence favors Zimmerman.
 
2013-06-22 08:21:11 PM

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?
 
2013-06-22 08:21:49 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.

ummm... shouldn't there be like twice that number? the others get routed to null0 or something?


floridatag.jpg
 
2013-06-22 08:21:49 PM

Tat'dGreaser: gimmegimme: Sounds like the shooter in that case wasn't playing pretend cowboy cop.

Actually it was the exact same situation. 911 told him not to go out there but he did. Kid (who was built like a linebacker) charged him and he defended himself.


No, it's totally different.  The homeowner wasn't just coincidentally armed, apparently, and wasn't on armed patrol.  He was defending his property.  Not only that, he had a real reason to be scared of those teens (based upon the facts you've given).  They were breaking into cars, being noisy, etc.  Martin was walking home and talking on his cell phone.
 
2013-06-22 08:22:16 PM

gimmegimme: Mugato: Popcorn Johnny: Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

No, he was obligated to stay in the car like he was told to instead of stalking the kid for no reason.

Hey!  It wasn't for no reason.  Martin was WALKING.  In public, no less!  And he was wearing a hoodie.  Be fair.


to be fair, I think it was the skittles that did him in.... they are addictive... zimmy was jonesing.
 
2013-06-22 08:22:17 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Garble: It is so beyond pathetic and sad that you look at this case in this way.
What's pathetic is that people like you want to send a person to prison based on speculation. It's pretty much the most disgusting thing I can imagine.


I think a society where stalking and shooting someone is legal so long as you make sure your victim isn't alive to tell his side is even more disgusting.
 
2013-06-22 08:22:39 PM

Giltric: The case stinks to high heaven, but all the actual evidence favors Zimmerman.


What actual evidence?

Did he actually get charged with burglary or is this something you pulled out of your ass?
 
2013-06-22 08:23:04 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.

ummm... shouldn't there be like twice that number? the others get routed to null0 or something?


6 is the number in Florida for trial juries. It doesn't have to be 12. See Williams v. Florida.
 
2013-06-22 08:23:12 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.

ummm... shouldn't there be like twice that number? the others get routed to null0 or something?


You sill be shocked to hear that Florida law is...different.
 
2013-06-22 08:23:24 PM

Mrtraveler01: but if he wasn't doing anything illegal that night, that still doesn't justify him getting killed.


Well we know as a matter of fact he was doing something illegal. He was assaulting somebody.

Oh I know, you're going to come back with "he was standing his ground", right?

Lets go with that then. Trayvon was standing his ground and beating up Zimmerman. You do realize that Florida law allows Zimmerman to use deadly force to protect himself at that point, even if he was the aggressor, right?
 
2013-06-22 08:24:19 PM

lantawa: It's curious that I've seen virtually nothing written about the fact the Martin had years of football training in his past. Not only has it been documented that he was into a culture of orchestrated fight club type fighting scenes, but his football training. i.e., violent aggression training and toughening process for full contact interaction with other large and powerful young adults, also is a major factor in understanding his willingness to initial a violent confrontation.  Don't most of you understand just how completely football drilling and training separates out athletes (especially full-contact sport athletes) from the general public?  Among other things, Martin has given the youth football programs a black eye by grossly abusing and misusing his skills, power, and strength, God Rest His Soul and may he rest in peace.

Zimmerman?  Well, he's a fat and excitable young man; much fatter now that the stress factors in his life are through the roof. He had no chance in a fight with Martin. He was screaming on that tape. Any fool can hear it. He most likely WOULD have died had he not shot Martin.


If he knew that he was physically unable to perform his duties as police officer, maybe he should have resigned from the force.
 
2013-06-22 08:24:28 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts


[citation needed]
 
2013-06-22 08:24:28 PM

Mugato: Bontesla: Zimmerman is going to prison. I'm not sure if he's going to plea or be convicted but I'd wager (if I had money) that Zimmerman is going to prison.

I would wager you *glances at profile* something really inappropriate and piggish that he'll walk but I'm not going to.

But he'll walk. Pre-order your riot gear now.


Lol

If Zimmerman had a case then he would have taken the SYG defense. There would have been a hearing allowing Zimmerman to state his case. He could have avoided a trial.

When the defense announced that they would be going to trial... that was pretty telling.

But then again... I refer back to Angela Corey. If she felt pressured to bring charges, she wouldn't have gone with such a hard charge to prove. She's simply that good.
 
2013-06-22 08:24:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: The case stinks to high heaven, but all the actual evidence favors Zimmerman.

What actual evidence?

Did he actually get charged with burglary or is this something you pulled out of your ass?


Zimmermans wounds, eyewitness testimony claiming Trayon was on top beating on the guy beneath him, and a dead Trayvon by way of Zimmermans pistol, all evidence of self defense by Zimmerman.

Do you have other evidence to counter the known evidence of it being a righteous shoot?
 
2013-06-22 08:25:09 PM
Even so, the actual 911 call can be played in court and witnesses familiar with the voices of Zimmerman and Trayvon can testify to who they believe is screaming, the judge ruled.

So "experts" cannot testify because they have a stake in their method being legitimized, but witnesses familiar with either person from the incident can speculate as testimony even though they probably have a bias based on who they knew/know and how much they like him?

O'Mara said he would have liked to have found someone who could testify that it was Zimmerman screaming for help but evaluating the call was impossible.
... Obviously he wanted someone to testify to help his client... Seriously, I want to type but can't because my brain wants to explode right now.  He couldn't find someone to support his client, so obviously he's going to object to anything that works against him.  I don't know to blame this asinine statement on the defense of the case, or the writer of the article... either way, my head hurts.
 
2013-06-22 08:25:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Well we know as a matter of fact he was doing something illegal. He was assaulting somebody.


Was he doing anything illegal prior to the assault?

Popcorn Johnny: Oh I know, you're going to come back with "he was standing his ground", right?

Lets go with that then. Trayvon was standing his ground and beating up Zimmerman. You do realize that Florida law allows Zimmerman to use deadly force to protect himself at that point, even if he was the aggressor, right?


And I think that's moronic that one can start a fight, shoot someone, and try to use the self-defense excuse to get out of it.

So the moral of the lesson is Trayvon should've had a gun?
 
2013-06-22 08:25:23 PM

gimmegimme: lantawa: It's curious that I've seen virtually nothing written about the fact the Martin had years of football training in his past. Not only has it been documented that he was into a culture of orchestrated fight club type fighting scenes, but his football training. i.e., violent aggression training and toughening process for full contact interaction with other large and powerful young adults, also is a major factor in understanding his willingness to initial a violent confrontation.  Don't most of you understand just how completely football drilling and training separates out athletes (especially full-contact sport athletes) from the general public?  Among other things, Martin has given the youth football programs a black eye by grossly abusing and misusing his skills, power, and strength, God Rest His Soul and may he rest in peace.

Zimmerman?  Well, he's a fat and excitable young man; much fatter now that the stress factors in his life are through the roof. He had no chance in a fight with Martin. He was screaming on that tape. Any fool can hear it. He most likely WOULD have died had he not shot Martin.

If he knew that he was physically unable to perform his duties as police officer, maybe he should have resigned from the force.


Tru dat....
 
2013-06-22 08:25:29 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Mrtraveler01: but if he wasn't doing anything illegal that night, that still doesn't justify him getting killed.

Well we know as a matter of fact he was doing something illegal. He was assaulting somebody.

Oh I know, you're going to come back with "he was standing his ground", right?

Lets go with that then. Trayvon was standing his ground and beating up Zimmerman. You do realize that Florida law allows Zimmerman to use deadly force to protect himself at that point, even if he was the aggressor, right?


Hallelujah!  We agree!
 
2013-06-22 08:26:26 PM
 
2013-06-22 08:26:29 PM

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?
 
2013-06-22 08:27:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: And I think that's moronic that one can start a fight,


Citation?
 
2013-06-22 08:27:39 PM

Giltric: Do you have other evidence to counter the known evidence of it being a righteous shoot?


That's what's so infuriating about these threads. They don't have one goddamn bit of evidence so they keep passing off speculations as facts as if they can sneak them by people that have actually taken some time to read up on the facts of the case. All of the evidence is available online, you'd think they'd take some time to educate themselves on something they're so passionate about.
 
2013-06-22 08:27:48 PM
Kyosuke:
It's obvious to me, based upon the 911 call and Zimmerman's own wannabe cop background, that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the incident. As such he wasn't neither standing his ground nor defending others when he fired his weapon.

This so much.
 
2013-06-22 08:28:07 PM

gimmegimme: TuteTibiImperes: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense.  Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.

The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway.  While Trayvon may have started the physical altercation later, none of it would have happened had Zimmerman just phoned in the suspicious person sighting and let the police handle it from there.

Think about what you're saying and the consequences.  If Zim had let Martin get away, the kid would have eaten Skittles and had some Arizona while watching the second half of a basketball game.


img.fark.net
...the horror
 
2013-06-22 08:28:34 PM
Trayvon was standing his ground cuz he felt threatened by Zimmerman who also stood his ground after Trayvon stood his ground and everybody stood their ground case dismissed too bad libs
 
2013-06-22 08:29:15 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts

[citation needed]


See: Alan Dershowitz. Or is a law professor and 50 year practitioner of criminal law not "expert" enough?
 
xcv
2013-06-22 08:29:32 PM

Tat'dGreaser: There was a case up in Rochester, NY where a black guy shot a white kid outside of his home. That kid and his friends were breaking into cars, he went out to confront them and the kid charged him. The debate was that he shouldn't have gone out there to begin with. He ended up being cleared of all charges because the cops moved the body since the position clearly showed the kid charged the guy. Self defense, clear cut.


There was a case in Long Island, NY where a man named John White unlocked his door,  left his house, walked down the driveway and shot and killed a teenager that was accusing Mr White's son of threatening to rape a girl.

John White was convicted of manslaughter after claiming his gun misfired. The governor freed him after 5 months.

John White and the governor were black, the dead teenager was white.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/nyregion/24commute.html?_r=0

If Zimmerman had been charged with a lesser crime that he could have been convicted of, it would have been popcorn worthy to see him get a  pardon from the governor.
 
2013-06-22 08:29:44 PM

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?


savingtherepublic.com
 
2013-06-22 08:29:44 PM

falcon176: Trayvon was standing his ground cuz he felt threatened by Zimmerman who also stood his ground after Trayvon stood his ground and everybody stood their ground case dismissed too bad libs


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

Well that is until one of them got shot.
 
2013-06-22 08:30:20 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Giltric: Do you have other evidence to counter the known evidence of it being a righteous shoot?

That's what's so infuriating about these threads. They don't have one goddamn bit of evidence so they keep passing off speculations as facts as if they can sneak them by people that have actually taken some time to read up on the facts of the case. All of the evidence is available online, you'd think they'd take some time to educate themselves on something they're so passionate about.


Just think of them as mini Alex Jones'
 
2013-06-22 08:30:44 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bontesla: I also think the Special Prosecutor wouldn't have brought charges if she didn't have the evidence. She has a brilliant reputation and one of the highest conviction rate among her peers. She doesn't have a reputation for bringing charges that she can't prove in court.

We know what the evidence is, there isn't any. Hell, in the probable cause hearing, they were forced to admit to having no proof of most of the points in their probable cause affidavit.

She has a reputation for bringing charges on everything, including murder charges against a 12 year old that accidentally killed their brother. Think about it, why wouldn't she bring charges? She solidifies her reputation of being tough on crime and can throw her hands up and blame the legal system when she loses the case.

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


LOL

Yeah. No. The lead detective thought there was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman. As did the Special Prosecutor. If she felt pressured to charge, she would have gone with something much easier to prove.

Hell, even Zimmerman bet against himself. If he couldn't even establish justifiable homicide under the low bar of SYG...

Either you're trolling or you're too invested in your beliefs that you're unreasonable.
 
2013-06-22 08:30:47 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: And I think that's moronic that one can start a fight,

Citation?


We don't know who started the fight. I'm just saying that theoretically one can start the fight, shoot someone, and use the self-defense excuse.
 
2013-06-22 08:30:48 PM

Mrtraveler01: Was he doing anything illegal prior to the assault?


I'm not sure, there was a lot of speculation that the whole reason he went to the 7-11 was to sell weed. The surveillance video shows him loitering around the front of the store for a while after buying his Skittles.
 
2013-06-22 08:30:55 PM

Mrtraveler01: falcon176: Trayvon was standing his ground cuz he felt threatened by Zimmerman who also stood his ground after Trayvon stood his ground and everybody stood their ground case dismissed too bad libs

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

Well that is until one of them got shot.


That's the other big lesson.  If you get in a fight in Florida, make sure you kill the other person.  Do whatever it takes.
 
2013-06-22 08:31:12 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Lets go with that then. Trayvon was standing his ground and beating up Zimmerman


So, Trayvon was standing his ground because Zimmerman was threatening him...this defensive reaction threatened Zimmerman who then stood his ground by killing Trayvon.

Thus, Zimmerman was acting lawfully and is innocent of wrongdoing.

Brilliant!

I'm going to go to Florida, pull a knife on some dude, then when he threatens me with his fists, I'll stab his ass dead.  And people like you will defend me!!  USA!!  USA!!!  USA!!!
 
