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 141
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-25 09:23:13 AM  
4 votes:
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 03:33:41 PM  
3 votes:
I think the man who was "tired of those a-holes getting away" was probably the aggressor.. So I'm assuming he tried to apprehend the "effin punk" ? Isn't that right GZ?
2013-06-25 09:17:13 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:18:03 AM  
3 votes:
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 04:46:56 PM  
2 votes:

I Browse: Bontesla:

What's incredibly frustrating is that both could have done several things to diffuse the situation. I give more leniency to the teenager because of his age and inexperience. I expect more of Zimmerman.


My hope is that this incident, if nothing else, will serve as a teachable moment. We teach our daughters to avoid strangers, but we don't always do the same with our sons. I was a cocky 17 year old at one time myself. And like many other guys that age, I never gave much thought to my own safety when I was out alone at night. I figured I could take care of myself. But this incident should underscore the point that you just never know who you might run up against.

Avoiding confrontation might seem like a punk move, but hell...I'd rather be a punk than a corpse.


But, to be honest, I'm not black. I know that many black parents teach their children to leave their wallets out in the open while in the car so as to avoid reaching near their belts.

I know that many black parents teach their children that running can raise suspicion so avoid running.

When I hear that Martin said he won't run but that he'll walk very fast, I'm reminded of that he could have been taught that.

I think Martin could have behaved differently to avoid his death. But I place a larger blame on Zimmerman.
2013-06-25 04:18:29 PM  
2 votes:

ChaosStar: frepnog: MFAWG: What (and remember this phrase, because you're going to hear it in the prosecution's closing argument several times) was the 'sequence of events' that led up to this altercation?

here is what I think happened based on all available evidence, witness accounts and Zimmerman's own statements.

Zimmerman left his home.  He saw Trayvon acting "suspicious".  He calls the cops.  Trayvon notices that he has been seen, and tries to intimidate Zimmerman by acting tough and pretending to be armed.  Trayvon walks away.  Zimmerman exits his vehicle and tries to keep Trayvon in sight while speaking to cops.  Trayvon, realizing Zimmerman is on the phone, possibly with police, runs.  Zimmerman pursues until dispatch says "we don't need you to do that" and stops.  Trayvon, pissed that he has been watched, decides to loop back to teach Zimmerman a lesson about watching people.  Trayvon proceeds to Zimmerman's location and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him down.  Trayvon mounts Zimmerman and begins to beat the shiat out of him.  Zimmerman's jacket pulls up exposing a weapon.  Trayvon says something to the effect of "you are gonna die tonight" and goes for the weapon.  Zimmerman gets the weapon from its holster and fires one shot.  Trayvon dies.

Totally 100 percent accurate?  Possibly not, but I'd wager is very very close to what actually occurred and is a far cry from "Zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent black child".  It is the sequence of events lined out by all of the available evidence.

Pretty much spot on


I would like to add my $0.02 on that. From everything I have read, this is quite clear to me that GZ is a wannabe tough guy desperately in need of a pair. He got scared by the confrontation and pulled the gun way before average person would think about that doing that.

So, from my point of view: TM did nothing that he shouldn't have done. Anyone who gets chased and feel threaten by someone would want to hit back, if possible. It was possible for TM, and he did.

GZ made several bad calls.
- Assuming TM was up to something just because he is black.
- Didn't got back even after suggested by the operator.
- Created the whole situation that ended up a kid being dead.

So, lets recap, if GZ walks free, you can be a kid walking home, do absolutely nothing wrong, still be dead, and that would be no one's fault.

I do not propose any solution, but something is wrong with this scenario.
2013-06-25 03:40:27 PM  
2 votes:

Mid_mo_mad_man: Two16: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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.


Yeah, he's the total source of all his ills.  Yup...

[i39.tinypic.com image 850x251]

He chose to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman had lost track of him according to the 911 recording. Martin to double back and attack Zimmerman. Idiot got shot and deserved it.


Assuming that all went down just in that fashion, your solution sounds reasonable, well thought out, and adult. In fact it might just be the last solution of its kind needed!After all; something needs to curtail the chronic "uppity" problem we seem to be having lately, what with people of all stripes and colors demanding their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and all that. You should start a newsletter for people to subscribe too, there's a precedent for that sort of thing, you know.
2013-06-25 03:38:22 PM  
2 votes:

frepnog: Trayvon notices that he has been seen, and tries to intimidate Zimmerman by acting tough and pretending to be armed.


