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  
•       •       •

6580 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 09:42:55 AM
Me: There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions

nekom: Are you talking ethically or legally


"legally" in this sense should mean absolutely zero more or less than the codified ideals of ethics and justice.  If it varies, that should only be for mercy, when the actor is redeemable.
 
2013-06-25 09:43:29 AM

MithrandirBooga: 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."


You forgot about yesterday when they tried to get Trayvon's parents barred from the courtroom because they claimed that Trayvon's father called one of Zimmerman's friends a mutherfarker in court 2 weeks ago. However he conveniently whispered it to him on the way out the door so nobody else heard it and they waited until yesterday to bring this up.
 
2013-06-25 09:44:14 AM

IamAwake: 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.


Here's your uncut statement:

IamAwake: 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.



I read that as attack+attack+possible third attack. I see nothing about following etc.

Perchance you're letting emotion blind you to reason and facts?
 
2013-06-25 09:44:24 AM

nekom: 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.


but wouldn't the prosecution wanting to use this against the defendant fit the "be used against you" bill?
 
2013-06-25 09:45:46 AM

nekom: 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.


THIS!

It would be awesome if we could jail people for dickheadedness, which is decidedly Z's crime.

But this isn't a murder 2 case....at best, it's manslaughter, but I don't think that's on the table.  Zimmerman will walk.
 
2013-06-25 09:46:31 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.


I was under the impression that he did, and that is why he didn't get arrested or charged initially. He only got charged after some people tried for a while to bring media attention to this case.
 
2013-06-25 09:46:44 AM

kendelrio: he maliciously shot and killed a person who was on top of him beating him in a "ground and pound" fashion


...which is only supported by his own testimony, and is completely inconsistent with his own injuries or any other physical evidence.
 
2013-06-25 09:46:49 AM

ongbok: You forgot about yesterday when they tried to get Trayvon's parents barred from the courtroom because they claimed that Trayvon's father called one of Zimmerman's friends a mutherfarker in court 2 weeks ago


They are expected to testify.  Separation of witnesses is a pretty standard request to prevent them from tailoring their testimony to fit other testimony they've heard in court in an effort to strengthen their case.  Florida apparently has a next of kin exception to separation of witnesses rule allowing Martin's parents to stay in the courtroom, while Zimmerman's must sit in the hall because they are expected to testify in the case also.
 
2013-06-25 09:46:56 AM

IamAwake: 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.




How is following someone attacking them? If your walking down the street I have every right to ask you what your doing. You can choose to answer me, tell me to piss off, keep walking or god forbid call 911 It does not give you the right to punch me. Martin wasn'y scared that night. The gf statements prove this. He was pissed that he was followed. He confronted Zimmerman and ended up the loser. Could have just kept walking and would be alive today.
 
2013-06-25 09:47:09 AM
Hobodeluxe:
but wouldn't the prosecution wanting to use this against the defendant fit the "be used against you" bill?

It could be, honestly I don't have a clue whether admitting them would do anything to help the prosecution or the defense.  Maybe for character purposes, but it has nothing to do with the facts of the case itself.  We'd have to look at the court transcripts to know exactly what the deal was on that.
 
2013-06-25 09:47:12 AM

IamAwake: Me: There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions

nekom: Are you talking ethically or legally

"legally" in this sense should mean absolutely zero more or less than the codified ideals of ethics and justice.  If it varies, that should only be for mercy, when the actor is redeemable.


the jury needs to know that the intent of the self defense law was not to allow someone to be a vigilante. not to allow one to play cop. not to allow one to pursue someone on a hunch and confront them then kill them if they got the better of them.
 
2013-06-25 09:47:49 AM
If MY lawyer opened up my defense with that joke, it would not inspire confidence.
 
2013-06-25 09:47:53 AM

IamAwake: Me: There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions

nekom: Are you talking ethically or legally

"legally" in this sense should mean absolutely zero more or less than the codified ideals of ethics and justice.  If it varies, that should only be for mercy, when the actor is redeemable.


I don't know what kind of country you think you're living in.
 
2013-06-25 09:48:20 AM
got out of his car with a pistol and two flashlights to follow

Wait, I hadn't heard this before.  Why did Zimmerman have two flashlights?
 
2013-06-25 09:48:20 AM

kendelrio: I read that as attack+attack+possible third attack. I see nothing about following etc.

