Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(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
    More: Dumbass, George Zimmerman, Skittles, opening statement, Mark O'Mara, Angela Corey, next of kin, Benjamin Crump, Dean Martin  
•       •       •

6621 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 8:15 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-06-25 08:10:11 AM  
DRINK!

Sometimes I wonder if his defense attorney is actively trying to sabotage his case.
 
2013-06-25 08:17:51 AM  
I'm not even interested in this trial but that was uh, something.
 
2013-06-25 08:18:03 AM  
Or, he could ask for the jury's fark handles, insisting, if they have not already read it on fark, it would have been funny.

/wait, even if it was funny, what was the point? What was he trying to accomplish by being funny?
 
2013-06-25 08:19:05 AM  
Well? What's his favorite flavor?
 
2013-06-25 08:20:28 AM  
Knock knock?
Who's There?
George Zimmerman?
George Zim-AHHH!!!! SCARY TEENAGER!!!!BLAMBLAMBLAM!!!!!!

Also, who's been smuggling Zim Zim deep fried ranch donuts into the jail? The guy's a farking blimp now.
 
2013-06-25 08:22:04 AM  

Green Scorpio: Well? What's his favorite flavor?


Favorite Skittles flavor?  I'm not sure.  But I'm guessing his favorite beer is

myneonhaven.com

 
2013-06-25 08:22:35 AM  

mayIFark: Or, he could ask for the jury's fark handles, insisting, if they have not already read it on fark, it would have been funny.

/wait, even if it was funny, what was the point? What was he trying to accomplish by being funny?



He's merely illustrating to the court that dead teenagers are funny, as long as they're not white.
 
2013-06-25 08:24:03 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-25 08:26:21 AM  
At this point, I have a feeling that both sides are just farking around. Trolling, for the lulz, if you will.
 
2013-06-25 08:26:38 AM  
"A prosecuting attorney greeted the jury in the George Zimmerman trial Monday with a quote full of expletives, while his adversary decided it was appropriate to tell jurors a knock-knock joke."

/as if this trial wasn't a joke already
//if the joke something, something, you must acquit?
 
2013-06-25 08:26:57 AM  

stoli n coke: mayIFark: Or, he could ask for the jury's fark handles, insisting, if they have not already read it on fark, it would have been funny.

/wait, even if it was funny, what was the point? What was he trying to accomplish by being funny?


He's merely illustrating to the court that dead teenagers are funny, as long as they're not white.


Not true. Dead white teenagers can be funny
MST3k - 514 - Teenage Strangler
 
2013-06-25 08:27:42 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.


The 'joke' was that if you haven't heard of Zimmerman, you could be on the jury. Wasn't this a Fark headline a while ago?
 
2013-06-25 08:28:01 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.


counterpoint:  it could be he was trying to say he felt they would be an impartial jury, having not heard of any news of the case.

/either way, he failed miserably.
 
2013-06-25 08:28:50 AM  
Is the trial on TV, or better yet, web streamed?
 
2013-06-25 08:29:30 AM  
Well, after the prosecutor threw the F-bomb at the jury in his opening statement, the defense could have make a Chewbacca referense and still made a more favorable impression.

/the "this is what those guys really think" argument doesn't really work that well, even on the internet
//it's actually pretty funny that the prosecutor tried it though... especially later when we watch him argue after that that Trayvon's internet history should be kept out of the trial
 
2013-06-25 08:30:14 AM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: 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.

counterpoint:  it could be he was trying to say he felt they would be an impartial jury, having not heard of any news of the case.

/either way, he failed miserably.


Yeah, whatever his motivation, I don't think that was a good lawyerin' move at all.
 
2013-06-25 08:30:26 AM  

Zelron: I'm not sure what his point was, but I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be disparaging.


The same joke 2 decades ago:
Knock knock?
Who's There?
O.J. Simpson
O.J. Simpson who?
You're on the jury
 
2013-06-25 08:30:38 AM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Green Scorpio: Well? What's his favorite flavor?

Favorite Skittles flavor?  I'm not sure.  But I'm guessing his favorite beer is


[www.myneonhaven.com image 500x375]


forum.maplewoodonline.com

 
2013-06-25 08:31:29 AM  
Orange you glad I didn't say Zimmerman?
 
2013-06-25 08:31:50 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.


Well hell yeah, that's another opportunity to beg dullards for money.
 
2013-06-25 08:31:54 AM  

Carth: Is the trial on TV, or better yet, web streamed?


Yeah, but I don't know if you want to watch it from this site
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/19/watch-live-coverage-george-zimm er man-trial
 
2013-06-25 08:32:44 AM  

Green Scorpio: Carth: Is the trial on TV, or better yet, web streamed?

Yeah, but I don't know if you want to watch it from this site
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/19/watch-live-coverage-george-zimm er man-trial


Thank you. I have ad block they get nothing from me.
 
2013-06-25 08:35:00 AM  

No Time To Explain: "A prosecuting attorney greeted the jury in the George Zimmerman trial Monday with a quote full of expletives, while his adversary decided it was appropriate to tell jurors a knock-knock joke."

/as if this trial wasn't a joke already
//if the joke something, something, you must acquit?


To be fair, the prosecutor was reading the transcript of what George Zimmerman was saying to the 911 operator as he was hunting down the kid.
 
2013-06-25 08:35:08 AM  
I think what he was trying to say is, this case got more attention than it deserved, and that can sway the outcome. The problem with that logic is, he is basically insulting the jury's judgement to get in their favor.

/anyway, I can't tell what he was trying to do. What I can tell is that he screwed up.
 
2013-06-25 08:35:42 AM  
Whee, the mods are laying on the Tatterdemalian filters thick today!

/I don't even know what "referense" is reefering to
//it's nice to know I'm just that special to you all
 
2013-06-25 08:40:25 AM  

limeyfellow: No Time To Explain: "A prosecuting attorney greeted the jury in the George Zimmerman trial Monday with a quote full of expletives, while his adversary decided it was appropriate to tell jurors a knock-knock joke."

/as if this trial wasn't a joke already
//if the joke something, something, you must acquit?

To be fair, the prosecutor was reading the transcript of what George Zimmerman was saying to the 911 operator as he was hunting down the kid.




Hunting Martin? So you admit that Martin was a wild beast
 
2013-06-25 08:42:07 AM  
I watched the clips of this last night. The prosecutor was masterful. The defense came off as a clueless nincompoop.
 
2013-06-25 08:45:23 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Well, after the prosecutor threw the F-bomb at the jury in his opening statement, the defense could have make a Chewbacca referense and still made a more favorable impression.


He didn't "throw the F-bomb", he quoted the 911 call to show the mindset of Zimmerman a few minutes before the shooting.  Your hero is the one that did the cussing, the prosecutor quoted evidence.
 
2013-06-25 08:45:56 AM  

Green Scorpio: Carth: Is the trial on TV, or better yet, web streamed?

Yeah, but I don't know if you want to watch it from this site
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/19/watch-live-coverage-george-zimm er man-trial


For the Lifetime mini series, John Goodman is a lock to play the judge.

farm8.staticflickr.com

truthdig.com

 
2013-06-25 08:47:10 AM  

No Time To Explain: "A prosecuting attorney greeted the jury in the George Zimmerman trial Monday with a quote full of expletives, while his adversary decided it was appropriate to tell jurors a knock-knock joke."

/as if this trial wasn't a joke already
//if the joke something, something, you must acquit?