2013-06-22 08:31:27 PM

gimmegimme: Electrify: Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.

You know how I know you're racist?

/either that, or a fashionista to the point of retardation
//pick one

You're forgetting the part where he thought February was summer.


Either or, but the fact that he feels that he brought it on himself because of what he was wearing says volumes. Bonus, it isn't because he was wearing the wrong coloured bandana in the wrong neighbourhood, it was because he was wearing the wrong kind of shirt through the RICH neighbourhood. Apparently fashion trends are enough to convict these days. Bet he thinks that rape victims brought on themselves because they shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt.

The stupid in this guy's comment is so strong that admitting to be a racist may in fact be the lesser of two evils
 
2013-06-22 08:31:37 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Mrtraveler01: Was he doing anything illegal prior to the assault?

I'm not sure, there was a lot of speculation that the whole reason he went to the 7-11 was to sell weed. The surveillance video shows him loitering around the front of the store for a while after buying his Skittles.


So no then?
 
2013-06-22 08:31:54 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: HindiDiscoMonster: Mugato: The jury are 5 whites and one hispanic. Case dismissed.

ummm... shouldn't there be like twice that number? the others get routed to null0 or something?

6 is the number in Florida for trial juries. It doesn't have to be 12. See Williams v. Florida.


weird.... the one I served on there was 12... in Florida

so the others DID get routed to null0
 
2013-06-22 08:31:55 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts

[citation needed]

See: Alan Dershowitz. Or is a law professor and 50 year practitioner of criminal law not "expert" enough?


You need to look up the definition of "citation"
 
2013-06-22 08:32:03 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: And I think that's moronic that one can start a fight,

Citation?

We don't know who started the fight. I'm just saying that theoretically one can start the fight, shoot someone, and use the self-defense excuse.


This is what kills me.  They simply can't understand--even if they don't believe them--other scenarios or understand the emotions of anyone but Zimmerman.
 
2013-06-22 08:33:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Mrtraveler01: Was he doing anything illegal prior to the assault?

I'm not sure, there was a lot of speculation that the whole reason he went to the 7-11 was to sell weed. The surveillance video shows him loitering around the front of the store for a while after buying his Skittles.


See, I heard speculation that Zimmerman was trying to find John Titor the time traveller to get secrets about the future so he could win money betting on sports.

///This coming from the guy who said a zillion times in this thread that we should stick to the facts.
 
2013-06-22 08:33:19 PM

jaytkay: 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?

[savingtherepublic.com image 392x204]


www.rawstory.com

And? Are you really suggesting that Alan Dershowitz is a died in the wool Republican? Do you even know who Alan Dershowitz is?
 
2013-06-22 08:33:56 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:34:22 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts

[citation needed]

See: Alan Dershowitz. Or is a law professor and 50 year practitioner of criminal law not "expert" enough?

You need to look up the definition of "citation"


Are you looking for a citation that some legal experts think Corey overcharged? Because Alan Dershowitz is a legal expert who thought Corey overcharged. Did you not quote correctly when asking for your citation?
 
2013-06-22 08:34:31 PM

Popcorn Johnny: What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion


Popcorn Johnny: I'm not sure, there was a lot of speculation that the whole reason he went to the 7-11 was to sell weed.

 
2013-06-22 08:34:41 PM
Here's Dershowitz talking about Angla Corey
I know, it's irrelevant because it was on Fox News, right?
 
2013-06-22 08:35:16 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:35:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Lets go with that then. Trayvon was standing his ground and beating up Zimmerman

So, Trayvon was standing his ground because Zimmerman was threatening him...this defensive reaction threatened Zimmerman who then stood his ground by killing Trayvon.

Thus, Zimmerman was acting lawfully and is innocent of wrongdoing.

Brilliant!

I'm going to go to Florida, pull a knife on some dude, then when he threatens me with his fists, I'll stab his ass dead.  And people like you will defend me!!  USA!!  USA!!!  USA!!!


Make sure you consult your color chart first.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 08:36:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: bronyaur1: Tell us more about the Blackhawk's chances in the playoffs.

The Bruins are going to beat them like Trayvon beating Zimmernan.

So the hawks are going to win, then.


You could say that the Hawks are going to murder the Bruins.
 
2013-06-22 08:36:26 PM

gimmegimme: This coming from the guy who said a zillion times in this thread that we should stick to the facts.


I said I'd stick to the facts in determining whether or not Zimmerman was guilty. I'm free to speculate about everything else, just like you. The difference is I separate the facts and speculations, while you think that one is the same as the other.
 
2013-06-22 08:36:32 PM

jaytkay: Popcorn Johnny: What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion

Popcorn Johnny: I'm not sure, there was a lot of speculation that the whole reason he went to the 7-11 was to sell weed.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 08:37:34 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 08:39:00 PM
Hope you all have your new riot outfit ready. Dont show up wearing the same as last time.
 
2013-06-22 08:39:00 PM

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
 
2013-06-22 08:39:30 PM
videos of the frye hearing of the prosecution experts,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlnkSNoXZUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3b096fQLi4

Summary of FBI expert  http://videos of the frye hearing of the prosecution experts,

Take the name of the case away from this, I always found it sketchy that the special prosecutor brought in the fbi and justice dept to about the racism and the words and voices on the tape, didnt get what they wanted and basically ignored their findings paid  "experts" for testimony using tax payer dollars to do what the fbi at their request had already done.  Is there a point where you want a conviction a little too much?

After reading the wiki on this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin and the hln website, my biggest issues with the prosecution case are that he was out of the car when the dispatcher asked him to stop and the continue to talk to him calmly for a minute or so zimmerman had lost track of martin, there is no way martin could not have made it home, he had to have waited or came back, witness 8 lied about her age, location during the funeral and could not spell her longtime friends and "boyfriends" name correctly in her written statement, and her statement seemed coached.  (not that zimmermans statements are very consistent but the state had the burden of proof zimmerman does not have to take the stand)  and the one eye witness "john" that stated he saw martin on top of zimmerman beating him and zimmerman was crying out for help?

This was a tragedy but murder two? manslaughter? or a govt trying to placate the masses with a really weak case that anyone can see there is enough reasonable doubt, key part being reasonable.
 
2013-06-22 08:39:46 PM
The moronic replies in this place just amazes me. Anyone that has read the details could never decide that Zimmerman is guilty of anything but stopping his own death. You don't attempt to beat someone like that unless you mean to maim or kill...period. But I guess one of these days you people will get your wish and see a law enforcement officer railroaded into jail or worse. As long as we have idiot reporters, lying "witnesses", lopsided media outlets, and minorities just "minding their own business"

/rolls eyes
 
2013-06-22 08:39:56 PM

jaytkay: Popcorn Johnny: What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion

Popcorn Johnny: I'm not sure, there was a lot of speculation that the whole reason he went to the 7-11 was to sell weed.


If Johnny ever had credibility, that would be the end of it.
 
2013-06-22 08:40:25 PM

jaytkay: Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".


As a responsible gun owner, and having been in bad spots, I am more afraid of ignorant white trash than I ever have been of anyone else. They're the ones who have been the most violent and callous.

I grew up in a predominantly ghetto black school system, and knew a lot of the gangs and their members. Most of these guys, unless they had a reason to go after you, you were fine. Stay off their turf, stay out of their way, and respect them, and they might hassle you a little but wouldn't get violent. No reason to. Very much a territorial/pack mentality. Don't be prey, don't piss on the lead dog.

Most white trash guys I've met would be violent for no good reason, and would attack you for fun.

However, all race aside, I would and have followed strange people I didn't recognize when they were slowly cruising the neighborhood or showing signs they were out of place. I've also been armed while doing so. If they take off and leave, no skin off my nose. I keep an eye on where they go, and call the cops if necessary. I do this because we have a lot of elderly around and we're way out. Prime targets for people looking to rob a place.

My criteria for suspicious, you ask? Driving excessively slow past a house. Pulling into driveways and not exiting your vehicle, then leaving again after loitering for a long period of time. Parking by the side of the road and heading towards a house across a field, especially towards dusk.

I'm also, in a lot of cases, way more direct than Zimmerman. If you're out of your car I'll stop and politely ask if you're lost or need help. I'll kindly ask what their business is and if they have no business or don't know the owner, I'll remind them they're on private property.

Had a lot of folks take off real quick, none ever turn around and get nasty or try to pick a fight. Never had to unconceal my weapon, either.

Only ever had to do that when some redneck whiskey tango fark with drop crotch pants and acting like a retard started waving a gun around and pointing it at people, or walk up to me out of the blue and start pushing me around for no reason (and he was later arrested for dealing meth).
 
2013-06-22 08:41:53 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Lionel Mandrake: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts

[citation needed]

See: Alan Dershowitz. Or is a law professor and 50 year practitioner of criminal law not "expert" enough?

You need to look up the definition of "citation"

Are you looking for a citation that some legal experts think Corey overcharged? Because Alan Dershowitz is a legal expert who thought Corey overcharged. Did you not quote correctly when asking for your citation?


So, given that she has a crazy high conviction rate - why would she risk that by overcharging? She could have gone with a much lesser murder charge. Are you suggesting that there's a conspiratorial ring pushing a brilliant attorney to risk her career over a fat man with a gun? She doesn't have a history of overcharging so why start now?

And this is speculating from a man who probably hasn't read every deposition.

If you can't see the alarming absurdity in your belief system then I can't help you.
 
2013-06-22 08:42:14 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Lionel Mandrake: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Some legal experts

[citation needed]

See: Alan Dershowitz. Or is a law professor and 50 year practitioner of criminal law not "expert" enough?

You need to look up the definition of "citation"

Are you looking for a citation that some legal experts think Corey overcharged? Because Alan Dershowitz is a legal expert who thought Corey overcharged. Did you not quote correctly when asking for your citation?


See the link Johnny provided?

THAT'S a citation.

~*~ the more you know ~*~
 
2013-06-22 08:42:18 PM

Gestankfaust: The moronic replies in this place just amazes me. Anyone that has read the details could never decide that Zimmerman is guilty of anything but stopping his own death. You don't attempt to beat someone like that unless you mean to maim or kill...period. But I guess one of these days you people will get your wish and see a law enforcement officer railroaded into jail or worse. As long as we have idiot reporters, lying "witnesses", lopsided media outlets, and minorities just "minding their own business"

/rolls eyes


You know what?  You're right.  We just don't salute our heroes enough.  They risk our lives every day to keep us safe.

img.fark.net
 
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.
 
2013-06-22 09:27:25 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.


I maintain that Trayvon had as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman. Zimmerman was just better at doing so.
 
2013-06-22 09:27:40 PM

Thoguh: You're gonna have to help me out here. What was Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation?


He ran away from Zimmemerman. From which we can draw another inference, of course. That inference being that Zimmerman menaced Trayvon at that point in the conversation. Trayvon was conducting himself lawfully at the time, so he had no other reason to flee.

The inference that Zimmerman menaced Trayvon, maybe by brandishing his firearm, adds weight to the inference that Zimmerman wanted to fight, and therefore started it.
 
2013-06-22 09:28:58 PM
why buy a gun unless your gonna brandish it
 
2013-06-22 09:30:01 PM

jaytkay: 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!"


Wow, you got me. 8.5/10. The "pretending to be anti-gun" really showed your true troll colors though. Or do you honestly think that he holds an anti gun position to appeal to Fox News viewers?
 
2013-06-22 09:31:36 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.


Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.
 
2013-06-22 09:32:23 PM

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.........


So, on top of an admitted clusterfark, you're advocating/condoning vigilante justice and murder? If what Zimmerman did was wrong, how is hoping/condoning the NBP's murder of him any better?
 
2013-06-22 09:33:30 PM

bugontherug: Thoguh: You're gonna have to help me out here. What was Trayvon's effort to avoid confrontation?

He ran away from Zimmemerman. From which we can draw another inference, of course. That inference being that Zimmerman menaced Trayvon at that point in the conversation. Trayvon was conducting himself lawfully at the time, so he had no other reason to flee.

The inference that Zimmerman menaced Trayvon, maybe by brandishing his firearm, adds weight to the inference that Zimmerman wanted to fight, and therefore started it.


Again, objection, calls for speculation. The kind of inference that you are making would be struck down by just about any judge who wasn't on the take for the prosecution. You are asking the witness, whomever it would be, to testify that Zimmerman started the confrontation based on nothing but speculation.

I know that you hate me calling your legal acumen into question, but you really have taken the cake here tonight. You are claiming, without evidence, that Zimmerman "menaced" Martin and then making another claim that this infers that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. You are also assuming facts not in evidence by stating that maybe Zimmerman brandished his firearm before the lethal shot, which is not supported by any evidence heretofore known.
 
2013-06-22 09:35:13 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 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.


In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters. They only base their arguments on emotion and ignorance.
 
2013-06-22 09:37:00 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: Popcorn Johnny: 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.

In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters. They only base their arguments on emotion and ignorance.