0/10 oversold it right there. you were doing a pretty good job of playing the ignorant racist until you started to push the envelope. you had some good trolling before that, though, I must admit.
2013-06-25 03:23:44 PM  
2 votes:

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

We should put the system on trial!!!

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

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

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

I've already read it.  Too bad the jury instructions don't read the way you imagine them to.

So, you've made a complete ass of yourself, and couldn't look any sillier than if you'd put on clown shoes and worn your underwear on the outside of your pants, and have NOTHING to show where what I've SAID is incorrect.

But not satisfied with your reputation as a moron, you decide to IMAGINE that I "think" the Florida jury instructions are not what they really are.

First, the question of whether the standard jury instructions accurately reflect the law is a different issue.

But more importantly, it's not something I have ever discussed. So you have no idea what I "think."

If you're just going to imagine whatever pitiful facts about me you need to, in order to rescue your failing self-image, go ahead, but do it privately. No one wants to see your strawman abuse and mental masturbations.


Are you frothing at the mouth?  It sounds like it.
2013-06-25 01:44:29 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:11:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:39:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:31:36 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:27:39 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:23:07 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:11:18 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:07:00 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:52:36 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:27:19 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:27:04 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:11:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:51:51 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:47:10 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:45:56 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:26:21 AM  
2 votes:
At this point, I have a feeling that both sides are just farking around. Trolling, for the lulz, if you will.
2013-06-26 07:36:47 AM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: Zimmerman's back doesn't have any grass stains or mud on them and neither do his pants despite the fact he was on his back. So I guess that didn't happen either right?

The photo of Zimmerman's back was taken at the police station, 2 hours after the incident. Also, we have a police report indicating that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass.

Care to try again?


To reiterate his last point:

i.imgur.com
2013-06-26 03:23:52 AM  
1 votes:
Wow, people are splitting an awful lot of hairs about this.

Seems to me like Mr. Zimmerman went to pick a fight with a 17-year-old kid and got surprised when the kid fought back... and ended the confrontation with a gun.

Doesn't seem to matter to me what the skin colors were, though it might've made a difference to Zimmerman.
2013-06-25 10:39:14 PM  
1 votes:

Phinn: The anti-Zimmerman crowd is basically relying on a "yada yada yada" theory for the prosecution.

"Zimmerman saw a black teenager who wasn't doing anything wrong, but he followed the teen unfairly, and yada yada yada, he ended up dead."

You're all basically a walking Seinfeld joke.

Don't get your hopes up.


Sorry, sparky. I saw you trying to use the girlfriend's statement above too. And if now suddenly the girlfriend is credible, Zimmerman is fried.

"Why are you following me?" Present tense.
2013-06-25 09:55:12 PM  
1 votes:

Thoguh: As evidenced by the fact that he ran straight home when he saw the bad man chasing him, right?


Your hero called 911.  In that phone call he says "He's running" and "He ran".  That's trying to avoid the situation.  It sounds like he ran, then hid, then got found, then got shot.

I can understand why someone being followed by a nutcase for no reason may not want to lead them directly home.
2013-06-25 09:39:47 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Zimmerman shouldn't have to pay for the fact that TM overreacted, and did so violently.


Zimmerman also overreacted.  It all started with him, and he did it far more violently than Martin did.
2013-06-25 09:36:22 PM  
1 votes:

QueenMamaBee: TM's heart had about 1/5 missing. I'd dare say he was dead immediately


I'd say that GZ has his entire heart missing.

i229.photobucket.com
2013-06-25 06:56:23 PM  
1 votes:

Thoguh: Haha. Wow. That witness admitted she signed a change.org petition to 'persecute the killer of our son, Treyvon Martin'. And changed her testimony.


"Prosecute," not "persecute." stop doing that, even though it is amusing....
2013-06-25 06:44:17 PM  
1 votes:

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



No, he was supposed to let Martin beat him to death... to prove that he's not racist.
2013-06-25 06:15:42 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Bontesla: Whether or not she liked a Facebook page is irrelevant. Most witnesses are biased and that, in and of itself, doesn't mean she sides against Zimmerman. Many people have stated that they'll accept whatever verdict is rendered - it was merely unjust to take no action. It would concern me if a juror did it but obviously not a witness.

