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  
•       •       •

6581 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 01:52:22 PM  

redmid17: There are eyewitnesses who put Martin on top of Zimmerman right before the shot was fired, so the ability to flee at least should not be in question.


Did he try punching him off, pushing him off first?  He has to exhaust every other option first if he the jury sees him to be the aggressor.
 
2013-06-25 01:52:47 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ChaosStar: Ohhhhh, ok, I got you now.

Really, I just more curious to why someone would have two flashlights when going out to hunt and kill a person.

I could understand a single 4 cell maglight; could use that as a club.  But two lights?  Hell, I don't even carry ONE flashlight when I get out of the car to shoot someone.


I know you're trolling, but still this is a silly point to do it on.
When I drive the wife's SUV I have two lights. My Surefire on my belt and the little cheapy on her keyring.
 
2013-06-25 01:53:42 PM  

manimal2878: redmid17: There are eyewitnesses who put Martin on top of Zimmerman right before the shot was fired, so the ability to flee at least should not be in question.

Did he try punching him off, pushing him off first?  He has to exhaust every other option first if he the jury sees him to be the aggressor.



Do you have conclusive proof he didn't do these things?

You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.
 
2013-06-25 01:53:57 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.


You're clearly out of touch with the evidence in this case.
/by like a year
 
2013-06-25 01:54:13 PM  

manimal2878: redmid17: There are eyewitnesses who put Martin on top of Zimmerman right before the shot was fired, so the ability to flee at least should not be in question.

Did he try punching him off, pushing him off first?  He has to exhaust every other option first if he the jury sees him to be the aggressor.


Nope, I am sure that Zimmerman never even thought about beating Martin off.
 
2013-06-25 01:54:37 PM  

manimal2878: Did he try punching him off, pushing him off first?  He has to exhaust every other option first if he the jury sees him to be the aggressor.


Not if Trayvon got ahold of the gun. DNA of another male was on the gun. They could not determine origin.

Not saying he did or didn't, as only one person really knows.
 
2013-06-25 01:55:08 PM  

Phinn: does not make you an aggressor.


Sure it does.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:34 PM  
Treyvon was tired of being profiled. Tired of being thrown accross the hood or a cop car for walking down the street and when he saw George on the phone with the cops watching him he knew what it was. Another person who assumed he was guilty without ever meeting him. That's when he decided to get his revenge on all the people who judged him without ever knowing him. No more stop and frisk, no more guilty until proven innocent, tonight is a night for payback...
 
2013-06-25 01:59:00 PM  
Phinn:
You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

A LOT of people seem to keep forgetting that.  I understand why, it's very easy to let emotions take over.   "Man shoots, kills unarmed teenager" is enough to piss anyone off at its face.  But those of us who can look at this objectively know that he's going to walk.  UNLESS the prosecution can play on those similar emotions, that's about the only shot they have.  Many have posted the relevant statutes over and over again, it's all out there, yet some emotions are just hard to let go of I suppose.
 
2013-06-25 01:59:18 PM  

billwill: Treyvon was tired of being profiled. Tired of being thrown accross the hood or a cop car for walking down the street and when he saw George on the phone with the cops watching him he knew what it was. Another person who assumed he was guilty without ever meeting him. That's when he decided to get his revenge on all the people who judged him without ever knowing him. No more stop and frisk, no more guilty until proven innocent, tonight is a night for payback...


Go on....
 
2013-06-25 01:59:33 PM  

manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: manimal2878: Phinn:

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.


776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who...: 2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself .

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?

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;

There is hope, but it will depend on whether a jury believes that Z. had a reosanably fear he was about to be beaten to death or given a crippling beating, and if they think he tried everything he could before pulling his gun.

Following someone does not qualify as provocation.

Sure it could.


The law disagrees.  Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Satanic_Hamster: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because the spot where they met for their final confrontation required Treyvon to turn around and pursue GZ. He is the one who apparently had desire for the confrontation and set the tone of the event.

