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.

(SeattlePI)   Latest development in Zimmerman case is: a) Judge declares mistrial, b) Zimmerman changes plea to guilty, or c) prosecution gets their feelings hurt by a photo posted on Instagram of people eating ice cream   (seattlepi.com) divider line 386
    More: Weird, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

10451 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2013 at 6:37 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-07-02 05:39:32 PM
Is this the SNL skit of trials?

They keep doing ridiculously stupid things and will go on for much longer than necessary?
 
2013-07-02 05:45:39 PM
it's a dick move, but they don't want to end up pulling a ronnie lott and give up the game at the last minute.
 
2013-07-02 05:50:22 PM
Has Angela Corey filed murder charges against the girl yet? She's clearly racially profiling by choosing vanilla ice cream.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-07-02 05:54:41 PM
I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??
 
2013-07-02 06:07:14 PM
If you want to effectively argue against something it can often be helpful to address and rebut any points that are made. I understand trying to distract with something meaningless and making up your own argument is easier, but less effective in the long run.

The ice cream and the photo are completely irrelevant. The only thing that really matters here are the statements "We beat stupidity celebration cones" and "dadkilledit" attached to the photo. The argument is that these statements are unprofessional coming from a defense attorney, especially immediately after examining a witness since it presents a very disrespectful view towards the witness. There are some valid arguments against this, like challenging the idea that defense attorneys need to be respectful or professional at all, that it was from his daughters and he had no control or influence over the content, that the photo and comments were taken/written at an earlier date and were not related to the witness testimony.

But to just focus on the ice cream picture like that is what matters is dishonest and lazy.
 
2013-07-02 06:14:02 PM

TheOmni: But to just focus on the ice cream picture like that is what matters is dishonest and lazy.


And it's also how subby got this nice greenlight
 
2013-07-02 06:15:41 PM
DRINK!
 
2013-07-02 06:20:39 PM
Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.
 
2013-07-02 06:31:24 PM

I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.


And you call yourself a real lawyer.
 
2013-07-02 06:42:35 PM
It was his daughter that did it. ffs
 
2013-07-02 06:44:14 PM
Jury is sequestered.  Who cares?
 
2013-07-02 06:45:09 PM
HA! I was wondering if that would earn a rebuke.
 
2013-07-02 06:45:29 PM

TheDumbBlonde: I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.

And you call yourself a real lawyer.




Lawyers only practice.
 
2013-07-02 06:46:11 PM
The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.
 
2013-07-02 06:46:27 PM

TheOmni: If you want to effectively argue against something it can often be helpful to address and rebut any points that are made. I understand trying to distract with something meaningless and making up your own argument is easier, but less effective in the long run.

The ice cream and the photo are completely irrelevant. The only thing that really matters here are the statements "We beat stupidity celebration cones" and "dadkilledit" attached to the photo. The argument is that these statements are unprofessional coming from a defense attorney, especially immediately after examining a witness since it presents a very disrespectful view towards the witness. There are some valid arguments against this, like challenging the idea that defense attorneys need to be respectful or professional at all, that it was from his daughters and he had no control or influence over the content, that the photo and comments were taken/written at an earlier date and were not related to the witness testimony.

But to just focus on the ice cream picture like that is what matters is dishonest and lazy.


I agree, if West sent this or any other lawyer after cross-examining the opposite side's witness they deserve a re-education on court etiquette. But as you mentioned, it appears that it was before Jeantel (was that her name?) was on the stand, plus it was his adult daughter that posted it and made the comments which I don't think he should be responsible for unless it's proven he told her to post it.
 
2013-07-02 06:46:38 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!


any of us who are playing the drinking game should be fed by now

/I'm a lightweight I guess
 
2013-07-02 06:46:44 PM
Judge needs to take prosecutor into chambers and slap him around.
 
2013-07-02 06:46:52 PM
I saw some of the trial today, the defense attorney was trying to discredit the ME on the stand by pointing out she was working with the DA's office.  indirectly as she worked for the State. Like you'd expect across the country.

Pretty clear he was trying to bank on the jury not knowing how government works and paint the false image of the ME being in the prosecution's pocket.
 
2013-07-02 06:46:55 PM
Wow, these prosecutors sound incompetent to the point of being dangerous.
 
2013-07-02 06:47:05 PM

I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.


Attacking a witness in a public forum after giving testimony, intimidating future witnesses with the idea that if you are not well spoken you will be "Shamed" by the defense
 
2013-07-02 06:47:53 PM
Jury is sequestered. Who cares?

But fartbongo said the sequester was bad.
 
2013-07-02 06:48:27 PM
Yes, just what fark needs, another Zimmerman thread.

Fark, all Zimmerman, all the time.

But then again, as the average thread gets about 100 comments, Zimmerman is a cash cow for Drew.
 
2013-07-02 06:49:13 PM

No Time To Explain: MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!

any of us who are playing the drinking game should be fed by now

/I'm a lightweight I guess


or dead

/damn you auto correct!
 
2013-07-02 06:50:34 PM
big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.
 
2013-07-02 06:53:12 PM
Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."
Dad Lawyer: "And I'll deny any responsibility since you are nothing but a stupid kid."
 
2013-07-02 06:53:31 PM

Saberus Terras: I saw some of the trial today, the defense attorney was trying to discredit the ME on the stand by pointing out she was working with the DA's office.  indirectly as she worked for the State. Like you'd expect across the country.

Pretty clear he was trying to bank on the jury not knowing how government works and paint the false image of the ME being in the prosecution's pocket.


I don't blame the defense for making such insinuations, that's their job. Anyway, I was recently summoned and chosen to sit on a jury for a 2nd degree murder case (non-capital punishment). I was disgusted with the attitude of my fellow jurors (wahhh, I don't want to be here, I'll go with whatever the rest of you decide, etc...) and that of the prosecution and defense. I really wish we didn't have an adversarial system and instead had one that actively sought the truth or at least the facts as available. But this is probably a pipe dream.
 
2013-07-02 06:54:14 PM
My bet is it ends with an acquittal, then race riots.

I just hope that we learn an important lesson from this and quit giving kids stupid names, like Trayvon.
 
2013-07-02 06:55:03 PM

Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.


It was a huge day for the prosecution considering how terrible things have been going and they still got there clock cleaned.
 
2013-07-02 06:55:18 PM

TheOmni: The argument is that these statements are unprofessional coming from a defense attorney...


And you might have a point if it did come from the defense attorney, but since it didn't... End of story.
 
2013-07-02 06:55:38 PM

Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.


Rooting for the pros then?
 
2013-07-02 06:55:52 PM
I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
 
2013-07-02 06:58:10 PM

NightOwl2255: Yes, just what fark needs, another Zimmerman thread.

Fark, all Zimmerman, all the time.

But then again, as the average thread gets about 100 comments, Zimmerman is a cash cow for Drew.


Do you ever remember a day when you were not a biatch?
 
2013-07-02 07:00:59 PM

King Something: I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years


oooh you are so right, there is just to much stuff that other people own to not take it. Do not let a great thing like this go to waste. Its all about the stuff.
 
2013-07-02 07:02:27 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 Who needs evidence ?
 
2013-07-02 07:03:02 PM
*By posting a picture of  one of the defense attorneys eating ice cream.
 
2013-07-02 07:03:32 PM

King Something: I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years


I sincerely doubt there will be riots, in Florida at least. There are over 1,000,000 issued CCW permits in Florida outstanding and gun ownership in the state is extremely high. Blacks are also greatly outnumbered by whites and/or hispanics in basically the entire state. Rioting would be just short of going over the top of a WW1 trench and rushing enemy machine gun nests.
 
2013-07-02 07:04:05 PM

sheep snorter: Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."
Dad Lawyer: "And I'll deny any responsibility since you are nothing but a stupid kid."


Care to explain?
 
2013-07-02 07:05:27 PM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 299x169]
 Who needs evidence ?


You shut your whore mouth.

Because Jackson and Sharpton swoop into a small sleepy Florida town where this kind of murder-profiling has gone on before; and simply ask for the person who murdered someone to be arrested and the trial to be held in the first place, they're out to make a buck?

I'll say it again: Shut your goddamn whore mouth.

/white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.
///btw: it was raining.  everyone wears hoodies in fla in february if its going to rain -- because its got a f*cking hood.
 
2013-07-02 07:07:26 PM

devine: My bet is it ends with an acquittal, then race riots.

I just hope that we learn an important lesson from this and quit giving kids stupid names, like Trayvon.


Since I live in Chicago over the years I've been careful to rent only to Koreans.

i.dailymail.co.uk

/bring it!
 
2013-07-02 07:07:42 PM

BigNumber12: sheep snorter: Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."
Dad Lawyer: "And I'll deny any responsibility since you are nothing but a stupid kid."

Care to explain?


I think he's referring to the part of the caption that reads, "beat stupidity".

Apparently sheep snorter equates being black with being stupid.
 
2013-07-02 07:09:07 PM

Yogimus: Do you ever remember a day when you were not a biatch?


When I was farking your mom.
 
2013-07-02 07:10:03 PM

TomD9938: BigNumber12: sheep snorter: Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."
Dad Lawyer: "And I'll deny any responsibility since you are nothing but a stupid kid."

Care to explain?

I think he's referring to the part of the caption that reads, "beat stupidity".

Apparently sheep snorter equates being black with being stupid.


It's funny how often his type makes that association, and uses it to assert that someone else is a racist.
 
2013-07-02 07:10:42 PM

Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??


One would think they would be compelled to complain about Zimmerman's SSN being broadcast, but no.  They object to the defense attorneys being portrayed as human.
 
2013-07-02 07:11:00 PM
Heaven forbid a man's daughters would tell the world they were proud of him.  The amount of prosecution butthurt on this one takes the cake.
 
2013-07-02 07:11:59 PM

Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie.


GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.
 
2013-07-02 07:12:40 PM

DoomPaul: King Something: I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years

I sincerely doubt there will be riots, in Florida at least. There are over 1,000,000 issued CCW permits in Florida outstanding and gun ownership in the state is extremely high. Blacks are also greatly outnumbered by whites and/or hispanics in basically the entire state. Rioting would be just short of going over the top of a WW1 trench and rushing enemy machine gun nests.


I see you've never been to Pork and Beans.
 
2013-07-02 07:15:12 PM
I bet a knock-knock joke would make him feel better.
 
2013-07-02 07:15:21 PM

DoomPaul: King Something: I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years

I sincerely doubt there will be riots, in Florida at least. There are over 1,000,000 issued CCW permits in Florida outstanding and gun ownership in the state is extremely high. Blacks are also greatly outnumbered by whites and/or hispanics in basically the entire state. Rioting would be just short of going over the top of a WW1 trench and rushing enemy machine gun nests.


No way would they be in it for the money, not with there history.
 
GBB
2013-07-02 07:15:35 PM

Third Day Mark: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 299x169]
 Who needs evidence ?

You shut your whore mouth.

Because Jackson and Sharpton swoop into a small sleepy Florida town where this kind of murder-profiling has gone on before; and simply ask for the person who murdered someone to be arrested and the trial to be held in the first place, they're out to make a buck?

I'll say it again: Shut your goddamn whore mouth.

/white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.
///btw: it was raining.  everyone wears hoodies in fla in february if its going to rain -- because its got a f*cking hood.


Yes, we Floridians love wearing our hoodies to protect us from the rain, then proceed to not get out of said rain.  We're all funny like that.
 
2013-07-02 07:15:36 PM

NightOwl2255: Yogimus: Do you ever remember a day when you were not a biatch?

When I was farking your mom.


Yeah... that day you were a "John".

/FACE!
 
2013-07-02 07:17:47 PM
Is this woman on headline news "Jane Hispanic whitename" drunk on the air?  Or does she not understand how microphones work?
 