Does any of her testimony help support Zimmerman?

Apparently several of her earlier depositions had statements of (iirc) someone traveling from the left to the right behind her house. That led to the conclusion that TM returned towards the direction of GZ before the shooting.  Suddenly, she doesn't remember saying that at all, even though it was documented, and she previously reviewed the documents.


No, she never said that in the previous depositions.
She said it on the stand today, which meant it was brand new evidence. The defense grilled her on why she would say it on the stand today but never before, they even went through the documents after she couldn't remember if today was the first time she had ever said it.
Even after going through the documents, they asked her again if it was the first time she had ever said it and she said no, so they asked her again who the first person she said it to and she said her sister. Her body language told me she had been caught, knew she hadn't said it, but knew it damaged Zimmerman in some way so she tried her best to keep it out there.
This is why they brought up not just the Facebook page she liked but a petition at MoveOn.org that she signed to "prosecute the killer of our son, Trayvon Martin". She pretended she didn't know what the defense was talking about until they showed it to her on a laptop.
2013-06-25 05:57:37 PM  
1 votes:

Garble: kendelrio: 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?"

If this is legally correct, how the fark is that supposed to work? The term self "defense" usually implies it's being done by the non-aggressor. If that's out the window, where does "defense" end?

Assuming things happened according to GZ's account, if the fight had gone the other way couldn't TM claim he had to beat GZ to death because he saw a gun and feared for his life?

In fact, couldn't you just start shooting at someone and if they fire back, kill them and claim self defense? I mean, they could have killed you with that deadly force they were using to defend themselves...


I'll try and explain this.

If someone starts a simple fistfight or a shoving match with you, then you have the right to defend yourself with equal force, or the least amount of force as necessary to get them to stop doing it.  If you defend yourself with too much force, or force that is way out of proportion with what they used against you, then you have escalated the situation and they can actually start legally defending themselves against you.  Let's take it one step further, say they start a shoving match with you and you start beating them so badly (or pull a weapon) that the fight is now life or death.  The law says that you have now forfeited your right to use self defense, and that person can now use deadly force to defend themselves against you IF they first back away from the fight and tell you they are done fighting, or you have them trapped or pinned to the point where they cannot escape you.

HOWEVER, and this is the key, in Florida and in a lot of other states, you only get the right to use self defense if you haven't committed a violent felony in starting the fight.  For example, the person that started the shoving match or fistfight is still entitled to self-defense because those are misdemeanors.  A person that starts shooting at people in the hopes that they would shoot back at them so he could then legally shoot them will actually have lost his right to self-defense because the initial shooting at people is a violent felony.  This is why people aren't able to go around shooting each other willy-nilly as some have speculated.  The ability of someone who starts a fight to use self defense is very limited and its only in rare circumstances that you will see it successfully used.


And again, as an important side note, NONE OF THIS has anything to do with "Stand Your Ground".  This is the plain old doctrine of self defense as it has existed for decades.
2013-06-25 05:47:11 PM  
1 votes:

MithrandirBooga: 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.


I love how you claim Zimmerman started the confrontation when the only person who knows who started it for sure claims the opposite.

Speaking of psychopaths... people who claim to know things they couldn't possibly know, pretty high on that list.
2013-06-25 05:44:33 PM  
1 votes:
I would tell my kid when "he's old enough to go out at night by himself" that if he's ever being followed by a stranger, to (A) Run (B) Yell for help and (C) if caught? fight like hell! I don't think Trayvon did anything that I wouldn't instruct my own son to do.. Just sayin...
2013-06-25 05:41:36 PM  
1 votes:
You know what he means.
2013-06-25 05:32:24 PM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: So this witness who just finished on the stand came into court with new information that they had never mentioned prior to this and they also signed a Change.org petition asking for the prosecution of Zimmerman?

So, when does she get charged with perjury?


Let's have some real fun.  Suborning perjury charges against the prosecutors.
2013-06-25 05:14:43 PM  
1 votes:
Bontesla: But, to be honest, I'm not black. I know that many black parents teach their children to leave their wallets out in the open while in the car so as to avoid reaching near their belts.

I know that many black parents teach their children that running can raise suspicion so avoid running.


When I hear that Martin said he won't run but that he'll walk very fast, I'm reminded of that he could have been taught that.

