If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

6583 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 8:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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

www.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

www.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  
www.chicagocircustents.com
 
2013-06-25 09:11:57 AM  

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

/not an ITG
 
2013-06-25 09:22:47 AM  

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

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

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

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

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


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

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

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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


The prosecution is hosed.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

/not an ITG


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

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

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

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

/not an ITG


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

Good to know.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Good to know.


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

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

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Good to know.

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


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

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

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


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

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



Hammer+nail

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

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

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

Once I start beating you, you got two options really

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

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

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

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

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


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

www.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 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.......


So you are either saying Zimmerman is like the rapist stalking a woman for prey or else that is the most retarded comment known to Fark. I think it probably falls under the later.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:55 AM  
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.......

Women have the right to do just this - anyone who follows and rapes them deserves to be charged, go to trial, and be convicted

Bad analogy - and would (some of) you stop using the "rape" example? It makes the GOP jealous
 
2013-06-25 11:12:00 AM  

ChaosStar: 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.



"Dark purple area?" Lol! It's a blurred area of mottled blood. Not abrasions, and certainly not bruising.

But even supposing it's "abrasions," which means "scrapes," a few scrapes hardly gives anyone to fear for his life. At no time was Zimmerman afraid of death or great bodily harm. His injuries--abrasions or no--were medically trivial.

I'd agree with you if all this uber-violent head "bashing" committed by the savage Trayvon Martin had left even a minor concussion. But it didn't.

Zimmerman lied. He lied because he knew he had committed a murder.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:11 AM  

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



Psychologically, you do.  You are married to the idea he's guilty.  I don't know which part of the story hooked you and raised your seething lust for his head on a plate, but it was something non-rational, obviously.  Racism.  Guns.  Gated communities.  Zimmerman usurping the role of the police (i.e., not knowing his place).

One of those.  Or all of them.  Only you would know which aspect of this story flipped your switch.

And since then you've gone about constructing a fantasy to justify your fee-fees.  It's intolerable to you that your feelings on [fill in the blank with your favorite political issue] will go unavenged.

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



He gets to do that.  He didn't have to talk to the police at all, actually.  It was stupid for him to make any statement at all, but he did.   The burden is on the prosecution to disprove it. They can't.

bugontherug: 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.



Martin could have done both -- running and skipping at different times.  That's not changing the story.

bugontherug: 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.



His explanation was corroborated by the statements of every other witness, including DeeDee.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:51 AM  
This sorta reminds me of a case I saw on the 'The First 48' where 2 guys attempted to rob a street vender, but the street vender had a gun and he shot and killed one of the fleeing robbers. The police didnt charge the vender with killing him, but instead charged the robber who got away with his accomplices murder. I guess the police felt that the victim shouldn't be held culpable cuz it was the robbers who started it. I mean even if GZ felt afraid for his life, it was himself who made the situation what it was. He's culpable IMO!
 
2013-06-25 11:12:54 AM  

ChaosStar: 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.


2 things:

1.  You're right.

2.  You're wasting your breath.
 
2013-06-25 11:15:35 AM  

Phinn: 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.)


Yeah, so were OJ, Casey Anthony and Robert Blake.... but of course, you are wiser than us all.

So I take it that you wouldn't go around following random people? Maybe even people you don't know who are in your neighborhood? I mean, it's a free country, right? You can just tail people all day long for your amusement, with zero repercussions for your behavior, right?
 
2013-06-25 11:16:01 AM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: 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.


"Dark purple area?" Lol! It's a blurred area of mottled blood. Not abrasions, and certainly not bruising.

But even supposing it's "abrasions," which means "scrapes," a few scrapes hardly gives anyone to fear for his life. At no time was Zimmerman afraid of death or great bodily harm. His injuries--abrasions or no--were medically trivial.

I'd agree with you if all this uber-violent head "bashing" committed by the savage Trayvon Martin had left even a minor concussion. But it didn't.

Zimmerman lied. He lied because he knew he had committed a murder.


You either need glasses, have selective blindness, or you're just a whole new brand of stupid.
Blood doesn't turn that color fool.
His head was striking concrete, not rubbing against sandpaper. The scrapes and bruising isn't what justifies the deadly force, it's the striking of the head on the hard surface. This can lead to brain trauma and death very easily, which is certainly life threatening enough to worry about.

I know, you're going to ignore all logic and reason, just like in every other thread you've been in.
 
2013-06-25 11:16:08 AM  
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.

T/Y - I just imagined George Zimmerman, Crime Watch Captain, patrolling the gated community in drag, deserving the beat down he got to justify cleaning up crime via a gun

You reach much further, you are going to fall off that cliff
 
2013-06-25 11:16:17 AM  

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


No. It absolutley does not.

The dispatcher testified yesterday--and the recording verifies--that he continued to hear noises suggesting movement even after he suggested Zimmerman stop following Trayvon. At no time did he hear door chimes or a car door opening and closing after that.

And what did Zimmerman tell the dispatcher? He told him to have the officer call him when he arrived on the scene, and then he'd tell him where he's at.

This last proves Zimmerman had no intention of getting back into his car. His intention was to defy the dispatcher's suggestion, and hunt down Trayvon.
 
2013-06-25 11:16:37 AM  

IamAwake: 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.


I prefaced that question asking if, for argument's sake, Zimmerman was telling the truth and Martin said, "You're going to die tonight," as he beat him, that Zimmerman had surrendered his right to defend himself. You're not addressing my point.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:23 AM  
I'm amazed at after the huge number of threads that this case has had on fark, so many people still repeatedly get the most basic facts of the case wrong.  Not to mention that the people who seem to be the most opinionated and emotional on things also seem to be the most uninformed on the case and on the law in general.  Anyways, here's just a few points that I'm sure the same people will keep ignoring, but whatever...

1. So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.  This has been clear since the 911 transcript was released, yet this seems to be one of the most commonly mistaken facts in the case.  Now, it's possible that GZ resumed looking for Martin after the 911 call ended, but the 911 transcript, the 911 recording, and GZ's testimony all appear to show that after being told that he didn't need to follow Martin, GZ replied with "ok", stopped running, and then spent time discussing with the 911 operator where he was and how he would be able to meet up with the cops en route.

2. So far no evidence has been presented that GZ instigated the confrontation between himself and Martin.  All we know for certain is that GZ followed Martin and then lost him.  At a later time then, both men came into contact again, either due to random chance or due to the direct actions of one of the men.  The claim that the defense has been making is that Martin sought out GZ after the first encounter had ended with GZ losing site of Martin.  Now it's possible that it was actually GZ who continued to search for Martin and thus start the second encounter that eventually led to the physical altercation and shooting, but so far, no evidence has been presented to back that theory.

3. No evidence has been presented that Martin knew he was being followed by an armed individual.  Now, it's possible that GZ brandished his weapon at some point, but both GZ's testimony and the information provided by Martin's girlfriend imply that Martin was unaware that GZ had a gun.  Because of this, any opinions of the case that involve analyzing Martin's actions as though Martin was aware that he was being followed by an armed attacker are likely flawed.

4. Claims that both men were acting in self defense and thus Florida's self defense statute is broken are not based on an accurate understanding the law.  Under Florida law, and most self defense statutes for that matter, an attacker can claim self defense, but ONLY if he has first made every effort to escape, withdraw, or remove himself from the conflict.  In the case of an attacker armed with a gun, such a condition can likely only be satisfied by the attacker disarming himself.  If GZ was the attacker, due to grabbing Martin, or brandishing his weapon, or using fighting words, then he was most likely had no right to self defense, since there's no indication that he tried to surrender or throw aside his weapon.  By the same token, if Martin is the one who started the physical confrontation, either by grabbing or striking GZ, or by using fighting words, then he lost his right to self defense and would have only been able to reclaim it by attempting to retreat or withdraw first.  The point being, that regardless of what events actually transpired, only one man had a right to self defense at any specific time, which is how the law is supposed to work.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:13 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: 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.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homici de-data
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
 
2013-06-25 11:19:56 AM  

bugontherug: He told him to have the officer call him when he arrived on the scene, and then he'd tell him where he's at.

This last proves Zimmerman had no intention of getting back into his car. His intention was to defy the dispatcher's suggestion, and hunt down Trayvon.



You're genuinely delusional.
 
2013-06-25 11:20:12 AM  

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

No. It absolutley does not.

The dispatcher testified yesterday--and the recording verifies--that he continued to hear noises suggesting movement even after he suggested Zimmerman stop following Trayvon. At no time did he hear door chimes or a car door opening and closing after that.

And what did Zimmerman tell the dispatcher? He told him to have the officer call him when he arrived on the scene, and then he'd tell him where he's at.**

This last proves Zimmerman had no intention of getting back into his car. His intention was to defy the dispatcher's suggestion, and hunt down Trayvon.***


* Returning to the car will also suggest movement. I never stated he got in the car.

** Has no bearing on anything

***Can't be proven.

And how do you "defy" a suggestion?
 
2013-06-25 11:21:31 AM  

ChaosStar: 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.


A trial is more expensive than a SYG pretrial hearing. So that's incorrect. Further, Zimmerman could have certainly used the SYG defense. He wavied his right. If he were ineligible then there would have been no need for him to officially waive that immunity defense. Finally, do you realize how low the burden is to successfully seek immunity? It's ridiculous.

That's why when Zimmerman opted for a self-defense plea without seeing immunity under SYG - a lot of legal analysts became excited. Tons of analysis. It created a lot of interest. By most accounts - this was his ticket out.
 
2013-06-25 11:22:28 AM  

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

No. It absolutley does not.

The dispatcher testified yesterday--and the recording verifies--that he continued to hear noises suggesting movement even after he suggested Zimmerman stop following Trayvon. At no time did he hear door chimes or a car door opening and closing after that.

And what did Zimmerman tell the dispatcher? He told him to have the officer call him when he arrived on the scene, and then he'd tell him where he's at.

This last proves Zimmerman had no intention of getting back into his car. His intention was to defy the dispatcher's suggestion, and hunt down Trayvon.


So your only point is that there were continued noises (which were wind btw) after he was told he didn't need to follow Martin. So even if it was the noise of him moving, you have no evidence which way he was moving but you somehow know that means he continue to look for Martin.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher to have the officers call him so he would not reveal his destination to Martin, if Martin was till around. This is perfectly backed up by his expressed reluctance to give out his address because he "doesn't know where this kid is" immediately prior. It certainly doesn't prove his travel intentions.
 
2013-06-25 11:23:17 AM  

The Muthaship: ChaosStar: 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.

2 things:

1.  You're right.

2.  You're wasting your breath.


/sigh
I know
 
2013-06-25 11:24:10 AM  

bulldg4life: 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?


What about them? I asked a what-if based on Zimmerman's testimony. If Zimmerman is lying and Martin did not throw the first punch, then Zimmerman is probably a murderer. (At some point, Martin probably has a duty to accept someone's surrender, presuming Zimmerman offered one.)

This is all highly speculative. No one is going to know for sure what actually happened that night except Zimmerman and God.
 
2013-06-25 11:24:18 AM  

hinten: Zimmerman's hands. No defensive wounds.


So he was blocking punches with his knuckles?

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


The police report includes officers observations that his back was covered in grass when they arrived on scene. You do realize that picture was taken around 2 hours after that, right?

hinten: His pants after fighting on wet grass and concrete.


See above.


Seriously, is Team Trayvon even trying?
 
2013-06-25 11:25:57 AM  
ChaosStar: You either need glasses, have selective blindness, or you're just a whole new brand of stupid.

You need a momma to teach you that it's wrong to call people names. Worse, it undermines your own credibility. It proves you're too emotionally invested in the subject to view it rationally. I doubt you she even taught you to apologize when you lose your temper and make a fool of yourself like that.

Look,

Blood doesn't turn that color fool.