George Zimmerman has placed at least 46 calls to 911 in the last eight years. In the last year, his calls focused on blacks in his gated community:
April 22, 2011: Reports "black male, 7 to 9 years old with skinny build," walking around the neighborhood.
Aug. 3, 2011: Calls in a black male he "believes is involved in
recent burglaries in the neighborhood."
Aug. 6, 2011: Fingers two black teens he thinks "have been burglarizing homes in this area."
Oct. 1, 2011: Reports two black males, approximately 20 to 30 years old, whom he does not recognize. He says he's "concerned due to recent burglaries in the area."
Feb. 2, 2012: Drops dime on a black male because it is "unknown what he is doing."
Feb. 26: Calls about Trayvon Martin
Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there is a real suspicious guy.
Asked by the dispatcher what the suspect looks like, he says:
He looks black ... Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband.
 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cop_wannabe_on_paranoid_patro l_l fV4L1N0W6y0mEwgoU0L7K/1
 
2013-06-22 09:37:20 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: Popcorn Johnny: 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.

In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters. They only base their arguments on emotion and ignorance.


As opposed to your statements which are demonstrably false...
 
2013-06-22 09:37:42 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters.


I can refute everything you said Some of your "facts" were debunked over a year ago, so I'm not going to bother with somebody as ignorant about the case as you are.
 
2013-06-22 09:37:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 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.


I'm not trying to "make a case"

And I'm not on "one side"

Damn, you really suck
 
2013-06-22 09:38:07 PM

Bravo Two: 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.........

So, on top of an admitted clusterfark, you're advocating/condoning vigilante justice and murder? If what Zimmerman did was wrong, how is hoping/condoning the NBP's murder of him any better?


If he was dead, we wouldn't have to have this goddamn trial...
 
2013-06-22 09:38:20 PM
in my opinion we know exactly jack squat about what happened that night. Zimmerman's story is dubious at best as he has a vested interested in being cleared. so has every reason to spin it to make him look good and no reason to be 100% honest.

Not sure if he will walk or not but if he does I would not want to be a white man in a black neighbor hood.
 
2013-06-22 09:38:55 PM

bugontherug: He ran away from Zimmemerman.


Uh, no. He walked into his yard and started swinging. Keep spouting off that NBC News faked 911 call horsesh*t.
 
2013-06-22 09:39:44 PM

MagSeven: Satan's Girlfriend: Popcorn Johnny: 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.

In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters. They only base their arguments on emotion and ignorance.

George Zimmerman has placed at least 46 calls to 911 in the last eight years. In the last year, his calls focused on blacks in his gated community:
April 22, 2011: Reports "black male, 7 to 9 years old with skinny build," walking around the neighborhood.
Aug. 3, 2011: Calls in a black male he "believes is involved in
recent burglaries in the neighborhood."
Aug. 6, 2011: Fingers two black teens he thinks "have been burglarizing homes in this area."
Oct. 1, 2011: Reports two black males, approximately 20 to 30 years old, whom he does not recognize. He says he's "concerned due to recent burglaries in the area."
Feb. 2, 2012: Drops dime on a black male because it is "unknown what he is doing."
Feb. 26: Calls about Trayvon Martin
Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there is a real suspicious guy.
Asked by the dispatcher what the suspect looks like, he says:
He looks black ... Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband.
 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cop_wannabe_on_paranoid_patro l_l fV4L1N0W6y0mEwgoU0L7K/1


46 calls to 911 in 8 years? I made about that many in two years just driving through Denver on a daily commuting basis, reporting accidents, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers, and so on.
 
2013-06-22 09:39:46 PM
One less thug dead, no one cares
 
2013-06-22 09:40:21 PM
Trayvon died so we could make guns illegal

RIP gun laws
 
2013-06-22 09:40:49 PM

Gyrfalcon: Bravo Two: 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.........

So, on top of an admitted clusterfark, you're advocating/condoning vigilante justice and murder? If what Zimmerman did was wrong, how is hoping/condoning the NBP's murder of him any better?

If he was dead, we wouldn't have to have this goddamn trial...


So this condones murder, rather than exactly what the justice system was designed for.
 
2013-06-22 09:41:30 PM

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

RIP gun laws


2/10

Had me for a second.
 
2013-06-22 09:41:31 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Uh, no. He walked into his yard and started swinging. Keep spouting off that NBC News faked 911 call horsesh*t.


If you're calling someone a liar. You shouldn't lie yourself.
 
2013-06-22 09:41:56 PM

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.

Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.


From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.
 
2013-06-22 09:43:32 PM

ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares


Meanwhile in Chicago, people die by the dozens and no one gives a shiat because its gang violence.

If Zimmerman had been black, no one on fark would give a shiat here either.
 
2013-06-22 09:43:39 PM

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


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 09:45:05 PM

Bravo Two: Meanwhile in Chicago, people die by the dozens and no one gives a shiat because its gang violence.


We should care about scum wiping out scum?
 
2013-06-22 09:46:48 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Or do you honestly think that [Alan Dershowitz] holds an anti gun position to appeal to Fox News viewers?


Alan Dershowitz has a repeal-the-2nd-amendment position the way I have a Kate-Upton-do-not-give-me-a-blow-job position.

We have strong principles!
 
2013-06-22 09:46:54 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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."


It may be that the Florida legislature intended to privilege a course of conduct consisting of starting a physical fight with someone while carrying a loaded firearm, then killing your target when he gets the better of you. It may be. But it defies all reason, because it all but legalizes murder, so long as you start a fight and let them get the better of you first.

I can already hear your plaintive cry "but that's not what I said! I just said literally every other single fact in the case is completely irrelevant if Zimmerman reasonably thought he needed to use deadly force!" Yes, that is what you said. And when you said that, you said that the Florida legislature intended to privilege starting a fight with someone while carrying a lethal weapon and then killing them. This is true whether or not you believe that's what happened in this case.

So, it may be you're right. If so, then every member of the Florida legislature who voted for that bill should be dragged kicking and screaming from their beds in the middle of the night, hauled into the middle of the street, and shot without mercy or conscience.1

Or at least they need to rewrite their sh*tty statute, and then get roundly defeated in the next election.

1Hyperbole, used for rhetorical effect only. Author holds no actual intention of dragging or shooting anyone. Not even if they really deserve it.
 
2013-06-22 09:47:28 PM

Bravo Two: ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares

Meanwhile in Chicago, people die by the dozens and no one gives a shiat because its gang violence.

If Zimmerman had been black, no one on fark would give a shiat here either.


If there were any justice we would just let the gangs war in some sort of thunderdome for control of a special ghetto that is set aside somwhere.
 
2013-06-22 09:47:48 PM

ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares


This is the attitude I'm talking about. The Z supporters are only happy since a black child was murdered. I wish more more of your kind were willing to own up to it like you have.
 
2013-06-22 09:47:57 PM
I don't even care who did what at that point. The instant Zimmerman ignored police orders not to follow Martin, his "stand your ground" protections should have been voided.
 
2013-06-22 09:48:23 PM

Mrtraveler01: If you're calling someone a liar. You shouldn't lie yourself.


Nothing better than confronting a crackpot liberal like yourself with a little truth. All of the NBC News 911 call doctoring, all the bulllsh*t you idiots saturated the mainstream media with, yet that simple truth has risen to the top.

"If I had a son it would look like Trayvon" - Barack Hussein Obama.

Yep, it sure would. A juvenile delinquent with photographs of petty crimes and drugs on his phone, walking through a rich neighborhood to steal something, then picking a fight with a homeowner in his front yard. Yep, sounds like Barry Hussein's son to me.
 
2013-06-22 09:48:31 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.

Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.

From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.


But again, we are right back where we started. O'Mara will have the jury instructions include the relevant Florida statute that states that, even as an initial aggressor, Zimmerman had the right to self-defense when he, or a reasonable person, felt in danger for their life. O'Mara will make the inference, supported by the evidence he will present at trial, that Zimmerman was in fear for his life from Martin and therefore justified in applying lethal force. The fact that he may or may not have been the initial aggressor is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I honestly don't know why so many people lay so much legal weight on this particular caveat of the case. It is utterly meaningless to the self-defense claim.
 
2013-06-22 09:49:41 PM

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!
 
2013-06-22 09:50:08 PM

WhoopAssWayne: A juvenile delinquent with photographs of petty crimes and drugs on his phone, walking through a rich neighborhood to steal something, then picking a fight with a homeowner in his front yard.


Where do you have proof that he fought in Zimmerman's own yard? And you do know that Martin was staying in that same neighborhood right?

WhoopAssWayne: Yep, sounds like Barry Hussein's son to me.


Oh I see, you're just trolling. I thought you were really that stupid for a second.
 
2013-06-22 09:51:25 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 09:51:44 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.

Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.

From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.


You're wasting your time. I've been in these threads with Bug and he thinks he knows everything about this case when he blatantly does not. He will defend his ignorance with walls of text though.
 
2013-06-22 09:52:46 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bravo Two: Meanwhile in Chicago, people die by the dozens and no one gives a shiat because its gang violence.

We should care about scum wiping out scum?


Nice.  Not that there was any doubt about you being an asshole, but even assholes aren't generally so up front about being assholes.

This is the guy who just chastised me for for not doing "my side" any favors....fkn beautiful
 
2013-06-22 09:53:43 PM

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.


No I wouldn't.

Based on the scenario you just presented I believe I could somehow magically manage to not escalate the problem further through my own actions.

This "Martin is utterly blameless under all scenarios" nonsense is getting old.
 
2013-06-22 09:54:10 PM

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.
 
2013-06-22 09:54:34 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares

This is the attitude I'm talking about. The Z supporters are only happy since a black child was murdered. I wish more more of your kind were willing to own up to it like you have.


He said thug, you're the one who brought up skin color.
/whites, browns, and yellows can be thugs to
 
2013-06-22 09:55:05 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Nice.  Not that there was any doubt about you being an asshole, but even assholes aren't generally so up front about being assholes.


If you want to waste your time feeling sorry for piece of shiat gang scum shooting each other, knock yourself out.
 
2013-06-22 09:55:37 PM

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.


Citations?
 
2013-06-22 09:55:55 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares

This is the attitude I'm talking about. The Z supporters are only happy since a black child was murdered. I wish more more of your kind were willing to own up to it like you have.


Meh, I saw his real photos (not the bullshiat 10 year old photos the media tries to force). He was and would have been continued to be a thug just like any other asshole that dresses like that. I would have said the same thing to a hispanic or white guy, but whatever you want to think about it doesn't change my opinion.
 
2013-06-22 09:56:36 PM
Satan's Girlfriend: Here are the facts:

Zimmerman claimed to be a neighborhood watch captain when he really wasn't. - not relevant to the incident
Zimmerman called 911 like 50 times in a year. - not relevant to incident
Zimmerman had a history of violence and racist remarks. - not relevant to incident
Zimmerman directly disobeyed a police order to stand down. - not true, he was assaulted on the way back to his vehicle, after breaking pursuit
Zimmerman was armed with a gun. Martin was armed with Skittles and tea. - which is why zimmerman is alive and trayvon is dead
Martin had no bruises on his knuckles, inconsistent with the assault narrative. - this would be a valid point if...
Zimmerman had only minor injuries, and did not even require medical assistance. - Zim's injuries prove an assault took place, the success of the assault is irrelevant
Voice experts have unanimously confirmed the voice screaming for help was Martin. - Who are these experts? Why was this not admissable in court?
Zimmerman has constantly changed his version of events that night. - How so?

I could go on and on. This should be an open and shut case. - No, it shouldn't. Someone died. This should be a trial.
My only concern is Zimmerman walking due to the white privileged system that traditionally rewards his kind of behavior. - He isn't white 
Even if he walks though, it's only a matter of time before the NBP hunts him down like dog he is. - So you're saying that he should be afraid of blacks? Kind of racist, implying that blacks hunt people, but hey, your world. Just Hope they bring more than skittles and tea.
 
2013-06-22 09:56:37 PM

ChaosStar: He said thug, you're the one who brought up skin color.
/whites, browns, and yellows can be thugs to


Do you think you're fooling anyone with your dog whistle terminology?
 
2013-06-22 09:57:05 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 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.


Was that a factual statement or your conjecture?  You need to specify.
 
2013-06-22 09:57:26 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Lionel Mandrake: Nice.  Not that there was any doubt about you being an asshole, but even assholes aren't generally so up front about being assholes.

If you want to waste your time feeling sorry for piece of shiat gang scum shooting each other, knock yourself out.


It's much easier to throw a blanket over hundreds of individual lives and righteously call them scum.

Jesus, dude.  You just keep upping the ante...I'll have to reevaluate my estimates of the upper limits of human assholishness.
 
2013-06-22 09:57:28 PM

ThatDarkFellow: He was and would have been continued to be a thug just like any other asshole that dresses like that.


I know. He was asking to get shot dressing like that amirght?
 
2013-06-22 09:57:45 PM

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.


This has to be a troll
No one, even on Fark, can be this stupid.
 
2013-06-22 09:57:53 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: Since I am a minority myself I can not by definition be racist.


I just spit Rum and Coke all over myself.
 
2013-06-22 09:59:05 PM

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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."

It may be that the Florida legislature intended to privilege a course of conduct consisting of starting a physical fight with someone while carrying a loaded firearm, then killing your target when he gets the better of you. It may be. But it defies all reason, because it all but legalizes murder, so long as you start a fight and let them get the better of you first.