I think Martin could have behaved differently to avoid his death. But I place a larger blame on Zimmerman.



I'm black and I was taught all of those things by my folks. But it was specifically about dealing with the police (and mostly what to do and not do while driving). My parents didn't really warn me about dealing with random strangers that I might encounter on the street. They probably didn't feel they had to.

Like most kids, when I was very young, I was taught about "stranger danger." But once I reached a certain age (I'd say around 12) I stopped worrying about that. Kidnapping just didn't seem like something that could happen to me anymore. I realize now that it absolutely could have...but that's not how I felt at the time. And the older I got, the more confident I was that I could handle myself. By the time I was 17? Pssh...you couldn't tell me shiat. I wasn't necessarily a baddass, but I definitely wasn't walking around worrying about my safety. And if I had encountered my own George Zimmerman...who knows? I might've felt just as indignant as Trayvon Martin did. Luckily for me, I was never put into that situation. And maybe that's why I'm able to sit here, as a 41 year old man, speculating about all this.
2013-06-25 04:58:13 PM  
1 votes:
Perpetuous Procrastination

Zimmerman is a grade-A farkwit who, I hope, will never wear a badge or hold any position of legal authority.

Not much chance of that, I think.
2013-06-25 04:55:50 PM  
1 votes:
mayIFark:
You would ask about admiring your ass ONLY if you did not feel threaten. If a girl feels she would be raped, if a kid feels he would be kidnapped, or if an adult felt he would be murdered, it would be wise to through a punch and run as soon as the follower is down. TM didn't run, but there is nothing wrong with making sure the follower would not be able to keep chasing, for TM's own safety. He is still not at fault for any of his action. Yet, he is dead. Who is responsible for this death?

Well of course that would be situational, and the part about admiring my ass was just a joke.  More like a simple "Something I can do for you?" would be my default response.  Had TM said something like that, he'd be alive today.  I'm not saying he deserved to die, he absolutely did not, but he would have had a simple akward conversation with the town idiot, the cops would say "He's a kid whose dad lives here, Mr. Zimmerman, now would you PLEASE stop calling us every time you see a black guy?" and that would have been it.

Who is responsible for Trayvon's death?  A whole mess of farked up circumstances culminating in a perfect storm and involving two people who made a few key critical errors in judgment.
2013-06-25 04:53:44 PM  
1 votes:
QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: Read the damn gf's statements to the cops. Martin WASN'T scared. It's well established. And another thing calling a 6 foot seventeen year old a kid is bs.

He might be physically intimidating, but mentally he's a kid. How many 17 year olds do you know with decent reasoning skills? Hell, with boys, it's past college before they get past the "hey y'all watch this" phase (if they ever do...)


Exactly, which is why it might make sense for him to decide he was going to beat up the strange man who was following him.  Not because he was black, or a "thug", or anything like that.  But because he was a 17 year old male.  And 17 year males make really bad decisions all the time regardless of race, color, or creed.
2013-06-25 04:52:44 PM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: Perpetuous Procrastination: Zimmerman is likely going to avoid conviction simply for lack of evidence, not because he actually is innocent; there's a difference.

Damn straight. This is all I've been saying. Hell. Maybe the reason Trayvon isn't alive today, is that no one caught him breaking into houses. We don't know that he wasn't casing houses. Alone in the rain, with nearly no one around is a good way to do it. If only Zimmerman's woman would have done the shopping like a good woman, George never would have crossed paths with Martin.

Speculation is easy, and often misleading.


I'm no criminal mastermind, but I would think 7pm would be a very poor time to be casing houses. People are usually home and awake around that time.
2013-06-25 04:48:37 PM  
1 votes:
nekom:
It's BOTH of their faults.  You can determine which is MORE at fault, because that's a matter of opinion, but TM allegedly attacked a man who had been following him.  No, not ANYONE would want to get the first hit.  My response to someone following me would be either ignore them, or turn around and say something like "Something I can help you with, there, or are you just admiring my ass?  NTTAWWT"  GZ did wrong when he decided to play cops and robbers and did create this situation.  Is that not a reasonable takeaway from all this?