2013-07-02 07:18:23 PM
Well the prosecution is getting slaughtered and they literally have failed to net a single win so far, so I can understand them being a little bit butthurt over shiat.
 
2013-07-02 07:18:24 PM
Strange that we have so much racial tension in this case when Zimmerman is as white as Obama.
 
2013-07-02 07:18:49 PM

Yogimus: Is this woman on headline news "Jane Hispanic whitename" drunk on the air?  Or does she not understand how microphones work?


She went to Jabbas school of speaking
 
2013-07-02 07:19:27 PM

Tatsuma: Well the prosecution is getting slaughtered and they literally have failed to net a single win so far, so I can understand them being a little bit butthurt over shiat.


Their opening statement didn't include a knock knock joke. That was a big win.
 
2013-07-02 07:19:50 PM
I'm thinking that we all deserve much better entertainment. And that goes for movies,too.
 
2013-07-02 07:21:14 PM

thenumber5: I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.

Attacking a witness in a public forum after giving testimony, intimidating future witnesses with the idea that if you are not well spoken you will be "Shamed" by the defense


Well, I'm adding it to seminar on ethics. I don't see a lawyer being held responsible for a tweet by his daughter though.
 
2013-07-02 07:21:17 PM
Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming he shot Martin in self-defence.

And a horrible death it would have been for him had he not had his gun to hand. Imagine Zimmerman's lifeless corpse splayed across the ground, riddled with Skittle holes, each one dripping pools of Arizona iced tea onto the ground.
 
2013-07-02 07:22:23 PM

TheDumbBlonde: I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.

And you call yourself a real lawyer.


It's Family Law. I'm less lawyer and more fairy godfather granting happiness.
 
2013-07-02 07:22:49 PM

Yogimus: NightOwl2255: Yogimus: Do you ever remember a day when you were not a biatch?

When I was farking your mom.

Yeah... that day you were a "John".

/FACE!


If she gives it up for free, is she still a whore?
 
2013-07-02 07:22:59 PM

CliChe Guevara: Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie.

GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.


They can prove he killed Trayvon. They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.
 
2013-07-02 07:25:04 PM

Gordon Bennett: Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming he shot Martin in self-defence.

And a horrible death it would have been for him had he not had his gun to hand. Imagine Zimmerman's lifeless corpse splayed across the ground, riddled with Skittle holes, each one dripping pools of Arizona iced tea onto the ground.


Or a quiet death from a brain injury.  Both were idiots, one was better armed.
 
2013-07-02 07:25:30 PM

CliChe Guevara: GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them.


Citation?
 
2013-07-02 07:27:13 PM

NightOwl2255: Yogimus: NightOwl2255: Yogimus: Do you ever remember a day when you were not a biatch?

When I was farking your mom.

Yeah... that day you were a "John".

/FACE!

If she gives it up for free, is she still a whore?


Technically she charges, but ends up giving out some refunds.
 
2013-07-02 07:28:09 PM

Yogimus: Gordon Bennett: Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming he shot Martin in self-defence.

And a horrible death it would have been for him had he not had his gun to hand. Imagine Zimmerman's lifeless corpse splayed across the ground, riddled with Skittle holes, each one dripping pools of Arizona iced tea onto the ground.

Or a quiet death from a brain injury.  Both were idiots, one was better armed.


Don't bring sidewalk to a gun fight?
 
2013-07-02 07:28:45 PM

mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.


This, you f'in sheep snorters
 
2013-07-02 07:29:31 PM

Yogimus: Gordon Bennett: Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming he shot Martin in self-defence.

And a horrible death it would have been for him had he not had his gun to hand. Imagine Zimmerman's lifeless corpse splayed across the ground, riddled with Skittle holes, each one dripping pools of Arizona iced tea onto the ground.

Or a quiet death from a brain injury.  Both were idiots, one was a farking pansy better armed.

 
2013-07-02 07:29:37 PM

NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.



Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.
 
2013-07-02 07:29:40 PM

Carth: Their opening statement didn't include a knock knock joke. That was a big win.


Well they had a joke fall flat, but fine I'll give you this one win.
 
2013-07-02 07:30:59 PM

Yogimus: Technically she charges, but ends up giving out some refunds.


Well, not to brag but she said I was so good she should be paying me.
 
2013-07-02 07:31:12 PM

PapaChester: mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.

This, you f'in sheep snorters


This girl was traumatized by that trigger-happy douche.
 
2013-07-02 07:32:37 PM

CliChe Guevara: Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie.

GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.


I'm hoping the judge allows lesser charges to come into play and they get him for negligent manslaughter.
 
2013-07-02 07:33:55 PM

Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.


Or that they can show that. They can show that an altercation happened. They have only his statement that he was walking away and the girls statement that Trayvon would have told her before Treyvon would assault someone.

Unless there is another eyewitness?
 
2013-07-02 07:34:25 PM

Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.


I'm not expert on Florida law, or any other criminal law for that matter, but the part you deleted about actually killing the dead person is usually of some value to the prosecution's case. I was also under the impression that if you are a mutual combatant that you lose self-defense as a legal defense--but I may be mixing it up with losing your right to damages for assault or something else.
 
2013-07-02 07:35:46 PM
Is it the "two daughters - one cone" thing - because that's just nasty.
/rocky road
 
2013-07-02 07:37:34 PM

Saberus Terras: I saw some of the trial today, the defense attorney was trying to discredit the ME on the stand by pointing out she was working with the DA's office.  indirectly as she worked for the State. Like you'd expect across the country.

Pretty clear he was trying to bank on the jury not knowing how government works and paint the false image of the ME being in the prosecution's pocket.


Except that it wasn't the medical examiner from the area of the shooting.  It was the medical examiner from the area where the special prosecutor is the State Attorney.  She's no more or less than a paid expert witness testifying on one specific area and is subject to having her bias toward the State attorney she works very closely with pointed out.
 
2013-07-02 07:38:53 PM

NightOwl2255: But then again, as the average thread gets about 100 comments, Zimmerman is a cash cow for Drew.


100 comments? I remember when 100 comments were basically considered dead threads and 'cash cow threads' were basically stuff like I/P that always brought between 600-800 posts on average.
 
2013-07-02 07:39:32 PM

Hobodeluxe: CliChe Guevara: Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie.

GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.

I'm hoping the judge allows lesser charges to come into play and they get him for negligent manslaughter.


Lesser included charges are in play in Florida.  If it actually gets to the jury.
 
2013-07-02 07:39:32 PM

I_C_Weener: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

Or that they can show that. They can show that an altercation happened. They have only his statement that he was walking away and the girls statement that Trayvon would have told her before Treyvon would assault someone.

Unless there is another eyewitness?


He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.
 
2013-07-02 07:40:16 PM
Also one thing I really found interesting about the trial. Turns out a police officer, trying to make Zimmerman slip up and see if he was lying, told him 'Turns out that someone filmed the whole incident on their phone' and Zimmerman immediately closed his eyes, said 'Thank G-d!' and sighed in relief.
 
2013-07-02 07:41:45 PM

NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.


He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.
 
2013-07-02 07:41:58 PM

NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one.


It's not illegal to follow someone in your car. Especially when you're captain of the neighborhood watch. No strike

NorCalLos: The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two.


As it was clarified during the trial by police officers and the 911 operator, it was absolutely not illegal for him to get out of his car and follow trayvon. No strike.

NorCalLos: This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes.


This ain't baseball, and you ain't got shiat.
 
2013-07-02 07:42:34 PM

BigNumber12: HA! I was wondering if that would earn a rebuke.


How will the judge rebuke the daughter, a non-participant in this case?  Hold her in contempt of twitter?  Or just send her father to county for 30 days due to guilt by association?
 
2013-07-02 07:42:56 PM

Scerpes: He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car. Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter. He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first. So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.


Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.
 
2013-07-02 07:43:11 PM

NorCalLos: I'm not expert on Florida law, or any other criminal law for that matter, but the part you deleted about actually killing the dead person is usually of some value to the prosecution's case. I was also under the impression that if you are a mutual combatant that you lose self-defense as a legal defense--but I may be mixing it up with losing your right to damages for assault or something else.


Not true in Florida - so long as you are in fear of imminent bodily harm and unable to escape, you're still entitled to use self defense - even if you started the physical altercation.
 
2013-07-02 07:44:25 PM

NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.


According to SYG, irrelevant. They've also proved that Trayvon was meandering through yards at night, in the rain, and then led the "creepy cracker" who spotted him doing so into a nice dark back-alley suitable for an ambush, which subsequently took place. Note that, at no time did Zimmerman commit trespassing or any other crime, in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived. Where Martin led, Zimmerman followed.
 
2013-07-02 07:45:06 PM

NorCalLos: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

I'm not expert on Florida law, or any other criminal law for that matter, but the part you deleted about actually killing the dead person is usually of some value to the prosecution's case. I was also under the impression that if you are a mutual combatant that you lose self-defense as a legal defense--but I may be mixing it up with losing your right to damages for assault or something else.


What do you mean by mutual combatant?
 
2013-07-02 07:45:16 PM

Tatsuma: Scerpes: He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car. Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter. He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first. So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.

Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.


No question.  But that's all really irrelevant to the self defense claim.  Zimmerman was an idiot, but assuming he was reasonably in fear of his life an unable to escape at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's legally justified.  An idiot, but a morally justified idiot.
 
2013-07-02 07:45:50 PM

NorCalLos: I_C_Weener: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

Or that they can show that. They can show that an altercation happened. They have only his statement that he was walking away and the girls statement that Trayvon would have told her before Treyvon would assault someone.

Unless there is another eyewitness?

He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.


Where'd you get your legal GED? I think you may be a bit off here on...a lot. Burden of proof and presumption of innocence to start. Then look at impermissible inferences and proximate cause. Then look at reasonable doubt and the legal definition of Murder 2 and self-defense in Florida. Then take your emotion out of it.

They cannot prove he started or didn't start the altercation. They cannot prove that he was not walking away. The closest they can come is the girls testimony which does establish it at all, and get Zimmerman to admit he lied about how it started.

Still to be determined: reasonable fear and reasonableness of shooting (was he near Trayvon?).
 
2013-07-02 07:46:21 PM

Scerpes: No question. But that's all really irrelevant to the self defense claim. Zimmerman was an idiot, but assuming he was reasonably in fear of his life an unable to escape at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's legally justified. An idiot, but a morally justified idiot.


Oh of course, that was just to placate the idiots who are shouting BUT HE GOT OUT OF HIS CAR as if that changed anything or was illegal.
 
2013-07-02 07:46:22 PM

Scerpes: Tatsuma: Scerpes: He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car. Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter. He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first. So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.

Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.

No question.  But that's all really irrelevant to the self defense claim.  Zimmerman was an idiot, but assuming he was reasonably in fear of his life an unable to escape at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's legally justified.  An idiot, but a morally justified idiot.


make that legally justified idiot.
 
2013-07-02 07:46:29 PM

Tatsuma: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one.

It's not illegal to follow someone in your car. Especially when you're captain of the neighborhood watch. No strike


Since when do neighborhood watch captains get their own set of laws? This severely undermines your credibility. I didn't say it's illegal to follow someone in your car. I said it's not the behavior of someone trying to avoid an altercation. It's the behavior of someone initiating an altercation.

Ditto regarding your next point. And the last thing you said was just whargarbl
 
2013-07-02 07:46:49 PM

NorCalLos: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

I'm not expert on Florida law, or any other criminal law for that matter, ...


Did you even stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
 
2013-07-02 07:46:52 PM

Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.


He stopped his vehicle, got out, went looking for a fight (against the advice of the 911 operator), got into a fight, then shot and killed his opponent.