Sure it does. And the image is distorted anyway.

His head was striking concrete, not rubbing against sandpaper. The scrapes and bruising isn't what justifies the deadly force, it's the striking of the head on the hard surface. This can lead to brain trauma and death very easily, which is certainly life threatening enough to worry about.

Right... all this "head striking" which you say can lead to brain trauma "very easily"didn't even leave a concussion. This head bashing Zimmerman described either didn't happen (maybe he got an owie when he fell backwards after Trayvon decked him for manhandling him), or was grossly exaggerated.

Zimmerman wouldn't need to lie or exaggerate if the facts supported him. So we know they don't support him, that he knows they don't, that he's conscious of his own wrongdoing, and therefore guilty.
 
2013-06-25 11:25:58 AM  

Garaba: 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


The fact that you think there's DNA evidence whenever a punch is landed is pretty damn funny.
 
2013-06-25 11:26:37 AM  

ChaosStar: Zimmerman told the dispatcher to have the officers call him so he would not reveal his destination to Martin, if Martin was till around. This is perfectly backed up by his expressed reluctance to give out his address because he "doesn't know where this kid is" immediately prior. It certainly doesn't prove his travel intentions.


Black people are sneaky.  They're known to hang around, almost invisible in plain site, so they can listen into the phone calls of white people so they can find their addresses.  There could be ten black people within five feet of you right now and you'd never know it.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:59 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: ChaosStar: Zimmerman told the dispatcher to have the officers call him so he would not reveal his destination to Martin, if Martin was till around. This is perfectly backed up by his expressed reluctance to give out his address because he "doesn't know where this kid is" immediately prior. It certainly doesn't prove his travel intentions.

Black people are sneaky.  They're known to hang around, almost invisible in plain site, so they can listen into the phone calls of white people so they can find their addresses.  There could be ten black people within five feet of you right now and you'd never know it.


There's a reason Ninjas chose black as the color of their uniform.

(with the exception of the ones in "American Ninja")
 
2013-06-25 11:29:50 AM  

positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.


Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?

positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ instigated the confrontation between himself and Martin.


True. No evidence has been so presented as far as I can tell.

positronica: No evidence has been presented that Martin knew he was being followed by an armed individual.


In fact, one would argue to the contrary. One would have to conclude the kid was a moron to engage a man with a gun. So it's safe to assume that Martin didn't know Zimmerman didn't have a firearm - though that assumption could be wrong.

positronica: Claims that both men were acting in self defense and thus Florida's self defense statute is broken are not based on an accurate understanding the law.  Under Florida law, and most self defense statutes for that matter, an attacker can claim self defense, but ONLY if he has first made every effort to escape, withdraw, or remove himself from the conflict.


This was the purpose of my earlier post asking whether Zimmerman ever lost his right to defend himself, assuming Martin got the upper-hand. I don't believe he did, but that doesn't mean he isn't criminally liable for anything he did that night.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:56 AM  
bugontherug:
Zimmerman wouldn't need to lie or exaggerate if the facts supported him. So we know they don't support him, that he knows they don't, that he's conscious of his own wrongdoing, and therefore guilty.

What facts of the case debunk his story?  What physical evidence or witnesses tear apart his version of events?  Again, he may well be outright lying, I have no doubt that if he had actually attacked Martin and knew there were no witnesses, he damn sure would lie.  I would too.  Where's the evidence to prove that he's lying, I would really love to take a look at it.
 
2013-06-25 11:31:23 AM  

bugontherug: Right... all this "head striking" which you say can lead to brain trauma "very easily"didn't even leave a concussion.


If a guy was attempting to bash your head into the concrete, wouldn't you be doing everything possible to counter the downward force? The fact that his head hitting the sidewalk only caused minor injuries doesn't mean the next one couldn't have led to a serious injury.

Team Trayvon seems to think that Zimmerman was obligated to wait until after he suffered a life threatening injury before defending himself with deadly force. That's one of the more ridiculous assertions being made in these threads. When being attacked, a person has every right to think that the next blow that lands could be the one that leads to seriously injury or worse. You have every right under the law to prevent that from happening.
 
2013-06-25 11:31:32 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.




Are you kidding? It's sounds like let's railroad Zimmerman so the black don't go crazy. That's pretty stupid.
 
2013-06-25 11:32:44 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Are you kidding? It's sounds like let's railroad Zimmerman so the black don't go crazy. That's pretty stupid.


At least Team Trayvon is being honest now.
 
2013-06-25 11:37:19 AM  

ChaosStar: So your only point is that there were continued noises (which were wind btw) after he was told he didn't need to follow Martin. So even if it was the noise of him moving, you have no evidence which way he was moving but you somehow know that means he continue to look for Martin.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher

to have the officers call him so he would not reveal his destination to Martin, if Martin was till around. This is perfectly backed up by his expressed reluctance to give out his address because he "doesn't know where this kid is" immediately prior. It certainly doesn't prove his travel intentions.

This doesn't make even the slightest sense. He thinks Trayvon is within ear shot--so he doesn't want to reveal that his destination is his car, only a few feet away? And why couldn't he have just cupped his hand over the receiver and talked quietly? Just. Not. Logical.

Listen to yourself. You're making up excuses--anything--to justify the narrative that George Zimmerman did anything other than hunt down and murder an unarmed minor.

Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.
 
2013-06-25 11:37:54 AM  

Bontesla: A trial is more expensive than a SYG pretrial hearing. So that's incorrect. Further, Zimmerman could have certainly used the SYG defense. He wavied his right. If he were ineligible then there would have been no need for him to officially waive that immunity defense. Finally, do you realize how low the burden is to successfully seek immunity? It's ridiculous.

That's why when Zimmerman opted for a self-defense plea without seeing immunity under SYG - a lot of legal analysts became excited. Tons of analysis. It created a lot of interest. By most accounts - this was his ticket out.


He would have had the trial anyway, so the SYG hearing would have been added cost. So no, it's not incorrect.
No, he could not have have used the SYG as his duty to retreat was already removed via being pinned under Martin, so SYG doesn't apply.
He still has the right to a SYG hearing if he wants one, but his legal team knew it would be money spent for no reason and they opted not to do it to save money as it would have just resulted in a trial anyway.

That's why he opted for trial by jury, with a self defense please. The plea would have been self defense even in a SYG hearing, since you can't have SYG without self defense.
 
2013-06-25 11:38:05 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: hinten: Zimmerman's hands. No defensive wounds.

So he was blocking punches with his knuckles?

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

The police report includes officers observations that his back was covered in grass when they arrived on scene. You do realize that picture was taken around 2 hours after that, right?

hinten: His pants after fighting on wet grass and concrete.

See above.


Seriously, is Team Trayvon even trying?


I know, I know, wet grass stains wipe right off. As a matter of fact, the wet grass stains came off from the rain.
And don't make me part of any team.
 
2013-06-25 11:38:27 AM  

bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.


Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?
 
2013-06-25 11:39:35 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?




Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.
 
2013-06-25 11:39:43 AM  
Boy oh boy. If no one here is actively following a feed of the trial, I suggest they find one.
GZ's defense has been making the State look downright silly.

The State's current witness is the neighborhood watch's coordinator. GZ's defense cross-examination has essentially turned her into a witness of the defense.

There is not a single iota of evidence that suggests GZ murdered TM. The State is struggling to piece together circumstantial evidence, while witness testimony and recorded evidence supports GZ's claim of self-defense.
 
2013-06-25 11:40:23 AM  
I don't know, tho, guys. I gotta say; looking in Zimmerman's eyes, a surprise confession of a panic shooting, not an actual "it was clear my life was in danger, so I had to shoot" thought that lead to a lethal action.
 
2013-06-25 11:40:32 AM  
What feed would you recommend?
 
2013-06-25 11:40:54 AM  
What I want to know is....  What caliber and what handgun is able to produce a single shot fatality? Shouldn't we be ensuring the police are then armed with the same combination?
Seems the only people the police are able to kill with a single shot are innocent bystanders.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:27 AM  

hinten: I know, I know, wet grass stains wipe right off. As a matter of fact, the wet grass stains came off from the rain.
And don't make me part of any team.


The police report said that an officer observed his back covered with grass. Stop twisting it and trying to claim that it was said that his back was covered with grass stains.

Attempting to pass off fabrications might even make you the captain of Team Trayvon.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:42 AM  

bugontherug: This last proves Zimmerman had no intention of getting back into his car. His intention was to defy the dispatcher's suggestion, and hunt down Trayvon.


No, that is just one interpretation.  Here's another:  He didn't want to give away to anyone listening where he would be located while waiting for the police to arrive.   Read the call transcript.  He changed his mind about meeting at the mailboxes immediately after saying he is concerned that Martin might still be in earshot.  He said that is why he didn't want to give his address, and within the flow of that conversation also makes sense as the reason why he didn't want to reveal where he would be waiting.
 
2013-06-25 11:42:45 AM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: You either need glasses, have selective blindness, or you're just a whole new brand of stupid.

You need a momma to teach you that it's wrong to call people names. Worse, it undermines your own credibility. It proves you're too emotionally invested in the subject to view it rationally. I doubt you she even taught you to apologize when you lose your temper and make a fool of yourself like that.

Look,

Blood doesn't turn that color fool.

Sure it does. And the image is distorted anyway.

His head was striking concrete, not rubbing against sandpaper. The scrapes and bruising isn't what justifies the deadly force, it's the striking of the head on the hard surface. This can lead to brain trauma and death very easily, which is certainly life threatening enough to worry about.

Right... all this "head striking" which you say can lead to brain trauma "very easily"didn't even leave a concussion. This head bashing Zimmerman described either didn't happen (maybe he got an owie when he fell backwards after Trayvon decked him for manhandling him), or was grossly exaggerated.

Zimmerman wouldn't need to lie or exaggerate if the facts supported him. So we know they don't support him, that he knows they don't, that he's conscious of his own wrongdoing, and therefore guilty.


I have a momma who taught me not to suffer imbeciles.
No, blood really doesn't turn that color, and no the image is not distorted in any way to change colors. Quit lying.
Notice I said, in bold above, CAN LEAD to brain trauma. The fact that this CAN LEAD to brain trauma, which is potentially lethal, is justifiable reasoning for deadly force. To illustrate my point, stabbing someone can lead to their death, so should the person actually have to wait until they are lethally stabbed in order to defend themselves? The law clearly says no, they shouldn't.

The fat do support him here in reality, in whatever fantasyland you're in ymmv.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:54 AM  

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


In theory, a BB gun is capable of killing.  It would have to be a VERY lucky shot.  But any of the common handgun calibers on the market are capable of producing a fatal chest wound.  Hit the wrong artery and he's a dead man.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:56 AM  

ChaosStar: The fat do support him here in reality, in whatever fantasyland you're in ymmv.


Wait, what?
 
2013-06-25 11:45:41 AM  
Nekom - What NONE of use know AT ALL is exactly how the confrontation started.

True!  All those insisting that Martin "backtracked" after Zimmerman broke off the chase, etc have made
me think that, at some point, when he might have been going to his Father's house, this happened:

"why are you following me?"
"who are you?"
"Martin - why are you following me?"
"I saw you - you don't live here - what are you doing? I've called the cops, you just stay right here"

etc -

THis is my theory on what happened during the "missing" time and "the initial confrontation"
THe idea Martin "hid, circled back and attacked" just doesn't seem plausible
 
2013-06-25 11:47:42 AM  

ChaosStar: Bontesla: A trial is more expensive than a SYG pretrial hearing. So that's incorrect. Further, Zimmerman could have certainly used the SYG defense. He wavied his right. If he were ineligible then there would have been no need for him to officially waive that immunity defense. Finally, do you realize how low the burden is to successfully seek immunity? It's ridiculous.