You would ask about admiring your ass ONLY if you did not feel threaten. If a girl feels she would be raped, if a kid feels he would be kidnapped, or if an adult felt he would be murdered, it would be wise to through a punch and run as soon as the follower is down. TM didn't run, but there is nothing wrong with making sure the follower would not be able to keep chasing, for TM's own safety. He is still not at fault for any of his action. Yet, he is dead. Who is responsible for this death?
2013-06-25 04:29:10 PM  
1 votes:

mayIFark: something is wrong with this scenario.


Allow me to help.

mayIFark: From everything I have read, this is quite clear to me


That's a bad start.

mayIFark: He got scared by the confrontation and pulled the gun


This is an assertion, not a fact.

mayIFark: So, from my point of view:


I'm guessing that is not "in full view of what unfolded".

mayIFark: TM did nothing that he shouldn't have done


Really?

mayIFark: Anyone who gets chased and feel threaten by someone would want to hit back, if possible. It was possible for TM, and he did.


Hit back? Well, let's just say that initiating a physical confrontation with a person following you could lead to your being injured or killed, and by initiating it, you have given them permission to "hit back".

mayIFark: Assuming TM was up to something just because he


George gave the reason he called. "Because black" isn't one of them.

mayIFark: Didn't got back even after suggested by the operator.


Another non-factual assertion.

mayIFark: So, lets recap, if GZ walks free, you can be a kid walking home, do absolutely nothing wrong, still be dead, and that would be no one's fault.


Inaccurate talking points lead to an inaccurate conclusion.
2013-06-25 04:22:04 PM  
1 votes:

Garble: If this is legally correct, how the fark is that supposed to work? The term self "defense" usually implies it's being done by the non-aggressor. If that's out the window, where does "defense" end?

Assuming things happened according to GZ's account, if the fight had gone the other way couldn't TM claim he had to beat GZ to death because he saw a gun and feared for his life?

In fact, couldn't you just start shooting at someone and if they fire back, kill them and claim self defense? I mean, they could have killed you with that deadly force they were using to defend themselves...


Every Zimmerman thread you'll get a few people who make this claim.  A few of the more trolling cracker ones have claimed:
If you walk up to a black guy you don't know, start yelling "n*****" and start beating the crap out of him, you can then shoot him if pulls a knife and be guilty of no crimes what so ever.
2013-06-25 04:15:12 PM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: Damn straight. This is all I've been saying. Hell. Maybe the reason Trayvon isn't alive today, is that no one caught him breaking into houses. We don't know that he wasn't casing houses. Alone in the rain, with nearly no one around is a good way to do it. If only Zimmerman's woman would have done the shopping like a good woman, George never would have crossed paths with Martin.

Speculation is easy, and often misleading.


Damn straight.  This is all I've been saying. Hell.  Maybe the reason more kids haven't been raped in that neighborhood is that Zimmerman had to move out and people know his face.  We don't know that he wasn't following Martin with plans to rape him.  Alone in the raid, with clearly no one around is a good way to do it.  If only Martin hadn't just laid there being raped like an alter boy, he would still be alive today.
2013-06-25 04:11:00 PM  
1 votes:

ChaosStar: This blows holes in both of you saying Martin didn't confront Zimmerman, Zimmerman hunted him down, etc.
Martin walked up to him and asked him a question


How in the hell are so many of you people entirely unable to separate out any fact from your fantasy.

Somehow you take that if Martin spoke first, it somehow also proves that Martin 1)sought out Zimmerman 2) approached him, -and- 3) spoke first.
Only one of those things is even possibly known, the other two you made up from whole cloth. Can you even tell which one anymore? Holy crap some of you people have scary, volatile minds.
2013-06-25 04:09:29 PM  
1 votes:

Bontesla: I Browse: Mid_mo_mad_man:

I will flat out say it. Martin deserved to die that night. He could have done countless things to stop the chain of events. He chose not and to further escalate them. Zimmerman is no saint but he didn't murder that boy.

Hindsight being 20/20, I'd say going to the store alone was his biggest mistake. I sincerely wish he'd just stayed home that evening and finished watching the game with his dad.

What's incredibly frustrating is that both could have done several things to diffuse the situation. I give more leniency to the teenager because of his age and inexperience. I expect more of Zimmerman.


Yeah, the old debacle is a damn shame.  Its like when the stars align and you have a perfect game/trial/surgery/whatever.  Except its the exact opposite of that.  Too much stupid thrown together at one time and some kid dies.  Horrible.
2013-06-25 03:52:56 PM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: CliChe Guevara: frepnog: Trayvon notices that he has been seen, and tries to intimidate Zimmerman by acting tough and pretending to be armed.