I'm fairly certain that you can't go that far out of your way looking for a fight and then claim that you had to use deadly force in self-defense in that very fight, especially when the guy you're fighting had been going out of his way to avoid that same fight.
 
2013-07-02 07:47:06 PM

Scerpes: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.



As I understand it, this is a matter of interpretation of the law.
 
2013-07-02 07:48:28 PM

Tatsuma: Scerpes: No question. But that's all really irrelevant to the self defense claim. Zimmerman was an idiot, but assuming he was reasonably in fear of his life an unable to escape at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's legally justified. An idiot, but a morally justified idiot.

Oh of course, that was just to placate the idiots who are shouting BUT HE GOT OUT OF HIS CAR as if that changed anything or was illegal.


I know.  I like the claim that he should have just identified himself to Martin.  Never mind the fact that the prosecution spent the first couple days of the trial establishing that neighborhood watch groups are actively discouraged from confronting suspects.  And that the dispatcher discouraged him from confronting Martin.

The prosecution wants it both ways.
 
2013-07-02 07:50:51 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Has Angela Corey filed murder charges against the girl yet? She's clearly racially profiling by choosing vanilla ice cream.


how about this....a " citizen's grand jury" (read: No legal authority whatsoever) has filed an indictment against her for falsifying the arrest warrant.
 
2013-07-02 07:51:37 PM

NorCalLos: Scerpes: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.


As I understand it, this is a matter of interpretation of the law.


Then you misunderstand.  The statute is clear:

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, 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; or* * *
 
2013-07-02 07:53:10 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Popcorn Johnny: Has Angela Corey filed murder charges against the girl yet? She's clearly racially profiling by choosing vanilla ice cream.

how about this....a " citizen's grand jury" (read: No legal authority whatsoever) has filed an indictment against her for falsifying the arrest warrant.


Yeah...the citizen's grand jury is stupid.  There are some real morons in Florida.  They should have filed a complaint with the state bar for over filing this case.  Corey's an embarrassment.
 
2013-07-02 07:53:18 PM

Scerpes: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.


Good point. State has to prove the elements of Murder 2 and that it was not self-defense.

Really the case is coming down to 1. Is Zimmerman lying? 2. Per his story would a reasonable person in the same position have feared for his safety (exact terms vary and I don't know Florida's). Might be feared for life or feared great bodily harm....which is pretty low standard.


And I've followed people in my neighborhood to make sure they were in fact the sales reptiles they claimed. Doesn't justify them or me in starting an altercation but I'm allowed to even if they are a different skin color.
 
2013-07-02 07:53:32 PM

Magnus: NorCalLos: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

I'm not expert on Florida law, or any other criminal law for that matter, but the part you deleted about actually killing the dead person is usually of some value to the prosecution's case. I was also under the impression that if you are a mutual combatant that you lose self-defense as a legal defense--but I may be mixing it up with losing your right to damages for assault or something else.

What do you mean by mutual combatant?


I meant "willing combatant."


Where'd you get your legal GED? I think you may be a bit off here on...a lot. Burden of proof and presumption of innocence to start. Then look at impermissible inferences and proximate cause. Then look at reasonable doubt and the legal definition of Murder 2 and self-defense in Florida. Then take your emotion out of it.

They cannot prove he started or didn't start the altercation. They cannot prove that he was not walking away. The closest they can come is the girls testimony which does establish it at all, and get Zimmerman to admit he lied about how it started.

Still to be determined: reasonable fear and reasonableness of shooting (was he near Trayvon?).


See disclaimer above. Where did you get your lack of reading comprehension?
 
2013-07-02 07:53:51 PM

Tatsuma: NightOwl2255: But then again, as the average thread gets about 100 comments, Zimmerman is a cash cow for Drew.

100 comments? I remember when 100 comments were basically considered dead threads and 'cash cow threads' were basically stuff like I/P that always brought between 600-800 posts on average.


Two words for you. Redd It.

Okay, one word.
 
2013-07-02 07:54:04 PM

NorCalLos: I_C_Weener: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

Or that they can show that. They can show that an altercation happened. They have only his statement that he was walking away and the girls statement that Trayvon would have told her before Treyvon would assault someone.

Unless there is another eyewitness?

He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.


It violates no FL statute to get out of your car and ask a question of a person, whether or not you feel that person is suspicious.  Even in the prosecutions timeline I have a hard time finding a crime provable beyond a reasonable doubt.  I also see enough evidence that it appears the defense will succeed with their affirmative defense.

He was only charged due to political pressure.  The DA was handed a turd. This case is a loser.

/not guilty
//jury out less than 2 days
 
2013-07-02 07:55:37 PM

Scerpes: NorCalLos: Scerpes: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.


As I understand it, this is a matter of interpretation of the law.

Then you misunderstand.  The statute is clear:

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, 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; or* * *


Thanks. I don't believe either of these two conditions were met.
 
2013-07-02 07:55:56 PM

I_C_Weener: Scerpes: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.

Good point. State has to prove the elements of Murder 2 and that it was not self-defense.

Really the case is coming down to 1. Is Zimmerman lying? 2. Per his story would a reasonable person in the same position have feared for his safety (exact terms vary and I don't know Florida's). Might be feared for life or feared great bodily harm....which is pretty low standard.


And I've followed people in my neighborhood to make sure they were in fact the sales reptiles they claimed. Doesn't justify them or me in starting an altercation but I'm allowed to even if they are a different skin color.


Its great bodily harm in Florida.  The only hope the prosecution has of getting even a manslaughter conviction is to so undermine his credibility to such a degree that they get to reasonable doubt.  I just don't see that happening because there's no other witness to the shooting itself - even though it's because Martin's dead.
 
2013-07-02 07:56:18 PM

NorCalLos: Since when do neighborhood watch captains get their own set of laws? This severely undermines your credibility. I didn't say it's illegal to follow someone in your car. I said it's not the behavior of someone trying to avoid an altercation. It's the behavior of someone initiating an altercation.


No it's not, that's the behavior of someone in neighborhood watch.

King Something: He stopped his vehicle, got out, went looking for a fight (against the advice of the 911 operator), got into a fight, then shot and killed his opponent.


That's absolutely 100% false, the 911 Operator was on the stand and said that he never said to Zimmerman to either go after Martin or to go back to his car, he was 100% neutral because it's policy not to give direct orders.

So no, it was not against the advice of the 911 operator, all he said was 'It's not necessary'.
 
2013-07-02 07:56:45 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: NorCalLos: I_C_Weener: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

Or that they can show that. They can show that an altercation happened. They have only his statement that he was walking away and the girls statement that Trayvon would have told her before Treyvon would assault someone.

Unless there is another eyewitness?

He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

It violates no FL statute to get out of your car and ask a question of a person, whether or not you feel that person is suspicious.  Even in the prosecutions timeline I have a hard time finding a crime provable beyond a reasonable doubt.  I also see enough evidence that it appears the defense will succeed with their affirmative defense.

He was only charged due to political pressure.  The DA was handed a turd. This case is a loser.

/not guilty
//jury out less than 2 days


Do you think juries are immune to political and social pressure?
 
2013-07-02 07:57:31 PM

NorCalLos: Scerpes: NorCalLos: Scerpes: NorCalLos: He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.

He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car.  Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter.  He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first.  So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.


As I understand it, this is a matter of interpretation of the law.

Then you misunderstand.  The statute is clear:

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, 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; or* * *

Thanks. I don't believe either of these two conditions were met.


I don't know how you can possibly judge that.  If Martin is on top of him, he's physically unable to escape.  And if Martin is slamming his head against the ground even once, he can reasonably fear great bodily injury.  It only takes one head shot to seriously injure someone.
 
2013-07-02 07:58:03 PM

Hobodeluxe: CliChe Guevara: Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie.

GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.

I'm hoping the judge allows lesser charges to come into play and they get him for negligent manslaughter.


I believe you are not fully aware of what constitutes negligent manslaughter.  Negligence indicates that Zimmerman failed to exercise some standard of due care or had a duty to act in some manner that would have saved Martin's life.  Zimmerman had no duty to perform some function or requirement to save Martin's life.  I'm not sure what level of due care that Zimmerman failed to exercise as the prosecution seems to be going all in that Zimmerman did not believe that his life was threatened and has shown no evidence that allows the jury to fall back to negligence.

If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-defense defense then they have to convict on 2nd degree murder.  There are not going to be lesser charges to fall back toward.

I'm going to assume based on your desire for lesser charges that 1) you believe the prosecution is failing to make a case and 2) That you think Zimmerman is guilty of something, just not sure what.  Therefore, you are caught in the same conflict that the prosecution is stuck:  You know something about this doesn't feel right about it, but you have no proof to base your feelings upon.  And just like the prosecution, that seems to be no way for a reasonable person to operate.
 
2013-07-02 07:58:44 PM

Tatsuma: NorCalLos: Since when do neighborhood watch captains get their own set of laws? This severely undermines your credibility. I didn't say it's illegal to follow someone in your car. I said it's not the behavior of someone trying to avoid an altercation. It's the behavior of someone initiating an altercation.

No it's not, that's the behavior of someone in neighborhood watch.


Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Nice chat. I'll catch up with you guys later.
 
2013-07-02 08:00:05 PM

King Something: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

He stopped his vehicle, got out, went looking for a fight (against the advice of the 911 operator), got into a fight, then shot and killed his opponent.

I'm fairly certain that you can't go that far out of your way looking for a fight and then claim that you had to use deadly force in self-defense in that very fight, especially when the guy you're fighting had been going out of his way to avoid that same fight.


In what world does a statement like "Hey what are you doing?" constitute looking for a fight?
 
2013-07-02 08:00:32 PM

Magnus: I believe you are not fully aware of what constitutes negligent manslaughter.  Negligence indicates that Zimmerman failed to exercise some standard of due care or had a duty to act in some manner that would have saved Martin's life.  Zimmerman had no duty to perform some function or requirement to save Martin's life.  I'm not sure what level of due care that Zimmerman failed to exercise as the prosecution seems to be going all in that Zimmerman did not believe that his life was threatened and has shown no evidence that allows the jury to fall back to negligence.

If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-defense defense then they have to convict on 2nd degree murder.  There are not going to be lesser charges to fall back toward.


I don't think you understand lesser included charges in Florida.  They absolutely will have manslaughter to fall back on.  While I agree that it might not fit, the jury will absolutely have that choice.
 
2013-07-02 08:02:16 PM

King Something: I'm fairly certain that you can't go that far out of your way looking for a fight and then claim that you had to use deadly force in self-defense in that very fight, especially when the guy you're fighting had been going out of his way to avoid that same fight.


In Florida,  you can actually be the first aggressor, physically start the fight, and then still claim self defense if you're 1. unable to escape at the moment you pull the trigger, and 2. in fear of great bodily injury.
 
2013-07-02 08:03:00 PM

NorCalLos: Thanks. I don't believe either of these two conditions were met.


Martin was on top?  That satisfies both conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2013-07-02 08:04:05 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: NorCalLos: Thanks. I don't believe either of these two conditions were met.

Martin was on top?  That satisfies both conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.


It satisfies one for sure.  The question of REASONABLE fear of great bodily harm could still be an issue.
 
2013-07-02 08:04:42 PM

Magnus: BigNumber12: HA! I was wondering if that would earn a rebuke.

How will the judge rebuke the daughter, a non-participant in this case?  Hold her in contempt of twitter?  Or just send her father to county for 30 days due to guilt by association?


My comment was on the fact that the Judge seems to despise the Defense Team, and would loooooove an opportunity like this to reprimand one of them.
 