I can already hear your plaintive cry "but that's not what I said! I just said literally every other single fact in the case is completely irrelevant if Zimmerman reasonably thought he needed to use deadly force!" Yes, that is what you said. And when you said that, you said that the Florida legislature intended to privilege starting a fight with someone while carrying a lethal weapon and then killing them. This is true whether or not you believe that's what happened in this case.

So, it may be you're right. If so, then every member of the Florida legislature who voted for that bill should be dragged kicking and screaming from their beds in the middle of the night, hauled into the middle of the street, and shot without mercy or conscience.1

Or at least they need to rewrite their sh*tty statute, and then get roundly defeated i ...


It may be that the statute is horsecrap as you say, and it may be that I agree with you on that one particular. The point is effectively moot. The statute applies as written. The State has already testified that they have no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the altercation. Therefore, all we have is the word of Zimmerman that Martin initiated the confrontation and therefore Zimmerman, at all times, retained his right to self-defense. Should the prosecution then present evidence at trial that claims to show Zimmerman as the First Aggressor, they would effectively perjure themselves based on prior testimony, depending on the timeframe that the evidence became known to them. Of course, given the circus surrounding this trial, if the prosecution has such evidence, it likely would have been made public by now.
 
2013-06-22 09:59:18 PM

Lionel Mandrake: It's much easier to throw a blanket over hundreds of individual lives and righteously call them scum.


Let me guess, society is to blame for them being gang banging pieces of trash, right?
 
2013-06-22 09:59:52 PM

Mrtraveler01: ThatDarkFellow: He was and would have been continued to be a thug just like any other asshole that dresses like that.

I know. He was asking to get shot dressing like that amirght?


For dressing like that? Probably not. That's not what I said, though, did I? I just used it as a signifier for a thug. But hey, you can make up anything you like if it makes you feel better.
 
2013-06-22 10:00:25 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: He said thug, you're the one who brought up skin color.
/whites, browns, and yellows can be thugs to

Do you think you're fooling anyone with your dog whistle terminology?


My "dog whistle terminology"?
Are you saying I'm using words only canines can hear? Or is this some other stupid term people like you use to sound educated?
Fact of the matter is the op said thug, you equated thug to black person not the op, then you called the op racist.
Tell me I'm wrong, please do.
 
2013-06-22 10:00:47 PM

ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares


Read that back to yourself. Slowly if you have to.
 
2013-06-22 10:00:59 PM

Mrtraveler01: Oh I see, you're just trolling. I thought you were really that stupid for a second.


Aaaaaaand when called out, the personal attacks. That's all you have left.

You blindingly folowed one of your simpleton narratives - as you always do. Did your very best to cram this story into one, failed, and now are on damage control. Hilarious to watch you squirm.

"Poor, noble black honor student murdered by rich, entitled white gun nut"

Having a little trouble cramming this story into that narrative these days, no?
 
2013-06-22 10:01:49 PM

ChaosStar: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.

Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.

From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.

You're wasting your time. I've been in these threads with Bug and he thinks he knows everything about this case when he blatantly does not. He will defend his ignorance with walls of text though.


The thing about Bug is that he's relatively intelligent, or is a passable facsimile of an intelligent person who can provoke lively debate without being a troll about it. I like those kind of people in a adversarial sort of way. He attempts to make factual, logical arguments and doesn't try to resort to emotion or name calling, which I respect. So while he may be wrong, I don't feel as though I am wasting my time in pointing out his inaccuracies.
 
2013-06-22 10:02:39 PM

WhoopAssWayne: You blindingly folowed one of your simpleton narratives - as you always do. Did your very best to cram this story into one, failed, and now are on damage control. Hilarious to watch you squirm.


He's moved the goal posts so many times since this story broke that I lost count about 6 months ago.
 
2013-06-22 10:03:28 PM

Bravo Two: MagSeven: Satan's Girlfriend: Popcorn Johnny: 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.

In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters. They only base their arguments on emotion and ignorance.

George Zimmerman has placed at least 46 calls to 911 in the last eight years. In the last year, his calls focused on blacks in his gated community:
April 22, 2011: Reports "black male, 7 to 9 years old with skinny build," walking around the neighborhood.
Aug. 3, 2011: Calls in a black male he "believes is involved in
recent burglaries in the neighborhood."
Aug. 6, 2011: Fingers two black teens he thinks "have been burglarizing homes in this area."
Oct. 1, 2011: Reports two black males, approximately 20 to 30 years old, whom he does not recognize. He says he's "concerned due to recent burglaries in the area."
Feb. 2, 2012: Drops dime on a black male because it is "unknown what he is doing."
Feb. 26: Calls about Trayvon Martin
Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there is a real suspicious guy.
Asked by the dispatcher what the suspect looks like, he says:
He looks black ... Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband.
 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cop_wannabe_on_paranoid_patro l_l fV4L1N0W6y0mEwgoU0L7K/1

46 calls to 911 in 8 years? I made about that many in two years just driving through Denver on a daily commuting basis, reporting accidents, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers, and so on.


I'm going to take a wild guess here...you have been prominently featured in Consumerist many times.
 
2013-06-22 10:03:42 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bravo Two: Meanwhile in Chicago, people die by the dozens and no one gives a shiat because its gang violence.

We should care about scum wiping out scum?


Didn't say that. Just said that the only reason anyone cares about Martin is because Zimmerman is white/looks white.

People get killed all over the world every day. No one cares. Only time they do is if it's a white person/people killing other races, or if the victim is white.

How many Hispanic folks are killed as drug mules every year? How many innocent black folks die to gang violence? How many Asians die in sweat shops or as they're smuggled to the US? Not exactly headline farking news.

White guy kills a black kid? Stop the presses. White girl missing for five minutes? National manhunt.

Hell, look at those women in Ohio. The only reason the media cared was because of the natural desire to look at something heinous and gruesome, which the crime certainly was. Had it been any more ordinary, not one fark would have been given.

What's my point? fark I dunno. Our country really has a problem with sensationalism and having its priorities all screwed up. And it's threads like these that make me shake my head. People arguing like they give a flying shiat about the victim. People arguing like somehow seeing someone out of place is not a reason to be suspicious. People arguing capriciously about the morality of defending yourself when they don't know farkall about what happened immediately prior to the shooting.

Go on, enjoy your national theater and arguing as though it somehow proves you are a good person and give a damn about every precious snowflake and showing faux disdain because people don't care about Martin.

I'll continue to say this: no one gives a shiat about either of these shiatstains except on the basis of how they affect them: people looking to defend themselves legitimately are going to have to deal with not only the issues directly involved in shooting someone but also the ghost of George Zimmerman and the killing of Saint Trayvon making people who otherwise wouldn't bat an eye at self defense now questioning everything and making an already shiatty situation worse; and the uncomfortable truth that now you're going to question why someone is suspicious and grow even more leery of getting involved in anything that could possibly turn out to be a misunderstanding for fear of yet another circumstance just like this. I for one know that if before you were genuinely suspicious of someone who might be out to burglarize a place, I'd be less inclined to get involved lest it go sideways and end up getting someone injured or killed, legitimate or not.

Guess less security by our neighbors keeping an eye out for each other is the price we pay because one asshat took things a little too seriously and did something horrible, and being the wrong color combo to boot making it a case worthy of national attention and the vogue thing to question anyone who might report someone who is suspicious.

That's certainly the only reason I give a shiat.
 
2013-06-22 10:04:30 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Mrtraveler01: Oh I see, you're just trolling. I thought you were really that stupid for a second.

Aaaaaaand when called out, the personal attacks. That's all you have left.

You blindingly folowed one of your simpleton narratives - as you always do. Did your very best to cram this story into one, failed, and now are on damage control. Hilarious to watch you squirm.

"Poor, noble black honor student murdered by rich, entitled white gun nut"

Having a little trouble cramming this story into that narrative these days, no?


So you have no proof that the fight happened in Zimmerman's own front yard and you just pulled that out of your ass then?
 
2013-06-22 10:04:47 PM

ChaosStar: My "dog whistle terminology"?
Are you saying I'm using words only canines can hear? Or is this some other stupid term people like you use to sound educated?
Fact of the matter is the op said thug, you equated thug to black person not the op, then you called the op racist.
Tell me I'm wrong, please do.


Let's see here. He called Martin a thug. Martin is black. Yeah, how could I ever make that connection *rolls eyes*
 
2013-06-22 10:05:22 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ChaosStar: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.

Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.

From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.

You're wasting your time. I've been in these threads with Bug and he thinks he knows everything about this case when he blatantly does not. He will defend his ignorance with walls of text though.

The thing about Bug is that he's relatively intelligent, or is a passable facsimile of an intelligent person who can provoke lively debate without being a troll about it. I like those kind of people in a adversarial sort of way. He attempts to make factual, logical arguments and doesn't try to resort to emotion or name calling, which I respect. So while he may be wrong, I don't feel as though I am wasting my time in pointing out his inaccuracies.


I can appreciate those traits as well, but when the contrary evidence to the claims made is flat out ignored by repeating the same incorrect claims, you've gone from intelligence to ignorance.
It's your time though friend, you do with it as you see fit.
 
2013-06-22 10:05:38 PM

ThatDarkFellow: I just used it as a signifier for a thug.


So that means that he deserved to get shot!
 
2013-06-22 10:05:53 PM

Bravo Two: Didn't say that. Just said that the only reason anyone cares about Martin is because Zimmerman is white/looks white.


That's the only reason most black people care. If this was a black on black, nobody in the black community would give a shiat.
 
GBB
2013-06-22 10:06:13 PM
Easy test for the "experts":

Take audio samples pilot and copilot before takeoff, try to match to the screams at 0:50 Here

\Humans make god-awful noises in life/death situations.
 
2013-06-22 10:07:20 PM

ChaosStar: The_Six_Fingered_Man: ChaosStar: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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.

Witnesses provide evidence, counselor. Attorneys in closng arguments argue. That is, they use the methods of inference and deduction to prove or disprove a case. An objection to attorney "speculation" based on logical presentation of arguments for inferences from evidence might draw a laugh from the judge, if it didn't anger him.

From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.

You're wasting your time. I've been in these threads with Bug and he thinks he knows everything about this case when he blatantly does not. He will defend his ignorance with walls of text though.

The thing about Bug is that he's relatively intelligent, or is a passable facsimile of an intelligent person who can provoke lively debate without being a troll about it. I like those kind of people in a adversarial sort of way. He attempts to make factual, logical arguments and doesn't try to resort to emotion or name calling, which I respect. So while he may be wrong, I don't feel as though I am wasting my time in pointing out his inaccuracies.

I can appreciate those traits as well, but when the contrary evidence to the claims made is flat out ignored by repeating the same incorrect claims, you've gone from intelligence to ignorance.
It's your time though friend, you do with it as you s ...


I'm bored and I have writer's block on this article I am supposed to write.

Others, however, when they present long debunked "evidence" as gospel are well worth trouncing into a mudhole.
 
2013-06-22 10:07:22 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.


Do you understand what an argument by inference is? Because it doesn't look like you do. "Inference" claims that a given fact makes another fact more or less likely to be true.

Let's look at an example from this very thread. I'll spell it out more for illustration.

 The 911 recording is evidence. The 911 tape holds evidencre that Zimmerman used foul language, and referred to Trayvon by the epithets "punk" and "asshole."

Argument:

1) A person who calls another person a "punk" and "asshole" is likely to be angry at them.
2) A person who is angry at another person is more likely to start a fight than is a person who is not angry.

Conclusion:

The evidence of Zimmerman's use of epithets increases the strength of the inference that Zimmerman started the fight.

Now here, I've spelled it out more completely than usual. Usually, I just say "Zimmerman was angry with Trayvon, so he was more likely to start a fight." But the fact is, all of the inferences I've made are supported by evidence. My arguments would draw no admonition from any judge with a lick of sense.
 
2013-06-22 10:08:03 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: My "dog whistle terminology"?
Are you saying I'm using words only canines can hear? Or is this some other stupid term people like you use to sound educated?
Fact of the matter is the op said thug, you equated thug to black person not the op, then you called the op racist.
Tell me I'm wrong, please do.

Let's see here. He called Martin a thug. Martin is black. Yeah, how could I ever make that connection *rolls eyes*


Again Mr Troll, you made the connection, not the op. You're the one assuming to know what the op meant by thug, whether he meant it that way or not is irrelevant, as you had no possible way of knowing what he meant unless you can read minds through tcp/ip connections.
 
2013-06-22 10:10:57 PM

bugontherug: The 911 recording is evidence. The 911 tape holds evidencre that Zimmerman used foul language, and referred to Trayvon by the epithets "punk" and "asshole."

Argument:

1) A person who calls another person a "punk" and "asshole" is likely to be angry at them.
2) A person who is angry at another person is more likely to start a fight than is a person who is not angry.

Conclusion:

The evidence of Zimmerman's use of epithets increases the strength of the inference that Zimmerman started the fight.

Now here, I've spelled it out more completely than usual. Usually, I just say "Zimmerman was angry with Trayvon, so he was more likely to start a fight." But the fact is, all of the inferences I've made are supported by evidence. My arguments would draw no admonition from any judge with a lick of sense.