0/10 oversold it right there. you were doing a pretty good job of playing the ignorant racist until you started to push the envelope. you had some good trolling before that, though, I must admit.

Zimmerman:

Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waist band.

And he's a black male.[1:03]

....


Zimmerman:

Uh, huh.

Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out.

He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. [01:20]

You are a terrible judge.


Yeah, a guy who assumed a young black man walking in the rain was "on drugs or something" and "up to no good" is almost assuredly a fantastic judge of facts.

"He has something in his hands." Yeah, a farking bag of Skittles. I know I feel safer having a guy like that patrolling neighborhoods.

Zimmerman is likely going to avoid conviction simply for lack of evidence, not because he actually is innocent; there's a difference.
Ant
2013-06-25 03:35:20 PM  
1 votes:

Misconduc: 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.


You mean the tough guy face that every teenage boy has to put on in order to secure his standing in teenage boy culture? Is that the face you mean? If so, I think every teenage boy looks like that at some point.
2013-06-25 03:34:56 PM  
1 votes:
Bontesla:

From the girlfriend: "He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."
"Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for.' And the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

Trayvon himself backs up that Zimmerman lost him, Trayvon said he wasn't going to run, so he couldn't have been very scared like most people claim.
They key thing here is Trayvon speaking first, then Zimmerman replying. That is Martin starting the altercation that ended up with his death.
2013-06-25 03:32:58 PM  
1 votes:
gimmegimme

The overall theme in these threads is the astounding lack of empathy some have for Martin and their inability to acknowledge--even if they think the shooting is 100% justified--how Zimmerman could have made bad choices that led to the death of a kid. (Or a "thug," depending on who you talk to.)

Mistakes were made. I don't know why anyone would deny this.

Some folks won't even acknowledge that Zimmy was in armed pursuit, even though both terms are completely accurate.

Sure, it's accurate. It's just irrelevant and, honestly, seems somewhat emotional and prejudicial. I sometimes go on armed grocery shopping expeditions; it doesn't mean that if someone attacks me, I have to let myself be killed. It doesn't mean anything save that I was shopping for groceries, and happened to have a weapon for whatever reason. If it means anything else to another person, they have some psychological issues regarding weapons they need to work out.

To think otherwise is to literally prove my point that one has a personal issue with weapons and those who carry them, which are personal issues that have no bearing on other peoples' conduct or guilt thereby in any manner.

That being said, I don't know why some people just can't believe he ended his coincidentally-armed pursuit when he said he did. Surely it's possible, right?
2013-06-25 03:29:43 PM  
1 votes:

frepnog: MFAWG: What (and remember this phrase, because you're going to hear it in the prosecution's closing argument several times) was the 'sequence of events' that led up to this altercation?

here is what I think happened based on all available evidence, witness accounts and Zimmerman's own statements.

Zimmerman left his home.  He saw Trayvon acting "suspicious".  He calls the cops.  Trayvon notices that he has been seen, and tries to intimidate Zimmerman by acting tough and pretending to be armed.  Trayvon walks away.  Zimmerman exits his vehicle and tries to keep Trayvon in sight while speaking to cops.  Trayvon, realizing Zimmerman is on the phone, possibly with police, runs.  Zimmerman pursues until dispatch says "we don't need you to do that" and stops.  Trayvon, pissed that he has been watched, decides to loop back to teach Zimmerman a lesson about watching people.  Trayvon proceeds to Zimmerman's location and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him down.  Trayvon mounts Zimmerman and begins to beat the shiat out of him.  Zimmerman's jacket pulls up exposing a weapon.  Trayvon says something to the effect of "you are gonna die tonight" and goes for the weapon.  Zimmerman gets the weapon from its holster and fires one shot.  Trayvon dies.

Totally 100 percent accurate?  Possibly not, but I'd wager is very very close to what actually occurred and is a far cry from "Zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent black child".  It is the sequence of events lined out by all of the available evidence.


The evidence doesn't actually convey anything conclusively. That's why the Prosecution is likely going to use it to offer an alternative story as to what happened.
2013-06-25 03:26:47 PM  
1 votes:

PoochUMD: gimmegimme:
And Zimmy chose to continue his armed pursuit on foot.