So the prosecutor used expletives, but did it while quoting Zimmerman and strengthening his case. The prosecutor used the expletives to drive home his case that Zimmerman actively wanted to kill Martin. The defense attorney started off with a joke that insulted the jury and the jury's intelligence. I wonder which attorney made the better opening statement.
 
2013-06-25 08:48:07 AM  

JuggleGeek: Tatterdemalian: Well, after the prosecutor threw the F-bomb at the jury in his opening statement, the defense could have make a Chewbacca referense and still made a more favorable impression.

He didn't "throw the F-bomb", he quoted the 911 call to show the mindset of Zimmerman a few minutes before the shooting.  Your hero is the one that did the cussing, the prosecutor quoted evidence.


The prosecutor said the F-word in court, though, and that's offensive so Zimmerman should be acquitted.
 
2013-06-25 08:49:09 AM  
Take my skittles, please.
 
2013-06-25 08:49:55 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Well, after the prosecutor threw the F-bomb at the jury in his opening statement, the defense could have make a Chewbacca referense and still made a more favorable impression.

/the "this is what those guys really think" argument doesn't really work that well, even on the internet
//it's actually pretty funny that the prosecutor tried it though... especially later when we watch him argue after that that Trayvon's internet history should be kept out of the trial


Actually, since the f-bombs were in a direct Zimmerman quote from the 911 tapes that illustrate that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, I think the prosecutor can get away with it. The defense attorney, on the other hand, had no excuse for the bad knock-knock joke that insulted the jury.
 
2013-06-25 08:50:32 AM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Green Scorpio: Well? What's his favorite flavor?

Favorite Skittles flavor?  I'm not sure.  But I'm guessing his favorite beer is

[www.myneonhaven.com image 500x375]


He's black, not werewolf.
 
2013-06-25 08:51:07 AM  

stoli n coke: Knock knock?
Who's There?
George Zimmerman?
George Zim-AHHH!!!! SCARY TEENAGER!!!!BLAMBLAMBLAM!!!!!!

Also, who's been smuggling Zim Zim deep fried ranch donuts into the jail? The guy's a farking blimp now.


he's not been in jail. He's been living high on the hog in a 5 star hotel off of the racists' money donated to his website.
 
2013-06-25 08:51:51 AM  

markfara: JuggleGeek: Tatterdemalian: Well, after the prosecutor threw the F-bomb at the jury in his opening statement, the defense could have make a Chewbacca referense and still made a more favorable impression.

He didn't "throw the F-bomb", he quoted the 911 call to show the mindset of Zimmerman a few minutes before the shooting.  Your hero is the one that did the cussing, the prosecutor quoted evidence.

The prosecutor said the F-word in court, though, and that's offensive so Zimmerman should be acquitted.



I think a lot of people don't realize that actual trials aren't PG rated, especially murder trials. This isn't Law and Order. Attorneys read 9-1-1 transcripts without deleting any expletives, they'll show graphic and bloody crime scene photos, basically anything at their disposal that helps their case.

They care about the jury's analysis of the evidence, not their moral feelings or the moral feelings of all the pearl clutchers watching on Court TV.
 
2013-06-25 08:52:06 AM  
Knock knock.
Who's there?
Trayvon Martin.
I don't think so.
 
2013-06-25 08:52:31 AM  
i735.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-25 08:54:17 AM  

Carth: Is the trial on TV, or better yet, web streamed?


Pretty sure Comedy Central has exclusive broadcast rights...

\Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury, I think the moral of the story is, don't bring Skittles to a gun fight! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Don't forget to tip your bailiff...
 
2013-06-25 08:56:06 AM  
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.'
 
2013-06-25 08:56:42 AM  
over a year to prep.  and that is the best opening statement he could come up with?

lube up, zimmerman...itll only make things easier
 
2013-06-25 08:56:42 AM  
Sour Skittles are the best. I'd kill for a pack.
 
2013-06-25 08:56:57 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-25 08:58:18 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-25 08:58:27 AM  

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


Great, so the defense is ripping off Fark, who ripped off an old OJ Simpson joke.
 
2013-06-25 08:59:24 AM  

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?
 
2013-06-25 08:59:42 AM  

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?
 
2013-06-25 08:59:52 AM  

greentea1985: No Time To Explain: "A prosecuting attorney greeted the jury in the George Zimmerman trial Monday with a quote full of expletives, while his adversary decided it was appropriate to tell jurors a knock-knock joke."

/as if this trial wasn't a joke already
//if the joke something, something, you must acquit?

So the prosecutor used expletives, but did it while quoting Zimmerman and strengthening his case. The prosecutor used the expletives to drive home his case that Zimmerman actively wanted to kill Martin. The defense attorney started off with a joke that insulted the jury and the jury's intelligence. I wonder which attorney made the better opening statement.


The prosecutor's opening arguments were more or less an emotional plea. The idiotic knock-knock joke aside, the defense had a pretty solid open argument with lots of pertinent information supporting Zimmerman's version of events and it was presented in an efficient, easy to digest manner. Open arguments aside, the prosecution bungled the fark out of the 911 dispatcher's testimony. They did not have a good day.
 
2013-06-25 09:01:02 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-25 09:01:55 AM  
Slammin' Strawberry?
 
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  
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.
 
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.
 
2013-06-25 10:10:29 AM  

Ricardo Klement: seems as if people are arguing that Zimmerman relinquished his right to life by his actions leading up to the confrontation


no one is saying that at all, and there is no indication that Trayvon was threatening Zimmerman's life.  If they were actually to the fisticuffs - which Zimm started - at that point most would say he needs to just accept a little beating.  While getting a little beat up sucks, it really doesn't mean the end of someone's life.  You're suggesting the only reasonable end to the situation was death of the victim; most would think that a reasonable end would be Zimmerman getting punched a couple times, being a little dazed, standing up, and either not knowing where Trayvon went or - in knowing, knowing that maybe he shouldn't attack a third time.
 
2013-06-25 10:10:49 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Then again it's not really a good idea to walk the streets at night


I know I wouldn't be walking the streets at 7pm, that's some scary shiat.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:18 AM  

Phinn: 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.




Amen brother testify. What confuses me is the idea that following someone gives the followed person s reason to punch someone.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:44 AM  

PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.


supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.
 
2013-06-25 10:12:56 AM  

hinten: 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.


Zimmerman shouldn't have even been allowed to have a gun, If not for his daddy the judge and his mom the court clerk and the family being all buddy-buddy with the legal system he would have an felony assaulting an officer charge and had his gun carrying privileges denied.

but the jury won't be able to hear that.
 
2013-06-25 10:12:57 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.


How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied?  Do you think the law differs for those who have their orange belt at Fred Villari's?
 
2013-06-25 10:12:58 AM  

Ricardo Klement: 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 find it interesting that we are determining whether the suspects actions relinquished his right to life when the victim is dead...

What about Martin's actions?
 
2013-06-25 10:13:36 AM  

hinten: 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.


If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.
 
2013-06-25 10:14:13 AM  

optimistic_cynic: I know I wouldn't be walking the streets at 7pm, that's some scary shiat.


In a gated community.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied?


Hey, Martin, people with guns are going to follow you at night. Just accept it.
 
2013-06-25 10:14:43 AM  

Hobodeluxe: intent of the law matters not just letter of the law.



In criminal cases, the court is obligated to apply the actual law.

As a Constitutional matter, criminal rules cannot be written in a way that is vague -- they cannot be enforced if they do not specify the particular conduct that is punishable.

You keep retreating from the hard realities into issues like "intent of the law," because you are so emotionally invested in your opinion that GZ deserves punishment, that you are willing to ignore every legal principle, or won't even bother to understand them.  As long as GZ gets his comeuppance, anything is fine with you.