Or maybe it required him to just be walking around or standing still while talking on the phone with a girl?


Not according to the map when compared to the phone call.

manimal2878: redmid17: There are eyewitnesses who put Martin on top of Zimmerman right before the shot was fired, so the ability to flee at least should not be in question.

Did he try punching him off, pushing him off first?  He has to exhaust every other option first if he the jury sees him to be the aggressor.


Ever try punching someone while they're on top of you?  It doesn't work so well.
 
2013-06-25 01:59:43 PM  

Theburner: Kiriyama9000: Theburner: What I want to know is....  What caliber and what handgun is able to produce a single shot fatality? Shouldn't we be ensuring the police are then armed with the same combination?
Seems the only people the police are able to kill with a single shot are innocent bystanders.

He used a Kel-Tec 9mm handgun with Sellier & Bellot 115gr jacketed hollow-point rounds. He fired one shot that hit TM in the right ventricle of his heart. It'd be hard to miss if you're being straddled. At that distance, a tiny little .22 caliber handgun probably would have been just as fatal.

Say what you want about Zimmerman, but he was a cheapskate based on his gun and ammo choice. Follow this logic...
If you are going out looking for trouble, and know that if you get INTO trouble the cops will confiscate your gun as evidence, do you bring your $3500 Les Baer 1911 loaded with Corbon Pow'rball, or your $300 Kel-Tec loaded with Sellier & Bellot 115gr's.
All I know is my "bump in the night go to gun" isn't my $1400 S&W Performance Center 357, it is my $350 Taurus 357. Both go bang, but one doesn't hurt as much to lose.


and then some people that live in areas that are hit with crime and feel the need to carry a legally registered weapon do not have the available funds to purchase 1000 dollar+ firearms, they purchase 300 dollar weapons at the gun shop.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:25 PM  

Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.


I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because the spot where they met for their final confrontation required Treyvon to turn around and pursue GZ


That's another HUGE assumption, and very likely an incorrect one. It is only one of several likely possibilities that fit the known evidence. Hell, a timeline that involves Elvis and/or Grey Alien involvement could fit the known evidence, there is so little of it.

You, personally, have shown a need to look only at possibilities that justify the shooting from the very beginning though, so I guess I can't expect you to be rational enough to see that your own little in-your-head narrative isn't necessarily the way it happened.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:01 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.


Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:00 PM  
manimal2878

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.

This isn't your first Zimmerman/Martin rodeo. People have shown you the law. Why keep this up?
 
2013-06-25 02:03:33 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: manimal2878

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.

This isn't your first Zimmerman/Martin rodeo. People have shown you the law. Why keep this up?


What?
 
2013-06-25 02:07:25 PM  

CliChe Guevara: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because the spot where they met for their final confrontation required Treyvon to turn around and pursue GZ

That's another HUGE assumption, and very likely an incorrect one. It is only one of several likely possibilities that fit the known evidence. Hell, a timeline that involves Elvis and/or Grey Alien involvement could fit the known evidence, there is so little of it.

You, personally, have shown a need to look only at possibilities that justify the shooting from the very beginning though, so I guess I can't expect you to be rational enough to see that your own little in-your-head narrative isn't necessarily the way it happened.


Ok, say what you want, but even the versions of the map/phone call that favor TM show that this is certainly what had to happen.  The only thing in doubt is what happened after TM doubled back.

manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.


He's on trial because the president decided to weigh in on an event having nothing to do with him.  They had already decided charges would not be pressed in the immediate aftermath.  This trial is happening because Obama willed it.
 
2013-06-25 02:09:09 PM  

manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.


ummm..  What?  Isn't he prosecution gunning going for Murder 2 with this current trial?

/ they should have gone for manslaughter.
 
2013-06-25 02:09:18 PM  

ChaosStar: I know you're trolling, but still this is a silly point to do it on.
When I drive the wife's SUV I have two lights. My Surefire on my belt and the little cheapy on her keyring.


