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.

(CNN)   Zimmerman defense lawyer apologizes to jury for telling knock-knock joke about them in his opening statement, asks them if they've heard the one about Trayvon Martin's favorite flavor of Skittles   (cnn.com) divider line 933
    More: Dumbass, George Zimmerman, Skittles, opening statement, Mark O'Mara, Angela Corey, next of kin, Benjamin Crump, Dean Martin  
•       •       •

6577 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 8:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 09:02:35 AM

nekom: The defense team is calling into question DNA???


None of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin in the autopsy.  People are saying that, if he beat Zimmerman, there should be DNA on his hands/clothes.  The defense is saying that's not necessarily so.
 
2013-06-25 09:04:29 AM

Hobodeluxe: xanadian: Wait.

Wasn't that knock-knock joke THE headline that was used on Fark.com a couple weeks ago??

GODDAMMITSOMUCH

Seven Mason: [i735.photobucket.com image 827x115]

Yeah...that.

OMG they stole the fark headline? Someone on the defense team is a totalfarker?


This explains so much of the derp that goes on in these threads.
 
2013-06-25 09:04:37 AM

The Muthaship: nekom: The defense team is calling into question DNA???

None of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin in the autopsy.  People are saying that, if he beat Zimmerman, there should be DNA on his hands/clothes.  The defense is saying that's not necessarily so.


Ok well that may be a point they can try to make.  I thought they were maybe trying to say DNA recovered couldn't really be matched to one party, which is not only flatly false but seemed puzzling considering that no one disputes who killed who here.  Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-06-25 09:05:22 AM

nekom: BeatrixK: The irony is that, Zimmerman, all 500 lbs of him, actually looks more menacing now than he did when it all went down.  His defense team is starting off like a bunch of keystone cops...

1.)  The knock knock joke,
2.)  Asserting that DNA doesn't necessarily prove much
3.)  Forgetting a point in the timeline and telling the jury, 'I'm sure you wrote it down.'

Wait, what?  The defense team is calling into question DNA???  In a case where it is 100% clear that their client in fact killed Martin?  What possible angle could they have there?



"We've got no defense, so we're going to throw shiat against the wall to see what sticks."
 
2013-06-25 09:05:59 AM

nekom: BeatrixK: The irony is that, Zimmerman, all 500 lbs of him, actually looks more menacing now than he did when it all went down.  His defense team is starting off like a bunch of keystone cops...

1.)  The knock knock joke,
2.)  Asserting that DNA doesn't necessarily prove much
3.)  Forgetting a point in the timeline and telling the jury, 'I'm sure you wrote it down.'

Wait, what?  The defense team is calling into question DNA???  In a case where it is 100% clear that their client in fact killed Martin?  What possible angle could they have there?



The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands or fingernails. That calls into question just how brutal the alleged beating was, considering that if someone was mercilessly pummeling someone the way they claim Martin was beating Zimmerman, it's odd that they couldn't find any of Zimmerman's blood or skin on Martin.

That's why they're saying DNA tests don't matter in this case.
 
2013-06-25 09:09:33 AM

Hobodeluxe: xanadian: Wait.

Wasn't that knock-knock joke THE headline that was used on Fark.com a couple weeks ago??

GODDAMMITSOMUCH

Seven Mason: [i735.photobucket.com image 827x115]

Yeah...that.

OMG they stole the fark headline? Someone on the defense team is a totalfarker?


Nah, just a regular farker. Lawyers like to screw people, they don't like getting screwed.
 
2013-06-25 09:10:29 AM
www.chicagocircustents.com
 
2013-06-25 09:11:57 AM

stoli n coke: The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands or fingernails. That calls into question just how brutal the alleged beating was, considering that if someone was mercilessly pummeling someone the way they claim Martin was beating Zimmerman, it's odd that they couldn't find any of Zimmerman's blood or skin on Martin.


Just because Trayvon was throwing punches, doesn't mean Zimmerman wasn't attempting to block them. We know he landed one good shot, as we have a picture of Zimmerman's bloodied, broken nose. We also know that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, continuing to assault him.

Was Zimmerman supposed to wait for Trayvon to land a certain number of solid punches before being justified in using deadly force?
 
2013-06-25 09:14:03 AM
So it is really tough to actually tell how that first day went.  You have a bunch of people saying that either the defense or persecution totally owned while the other side was laughably bad.  Any actual lawyers have any comments about the first day?
 