That's why when Zimmerman opted for a self-defense plea without seeing immunity under SYG - a lot of legal analysts became excited. Tons of analysis. It created a lot of interest. By most accounts - this was his ticket out.

He would have had the trial anyway, so the SYG hearing would have been added cost. So no, it's not incorrect.
No, he could not have have used the SYG as his duty to retreat was already removed via being pinned under Martin, so SYG doesn't apply.
He still has the right to a SYG hearing if he wants one, but his legal team knew it would be money spent for no reason and they opted not to do it to save money as it would have just resulted in a trial anyway.

That's why he opted for trial by jury, with a self defense please. The plea would have been self defense even in a SYG hearing, since you can't have SYG without self defense.


He would have only had the trial IF he lost the immunity hearing for a SYG defense. And since he was eligible for the hearing, the question is why did he opt out?

He seriously considered using it and waited until the last minute to waive the hearing.

Seriously, this was a huge story. How did you miss it? I have a friend that teaches law - several professors at a variety of schools were going to use this in one of their discussions. Legal blogs lit up.
 
2013-06-25 11:48:01 AM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar: So your only point is that there were continued noises (which were wind btw) after he was told he didn't need to follow Martin. So even if it was the noise of him moving, you have no evidence which way he was moving but you somehow know that means he continue to look for Martin.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher to have the officers call him so he would not reveal his destination to Martin, if Martin was till around. This is perfectly backed up by his expressed reluctance to give out his address because he "doesn't know where this kid is" immediately prior. It certainly doesn't prove his travel intentions.

This doesn't make even the slightest sense. He thinks Trayvon is within ear shot--so he doesn't want to reveal that his destination is his car, only a few feet away? And why couldn't he have just cupped his hand over the receiver and talked quietly? Just. Not. Logical.

Listen to yourself. You're making up excuses--anything--to justify the narrative that George Zimmerman did anything other than hunt down and murder an unarmed minor.

Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.


Why couldn't he turn into a bird and fly away?
Why couldn't he teleport back to his truck?
Why couldn't he call in the first Marine recon division to extract him from the situation?
Why couldn't he this?
Why couldn't he that?
Hindsight's 20/20, ever heard that expression?

He doesn't know where Martin is, so he covers his bases.
Based on your idiot logic, why wouldn't he announce as loud as he could where he was going to make Martin think he was leaving so he could continue "hunting" him?
 
2013-06-25 11:48:08 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: If a guy was attempting to bash your head into the concrete, wouldn't you be doing everything possible to counter the downward force?


Yes. I've said this in not so many words in several threads already. Which is why I've always argued Zimmerman's head was never bashed. Absent a great difference in strength, "bashing" a resisting person's head against concrete--especially a person with no hair to grasp onto--is all but impossible. Zimmerman's head was never "bashed." Not even once. His whole narrative comes from TV cop shows and racist stereotypes. It's not plausible, except to people who think they live in an action movie.

The fact that his head hitting the sidewalk only caused minor injuries doesn't mean the next one couldn't have led to a serious injury.

If he was resisting, his head was never "bashed" in the first place. Maybe it was pressed, because Trayvon was trying to pin his head to the ground to temporarily disable his lethally armed assailant. And no, having one's head pressed into the ground does not put one in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Though if you think you're some kind of an authority figure with a right to detain young black kids for no good reason, it does grievously bruise the ego. These wounds to Zimmerman's pride do not justify the use of lethal force.
 
2013-06-25 11:49:54 AM  
Bontesla:
He would have only had the trial IF he lost the immunity hearing for a SYG defense. And since he was eligible for the hearing, the question is why did he opt out?

He seriously considered using it and waited until the last minute to waive the hearing.

Seriously, this was a huge story. How did you miss it? I have a friend that teaches law - several professors at a variety of schools were going to use this in one of their discussions. Legal blogs lit up.


Someone suggest this in the last thread, can't recall who, but maybe he's hoping to get acquitted, THEN have an SYG hearing to protect himself from the wrongful death case that is certainly coming, and let's face it, he could well lose.  If SYG can really work that way (I know it protects against litigation, I don't know if you can turn down a hearing now and ask for one later), it's not a bad idea, from where he stands now.  Then he might be able to use his acquittal as evidence in the SYG hearing.
 
2013-06-25 11:50:24 AM  

Ricardo Klement: ChaosStar: The fat do support him here in reality, in whatever fantasyland you're in ymmv.

Wait, what?


Freudian slip, Zimmerman's gained a few pounds afterall..
 
2013-06-25 11:53:05 AM  
 
2013-06-25 11:53:30 AM  

Ricardo Klement: positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.

Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?


I don't know if that's been established to be the case.  We do know that GZ attempted to follow Martin for a minimum of 11 to 15 seconds before responding with "Ok" to the dispatcher's advice not to follow Martin.  The distance between GZ's truck and where the physical altercation occurred is well within jogging distance based on that amount of time, plus based on the layout of the apartment complex, depending on which way GZ ran during those 11 to 15 seconds, the site of the altercation would have been on a possible return route to his vehicle.  For example, if GZ ran to the south and then cut east, thinking that that was the route Martin took, but Martin had instead gone around the north side of the adjacent building, then the second encounter between the two men was just dumb luck.
 
2013-06-25 11:54:21 AM  

The Muthaship: bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.

Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?


In my opinion, supported by evidence proving these facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality, his lethal armament, and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so), versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight, the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.
 
2013-06-25 11:55:15 AM  

Bontesla: ChaosStar: Bontesla: A trial is more expensive than a SYG pretrial hearing. So that's incorrect. Further, Zimmerman could have certainly used the SYG defense. He wavied his right. If he were ineligible then there would have been no need for him to officially waive that immunity defense. Finally, do you realize how low the burden is to successfully seek immunity? It's ridiculous.

That's why when Zimmerman opted for a self-defense plea without seeing immunity under SYG - a lot of legal analysts became excited. Tons of analysis. It created a lot of interest. By most accounts - this was his ticket out.

He would have had the trial anyway, so the SYG hearing would have been added cost. So no, it's not incorrect.
No, he could not have have used the SYG as his duty to retreat was already removed via being pinned under Martin, so SYG doesn't apply.
He still has the right to a SYG hearing if he wants one, but his legal team knew it would be money spent for no reason and they opted not to do it to save money as it would have just resulted in a trial anyway.

That's why he opted for trial by jury, with a self defense please. The plea would have been self defense even in a SYG hearing, since you can't have SYG without self defense.

He would have only had the trial IF he lost the immunity hearing for a SYG defense. And since he was eligible for the hearing, the question is why did he opt out?

He seriously considered using it and waited until the last minute to waive the hearing.

Seriously, this was a huge story. How did you miss it? I have a friend that teaches law - several professors at a variety of schools were going to use this in one of their discussions. Legal blogs lit up.


I just told you why he opted out.
Zimmerman team: Judge, we're claiming SYG
Judge: SYG doesn't apply, he had no duty to retreat anyway
ZT: We know, but we wanted the hearing anyway cause we like cash
Judge: Ok, no SYG, we go to trial
ZT: George here's your bill, we'll invoice you for the next part when the trial is done.

Get it?
 
2013-06-25 11:59:28 AM  

bugontherug: The Muthaship: bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.

Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?

In my opinion, supported by evidence proving these facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality, his lethal armament, and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so), versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight, the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.


Or because he said he refused to run while on the phone with his lady?
Wait, that would be two reasons. Reality... not conforming... to my...preconceived notions...must pull more emotional outrage from the void
 
2013-06-25 11:59:54 AM  

bugontherug: Yes. I've said this in not so many words in several threads already. Which is why I've always argued Zimmerman's head was never bashed. Absent a great difference in strength, "bashing" a resisting person's head against concrete--especially a person with no hair to grasp onto--is all but impossible. Zimmerman's head was never "bashed." Not even once. His whole narrative comes from TV cop shows and racist stereotypes. It's not plausible, except to people who think they live in an action movie.


I've hit my head so hard before that it came very close to knocking me out. I didn't suffer any cuts or a concussion as a result. You have no idea how hard his head stuck the pavement and are making a ridiculous assumption that it couldn't have been that hard if he didn't suffer any injuries other than a couple of lacerations.
 
2013-06-25 12:01:53 PM  

Ricardo Klement: positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.

Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?


bcclist.files.wordpress.com

Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.
 
2013-06-25 12:02:42 PM  
ChaosStar:

Why couldn't he turn into a bird and fly away?
Why couldn't he teleport back to his truck?
Why couldn't he call in the first Marine recon division to extract him from the situation?


Terrific point. Because all of this is exactly as plausible as cupping your hand over a telephone receiver and talking quietly. Why didn't I think of that? Thanks for setting me straight on this point.

Based on your idiot logic,

Look, I can see you're too emotionally invested in this case to discuss it like an adult. It also doesn't seem like you're having fun anymore. So go have yourself a nice glass of warm milk, take a few deep breaths. Then, if you still want to, prove you're ready to rejoin the adult table by coming back and apologizing like a big boy.

Mkay?
 
2013-06-25 12:02:50 PM  

s2s2s2: I don't know, tho, guys. I gotta say; looking in Zimmerman's eyes, a surprise confession of a panic shooting, not an actual "it was clear my life was in danger, so I had to shoot" thought that lead to a lethal action.


...wouldn't be that surprising.

/derpt
 
2013-06-25 12:03:16 PM  

bugontherug: The Muthaship: bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.

Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?

In my opinion, supported by evidence proving these facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality, his lethal armament, and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so), versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight, the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.


There is NO WAY IN HELL any of that proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt.  All of that might fly in civil court, but that's a whole lot of hearsay and conjecture, which are KINDS of evidence, but that doesn't even come close to enough to convict for murder.
 
2013-06-25 12:04:59 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: I've hit my head so hard before that it came very close to knocking me out. I didn't suffer any cuts or a concussion as a result. You have no idea how hard his head stuck the pavement and are making a ridiculous assumption that it couldn't have been that hard if he didn't suffer any injuries other than a couple of lacerations.


In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.
 
2013-06-25 12:05:20 PM  

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


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

Thoguh: What feed would you recommend?


If you go to this link, you will see a feed supplied by a local news outlet with commentary, a twitter feed, and a commentary free feed by NBC News at the bottom.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-live-video-day- 2- opening-statements/
 
2013-06-25 12:05:43 PM  

bugontherug: Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality,


He's a neighborhood watch volunteer.

bugontherug: his lethal armament,


Which was legally issued.

bugontherug: and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so),


There's no evidence that he was responsible for anything more than trying to keep an eye on Treyvon's location while he waited for the police, who he called for assistance before any of this went down.  And we all know that vigilantes are well known for calling the police...

bugontherug: versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight,


Apparently, an overweight Zimmerman was able to overshoot Treyvon Martin on his route home after only 10 seconds of running, and got so far ahead that he was able to stay on the phone for an extended period of time with dispatch, which clocks Zimmerman's sprint at about 150mph.  Treyvon certainly didn't double back to give someone an asskicking for daring to suspect that he, a stranger in a gated community might be a burglar.

bugontherug: the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.


Ah, "anyone who believes Zimmerman is a racist". Facts are certainly not on your side, so you're going with the race card.
 
2013-06-25 12:06:38 PM  

ChaosStar: Ricardo Klement: positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.

Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?

[bcclist.files.wordpress.com image 850x450]

Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.



1:28-1:30 seems to be of specific interest.
 
2013-06-25 12:07:04 PM  

Abuse Liability: bugontherug: The Muthaship: bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.

Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?

In my opinion, supported by evidence proving these facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality, his lethal armament, and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so), versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight, the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.