That's just weird.
 
2013-06-25 02:09:25 PM  

frepnog: Theburner:

Say what you want about Zimmerman, but he was a cheapskate based on his gun and ammo choice. Follow this logic...
If you are going out looking for trouble, and know that if you get INTO trouble the cops will confiscate your gun as evidence, do you bring your $3500 Les Baer 1911 loaded with Corbon Pow'rball, or your $300 Kel-Tec loaded with Sellier & Bellot 115gr's.
All I know is my "bump in the night go to gun" isn't my $1400 S&W Performance Center 357, it is my $350 Taurus 357. Both go bang, but one doesn't hurt as much to lose.

and then some people that live in areas that are hit with crime and feel the need to carry a legally registered weapon do not have the available funds to purchase 1000 dollar+ firearms, they purchase 300 dollar weapons at the gun shop.


Zimmerman had 4 guns, this was the cheapest. All now belong to the Sanford Police Department.. Let's see which ones he gets back when he walks. Bet it is only the Kel-Tec.
 
2013-06-25 02:10:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's on trial because the president decided to weigh in on an event having nothing to do with him. They had already decided charges would not be pressed in the immediate aftermath. This trial is happening because Obama willed it.


I guess I'm gladd that I had a good ccw instructor that predicted, "your act of self defense will become a political football and you will go to jail if you have to use your gun to defend your life."    It's why if I were Zimmerman I would have made the 911 call, stayed in my car, and gone on with my life.  Whether Zimmerman is a murderer or not a jury will decide, that he is a moron is plane as day.
 
2013-06-25 02:10:58 PM  
manimal2878

It's not an affirmative defence, in the usual sense. He only has to assert that he was defending himself against grievous bodily harm and/or death. It's up to the prosecution to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt. This has been explained over, and over, and over.

Excerpted from the Montijo case, which has been cited over and over: Montijo argues the trial court committed fundamental error in giving the instruction because it improperly shifted the burden to him to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosier was attempting to commit an aggravated battery on him.

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a "burden of proof" identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value-other than they might be true?

The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force.

When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:07 PM  

bedtundy: manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.

ummm..  What?  Isn't he prosecution gunning going for Murder 2 with this current trial?

/ they should have gone for manslaughter.


I was being sarcastic.  But I agree a manslaughter charge is more realistic than the murder charge.
 
2013-06-25 02:14:00 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.


Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.  He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  The prosecution has no case because all of the evidence, all of the facts, all of the witnesses show that it was self-defense.  Why are you so willfully ignorant?
 
2013-06-25 02:14:28 PM  

manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's on trial because the president decided to weigh in on an event having nothing to do with him. They had already decided charges would not be pressed in the immediate aftermath. This trial is happening because Obama willed it.

I guess I'm gladd that I had a good ccw instructor that predicted, "your act of self defense will become a political football and you will go to jail if you have to use your gun to defend your life."    It's why if I were Zimmerman I would have made the 911 call, stayed in my car, and gone on with my life.  Whether Zimmerman is a murderer or not a jury will decide, that he is a moron is plane as day.


He was literally feet from where the call ended.  I don't see the jury convicting him unless the defense is retarded.  All evidence points to TM returning after disappearing out of sight, which means that there is a reasonable doubt that GZ instigated a fight.  That's really all there is to it.
 
2013-06-25 02:15:21 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ChaosStar: I know you're trolling, but still this is a silly point to do it on.
When I drive the wife's SUV I have two lights. My Surefire on my belt and the little cheapy on her keyring.

That's just weird.


What can I say man? I like having phallic objects around. I know it's an issue and I probably need help but I just can't get over it!
 
2013-06-25 02:16:54 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.