Your logic kind of sucks, no matter how well laid out it is.
 
2013-06-22 10:11:02 PM

gimmegimme: Bravo Two: MagSeven: Satan's Girlfriend: Popcorn Johnny: 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.

In other words you got nothin. Pretty typical of Z supporters. They only base their arguments on emotion and ignorance.

George Zimmerman has placed at least 46 calls to 911 in the last eight years. In the last year, his calls focused on blacks in his gated community:
April 22, 2011: Reports "black male, 7 to 9 years old with skinny build," walking around the neighborhood.
Aug. 3, 2011: Calls in a black male he "believes is involved in
recent burglaries in the neighborhood."
Aug. 6, 2011: Fingers two black teens he thinks "have been burglarizing homes in this area."
Oct. 1, 2011: Reports two black males, approximately 20 to 30 years old, whom he does not recognize. He says he's "concerned due to recent burglaries in the area."
Feb. 2, 2012: Drops dime on a black male because it is "unknown what he is doing."
Feb. 26: Calls about Trayvon Martin
Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there is a real suspicious guy.
Asked by the dispatcher what the suspect looks like, he says:
He looks black ... Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband.
 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cop_wannabe_on_paranoid_patro l_l fV4L1N0W6y0mEwgoU0L7K/1

46 calls to 911 in 8 years? I made about that many in two years just driving through Denver on a daily commuting basis, reporting accidents, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers, and so on.

I'm going to take a wild guess here...you have been prominently featured in Consumerist many times.


Nope, never been to the site and don't read it. But when you witness people not paying attention in rush hour traffic slamming into each other, or are driving home after second shift and see people weaving all over the road, or come across stranded motorists... You either call 911, or in CO, you call *CSP.

I personally would rather the people were okay and they got help than saying "fark you" and going on with my day. But yes, actually doing the right thing is hard for you to grasp, isn't it gimme?
 
2013-06-22 10:11:21 PM

ChaosStar: Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: My "dog whistle terminology"?
Are you saying I'm using words only canines can hear? Or is this some other stupid term people like you use to sound educated?
Fact of the matter is the op said thug, you equated thug to black person not the op, then you called the op racist.
Tell me I'm wrong, please do.

Let's see here. He called Martin a thug. Martin is black. Yeah, how could I ever make that connection *rolls eyes*

Again Mr Troll, you made the connection, not the op. You're the one assuming to know what the op meant by thug, whether he meant it that way or not is irrelevant, as you had no possible way of knowing what he meant unless you can read minds through tcp/ip connections.


Surely he meant this guy.
img.fark.net
/Zimm was defending us all from Indian death cults.
 
2013-06-22 10:11:49 PM

MagSeven: ThatDarkFellow: One less thug dead, no one cares

Read that back to yourself. Slowly if you have to.


Heh, wow. I did fark that up didn't I? Oh well, it's still fairly obvious what I meant to say before I butchered it.
 
2013-06-22 10:11:49 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Lionel Mandrake: It's much easier to throw a blanket over hundreds of individual lives and righteously call them scum.

Let me guess, society is to blame for them being gang banging pieces of trash, right?


Is that how you justify being an asshole?  By assuming to know what everyone thinks?

Holy f*ck.  I think I'm going to submit your picture to Webster's to include next to their entry for "asshole."  Although I suppose it would work just as well next to "douchebag" or "dipshiat" or "ignorant f*cktard"
 
2013-06-22 10:12:24 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm bored and I have writer's block on this article I am supposed to write.

Others, however, when they present long debunked "evidence" as gospel are well worth trouncing into a mudhole.


It could be worse, you could have chosen gimmegimme.
That's one whackadoodle that doesn't have a firm grasp on much of anything, much less this case or the laws involved with it.
 
2013-06-22 10:12:39 PM

ChaosStar: Again Mr Troll, you made the connection, not the op. You're the one assuming to know what the op meant by thug, whether he meant it that way or not is irrelevant, as you had no possible way of knowing what he meant unless you can read minds through tcp/ip connections.


Calling me names does not help your argument. When people say thug they are using it as a code word for black people. You're like a child who calls someone gay, and then pretends you really meant happy. Everybody here knows what you meant. You know deep down what you really meant. Why don't you just admit it?
 
2013-06-22 10:15:39 PM

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: From the Florida Bar Associations General Rules for Closing Arguments:
Misstatingthe Evidence.Although counsel may argue regarding inferences from evidence in the record, counsel may not create evidence without factual support.

You are asking the prosecution to make an inference that is, at this point, not supported by the evidence. To do so would result in an admonishment from the trial judge.

Do you understand what an argument by inference is? Because it doesn't look like you do. "Inference" claims that a given fact makes another fact more or less likely to be true.

Let's look at an example from this very thread. I'll spell it out more for illustration.

 The 911 recording is evidence. The 911 tape holds evidencre that Zimmerman used foul language, and referred to Trayvon by the epithets "punk" and "asshole."

Argument:

1) A person who calls another person a "punk" and "asshole" is likely to be angry at them.
2) A person who is angry at another person is more likely to start a fight than is a person who is not angry.

Conclusion:

The evidence of Zimmerman's use of epithets increases the strength of the inference that Zimmerman started the fight.

Now here, I've spelled it out more completely than usual. Usually, I just say "Zimmerman was angry with Trayvon, so he was more likely to start a fight." But the fact is, all of the inferences I've made are supported by evidence. My arguments would draw no admonition from any judge with a lick of sense.


The defense's countering inference from the non-emergency call would be that Zimmerman was in fear of Martin, given his description "he is walking towards me with his hand in his waistband" and the reluctance of Zimmerman to give out his full address given that he was unaware of Martin's whereabouts. From that evidence the defense could infer that Zimmerman was fearful of Martin and in no way looking to start an altercation. An inference could also be made from the very fact that Zimmerman called the police that he was not likely to start a fight with police on their way. After all, if Zimmerman were to start a fight and the police were to arrive while both men were still alive, Zimmerman could be looking at an assault and battery charge. The inference that can be made is that Zimmerman was more than willing to let the police handle the incident rather than start a fight, as supported by Zimmerman himself saying "See if you can get an officer over here."

I would argue that the inferences that can be made from the police call more heavily favor Zimmerman NOT being the initial aggressor, but rather Martin. Of course, if it comes to that, this is what I expect O'Mara to do.
 
2013-06-22 10:15:52 PM

Lionel Mandrake: s that how you justify being an asshole?  By assuming to know what everyone thinks?


Shouldn't you be out feeding sandwiches and giving fresh rounds to unfortunate gang bangers?
 
2013-06-22 10:16:18 PM
It looks like vigilante justice will prevail in this case. Thanks but no thanks State of Florida, you had you chance. Your legal system is a sick joke.
 
2013-06-22 10:16:47 PM

Popcorn Johnny: WhoopAssWayne: You blindingly folowed one of your simpleton narratives - as you always do. Did your very best to cram this story into one, failed, and now are on damage control. Hilarious to watch you squirm.

He's moved the goal posts so many times since this story broke that I lost count about 6 months ago.


Is that conjecture or did you mean that to be a factual statement?
 
2013-06-22 10:17:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: 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.


Those in charge often phrase their orders as requests. "May I see your license and registration, please?" What's your point?
 
2013-06-22 10:18:14 PM

gimmegimme: Is that conjecture or did you mean that to be a factual statement?


i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-22 10:18:41 PM

ChaosStar: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm bored and I have writer's block on this article I am supposed to write.

Others, however, when they present long debunked "evidence" as gospel are well worth trouncing into a mudhole.

It could be worse, you could have chosen gimmegimme.
That's one whackadoodle that doesn't have a firm grasp on much of anything, much less this case or the laws involved with it.


Calling me names does not help your argument.
 
2013-06-22 10:19:07 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: When people say thug they are using it as a code word for black people. You're like a child who calls someone gay, and then pretends you really meant happy.


Seconded.
 
2013-06-22 10:19:24 PM
I think it's really awesome how something like this can turn into a spectator sport, with fans on both Team Zimm, and Team Trayvon.  I mean sure, a kid is dead, but hey, at least one side will get to pretend that all their views were justified when the verdict finally comes down.
 
2013-06-22 10:20:19 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: Again Mr Troll, you made the connection, not the op. You're the one assuming to know what the op meant by thug, whether he meant it that way or not is irrelevant, as you had no possible way of knowing what he meant unless you can read minds through tcp/ip connections.

Calling me names does not help your argument. When people say thug they are using it as a code word for black people. You're like a child who calls someone gay, and then pretends you really meant happy. Everybody here knows what you meant. You know deep down what you really meant. Why don't you just admit it?


Gee, I use the word "thug" to refer to someone who is a criminal and/or uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve a goal. Guys who broke knees for unions were thugs the same as the guys who enforced for Capone, verenzano(sp?), whitey bulger, the IRA, etc.

I even consider people like Bloomberg who use heavy-handed tactics to try and achieve a goal to be thugs.

So, yes, "thug" is totally code for African American gangsta.

Personally, I think "gangsta", as a term coined by rap to refer to black gang members, is a much more understood term.
 
2013-06-22 10:20:21 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: [img.fark.net image 850x472]


Meanwhile, in a few weeks . . .


Doubtful.  The rule of law must be maintained.
 
2013-06-22 10:20:27 PM

fredklein: Those in charge often phrase their orders as requests.


Even if a civilian dispatcher held that authority, you do realize that Zimmerman responded "okay" and stopped running, right?
 
2013-06-22 10:22:12 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: Again Mr Troll, you made the connection, not the op. You're the one assuming to know what the op meant by thug, whether he meant it that way or not is irrelevant, as you had no possible way of knowing what he meant unless you can read minds through tcp/ip connections.

Calling me names does not help your argument. When people say thug they are using it as a code word for black people. You're like a child who calls someone gay, and then pretends you really meant happy. Everybody here knows what you meant. You know deep down what you really meant. Why don't you just admit it?


I'm glad to know that the authority on what people mean when they say certain words has decided to slum it with us normal people on the internet. How did you get that position anyway? Is it passed down like royalty or did you have to apply?

From Wikipedia: Thug, a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire
Odd, no mention of race in there.
Lets try Websters
Definition of THUG: a brutal ruffian or assassin

Damn, still no race or skin color mentioned.

Lets go to a more modern source, Urban Dictionary
1.thug
As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster.

Damn I thought you might really have a shot with UD, but nope, still no mention of skin color or race.
/get the picture yet skippy?
 
2013-06-22 10:23:17 PM

jaytkay: Satan's Girlfriend: When people say thug they are using it as a code word for black people. You're like a child who calls someone gay, and then pretends you really meant happy.

Seconded.


Thug Life shirts used to be popular in black culture.

If someone were to wear a shirt that says Pedophile 4 Life....would you give them the benefit of the doubt?
 
2013-06-22 10:24:41 PM

gimmegimme: ChaosStar: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm bored and I have writer's block on this article I am supposed to write.

Others, however, when they present long debunked "evidence" as gospel are well worth trouncing into a mudhole.

It could be worse, you could have chosen gimmegimme.
That's one whackadoodle that doesn't have a firm grasp on much of anything, much less this case or the laws involved with it.

Calling me names does not help your argument.


I don't have to help my argument with you whackadoodle. anyone with even a passing grasp of logic and reason can see you know jack shiat about anything pertaining to anything dealing with this case, self defense laws, or the legal system as a whole.
 
2013-06-22 10:25:12 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Garble: It is so beyond pathetic and sad that you look at this case in this way.

What's pathetic is that people like you want to send a person to prison based on speculation. It's pretty much the most disgusting thing I can imagine.


I have you tagged as "Captain Dumbass", but stuff like this almost makes me reconsider.
 
2013-06-22 10:26:02 PM

Delay: It looks like vigilante justice will prevail in this case. Thanks but no thanks State of Florida, you had you chance. Your legal system is a sick joke.


So, you've just decided then that that's what this is? Not simple self defense or murder? It has to be vigilante justice, and it has to be the justice system that failed, and not simply a shiatty case with poor evidence and a shiatty outcome either way, since we can't PROVE what happened either way?

That's some fine writing off of a vastly complex situation there, Lou.
 
2013-06-22 10:26:10 PM

ChaosStar: get the picture yet skippy?


Calling me names does not help your argument. I see you're still in denial as well. Sad really. If you had any decency you'd apologize to everyone in this thread and stop posting. Cause right now you're skating on thin ice mister.
 
2013-06-22 10:26:48 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Lionel Mandrake: s that how you justify being an asshole?  By assuming to know what everyone thinks?

Shouldn't you be out feeding sandwiches and giving fresh rounds to unfortunate gang bangers?


My goodness, aren't you witty.  I think I've soiled myself by stepping into your pathetic world enough for one day.  Enjoy your self-righteous hatred.  What satisfaction it must bring to judge so many people with so little effort or care.

The last word is all yours.  Make it good, but rest assured that I won't waste valuable seconds by reading what you manage to squeeze out.  Unlike you, I have better things to do than revel in hate.

Good luck.
 
2013-06-22 10:27:31 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Just what I said would happen.


yeah this whole thing has been one huge dive taken by the prosecution.
Justice for Trayvon will not be had in this county, not through their "justice" system
From the prosecutor over-charging with murder 2 to the 5 white women on the jury to one black woman this has been a travesty
This was only ever going to end one way and they're going to make damned sure of it.
 