You're engaging in denial, along with a host of other psychological defense mechanisms.
 
2013-06-25 10:14:50 AM  
Phinn:
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.


Florida law is not unique, no but not all states work this way.  In Texas, apparently you can kill a prostitute who refuses to put up or pay back.  Other states have various statues including duty to retreat, here in PA I believe there is a specific statute for those carrying a concealed weapon with a permit.  It does vary a lot from state to state.

Also, don't be so fast to accuse racism.  An unarmed 17 year old was killed.  That SUCKS.  It really sucks.  I can understand the outrage, regardless of race, because that's just a godawful terrible thing to happen.  But the law is the law.  Floridians don't like it, best lobby to change it because it says what it says.  I would be making the EXACT same case if the races were reversed or they were both of the same race, that doesn't interest me other than it MAY (or may not) have been a factor in Zimmerman's decision to follow him in the first place, but that's not relevant to the confrontation.
 
2013-06-25 10:15:45 AM  

optimistic_cynic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Then again it's not really a good idea to walk the streets at night

I know I wouldn't be walking the streets at 7pm, that's some scary shiat.




7pm mid winter is well after dark.
 
2013-06-25 10:16:03 AM  

IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.


Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?
 
2013-06-25 10:17:31 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.

How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied?  Do you think the law differs for those who have their orange belt at Fred Villari's?


How many punches in your expert opinion justifies deadly force? or does a mean glare qualify?
 
2013-06-25 10:18:48 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: optimistic_cynic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Then again it's not really a good idea to walk the streets at night

I know I wouldn't be walking the streets at 7pm, that's some scary shiat.

7pm mid winter is well after dark.


The sunset at 6:38pm in Florida that day, 30 mins after sunset isn't "dark".
 
2013-06-25 10:19:03 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: 7pm mid winter is well after dark.


Sure, everywhere north of the mason dixon line.

It was Florida, Beavis. Sunset was 6:24 the night Martin was shot. That is not well after dark.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:24 AM  

optimistic_cynic: Mid_mo_mad_man: optimistic_cynic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Then again it's not really a good idea to walk the streets at night

I know I wouldn't be walking the streets at 7pm, that's some scary shiat.

7pm mid winter is well after dark.

The sunset at 6:38pm in Florida that day, 30 mins after sunset isn't "dark".


Sorry 6:28pm.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:55 AM  

Phinn: Hobodeluxe: intent of the law matters not just letter of the law.

In criminal cases, the court is obligated to apply the actual law.

As a Constitutional matter, criminal rules cannot be written in a way that is vague -- they cannot be enforced if they do not specify the particular conduct that is punishable.

You keep retreating from the hard realities into issues like "intent of the law," because you are so emotionally invested in your opinion that GZ deserves punishment, that you are willing to ignore every legal principle, or won't even bother to understand them.  As long as GZ gets his comeuppance, anything is fine with you.

You're engaging in denial, along with a host of other psychological defense mechanisms.


no I'm just saying you can't go up to someone, pick a fight with them, get punched and justifiably kill them. that is not what the law is for.
 
2013-06-25 10:20:28 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Since Zimmerman started the confrontation


IamAwake: He wasn't supposed to be hunting someone down, attacking them


Bontesla: Zimmerman's injuries don't prove that Martin caused them.


i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-25 10:20:45 AM  

stoli n coke: The fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA showed up on Martin's hands


...has nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman's reasoning for fearing for his life, was Trayvon's alleged attempt to get his gun from him.
 
2013-06-25 10:20:50 AM  

PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.


The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.
 
2013-06-25 10:21:12 AM  

Bontesla: 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.


Apropos of what?
 
2013-06-25 10:21:24 AM  

Hobodeluxe: but the jury won't be able to hear that.


I don't know about Florida's rules, but under federal rules, if the defendant in a murder case brings in prior bad acts of the victim in a self-defense claim, then the prosecution can bring in prior bad acts of the defendant. State rules usually follow the federal rules, but not always.
 
2013-06-25 10:22:15 AM  
I'd love to see the pictures of the fark prosecution brigade's beards. Lord knows they haven't touched a razor in months.
 
2013-06-25 10:22:59 AM  

PoochUMD: hinten: 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.

If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.


I won't say that I don't believe this because that just, you know, my opinion. But please make up your own mind after looking at the evidence.

Zimmerman's hands. No defensive wounds.
img.fark.net

The back of his jacket after he rolled around on wet grass and concrete with someone sitting on top of him.
img.fark.net

His pants after fighting on wet grass and concrete.
img.fark.net

Also, again, leaving the legal question aside and assuming Martin did attack him as Z described (which is unlikely considering above evidence), who is to say that pounding someone is NOT the right reaction when the other person threatens you with a weapon?
The weapon was what escalated this situation to someone's death and, as such, makes it, quite literally, the cause of an unnecessary death.
 
2013-06-25 10:23:07 AM  

Garaba: PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.


Facts are hard. Might as well make shiat up.
 
2013-06-25 10:23:12 AM  

markfara: 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.


Keep farking that chicken, rapist.
 
2013-06-25 10:24:05 AM  

Hobodeluxe: no I'm just saying you can't go up to someone, pick a fight with them


You are free to assume that for the sake of argument.

The problem is, there's no evidence to support it.
 
2013-06-25 10:24:10 AM  

hinten: 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.


I contend that you're wrong based on this plausible scenario:
Martin is on top of Zimmerman, striking him in some way to make his head contact the concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and went for it, but without the gun being present Martin doesn't cease his attack and continues to cause Zimmerman's head to strike the concrete. Zimmerman becomes more and more disoriented, eventually slipping into unconsciousness, and then passing away due to traumatic brain injury.
 
2013-06-25 10:24:22 AM  

kendelrio: 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.......


Maybe if they chased down known rapists, got naked and laid down. Women who walk outside dressed like that aren't looking to be raped. GZ WAS looking for TM for some reason.
 
2013-06-25 10:25:40 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: MithrandirBooga: Since Zimmerman started the confrontation

IamAwake: He wasn't supposed to be hunting someone down, attacking them

Bontesla: Zimmerman's injuries don't prove that Martin caused them.

[i40.tinypic.com image 400x225]


Really

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214336/-DNA-Report-does-NO T- support-Zimmerman-s-claim-that-Trayvon-Martin-caused-his-injuries
 
2013-06-25 10:25:42 AM  
 
2013-06-25 10:25:50 AM  

PoochUMD: IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?


Let's be clear about what you mean by "cuts:" minor lacerations that didn't even require stitches, and unaccompanied by a concussion--or even by bruising. Certainly not the kind of injuries you would expect from someone having his head "bashed" so hard he was afraid for his life. Zimmerman's injuries were medically trivial. They do not support the violence of his action movie yarn.

Zimmerman exaggerated what happened. HIs exaggeration shows consciousness of wrongdoing, which in turn adds strength to the inference of his guilt.
 
2013-06-25 10:26:32 AM  

Garaba: The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all.


But witness statements do.... "a witness named John Good who described the fight. "He called it a 'ground and pound' by Martin, who he said was on top of Zimmerman, beating him."


Source

 
2013-06-25 10:26:42 AM  

QueenMamaBee: GZ WAS looking for TM for some reason*


*To observe and report.
 
2013-06-25 10:27:23 AM  

Garaba: PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.