2013-06-25 09:16:34 AM

stoli n coke: nekom: BeatrixK: The irony is that, Zimmerman, all 500 lbs of him, actually looks more menacing now than he did when it all went down.  His defense team is starting off like a bunch of keystone cops...

1.)  The knock knock joke,
2.)  Asserting that DNA doesn't necessarily prove much
3.)  Forgetting a point in the timeline and telling the jury, 'I'm sure you wrote it down.'

Wait, what?  The defense team is calling into question DNA???  In a case where it is 100% clear that their client in fact killed Martin?  What possible angle could they have there?


The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands or fingernails. That calls into question just how brutal the alleged beating was, considering that if someone was mercilessly pummeling someone the way they claim Martin was beating Zimmerman, it's odd that they couldn't find any of Zimmerman's blood or skin on Martin.

That's why they're saying DNA tests don't matter in this case.


That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand? If he didn't have that firearm on him, things would have been different. Just like most cases, firearm caused more harm than good, but that is one aspect I think people are not talking enough.
 
2013-06-25 09:17:13 AM

Popcorn Johnny: stoli n coke: The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands or fingernails. That calls into question just how brutal the alleged beating was, considering that if someone was mercilessly pummeling someone the way they claim Martin was beating Zimmerman, it's odd that they couldn't find any of Zimmerman's blood or skin on Martin.

Just because Trayvon was throwing punches, doesn't mean Zimmerman wasn't attempting to block them. We know he landed one good shot, as we have a picture of Zimmerman's bloodied, broken nose. We also know that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, continuing to assault him.

Was Zimmerman supposed to wait for Trayvon to land a certain number of solid punches before being justified in using deadly force?


Since Zimmerman started the confrontation, no amount of backlash would  ever justify using deadly force. That's just not how reality works.

And if you think it does, you're a farking psychopath.
 
2013-06-25 09:17:36 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Was Zimmerman supposed to wait for Trayvon to land a certain number of solid punches before being justified in using deadly force?


He wasn't supposed to be hunting someone down, attacking them, and willfully putting himself in that position in the first place.   He deserved to get a little beat up for that, most would think.  Trayvon wasn't going to end his life - even if Trayvon was actually winning the fight at all (the only witness is Zim...)
 
2013-06-25 09:18:01 AM
I hope this isn't a long trial. I don't think my liver can handle it......
 
2013-06-25 09:18:14 AM

oldfarthenry: [www.chicagocircustents.com image 400x232]



Bronco Billy?
 
2013-06-25 09:18:30 AM
Yeah. I'm still pretty confident that the Prosecution is going to mount a better argument than the Defense.

I can't wait until the Prosecution calls Zimmerman's family to testify. The cross is going to be tricky.
 
2013-06-25 09:22:41 AM
mayIFark:
That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand? If he didn't have that firearm on him, things would have been different. Just like most cases, firearm caused more harm than good, but that is one aspect I think people are not talking enough.

It's not totally unbelievable.  If he was on top of him, say bashing his head into the ground, well blood falls down for the most part.  Most of his photographed wounds (which I admit don't look THAT serious) are on the back of his head, and a bloodied nose.

I'm a 32 year old, I'm sure there are 17 year olds out there capable of making me fear for my life even unarmed.

/not an ITG
 
2013-06-25 09:22:47 AM

Popcorn Johnny: stoli n coke: The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands or fingernails. That calls into question just how brutal the alleged beating was, considering that if someone was mercilessly pummeling someone the way they claim Martin was beating Zimmerman, it's odd that they couldn't find any of Zimmerman's blood or skin on Martin.

Just because Trayvon was throwing punches, doesn't mean Zimmerman wasn't attempting to block them. We know he landed one good shot, as we have a picture of Zimmerman's bloodied, broken nose. We also know that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, continuing to assault him.

Was Zimmerman supposed to wait for Trayvon to land a certain number of solid punches before being justified in using deadly force?


We don't KNOW that Martin landed a good shot. Zimmerman's injuries don't prove that Martin caused them. That's why DNA evidence would have been helpful. It would be ignorant to use Zimmerman's story as a lens through which the evidence is viewed considering that he's the one charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin.
 
2013-06-25 09:23:13 AM
MithrandirBooga:Since Zimmerman started the confrontation, no amount of backlash would  ever justify using deadly force. That's just not how reality works.

Doesn't matter in this case. The question isn't "Who started the confrontation?". The question is "Did GZ fear for his life enough to use deadly force?"

IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......
 
2013-06-25 09:24:25 AM

stoli n coke: nekom: BeatrixK: The irony is that, Zimmerman, all 500 lbs of him, actually looks more menacing now than he did when it all went down.  His defense team is starting off like a bunch of keystone cops...

1.)  The knock knock joke,
2.)  Asserting that DNA doesn't necessarily prove much
3.)  Forgetting a point in the timeline and telling the jury, 'I'm sure you wrote it down.'

Wait, what?  The defense team is calling into question DNA???  In a case where it is 100% clear that their client in fact killed Martin?  What possible angle could they have there?


The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands or fingernails. That calls into question just how brutal the alleged beating was, considering that if someone was mercilessly pummeling someone the way they claim Martin was beating Zimmerman, it's odd that they couldn't find any of Zimmerman's blood or skin on Martin.

That's why they're saying DNA tests don't matter in this case.


also if someone is beating your head against concrete you will have knots on your head,bruising and most likely stitches. He had a couple of 1/4 in scratches that barely bled. Probably from him initially hitting the ground. No knots,lumps, bruises,concussion and barely any blood. Anyone who had ever broken the skin on their scalp will tell you it bleeds pretty easily. and him being bald it shows up. Hell if he had hair you'd never know it was bleeding. It might not have even bled because the hair would have cushioned it. I don't think Trayvon was slamming his head into the ground and since his mouth or eyes weren't damaged (just the shot to the nose) I have a hard time believing he was being "ground and pounded"  I think Trayvon did punch him in the nose and mounted him trying to get him to restrain him until help came.
 
2013-06-25 09:25:03 AM
Hypothetically speaking, say Zimmerman walks free, does that mean, I can walk up to you, and start beating the shiat out of you, and as soon as you fight back and start beating me, I can shoot you? I wonder how come gangsters have not figure this method out yet? Its full proof.

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?
 
2013-06-25 09:26:44 AM

Zelron: I think he was trying to make a comment about the jury selection process.  I'm not sure what his point was, but I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be disparaging.

Which frankly, if I were on the jury, I'd be insulted.  Perhaps he's trying to set up grounds for appeal.


Sorry, Zimmerman's attorney had a good point but a bad delivery. Before the trial even started, the media had already convicted him. Zimmerman/Martin has saturated the news for months and months now and people have already made up their minds. Just look at every Zimmerman thread on Fark for the past nine months. If there actually are six people on this *planet* who haven't heard about the case, make them jurors.
 
2013-06-25 09:27:04 AM

mayIFark: Hypothetically speaking, say Zimmerman walks free, does that mean, I can walk up to you, and start beating the shiat out of you, and as soon as you fight back and start beating me, I can shoot you? I wonder how come gangsters have not figure this method out yet? Its full proof.

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?


Well, since him walking free would mean that the jury didn't think he "walked up to and started beating the shiat out of" anyone I'll go with no.  That doesn't mean that at all.

I'd say if he does walk it means you don't get to beat the shiat out of somebody because they followed you while on the phone with the police.
 
2013-06-25 09:27:19 AM

kendelrio: MithrandirBooga:Since Zimmerman started the confrontation, no amount of backlash would  ever justify using deadly force. That's just not how reality works.

Doesn't matter in this case. The question isn't "Who started the confrontation?". The question is "Did GZ fear for his life enough to use deadly force?"

IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......


Dressing however you want is not the same as stalking your fellow citizens as some sort of deranged police LARP.
 
2013-06-25 09:27:43 AM

nekom: The Muthaship: nekom: The defense team is calling into question DNA???

None of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin in the autopsy.  People are saying that, if he beat Zimmerman, there should be DNA on his hands/clothes.  The defense is saying that's not necessarily so.

Ok well that may be a point they can try to make.  I thought they were maybe trying to say DNA recovered couldn't really be matched to one party, which is not only flatly false but seemed puzzling considering that no one disputes who killed who here.  Thanks for clearing that up.


I believe they are saying that the crime scene crew didn't preserve the evidence.  Like when they didn't properly bag the hands or something, the DNA just evaporated.  Mind you, DNA can be lifted from a cigarette but or a coke can... but DNA from a life or death struggle mysteriously evaporates if the crime scene investigators weren't careful enough.  This is Zimmerman's defense.  That and Taryvon was was slightly larger than an average teenager.  Somehow this is all relevant.
 