Or because he said he refused to run while on the phone with his lady?
Wait, that would be two reasons. Reality... not conforming... to my...preconceived notions...must pull more emotional outrage from the void


Refusing to run from a possible confrintation is now punishable by death and it is evidence that you started a confrontation? This from the same internet thugs who WOULD shoot someone for punching them and feel that it is justifiable? The same internet thugs who cheer wildly whenever one of those CCTV cameras in Britain catches some guy beating up a would be assailant?

/You all are a trip.
 
2013-06-25 12:07:43 PM  

bugontherug: And his word means nothing


But that's still like a B+ rating on the market, right?

/prolly mangled that
//don't know all that money talk
///Tres Virgules
 
2013-06-25 12:08:49 PM  

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.'


...Welp, Zimmerman's farked.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:06 PM  

ChaosStar: Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.


No, it's inaccurate.

The "wind interference from running" occurred where the "Shiat- He's running" line is.  Zimmerman ran from the point he exited his truck to the T-intersection just north of the shooting site.  The distance correlates with the time of the running interval on the call.

And he parked closer to the turn in the road where it curves to the south.

My belief is that, after he hung up with the police, GZ continued east to the eastern-most point on the grassy area, to the road on the east side of the neighborhood, and then looked around for a while before turning back to walk to the west, toward his truck.  He met up with Martin just south of that T-intersection.

Martin was either hiding nearby, or (less likely) he circled all the way around the building that lies to the west of the shooting site.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:12 PM  
Holy Crap Mark Fuhrman gives investigation commentary on Fox News?! This is what I miss not having cable.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:49 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Abuse Liability: bugontherug: The Muthaship: bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.

Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?

In my opinion, supported by evidence proving these facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality, his lethal armament, and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so), versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight, the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.

Or because he said he refused to run while on the phone with his lady?
Wait, that would be two reasons. Reality... not conforming... to my...preconceived notions...must pull more emotional outrage from the void

Refusing to run from a possible confrintation is now punishable by death and it is evidence that you started a confrontation? This from the same internet thugs who WOULD shoot someone for punching them and feel that it is justifiable? The same internet thugs who cheer wildly whenever one of those CCTV cameras in Britain catches some guy beating up a would be assailant?

/You all are a trip.


Nobody takes you seriously Dro.  You were called out with specific examples as a race baiter a couple threads ago.  Why would anyone collect these examples of you being a douche you ask? Because they occur with such frequency that its a simple google search away.  What happened here is horrible and a kid died.  This wasn't second degree murder, this was a scared little man shooting a kid because the situation turned deadly and he felt he needed to defend himself.

/troll on
 
2013-06-25 12:12:37 PM  

bugontherug: ChaosStar:

Why couldn't he turn into a bird and fly away?
Why couldn't he teleport back to his truck?
Why couldn't he call in the first Marine recon division to extract him from the situation?

Terrific point. Because all of this is exactly as plausible as cupping your hand over a telephone receiver and talking quietly. Why didn't I think of that? Thanks for setting me straight on this point.

Based on your idiot logic,

Look, I can see you're too emotionally invested in this case to discuss it like an adult. It also doesn't seem like you're having fun anymore. So go have yourself a nice glass of warm milk, take a few deep breaths. Then, if you still want to, prove you're ready to rejoin the adult table by coming back and apologizing like a big boy.

Mkay?


I find it hilarious, I mean I totally laughed out loud enough that someone came to my office to find out what was so funny, that you're the one pointing out to someone else about emotional investment concerning this Mr "hunted down and executed a minor".
My seat at the adult table is secure, the same cannot be said for your grasp on reality or critical thinking skills. Me calling you names does nothing for or against the argument it only shows my contempt for your stupidity and lack of ability to process what is right in front of your face and my lack of desire to filter said contempt from my writings.
I will apologize though.
I'm sorry you're a mouth breathing, window licking, idiot who can't grasp that every shred of evidence in this case not only doesn't support your stances but completely obliterates them to the point you have to twist things about or blatantly lie just to try and stay in the conversation.
Feel better?
 
2013-06-25 12:13:03 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Abuse Liability: bugontherug: The Muthaship: bugontherug: Zimmerman planned to continue to hunt Trayvon, in defiance of the dispatcher's suggestion. He planned to, and he did so. He had no intention of returning to his car, because he was committed to confronting Trayvon. He did so, and then he started a fight with him, and then he murdered him.

Could you at least add "IMO" to the end of that?

In my opinion, supported by evidence proving these facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility, his unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality, his lethal armament, and his demonstrated willingness to confront (proved when he tried to chase Trayvon, whether or not you believe he continued to do so), versus the unarmed Martin's lawful course of conduct and complete absence of any motive to start a fight, the only reason--the only one--anyone believes he started the fight is because he's a young black male. Between two whites, or two blacks, "who started the fight" wouldn't even be a question here. Even less so if a black man had demonstrated Zimmerman's course of conduct against a white man.

Or because he said he refused to run while on the phone with his lady?
Wait, that would be two reasons. Reality... not conforming... to my...preconceived notions...must pull more emotional outrage from the void

Refusing to run from a possible confrintation is now punishable by death and it is evidence that you started a confrontation? This from the same internet thugs who WOULD shoot someone for punching them and feel that it is justifiable? The same internet thugs who cheer wildly whenever one of those CCTV cameras in Britain catches some guy beating up a would be assailant?

/You all are a trip.




A man (which Martin was) turning to confront a person is not looking for a peaceful end to things. He's looking to hurt or intimidate the other guy. The fact that Martin was not scared is clear from the gf. Had he kept walking or said look I'm calling the cops he be alive.
 
2013-06-25 12:13:48 PM  

asquian: ChaosStar: Ricardo Klement: positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.

Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?

[bcclist.files.wordpress.com image 850x450]

Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.


1:28-1:30 seems to be of specific interest.


Only thing I can think of is maybe there was a noise like a really bad fart? I have no idea why they put that on there but it made me chuckle.
 
2013-06-25 12:13:59 PM  
bugontherug: Look, I can see you're too emotionally invested in this case to discuss it like an adult. It also doesn't seem like you're having fun anymore. So go have yourself a nice glass of warm milk, take a few deep breaths. Then, if you still want to, prove you're ready to rejoin the adult table by coming back and apologizing like a big boy.

First you engaged in denial, then an elaborate self-serving fantasy where you built inference on inference, and now you've graduated to projection.

You're a walking psych textbook.
 
2013-06-25 12:15:02 PM  

ChaosStar: Ricardo Klement: positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.

Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?

[bcclist.files.wordpress.com image 850x450]

Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.


The map also shows that Treyvon Martin doubled back.
 
2013-06-25 12:17:30 PM  
so Zimmerman told the neighborhood watch lady that he was asked by the HOA to form a watch program but the HOA guy says that he didn't think they needed one and ZImmerman came to him about it.
sounds like he lied to her.
 
2013-06-25 12:17:46 PM  
Wait wait wait.... jury selection ended up with an entire jury of  women??!!?!?!?!??!  for a murder case?!

WTF?  How the fark is that a jury of his peers.  Who let that happen.   Whywould the defense find that to be a good idea?

Its too bad Zimmerman was too poor to hire a real lawyer.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:24 PM  

nekom: Where's the evidence to prove that he's lying, I would really love to take a look at it.


If you look at nothing other than Zimmermans own mutually conflicting statements you can see there is quite a bit of lying going on.

It is true that we have little physical evidence and almost no idea what actually happened in the alley. It is impossible to prove anything related to that.

 We do however know for certain that Zimmerman is lying. All or part of what stories are true we don't know, but even excluding all else and taking into account -only- his own statements we can unambiguously ascertain that there is lying, and that it has been intentional and opportunistic.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:28 PM  

Phinn: the State is required to prove that the homicide was not self-defense, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt


reasonable being the operative word.
 
2013-06-25 12:19:46 PM  

Alonjar: Wait wait wait.... jury selection ended up with an entire jury of  women??!!?!?!?!??!  for a murder case?!

WTF?  How the fark is that a jury of his peers.  Who let that happen.   Whywould the defense find that to be a good idea?

Its too bad Zimmerman was too poor to hire a real lawyer.


I think that works to his favor. 5 of them are white women. white women see black men as scary.
 
2013-06-25 12:20:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ChaosStar: Ricardo Klement: positronica: So far no evidence has been presented that GZ continued to follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said he didn't have to.

Doesn't the location of the incident, which was closer to Martin's house than when Zim got off the phone, count as evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit?

[bcclist.files.wordpress.com image 850x450]

Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.

The map also shows that Treyvon Martin doubled back.




That map is racist! There is no way he doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. Even thou the evidence points to it. Farking racist
 
2013-06-25 12:20:57 PM  

PsiChick: 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.'

...Welp, Zimmerman's farked.


abovethelaw.com
Your Honor, I move that I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own clients
 
2013-06-25 12:22:16 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Phinn: the State is required to prove that the homicide was not self-defense, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable being the operative word.



Let's see your summary of the evidence that proves that GZ did not act in self-defense.

Then we'll see if there is any objectively reasonable basis to doubt your conclusions.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:15 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I think that works to his favor. 5 of them are white women. white women see black men as scary.


Yeah but Zimmerman  killed the scary guy.  It just doesnt seem like something i could see a woman empathizing with, when compared to the mentality of a man.  Especially if any of the women there have children... "this could have happened to MY baby!"

Maybe i'm wrong.. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer.  Seems like a bad move to me though.
 
2013-06-25 12:27:00 PM  

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


All of them?

What I want to know is...  Why is everyone ignoring that Zimmerman took not one, but TWO flashlights with him when he left his truck?
 
2013-06-25 12:27:29 PM  

nekom: There is NO WAY IN HELL any of that proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt. All of that might fly in civil court, but that's a whole lot of hearsay and conjecture, which are KINDS of evidence, but that doesn't even come close to enough to convict for murde


Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter uttered in the statement. Its probative value, like any other evidence, depends on surrounding circumstances.

1) Zimmerman's openly displayed hostility and belief in Trayvon's criminality really isn't hearsay, though it is proved by his own out of court statements offered in court. They're not hearsay because they're not offered to prove the truth of the matters he uttered, but rather to prove Zimmerman's state of mind of hostility and ill-will.

Here, those statements are "these f*cking punks," and "these assholes always get away," referring contextually to Trayvon Martin, and proving also contextually Zimmerman's unfounded belief in Trayvon's criminality. What matters here isn't whether Trayvon Martin in fact was a punk, an asshole, or a criminal, or even whether Zimmerman's statements are probative on any of those points. What matters here is that when you believe someone you think is a criminal is also a "punk" and an "asshole," it is proved beyond even a remotely plausible doubt that you have a) ill will towards that person, which is an element of 2nd degree murder, and b) that you have a motive to murder that person.

2) We can prove Zimmerman's lethal armament by hearsay evidence. In particular, his own multiple admissions that he was lethally armed. But we don't have to. We can prove it by police testimony that he was found at the crime scene with a firearm, and that Trayvon Martin died from a gunshot wound.

So no, this isn't really hearsay. And it's all inference, not conjecture. In fact, the inferences that Zimmerman harbored ill-will towards Trayvon, believed Trayvon a criminal, had a motive to murder him, and was lethally armed cannot be disputed with any credibility. You might dispute the probative value of each proposition so proved, but the propositions themselves are wrought-iron.

Likewise, the lack of credible evidence for any reason for Trayvon Martin to start a fight really isn't hearsay. It's just proved by the absence of credible evidence. Note: I didn't say "lack of evidencre." I said lack of "credible" evidence. There is evidence--in the form of Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie narrative--but it is not credible. And the incredibility of that narrative itself is probative of Zimmerman's guilt.

The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.
 
2013-06-25 12:28:23 PM  

Phinn: ChaosStar: Fairly good map with timings. You can see that Martin's residence is further away than Zimmernan's truck.

No, it's inaccurate.