2013-06-22 10:27:32 PM

Thingster: Popcorn Johnny: Garble: It is so beyond pathetic and sad that you look at this case in this way.

What's pathetic is that people like you want to send a person to prison based on speculation. It's pretty much the most disgusting thing I can imagine.

I have you tagged as "Captain Dumbass", but stuff like this almost makes me reconsider.


You're thinking maybe "Colonel Dumbass?"
 
2013-06-22 10:27:50 PM

Thingster: I have you tagged as "Captain Dumbass", but stuff like this almost makes me reconsider.


How about Captain Ass?
 
2013-06-22 10:28:32 PM

Giltric: jaytkay: Satan's Girlfriend: When people say thug they are using it as a code word for black people. You're like a child who calls someone gay, and then pretends you really meant happy.

Seconded.

Thug Life shirts used to be popular in black culture.

If someone were to wear a shirt that says Pedophile 4 Life....would you give them the benefit of the doubt?


Hey, man.  It was just proven that "thug" has NOTHING to do with "black culture."

Get with it.
 
2013-06-22 10:28:46 PM

ChaosStar: still no race or skin color mentioned.

Lets go to a more modern source, Urban Dictionary


Let's go to millions of posts from conservatives in social media in the past several years..

/ We know what you mean my "thug"
// Don't be a dishonest asshole
 
2013-06-22 10:28:56 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: get the picture yet skippy?

Calling me names does not help your argument. I see you're still in denial as well. Sad really. If you had any decency you'd apologize to everyone in this thread and stop posting. Cause right now you're skating on thin ice mister.


I see you've actually stopped trying to pass off your ludicrous claims and now just want to try and paint me in a negative light. The next step is anger right? Or is it denial? I forget, but how many until we get to acceptance and you understand how stupid you're being?
/that's me clogging on your thin ice buddy
 
2013-06-22 10:29:26 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I have better things to do than revel in hate.


Says the guy willing to send a man to prison based on what they think might have happened.
 
2013-06-22 10:30:13 PM

Delay: It looks like vigilante justice will prevail in this case. Thanks but no thanks State of Florida, you had you chance. Your legal system is a sick joke.


I dunno, I would think an all woman jury would help the prosecution more than the defense.
 
2013-06-22 10:31:06 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The defense's countering inference from the non-emergency call would be that Zimmerman was in fear of Martin, given his description "he is walking towards me with his hand in his waistband" and the reluctance of Zimmerman to give out his full address given that he was unaware of Martin's whereabouts. From that evidence the defense could infer that Zimmerman was fearful of Martin and in no way looking to start an altercation.


If he was so terrifies of Trayvon, why was he following him? Why not just stay in his car, or not even follow Trayvon at all??

An inference could also be made from the very fact that Zimmerman called the police that he was not likely to start a fight with police on their way.

Ah, but the police were NOT on their way. Zimmerman refused to tell the dispatcher where he would meet them. " Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?" If he wanted a little 'private time' with Trayvon, what better way to ensure the cops would Not arrive, then refuse to tell them where to go?

Zimmerman was more than willing to let the police handle the incident rather than start a fight

...which is why he followed Trayvon... and got into...a fight. Because he wanted the police to handle it.
 
2013-06-22 10:31:47 PM

jaytkay: ChaosStar: still no race or skin color mentioned.

Lets go to a more modern source, Urban Dictionary

Let's go to millions of posts from conservatives in social media in the past several years..

/ We know what you mean my "thug"
// Don't be a dishonest asshole


Of course you do, because you make it all up in your mind. It's obviously racism if, in your mind, it's always tagged to black skin. It doesn't matter that many people of different skin colors fit the definition, no sir, it's always all about black people.
Always
Every time
Never changes
Permanently
 
2013-06-22 10:32:37 PM

ChaosStar: *rage post*


Well I tried to be reasonable about this, but it seems you just want to throw a temper tantrum. Congrats, I have just put you on my ignore list. That should shut you up nice and good. I hope you enjoy your time there because you will NEVER be coming off of it.
 
2013-06-22 10:34:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Lionel Mandrake: s that how you justify being an asshole?  By assuming to know what everyone thinks?

Shouldn't you be out feeding sandwiches and giving fresh rounds to unfortunate gang bangers?

My goodness, aren't you witty.  I think I've soiled myself by stepping into your pathetic world enough for one day.  Enjoy your self-righteous hatred.  What satisfaction it must bring to judge so many people with so little effort or care.

The last word is all yours.  Make it good, but rest assured that I won't waste valuable seconds by reading what you manage to squeeze out.  Unlike you, I have better things to do than revel in hate.

Good luck.


You know, I get where you're coming from. And I find it sad, in abstract, that many are involved in gang life for reasons that are beyond their control. And I realize, having witnessed it first hand, that even the ones who actively try to get out are treated harshly by those stuck in it.

However, when you fail to make the changes needed to begin to get out, or actively participate in the lifestyle that destroys your community and only perpetuates violence and fear, you are scum. You are the very enemy that made you, and you choose to do wrong, hurting innocents in the process.

And, for those who are actively killing each other in pursuit of some criminal enterprise, I'm okay with a population that self-regulates. We have a real problem when those populations begin to grow unchecked and take criminal enterprise to the level of inflicting misery on those who worked hard to not be involved in it.
 
2013-06-22 10:34:35 PM

ChaosStar: it's always all about black people.


So you're saying the thought of black people makes you angry.

Thanks for making one honest statement. It's a start.
 
2013-06-22 10:35:59 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: *rage post*

Well I tried to be reasonable about this, but it seems you just want to throw a temper tantrum. Congrats, I have just put you on my ignore list. That should shut you up nice and good. I hope you enjoy your time there because you will NEVER be coming off of it.


Yeah, I'm thinking I'll do that, too.  He didn't even start trying to make reasoned arguments; he just started pooping out of his fingers.  I love arguing, but you can't do that with people who are either trolling or don't really care about sharing ideas.
 
2013-06-22 10:36:57 PM
Lets put some of the blame for this where it belongs, Trayvon's parents. The kid has a very checkered past and was currently serving a suspension from school. Mom deals with it by telling him to go stay with dad, and dad lets the kid roam the streets. Maybe if the kid had a little discipline in his life and had been grounded, he'd still be alive.
 
2013-06-22 10:38:12 PM
fredklein: If he wanted a little 'private time' with Trayvon, what better way to ensure the cops would Not arrive, then refuse to tell them where to go?

That makes no sense. If that was Zimmerman's intent, why the fark would he call police in the first place?
 
2013-06-22 10:39:04 PM

cretinbob: 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.

you will be sadly disappint.


I doubt it.
 
2013-06-22 10:39:34 PM

Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: *rage post*

Well I tried to be reasonable about this, but it seems you just want to throw a temper tantrum. Congrats, I have just put you on my ignore list. That should shut you up nice and good. I hope you enjoy your time there because you will NEVER be coming off of it.


Never?
Never ever?
Really?
oh.... well damn.. what am I gonna do now?
Someone on the internet ignored me, wow.
I'm heartbroken, truly I am, but at least I got to read your drama queen post about it.
/gonna go Tweet about it as well little lady?
 
2013-06-22 10:40:27 PM

Prometheus_Unbound: That makes no sense. If that was Zimmerman's intent, why the fark would he call police in the first place?


Duh, he was obviously setting up the perfect crime. That's the same reason he mentored a black kid a couple years earlier and why he was the only person to welcome an elderly black woman to the neighborhood. This was a murder planned for years in advance.
 
2013-06-22 10:41:54 PM

Bravo Two: 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.........

So, on top of an admitted clusterfark, you're advocating/condoning vigilante justice and murder? If what Zimmerman did was wrong, how is hoping/condoning the NBP's murder of him any better?


You do, I hope, realize that I was responding, sarcastically, to some douchebag insinuation that Zimmerman is going to be hunted down by vigilante douchebags, right? Beer-like typing detected.....
 
2013-06-22 10:42:21 PM
I hate it when I'm at the movies and then a whole big pack of thugs walk in and sit down.
 
2013-06-22 10:42:39 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Lets put some of the blame for this where it belongs, Trayvon's parents. The kid has a very checkered past and was currently serving a suspension from school. Mom deals with it by telling him to go stay with dad, and dad lets the kid roam the streets. Maybe if the kid had a little discipline in his life and had been grounded, he'd still be alive.


Is this conjecture or fact?

Does it count as "roaming the streets" to go and get some Skittles?  Why are you blaming the kid with a hole in his chest instead of even CONSIDERING DAT DA MAN HOO PUT IT DERE CUD BEEE RESPONSUHBULE?
 
2013-06-22 10:43:35 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I don't even care who did what at that point. The instant Zimmerman ignored police orders not to follow Martin, his "stand your ground" protections should have been voided.


The argument there is "It was just a police dispatcher so it wasn't really a) a cop or b) an order" depending on who's making the argument. I think the idea is that anything short of a fully armed SWAT team leaping between them and screaming "STOP MOTHERF*CKER!!!" would not have been an order to Zimmerman not to follow Martin.
 
2013-06-22 10:44:03 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.


Not to mention that she's a fat, grotesque cow of a woman.....
 
2013-06-22 10:44:09 PM

gimmegimme: I ask out of genuine curiosity. What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?


I would tell the person I'm talking to on my cellphone that I'm concerned and then call the police. I'd also flee and not return to confront them.

Two things Martin failed to do because he was pissed off that someone gave him the stink eye and he wanted to beat some respect into the guy.
 
2013-06-22 10:44:29 PM

Prometheus_Unbound: If that was Zimmerman's intent, why the fark would he call police in the first place?


We don't know Mr. Zimmerman's intent. That's not important under Florida law. Was Mr. Zimmerman doing anything unlawful while stalking a kid with a chambered handgun? Not under Florida law.

We all know that Mr. Zimmerman will be found not guilty in court and receive vigilante justice later.
 
2013-06-22 10:44:29 PM

gimmegimme: Does it count as "roaming the streets" to go and get some Skittles?


It certainly counts as being let out of the house.
 
2013-06-22 10:44:53 PM

gimmegimme: Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: *rage post*

Well I tried to be reasonable about this, but it seems you just want to throw a temper tantrum. Congrats, I have just put you on my ignore list. That should shut you up nice and good. I hope you enjoy your time there because you will NEVER be coming off of it.

Yeah, I'm thinking I'll do that, too.  He didn't even start trying to make reasoned arguments; he just started pooping out of his fingers.  I love arguing, but you can't do that with people who are either trolling or don't really care about sharing ideas.


Gimme, I've seen you in these threads before and I've read a few of your replies in this one.
You wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it bit you in the ass.
You constantly throw out conjecture, you use hyperbolic language, you flat out lie, and you ignore anyone and everyone that gives you evidence that contradicts anything you say except for those rare times where you twist what they say and put words in their mouth to try and make your arguments work.
 
2013-06-22 10:45:52 PM

fredklein: If he was so terrifies of Trayvon, why was he following him? Why not just stay in his car, or not even follow Trayvon at all??


There is no evidence that he continued to follow Martin after being advised that the dispatcher did not need him to do that. Prior to that, the dispatcher explicitly requested that Zimmerman keep them appraised of any further actions by Martin. "Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else." There is no indication that Zimmerman was doing anything other than observing and reporting Martin's activities to the police dispatcher.

fredklein: Ah, but the police were NOT on their way. Zimmerman refused to tell the dispatcher where he would meet them. " Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?" If he wanted a little 'private time' with Trayvon, what better way to ensure the cops would Not arrive, then refuse to tell them where to go?


Zimmerman: "When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse." Then: "No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left."

At which point Martin begins running, to which the dispatcher requests that Zimmerman tell the dispatcher in which way Martin ran. This is the point where Zimmerman exits his vehicle.

Dispatcher
"Alright, where you going to meet with them at?"

Zimmerman
"Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] "

The conversation that you point to is because he does not know where around the clubhouse he will be, whether at his truck or by the mailboxes. That you infer nefarious intent is not supported by either the call or the evidence.

fredklein: ...which is why he followed Trayvon... and got into...a fight. Because he wanted the police to handle it.


So you are saying that Zimmerman wanted to get into a potentially lethal confrontation (knowing he was carrying a firearm) with the full knowledge that the police were not only on their way, but knew his name and phone number and were on their way to meet him? Is this part of a somewhat prevalent conspiracy theory that Zimmerman called the police in order to give himself an alibi in order to shoot Martin in cold blood?

The fact that Zimmerman was involved in an altercation has no bearing on whether or not he wanted police to handle the situation. It could be that Martin was the First Aggressor and therefore the choice to confront was not in Zimmerman's hands. But again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher told him that they did not need him to.
 
2013-06-22 10:48:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Lets put some of the blame for this where it belongs, Trayvon's parents. The kid has a very checkered past and was currently serving a suspension from school. Mom deals with it by telling him to go stay with dad, and dad lets the kid roam the streets. Maybe if the kid had a little discipline in his life and had been grounded, he'd still be alive.


Oh come off it. I have tried to give both sides the benefit of the doubt, but this is just utter horseshiat.