Perchance you're letting emotion blind you to reason and facts?


"keeping the attacker from attacking a third time " - the second attack is currently in progress.  He turns the tables and keeps the attacker from attacking a third time.  Intent would be - as already clarified - to keep a third attack from happening.  Your reading comprehension is fail.
 
2013-06-25 09:49:03 AM

redmid17: 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.


If Zimmerman felt his odds were better at trial instead of the pretrial hearing, then that is pretty interesting, no? His attorney fees would be cheaper, there's much less risk, and the burden needed to establish SYG is insanely low.

If Garcia could then why wouldn't Zimmerman do the same? That would be the smartest play.
 
2013-06-25 09:49:49 AM

Bontesla: 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.


He reserved the right to use the SYG defense after the case to save money in legal fees.  He opted out of the pre-trial hearing, but he still has that card up his sleeve.

And an all female Jury is likely to be another good card if he has to go to an appeals court.
 
2013-06-25 09:50:34 AM

nekom: 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.


The thing is, like the original investigator wrote in his report, Zimmerman had 3 different opportunities to ask him what he was doing there before he ran. He waited until the situation escalated to the point were Trayvon feared him and ran to confront him. He created a situtation that could have ended in a physical confrontation when he didn't have to.
 
2013-06-25 09:50:57 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: He was pissed that he was followed


If you assault someone, they will normally either fight or flee (same goes with verbal attack might illicit a verbal fight or flight).  That he stood his ground doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted.
 
2013-06-25 09:50:59 AM

mayIFark: 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?


Oh, about like so: Fast forward to about 5:20

Or, about like so: fast forward to about 2:25-ish

You'll note that there doesn't appear to be much blood on any of the fighters nor, presumably, much DNA on anyone--but I guarantee those fighters hit harder than Martin or Zimmerman.
 
2013-06-25 09:51:08 AM

Satanic_Hamster: got out of his car with a pistol and two flashlights to follow

Wait, I hadn't heard this before.  Why did Zimmerman have two flashlights?


to make them into nunchucks of course.
 
2013-06-25 09:51:19 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Martin wasn'y scared that night. The gf statements prove this. He was pissed that he was followed.


Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering
 
2013-06-25 09:51:39 AM

nekom: Hobodeluxe:
but wouldn't the prosecution wanting to use this against the defendant fit the "be used against you" bill?

It could be, honestly I don't have a clue whether admitting them would do anything to help the prosecution or the defense.  Maybe for character purposes, but it has nothing to do with the facts of the case itself.  We'd have to look at the court transcripts to know exactly what the deal was on that.


it goes to the state of mind of Zimmerman. which is what they have to prove. that he acted out of ill will towards Trayvon. It's why he was frustrated and said these assholes always get away and why he said when he was being questioned that he had made several calls already and they always got away.  He was pissed and wasn't going to let this one get away.
 
2013-06-25 09:52:36 AM
IamAwake: and is completely inconsistent with his own injuries or any other physical evidence.

Have you ever been in a fight? I don't mean the slap fights and chest bumping that happens between two kids who aren't serious. I mean a real fight. A take no prisoners win at all cost fight?

I have, and without going all ITG, I can tell you at the end of them my injuries were not hollywood. I've been slammed on the ground during a fight. When the back of my head slammed the ground, I saw stars and was dazed. Guess what, there were no massive bloody wounds. Only a goose egg that was sore as shiat. Oh yeah, my knuckles were swollen too but I never broke the skin. I've also had my nose broken. You know what? It looked just like GZ's.

So tell me, what injuries are inconsistent with his stories?
 
2013-06-25 09:53:40 AM

MithrandirBooga: 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.



Please read Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes.

I draw your attention to F.S. s. 776.012 and s. 776.041.

I patiently await your retraction and apology for misleading people about the provisions of Florida law.
 
2013-06-25 09:53:51 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?


You think there's no chance that a trim attacker who is 80% of the weight of a chubby victim isn't a threat to their life?
 
2013-06-25 09:54:08 AM

IamAwake: kendelrio: I read that as attack+attack+possible third attack. I see nothing about following etc.

Perchance you're letting emotion blind you to reason and facts?