The "wind interference from running" occurred where the "Shiat- He's running" line is.  Zimmerman ran from the point he exited his truck to the T-intersection just north of the shooting site.  The distance correlates with the time of the running interval on the call.

And he parked closer to the turn in the road where it curves to the south.

My belief is that, after he hung up with the police, GZ continued east to the eastern-most point on the grassy area, to the road on the east side of the neighborhood, and then looked around for a while before turning back to walk to the west, toward his truck.  He met up with Martin just south of that T-intersection.

Martin was either hiding nearby, or (less likely) he circled all the way around the building that lies to the west of the shooting site.


Boss I never claimed it was done by a survey team. It's not even my map. It also doesn't say when the wind interference starts, only when it stops, so I dunno what you were trying to say with that. I just put it up to show where the truck was in relation to Martin's house.

There is only four and a half minutes between the end of the call (7:13:11) and the first police unit on crime scene (7:17:40). Total. call time is 4 minutes 7 seconds.
The gunshot is at 7:16:55 so we know the fight ended there.
This means the fight was very quick, something a lot of people don't seem to understand. The entire thing from phone call to police to police on the scene is a little over either and a half minutes. So he didn't have a whole bunch of time to continue "hunting" for Martin. I personally feel this is the evidence that Martin backtracked into Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle based on where the incident took place.
 
2013-06-25 12:29:52 PM  

Hobodeluxe: so Zimmerman told the neighborhood watch lady that he was asked by the HOA to form a watch program but the HOA guy says that he didn't think they needed one and ZImmerman came to him about it.
sounds like he lied to her.


I'd be willing to bet that no where in the US has a HOA ever said, "Man, we need THIS GUY to form a watch program."  At best they sent out a memo asking if anyone is interested.  And from previous reports, Zimmerman was the only person in the community to join.
 
2013-06-25 12:31:29 PM  

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

All of them?

What I want to know is...  Why is everyone ignoring that Zimmerman took not one, but TWO flashlights with him when he left his truck?


One flashlight didn't work, the other was attached to his keychain.
We're not talking 100 bazillion lumen Surefires here.
 
2013-06-25 12:32:24 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.


If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".
 
2013-06-25 12:34:23 PM  

bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.


Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?
 
2013-06-25 12:35:42 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".


No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.
You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reason
No, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.
 
2013-06-25 12:37:17 PM  

bugontherug: The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.


Because Treyvon Martin doubled back simply to thank Zimmerman for keeping the neighborhood safe.

The more you write, the more insane you sound.   On the bright side, I found your perfect companion.
 
2013-06-25 12:38:13 PM  
One other point:

Zimmerman's willingness to confront:

Proved by his chasing of Trayvon after the boy ran. There is non-hearsay evidence that he chased Trayvon. We can infer it, as did the police dispatcher, from the sounds of a chase through the phone line. I suppose we have to rely on Zimmerman's other statements in the course of that conversation to give us the context which proves that. So it may be fair to say that Zimmmerman's willingness to confront, as evidenced by his decision to chase Trayvon, is hearsay.

But that doesn't mean it's unreliable.
 
2013-06-25 12:38:38 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?


He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.
 
2013-06-25 12:39:53 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".




First I'm assuming your a woman correct?. If your being chased by guy most sensible ladies ( which I doubt you are) would be on thier phone with 911 if they felt scared. Or banging on a house door or screaming her lungs off. Martin also could have done theese things if felt scared. The fact that he didn't. He even said to his gf he was going to confront Zimmerman. He wasn't scared but mad and wanting to hurt Zimmerman
 
2013-06-25 12:40:22 PM  

bugontherug: The dispatcher testified yesterday--and the recording verifies--that he continued to hear noises suggesting movement even after he suggested Zimmerman stop following Trayvon. At no time did he hear door chimes or a car door opening and closing after that.


I agree that the recording doesn't suggest at all that Zimmerman was headed back to his truck.  (Don't know where people are getting that idea.)   But, the recording does strongly suggest that Zimmerman quit following Martin less than five seconds after the dispatcher's suggestion that he need not follow.  The walking/wind sounds stop as Zimmerman reiterates that Martin fled, and then Zimmerman and the dispatcher go on to have a nearly two minute conversation.  Zimmerman could have been standing, pacing back and forth, or even walking around during this time, but I don't think even the prosecution is going to claim he was "in pursuit" at that time.

Martin had this nearly two minutes to get home, which is enough time to do it several times over if he was running.    While he was under no legal obligation to return home, it brings up the question of his whereabouts, if he was hiding, and what his intentions were.   We will never know if--after the phone call ended--Martin came out from hiding to confront Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman stumbled upon him while milling about, or if Zimmerman restarted his pursuit of Martin.

At this point, the whole case hinges on whether the jury will believe Zimmerman was intentionally and aggressively trying to hunt down Martin and make him pay for all of the "bad guys" that previously slipped through his fingers.   That is their entire case, and they have a huge hill to climb to prove it.    The previous phone calls suggest Zimmerman was calm, cautious and even took steps to avoid engaging the suspicious people he was reporting.  The fact that he got out of the SUV can easily be interpreted as an attempt to be helpful and give the dispatcher information.
 
2013-06-25 12:43:21 PM  

bugontherug: Zimmerman's willingness to confront:


Following a guy around the corner while on the phone with the police means he was willing to confront Trayvon? Can you help me out with a flow chart or something, I'm just not seeing your logic.

If Zimmerman wanted to confront Trayvon, he had many opportunities to do so. The only reason he exited his vehicle was because Trayvon took off running and disappeared around a corner. If you're calling to report a suspicious person, you might want to keep that person in sight so that you can report their location to the police when they arrive.
 
2013-06-25 12:47:11 PM  

ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.


You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman.  I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir
 
2013-06-25 12:50:42 PM  

Abuse Liability: ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman.  I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir




Grow up! Defending Zimmerman doesn't make one racist. If screaming racist is all you got go home
 
2013-06-25 12:51:32 PM  

Abuse Liability: ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman.  I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir


Cute, except the word "monkey" was used as descriptive of the poster here  bugontherug, not Treyvon Martin.  Fail!
 
2013-06-25 12:51:32 PM  

ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.
You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reason
No, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.


If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?
 
2013-06-25 12:52:12 PM  

DrBrownCow: At this point, the whole case hinges on whether the jury will believe Zimmerman was intentionally and aggressively trying to hunt down Martin and make him pay for all of the "bad guys" that previously slipped through his fingers.


Lets just assume this is the case, it has no bearing whatsoever on what Zimmerman is charged with.
Murder
Zimmerman clearly didn't have his gun out, because who starts a fist fight with a gun wielding person outside of Hollywood? He has injuries, but Martin has a scratch, which tells you Martin had to start the fight and the fight was pretty much one sided (Martin's), and his injuries are consistent with being hit with something like the concrete he claims.
That's deadly force.
What Zimmerman's attitude was is irrelevant. Even if he was a racist, bigot, asshole angrily running after Martin, calling him every slur in the book that doesn't mean Martin can beat him to death on the sidewalk. Kick his ass? Not legally, but sure he could do it without general fear of losing his life, but he elevated it to another level and Zimmerman protected his life.
 
2013-06-25 12:53:50 PM  
The fact that this dipshiat keeps calling attention to his major farkup instead of moving along and trying to keep pace with the prosecution is just sad.
 
2013-06-25 12:53:53 PM  

Abuse Liability: ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman.  I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir


God damnit
The boss said if I make Jesse Jackson show up outside one more time he's gonna fire me.
/maybe I'll get Sharpton this time?
 
2013-06-25 12:53:55 PM  

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?


Or it could be that the fark headline contained a really really obvious joke that many other people also thought of.
 
2013-06-25 12:55:35 PM  

ChaosStar: One flashlight didn't work, the other was attached to his keychain.
We're not talking 100 bazillion lumen Surefires here.


If the flashlight didn't work, then why did he even take it?  Something doesn't add up here.
 
2013-06-25 12:56:10 PM  
Popcorn Johnny

...I'm just not seeing your logic.

I don't know why you bother. Bugontherug doesn't have logic, they have a prejudiced certainty of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. They've been going at it for a year, making up more stories than Zimmerman. Let's see, things they've insisted were true:

- Zimmerman began the physical violence by "molesting" Martin
- Zimmerman called Martin racial slurs before/during the molestation
- Zimmerman only molested Martin because Martin was black
- Zimmerman will be found guilty of "depraved heart murder"

They're clownshoes. Occasionally, some people who haven't been exposed to bug's evolving (lack of) sanity will read their tortuous "inferences" and think, "wow, they're really laying it out." Yeah, well, they've been doing that for a freaking year, and their story changes every thread, all based on their initial decision that whiter-than-white Zimmerman murdered a little black child because of racial animosity.

It's actually hilarious in the beginning, but it gets old after the dozenth thread. They're not all there, man.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:12 PM  

ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.
You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reason
No, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.


Actually, if you follow me home and I try to talk a winding, alternative route in the hopes of keeping you from knowing where I live, and BLOCKS LATER you're still there behind me, it's self-defense on MY part, not yours.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:19 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Hobodeluxe: so Zimmerman told the neighborhood watch lady that he was asked by the HOA to form a watch program but the HOA guy says that he didn't think they needed one and ZImmerman came to him about it.
sounds like he lied to her.

I'd be willing to bet that no where in the US has a HOA ever said, "Man, we need THIS GUY to form a watch program."  At best they sent out a memo asking if anyone is interested.  And from previous reports, Zimmerman was the only person in the community to join.


He didn't really "join" anything, as there was no organization there before in that HOA, nor did he ever join the national organization he claimed to be a member of, nor did anyone file for a charter for that neighborhood.

The term he used to describe himself; "Neighborhood Watch Captain", is misleading on multiple levels; it implies he was 1) a member of a specific organization that he was not, 2) that he was operating under its charter, and 3) that he was in a position of authority or leadership over others within that group.

 In fact, he was only a lone guy with a gun with no training, no position, and no membership.  He wasn't a 'Captain' of anything. He was a lone guy with a gun prowling around looking for 'these assholes'.The correct term for that is "Vigilante", not "Watch Captain"
 
2013-06-25 12:57:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: bugontherug: The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.

Because Treyvon Martin doubled back simply to thank Zimmerman for keeping the neighborhood safe.


Why are you worried about Trayvon's intentions, but not Zimmerman's?
 
2013-06-25 12:58:36 PM  

ChaosStar: Abuse Liability: ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman.  I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir

God damnit
The boss said if I make Jesse Jackson show up outside one more time he's gonna fire me.
/maybe I'll get Sharpton this time?


Well the guy I was teasing at least understood I was being sarcastic... Poe's law maybe?
 
2013-06-25 12:59:35 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Popcorn Johnny

...I'm just not seeing your logic.

I don't know why you bother. Bugontherug doesn't have logic, they have a prejudiced certainty of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. They've been going at it for a year, making up more stories than Zimmerman. Let's see, things they've insisted were true:

- Zimmerman began the physical violence by "molesting" Martin


How do I know you need to lay off the crack pipe?
 
2013-06-25 01:00:54 PM  

QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.
You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reason
No, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?


Lets look at it like this:
You're going from point A to point B
You notice someone behind you, you think they are following you and you don't want to lead them to point B.
You turn and are now heading to point C
The person you think is following you also turns to head to point C
You turn again and are now heading to point D
The person you think is following you also turns to head to point D
You freak out because now you're sure they're following you
You pepper spray the person you thought was following you
Turns out the person you thought was following you was going point D the entire time and just coincidentally took the same route you did.
They call the police, you're arrested for battery and now have a police record.

You have nothing to base your fear on except your assumptions and self defense laws don't work like that.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:52 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's a neighborhood watch volunteer.


Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman believed Trayvon a criminal...

Which was legally issued.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman was lethally armed... nor the inference which flows from that that Zimmerman had special confidence in his ability to handle a fight.