30 seconds ago you couldn't explain how there was a pursuit based on the evidence.


I'm trying to point out that there are some folks who are saying that Martin pursued Zimmerman, but won't acknowledge that Zimmerman did the same (and had a gun).  Sure, Zimmy may have been standing between the houses, but this was in the middle of an armed pursuit.

The overall theme in these threads is the astounding lack of empathy some have for Martin and their inability to acknowledge--even if they think the shooting is 100% justified--how Zimmerman could have made bad choices that led to the death of a kid. (Or a "thug," depending on who you talk to.)

Some folks won't even acknowledge that Zimmy was in armed pursuit, even though both terms are completely accurate.
2013-06-25 03:18:18 PM  
1 votes:

manimal2878: justtray:

He's just got massive cognitive dissonance going on right now.

How's that?


gimmegimme: I  haven't seen any of the live trial yet, but the defense attorney seems like a condescending jerk.

///No, that has no bearing on Zimmy's guilt in the matter.


i3.kym-cdn.com
2013-06-25 03:11:56 PM  
1 votes:

PoochUMD: Again, nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. How does Zimmerman stalk/chase/hunt/etc after Martin for 4 minutes, only to be 100 feet from the truck when the confrontation happens? IMO, it's only possible if Martin hides or doubles back and therefore Zimmerman never really chased after anyone, he just ran behind a house and the kid was already gone.


So you're saying that Zimmy is a terrible wannabe law enforcement officer.  I agree.
2013-06-25 03:11:42 PM  
1 votes:

frepnog: This text is now purple: There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

Had Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin had every right to defend himself.  However it is quite clear that this is not what happened.  Martin came to Zimmerman, punched him in the face, knocked him down, mounted him and began to beat the shiat out of him.

No evidence shows any other conclusion.


What (and remember this phrase, because you're going to hear it in the prosecution's closing argument several times) was the 'sequence of events' that led up to this altercation?
2013-06-25 03:05:18 PM  
1 votes:

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!!


So after more than a year of coming into these threads and claiming to know what happened, you didn't even know where the shooting took place? Sounds about right.
2013-06-25 02:37:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Sorry, don't know who the state has representing them all that well, the attorneys I mean.  Just seems odd to go for Murder rather than the easier manslaughter charge.


Unless you know you're going to be prosecuting what is essentially an innocent man, so you pick the highest charge you reasonably can knowing it won't convict. You can say it was the court that failed, the man goes free, and justice is (semi)done.
2013-06-25 02:25:35 PM  
1 votes:

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

I'm not forgetting anything.

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

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

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


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

The cops the night of the incident did not charge Zimmerman because there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.
2013-06-25 02:18:02 PM  
1 votes:

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

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

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

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

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


I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.
2013-06-25 02:14:00 PM  
1 votes:

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

I'm not forgetting anything.

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


Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.  He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  The prosecution has no case because all of the evidence, all of the facts, all of the witnesses show that it was self-defense.  Why are you so willfully ignorant?
2013-06-25 02:11:07 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

/ they should have gone for manslaughter.


I was being sarcastic.  But I agree a manslaughter charge is more realistic than the murder charge.
2013-06-25 02:07:25 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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


He's on trial because the president decided to weigh in on an event having nothing to do with him.  They had already decided charges would not be pressed in the immediate aftermath.  This trial is happening because Obama willed it.
2013-06-25 01:55:08 PM  
1 votes:

Phinn: does not make you an aggressor.


Sure it does.
2013-06-25 01:53:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:43:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:28:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:08:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:57:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:56:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:52:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:38:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:24:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:22:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:20:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:18:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:17:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:05:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:54:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:41:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:25:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:24:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:16:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:58:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:33:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:16:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:14:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:12:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:12:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:06:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:05:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:55:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:55:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:53:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:45:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:40:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:39:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:35:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:29:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:26:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:25:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:24:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:17:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:10:29 AM  
1 votes:
www.chicagocircustents.com
2013-06-25 09:09:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:05:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:04:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:02:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:59:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:59:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:56:06 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:52:31 AM  
1 votes:
i735.photobucket.com
2013-06-25 08:35:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:26:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:24:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:22:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:10:11 AM  
1 votes:
DRINK!

Sometimes I wonder if his defense attorney is actively trying to sabotage his case.
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report