See Montijo v. State.  I'm too tired of explaining the basics to ignorant bombasts like you to look up the book and page numbers.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:59 PM  

manimal2878: bedtundy: manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.

ummm..  What?  Isn't he prosecution gunning going for Murder 2 with this current trial?

/ they should have gone for manslaughter.

I was being sarcastic.  But I agree a manslaughter charge is more realistic than the murder charge.


If he were on trial for manslaughter it would make for more interesting discussions here.  Of course there would still be the few who would breathlessly maintain it was murder, but everyone else could have a reasonable conversation.
 
2013-06-25 02:18:02 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.


I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.
 
2013-06-25 02:18:48 PM  

DrBrownCow: The prosecuting attorney sounds a lot like Kevin Costner.


omg yes! good call..
 
2013-06-25 02:19:03 PM  

manimal2878: bedtundy: manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.

ummm..  What?  Isn't he prosecution gunning going for Murder 2 with this current trial?

/ they should have gone for manslaughter.

I was being sarcastic.  But I agree a manslaughter charge is more realistic than the murder charge.


It's not a realistic charge.

7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).

b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).

c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.  § 782.02,

They're getting him for murder, or nothing at all.
 
2013-06-25 02:20:56 PM  

frepnog: manimal2878: Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.  He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  The prosecution has no case because all of the evidence, all of the facts, all of the witnesses show that it was self-defense.  Why are you so willfully ignorant?


If there was no question he wouldn't be on trial no would he.
 
2013-06-25 02:22:05 PM  

ChaosStar: What can I say man? I like having phallic objects around. I know it's an issue and I probably need help but I just can't get over it!


Do you draw dicks and keep them in a lunchbox?
 
2013-06-25 02:22:31 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: They're getting him for murder, or nothing at all.



Self-defense is a complete defense to all homicides.  And the same presumptions and evidentiary burdens apply.  They went for murder because - why not?
 
2013-06-25 02:22:38 PM  
ongbok

Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

"That" being "who was looking for a confrontation"...seems to me they both might have been. Zimmerman didn't have to lift a finger about a black guy walking around his neighborhood, and Martin could have just gone home instead of (allegedly) confronting the brown guy who liked to narc.

I'm not on any side save "it's wrong to take someone's life away for defending themselves" side. Mistakes were made. But being really suspicious of Zimmerman isn't enough to throw away "innocent until proven guilty."
 
2013-06-25 02:23:25 PM  

manimal2878: bedtundy: manimal2878: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The law disagrees. Go ahead and attack someone for following you, you're the one going to jail, and you will the be the one the state prosecutes.

Yep, that is why Zimmerman is not on trial for murder right now.

ummm..  What?  Isn't he prosecution gunning going for Murder 2 with this current trial?

/ they should have gone for manslaughter.

I was being sarcastic.


Okay, then disregard.

But I agree a manslaughter charge is more realistic than the murder charge.

Yep.  I think the prosecution overplayed their hand, and if he walks (which he probably will, but you never know), double jeopardy will screw the State.  State should've gone for the manslaughter charge, would have been a slam dunk, and he would serve time for that.  Sorry, most likely a slam dunk, IMO.
 
2013-06-25 02:25:13 PM  

frepnog: manimal2878: Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.  He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  The prosecution has no case because all of the evidence, all of the facts, all of the witnesses show that it was self-defense.  Why are you so willfully ignorant?


You don't seem to understand how an affirmative defense works. The state can, and will, prove that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Hell, the defense will stipulate to that fact. At that point, Zimmerman damn sure has to prove he was acting in self defense. If you want to see how it works out for a defendant that doesn't prove he was acting in self-defense, Google Jerome Ersland.
 
2013-06-25 02:25:22 PM  

manimal2878: frepnog: manimal2878: Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.  He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  The prosecution has no case because all of the evidence, all of the facts, all of the witnesses show that it was self-defense.  Why are you so willfully ignorant?

If there was no question he wouldn't be on trial [now] would he.



Neither the prosecution nor the court is following the law.