2013-07-02 08:04:43 PM

Scerpes: Magnus: I believe you are not fully aware of what constitutes negligent manslaughter.  Negligence indicates that Zimmerman failed to exercise some standard of due care or had a duty to act in some manner that would have saved Martin's life.  Zimmerman had no duty to perform some function or requirement to save Martin's life.  I'm not sure what level of due care that Zimmerman failed to exercise as the prosecution seems to be going all in that Zimmerman did not believe that his life was threatened and has shown no evidence that allows the jury to fall back to negligence.

If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-defense defense then they have to convict on 2nd degree murder.  There are not going to be lesser charges to fall back toward.

I don't think you understand lesser included charges in Florida.  They absolutely will have manslaughter to fall back on.  While I agree that it might not fit, the jury will absolutely have that choice.


I did not say that they are not allowable.  I am saying that there is no basis for the jury to consider the lesser charges.  The option is there.  The consideration is not.
 
2013-07-02 08:05:36 PM

BigNumber12: Magnus: BigNumber12: HA! I was wondering if that would earn a rebuke.

How will the judge rebuke the daughter, a non-participant in this case?  Hold her in contempt of twitter?  Or just send her father to county for 30 days due to guilt by association?

My comment was on the fact that the Judge seems to despise the Defense Team, and would loooooove an opportunity like this to reprimand one of them.


That is possible.  That will get dicey for her if she does that.
 
2013-07-02 08:06:48 PM

Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??


the problem is that she is proud of her father for shaming the prosecution.  They decided that they must exact justice in some other way that they control.

This is why HOA board members should not be members of a given community.  It promotes little Hitlers.
 
2013-07-02 08:09:03 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??

the problem is that she is proud of her father for shaming the prosecution.  They decided that they must exact justice in some other way that they control.

This is why HOA board members should not be members of a given community.  It promotes little Hitlers.


Why would you want someone running your HOA that doesn't actually live there?
 
2013-07-02 08:10:27 PM

NorCalLos: Magnus: NorCalLos: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

I'm not expert on Florida law, or any other criminal law for that matter, but the part you deleted about actually killing the dead person is usually of some value to the prosecution's case. I was also under the impression that if you are a mutual combatant that you lose self-defense as a legal defense--but I may be mixing it up with losing your right to damages for assault or something else.

What do you mean by mutual combatant?

I meant "willing combatant."


Where'd you get your legal GED? I think you may be a bit off here on...a lot. Burden of proof and presumption of innocence to start. Then look at impermissible inferences and proximate cause. Then look at reasonable doubt and the legal definition of Murder 2 and self-defense in Florida. Then take your emotion out of it.

They cannot prove he started or didn't start the altercation. They cannot prove that he was not walking away. The closest they can come is the girls testimony which does establish it at all, and get Zimmerman to admit he lied about how it started.

Still to be determined: reasonable fear and reasonableness of shooting (was he near Trayvon?).

See disclaimer above. Where did you get your lack of reading comprehension?


I'm confused by your response.  Are you attacking me for someone else's statement?  All I asked was what you meant by a mutual combatant and then you appended something else about a GED in law and if I or you had a reading comprehension problem.  Either you made a mistake by conjoining my question to another post or you are awfully defensive.  I simply asked for a clarification of your term "mutual combatant."
 
2013-07-02 08:12:17 PM

thenumber5: I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.

Attacking a witness in a public forum after giving testimony, intimidating future witnesses with the idea that if you are not well spoken you will be "Shamed" by the defense


Witness?  I thought it was pointing out the stupidity of the prosecutors for bringing a dipshiat to the stand and various others that dont appear to have been interviewed much.
 
2013-07-02 08:12:33 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: CliChe Guevara: GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them.

Citation?


Are you being serious?
 
2013-07-02 08:14:35 PM

NorCalLos: Do you think juries are immune to political and social pressure?


No.  But this one isn't even close it seems.

And let's say somehow the jury feels compelled to violate the oath they took and enter a verdict they feel wasn't proven, the judge can always set aside the verdict and rule on the evidence... "judgment non obstante veredicto".  This appears to be rolling so onesided I can imagine a judge having the balls to do a Judgement NOV.
 
2013-07-02 08:14:38 PM

HAMMERTOE: They've also proved that Trayvon was meandering through yards at night,


If by that you mean 'walking on the sidewalk', then yes.

in the rain,


Trayvon didn't control the weather. What's he supposed to do, wait for the sun to shine before he goes home?

and then led the "creepy cracker" who spotted him doing so into a nice dark back-alley

What a "nice dark back-alley" looks like:

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
imageshack.us

suitable for an ambush

::Sigh::

I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot), and who was pissed at "these assholes" who "always get away", suddenly had a change of heart and 'just decided to go back to his truck' at the exact same moment that Trayvon, who was running away from the "creepy cracker" (your words) following him happened to decide to turn and confront him for no reason.

That is to say, two people who were showing one type of behavior (hunter, prey) suddenly, and for no reason, changed into the other. At the same time.

Note that, at no time did Zimmerman commit trespassing or any other crime

You use certain words ("nice dark back-alley") to imply that Trayvon was doing wrong, but defend Zimmerman for being in that very same place.

in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."
 
2013-07-02 08:14:40 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: In what world does a statement like "Hey what are you doing?" constitute looking for a fight?


In what world does, "Why are you following me?" constitute the same?
 
2013-07-02 08:14:56 PM

CliChe Guevara: Giant Clown Shoe: CliChe Guevara: GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them.

Citation?

Are you being serious?


The police were pretty convinced that his stories were consistent.  Claiming a dozen lies is pretty far fetched.  But then the police deal with eye witness testimony every day and minor differences in a story don't bother them the way that they might bother someone else.
 
2013-07-02 08:16:49 PM

CliChe Guevara: Giant Clown Shoe: In what world does a statement like "Hey what are you doing?" constitute looking for a fight?

In what world does, "Why are you following me?" constitute the same?


I don't think it was Martin's statement that showed he was looking for a fight.  It was punching Zimmerman in the nose.
 
ecl
2013-07-02 08:17:04 PM

Tatsuma: Scerpes: He may not have feared for his life at the moment he got out of the car. Under Florida statute, it doesn't matter. He could have even started a physical altercation with Martin by striking him first. So long as he was unable to escape and in fear of imminent bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's justified.

Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.


Cowards slapping each others backs.  Disgusting.
 
2013-07-02 08:17:27 PM

CliChe Guevara: Giant Clown Shoe: In what world does a statement like "Hey what are you doing?" constitute looking for a fight?

In what world does, "Why are you following me?" constitute the same?


You used the words. Reversing it doesn't refute what I said.  For purposes of this trial your question is irrelevant.
 
2013-07-02 08:17:37 PM

fredklein: I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot), and who was pissed at "these assholes" who "always get away", suddenly had a change of heart and 'just decided to go back to his truck' at the exact same moment that Trayvon, who was running away from the "creepy cracker" (your words) following him happened to decide to turn and confront him for no reason.

That is to say, two people who were showing one type of behavior (hunter, prey) suddenly, and for no reason, changed into the other. At the same time.


This is one of the giant disconnects our "Fark Independents" cannot and will not address. Just let it go. They are never going to listen to reason as long as reason keeps telling them something other than "its the black guys fault"
 
2013-07-02 08:19:20 PM
everyone that thinks the defense attorney needs to be responsible needs to man up
and claim that Trevon's parents need to be prosecuted for Trayvon's assault on Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-02 08:20:44 PM

CliChe Guevara: Giant Clown Shoe: In what world does a statement like "Hey what are you doing?" constitute looking for a fight?

In what world does, "Why are you following me?" constitute the same?


Neither are incorrect. Two INTELLIGENT people would be able to de escalate the situation. These fine gentlemen? Not so much.
 
2013-07-02 08:22:25 PM

thenumber5: I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.

Attacking a witness in a public forum after giving testimony, intimidating future witnesses with the idea that if you are not well spoken you will be "Shamed" by the defense


I bet the daughter will never practice law again !
 
2013-07-02 08:22:53 PM

Tatsuma: Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.


Too bad that's not what a reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions as doing then. Hell, if the roles were reversed, the ITG crowd here would shoot the black person for pursuing them, and justify feeling threatened in that position, too. "Shoot the black guy" is the only constant I see here on Fark from your little faction of supremacist wack jobs.
 
2013-07-02 08:23:18 PM
Part of the problem is that some people are looking at the forest, and some are looking at one tree.

To those looking at the forest, the 'big picture', they see Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty.

To those looking at the tree, the one instant Zimmerman was getting beat, they see... well, nothing but that one instant. And without context, what they see is.. useless for basing a decision on. But that doesn't stop them.
 
2013-07-02 08:24:30 PM

ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.


How am I being a coward, sexist?
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-07-02 08:24:36 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??

the problem is that she is proud of her father for shaming the prosecution.  They decided that they must exact justice in some other way that they control.

This is why HOA board members should not be members of a given community.  It promotes little Hitlers.


Two questions. if I may ask.
1. What's wrong with a daughter being proud of her father?
2. Why would that be a bad thing??

/I guess a 3rd.would be they went out for ice cream ....I still don't see the problem. Sorry.
 
2013-07-02 08:25:20 PM

CliChe Guevara: fredklein: I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot), and who was pissed at "these assholes" who "always get away", suddenly had a change of heart and 'just decided to go back to his truck' at the exact same moment that Trayvon, who was running away from the "creepy cracker" (your words) following him happened to decide to turn and confront him for no reason.

That is to say, two people who were showing one type of behavior (hunter, prey) suddenly, and for no reason, changed into the other. At the same time.

This is one of the giant disconnects our "Fark Independents" cannot and will not address. Just let it go. They are never going to listen to reason as long as reason keeps telling them something other than "its the black guys fault"


imageshack.us
 
2013-07-02 08:25:41 PM

CliChe Guevara: Tatsuma: Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.

Too bad that's not what a reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions as doing then. Hell, if the roles were reversed, the ITG crowd here would shoot the black person for pursuing them, and justify feeling threatened in that position, too. "Shoot the black guy" is the only constant I see here on Fark from your little faction of supremacist wack jobs.


Did you see Sereno's testimony today? It was enlightening:

(Quoted text blatantly stolen from another farker)
Today, the lead investigator basically tore apart the whole "he was told not to follow him" by law enforcement a new one. Can Zimmerman follow Trayvon? Legal. Approach him? Legal. Ask him who he is? Legal. What he is doing here? Legal. Could he say I don't like you? Legal. Tell him to leave? Legal. Tell him he didn't like his clothes? Legal. Hopefully that is one chicken that has been farked to death.

Apparently, that chicken is still kicking. Might want to give it some lube before you fark it some more, though.
 
ecl
2013-07-02 08:27:48 PM

CliChe Guevara: Tatsuma: Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.

Too bad that's not what a reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions as doing then. Hell, if the roles were reversed, the ITG crowd here would shoot the black person for pursuing them, and justify feeling threatened in that position, too. "Shoot the black guy" is the only constant I see here on Fark from your little faction of supremacist wack jobs.


Be fair.  They hate Muslims too.
 
2013-07-02 08:28:48 PM

BigNumber12: sheep snorter: Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."
Dad Lawyer: "And I'll deny any responsibility since you are nothing but a stupid kid."

Care to explain?


Next someone is just going to pull something else out of ass as fact, like saying Martin saw the gun so that is why
he needed to go over and attack Zimmerman.......
 
2013-07-02 08:30:47 PM

mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.


And here you are, calling someone else stupid.
 
2013-07-02 08:32:00 PM
The prosecution has apparently given up all pretenses. They are phoning it in.
 
2013-07-02 08:34:32 PM

fredklein: ... Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty



I don't know how to put this more bluntly than I already have, but what you say here is not the law.
 
2013-07-02 08:34:44 PM

Third Day Mark: /white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.