Seriously? There were eye witnesses who saw Martin straddling Zimmerman and beating the crap out of him. There are witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman the moment of the shot. Are you trying to argue that Zimmerman wasn't on the ground and that Martin was? That's a huge leap that requires you to ignore a bunch of stuff.

Zimmerman was seen pinned down while Martin beat him like a "UFC fighter" what kind of defensive wounds would you expect when you are pinned down?

The police failed to take evidence from Martins hands and didn't even photograph them. Even if Zimmermans account was 100% accurate and Martin had bloody hands moments before being shot, there wouldn't be evidence of it now.
 
2013-06-25 10:27:39 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.


Zimmerman may have started the confrontation, but my guess (just a guess) is that Martin was the one who was the first one to use force of any kind. So even if Zimmerman was the one who initiated the verbal exchange, when (if) Martin escalated it to physical force, as soon as Zimmerman believed he was in danger of "great bodily harm" (as the use of deadly force laws put it here in NC), Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

My (complete) guess at the scenario is:
- Zimmerman approaches Martin in a public space
- Zimmerman asks Martin what he's doing there
- Martin and Zimmerman argue
- Martin attacks Zimmerman
- Zimmerman's on the sidewalk with Martin on top of him beating him, as seen by witness John Good
- Zimmerman asks John Good for help
- Good leaves (to call 911, but Zimmerman doesn't know that)
- Zimmerman feels he's out of options defending himself
- While Good is calling 911, Zimmerman shoots Martin

If this is the scenario (and while it's a guess, I feel it's not too far from what happened), Zimmerman shouldn't even be on trial. John Good's testimony is going to be the key to this case. My guess is the Sanford PD had Good's statement that he saw Martin beating Zimmerman, Zimmerman asked for help, and then he heard the gun shot. The SPD then decided it was self defense and charges were filed only after all the media attention was brought on the case.

Anyway, we'll find out as the trial goes on.
 
2013-06-25 10:27:51 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: MithrandirBooga: Since Zimmerman started the confrontation

IamAwake: He wasn't supposed to be hunting someone down, attacking them

Bontesla: Zimmerman's injuries don't prove that Martin caused them.

[i40.tinypic.com image 400x225]


wwwimage.cbsnews.com
She said she was beat by a black man too.
and her ass wasn't on the line for her to do this
are you saying it's impossible for Zimmerman to have caused his own injuries to save his own ass?
or that it's impossible or even improbable for him to lie to save his life?
Also be aware that Zimmerman had taken criminal justice classes and specifically self defense law in his prep to be a cop
he knew what he would need to justify his actions.
 
2013-06-25 10:27:56 AM  

Garaba: PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.


You mean except Zimmerman's blood on Martin's shirt near the hem as was told to the jury yesterday by the defensive attorney with no objection from the prosecution?
 
2013-06-25 10:28:13 AM  

MFAWG: 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?


If you lived in Philadelphia, and witnessed every murder -- 42 of every 50 of your calls to the police would be reporting a black assailant.
http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/PPD.Homicide.Analysis.2012.pdf

Sometimes reality has a racist bias.

\Also, the police would probably be curious why you were present at every murder.
 
2013-06-25 10:28:23 AM  

Hobodeluxe: no I'm just saying you can't go up to someone, pick a fight with them, get punched and justifiably kill them. that is not what the law is for.



Try reading the actual law sometime.

You have the right to use lethal force if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  Getting "punched" can certainly qualify, depending on the circumstances.

More importantly, the State is required to prove that the homicide was not self-defense, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  You can't understand the legal principle unless you know the facts.  But in practice, the facts are derived from evidence, which is usually ambiguous.

"Picking a fight" is not a meaningful legal term.  Your entire line of thinking hinges on this one concept, but it can mean so many things that it's not legally irrelevant.

Here's the full legal standard in a nutshell -- In a self-defense case, the State cannot convict someone of the unlawful use of lethal force unless they can present evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such force was not necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Can you prove that here?
 
2013-06-25 10:29:28 AM  

PoochUMD: Are you trying to argue that Zimmerman wasn't on the ground and that Martin was?


Was the bullet in Martin? If not, it would have had to be in the ground for Martin to have been under Zimmerman.

So from where was the bullet recovered(if it was, at all)?
 
2013-06-25 10:31:36 AM  

hinten: Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.


If somebody is repeatedly trying to punch me, then I am going to fear for my life.   I'm not going to trust the already questionable decision making skills of the person beating me to stop before I'm critically or fatally wounded.    Any hit could be the fatal blow.  Otherwise healthy people have been punched *once* and died as a result, either due to the blow itself, or the resulting contact with a hard surface.    While very few brawls might lead to someone dying, we're not talking about winning or losing a scratch-off lotto ticket.  If you lose, you aren't just out a dollar, you are dead.
 
2013-06-25 10:32:54 AM  

s2s2s2: PoochUMD: Are you trying to argue that Zimmerman wasn't on the ground and that Martin was?

Was the bullet in Martin? If not, it would have had to be in the ground for Martin to have been under Zimmerman.

So from where was the bullet recovered(if it was, at all)?


No exit wound I don't believe, so it would have to still be in the body.
 
2013-06-25 10:33:04 AM  

PoochUMD: IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?


a quarter inch cut on the back of the head is not what a bald guy would have after being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk in a manner that he would reasonably think threatens his life.  A tiny quarter inch cut could have come from falling over and hitting the dirt, who knows - I've seen plenty of people sustain more damage doing exactly that (falling and landing on dirt).  What we can be certain about is that in the real world, if his head was really being bashed against the concrete then it would have had serious damage.  On the back.  Blood, bruising, torn up skin, etc.

Not in MMA, WWE, or whatever other stage thing, perhaps - but in the real world, in a real fight with real humans and real concrete, that's how that really works.
 
2013-06-25 10:33:56 AM  

ChaosStar: hinten: 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.

I contend that you're wrong based on this plausible scenario:
Martin is on top of Zimmerman, striking him in some way to make his head contact the concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and went for it, but without the gun being present Martin doesn't cease his attack and continues to cause Zimmerman's head to strike the concrete. Zimmerman becomes more and more disoriented, eventually slipping into unconsciousness, and then passing away due to traumatic brain injury.


Why would Martin bash Zimmerman's head on the ground if Martin wasn't afraid for his life if Zimmerman didn't flash his weapon?

And the evidence still doesn't show conclusively that Martin was doing any such thing.
 
2013-06-25 10:34:23 AM  

Hobodeluxe: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.

How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied?  Do you think the law differs for those who have their orange belt at Fred Villari's?

How many punches in your expert opinion justifies deadly force? or does a mean glare qualify?


I only know the law in CT, and we're probably more strict here. A single punch from someone on top of you is enough.

(One such / Another) circumstance is that a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating. This disqualification requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met: 1) a completely safe retreat is in fact available to (him/her); and 2) (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat. The law stresses that self-defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive and not punitive.

The term "complete safety," as used in this statute, means without any injury to the defendant whatsoever. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to a circumstance described in a statute when (he/she) is aware that such circumstance exists. Link
The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
2013-06-25 10:34:41 AM  

Bontesla: 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.


Because judges are more susceptible to political pressure than juries are?
 
2013-06-25 10:35:59 AM  

DrBrownCow: While very few brawls might lead to someone dying, we're not talking about winning or losing a scratch-off lotto ticket


so it should be the attacker who gets to win in your line of thinking, not the victim.
 