2013-06-25 09:28:02 AM

mayIFark: Hypothetically speaking, say Zimmerman walks free, does that mean, I can walk up to you, and start beating the shiat out of you, and as soon as you fight back and start beating me, I can shoot you? I wonder how come gangsters have not figure this method out yet? Its full proof.

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?


Well, the only difference is that none of the evidence suggests that Zimmerman started the altercation.  Of course he created the entire situation, no question about that, but he claims that Martin started the actual physical altercation.  Martin isn't around to say otherwise, and no physical evidence debunks his claim.  We'll never know the real truth, as the only two witnesses to the start are a dead man and the man charged in his death, but that's the reason I seriously doubt they're going to get a murder conviction.
 
2013-06-25 09:28:05 AM

kendelrio: MithrandirBooga:Since Zimmerman started the confrontation, no amount of backlash would  ever justify using deadly force. That's just not how reality works.

Doesn't matter in this case. The question isn't "Who started the confrontation?". The question is "Did GZ fear for his life enough to use deadly force?"

IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......


Jesus, I hope you're trolling.
 
2013-06-25 09:28:11 AM

kendelrio: IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......


nice bit of cutting out text you have there...

If a person attacks someone, then chases them down and attacks them again, then at some point "most would think" that the person being attacked is justified in keeping the attacker from attacking a third time.  If you think that has absolutely any comparison to raping someone based on what they are wearing, you're a complete and total idiot.  That, and just because "most would think" something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it.
 
2013-06-25 09:28:35 AM
ITZ PURPLE!!!!!
 
2013-06-25 09:29:30 AM

Ned Stark: Dressing however you want is not the same as stalking your fellow citizens as some sort of deranged police LARP.



So you are free to dress how you like but you are prohibited from walking in a public area watching someone you feel may be a criminal and reporting their actions to the police.

Good to know.
 
2013-06-25 09:30:23 AM

s2s2s2: Watching the prosecution use farker prosecution tactics was the highlight of my day, yesterday.
My fave was when they tried to make "might be black...ok definitely black" sound like racism.

"He said he's black, AGAIN! Did you ask that second time?!"


The prosecution is hosed.


If he called the cops 47 times to report a suspicious person, and 45 of those times the person in question was black, do you think that might be indicative of something?
 
2013-06-25 09:32:02 AM
IamAwake:If a person attacks someone [citation needed], then chases them down and attacks them again[citation needed], then at some point "most would think" that the person being attacked is justified in keeping the attacker from attacking a third time.  If you think that has absolutely any comparison to raping someone based on what they are wearing, you're a complete and total idiot.  That, and just because "most would think" something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it.

So you're saying GZ attacked TM 3 times? Really?
 
2013-06-25 09:33:18 AM

nekom: Well, the only difference is that none of the evidence suggests that Zimmerman started the altercation.


he was folling him around, called police, was told to back off, and confronted anyway.  If you're chasing someone down, even if they land the first punch you started it.  There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions.  If a jury sides with him, then that will only mean there was a stupid jury.
 
2013-06-25 09:33:22 AM

nekom: mayIFark:
That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand? If he didn't have that firearm on him, things would have been different. Just like most cases, firearm caused more harm than good, but that is one aspect I think people are not talking enough.

It's not totally unbelievable.  If he was on top of him, say bashing his head into the ground, well blood falls down for the most part.  Most of his photographed wounds (which I admit don't look THAT serious) are on the back of his head, and a bloodied nose.

I'm a 32 year old, I'm sure there are 17 year olds out there capable of making me fear for my life even unarmed.

/not an ITG


Sure, I can agree to that general statement.  But Trayvon Martin is not one of those 17-year-olds.
 
2013-06-25 09:33:40 AM
Berry Blast?
 
2013-06-25 09:33:51 AM
Wewa, at weast dey'we keepin' Bendamin Cwump outta da couwtwoom...
 
2013-06-25 09:34:18 AM

nekom: mayIFark:
That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand? If he didn't have that firearm on him, things would have been different. Just like most cases, firearm caused more harm than good, but that is one aspect I think people are not talking enough.

It's not totally unbelievable.  If he was on top of him, say bashing his head into the ground, well blood falls down for the most part.  Most of his photographed wounds (which I admit don't look THAT serious) are on the back of his head, and a bloodied nose.

I'm a 32 year old, I'm sure there are 17 year olds out there capable of making me fear for my life even unarmed.