Trayvon was a teenager. They go out late and roam around. It's been the way they work for millennia. There's a reason some places have instituted curfews. He had every right to go to the store and buy soda and skittles or sell weed or whatever it was he was doing.

Zimmerman didn't know him and took the whole "zomg black dude in a white neighborhood must be there to rob the place" to a paranoid extreme, by taking "casually following and observing" to an aggressive stance.

Everyone involved did dumbshiat things. However it happened, someone died because of suspicion and fear and chose to attack rather than getting to a safe spot and calling the cops.

Like they teach in every goddamn CCW class on the planet: the gun is a last resort.

Let's not make a massive clusterfark any more stupid by now suggesting that the parents by being separated and not locking their teenager up at night are somehow party to this because they had a difficult time dealing with their son.

I grew up around the ghetto with ghetto friends. When the majority of your peers are doing the gang thing and you have a lot of pressure from them to join in (as opposed to harassment and exile), you're going to get involved to some extent just to fit in and stay under the radar. It's that or your life is a living hell.

As much as I think gimme gimme is full of shiat and just wants to be a contrarian, neither one of you is expressly wrong, merely reading into the evidence what you want to see.

Guilty or not, it boils down to a tragic mound of shiat that got unevenly distributed, and a shiatty situation for the courts.

Let's not pretend that this trial is anything portentous, and admit its just another moment of human stupidity.
 
2013-06-22 10:51:26 PM

Bravo Two: He had every right to go to the store and buy soda and skittles or sell weed or whatever it was he was doing.


I just wanted to point out that he probably didn't have every right to sell weed considering the sale of marijuana is illegal in Florida.
 
2013-06-22 10:51:35 PM
I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.
 
2013-06-22 10:52:30 PM

Delay: Prometheus_Unbound: If that was Zimmerman's intent, why the fark would he call police in the first place?

We don't know Mr. Zimmerman's intent. That's not important under Florida law. Was Mr. Zimmerman doing anything unlawful while stalking a kid with a chambered handgun? Not under Florida law.

We all know that Mr. Zimmerman will be found not guilty in court and receive vigilante justice later.


If he does, then I hope those responsible for the lynch mob are tried and convicted of murder, because that's what it will be.
 
2013-06-22 10:54:24 PM

whatshisname: I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.


No one is arguing otherwise. What's being argued is whether or not Zimmerman committed the crime of murder under Florida law. It's not as simple as "if he stayed in his car, Martin would be alive, therefore he's guilty." Criminal law doesn't work like that.
 
2013-06-22 10:57:32 PM
Of course it isnt Treyvon.  It's hard to shout out when you have been shot in the chest.
It was clearly Zimmerman, crying out like pussy Man of Steel after breaking Zod's neck.

Supes would have just said 'take all that military superiority and cram it up your cramhole, LaFleur'
 
2013-06-22 10:57:52 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bravo Two: He had every right to go to the store and buy soda and skittles or sell weed or whatever it was he was doing.

I just wanted to point out that he probably didn't have every right to sell weed considering the sale of marijuana is illegal in Florida.


He had the right to sell it, whether or not it was legal. Legality of product does not make connotations on one's right to conduct business in general. It just makes that product and that particular transaction illegal.
 
2013-06-22 10:58:34 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: whatshisname: I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.

No one is arguing otherwise. What's being argued is whether or not Zimmerman committed the crime of murder under Florida law. It's not as simple as "if he stayed in his car, Martin would be alive, therefore he's guilty." Criminal law doesn't work like that.


Does Florida use the common law standard for 2d-degree murder, or being Florida, do they use some weird-ass definition besides deliberation and malice aforethought?
 
2013-06-22 11:01:13 PM

whatshisname: I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.


You don't know that.  The only thing that would be true is that this particular altercation would not have happened.
 
2013-06-22 11:01:24 PM

whatshisname: I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.


In general, there's nothing vigilante about reporting a suspicious person and keeping an eye on them.
 
2013-06-22 11:02:09 PM

gimmegimme: Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...


He did finish it.
Good to see we are back with GimmeGimme knowing who started the fight.
 
2013-06-22 11:04:28 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: whatshisname: I can't believe there are still people defending Zimmerman and trying to rationalize his actions. If he hadn't been out playing vigilante, the kid would still be alive.

Maybe, and his Thug Life course trajectory would have inevitably seen him getting killed days or weeks or months later and not one single fark would have been given by you or anybody else.

Why does anybody care now?

Oh, that's right, we can magically whiten up the Hispanic guy and "Blame Whitey" for this because not one single black person has ever been killed by another black person in the whole entire history of black people, right?


You've just made a great argument as to why everyone should care about this case.
 
2013-06-22 11:05:15 PM

Bravo Two: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bravo Two: He had every right to go to the store and buy soda and skittles or sell weed or whatever it was he was doing.

I just wanted to point out that he probably didn't have every right to sell weed considering the sale of marijuana is illegal in Florida.

He had the right to sell it, whether or not it was legal. Legality of product does not make connotations on one's right to conduct business in general. It just makes that product and that particular transaction illegal.


Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

"Rights" are what are allowed to people as permitted by law. Martin did not have the right to engage in illegal business. He had the right to sell lemonade, but not marijuana. The very fact that the product is illegal negates the right to conduct that particular business. I simply cannot believe that you are unequivocally stating that Martin had the right to engage in illegal activity.

The right to conduct business is not a natural right, and therefore can be infringed or heavily regulated by the State to the point where engaging in illegal business transactions is not a right.
 
2013-06-22 11:05:57 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 11:06:50 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: IronTom: Oh_Enough_Already: [img.fark.net image 850x472]


Meanwhile, in a few weeks . . .

Doubtful.  The rule of law must be maintained.

Dat be da' white mans laws, fool!


And you want them to be in place at all times.
 
2013-06-22 11:08:07 PM
Can we all just laugh and point at the gun wankers who will be "armed 24/7", anticipating a race war when the trial is over?

LOL

"I got my CCW and I'm gonna be PACKIN!!!"

While they waddle around.

In the Walmart parking lot.

In some all-white suburb.
 
2013-06-22 11:08:13 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bravo Two: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Bravo Two: He had every right to go to the store and buy soda and skittles or sell weed or whatever it was he was doing.

I just wanted to point out that he probably didn't have every right to sell weed considering the sale of marijuana is illegal in Florida.

He had the right to sell it, whether or not it was legal. Legality of product does not make connotations on one's right to conduct business in general. It just makes that product and that particular transaction illegal.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

"Rights" are what are allowed to people as permitted by law. Martin did not have the right to engage in illegal business. He had the right to sell lemonade, but not marijuana. The very fact that the product is illegal negates the right to conduct that particular business. I simply cannot believe that you are unequivocally stating that Martin had the right to engage in illegal activity.

The right to conduct business is not a natural right, and therefore can be infringed or heavily regulated by the State to the point where engaging in illegal business transactions is not a right.


I'm fairly certain there's something in the private property rights about buying and selling isn't there?
 
2013-06-22 11:10:12 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: marijuana


"Black people smoke marijuana. Case closed, not guilty!"

Thanks, Mr. Legal Expert!
 
2013-06-22 11:10:13 PM
i've read a few thousand posts about this case on FARK since the arrest and am now at this stage:

"You have not been selected for the jury. You are not a family member. You are not on either
legal team. You will not be in the courtroom and the evidence and arguments therein may make your posts look foolish  -  What will happen - and how the verdict is reached - is not in your "wheel house"

I'm wondering, sincerely, how many posters have actively tried to ever avoid jury duty, there are so
many farkers interested in this one case

and for those of you who have wished for a riot? shame on you
 
2013-06-22 11:10:56 PM
He's a 17 year old with a history and currently serving a suspension from school. His ass should have been sitting in his room staring at the walls.
 
2013-06-22 11:14:29 PM
Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.
 
2013-06-22 11:14:51 PM

Popcorn Johnny: He's a 17 year old with a history and currently serving a suspension from school. His ass should have been sitting in his room staring at the walls.


Now there's a well-reasoned opinion, sticking to the facts of the incident!
 
2013-06-22 11:17:36 PM

jaytkay: The_Six_Fingered_Man: marijuana

"Black people smoke marijuana. Case closed, not guilty!"

Thanks, Mr. Legal Expert!


I have no idea what this means, so I'll just say *plonk* and thank my stars that I don't have to read your inane drivel any longer.
 
2013-06-22 11:18:35 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


See, this is how ignorant one side is.
 
2013-06-22 11:19:29 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.
 
2013-06-22 11:21:02 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground in a flurry of blows and Martin comes out on top, sitting astride Zim repeatedly punching him in the face, his head hitting the pavement with every blow. Zimmerman's life is now in danger and he cannot escape by reasonable means. He can now legally use deadly force.
To add on, according to his testimony Zimmerman said Martin saw his ccw, presumably still holstered, and went for it. Zimmerman now has reasonable fear for his life, as his weapon can be taken and used on him. He draws before Martin can get to it and fires. Legal self defense under Florida law.
 
2013-06-22 11:22:10 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.


It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.
 
2013-06-22 11:22:39 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.


Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.
 
2013-06-22 11:24:37 PM

ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.

It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.


I just meant in general.
 
2013-06-22 11:25:17 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.

It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.

I just meant in general.


Ah ok, my apologies.
 
2013-06-22 11:25:51 PM
Chaos Star
He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground


I think you skipped the part of the story that leads up to "Zim punches Martin"

This case will pivot on the "how did that proximity happen"
 
2013-06-22 11:26:05 PM

Livingroom: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

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.


Moral of the story is...

Next time you go walking through a rich neighborhood; don't dress up like a gunshot victim.

Good thing he wasn't wearing a slutty red dress.
 
2013-06-22 11:26:05 PM
Somebody certainly got told.
 
2013-06-22 11:27:42 PM

ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ChaosStar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.

It's not the stand your ground law that gives him the ability to claim self defense here.

I just meant in general.

Ah ok, my apologies.


It's all good man, I appreciate the clarification anyway.
 
2013-06-22 11:27:45 PM

Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.



http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.ht ml776.041Use of force by aggressor.-
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:


(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.


Obviously the testimony is one-sided since there is only one witness who was there the entire time, but given the injuries and that some witnesses and forensics support (gun shot wound) that Martin was on top of Zimmerman it would seem an arguably proper use of the law.
 
2013-06-22 11:28:55 PM

parasol: Chaos Star
He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground

I think you skipped the part of the story that leads up to "Zim punches Martin"

This case will pivot on the "how did that proximity happen"


I think you skipped past the word "example" in my post friend.
It was a hypothetical scenario to prove that even if Zim did attack Martin the lethal force could be justified.
 
2013-06-22 11:30:17 PM

parasol: Chaos Star
He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Example A:
Zim punches Martin, Martin punches him back, they go to the ground

I think you skipped the part of the story that leads up to "Zim punches Martin"

This case will pivot on the "how did that proximity happen"


Eh not so much.

Check out the Greyston Garcia case:  http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133
 
2013-06-22 11:30:30 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Ya may want to familiarize yourself with Florida's "stand your ground" law.


Re: This.

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.

It isn't bad law, it isn't odd law, it just recognizes bad decisions get made, and trying to rectify it doesn't always work.
 
2013-06-22 11:30:41 PM
Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?
 
2013-06-22 11:32:18 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: jaytkay: Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?

Your vivid imagination?


I like you
 
2013-06-22 11:33:30 PM

jaytkay: Can we all just laugh and point at the gun wankers who will be "armed 24/7", anticipating a race war when the trial is over?

LOL

"I got my CCW and I'm gonna be PACKIN!!!"

While they waddle around.

In the Walmart parking lot.

In some all-white suburb.


Gonna be almost as awesome as the "Kill whitey" crowd burning down black neighborhoods. *

*please note, I don't actually believe this happens, but I felt the need to do a color swap to point out the idiocy of the above statement.
 
2013-06-22 11:37:00 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.


So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.
 
2013-06-22 11:39:33 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

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.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.


That's not what happened at all. Do you even look at the evidence? Trayvon doubled back to teach this white guy a lesson. Normal Timmy tough nuts attitude that gets guys killed everyday.
 
2013-06-22 11:41:38 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: fredklein: If he was so terrifies of Trayvon, why was he following him? Why not just stay in his car, or not even follow Trayvon at all??

There is no evidence that he continued to follow Martin after being advised that the dispatcher did not need him to do that


So, Zimmerman's fear only started once he was advised that the dispatcher did not need him to follow Trayvon?

Zimmerman
"Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] "

The conversation that you point to is because he does not know where around the clubhouse he will be, whether at his truck or by the mailboxes.


... or whether he'll be near the clubhouse at all.

There's a world of difference between 'I don't know if I'll be here or there' and 'have them call when they arrive [because I have no idea at all where I'll be then]'

So you are saying that Zimmerman wanted to get into a potentially lethal confrontation (knowing he was carrying a firearm) with the full knowledge that the police were not only on their way, but knew his name and phone number and were on their way to meet him?

No, I'm saying he wanted to confront one of 'these assholes' who 'always get away', and deliberately did not tell the cops where he'd be because he was still following Trayvon.

Is this part of a somewhat prevalent conspiracy theory that Zimmerman called the police in order to give himself an alibi in order to shoot Martin in cold blood?