Of course, because zimmerman stepped out of his car, saw someone wearing a hoodie, and shot them for it.

Zimmerman was apparently assaulted for WWW  walking while white.  Stupid cracker needs to know not to walk around without permission.
 
2013-07-02 08:34:55 PM

propasaurus: mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.

And here you are, calling someone else stupid.


I didn't write that and I can't read it either.
 
2013-07-02 08:35:14 PM

Delay: The prosecution has apparently given up all pretenses. They are phoning it in.


I am curious as to where they are going with all this.
 
ecl
2013-07-02 08:37:11 PM

Tatsuma: ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.

How am I being a coward, sexist?


You are congratulating each other because you think this sniveling little quim is going to get off on a technicality and that will empower you pussies to go out and shoot someone who isn't armed because you're cowardly f*cking pussies.

Does that cover it?
 
2013-07-02 08:37:28 PM

Scerpes: Nutsac_Jim: Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??

the problem is that she is proud of her father for shaming the prosecution.  They decided that they must exact justice in some other way that they control.

This is why HOA board members should not be members of a given community.  It promotes little Hitlers.

Why would you want someone running your HOA that doesn't actually live there?


Because I would like unbiased, logical decisions.   People who do not live there to not exact retribution for having too many house parties by going overboard on how many flakes of paint are missing on the window trim that is unviewable from any public area.
 
2013-07-02 08:38:37 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Why would you want someone running your HOA that doesn't actually live there?

Because I would like unbiased, logical decisions.   People who do not live there to not exact retribution for having too many house parties by going overboard on how many flakes of paint are missing on the window trim that is unviewable from any public area.


No question that some HOA board members can be assholes.  However, I'd much rather have board members who are also subject to their decision making.
 
2013-07-02 08:39:21 PM

Phinn: fredklein: ... Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty

I don't know how to put this more bluntly than I already have, but what you say here is not the law.


"If the law supposes that ... the law is a ass-a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience-by experience."

What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.
 
2013-07-02 08:39:23 PM

Yogimus: Delay: The prosecution has apparently given up all pretenses. They are phoning it in.

I am curious as to where they are going with all this.


They will be going somewhere to escape the probable riots. Sensible, no?
 
2013-07-02 08:40:15 PM

CliChe Guevara: Tatsuma: Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.

Too bad that's not what a reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions as doing then. Hell, if the roles were reversed, the ITG crowd here would shoot the black person for pursuing them, and justify feeling threatened in that position, too. "Shoot the black guy" is the only constant I see here on Fark from your little faction of supremacist wack jobs.


You mad. Claiming people are racist because they disagree is pretty...what's the word...unreasonable.
 
2013-07-02 08:40:41 PM

ecl: Tatsuma: ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.

How am I being a coward, sexist?

You are congratulating each other because you think this sniveling little quim is going to get off on a technicality and that will empower you pussies to go out and shoot someone who isn't armed because you're cowardly f*cking pussies.

Does that cover it?


The technicality that you're referring to is that his conduct wasn't illegal.
 
ecl
2013-07-02 08:40:48 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Third Day Mark: /white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.

Of course, because zimmerman stepped out of his car, saw someone wearing a hoodie, and shot them for it.

Zimmerman was apparently assaulted for WWW  walking while white.  Stupid cracker needs to know not to walk around without permission.


His hunter/prey?prey/hunter story is unbelievable at best.
 
2013-07-02 08:41:03 PM

Tatsuma: King Something: He stopped his vehicle, got out, went looking for a fight (against the advice of the 911 operator), got into a fight, then shot and killed his opponent.

That's absolutely 100% false, the 911 Operator was on the stand and said that he never said to Zimmerman to either go after Martin or to go back to his car, he was 100% neutral because it's policy not to give direct orders.

So no, it was not against the advice of the 911 operator, all he said was 'It's not necessary'.


If someone (whether or not they are a 911 operator) tells you that drinking antifreeze is a bad idea and they don't need you to do that, but you drink it anyway, would it be correct to say that you drank antifreeze against that person's advice?

What if they tell you that juggling hand grenades, sticking a fork into a wall outlet or taunting Happy Fun Ball are bad ideas but you do them anyway? Would it be fair to say that you juggled grenades, plugged a fork into an outlet or taunted Happy Fun Ball against their advice?

What if you're driving along and see a "suspicious" person walking along, call 911, and then that pedestrian darts into a dark alley when he realizes you're following him? You tell this to the 911 operator, tell them your intent of exiting your vehicle and pursuing the other person on foot, and the dispatcher tells you that they don't need you to do that (with the implication that a foot pursuit would be an incredibly bad idea); yet you do it anyway. Wouldn't that qualify as having been done against the advice of the person who told you that you shouldn't do that?

/I'm not disputing that the 911 dispatcher never ordered Zimmerman to stay in his car; they merely advised him to stay put
//notice how above, I said "against the advice of the 911 operator" instead of "against the ordersof the 911 operator"
 
2013-07-02 08:41:16 PM

fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.



The next time we're talking about a case being tried in a court of rightness, your opinions may be worth something.
 
2013-07-02 08:41:20 PM
fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."


Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?
 
2013-07-02 08:41:30 PM

King Something: I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years

the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years

There you go.
 
2013-07-02 08:42:09 PM

sheep snorter: Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."


wtf do you mean by that?
care to explain why you think the title had anything to do with race at all?

or are you trying to say what the first thing that comes to your mind when someone uses the word "stupid".
 
2013-07-02 08:42:11 PM

ecl: CliChe Guevara: Tatsuma: Not only that, but it is absolutely legal for someone to follow someone else and ask them what they are doing in their neighborhood.

Too bad that's not what a reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions as doing then. Hell, if the roles were reversed, the ITG crowd here would shoot the black person for pursuing them, and justify feeling threatened in that position, too. "Shoot the black guy" is the only constant I see here on Fark from your little faction of supremacist wack jobs.

Be fair.  They hate Muslims too.


But not Hispanics? What kind of bigots are these?
 
2013-07-02 08:42:56 PM

Hobodeluxe: CliChe Guevara: Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie.

GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.

I'm hoping the judge allows lesser charges to come into play and they get him for negligent manslaughter.


Why, was he whipping the gun out and accidently shot someone?
 
2013-07-02 08:43:04 PM

fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.


That's not a bad point.  However, you should also consider whether the "innocent" person is really innocent.  Zimmerman's nose didn't get broken on its own.  He didn't end up on his back underneath Martin, all on his own.  Zimmerman was a moron for getting out of his truck, and for following.  However, that doesn't make him guilty of murder if he had to defend himself.
 
2013-07-02 08:43:11 PM

BigNumber12: Magnus: BigNumber12: HA! I was wondering if that would earn a rebuke.

How will the judge rebuke the daughter, a non-participant in this case?  Hold her in contempt of twitter?  Or just send her father to county for 30 days due to guilt by association?

My comment was on the fact that the Judge seems to despise the Defense Team, and would loooooove an opportunity like this to reprimand one of them.


I just figured out why I despise the defense team... the lead freakishly reminds me of Joel Osteen.
 
2013-07-02 08:43:35 PM

fredklein: Part of the problem is that some people are looking at the forest, and some are looking at one tree.

To those looking at the forest, the 'big picture', they see Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty.

To those looking at the tree, the one instant Zimmerman was getting beat, they see... well, nothing but that one instant. And without context, what they see is.. useless for basing a decision on. But that doesn't stop them.


See my post above about this.

The lead investigator testified in the case today. NOTHING that Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was illegal, according to the police investigator in charge of the shooting. Following? Nope, not illegal.

Yesterday, the same lead investigator testified that, given all the evidence in the case, he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Assaulting someone, mounting them for a bit of the ground 'n' pound? Not legal. Grounds for self-defense on Zimmerman's part, in fact.

So maybe what we see is one guy (Zimmerman) doing nothing illegal, and another guy (Martin) doing something illegal, and support the guy that was only doing the legal things. Zimmerman - again, who was doing nothing illegal - has a right to protect himself from an illegal assault that could have seriously injured of killed him.

Besides all of that, it baffles me that you seem to expect Zimmerman to be some superman with iron self-control, yet expect Martin to have none. You do realize that if Martin had stopped beating on Zimmerman when Zimmerman started screaming for help, that Martin would probably be alive today, right?
 
2013-07-02 08:43:50 PM

ecl: Tatsuma: ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.

How am I being a coward, sexist?

You are congratulating each other because you think this sniveling little quim is going to get off on a technicality and that will empower you pussies to go out and shoot someone who isn't armed because you're cowardly f*cking pussies.

Does that cover it?


Dude.
 
2013-07-02 08:44:24 PM

sheep snorter: Daughter: "hey lets title the picture something that is almost racist but not illegal to the proceedings."
Dad Lawyer: "And I'll deny any responsibility since you are nothing but a stupid kid."


Um...yeah.  You know that the picture was actually taken the day before Precious testified, right?
 
2013-07-02 08:44:48 PM

fredklein: Part of the problem is that some people are looking at the forest, and some are looking at one tree.

To those looking at the forest, the 'big picture', they see Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty.

To those looking at the tree, the one instant Zimmerman was getting beat, they see... well, nothing but that one instant. And without context, what they see is.. useless for basing a decision on. But that doesn't stop them.


The law doesn't work that way.  What you call context is actually examined as a chain of events between cause and effect.  Legally, things can happen which break the chain and force you to ignore all of the links that came before that event.  In this case, the line between Zimmerman following or chasing Martin and the death of Martin can be broken in many places.  Because there is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin at the point he exited his vehicle, any events that preceded the initial physical confrontation are irrelevant.  If you see that initial confrontation as part of an overall sequence that leads to Martin's death, that's an opinion you are entitled to.  An equally valid opinion is that Martin escalated a simple physical conflict to a life-or-death (or serious bodily injury) conflict which would break the chain of causation and force you to examine only those events which occurred after that happened.

My Florida Bar exam had an exaggerated example of this as one of its questions.  It went something along the lines of a woman was jogging, bitten by a dog, hit by a car waiting for the ambulance, dropped out of the ambulance by the emts, and then treated by a drunk physician in the ER who seriously messed up resulting in her death.  Obviously, she would be alive but for having been bitten by the dog.  But, the owner of the dog bears no legal responsibility for her death as that chain had been broken many times.
 
2013-07-02 08:45:14 PM

Scerpes: ecl: Tatsuma: ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.

How am I being a coward, sexist?

You are congratulating each other because you think this sniveling little quim is going to get off on a technicality and that will empower you pussies to go out and shoot someone who isn't armed because you're cowardly f*cking pussies.

Does that cover it?

The technicality that you're referring to is that his conduct wasn't illegal.


You can't use law in here! This is a courtroom!
 
2013-07-02 08:45:37 PM

fredklein: Phinn: fredklein: ... Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty

I don't know how to put this more bluntly than I already have, but what you say here is not the law.

"If the law supposes that ... the law is a ass-a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience-by experience."

What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.


Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.
 
2013-07-02 08:45:49 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: judgment non obstante veredicto


That would be awesome.  If the Jury goes not guity..all we need is some evidence that proves zimmerman intended to kill martin for your fantasy to come true.
 
2013-07-02 08:46:09 PM

GBB: Third Day Mark: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 299x169]
 Who needs evidence ?

You shut your whore mouth.

Because Jackson and Sharpton swoop into a small sleepy Florida town where this kind of murder-profiling has gone on before; and simply ask for the person who murdered someone to be arrested and the trial to be held in the first place, they're out to make a buck?

I'll say it again: Shut your goddamn whore mouth.

/white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.
///btw: it was raining.  everyone wears hoodies in fla in february if its going to rain -- because its got a f*cking hood.

Yes, we Floridians love wearing our hoodies to protect us from the rain, then proceed to not get out of said rain.  We're all funny like that.