/not an ITG


I knew kids in high school that were 15-16 that could easily whip a mans ass. For example my JROTC had some bulk guys, one was a body builder who could bench easy 300lbs (not sure how much he could but his arms were bigger then my legs) that and being 6'4 - it was intimidating.
It really depends who jumps first, all that martial arts doesn't matter when you get tagged first, then its a fight to survive.

A thug isn't going to back down, I knew enough in my life time - hell just watch liveleak.com every week there's some punk who taunts cops and road rages and frankly they don't care. Put these thugs in a group of 2 or more and they will take on the world.

Not saying martin did, but everyone wants to show his 12 yr old baby face photos, how about the real photos of him - far cry different then the baby faced teenager.
 
2013-06-25 09:34:51 AM

mayIFark: Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?


You're missing the obvious third option.  You start beating me up, I shoot you.  You lose.
 
2013-06-25 09:35:08 AM

Thoguh: mayIFark: Hypothetically speaking, say Zimmerman walks free, does that mean, I can walk up to you, and start beating the shiat out of you, and as soon as you fight back and start beating me, I can shoot you? I wonder how come gangsters have not figure this method out yet? Its full proof.

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?

Well, since him walking free would mean that the jury didn't think he "walked up to and started beating the shiat out of" anyone I'll go with no.  That doesn't mean that at all.

I'd say if he does walk it means you don't get to beat the shiat out of somebody because they followed you while on the phone with the police.


I don't think he was on the phone with the police at that moment, we'd have recording of the start of the fight in that case. But since Martin cannot talk, you can not point out that he is the one started it.

I am not saying that is what happened, but you should see the problem here, your act of self defense can be used as an excuse to kill you. Basically the formula remains the same, you create a situation where someone starts acting on self defense, and as soon as they starts acting on self defense, you can kill him.

I don't have a solution as to how it should be, but I sure do see a problem here.
 
2013-06-25 09:35:44 AM

IamAwake: nekom: Well, the only difference is that none of the evidence suggests that Zimmerman started the altercation.

he was folling him around, called police, was told to back off, and confronted anyway.  If you're chasing someone down, even if they land the first punch you started it.  There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions.  If a jury sides with him, then that will only mean there was a stupid jury.


Are you talking ethically or legally?  Ethically, I think Zimmerman is a wanna-be cop prick who saw an unfamiliar black kid and assumed he must be a robber and it was his job to confront him about it.  Now LEGALLY?  It's not against the law to follow a person, nor does a police dispatcher have the authority to give a lawful order, nor did he give an order anyone, rather only advice "We don't need you to do that."  Right up until the physical altercation began, I don't think either party had committed any crimes, save for perhaps jaywalking.

I don't like the guy, and wouldn't vouch for his character at all, but I just don't see how a murder charge can stick given the circumstances of the case.
 
2013-06-25 09:36:27 AM

kendelrio: So you're saying GZ attacked TM 3 times? Really?


no, I'm not.  Your reading comprehension is fail.  I'm saying he started a chase(1), confronted (2), and "most would think" that Trayvon should be allowed to ensure that a third time didn't occur.
 
2013-06-25 09:36:34 AM

kendelrio: Ned Stark: Dressing however you want is not the same as stalking your fellow citizens as some sort of deranged police LARP.


So you are free to dress how you like but you are prohibited from walking in a public area watching someone you feel may be a criminal and reporting their actions to the police.

Good to know.


"Prohibited"? Where'd you pull that word from?
 
2013-06-25 09:37:54 AM
the defense's argument over Zimmerman's previous 911 phone calls is crap. He basically said "if you admit it ,it will be good for my client so I don't want it in."

It needs to be in because the prosecution needs it to show state of mind.
that all the previous phone calls where George called 911 that resulted in no arrests frustrated him and led him to say "these assholes always get away"
The defense knows that it will also show that George found always found the black kids to be the "suspicious" ones when they were doing nothing but riding bikes or playing in the streets.
 
2013-06-25 09:37:57 AM

Yes please: mayIFark: Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?

You're missing the obvious third option.  You start beating me up, I shoot you.  You lose.


Yes, and NRA would be so proud of all of us.

/off to buying stocks on Gun Manufacturers
 
2013-06-25 09:38:03 AM

kendelrio: Ned Stark: Dressing however you want is not the same as stalking your fellow citizens as some sort of deranged police LARP.


So you are free to dress how you like but you are prohibited from walking in a public area watching someone you feel may be a criminal and reporting their actions to the police.

Good to know.