There's no evidence that he was responsible for anything more than trying to keep an eye on Treyvon's location while he waited for the police,

Which in no way undermines the inference that he at first tried to chase Trayvon, nor the inference which flows from that that he was willing to confront Trayvon...

who he called for assistance before any of this went down.  And we all know that vigilantes are well known for calling the police...

This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting. Hence the crap about "he's got something in his hand." He's read a few police reports where cops justify shooting practically anyone with the magic phrase "suspect appeared to have an object in his hand," even when it turns out to be koosh toy.

I appreciate most people find that implausible. You have to be acquainted with the flimsy bullsh*t police routinely use to justify shooting people to read it that way. So the fact that in my view he's undercharged is very helpful here. The argument isn't that Zimmerman undertook this series of events with the purpose at the outset to kill Martin. But rather that at some point during the course of conduct he decided to kill Zimmerman because of his ill will towards him.

For that reason, that he called the police is only minimally probative, strongly outweighed by the other evidence. Though it is a fair point.

Apparently, an overweight Zimmerman was able to overshoot Treyvon Martin on his route home after only 10 seconds of running, and got so far ahead that he was able to stay on the phone for an extended period of time with dispatch, which clocks Zimmerman's sprint at about 150mph.  Treyvon certainly didn't double back to give someone an asskicking for daring to suspect that he, a stranger in a gated community might be a burglar.

None of this undermines the inference that Trayvon was conducting himself lawfully, seeking only to get snacks for him and his buddy. Or provides anything other than pure speculation on a motive for Trayvon to start a fight.

And, btw, Trayvon wasn't a "stranger." He was going to his dad's house nearby. Neither did he have any reason to believe Zimmerman suspected him of a crime. All he knew was that a creepy, hostile, cursing man was staring at him and following him around,

The only suspicious character in that neighborhood that night was named George Zimmerman. If Trayvon did backtrack, it wasn't to start a fight. It was to keep an eye on the threat Zimmerman posed to his community. There had, after all, been several break-ins recently.

Ah, "anyone who believes Zimmerman is a racist".

Didn't say that. Said the only reason people think Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie yarn is plausible is because of race. This is mainly subconscious, and comes from the permeation of our culture with racist messages. When decent people make themselves aware of this kind of subconscious bias, they strive to overcome it. Zimmerman partisans do not.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:11 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ChaosStar: One flashlight didn't work, the other was attached to his keychain.
We're not talking 100 bazillion lumen Surefires here.

If the flashlight didn't work, then why did he even take it?  Something doesn't add up here.


Yes, clearly the flashlight was telling Zimmerman to murder Martin the entire time.
You've solved the case my dear boy!

Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:41 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Grow up! Defending Zimmerman doesn't make one racist.


No, it doesn't. Defending Zimmerman doesn't even make one wrong, as he will most likely walk. It does, however, make one an ass. Defending a a man that instigated a situation that ended with him shooting and killing a 17 year old that was simply walking home. A 17 year old that outside of Zimmerman's "suspicion" and apparent pathological need to interfere would have spent the rest of that evening watching the NBA All-Star game. A man that has shown a willingness to mislead the court. A man that is pretty clearly a douche nozzle. And a bit ironical, the worst element of an HOA. And we all know that next to Illinois Nazis, HOA's are the most hated groups in existence to most Farkers.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:41 PM  

CliChe Guevara: He didn't really "join" anything, as there was no organization there before in that HOA, nor did he ever join the national organization he claimed to be a member of, nor did anyone file for a charter for that neighborhood.

The term he used to describe himself; "Neighborhood Watch Captain", is misleading on multiple levels; it implies he was 1) a member of a specific organization that he was not, 2) that he was operating under its charter, and 3) that he was in a position of authority or leadership over others within that group.

In fact, he was only a lone guy with a gun with no training, no position, and no membership. He wasn't a 'Captain' of anything. He was a lone guy with a gun prowling around looking for 'these assholes'.The correct term for that is "Vigilante", not "Watch Captain"


Oh, I know.  I more consider him:  "Creepy guy with a gun following around random teenagers for no reason."
 
2013-06-25 01:04:21 PM  

QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?


If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison.  Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.
 
2013-06-25 01:05:18 PM  
The My Little Pony Killer

How do I know you need to lay off the crack pipe?

Pointing out what someone said means I need to lay off the crack pipe? Ok...
 
2013-06-25 01:05:27 PM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

/agrees with tactics
 
2013-06-25 01:06:38 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.
You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reason
No, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

Actually, if you follow me home and I try to talk a winding, alternative route in the hopes of keeping you from knowing where I live, and BLOCKS LATER you're still there behind me, it's self-defense on MY part, not yours.


If you turn and attack them?
No, sorry, that's not self defense.
As has been stated many, many,many many many many many many many many many many many many many  many many many many many many many many many many many many many many  many many many many many many many many many many many many many many  many  times throughout the course of these threads, simply following someone is not illegal ant it is not a hostile act.
Creepy? Yes
Unnerving? Yes
Cause for concern? Yes
Illegal? No
Grounds for defending yourself? No
 
2013-06-25 01:08:42 PM  

bugontherug: This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting.


You sir have gone full retard, circled back, and then gone full retard a complete second time if you honestly believe this.
 
2013-06-25 01:09:26 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison.  Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.



This is why I spray everyone around me, all the time.  In line at the grocery store.  The bank.  My kid's third grade class.

You can't be too careful.
 
2013-06-25 01:11:37 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: hinten: I know, I know, wet grass stains wipe right off. As a matter of fact, the wet grass stains came off from the rain.
And don't make me part of any team.

The police report said that an officer observed his back covered with grass. Stop twisting it and trying to claim that it was said that his back was covered with grass stains.

Attempting to pass off fabrications might even make you the captain of Team Trayvon.


You don't get out much, do you, Cheetos eating cellar dweller?
 
2013-06-25 01:11:40 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Facetious_Speciest: Popcorn Johnny

...I'm just not seeing your logic.

I don't know why you bother. Bugontherug doesn't have logic, they have a prejudiced certainty of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. They've been going at it for a year, making up more stories than Zimmerman. Let's see, things they've insisted were true:

- Zimmerman began the physical violence by "molesting" Martin

How do I know you need to lay off the crack pipe?


Molest.

"to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect."

Note that this is in fact the first definition, indicating it is the most frequently used meaning.

George Zimmerman molested the innocent child Trayvon Martin. Fact. George Zimmerman is a child molester. Fact.

= D
 
2013-06-25 01:13:18 PM  
bugontherug

George Zimmerman molested the innocent child Trayvon Martin.

You still don't know this. You've simply decided it must be so and insisted upon it. None of us know who started the altercation.
 
2013-06-25 01:13:45 PM  

hinten: You don't get out much, do you, Cheetos eating cellar dweller?


When they can't debate the facts, Team Trayvon resorts to cheap insults.
 
2013-06-25 01:13:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's a neighborhood watch volunteer.


Um, you would think after a year of this you might get at least one tiny fragment of reality through your head;

NO. He wasn't.

NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.); "The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program", "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."


Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, Chris Tutko; "If Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions ofhim. If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."
 
2013-06-25 01:14:52 PM  

ChaosStar: Yes, clearly the flashlight was telling Zimmerman to murder Martin the entire time.
You've solved the case my dear boy!

Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.


But why would a highly trained and dedicated protector of the peace like George Zimmerman, who had the foresight to bring a loaded gun with him, NOT check to see if his flash light worked before going out on patrol duty?

No, something doesn't add up.
 
2013-06-25 01:15:12 PM  

bugontherug: One other point:

Zimmerman's willingness to confront:

Proved by his chasing of Trayvon after the boy ran. There is non-hearsay evidence that he chased Trayvon. We can infer it, as did the police dispatcher, from the sounds of a chase through the phone line. I suppose we have to rely on Zimmerman's other statements in the course of that conversation to give us the context which proves that. So it may be fair to say that Zimmmerman's willingness to confront, as evidenced by his decision to chase Trayvon, is hearsay.

But that doesn't mean it's unreliable.


It also isn't evidence of a crime.  It's not against the law to follow somebody, or even to confront them verbally in a non-threatening way.  It's not against the law to carry a properly licensed concealed firearm while doing so.  If you're trying to convince me that Zimmerman is an overzealous, confrontational, wanna-be cop, don't bother, I already firmly believe that.  However, that isn't a crime.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:19 PM  

bugontherug: So no, this isn't really hearsay. And it's all inference, not conjecture. In fact, the inferences that Zimmerman harbored ill-will towards Trayvon, believed Trayvon a criminal, had a motive to murder him, and was lethally armed cannot be disputed with any credibility. You might dispute the probative value of each proposition so proved, but the propositions themselves are wrought-iron.

Likewise, the lack of credible evidence for any reason for Trayvon Martin to start a fight really isn't hearsay. It's just proved by the absence of credible evidence. Note: I didn't say "lack of evidencre." I said lack of "credible" evidence. There is evidence--in the form of Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie narrative--but it is not credible. And the incredibility of that narrative itself is probative of Zimmerman's guilt.

The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.


You have GOT to be trolling.  You really must be.  There is no other reason for this disconnect from reality and evidence.  I have said this before and I say it again - Trayvon is dead because he thought he was being "dissed" and went back to beat up Zimmerman.  The fact that there was a fight AT ALL is because instead of going home, instead of calling the police, instead of saying "HEY DUDE I LIVE RIGHT OVER HERE, COME SEE MY HOUSE AND MEET MY DAD" he tried to intimidate Zimmerman, ran from Zimmerman, hid from Zimmerman, looped back and tried to beat up Zimmerman.  There simply is no other reason that Trayvon is dead.  NONE.  Not one shred of evidence shows ANYTHING other than that ZImmerman reported Trayvon to the police, attempted and failed to keep Trayvon in sight, and then was attacked by Trayvon viciously, forcing Zimmerman to KILL a 17 year old gang banger wanna-be who couldn't just "let this go" and head home.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:26 PM  
I can't help but notice how Zimmerman's people keep resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, while the Martin people are mostly making good arguments. That makes me think Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak. I don't know much about this case, but reading this thread, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:37 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-06-25 01:16:58 PM  
CliChe Guevara:  He didn't really "join" anything, as there was no organization there before in that HOA, nor did he ever join the national organization he claimed to be a member of, nor did anyone file for a charter for that neighborhood.

The term he used to describe himself; "Neighborhood Watch Captain", is misleading on multiple levels; it implies he was 1) a member of a specific organization that he was not, 2) that he was operating under its charter, and 3) that he was in a position of authority or leadership over others within that group.

 In fact, he was only a lone guy with a gun with no training, no position, and no membership.  He wasn't a 'Captain' of anything. He was a lone guy with a gun prowling around looking for 'these assholes'.The correct term for that is "Vigilante", not "Watch Captain"


Did you follow any of this morning's testimony?  Specifically that of Wendy Dorival, who set up Neighborhood Watch programs for the Sanford Police Dept.?

She spoke in detail about GZ and he role in the Neighborhood Watch program in his gated community.  It is difficult to reconcile her testimony with your characterization of GZ.

Did you follow any of this morning's testimony?
 
2013-06-25 01:18:18 PM  

bugontherug: BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman believed Trayvon a criminal...

Which was legally issued.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman was lethally armed... nor the inference which flows from that that Zimmerman had special confidence in his ability to handle a fight.

There's no evidence that he was responsible for anything more than trying to keep an eye on Treyvon's location while he waited for the police,

Which in no way undermines the inference that he at first tried to chase Trayvon, nor the inference which flows from that that he was willing to confront Trayvon...


Know what a synonym of inference is?  CONJECTURE!

who he called for assistance before any of this went down.  And we all know that vigilantes are well known for calling the police...