Trayvon was walking home. How is that "not getting out of the rain"?
 
2013-07-02 08:47:35 PM

ecl: Tatsuma: ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.

How am I being a coward, sexist?

You are congratulating each other because you think this sniveling little quim is going to get off on a technicality and that will empower you pussies to go out and shoot someone who isn't armed because you're cowardly f*cking pussies.

Does that cover it?


No. I'm reasonably sure that the unarmed someone needs to be a child and he needs to be African American.

On the other hand, if the victim were a blonde girl in Aruba, Zimmerman would be in prison by now.
 
2013-07-02 08:48:26 PM

Pud: Nutsac_Jim: Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??

the problem is that she is proud of her father for shaming the prosecution.  They decided that they must exact justice in some other way that they control.

This is why HOA board members should not be members of a given community.  It promotes little Hitlers.

Two questions. if I may ask.
1. What's wrong with a daughter being proud of her father?
2. Why would that be a bad thing??

/I guess a 3rd.would be they went out for ice cream ....I still don't see the problem. Sorry.


That was sarcasm.
 
2013-07-02 08:49:14 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Giant Clown Shoe: judgment non obstante veredicto

That would be awesome.  If the Jury goes not guity..all we need is some evidence that proves zimmerman intended to kill martin for your fantasy to come true.


Um...actually, you need a conviction for a finding of judgement notwithstanding the verdict.  The court can't convict without the jury, but they can overturn a jury verdict.  I believe the judge cold also make a not guilty finding at the close of the State's case, or a stand your ground finding at the close of evidence.
 
2013-07-02 08:49:50 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: GBB: Third Day Mark: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 299x169]
 Who needs evidence ?

You shut your whore mouth.

Because Jackson and Sharpton swoop into a small sleepy Florida town where this kind of murder-profiling has gone on before; and simply ask for the person who murdered someone to be arrested and the trial to be held in the first place, they're out to make a buck?

I'll say it again: Shut your goddamn whore mouth.

/white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.
///btw: it was raining.  everyone wears hoodies in fla in february if its going to rain -- because its got a f*cking hood.

Yes, we Floridians love wearing our hoodies to protect us from the rain, then proceed to not get out of said rain.  We're all funny like that.

Trayvon was walking home. How is that "not getting out of the rain"?


if his friend is to be believed, he took something like 40 minutes to make a 3 minute walk.
 
2013-07-02 08:50:21 PM
If someone is acting within the law, then there's no legal excuse to commit an illegal action against them. If Zimmerman's story is true then he was at no legal fault.

His actions may be unwise or stupid but so is driving through a "bad" neighborhood, leaving your door unlocked, or wearing revealing clothing. That doesn't excuse someone attacking them, robbing them, or raping them nor does it invalidate their right to self defense because they could have "avoided" it.
 
2013-07-02 08:50:42 PM

Tatsuma: Also one thing I really found interesting about the trial. Turns out a police officer, trying to make Zimmerman slip up and see if he was lying, told him 'Turns out that someone filmed the whole incident on their phone' and Zimmerman immediately closed his eyes, said 'Thank G-d!' and sighed in relief.


of course he said that. he's taken criminal justice and knows their tactics
 
2013-07-02 08:51:36 PM

Cataholic: fredklein: Part of the problem is that some people are looking at the forest, and some are looking at one tree.

To those looking at the forest, the 'big picture', they see Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty.


My Florida Bar exam had an exaggerated example of this as one of its questions.  It went something along the lines of a woman was jogging, bitten by a dog, hit by a car waiting for the ambulance, dropped out of the ambulance by the emts, and then treated by a drunk physician in the ER who seriously messed up resulting in her death.  Obviously, she would be alive but for having been bitten by the dog.  But, the owner of the dog bears no legal responsibility for her death as that chain had been broken many times.


This.

Oh, and there is a huge difference between chasing someone as you claim and someone keeping track of where someone is so he can tell the police when they arrive (as he did on all his other calls).
 
2013-07-02 08:51:38 PM

Phinn: fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.

The next time we're talking about a case being tried in a court of rightness, your opinions may be worth something.


So, your 'Justice System' isn't supposed to do the right thing? Doing Right isn't Just??
 
2013-07-02 08:52:06 PM

Hobodeluxe: Tatsuma: Also one thing I really found interesting about the trial. Turns out a police officer, trying to make Zimmerman slip up and see if he was lying, told him 'Turns out that someone filmed the whole incident on their phone' and Zimmerman immediately closed his eyes, said 'Thank G-d!' and sighed in relief.

of course he said that. he's taken criminal justice and knows their tactics


Yes...lie to the suspect about the existence of a video is a course in it's own right.
 
2013-07-02 08:52:23 PM

I_C_Weener: ecl: Tatsuma: ecl: Cowards slapping each others backs. Disgusting.

How am I being a coward, sexist?

You are congratulating each other because you think this sniveling little quim is going to get off on a technicality and that will empower you pussies to go out and shoot someone who isn't armed because you're cowardly f*cking pussies.

Does that cover it?

Dude.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-02 08:53:17 PM

DoomPaul: If someone is acting within the law, then there's no legal excuse to commit an illegal action against them. If Zimmerman's story is true then he was at no legal fault.

His actions may be unwise or stupid but so is driving through a "bad" neighborhood, leaving your door unlocked, or wearing revealing clothing. That doesn't excuse someone attacking them, robbing them, or raping them nor does it invalidate their right to self defense because they could have "avoided" it.


Great sum up.

The state must prove that Zimmermans story is untrue...beyond a reasonable doubt. Or in other words that his version defies logic, basically. That or a competing eye witness, which they lack.
 
2013-07-02 08:55:31 PM

fredklein: Phinn: fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.

The next time we're talking about a case being tried in a court of rightness, your opinions may be worth something.

So, your 'Justice System' isn't supposed to do the right thing? Doing Right isn't Just??


It's supposed to do the right thing by not risking sending innocent people to jail. Rather 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted. That's the crux of the system.
 
2013-07-02 08:56:38 PM

fredklein: CliChe Guevara: fredklein: I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot), and who was pissed at "these assholes" who "always get away", suddenly had a change of heart and 'just decided to go back to his truck' at the exact same moment that Trayvon, who was running away from the "creepy cracker" (your words) following him happened to decide to turn and confront him for no reason.

That is to say, two people who were showing one type of behavior (hunter, prey) suddenly, and for no reason, changed into the other. At the same time.

This is one of the giant disconnects our "Fark Independents" cannot and will not address. Just let it go. They are never going to listen to reason as long as reason keeps telling them something other than "its the black guys fault"

[imageshack.us image 800x302]


What is most likely is some 17 year old was out to prove how much of a man he is.  That's what they do.
Thats part of the reason more geeks show up to the 20th HS reunion.   The dumber ones have killed themselves off or are sitting in state sponsored one bedroom units with open floor plans, getting visited by Barney Fife 8 times a day.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-07-02 08:57:12 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Pud: Nutsac_Jim: Pud: I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??

the problem is that she is proud of her father for shaming the prosecution.  They decided that they must exact justice in some other way that they control.

This is why HOA board members should not be members of a given community.  It promotes little Hitlers.

Two questions. if I may ask.
1. What's wrong with a daughter being proud of her father?
2. Why would that be a bad thing??

/I guess a 3rd.would be they went out for ice cream ....I still don't see the problem. Sorry.

That was sarcasm.


I guess my sarcasm meter needs re-calibration.
 
2013-07-02 08:58:52 PM

Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?


If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??

imageshack.us
 
2013-07-02 09:00:02 PM

fredklein: If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??


Yes.  That's exactly what happened.  And there's NOTHING to contradict it.
 
2013-07-02 09:01:30 PM
Someone got a little butt hurt?
 
2013-07-02 09:01:35 PM

Tatsuma: NightOwl2255: But then again, as the average thread gets about 100 comments, Zimmerman is a cash cow for Drew.

100 comments? I remember when 100 comments were basically considered dead threads and 'cash cow threads' were basically stuff like I/P that always brought between 600-800 posts on average.


To be fair, half that 300-400 was from you. Heh.
No one can keep a thread going like you. That's not an insult or anything, it's just remarkable in a way.
 
2013-07-02 09:03:55 PM

fredklein: HAMMERTOE: They've also proved that Trayvon was meandering through yards at night,

If by that you mean 'walking on the sidewalk', then yes.

in the rain,

Trayvon didn't control the weather. What's he supposed to do, wait for the sun to shine before he goes home?

and then led the "creepy cracker" who spotted him doing so into a nice dark back-alley

What a "nice dark back-alley" looks like:

[www1.pictures.zimbio.com image 404x594]
[imageshack.us image 755x502]

suitable for an ambush

::Sigh::

I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot)


You are either the most uniformed person in the world or you are lying. Which is it? For around 1.5 minutes of the call with the dispatcher, Martin was no where in sight. How did Zimmerman magically catch up to Martin after not seeing him for that long? Martin could have been home in that amount of time easily.

After so many threads on this subject, I have to conclude everyone who posts such dishonest statements in these threads must have a mental illness. The transcript and audio of Zimmerman's conversation with the dispatcher have been posted so many times, yet there are posters who still claim ZImmerman chased Martin right up until the fight, and that he disobeyed the dispatcher. Both of those assertions are demonstrably false by any reasonable reading of the transcript and simply listening to the audio. Make your arguments within the known facts, not from your imagination.
 
2013-07-02 09:08:10 PM
WOW. So either Tatsuma is a white supremacist, or everyone that doesn't believe Zimmerman's guilt has been proven is a Jewish supremacist?

That was pretty weird.
 
2013-07-02 09:08:28 PM

fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??



No.  That was not specifically about Martin since he didn't know anything about Martin when he said that.
He was referring to people who are actually committing crimes.  Not suspects.

Stop lying. It doesn't make your case any better.
 
2013-07-02 09:08:55 PM
Martin stood his ground, and forgot to bring a gun.
 
2013-07-02 09:11:55 PM

fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??

[imageshack.us image 800x302]


Zimmerman wanted someone punished for the previous break-ins. He sees a lone young black man walking down the street, recalls that the description of the perpetrators was "young black men", and immediately decides Trayvon was responsible for them. He goes off after him, determined to catch him and make him pay for those break-ins, because he's obviously guilty by being a young black man, which matches the description.

Sounds far-fetched? Zimmerman is knows to have a short temper and be impulsive. "These assholes always get away" is not something said by a person who's merely suspicious of a stranger. And he's given at least three different stories of what Trayvon was doing as he was walking down the street: peering into windows, casing houses, and skipping down the road. Zimmerman wanted justice done, and it went tits-up in a huge way.
 
2013-07-02 09:14:28 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.

That's not a bad point.  However, you should also consider whether the "innocent" person is really innocent.  Zimmerman's nose didn't get broken on its own.  He didn't end up on his back underneath Martin, all on his own.  Zimmerman was a moron for getting out of his truck, and for following.  However, that doesn't make him guilty of murder if he had to defend himself.


My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed him, then hung up with the cops and turned to go back to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy guy who's been chasing him turn and walk back toward his hiding place, assumes Zimmerman had found his hiding place (or was about to). That's when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Somewhere in there, Trayvon realizes Zimmerman is armed. (How? Maybe Zimmerman pulled or flashed his gun. Maybe Trayvon saw it as Zimmerman put his cell phone away after hanging up with the cops. Doesn't matter.) So, Trayvon jumps the crazy armed guy following him... in self defense. And if he had hit Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk harder, we'd be posting about how TRAYVON wasn't "guilty of murder if he had to defend himself".

Besides, didn't someone at the top of the thread post that the injuries were trivial? Lemme see... Oh, Here:

Hobodeluxe 2013-07-02 06:50:34 PM
big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.