In addition to having virtually zero comprehension of the rules of evidence and due process, do you also subscribe to the Statist Infallibility Principle?
 
2013-06-25 02:25:35 PM  
 

Phinn: See Montijo v. State.


No thanks.
 
2013-06-25 02:25:35 PM  

manimal2878: frepnog: manimal2878: Phinn: You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Zimmerman is the one making an affirmative defense, he has to at least prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.  He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  The prosecution has no case because all of the evidence, all of the facts, all of the witnesses show that it was self-defense.  Why are you so willfully ignorant?

If there was no question he wouldn't be on trial no would he.


There is only a question because a stupid DA is pushing a ridiculous charge because the media stirred up a frenzy based on "a white racist man gunned down a defenseless black child".

The cops the night of the incident did not charge Zimmerman because there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.
 
2013-06-25 02:26:26 PM  

ongbok: DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.


What question? Why was Zimmerman so far from his truck?
He wasn't that far, and it's already been said so many times it's not funny that he followed then lost Martin.
What else do you need answering?
 
2013-06-25 02:26:47 PM  

NightOwl2255: You don't seem to understand how an affirmative defense works. The state can, and will, prove that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Hell, the defense will stipulate to that fact. At that point, Zimmerman damn sure has to prove he was acting in self defense. If you want to see how it works out for a defendant that doesn't prove he was acting in self-defense, Google Jerome Ersland.



See Montijo v. State.  You are wrong.
 
2013-06-25 02:27:50 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Once a man has you on the ground and is beating you about the head, how would you stop his assault? Zimmerman didn't have pepper spray. He wasn't an athlete. He was, by all accounts, getting his ass handed to him. What would you have done to stop it?


If it were me...I'd fight back and fight hard. Doesn't mean I'd win the fight necessarily, but that would be my instinct. Fight as hard as I possibly can.
 
2013-06-25 02:28:00 PM  
NightOwl2255

At that point, Zimmerman damn sure has to prove he was acting in self defense.

Again: "When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense."

If you want to see how it works out for a defendant that doesn't prove he was acting in self-defense, Google Jerome Ersland.

Different states have different laws.
 
2013-06-25 02:28:31 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn: See Montijo v. State.

No thanks.



Enjoy your ignorance.
 
2013-06-25 02:30:54 PM  

frepnog: ChaosStar: What can I say man? I like having phallic objects around. I know it's an issue and I probably need help but I just can't get over it!

Do you draw dicks and keep them in a lunchbox?


Who the hell said you could look in my stuff??
 
2013-06-25 02:31:30 PM  

Phinn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They're getting him for murder, or nothing at all.

Self-defense is a complete defense to all homicides.  And the same presumptions and evidentiary burdens apply.  They went for murder because - why not?


Are any of the lead attorneys going for any political positions?  DA, State Senate, any political office really?

Sorry, don't know who the state has representing them all that well, the attorneys I mean.  Just seems odd to go for Murder rather than the easier manslaughter charge.
 
2013-06-25 02:34:12 PM  

Phinn: Neither the prosecution nor the court is following the law.


We should put the system on trial!!!

Phinn: In addition to having virtually zero comprehension of the rules of evidence and due process, do you also subscribe to the Statist Infallibility Principle?


Uh huh.  What's with your fetish for calling people statists.  Does it sound scarier than socialism in your mind?
 
2013-06-25 02:37:01 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn: Neither the prosecution nor the court is following the law.

We should put the system on trial!!!

Phinn: In addition to having virtually zero comprehension of the rules of evidence and due process, do you also subscribe to the Statist Infallibility Principle?

Uh huh.  What's with your fetish for calling people statists.  Does it sound scarier than socialism in your mind?



Read the Montijo case, then retract and apologize for all of the errors you've made about the law of self-defense trials, and then I'll be glad to discuss these things with you.
 
Displayed 50 of 933 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report