"keeping the attacker from attacking a third time " - the second attack is currently in progress.  He turns the tables and keeps the attacker from attacking a third time.  Intent would be - as already clarified - to keep a third attack from happening.  Your reading comprehension is fail.


Maybe I am failing..... But who was attacked twice?
 
2013-06-25 09:54:42 AM

IamAwake: Mid_mo_mad_man: He was pissed that he was followed

If you assault someone, they will normally either fight or flee (same goes with verbal attack might illicit a verbal fight or flight).  That he stood his ground doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted.


Naw. You don't get to punch somebody because you don't like them following you.
 
2013-06-25 09:54:43 AM
I know that if I was followed home from the store at night when i was 17, by some strange guy? I'd have been scared too! Id have ran home aswell! and if id look back and seen some strange man chasing after me??! holy cow id have probaly crapped my pants! LOL I feel Trayvon had a right to attempt to fight Zimmerman! well thats my 2 cents anyway..
 
2013-06-25 09:55:07 AM

Hobodeluxe: the jury needs to know that the intent of the self defense law was not to allow someone to be a vigilante. not to allow one to play cop. not to allow one to pursue someone on a hunch and confront them then kill them if they got the better of them.



It would be better if the jury were informed of the actual law, instead of your made-up fantasy bullsh*t.
 
2013-06-25 09:55:40 AM

nekom: 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.


Ain't that the truth...
 
2013-06-25 09:55:56 AM

MFAWG: 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?


Not sure where you got your information from. He called the police 47 times since 2004. The vast majority were about neighbors leaving garage doors open, pot holes or vicious dogs. 16 calls were about suspicious people/vehicles. In 10 of those calls, either no race was given or it was a white male. In one of those cases it was a young black child playing unsupervised on a busy street whose safety he was looking out for. The other 5 were black males, three of which matched the description of a suspect from a previous incident. One was Trayvon Martin.
 
2013-06-25 09:56:17 AM

Hobodeluxe: IamAwake: Me: There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions

nekom: Are you talking ethically or legally

"legally" in this sense should mean absolutely zero more or less than the codified ideals of ethics and justice.  If it varies, that should only be for mercy, when the actor is redeemable.

the jury needs to know that the intent of the self defense law was not to allow someone to be a vigilante. not to allow one to play cop. not to allow one to pursue someone on a hunch and confront them then kill them if they got the better of them.


Assuming, for the moment, that Zimmerman is telling the complete truth.  Should what he did empower his assailant to kill him for his mistakes?  It seems as if people are arguing that Zimmerman relinquished his right to life by his actions leading up to the confrontation.  I'm not sure that's been thought through, because that's really no better than the current situation.
 
2013-06-25 09:56:24 AM
ongbok:
The thing is, like the original investigator wrote in his report, Zimmerman had 3 different opportunities to ask him what he was doing there before he ran. He waited until the situation escalated to the point were Trayvon feared him and ran to confront him. He created a situtation that could have ended in a physical confrontation when he didn't have to.

Yeah, he absolutely created the situation, I won't argue that.  I just don't see how he broke any laws in the process.  Now if your argument is that the law ought to be changed, I might agree, vigilantes don't do any more "good" than an angry mob with pitchforks and torches.  Especially since, in this case, Martin wasn't on his way to, from, or in the commission of any crime whatsoever, he was just minding his own business heading home.  It's sad.  There are no winners here.  Zimmerman is NO hero, that's for damn sure, and a young man was killed for no good reason.  But, the law is the law.  Maybe this will prompt a review of Florida's self defense statutes.
 
2013-06-25 09:57:30 AM

PoochUMD: The vast majority were about neighbors leaving garage doors open


Some people went apeshiat when Boulder police entered a home after the door was left open.  I wonder where Zimmerman falls on that?
 
2013-06-25 09:57:53 AM

ideamaster: And an all female Jury is likely to be another good card if he has to go to an appeals court.


Huh?
 
2013-06-25 09:57:57 AM

Hobodeluxe: IamAwake: Me: There's no possible way for Zimmerman to be justified in his actions

nekom: Are you talking ethically or legally

"legally" in this sense should mean absolutely zero more or less than the codified ideals of ethics and justice.  If it varies, that should only be for mercy, when the actor is redeemable.

the jury needs to know that the intent of the self defense law was not to allow someone to be a vigilante. not to allow one to play cop. not to allow one to pursue someone on a hunch and confront them then kill them if they got the better of them.