Why, exactly, did he suspect trayvon of being a criminal when he was just walking in a "public" area?
 
2013-06-25 09:38:06 AM
Watching the defense teams with their ipads and laptops during the trial I can only imagine them reading this thread.
 
2013-06-25 09:39:18 AM

mayIFark: Hypothetically speaking, say Zimmerman walks free, does that mean, I can walk up to you, and start beating the shiat out of you, and as soon as you fight back and start beating me, I can shoot you? I wonder how come gangsters have not figure this method out yet? Its full proof.

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?


The Greyston Garcia case would interest you. Garcia successfully killed someone under the SYG defense. Garcia came upon someone stealing his radio. Garcia chased the thief a few blocks and a fight broke out. Garcia stabbed the thief, hid the knife, took back his radio while also stealing other items from the body (which he sold) and then napped.

The case never went to trial because he used the Stand Your Ground defense and won.

Zimmerman had an opportunity to use SYG but didn't. Had he used it, there would have been a pre-trial hearing that could have released him from all charges.
 
2013-06-25 09:39:46 AM

Coolfusis: kendelrio: Ned Stark: Dressing however you want is not the same as stalking your fellow citizens as some sort of deranged police LARP.


So you are free to dress how you like but you are prohibited from walking in a public area watching someone you feel may be a criminal and reporting their actions to the police.

Good to know.

Why, exactly, did he suspect trayvon of being a criminal when he was just walking in a "public" area?


You could read the call transcript and find out
 
2013-06-25 09:40:18 AM

Hobodeluxe: the defense's argument over Zimmerman's previous 911 phone calls is crap. He basically said "if you admit it ,it will be good for my client so I don't want it in."

It needs to be in because the prosecution needs it to show state of mind.
that all the previous phone calls where George called 911 that resulted in no arrests frustrated him and led him to say "these assholes always get away"
The defense knows that it will also show that George found always found the black kids to be the "suspicious" ones when they were doing nothing but riding bikes or playing in the streets.


Was that the defense's argument or just a rule of procedure?  Not sure how it is with 911 phone calls, but you can't summon a cop to testify on YOUR behalf, it will be excused as hearsay.  Did you know that?  People need to know that.  Anything you say to a cop can be used against you, but it can NOT be used for you.  Perhaps it's the same with 911 tapes, I honestly don't have a clue.
 
2013-06-25 09:40:18 AM
nekom:Are you talking ethically or legally?  Ethically, I think Zimmerman is a wanna-be cop prick who saw an unfamiliar black kid and assumed he must be a robber and it was his job to confront him about it.  Now LEGALLY?  It's not against the law to follow a person, nor does a police dispatcher have the authority to give a lawful order, nor did he give an order anyone, rather only advice "We don't need you to do that."  Right up until the physical altercation began, I don't think either party had committed any crimes, save for perhaps jaywalking.

I don't like the guy, and wouldn't vouch for his character at all, but I just don't see how a murder charge can stick given the circumstances of the case.



Hammer+nail

GZ isn't on trial for being a dumbass, following TM, not taking advice from a dispatcher or even the confrontation (regardless who started it). He is on trial because the state to prove he was not in fear for his life, that he maliciously shot and killed a person who was on top of him beating him in a "ground and pound" fashion.

Remove the emotional wharggbarggle and look at the charges and facts.
 
2013-06-25 09:42:28 AM

Bontesla: mayIFark: Hypothetically speaking, say Zimmerman walks free, does that mean, I can walk up to you, and start beating the shiat out of you, and as soon as you fight back and start beating me, I can shoot you? I wonder how come gangsters have not figure this method out yet? Its full proof.

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

1) do nothing and take the beating - I win.
2) fight back - I shoot you - I win.

Am I missing any significant piece that makes this different from Zimmerman case?

The Greyston Garcia case would interest you. Garcia successfully killed someone under the SYG defense. Garcia came upon someone stealing his radio. Garcia chased the thief a few blocks and a fight broke out. Garcia stabbed the thief, hid the knife, took back his radio while also stealing other items from the body (which he sold) and then napped.

The case never went to trial because he used the Stand Your Ground defense and won.

Zimmerman had an opportunity to use SYG but didn't. Had he used it, there would have been a pre-trial hearing that could have released him from all charges.


The Greyston Garcia case, among other reasons, is why I am 99% certain that Zimmerman will walk. The lack of evidence against Zimmerman would be the second.
 
Displayed 50 of 933 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report