And that is born out by news articles:

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Prosecutors-attack-Zimmerman- story-several-ways-4641973.php
Prosecutors also called a medical examiner who had reviewed evidence for them to the witness stand. Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant, bolstering the prosecution's claims that Zimmerman's life wasn't in jeopardy during his fight with Martin. Rao was not the medical examiner who autopsied Martin.

"They were so minor that the individual who treated and examined Mr. Zimmerman decided stitches weren't required," Rao said.

Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?
 
2013-07-02 09:15:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??


No.  That was not specifically about Martin since he didn't know anything about Martin when he said that.
He was referring to people who are actually committing crimes.  Not suspects.

Stop lying. It doesn't make your case any better.


Then why did he say that at all? If he was only suspicious about Trayvon in a general way, why make that comment as he started going after him? That's an odd thought process: "Hmm, there's someone making me suspicious. I'll follow him. These assholes always get away". Sounds like Zimmerman had already convicted Trayvon of something.
 
2013-07-02 09:16:30 PM
What if martin WAS behind the breakins?
 
2013-07-02 09:17:29 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??

[imageshack.us image 800x302]

Zimmerman wanted someone punished for the previous break-ins. He sees a lone young black man walking down the street,


I thought when the 911 dispatcher asked him, he was at first hesitant of the suspect's race.


recalls that the description of the perpetrators was "young black men", and immediately decides Trayvon was responsible for them. He goes off after him, determined to catch him and make him pay for those break-ins, because he's obviously guilty by being a young black man, which matches the description.

Sounds far-fetched?


Yes.

Zimmerman is knows to have a short temper and be impulsive.

He maybe 'is knows" but if you listen to the 911 tape he didn't sound to have a temper or be impulsive.

"These assholes always get away" is not something said by a person who's merely suspicious of a stranger.
He said it under his breath expressing frustration - he has been doing this for four years, right?


vs. a guy who refers to a specific person as a n***** and a creepy-ass cracker?
 
2013-07-02 09:17:31 PM

fredklein: Phinn: fredklein: ... Zimmerman starting the whole thing by chasing Trayvon. And since he started it, he's guilty

I don't know how to put this more bluntly than I already have, but what you say here is not the law.

"If the law supposes that ... the law is a ass-a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience-by experience."

What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.

Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"? You are forgetting that there was a crime committed before Zimmerman fired his gun.
Let's pretend the police showed up before the shot was fired, and stopped the incidence. Do you believe for a second that Martin would not have been charged? What happened up until the shot was fired is the textbook definition of assault and battery.
 
2013-07-02 09:23:17 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Keizer_Ghidorah: fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??

[imageshack.us image 800x302]

Zimmerman wanted someone punished for the previous break-ins. He sees a lone young black man walking down the street,

I thought when the 911 dispatcher asked him, he was at first hesitant of the suspect's race.


recalls that the description of the perpetrators was "young black men", and immediately decides Trayvon was responsible for them. He goes off after him, determined to catch him and make him pay for those break-ins, because he's obviously guilty by being a young black man, which matches the description.

Sounds far-fetched?

Yes.

Zimmerman is knows to have a short temper and be impulsive.

He maybe 'is knows" but if you listen to the 911 tape he didn't sound to have a temper or be impulsive.

"These assholes always get away" is not something said by a person who's merely suspicious of a stranger.
He said it under his breath expressing frustration - he has been doing this for four years, right?

vs. a guy who refers to a specific person as a n***** and a creepy-ass cracker?


The way and time he said it, it makes it look like he's already convinced that Trayvon is guilty of something and wants him punished. Couple that with the previous break-ins and the perpetrators described as young black men who weren't caught, now Zimmerman's statement looks like he went after Trayvon to dispense justice for those break-ins.

Or he's a very paranoid person who sees boojums everywhere.
 
2013-07-02 09:24:09 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??

Yes.  That's exactly what happened.  And there's NOTHING to contradict it.


Other than common sense, well, that and GZ's actions and own words.
 
2013-07-02 09:24:58 PM

fredklein: Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?

i.imgur.com
My god. Could it be any more evident you are totally ignorant about the facts in this case and you are just making up shiat as you go along?
 
2013-07-02 09:27:27 PM

Elegy: The lead investigator testified in the case today. NOTHING that Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was illegal, according to the police investigator in charge of the shooting. Following? Nope, not illegal.


And, as I have said before, if a series of "legal" actions end with an innocent person DEAD... then I question the Rightness of the Law.

Yesterday, the same lead investigator testified that, given all the evidence in the case, he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Well, Zimmerman has a history of lying. "Following Zimmerman's April 20 bond hearing, he and his wife were accused by prosecutors of not disclosing the funds raised through the original web site; as a result of these allegations, Zimmerman's original bail was revoked. He was subsequently released again with a higher bail amount. Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, was charged with perjury in June 2012; the charge still stands." -wikipedia

Assaulting someone, mounting them for a bit of the ground 'n' pound? Not legal. Grounds for self-defense on Zimmerman's part, in fact.

Really? A crazy guy is following you in a car. You duck between some houses, and he gets out of his car and follows you on foot. You see he's armed. Maybe he pulls the gun.

You really don't see how TRAYVON could have jumped Zimmerman in self defense??

So maybe what we see is one guy (Zimmerman) doing nothing illegal

Just chasing an innocent person for no real reason.

and another guy (Martin) doing something illegal

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Zimmerman - again, who was doing nothing illegal - has a right to protect himself from an illegal assault that could have seriously injured of killed him.


And does TRAYVON have the right to protect himself from an illegal assault that could have seriously injured of killed him??

Besides all of that, it baffles me that you seem to expect Zimmerman to be some superman with iron self-control, yet expect Martin to have none. You do realize that if Martin had stopped beating on Zimmerman when Zimmerman started screaming for help, that Martin would probably be alive today, right?

And if Zimmerman hadn't chased Trayvon to begin with? Same thing. Thus, that decision was the one that set this whole thing in motion. And that decision was Zimmerman's.
 
2013-07-02 09:27:41 PM
Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?

Can you really not figure that out or are you just trolling?
 
2013-07-02 09:27:46 PM
If Zimmerman gets away with  Trayvon Martin's murder this could open up a new tourist revenue stream for Florida. Tourists could hunt down locals and kill them for sport and then simply say they were just standing their ground.
 
2013-07-02 09:32:38 PM
If you think someone is chasing you as you walk down the street in Florida your smart more now is to shoot them before they shoot you. It's gonna be tough on joggers but the law's the law.
 
2013-07-02 09:32:55 PM

fredklein: Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?


He was apparently lying in the grass with his head on the sidewalk.
 
2013-07-02 09:33:41 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?

He was apparently lying in the grass with his head on the sidewalk.


And we have a winner!!!!
 
2013-07-02 09:34:42 PM

fredklein: And if Zimmerman hadn't chased Trayvon to begin with? Same thing. Thus, that decision was the one that set this whole thing in motion. And that decision was Zimmerman's.


If Martin had just gone home instead of attacking Zimmerman, he would have never been shot.  That decision was entirely Martin's.
 
2013-07-02 09:35:16 PM
Common sense will never prevail in our culture of race-baiting. Blacks kill blacks in over 93% of all murders in certain states, and 80%+ overall everywhere. You are far more likely to be killed by one's own ethnicity, yet the narrative of Zimmerman as "scary white men will kill black kid" exists due to the oppression of the white power structure that existed long before Zimmerman was ever born.

If he had only used his mother's maiden name, we wouldn't be having a trial right now.  Florida taxes at work.
 
2013-07-02 09:37:14 PM

Cataholic: The law doesn't work that way. What you call context is actually examined as a chain of events between cause and effect. Legally, things can happen which break the chain and force you to ignore all of the links that came before that event. In this case, the line between Zimmerman following or chasing Martin and the death of Martin can be broken in many places. Because there is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin at the point he exited his vehicle, any events that preceded the initial physical confrontation are irrelevant. If you see that initial confrontation as part of an overall sequence that leads to Martin's death, that's an opinion you are entitled to. An equally valid opinion is that Martin escalated a simple physical conflict to a life-or-death (or serious bodily injury) conflict which would break the chain of causation and force you to examine only those events which occurred after that happened.

My Florida Bar exam had an exaggerated example of this as one of its questions. It went something along the lines of a woman was jogging, bitten by a dog, hit by a car waiting for the ambulance, dropped out of the ambulance by the emts, and then treated by a drunk physician in the ER who seriously messed up resulting in her death. Obviously, she would be alive but for having been bitten by the dog. But, the owner of the dog bears no legal responsibility for her death as that chain had been broken many times.


Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer. I don't see how the links are broken.

Z chased T.
There was a confrontation (that never would have happened if Z didn't chase T.)
T was killed (which never would have happened if there never was a confrontation (that never would have happened if Z didn't chase T.))

This isn't a case of numerous unrelated links, like your jogger story. In that story, there is no reasonable way the dog owner could know that the jogger would get hit by a car, dropped by the EMTs, or treated by a drunk doc. But, if you are chasing someone, it's quite likely that a confrontation may occur. And, if you're armed, and get in a confrontation, it's at least possible (if not necessarily 'likely') that you may need to use your weapon. So, the way I see it, the links hold.
 
2013-07-02 09:39:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.


It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.
 
2013-07-02 09:41:31 PM

NorCalLos: I_C_Weener: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

Or that they can show that. They can show that an altercation happened. They have only his statement that he was walking away and the girls statement that Trayvon would have told her before Treyvon would assault someone.

Unless there is another eyewitness?

He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.


Not fear for your life... great bodily harm also fall under that too.
 
2013-07-02 09:41:55 PM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.


You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.
 
GBB
2013-07-02 09:42:05 PM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.


If by "defend" you mean "go on the offensive and throw the first punch", then yes, that's not legal.
 
2013-07-02 09:42:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Oh, and there is a huge difference between chasing someone as you claim and someone keeping track of where someone is so he can tell the police when they arrive (as he did on all his other calls).


chasing present participle of chase (Verb)
Verb
Pursue in order to catch or catch up with: "police chased the stolen car"; "the dog chased after the stick".

"These assholes always get away". Hmm. Looks like he made sure this one didn't.
 
2013-07-02 09:42:49 PM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.


It IS legal to confront the guy. Unfortunately, he appeared to be better armed.
 
2013-07-02 09:43:03 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: And if Zimmerman hadn't chased Trayvon to begin with? Same thing. Thus, that decision was the one that set this whole thing in motion. And that decision was Zimmerman's.

If Martin had just gone home instead of attacking Zimmerman, he would have never been shot.  That decision was entirely Martin's.


There's something to be said for not showing people who are following you where you live. PSAs, teachers, the police, and parents say that all the time.
 
2013-07-02 09:44:42 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Scerpes: fredklein: And if Zimmerman hadn't chased Trayvon to begin with? Same thing. Thus, that decision was the one that set this whole thing in motion. And that decision was Zimmerman's.

If Martin had just gone home instead of attacking Zimmerman, he would have never been shot.  That decision was entirely Martin's.

There's something to be said for not showing people who are following you where you live. PSAs, teachers, the police, and parents say that all the time.


What they're going to break into a house in a state with the Castle Doctrine?
 
2013-07-02 09:47:09 PM

MarkEC: I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot)

You are either the most uniformed person in the world or you are lying. Which is it? For around 1.5 minutes of the call with the dispatcher, Martin was no where in sight. How did Zimmerman magically catch up to Martin after not seeing him for that long?