Actually that would be pretty good grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal. The intent of the law shouldn't matter to juries. What matters is how they were written and how they have been interpreted.  The sponsor of this specific bill, who doesn't seem to have thought the content of the bill through that much, agrees with you -- this law was never meant to allow instigators of the confrontation to walk free. However courts in Florida have routinely held that the intent does not matter and that the law allows them to walk, hence people like Greyston Garcia and others to walk free.
 
2013-06-25 10:00:12 AM

Phinn: MithrandirBooga: 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.

Please read Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes.

I draw your attention to F.S. s. 776.012 and s. 776.041.

I patiently await your retraction and apology for misleading people about the provisions of Florida law.


intent of the law matters not just letter of the law.
 
2013-06-25 10:00:37 AM
"That instead of going home. He had plenty of time. This is, what, 60 or 70 yards. Plenty of time. He could of gone back and forth four or five times."

Good one, CNN.
 
2013-06-25 10:00:44 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

You think there's no chance that a trim attacker who is 80% of the weight of a chubby victim isn't a threat to their life?


Yes, there is a chance. There are so many types of 17yo and so many chubby people. Was it in this case? GZ practiced some sort of martial art (forgot what its called), TM was not. Given everything that we know, I still think there was no need for GZ to pull that gun.
 
2013-06-25 10:02:50 AM

Hobodeluxe: nekom: Hobodeluxe:
but wouldn't the prosecution wanting to use this against the defendant fit the "be used against you" bill?

It could be, honestly I don't have a clue whether admitting them would do anything to help the prosecution or the defense.  Maybe for character purposes, but it has nothing to do with the facts of the case itself.  We'd have to look at the court transcripts to know exactly what the deal was on that.

it goes to the state of mind of Zimmerman. which is what they have to prove. that he acted out of ill will towards Trayvon. It's why he was frustrated and said these assholes always get away and why he said when he was being questioned that he had made several calls already and they always got away.  He was pissed and wasn't going to let this one get away.


After the 911 dispatcher spent two hours on the stand yesterday saying Zimmerman sounded anything but angry and it was a fairly typical 911 call?
 
2013-06-25 10:04:34 AM

mayIFark: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

You think there's no chance that a trim attacker who is 80% of the weight of a chubby victim isn't a threat to their life?

Yes, there is a chance. There are so many types of 17yo and so many chubby people. Was it in this case? GZ practiced some sort of martial art (forgot what its called), TM was not. Given everything that we know, I still think there was no need for GZ to pull that gun.


The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.
 
2013-06-25 10:05:34 AM
Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.
And this is not some pansy "butterfly wings", "if he had stayed in the car" type correlation. Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.
Thanks gun owners for making this world a more polite place.
 
2013-06-25 10:05:36 AM

Aigoo: hit harder than Martin or Zimmerman.


They're on a spongy platform that bounces around, throwing each other against foam-covered ropes.  They are calloused, and know how to take punches.  It's also a farking show - "it's real to me" doesn't make it real.

In the real world, if someone is slamming someone else's bald head against the ground, there will be blood.  Lots of it. Scalps bruise and bleed, especially when coming in rapid and forceful contact with the ground.

I actually think it's a good thing you've never seen a real fight - don't take that as an insult in any way.  But real fights - especially ones where a head is supposedly being bashed against something hard - rapidly involve lots of blood.
 
2013-06-25 10:05:49 AM

IamAwake: Mid_mo_mad_man: He was pissed that he was followed

If you assault someone, they will normally either fight or flee (same goes with verbal attack might illicit a verbal fight or flight).  That he stood his ground doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted.




If was a young still and someone was following me I would have high tailed it home. Then again it's not really a good idea to walk the streets at night.
 
2013-06-25 10:06:33 AM

redmid17: Hobodeluxe: nekom: Hobodeluxe:
but wouldn't the prosecution wanting to use this against the defendant fit the "be used against you" bill?

It could be, honestly I don't have a clue whether admitting them would do anything to help the prosecution or the defense.  Maybe for character purposes, but it has nothing to do with the facts of the case itself.  We'd have to look at the court transcripts to know exactly what the deal was on that.

it goes to the state of mind of Zimmerman. which is what they have to prove. that he acted out of ill will towards Trayvon. It's why he was frustrated and said these assholes always get away and why he said when he was being questioned that he had made several calls already and they always got away.  He was pissed and wasn't going to let this one get away.