2013-06-25 10:36:03 AM  

IamAwake: PoochUMD: IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?

a quarter inch cut on the back of the head is not what a bald guy would have after being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk in a manner that he would reasonably think threatens his life.  A tiny quarter inch cut could have come from falling over and hitting the dirt, who knows - I've seen plenty of people sustain more damage doing exactly that (falling and landing on dirt).  What we can be certain about is that in the real world, if his head was really being bashed against the concrete then it would have had serious damage.  On the back.  Blood, bruising, torn up skin, etc.

Not in MMA, WWE, or whatever other stage thing, perhaps - but in the real world, in a real fight with real humans and real concrete, that's how that really works.


You haven't been in many fights have you?
 
2013-06-25 10:36:28 AM  

hinten: Why would Martin bash Zimmerman's head on the ground if Martin wasn't afraid for his life if Zimmerman didn't flash his weapon?

And the evidence still doesn't show conclusively that Martin was doing any such thing.



It doesn't have to.  The burden is on the prosecution to conclusively prove that GZ did not reasonably believe Martin posed a threat.

Probably, maybe or inconclusive = not guilty.
 
2013-06-25 10:37:33 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.


you mean like confronting Trayvon, then chasing him down after the police told him not to?  Ok, looks like that's not a problem then.
 
2013-06-25 10:38:01 AM  

DrBrownCow: hinten: Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.

If somebody is repeatedly trying to punch me, then I am going to fear for my life.   I'm not going to trust the already questionable decision making skills of the person beating me to stop before I'm critically or fatally wounded.    Any hit could be the fatal blow.  Otherwise healthy people have been punched *once* and died as a result, either due to the blow itself, or the resulting contact with a hard surface.    While very few brawls might lead to someone dying, we're not talking about winning or losing a scratch-off lotto ticket.  If you lose, you aren't just out a dollar, you are dead.


That happened here some years ago at a store.  An otherwise healthy 35ish man got sucker punched in a parking lot, went down JUST the wrong way on a concrete barrier and it killed him.  Yes, it can happen.  I would like to think, however, were I ever in that situation I'd try my best to diffuse it with the threat of gunfire before I pulled the trigger.  I do NOT want to have to kill someone, even if I had to I would be devastated.  Of course, as you say when you're on your back against the road, one punch in just the wrong spot CAN take you out.

Well, hopefully I'll never have to be in that situation and find out.
 
2013-06-25 10:38:19 AM  

DrBrownCow: hinten: Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.

If somebody is repeatedly trying to punch me, then I am going to fear for my life.   I'm not going to trust the already questionable decision making skills of the person beating me to stop before I'm critically or fatally wounded.    Any hit could be the fatal blow.  Otherwise healthy people have been punched *once* and died as a result, either due to the blow itself, or the resulting contact with a hard surface.    While very few brawls might lead to someone dying, we're not talking about winning or losing a scratch-off lotto ticket.  If you lose, you aren't just out a dollar, you are dead.


As evidenced by thousands of dead kids in our schoolyards.
 
2013-06-25 10:38:28 AM  

rdu_voyager: (just a guess) is that Martin was the one who was the first one to use force of any kind.


A guess in contravention of nearly all the credible evidence pointing to Zimmerman as the first aggressor.

But for the race factor in this case, the question of who started a fist fight between one guy lethally armed, objectively hostile towards, and convinced of the other's criminality, and another guy minding his own business, conducting himself lawfully, unarmed, and with no motive to start a fight would be a simple one. But for the race factor in this case, nearly everyone would agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight.
 
2013-06-25 10:38:56 AM  

IamAwake: PoochUMD: IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?

a quarter inch cut on the back of the head is not what a bald guy would have after being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk in a manner that he would reasonably think threatens his life.  A tiny quarter inch cut could have come from falling over and hitting the dirt, who knows - I've seen plenty of people sustain more damage doing exactly that (falling and landing on dirt).  What we can be certain about is that in the real world, if his head was really being bashed against the concrete then it would have had serious damage.  On the back.  Blood, bruising, torn up skin, etc.

Not in MMA, WWE, or whatever other stage thing, perhaps - but in the real world, in a real fight with real humans and real concrete, that's how that really works.

guiltpoll.com

Upper left gouge
Laceration center right
Multiple abrasions in the upper right

Not exactly just a "quarter inch cut" and certainly indicative of possible contact with an abrasive surface like concrete.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:26 AM  

kendelrio: You haven't been in many fights have you?

I

haven't, because I think that when a skull is being bashed against the concrete, it bleeds?  Sorry troll, this is about as much as you'll get from me.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:57 AM  

IamAwake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.

you mean like confronting Trayvon, then chasing him down after the police told him not to?  Ok, looks like that's not a problem then.


Can you stop repeating things that are not true. The guy on the phone, who was not a police officer, testified yesterday that he did not order Zimmerman to do or not do anything.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:29 AM  

PoochUMD: 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.


49 out of 49.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:12 AM  

nekom: went down JUST the wrong way on a concrete barrier and it killed him


funny the sorts of damage a skull will take when it hits concrete, isn't it?  And by that I mean a real skull, and real concrete.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:24 AM  

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

Huh?


"Not a jury of his peers." It's a non-starter case. The "peer" concept isn't remotely that specific.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:32 AM  

kendelrio: Garaba: The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all.

But witness statements do.... "a witness named John Good who described the fight. "He called it a 'ground and pound' by Martin, who he said was on top of Zimmerman, beating him."
Source


That's what always bugged me about this case. The physical evidence and photographs don't support Zimmerman being on the ground.  John Good's witness statement does however. I have not seen any indication thatJohn Good will testify to this matter in court, and I cant double check right now either. If he is not his recollection of events, motivations and etc... can not be tested. If there was some more transfer from Zimmerman to Martin I could believe it, if his pants and jacket had dirt on it I could believe it.

While I do believe there was some kind of fight. I have serious doubts that Zimmerman has told the truth.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:11 AM  

ChaosStar: Multiple abrasions in the upper right


Those aren't abrasions. That's smeared blood from him rubbing the back of his head with his hand.

Also: no concussion. His head wasn't even "bashed" hard enough to cause a concussion. Zimmerman's action movie narrative is a joke.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:31 AM  

hinten: ChaosStar: hinten: 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.

I contend that you're wrong based on this plausible scenario:
Martin is on top of Zimmerman, striking him in some way to make his head contact the concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and went for it, but without the gun being present Martin doesn't cease his attack and continues to cause Zimmerman's head to strike the concrete. Zimmerman becomes more and more disoriented, eventually slipping into unconsciousness, and then passing away due to traumatic brain injury.

Why would Martin bash Zimmerman's head on the ground if Martin wasn't afraid for his life if Zimmerman didn't flash his weapon?

And the evidence still doesn't show conclusively that Martin was doing any such thing.


I think you have the event order wrong friend.
Martin punches Zimmerman. Broken nose = evidence
They go to the ground
Martin is on top of Zimmerman, striking him in some way. Eye witness = evidence
Zimmerman's jacket, due to gravity and the scuffle, has pulled up exposing his concealed carry weapon.
Martin sees the now exposed gun and goes for it.

This is not Zimmerman "flashing his weapon".
 
2013-06-25 10:42:50 AM  

Phinn: hinten: Why would Martin bash Zimmerman's head on the ground if Martin wasn't afraid for his life if Zimmerman didn't flash his weapon?

And the evidence still doesn't show conclusively that Martin was doing any such thing.

It doesn't have to.  The burden is on the prosecution to conclusively prove that GZ did not reasonably believe Martin posed a threat.

Probably, maybe or inconclusive = not guilty.



I'm not discussing the legal situation.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:58 AM  

IamAwake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.

you mean like confronting Trayvon, then chasing him down after the police told him not to?  Ok, looks like that's not a problem then.