I don't think that's true at all. At most, I think he decided to be vague about his location 'just in case' something happened. Maybe he hoped to detain Trayvon, and be a hero when the cops arrived. Who knows?

The fact that Zimmerman was involved in an altercation has no bearing on whether or not he wanted police to handle the situation.

Yes it does. If I want YOU to do a job, I DON'T DO IT FOR YOU. If he wanted the POLICE to follow and catch Trayvon, HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF. It's quite obvious he Wanted to catch Trayvon. He followed him, by vehicle and on foot. He made sure the police didn't know where he was. He didn't listen when the police dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", because he wasn't doing what he "needed" to do, he was doing what he WANTED to do- following Trayvon. Now, why would he want to follow one of "these assholes" who "always get away"? Perhaps to make sure this one ...didn't get away?

It could be that Martin was the First Aggressor and therefore the choice to confront was not in Zimmerman's hands. But again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher told him that they did not need him to.

As I said before, there is one theory that fits everything, including Zimmerman's (highly questionable, considering the source) statement that he turned around at that point to return to his truck. And that theory is that Trayvon had hidden (so as not to lead the crazy armed guy following him right to his doorstep). Zimmerman passed him, then turned back at that point to return to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy armed guy suddenly turn around and head back toward him, assumes the worst- he's been discovered! So he jumps out and confronts Zimmerman. The rest plays out pretty much as it has been pieced together- Trayvon, fearing for his life, tries to take the gun. Failing that, he tries to knock Zimmerman unconscious. (Those being the only 2 ways to be safe from an attacker with a gun- take the gun, or make it so they cannot pull the trigger. Running only works of they can't shoot you in the back before you find cover.) Zimmerman, now fearing for his life, kills Trayvon.
 
2013-06-22 11:42:00 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: jaytkay: Why are George Zimmerman supporters also indignant about cable TV dropping Paula Deen? And they really hate President Obama

It's like there might be some common thread in the situations.

What could that be?

Your vivid imagination?


Did you vote for Obama?
 
2013-06-22 11:42:21 PM

Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conjecture that Martin was the aggressor, seeing as how Zim was the one on a lengthy armed pursuit (that seems pretty aggressive to me!), but I can at least hold the ideas you're saying in my head.

This is intelligence: being able to hold conflicting ideas in one's head.

We don't know who started the fight, I've said that many times in these threads. You keep saying "armed pursuit" and that's not what happened. Zimmerman was never perusing Martin, he briefly followed him around a corner. You seem to want to make it out as if Zimmerman was running through the neighborhood, gun drawn, in pursuit of Trayvon. The reality is that he ran for less than 10 seconds after exiting his vehicle when Trayvon took off running and disappeared around the side of one of the buildings. After that, there's no evidence that Zimmerman regained sight of Trayvon and followed, or chased after him.


Do yourself a favor. Open google.com and search "define:pursuit". You might learn something.
 
2013-06-22 11:42:44 PM
When Team Trayvon can't convince anybody based on wild speculation, they bring out their ace in the hole, "you're racist".
 
2013-06-22 11:43:02 PM

Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.


You're ignoring the reasonable escape part (like everyone else)
You're ignoring the about to die or great bodily harm part (like everyone else)
 
2013-06-22 11:44:13 PM
img.fark.net
Um, no. "Everyday" means "ordinary". "Every day" means "daily.
 
2013-06-22 11:47:59 PM

ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.



So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.
 
2013-06-22 11:50:14 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?
 
2013-06-22 11:51:36 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: 776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.


ONLY IF you have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger".

Did Zimmerman say "I give up"?

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....
 
2013-06-22 11:52:34 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


In your scenario? Yes, if you stop after the single punch.
You are in fear for your life as he has now drawn his weapon without just cause.
 
2013-06-22 11:53:02 PM

gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme:
As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.


I enjoy them because I get to add a bunch of racists to my ignore list.
 
2013-06-22 11:53:56 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


In some state, I haven't followed up on it, they may have even made it legal to shoot a cop in self defense in certain situations by now.
 
2013-06-22 11:54:23 PM

Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.


This!No duty to retreat isn't the same as no duty to not start shiat. These idoits are claiming I can go around punching random people in the face, and if one of them starts beating my ass I can just shoot them.And I'm guessing that Zimmerman had PLENTY of opportunites to avoid a conflict.
 
2013-06-22 11:55:14 PM

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?
 
2013-06-22 11:56:11 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.


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.
 
2013-06-22 11:56:54 PM

Shaddup: Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.

This!No duty to retreat isn't the same as no duty to not start shiat. These idoits are claiming I can go around punching random people in the face, and if one of them starts ...


Your reading comprehension skill really needs some buffing.
No duty to retreat is part of the stand your ground law, this is not about the stand your ground law.
It's even in the post that you replied to, yet you can't read it and comprehend.
 
2013-06-22 11:57:39 PM

Forecaster18: gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme:
As I've said a number of times, the main reason I enjoy these threads is because I simply don't understand your inability to grasp---even if you still luv Zim---how Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself or how he could have been afraid of Zim.

I enjoy them because I get to add a bunch of racists to my ignore list.


Let me guess, you either think Zimmerman is a murderer or you're racist, right?
 
2013-06-22 11:57:46 PM

bugontherug: 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


You mean like Trayvon telling his girlfriend that he was not going to avoid confrontation?  Yeah, real indisputable....

Well, I suppose his girlfriend could be lying about it.. so it is (allegedly) telling her that.
 
2013-06-22 11:58:18 PM

Shaddup: Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.

This!No duty to retreat isn't the same as no duty to not start shiat. These idoits are claiming I can go around punching random people in the face, and if one of them starts beating my ass I can just shoot them.And I'm guessing that Zimmerman had PLENTY of opportunites to avoid a conflict.


Well no, nobody did.
 
2013-06-22 11:59:47 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?


Should I NOT have to consider or deal with the consequences of my actions?

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losing, 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 when I start losing... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.
 
2013-06-23 12:01:07 AM

ChaosStar: Mithiwithi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Shaddup: Popcorn Johnny:  had every right, even if he was the aggressor, to use deadly force to protect himself.


No. He doesn't. You can't initiate a conflict then claim self defense. I know you're a known troll but even this is a stretch for you.

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorance of Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

This has been, literally, the 1000th time this statute has been copied into a Zimmerman thread. How it ever escaped you is mind boggling.

So basically you're saying murder is legal. All I have to do is pick a fight with someone, escalate it, let them beat the crap out of me for a few moments, then shoot them.

You're ignoring the reasonable escape part (like everyone else)
You're ignoring the about to die or great bodily harm part (like everyone else)



This. Again.
 
2013-06-23 12:01:26 AM

fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?

Should I NOT have to consider or deal with the consequences of my actions?

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losing, 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 when I start losing... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.


That's not exactly how it goes. While flawed, the law was obviously written so a person couldn't kill somebody for shoving them.
 
2013-06-23 12:02:13 AM

fredklein: Popcorn Johnny: Should you have to surrender your life for taking a swing at somebody?

Should I NOT have to consider or deal with the consequences of my actions?

If I can simply start a fight, and kill the other guy if I start losing, 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 when I start losing... I'll have to think really hard whether or not to start a fight.


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.
I know, you're still not going to understand and I really can't break it down to Sesame Street level explanation without puppets.
 
2013-06-23 12:02:42 AM

fredklein: The_Six_Fingered_Man: 776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (776, Justifiable Use of Force) is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Let me put that in layman's terms. You can start a fight, but as soon as you are being beaten so badly that you are about to die or have great bodily harm inflicted on you and you have exhausted all reasonable means of escape, you can shoot the person you started a fight with.

ONLY IF you have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger".


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?

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.

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. There is every indication that he had lost sight of Martin at the time that he hung up the phone with the police dispatcher. He was asked by the dispatcher to relay information about Martin, information that required that he exit his vehicle to provide. For everyone clamoring about Zimmerman not listening to the dispatcher, they conveniently forget that he was doing as he was asked and there is no indication that he continued to pursue Martin after being advised that the police did not need him to do that.
 
2013-06-23 12:03:39 AM

ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.

In your scenario? Yes, if you stop after the single punch.
You are in fear for your life as he has now drawn his weapon without just cause.


Maybe HE is in fear of his life, because I'm bigger than he is, and he thinks I can kill him with my fists?

See how silly that is? Two people could honestly be in fear of each other, and could honestly each get off on a plea of 'Self Defense' for killing the other one. But... one of them started the fight.

This makes no sense.
 
2013-06-23 12:04:47 AM
Wow, conservatives really get a boner over shooting a black kid.

I am surprised.

/ No, I am not surprised
 
2013-06-23 12:05:36 AM

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??
 
2013-06-23 12:06:30 AM

fredklein: ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: He had it right.
Even if you are the aggressor, if your life is in danger you can defend yourself with lethal force.


So, I can go up to a random passerby, punch him in the face. And when he draws his gun, I can, perfectly legally, kill him.

If the law allows that, the law is farked up.

In your scenario? Yes, if you stop after the single punch.
You are in fear for your life as he has now drawn his weapon without just cause.

Maybe HE is in fear of his life, because I'm bigger than he is, and he thinks I can kill him with my fists?

See how silly that is? Two people could honestly be in fear of each other, and could honestly each get off on a plea of 'Self Defense' for killing the other one. But... one of them started the fight.

This makes no sense.


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.
 
2013-06-23 12:06:49 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.


Where did you pick up this bizarre chunk of idiocy?  If this were true, American Nazi's wouldn't be racist because they have no power.
 
2013-06-23 12:07:11 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: Lets go with that then. Trayvon was standing his ground and beating up Zimmerman

So, Trayvon was standing his ground because Zimmerman was threatening him...this defensive reaction threatened Zimmerman who then stood his ground by killing Trayvon.

Thus, Zimmerman was acting lawfully and is innocent of wrongdoing.

Brilliant!

I'm going to go to Florida, pull a knife on some dude, then when he threatens me with his fists, I'll stab his ass dead.  And people like you will defend me!!  USA!!  USA!!!  USA!!!


Thats totally awesome man.  You have equated 'following someone' with 'pulling a knife on a dude'
 
2013-06-23 12:07:45 AM

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.
 
2013-06-23 12:08:38 AM
Has Zimmerman managed yet to say or do a single thing related to this trial that  hasn't been a complete lie?
 
2013-06-23 12:09:06 AM

LaughingRadish: 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.

Where did you pick up this bizarre chunk of idiocy?  If this were true, American Nazi's wouldn't be racist because they have no power.


That was pretty much the quote of the evening for me.
 
2013-06-23 12:09:22 AM

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?
 
2013-06-23 12:11:19 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Has Zimmerman managed yet to say or do a single thing related to this trial that  hasn't been a complete lie?


I'm sure you can list the really long roll call of everything Zimmerman has done that has been a complete lie right?
 
2013-06-23 12:12:10 AM

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.
 
2013-06-23 12:12:47 AM
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.
 
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.
 
2013-06-23 01:25:03 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.


To play Devil's Advocate, so does increased testosterone levels attributed to male adolescence/puberty. I'm hesitant to attribute either to the parties involved because it's a crapshoot and speculation.
 
2013-06-23 01:25:29 AM

ChaosStar: 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


The only studies I've seen were from Texas and Florida and both showed that much less likely to commit a crime than the general population. Here are the Florida stats for revocation:

4.bp.blogspot.com

Seems to me that 168 out of 2 million isn't a bad ratio.
 
2013-06-23 01:28:12 AM

ChaosStar: 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


Well, try looking up how many men with guns/bombs/weapons rob banks. Then look up how many unarmed men rob banks.
Then look up how many muggings are committed by an armed man, and how many by an unarmed man.
Then look up how many fights are started by muscular men (hey-muscles are weapons, too!), and how many are started by 90-pound weaklings.

Face it, having a weapon makes people more powerful than those who have no weapon. And having power changes how you think, and changes your actions.
 
2013-06-23 01:28:20 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


The 2nd amendment enthusiasts in this thread are VERY excited for a Zimmerman acquittal and ensuing race war.

It's gonna be funny when these trigger-happy wankers shoot each other in their zeal to "protect" their families.
 
2013-06-23 01:29:31 AM
Trayvon Martin had every right to confront his stalker. Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon.  Unfortunately, they didn't use words in the confrontation, but decided to escalate into fisticuffs, and then shooticuffs.  I expect a teenager to react to confrontation in a stupid manner. I expect a gun owner to use his gun if he is getting assaulted.

All in all, this happened because two people failed to act civilized. Now one is dead, and the other's life is ruined.  Unfortunately, every farktard with an unrelated agenda managed to hook their wagon to one side or the other, and used these two assbags as posterboys for their side.

No, Zimm doesn't represent a responsible gun owner. No, Trayvon wasn't a choirboy. Shame a kid died, I don't think he deserved to, but when you start punching people with guns, you tend to get more than you deserve.
 
2013-06-23 01:29:36 AM

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.
 
2013-06-23 01:31:00 AM

fredklein: 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.


See the bold up there? "catch" "overtake", these are two key words. Since Zimmerman wasn't running very fast, and in fact going by his breathing on the phone wasn't running at all, he wasn't "chasing" Martin.

Yep, and after th