This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting. Hence the crap about "he's got something in his hand." He's read a few police reports where cops justify shooting practically anyone with the magic phrase "suspect appeared to have an object in his hand," even when it turns out to be koosh toy.


This is so stupid, you're assuming that the criminal mastermind GZ also could see into the future and know that Martin would return to within feet of where GZ was standing.

bugontherug: Apparently, an overweight Zimmerman was able to overshoot Treyvon Martin on his route home after only 10 seconds of running, and got so far ahead that he was able to stay on the phone for an extended period of time with dispatch, which clocks Zimmerman's sprint at about 150mph.  Treyvon certainly didn't double back to give someone an asskicking for daring to suspect that he, a stranger in a gated community might be a burglar.

None of this undermines the inference that Trayvon was conducting himself lawfully, seeking only to get snacks for him and his buddy. Or provides anything other than pure speculation on a motive for Trayvon to start a fight.


There's that word again.. In fact this isn't even debatable, Treyvon Martin turned around.  He could have easily walked to his home in the time it took GZ to finish his phone call with dispatch.

bugontherug: And, btw, Trayvon wasn't a "stranger." He was going to his dad's house nearby. Neither did he have any reason to believe Zimmerman suspected him of a crime. All he knew was that a creepy, hostile, cursing man was staring at him and following him around,


Nobody's really a stranger because everyone knows someone?  This is what you're reduced to arguing?

bugontherug: The only suspicious character in that neighborhood that night was named George Zimmerman. If Trayvon did backtrack, it wasn't to start a fight. It was to keep an eye on the threat Zimmerman posed to his community. There had, after all, been several break-ins recently.


Except Treyvon's girlfriend's statements refute that point.

bugontherug: Ah, "anyone who believes Zimmerman is a racist".

Didn't say that. Said the only reason people think Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie yarn is plausible is because of race. This is mainly subconscious, and comes from the permeation of our culture with racist messages. When decent people make themselves aware of this kind of subconscious bias, they strive to overcome it. Zimmerman partisans do not.


"I'm not saying you're racist.. but you're racist"
 
2013-06-25 01:18:26 PM  
ChaosStar:
Lets look at it like this:
You're going from point A to point B
You notice someone behind you, you think they are following you and you don't want to lead them to point B.
You turn and are now heading to point C
The person you think is following you also turns to head to point C
You turn again and are now heading to point D
The person you think is following you also turns to head to point D

You freak out because now you're sure they're following you
You pepper spray the person you thought was following you
You turn and demand to know why they are following you

Turns out the person you thought was following you was going point D the entire time and just

Really IS following you

They already have called the police, you're arrested for battery and now have a police record.
but shoot you and now you are dead
Your attacker had have nothing to base their fear on but assumptions and self defense laws don't work like that except maybe in Florida
 
2013-06-25 01:20:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ChaosStar: Yes, clearly the flashlight was telling Zimmerman to murder Martin the entire time.
You've solved the case my dear boy!

Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.

But why would a highly trained and dedicated protector of the peace like George Zimmerman, who had the foresight to bring a loaded gun with him, NOT check to see if his flash light worked before going out on patrol duty?

No, something doesn't add up.


Ohhhhh, ok, I got you now.
 
2013-06-25 01:20:41 PM  
Phinn:

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

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



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

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?

unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

There is hope, but it will depend on whether a jury believes that Z. had a reosanably fear he was about to be beaten to death or given a crippling beating, and if they think he tried everything he could before pulling his gun.
 
2013-06-25 01:21:32 PM  

ChaosStar: bugontherug: This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting.

You sir have gone full retard, circled back, and then gone full retard a complete second time if you honestly believe this.


Look out!  It's a trap!
 
2013-06-25 01:22:21 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn:

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

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


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

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?

unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

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


Following someone does not qualify as provocation.
 
2013-06-25 01:22:21 PM  

CliChe Guevara: BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Um, you would think after a year of this you might get at least one tiny fragment of reality through your head;

NO. He wasn't.

NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.); "The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program", "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."


Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, Chris Tutko; "If Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions ofhim. If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."


Do yourself a favor and google "George Zimmerman Wendy Dorival"

It should be enlightening.
 
2013-06-25 01:23:09 PM  
manimal2878

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

Considering that witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, it's hardly unlikely that at least one person in the jury could come to such a conclusion.
 
2013-06-25 01:23:29 PM  

parasol: ChaosStar:
Lets look at it like this:
You're going from point A to point B
You notice someone behind you, you think they are following you and you don't want to lead them to point B.
You turn and are now heading to point C
The person you think is following you also turns to head to point C
You turn again and are now heading to point D
The person you think is following you also turns to head to point D

You freak out because now you're sure they're following you
You pepper spray the person you thought was following you
You turn and demand to know why they are following you

Turns out the person you thought was following you was going point D the entire time and just
Really IS following you

They already have called the police, you're arrested for battery and now have a police record.
but shoot you and now you are dead
Your attacker had have nothing to base their fear on but assumptions and self defense laws don't work like that except maybe in Florida


Oh! I see what you did there!
Not correctly, in any relevant way, or even with any appreciable wit
/but I see it
 
2013-06-25 01:23:45 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn:

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

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


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

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?

unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

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


There are eyewitnesses who put Martin on top of Zimmerman right before the shot was fired, so the ability to flee at least should not be in question.
 
2013-06-25 01:25:59 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison.  Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.


3 years in prison for first time assault in a city where I know every single member of the police force? Not quite. I've been stalked. It's not fun. There's a HUGE difference in walking the same direction where someone else happens to be walking and actively hunting them down. You don't purposefully follow someone through several direction changes just for the heck of it. You have a motive and that motive isn't nice.
 
2013-06-25 01:26:59 PM  

ChaosStar: Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.


Smacking it?  More like assaulting it.  He's clearly prone to violence, apparently even against inanimate objects.
 
2013-06-25 01:27:52 PM  

Yes please: ChaosStar: Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.

Smacking it?  More like assaulting it.  He's clearly prone to violence, apparently even against inanimate objects.


Why, you're right!
This is clear evidence that should be brought to the prosecution!
 
2013-06-25 01:28:16 PM  
The really interesting thing about these threads is that some people think deadly force is inappropriate even as someone sits on top of you punching your face into concrete, but if someone dares to walk the same path as you, there should be hell to pay.
 
2013-06-25 01:29:35 PM  

youncasqua: I can't help but notice how Zimmerman's people keep resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, while the Martin people are mostly making good arguments. That makes me think Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak. I don't know much about this case, but reading this thread, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.


actually, if you pay attention and read, people that go with what is actual evidence and reality tend to "side" with Zimmerman.  People that want this to be "a poor innocent black chile was murdered" are the ones that are really weak - because all of their arguments are fictional.  Facts are this - Zimmerman killed Trayvon in self-defense and the prosecution has no evidence to the contrary.  Zimmerman will walk because the law, the evidence, the witnesses and the facts are ALL on his side.  Period.
 
2013-06-25 01:30:15 PM  

nekom: It also isn't evidence of a crime. It's not against the law to follow somebody, or even to confront them verbally in a non-threatening way. It's not against the law to carry a properly licensed concealed firearm while doing so. If you're trying to convince me that Zimmerman is an overzealous, confrontational, wanna-be cop, don't bother, I already firmly believe that. However, that isn't a crime.


You're right that chasing someone by itself isn't evidence of a crime. But we're not divorcing this from context. I'm not anyway. In conjunction with the other evidence of Zimmerman's attitude and course of conduct, his willingness to confront is probative to the crime.

Zimmerman is an overzealous, confrontational, wanna-be cop, don't bother, I already firmly believe that.

This is overzealous, confrontational, wanna-be-cop's story has evolved depending on the audience. He had a fight with someone he believed for no good reason was a criminal, who was minding his own business out to buy some snacks, wasn't committing any crimes or in possession of any contraband, and who had no credible motive whatsoever to start a fight...
 and you think there's a reasonable doubt who started it?


You don't need videotaped evidence to prove a crime. You have to make inferences informed by a heavy dose of common sense. Every killer is gonna kick up some dust to obfuscate the truth. That dust may give doubt. But that doesn't make that doubt reasonable.
 
2013-06-25 01:30:30 PM  

QueenMamaBee: BraveNewCheneyWorld: QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison.  Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.

3 years in prison for first time assault in a city where I know every single member of the police force? Not quite. I've been stalked. It's not fun. There's a HUGE difference in walking the same direction where someone else happens to be walking and actively hunting them down. You don't purposefully follow someone through several direction changes just for the heck of it. You have a motive and that motive isn't nice.


So you're saying you will be given special treatment by the police force?
There's a HUGE difference between following someone and stalking them too.
Motive may not be nice, but it's not grounds for you to attack them.
 
2013-06-25 01:30:37 PM  
The prosecuting attorney sounds a lot like Kevin Costner.
 
2013-06-25 01:31:09 PM  

QueenMamaBee: BraveNewCheneyWorld: QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison.  Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.

3 years in prison for first time assault in a city where I know every single member of the police force? Not quite. I've been stalked. It's not fun. There's a HUGE difference in walking the same direction where someone else happens to be walking and actively hunting them down. You don't purposefully follow someone through several direction changes just for the heck of it. You have a motive and that motive isn't nice.


So your justification for using force on someone who may just be coincidentally walking in the same direction is that you have enough connections in law enforcement such that you're able to act irresponsibly without consequence?  You sound like an asshole.
 
2013-06-25 01:32:04 PM  

redmid17: CliChe Guevara: BraveNewCheneyWorld: He's a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Um, you would think after a year of this you might get at least one tiny fragment of reality through your head;

NO. He wasn't.

NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.); "The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program", "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."


Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, Chris Tutko; "If Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions ofhim. If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."

Do yourself a favor and google "George Zimmerman Wendy Dorival"

It should be enlightening.


Is that the lady that showed up to try to train an official group but it never went any further?
The one who invited Zimmerman to join but he declined?
Possibly because she is also the one the told him "Neighborhood Watch is NOT the vigilante police"?

Not sure what your point is, other than I did learn he was even offered a position and declined.
That itself infers something right there, actually, and it isn't good.
 
2013-06-25 01:32:38 PM  

youncasqua: I can't help but notice how Zimmerman's people keep resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, while the Martin people are mostly making good arguments. That makes me think Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak. I don't know much about this case, but reading this thread, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.




What thread are you reading? Since day one Zimmerman defenders have making logic based arguments. Martin defenders counter with that's racist.
 
2013-06-25 01:32:59 PM  

youncasqua: I can't help but notice how Zimmerman's people keep resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, while the Martin people are mostly making good arguments. That makes me think Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak. I don't know much about this case, but reading this thread, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.



You must be new.

Rational discussion of the evidence and the law ended several Zimmerman threads ago.
 
2013-06-25 01:33:43 PM  
IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!
 
2013-06-25 01:33:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The really interesting thing about these threads is that some people think deadly force is inappropriate even as someone sits on top of you punching your face into concrete, but if someone dares to walk the same path as you, there should be hell to pay.


I think there should be a way to stop the assault and/or prevent an assault. Was there a way to stop TM from assaulting GZ short of shooting him? Yes. Would I kill someone for following me? No, but if their intentions don't seem good, I'm going to stop him. I'd try my absolute best to remove myself from the situation first, but if it comes down to it and I feel threatened, I'm at least just going to show my pepper spray if not use it. That's not lethal force and I don't think GZ should have gone that far either.
 
2013-06-25 01:35:10 PM  

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


and that has what to do with anything exactly?
 
2013-06-25 01:35:58 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The really interesting thing about these threads is that some people think deadly force is inappropriate even as someone sits on top of you punching your face into concrete, but if someone dares to walk the same path as you, there should be hell to pay.


No, you see.  If you follow somebody they automatically get to beat you up to the extent they chose, and you have to take it.  It's okay.  They promise they'll stop before you are seriously injured.
 