Again, the law states: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."


See section 3
Following TM was not unlawful. Asking him what he was doing is not unlawful. Next try?
 
2013-06-25 10:45:10 AM  

This text is now purple: MFAWG: 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?

If you lived in Philadelphia, and witnessed every murder -- 42 of every 50 of your calls to the police would be reporting a black assailant.
http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/PPD.Homicide.Analysis.2012.pdf

Sometimes reality has a racist bias.

\Also, the police would probably be curious why you were present at every murder.


But the Philly thing is actual murder. What makes those 45 out of 47 people "suspicious" other than the fact that they're black and in GZ's neighborhood?
 
2013-06-25 10:45:34 AM  
IamAwake:
funny the sorts of damage a skull will take when it hits concrete, isn't it?  And by that I mean a real skull, and real concrete.

If I were on a jury, I would consider it reasonable to fear for your life if your head is being bashed into concrete.  Even if USUALLY it doesn't kill you, you know USUALLY driving around a blind corner on a back country road won't kill you either, 95% of the time it won't, but if I'm in a car with someone doing it, I'm reasonably fearing for my life.

Now they have to convince an entire jury that that's not reasonable?  That's no small order.  Guess we'll see.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:54 AM  

hinten: Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.


Leaving aside whether that actually follows (bouncing someone's head off of a sidewalk rapidly increases the lethality of an encounter), more people were killed in 2011 by personal assault than by justified homicide.

Given that, Martin was more likely to kill Zimmerman than the opposite.

\Ain't stats fun?
 
2013-06-25 10:47:08 AM  

Garaba: No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.


Maybe. Contact DNA can usually only determine male-on-female or female-on-male. It's currently useless for same-sex encounters.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:50 AM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: Multiple abrasions in the upper right

Those aren't abrasions. That's smeared blood from him rubbing the back of his head with his hand.

Also: no concussion. His head wasn't even "bashed" hard enough to cause a concussion. Zimmerman's action movie narrative is a joke.


No, those are abrasions. Blood is still subject to gravity and doesn't run up the head, or in a sideways horseshoe like above the center right laceration.
You can see the coloration of dried blood in the picture and it in no way matches the skin abrasions.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:11 AM  

ChaosStar: Zimmerman's jacket, due to gravity and the scuffle, has pulled up exposing his concealed carry weapon.


Maybe or maybe not at that moment. But the inference is strong that when Trayvon fled, Zimmerman somehow menaced him. Certainly, there was no other reason for Trayvon to flee. He wasn't committing a crime, and wasn't in possession of any contraband materials. Zimmerman did something to physically frighten Trayvon.The man was agitating for a fight.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:42 AM  

hinten: Why would Martin bash Zimmerman's head on the ground if Martin wasn't afraid for his life if Zimmerman didn't flash his weapon?

And the evidence still doesn't show conclusively that Martin was doing any such thing.



Because he's "Blah".


/Duh
 
2013-06-25 10:50:11 AM  

IamAwake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.

you mean like confronting Trayvon, then chasing him down after the police told him not to?  Ok, looks like that's not a problem then.


Nearly every map comparing the phone call to the situation show that Treyvon had to have gotten far from the scene of the fight, then returned, which points to him being the aggressor of their confrontation.  Besides, simply because someone follows you, isn't cause for violence.
 
2013-06-25 10:50:20 AM  

ChaosStar: Upper left gouge
Laceration center right
Multiple abrasions in the upper right


the spot of blood upper-left, if caused by being hit on anything (concrete or otherwise) would have very interesting implications for the position of the body/neck.  People like to use MMA/WWE as examples here - isn't there a move where you pick someone up and drop them on their skull, downward?  Wasn't aware Trayvon supposedly did that.

Find that spot on your own skull.  Now, lay down on the ground, and try to get that spot to touch the ground, without arching your back or breaking your neck.  Remember, sidewalks tend to be rather flat.

the laceration is tiny.  It is not indicative of repeated skull-against-concrete bashings.

I'm not seeing "multiple abrasions" anywhere else.  I'm seeing someone feeling the back of their head with their hand, getting a spot of blood on their hand, and then touching a tiny smear of blood on a couple other places.  It takes very little to get the scalp to bleed - if it only bleeds very little, then it was a very little thing that happened.

I'm also not seeing how chasing someone down, and them getting the better of you, means you need to kill them.  Zimmerman put himself in the situation - he created the situation.  If someone HAS to take a beating - no one should have to, mind you, but if for some reason it is to be argued that it is mandatory - then it should be the person who started and created the situation in the first place.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:01 AM  

ChaosStar: No, those are abrasions. Blood is still subject to gravity and doesn't run up the head, or in a sideways horseshoe like above the center right laceration.


It doesn't have to defy gravity when it is moved from one area of the head to another on a palm, or on the end of a finger. It's smeared blood, not abrasions.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:26 AM  

kendelrio: IamAwake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.

you mean like confronting Trayvon, then chasing him down after the police told him not to?  Ok, looks like that's not a problem then.

Again, the law states: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
See section 3
Following TM was not unlawful. Asking him what he was doing is not unlawful. Next try?


Zimmerman was the attacker, not the attackee.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:36 AM  

This text is now purple: Garaba: No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Maybe. Contact DNA can usually only determine male-on-female or female-on-male. It's currently useless for same-sex encounters.


Were you the forensic scientist who posted the long explanation about the research done on this type of thing in the thread yesterday?
If so, mind doing it again please? Was a good read for those who think CSI is fact.
 
2013-06-25 10:52:08 AM  

bugontherug: the inference is strong that when Trayvon fled, Zimmerman somehow menaced him



Enjoy your self-serving fantasies.  The rest of us will live out here in reality.
 
2013-06-25 10:52:15 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.


It's shocking that at this point, there's still people this stupid. You think they would have learned their lesson from this case that, no, you are never, ever justified in assaulting someone because they are following you and/or calling the cops on you. And, if you do, you might wind up justifiably dead.

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.


Really? That's not what you just said here -

IamAwake: 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.


Just get out of here dumbass, you're embarrassing to humanity.
 
2013-06-25 10:53:03 AM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: Multiple abrasions in the upper right

Those aren't abrasions. That's smeared blood from him rubbing the back of his head with his hand.

Also: no concussion. His head wasn't even "bashed" hard enough to cause a concussion. Zimmerman's action movie narrative is a joke.


How would you prove that, exactly? Concussions are a syndrome, not an injury. As such, mild ones don't even leave objective evidence of their existence -- you can only infer them. The other hallmark of mild concussions -- the victim is usually unaware they sustained one.
 
2013-06-25 10:53:55 AM  

IamAwake: kendelrio: IamAwake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.

you mean like confronting Trayvon, then chasing him down after the police told him not to?  Ok, looks like that's not a problem then.

Again, the law states: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
See section 3
Following TM was not unlawful. Asking him what he was doing is not unlawful. Next try?

Zimmerman was the attacker, not the attackee.


By whose account????? Please give me a citation that conclusively states GZ attacked TM!!!! If you can show me evidence that GM jumped him, I will retract everything I have said and rage-quit Fark for 6 months and put a note in my profile you pwned me.
 
2013-06-25 10:54:23 AM  
Zimmerman shouldn't have been armed!

Only the people who chuckled, slapped him on the back, and sent him home until the eyes of the nation focused on them should be armed.

Wait wut.
 
2013-06-25 10:54:43 AM  
Evidence that GZ attacked TM even....
 