After the 911 dispatcher spent two hours on the stand yesterday saying Zimmerman sounded anything but angry and it was a fairly typical 911 call?


And made it very clear he did not 'order Zimmerman not to get out of the car'. But let's not not worry about facts.
 
2013-06-25 10:07:00 AM

redmid17: Actually that would be pretty good grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal. The intent of the law shouldn't matter to juries. What matters is how they were written and how they have been interpreted. The sponsor of this specific bill, who doesn't seem to have thought the content of the bill through that much, agrees with you -- this law was never meant to allow instigators of the confrontation to walk free. However courts in Florida have routinely held that the intent does not matter and that the law allows them to walk, hence people like Greyston Garcia and others to walk free.



Florida law is not unusual.  You don't give up the right to be free from aggression just because you're a nosy busybody.  Even if you're an actual aggressor, you still have the right not to be killed, if you disengage from the confrontation and clearly withdraw your threat, or have no way out of the conflict.

The problem here is not Florida law.  The problem here is people who are so deranged with righteous fury over the whiff of RACISM that it drives them to distort their entire way of thinking.  They seriously begin to think that it was right for Martin to start swinging merely because GZ was bothering him by following him at such a distance he lost sight of him, but that once Martin started pounding away, GZ was somehow ethically or legally obligated to take it.

The problem is the indignation and rage people feel over GZ having the audacity to do what cops do, for usurping the role of these Magical Supermen of Government, who have the right to do what mere mortals are forbidden to do.

The law is clear.  The evidence is clear.  It's the insane rage of the LYNCH ZIMMERMAN NOW crowd that's the problem.
 
2013-06-25 10:08:52 AM

Phinn: The problem is the indignation and rage people feel over GZ having the audacity to do what cops do, for usurping the role of these Magical Supermen of Government, who have the right to do what mere mortals are forbidden to do.


wat
 
2013-06-25 10:08:54 AM

Aigoo: mayIFark: 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?

Oh, about like so: Fast forward to about 5:20

Or, about like so: fast forward to about 2:25-ish

You'll note that there doesn't appear to be much blood on any of the fighters nor, presumably, much DNA on anyone--but I guarantee those fighters hit harder than Martin or Zimmerman.


Much blood, there is some. There was no  Zimmerman blood on Trayvon. None of Zimmerman's skin under Trayvon's fingernails. A balled man whose skull was slammed into the ground.  Zimmerman who told cops he was repeatedly punched to give him a broken nose, and Trayvon had none of that blood on his persons.
 
2013-06-25 10:09:07 AM

Hobodeluxe: markfara: I watched the clips of this last night. The prosecutor was masterful. The defense came off as a clueless nincompoop.

yeah I couldn't even follow his narrative with all the maps and stuff. WTH was he trying to prove with all that? Establish his timeline? Because that was about as sloppy and unintelligible presentation I've seen.  Nothing was marked on his maps. He kept jumping back and forth in time and not presenting events as they happened in chronological order. And why did they (both sides) spend so long with the 7-11, it's location and what was bought there etc.? Jeez people cut to the chase. What he bought at the store and all that aren't important.


The prosecution was establishing that Trayvon's conduct around the time of the incident was wholly lawful and innocent. On a lazy day playing video games with his buddy, the boy went down to the corner gas station to buy some snacks for them. He was on his way home from that when Zimmerman attacked him. If Trayvon had been out burglarizing homes, that would be relevant. That he wasn't is equally relevant.

O'Mara's cross examination of the gas station attendant was subtle. I picked up on what he was doing, though I don't know if the jury did. His questions aimed to plant in the jury's mind that the gas station attendant thought Trayvon was a suspicious character too. He was trying to undermine the idea that Zimmerman picked out Trayvon because he was a young black male.

O'Mara is clearly the strongest presence in the courtroom. He "fills up the room" as trial lawyers say. Parts of his cross examinations were very effective--getting the dispatcher to say Zimmerman didn't sound angry, for example. Other parts came across to me as desperate attempts to undermine the obvious fact that Zimmerman was committed to confronting Trayvon no matter what.
 
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