2013-06-25 01:36:30 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: QueenMamaBee: BraveNewCheneyWorld: QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison.  Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.

3 years in prison for first time assault in a city where I know every single member of the police force? Not quite. I've been stalked. It's not fun. There's a HUGE difference in walking the same direction where someone else happens to be walking and actively hunting them down. You don't purposefully follow someone through several direction changes just for the heck of it. You have a motive and that motive isn't nice.

So your justification for using force on someone who may just be coincidentally walking in the same direction is that you have enough connections in law enforcement such that you're able to act irresponsibly without consequence?  You sound like an asshole.


No, as I've said many many times, I would try to remove myself from the situation first. If the person's still tracking me down, then yes I will react. Someone doesn't just "happen" to be walking one direction with me, then totally change directions when I do, then totally change directions again. That's not a coincidence, that's a planned act.

And no, I wouldn't get special treatment from the police officers, however, they know I'm not going to act without good reason.
 
2013-06-25 01:36:37 PM  
QueenMamaBee

Was there a way to stop TM from assaulting GZ short of shooting him? Yes.

Once a man has you on the ground and is beating you about the head, how would you stop his assault? Zimmerman didn't have pepper spray. He wasn't an athlete. He was, by all accounts, getting his ass handed to him. What would you have done to stop it?
 
2013-06-25 01:36:57 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: bugontherug

George Zimmerman molested the innocent child Trayvon Martin.

You still don't know this. You've simply decided it must be so and insisted upon it. None of us know who started the altercation.


No. Zimmerman's own story depends on the proposition that he annoyed or disturbed Trayvon, thus giving Trayvon a motive to viciously attack him. It is conclusively proved that Zimmerman molested the child Travyon Martin. It is an objective fact of reality that George Zimmerman is a child molester.

I don't know about you, but I just don't see how anyone could ever find a child molester's killing of his victim justified, no matter how savagely he was beaten. I guess I just think differently than you is all.

= P
 
2013-06-25 01:37:25 PM  

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

and that has what to do with anything exactly?


Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.
 
2013-06-25 01:37:40 PM  
bugontherug:
You don't need videotaped evidence to prove a crime. You have to make inferences informed by a heavy dose of common sense. Every killer is gonna kick up some dust to obfuscate the truth. That dust may give doubt. But that doesn't make that doubt reasonable.

You don't think that it's reasonable that MAYBE Martin actually attacked him?  I think that's probably the case, however given the hard evidence we have, it's CERTAINLY reasonable that Martin was the one who initiated the scuffle.

Reasonable doubt = not guilty.  All those inferences and such will come in very handy at the civil trial, though, which he will have a fair chance of losing.
 
2013-06-25 01:38:42 PM  
Chaos Star

"not correctly"? I'm sorry, I was unaware there is a correct way to endlessly speculate about a topic on
FARK - nor was I aware you are the designated judge.

I defer to your greater skills - both at non-relevant hypothetical situations AND how best to pose them here
 
2013-06-25 01:38:57 PM  

QueenMamaBee: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The really interesting thing about these threads is that some people think deadly force is inappropriate even as someone sits on top of you punching your face into concrete, but if someone dares to walk the same path as you, there should be hell to pay.

I think there should be a way to stop the assault and/or prevent an assault. Was there a way to stop TM from assaulting GZ short of shooting him? Yes.


With the information that GZ had at that time, tell us what that was.  Remember, GZ had every legal right to be in his own neighborhood, the phone call he had with dispatch indicated that he would cease chasing TM, and TM's girlfriend indicated that TM was angry at GZ.
 
2013-06-25 01:40:57 PM  

IamAwake: 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.


Actually, you would be incorrect. I have. And I have seen several real fights where bouncing someone's head off the pavement did not result in copious amounts of blood and several where bouncing their head off the pavement did result in copious amounts of blood. You see, the fact that a scalp impacted pavement does not necessarily mean there will be massive bleeding--there are other factors involved, and since I was not present at the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, I really couldn't say what exactly took place. I can say that not all head injuries are open--I don't have the statistics in front of me, but if memory serves, the vast majority are closed. I can also say that in the real world, it's not as easy to cut someone's head open as TV would have us think it is--even by smashing it on a hard surface. I've seen folks with their heads smacked deliberately into pavement a few times with injuries very similar to Zimmerman's, and I've seen folks with their heads smacked deliberately into the pavement a few times who've bled like someone tried to decapitate them and had really bad aim. I've also seen folks who've had their head smacked into pavement who barely got a bump on the noggin.

I actually think it's a good thing that you've never been anywhere near a MASH unit, trauma center, or otherwise involved in picking up the pieces--and no, that's not snark or insult. I've always found it morbidly fascinating that 5 people can be in the same or very similar situation and have different physical reactions and injuries. For instance, the night of my car accident that gave me my spine and brain injuries, there were three accidents with identical circumstances in that state. One victim was internally decapitated and died instantly. Another victim was paralyzed from the neck down. I am able to walk--though I endured over a year of physical therapy in order to be able to do so. All three wrecks were identical; three different outcomes. Most likely, if you find three randomly selected 200lb men who have have their heads smashed into a curb, you will find three different sets of injuries--similar, but not identical.

The videos posted, by the way, were in direct response to the question posed regarding the issue of how someone smaller and lighter could pose a credible threat to the life and safety of someone larger and heavier who had been trained in the martial arts. As an off-topic aside, PRIDE didn't become the joke that is UFC until 2007, when Zuffa purchased it. From 1997 until its purchase in 2007, PRIDE operated under different, less restrictive rules which allowed things such as kicking and kneeing the heads of downed opponents and stomping the head of a downed opponent. Dana White turned it into the bad joke it is today.
 
2013-06-25 01:41:40 PM  
bugontherug

No.

Yes, actually.

Zimmerman's own story depends on the proposition that he annoyed or disturbed Trayvon, thus giving Trayvon a motive to viciously attack him.

You don't believe Zimmeman, so this is irrelevant to the issue of you making things up.

It is conclusively proved that Zimmerman molested the child Travyon Martin. It is an objective fact of reality that George Zimmerman is a child molester.

Because you like to portray reporting someone to the police as "child molestation." If you have children, you yourself are a child molester, by your definition..."annoying a child."

I guess I just think differently than you is all.

I think that's obvious. I tend not to lie.
 
2013-06-25 01:41:42 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: QueenMamaBee

Was there a way to stop TM from assaulting GZ short of shooting him? Yes.

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


First thing taught in all self-defense classes....aim for the eyes or the groin.
 
2013-06-25 01:41:49 PM  
bugontherug: inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences   inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences   inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences   inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences   inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences   inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences  inferences 

You like that word..... Have you tried an easier one, "facts"?
 
2013-06-25 01:42:44 PM  

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

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

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


except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.
 
2013-06-25 01:43:14 PM  

manimal2878: Phinn:

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

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

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

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?
unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

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



Following someone who is so far ahead of you that you lose sight of him does not make you an aggressor.

They were separated.

Then (by some means that was not recorded or witnessed), they ended up at the same spot.  Even DeeDee said that Martin was the first to speak.  GZ responded to Martin's question with a question -- "What are you doing here?"

He didn't respond with BANG!

He didn't respond with a punch (there were no injuries to GZ's hands).

Martin verbally confronted GZ.  GZ responded.  An altercation ensued.  There is no evidence to disprove GZ's self-defense claim that Martin attacked him.  None.

It's good to see you reading actual Florida law, though, rather than Fantasyland Fark law.  It's a start.
 
2013-06-25 01:43:31 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The really interesting thing about these threads is that some people think deadly force is inappropriate even as someone sits on top of you punching your face into concrete, but if someone dares to walk the same path as you, there should be hell to pay.


this is the line of thinking that is really odd.  by some of the thinking in here, Zimmerman forfeited his right to life the instant he exited his vehicle and began reporting Trayvon to the police.  he certainly had no right to defend himself, because following Trayvon was enough cause to give Trayvon the right to beat Zimmerman to death on the sidewalk.

farking idiots.
 
2013-06-25 01:43:51 PM  

parasol: Chaos Star

"not correctly"? I'm sorry, I was unaware there is a correct way to endlessly speculate about a topic on
FARK - nor was I aware you are the designated judge.

I defer to your greater skills - both at non-relevant hypothetical situations AND how best to pose them here


Thank you, please keep that deferment in mind later when you reply to my posts.
 
2013-06-25 01:44:10 PM  

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

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


Say what you want about Zimmerman, but he was a cheapskate based on his gun and ammo choice. Follow this logic...
If you are going out looking for trouble, and know that if you get INTO trouble the cops will confiscate your gun as evidence, do you bring your $3500 Les Baer 1911 loaded with Corbon Pow'rball, or your $300 Kel-Tec loaded with Sellier & Bellot 115gr's.
All I know is my "bump in the night go to gun" isn't my $1400 S&W Performance Center 357, it is my $350 Taurus 357. Both go bang, but one doesn't hurt as much to lose.
 
2013-06-25 01:44:29 PM  
QueenMamaBee

First thing taught in all self-defense classes....aim for the eyes or the groin.

Huh. I always thought the first thing was "try not to get into fights."
 
2013-06-25 01:45:38 PM  
ChaosStar
                  Certainly - it will also come in handy the next time I am tempted to join the "total fark" cadre
 
2013-06-25 01:48:27 PM  

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

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

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

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


I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.
 
2013-06-25 01:48:30 PM  

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?

Not

only did you invent stats, you're also not making any sense.
 
2013-06-25 01:48:53 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: QueenMamaBee

First thing taught in all self-defense classes....aim for the eyes or the groin.

Huh. I always thought the first thing was "try not to get into fights."


You're right...I do apologize. Second thing taught in self defense.... aim for the eyes or the groin.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:27 PM  

ChaosStar: Ohhhhh, ok, I got you now.


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

I could understand a single 4 cell maglight; could use that as a club.  But two lights?  Hell, I don't even carry ONE flashlight when I get out of the car to shoot someone.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:43 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: BraveNewCheneyWorld: bugontherug: The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.

Because Treyvon Martin doubled back simply to thank Zimmerman for keeping the neighborhood safe.

Why are you worried about Trayvon's intentions, but not Zimmerman's?


Because the spot where they met for their final confrontation required Treyvon to turn around and pursue GZ.  He is the one who apparently had desire for the confrontation and set the tone of the event.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:16 PM  

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


I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding far more entertainment in the bickering in this thread rather than the bickering in the court room.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: manimal2878: Phinn:

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

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


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

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?

unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

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

Following someone does not qualify as provocation.


Sure it could.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:40 PM  

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


Or maybe it required him to just be walking around or standing still while talking on the phone with a girl?
 
2013-06-25 01:51:08 PM  

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



The fact and content of the recorded call shows that he was following Martin to report his location to the police.

Is that a crime?

Or is it just so offensive that it justifies beating Zimmerman?
 
2013-06-25 01:51:46 PM  

youncasqua: I can't help but notice how Zimmerman's people keep resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, while the Martin people are mostly making good arguments. That makes me think Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak. I don't know much about this case, but reading this thread, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.


Good luck with that Mr Alt.

Hope you don't gamble your house on it.
 
2013-06-25 01:52:21 PM  
QueenMamaBee

Second thing taught in self defense.... aim for the eyes or the groin.

Right-o, then. Zimmerman alleges, however, that Martin went for the firearm first. In his version of events (which the witnesses who saw Martin on top, beating him, conveniently missed, having gone inside to call the police), he basically had to fight for the weapon or die. It's surely possible that a solid blow to the groin or losing an eye might have settled the issue, but he (again, in his own account) was too scared he was about to be murdered to have a go.
 
2013-06-25 01:52:22 PM  

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Phinn: does not make you an aggressor.


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