2013-06-25 10:55:23 AM  

Phinn: bugontherug: the inference is strong that when Trayvon fled, Zimmerman somehow menaced him

Enjoy your self-serving fantasies.  The rest of us will live out here in reality.


lol
 
2013-06-25 10:55:44 AM  

nekom: Now they have to convince an entire jury that that's not reasonable?  That's no small order.  Guess we'll see.


you seem to be missing the point - many are suggesting that the activity, as described by Zimmerman, isn't what happened at all.  That the physical evidence is contrary to his - the killer's - testimony.  Whether activity X would justify something is irrelevant if activity X wasn't actually occurring.
 
2013-06-25 10:55:52 AM  

bugontherug: Maybe or maybe not at that moment. But the inference is strong that when Trayvon fled, Zimmerman somehow menaced him. Certainly, there was no other reason for Trayvon to flee. He wasn't committing a crime, and wasn't in possession of any contraband materials. Zimmerman did something to physically frighten Trayvon.The man was agitating for a fight.


Trayvon didn't "flee".  If he had fled Zimmerman would have never ended up on his back with Trayvon on top of him, which is what an eyewitness saw and the evidence indicates.  You can disagree about how you think they ended up in that position.  But you can't deny that is the position they were in when the shot was fired.
 
2013-06-25 10:56:57 AM  
PoochUMD:Seriously? There were eye witnesses who saw Martin straddling Zimmerman and beating the crap out of him. There are witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman the moment of the shot. Are you trying to argue that Zimmerman wasn't on the ground and that Martin was? That's a huge leap that requires you to ignore a bunch of stuff.

Zimmerman was seen pinned down while Martin beat him like a "UFC fighter" what kind of defensive wounds would you expect when you are pinned down?

The police failed to take evidence from Martins hands and didn't even photograph them. Even if Zimmermans account was 100% accurate and Martin had bloody hands moments before being shot, there wouldn't be evidence of it now.


There should be bruising of the wrists and hands where he was pinned. Skin transfer unto Martins nails from grabbing unto a bald head and smashing it into the ground. That's not very easy to do with one hand, you can force his head to the ground once. But pulling it up to do it again requires you to overpower the neck muscles.  Transfer from the ground unto Zimmerman's clothing. Splatter from being hit with a broken nose. And this is assuming Zimmerman was laying there taking it.

And the physical evidence from Martin's body was collected at the morgue. Police are encouraged not to mess with the body if they can avoid it.
 
2013-06-25 10:58:52 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Besides, simply because someone follows you, isn't cause for violence.


It is (they say) if you were being followed for a politically-unpopular reason.

The black males who burglarized the neighborhood could MAYBE have been followed and their locations reported to police.  But the safe thing to do would be to just let them burglarize the neighborhood.  Consider it to be grass-roots self-help reparations for slavery.

But not this black male, see, because he was from out of town, and so it's OUTRAGEOUS for someone to follow THIS black male wandering the neighborhood, and furthermore it's so OUTRAGEOUS that GZ deserved the beating he got for deigning to do so, and thus had no right to defend himself from it.  It's the law.

See?  If you don't subscribe to the State's Officially Designated Position On Race and Everything Else, then you're a non-person and have no protection of the law.

Zimmerman also unfairly criticized ObamaCare right before he pulled the trigger.  True story.  Prove he didn't!

Fry the bastard.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:07 AM  

ChaosStar: This text is now purple: Garaba: No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Maybe. Contact DNA can usually only determine male-on-female or female-on-male. It's currently useless for same-sex encounters.

Were you the forensic scientist who posted the long explanation about the research done on this type of thing in the thread yesterday?
If so, mind doing it again please? Was a good read for those who think CSI is fact.


No, that was mgshamster. The post is here, i think.
http://www.fark.com/comments/7811580/84982357#c84982357
 
2013-06-25 10:59:19 AM  
For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?
 
2013-06-25 10:59:59 AM  

kendelrio: By whose account????? Please give me a citation that conclusively states GZ attacked TM!!!! If you can show me evidence that GM jumped him, I will retract everything I have said and rage-quit Fark for 6 months and put a note in my profile you pwned me.


you seriously don't consider chasing down someone who is running away from you, to be an assault on them?  To be a physical threat?  Really?  An attack doesn't mean you finish the entire situation, pack up your bags, and leave for the night.  An attack means you *start* a situation.  Thus the reason someone can be simply defending themselves, never attacking, yet still win out.

at·tack/əˈtak/VerbTake aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force: "in December, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor".NounAn aggressive and violent action against a person or place: "he was killed in an attack on a checkpoint".Synonymsverb.assault - assailnoun.assault - onset - aggression - fit - offensive - charge
 
2013-06-25 11:01:13 AM  

IamAwake: nekom: Now they have to convince an entire jury that that's not reasonable?  That's no small order.  Guess we'll see.

you seem to be missing the point - many are suggesting that the activity, as described by Zimmerman, isn't what happened at all.  That the physical evidence is contrary to his - the killer's - testimony.  Whether activity X would justify something is irrelevant if activity X wasn't actually occurring.


All of the physical evidence at the very least does nothing to rebuke Zimmerman's claim.  What NONE of use know AT ALL is exactly how the confrontation started.  Zimmerman claims Martin started it, as he naturally would whether that be the case or not.  Martin isn't around to tell his side of the story.  Zimmerman did have injuries, I'll admit they didn't look too bad but having your head down on concrete with someone on top of you (which at least one witness confirms was how they wound up) could spark a reasonable fear for one's life.

Zimmerman may be lying.  He may be totally full of shiat, but for lack of any solid evidence to contradict his story, what in the world does the prosecution have to go on here?
 
2013-06-25 11:01:31 AM  

Phinn: bugontherug: the inference is strong that when Trayvon fled, Zimmerman somehow menaced him

Enjoy your self-serving fantasies.  The rest of us will live out here in reality.


"Self-serving?" LOL. Because I obviously benefit from this so much!

The only self-serving narrative in this whole case passed through George Zimmerman's lips.

I forgot to add another reason we know Zimmerman somehow menaced Trayvon: his changed story. On Hannity, Zimmerman's story changed from Trayvon fleeing to Trayvon rather merrily "skipping" away.

Either story works against Zimmerman, of course. The events as revealed by the telephone conversation prove Zimmerman was agitating for a fight. The events suggested by his later, evolved narrative kill even the remotest possibility that the playful, child-like little boy who skipped away from the hostile, cursing man on the telephone had any reason at all to start a fight.

But whatever happened, Zimmerman's evolving story tells us what? Say it with me now:

Consciousness of wrongdoing, from which we may infer, in conjunction with the mountain of other evidence, Zimmerman's guilt.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:51 AM  

kendelrio: Garaba: The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all.

But witness statements do.... "a witness named John Good who described the fight. "He called it a 'ground and pound' by Martin, who he said was on top of Zimmerman, beating him."
Source


so wait, a witness saw the ground and pound?  Well then this witness obviously got a good look at Zimm's self-inflicted wounds right?  I mean, the DNA wasn't on Martin so Zimmerman must have self-inflicted those wounds to frame the dead kid.  I've solved this case.  Someone get the witness on the stand.
 
2013-06-25 11:02:02 AM  
Huh....it didn't post my whole cut/paste of the definition...

at·tack
/əˈtak/
Verb   Take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force: "in December, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor".
Noun  An aggressive and violent action against a person or place: "he was killed in an attack on a checkpoint".
Synonyms
verb.assault - assail
noun.assault - onset - aggression - fit - offensive - charge
 
2013-06-25 11:02:43 AM  

IamAwake: ChaosStar: Upper left gouge
Laceration center right
Multiple abrasions in the upper right

the spot of blood upper-left, if caused by being hit on anything (concrete or otherwise) would have very interesting implications for the position of the body/neck.  People like to use MMA/WWE as examples here - isn't there a move where you pick someone up and drop them on their skull, downward?  Wasn't aware Trayvon supposedly did that.

Find that spot on your own skull.  Now, lay down on the ground, and try to get that spot to touch the ground, without arching your back or breaking your neck.  Remember, sidewalks tend to be rather flat.

the laceration is tiny.  It is not indicative of repeated skull-against-concrete bashings.

I'm not seeing "multiple abrasions" anywhere else.  I'm seeing someone feeling the back of their head with their hand, getting a spot of blood on their hand, and then touching a tiny smear of blood on a couple other places.  It takes very little to get the scalp to bleed - if it only bleeds very little, then it was a very little thing that happened.

I'm also not seeing how chasing someone down, and them getting the better of you, means you need to kill them.  Zimmerman put himself in the situation - he created the situation.  If someone HAS to take a beating - no one should have to, mind you, but if for some reason it is to be argued that it is mandatory - then it should be the person who started and created the situation in the first place.


The gouge in the upper left is in a prime position to contact the sidewalk and bled profusely
cdn2-b.examiner.com

Look in the upper right of this photo. Notice the darker purple area, in contract with the bright red of the blood? That's abrasion and bruising of the skin, where it contacted the concrete hard enough to cause damage but not to break the dermal layers to release blood. This is a sign of blunt force trauma.

It's not the "them getting the better of you" that justifies the self defense. It's the head bashing, and the going for the weapon that does.
 
2013-06-25 11:02:56 AM  

QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified

...

What's your proof that he wasn't justified?  He's presumed innocent, you know.

(No, you don't know.  I get it.  You're just talking out of your ass.)
 
2013-06-25 11:03:33 AM  

mayIFark: 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.


No. He wasn't arrested because the DA decided not to bring charges. The SYG is a legal defense that is settled in a pretrial hearing. He opted out of a SYG defense after about a year of weighing his options.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:07 AM  

Garaba: There should be bruising of the wrists and hands where he was pinned. Skin transfer unto Martins nails from grabbing unto a bald head and smashing it into the ground. That's not very easy to do with one hand, you can force his head to the ground once. But pulling it up to do it again requires you to overpower the neck muscles.  Transfer from the ground unto Zimmerman's clothing. Splatter from being hit with a broken nose. And this is assuming Zimmerman was laying there taking it.


You can pin someone by sitting on their chest, and if they not in good shape, most people won't be able to lift you off of their chest and arms.  Bruising isn't required, and you're making a wild assumption that he was pinned by his hands and wrists, pretty stupid considering he was also being punched.  Also, your fist reaction upon having your head smashed into the ground, isn't to force your head into the ground with your neck muscles.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:28 AM  
I am fervently hoping for Zimmerman's conviction.  I fear it means race riots if he's acquitted.  Zimmerman is an asshat and it's just not worth our cities being torched so he can walk free.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:34 AM  

This text is now purple: hinten: Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.

Leaving aside whether that actually follows (bouncing someone's head off of a sidewalk rapidly increases the lethality of an encounter), more people were killed in 2011 by personal assault than by justified homicide.

Given that, Martin was more likely to kill Zimmerman than the opposite.

\Ain't stats fun?


Especially when you don't include a citation.


/79% of Farkers state opinion as if it were fact and reference unnamed studies as conclusive evidence of their correctness.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:09 AM  

Thoguh: Trayvon didn't "flee". If he had fled Zimmerman would have never ended up on his back with Trayvon on top of him, which is what an eyewitness saw and the evidence indicates. You can disagree about how you think they ended up in that position. But you can't deny that is the position they were in when the shot was fired.


So Zimmerman lied when he was on the phone with police. An interesting defense tack, though one I doubt O'Mara will take. Because if you say Zimmerman was lying on the phone, the question is "why?" The answer to that is obvious: he was manufacturing plausibility to justify the shooting he so vividly fantasized about. In that case, he hasn't been overcharged at all. He's been undercharged, because this was a premeditated murder, and he should be strapped to a gurney and pumped full of poison until he's dead.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:37 AM  

LordBeavis: I am fervently hoping for Zimmerman's conviction.  I fear it means race riots if he's acquitted.  Zimmerman is an asshat and it's just not worth our cities being torched so he can walk free.


Don't worry, people in 2013 are too fat to riot.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:48 AM  

QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?


Go be dumb elsewhere please
 
2013-06-25 11:06:47 AM  

SpectroBoy: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Green Scorpio: Well? What's his favorite flavor?
Favorite Skittles flavor?  I'm not sure.  But I'm guessing his favorite beer is
[www.myneonhaven.com image 500x375]
[forum.maplewoodonline.com image 850x265]


I am everybody's favorite.
 
2013-06-25 11:08:31 AM  

ideamaster: 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.


Citation? I'm under the impression that he wavied his right to immunity under the SYG defense.

And even if he could (I really don't think that's the way it works) - don't you find it odd that he'd play the riskier move in trial? It's also costlier.
 
2013-06-25 11:09:19 AM  

IamAwake: DrBrownCow: While very few brawls might lead to someone dying, we're not talking about winning or losing a scratch-off lotto ticket

so it should be the attacker who gets to win in your line of thinking, not the victim.


Yeah, the analogy is a bit awkward, but I think the point was clear.  That is, people can be reasonably expected to take their chances when the odds of something bad happening are low and the consequences are tolerable.  What is considered a reasonable precaution or action changes in proportion to the severity of the consequences.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:34 AM  

QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?


ITT - People who think you're justified in attacking someone because they're following you.  These are the defenders of Treyvon Martin.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:47 AM  

IamAwake: kendelrio: By whose account????? Please give me a citation that conclusively states GZ attacked TM!!!! If you can show me evidence that GM jumped him, I will retract everything I have said and rage-quit Fark for 6 months and put a note in my profile you pwned me.

you seriously don't consider chasing down someone who is running away from you *, to be an assault on them?  To be a physical threat?  Really?  An attack doesn't mean you finish the entire situation, pack up your bags, and leave for the night.  An attack means you *start* a situation.  Thus the reason someone can be simply defending themselves, never attacking, yet still win out.

at·tack/əˈtak/VerbTake aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force: "in December, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor".NounAn aggressive and violent** action against a person or place: "he was killed in an attack on a checkpoint".Synonymsverb.assault - assailnoun.assault - onset - aggression - fit - offensive - charge



*Citation needed. The recording shows GZ quit following TM and was returning to his car.

**Key words there bud.

/still waiting for the citation GZ attacked TM
 
2013-06-25 11:11:20 AM  

Bontesla: ideamaster: 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.

Citation? I'm under the impression that he wavied his right to immunity under the SYG defense.

And even if he could (I really don't think that's the way it works) - don't you find it odd that he'd play the riskier move in trial? It's also costlier.


SYG doesn't come into play here.
Stand Your Ground removes your duty to retreat under the self defense law (having exhausted all reasonable means of escape) in a place where you have a legal right to be. Zimmerman was pinned by his attacker so he couldn't retreat anyway.
Going through the SYG trial would have meant higher legal fees for a outcome that probably wouldn't have been in his favor.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:49 AM  

kendelrio: MithrandirBooga:Since Zimmerman started the confrontation, no amount of backlash would  ever justify using deadly for