My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed him, then hung up with the cops and turned to go back to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy guy who's been chasing him turn and walk back toward his hiding place, assumes Zimmerman had found his hiding place (or was about to). That's when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Somewhere in there, Trayvon realizes Zimmerman is armed. (How? Maybe Zimmerman pulled or flashed his gun. Maybe Trayvon saw it as Zimmerman put his cell phone away after hanging up with the cops. Doesn't matter.) So, Trayvon jumps the crazy armed guy following him... in self defense.

After so many threads on this subject, I have to conclude everyone who posts such dishonest statements in these threads must have a mental illness. The transcript and audio of Zimmerman's conversation with the dispatcher have been posted so many times, yet there are posters who still claim ZImmerman chased Martin right up until the fight,

"Was still looking for him", then. Sheesh.
 
2013-07-02 09:48:21 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Scerpes: fredklein: And if Zimmerman hadn't chased Trayvon to begin with? Same thing. Thus, that decision was the one that set this whole thing in motion. And that decision was Zimmerman's.

If Martin had just gone home instead of attacking Zimmerman, he would have never been shot.  That decision was entirely Martin's.

There's something to be said for not showing people who are following you where you live. PSAs, teachers, the police, and parents say that all the time.


That is the best argument I have seen on this point, but there is also something to be said for punching someone in the face that is following you. Makes me want to think going home was a better idea.
 
2013-07-02 09:48:57 PM

fredklein: Cataholic: The law doesn't work that way. What you call context is actually examined as a chain of events between cause and effect. Legally, things can happen which break the chain and force you to ignore all of the links that came before that event. In this case, the line between Zimmerman following or chasing Martin and the death of Martin can be broken in many places. Because there is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin at the point he exited his vehicle, any events that preceded the initial physical confrontation are irrelevant. If you see that initial confrontation as part of an overall sequence that leads to Martin's death, that's an opinion you are entitled to. An equally valid opinion is that Martin escalated a simple physical conflict to a life-or-death (or serious bodily injury) conflict which would break the chain of causation and force you to examine only those events which occurred after that happened.

My Florida Bar exam had an exaggerated example of this as one of its questions. It went something along the lines of a woman was jogging, bitten by a dog, hit by a car waiting for the ambulance, dropped out of the ambulance by the emts, and then treated by a drunk physician in the ER who seriously messed up resulting in her death. Obviously, she would be alive but for having been bitten by the dog. But, the owner of the dog bears no legal responsibility for her death as that chain had been broken many times.

Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer. I don't see how the links are broken.

Z chased T.
There was a confrontation (that never would have happened if Z didn't chase T.)
T was killed (which never would have happened if there never was a confrontation (that never would have happened if Z didn't chase T.))

This isn't a case of numerous unrelated links, like your jogger story. In that story, there is no reasonable way the dog owner could know that the jogger would get hit by a car, dropped by the EMTs, or treated by a drunk doc ...


Ok let's try this with an automobile liability scenario.
You are driving down the road and someone pulls out in front of you while you are picking a zit in the mirror and you broadside them. Your light was green and theirs was red. The insurance companies may find you at fault if you had enough time to brake and avoid the accident even though the other person broke the law and ran a red light. The person who had the last chance to avoid the accident is often the one found responsible. Who had the last chance to avoid the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin?
 
2013-07-02 09:51:16 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: Keizer_Ghidorah: fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??

[imageshack.us image 800x302]

Zimmerman wanted someone punished for the previous break-ins. He sees a lone young black man walking down the street,

I thought when the 911 dispatcher asked him, he was at first hesitant of the suspect's race.


recalls that the description of the perpetrators was "young black men", and immediately decides Trayvon was responsible for them. He goes off after him, determined to catch him and make him pay for those break-ins, because he's obviously guilty by being a young black man, which matches the description.

Sounds far-fetched?

Yes.

Zimmerman is knows to have a short temper and be impulsive.

He maybe 'is knows" but if you listen to the 911 tape he didn't sound to have a temper or be impulsive.

"These assholes always get away" is not something said by a person who's merely suspicious of a stranger.
He said it under his breath expressing frustration - he has been doing this for four years, right?

vs. a guy who refers to a specific person as a n***** and a creepy-ass cracker?

The way and time he said it, it makes it look like he's already convinced that Trayvon is guilty of something and wants him punished. Couple that with the previous break-ins and the perpetrators described as young black men who weren't caught, now Zimmerman's statement looks like he went after Trayvon to dispense justice for those break-ins.

Or he's a very paranoid person who sees boojums everywhere.


No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George
 
2013-07-02 09:51:57 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??


No.  That was not specifically about Martin since he didn't know anything about Martin when he said that.
He was referring to people who are actually committing crimes.  Not suspects.

Stop lying. It doesn't make your case any better.


From the transcript:

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
...
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away.


So, Zimmerman says there's a suspicious person, and then says "These assholes they always get away." It's plain as day that he's assuming this 'suspicious' person (Trayvon) is one of "these assholes".

No lying needed.
 
2013-07-02 09:53:41 PM

MarkEC: Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"?


Yes- IF Trayvon was scared of the crazy guy with a gun following him, and acted in Self Defense.
 
2013-07-02 09:54:03 PM

fredklein: Elegy: The lead investigator testified in the case today. NOTHING that Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was illegal, according to the police investigator in charge of the shooting. Following? Nope, not illegal.

And, as I have said before, if a series of "legal" actions end with an innocent person DEAD... then I question the Rightness of the Law.

Yesterday, the same lead investigator testified that, given all the evidence in the case, he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Well, Zimmerman has a history of lying. "Following Zimmerman's April 20 bond hearing, he and his wife were accused by prosecutors of not disclosing the funds raised through the original web site; as a result of these allegations, Zimmerman's original bail was revoked. He was subsequently released again with a higher bail amount. Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, was charged with perjury in June 2012; the charge still stands." -wikipedia

Assaulting someone, mounting them for a bit of the ground 'n' pound? Not legal. Grounds for self-defense on Zimmerman's part, in fact.

Really? A crazy guy is following you in a car. You duck between some houses, and he gets out of his car and follows you on foot. You see he's armed. Maybe he pulls the gun.

You really don't see how TRAYVON could have jumped Zimmerman in self defense??

So maybe what we see is one guy (Zimmerman) doing nothing illegal

Just chasing an innocent person for no real reason.

and another guy (Martin) doing something illegal

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Zimmerman - again, who was doing nothing illegal - has a right to protect himself from an illegal assault that could have seriously injured of killed him.

And does TRAYVON have the right to protect himself from an illegal assault that could have seriously injured of killed him??

Besides all of that, it baffles me that you seem to expect Zimmerman to be some superman with iron self-control, yet expect Martin to have none. You do realize that if Martin had stopped beating on Zimmerman when Zimmerman started screaming for help, that Martin would probably be alive today, right?

And if Zimmerman hadn't chased Trayvon to begin with? Same thing. Thus, that decision was the one that set this whole thing in motion. And that decision was Zimmerman's.


The lying that you claim Zimmerman did about the finances is partially correct

Mrs Zimmerman lied
George did not

First you blame the prosecutor for something his daughter said now you try to blame George for something his wife said

Geesh
 
2013-07-02 09:56:04 PM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.



You're not familiar with the concept in self-defense of an threat needing to be IMMINENT, are you?

Does it ring any bells at all?  Any flicker of comprehension going on in there?
 
2013-07-02 09:56:54 PM

mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.


BY calling the witness "Jabba" only serves to display YOUR stupidity and undermines any argument you may attempt to make.  Name-calling only allows us to point and laugh at you and say "Oh my god! He honestly believes he improves the effectiveness of his argument by calling the witness funny names!  What a jackass!"

Congrats! You've openly shown your stupidity in a worldwide forum, <b>mikeray>/b>!
 
2013-07-02 09:57:28 PM

fredklein: Cataholic: The law doesn't work that way. What you call context is actually examined as a chain of events between cause and effect. Legally, things can happen which break the chain and force you to ignore all of the links that came before that event. In this case, the line between Zimmerman following or chasing Martin and the death of Martin can be broken in many places. Because there is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin at the point he exited his vehicle, any events that preceded the initial physical confrontation are irrelevant. If you see that initial confrontation as part of an overall sequence that leads to Martin's death, that's an opinion you are entitled to. An equally valid opinion is that Martin escalated a simple physical conflict to a life-or-death (or serious bodily injury) conflict which would break the chain of causation and force you to examine only those events which occurred after that happened.

My Florida Bar exam had an exaggerated example of this as one of its questions. It went something along the lines of a woman was jogging, bitten by a dog, hit by a car waiting for the ambulance, dropped out of the ambulance by the emts, and then treated by a drunk physician in the ER who seriously messed up resulting in her death. Obviously, she would be alive but for having been bitten by the dog. But, the owner of the dog bears no legal responsibility for her death as that chain had been broken many times.

Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer. I don't see how the links are broken.

Z chased T.
There was a confrontation (that never would have happened if Z didn't chase T.)
T was killed (which never would have happened if there never was a confrontation (that never would have happened if Z didn't chase T.))

This isn't a case of numerous unrelated links, like your jogger story. In that story, there is no reasonable way the dog owner could know that the jogger would get hit by a car, dropped by the EMTs, or treated by a drunk doc. But, if you are chasing someone, it's quite likely that a confrontation may occur. And, if you're armed, and get in a confrontation, it's at least possible (if not necessarily 'likely') that you may need to use your weapon. So, the way I see it, the links hold.


The link is broken in your first statement
George never chased Martin

He was keeping track of where Martin was so he can tell the police when he arrived

Just like all the other times he did this.
 
2013-07-02 09:58:16 PM

fredklein: "Was still looking for him", then. Sheesh.


Please explain how, after 1.5 minutes passed since losing his "pursuer" Martin wasn't sitting at his father's GF's house telling everyone about the "crazy-ass cracker" that was following him, instead of ending up on top of Zimmerman beating him.
 
2013-07-02 09:58:45 PM
This guy is gonna spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder (as he should). Even if he gets off, I don't envy him. The dumbass deserves it though, as of the instant he ignored police orders not to pursue Martin.
 
2013-07-02 09:59:11 PM

fredklein: MarkEC: Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"?

Yes- IF Trayvon was scared of the crazy guy with a gun following him, and acted in Self Defense.



Why are you so eager to give Martin the benefit of every doubt and engage your imagination in his favor at every opportunity, but you won't do the same for Zimmerman?

Because the way your brain thinks happens to be the exact opposite of how the criminal law works.
 
2013-07-02 09:59:22 PM

Elegy: fredklein: Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?
[i.imgur.com image 390x470]
My god. Could it be any more evident you are totally ignorant about the facts in this case and you are just making up shiat as you go along?


Who's making stuff up?

Police officer Timothy Smith arrived at the scene at approximately 7:17 PM. He reported finding Zimmerman standing near Martin, who was lying face down in the grass and unresponsive. At that time, Zimmerman stated to Smith that he had shot Martin and was still armed. Smith handcuffed Zimmerman and removed his weapon from him. Smith observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.
...
As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times." (See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls) Martin told him to "Shut the fark up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk. When Zimmerman tried to move off the concrete, Martin saw his gun...
- wikipedia

So, was Zimmerman on the grass, or the concrete?
 
2013-07-02 10:01:03 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: Oh, and does anyone find it funny that Zimmerman's head was hit on 'concrete', but his back was covered in 'grass'. Which was it?

He was apparently lying in the grass with his head on the sidewalk.


Fits, I suppose. It's unlikely (what's the chance your body would be on the grass, and just your head be on the sidewalk?), but it's possible.
 
2013-07-02 10:01:23 PM

fredklein: MarkEC: Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"?

Yes- IF Trayvon was scared of the crazy guy with a gun following him, and acted in Self Defense.


Bullshiat. You can not legally break someone's nose because they followed you.
 
2013-07-02 10:01:34 PM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.


Now you are just trolling

Did Martin know George was armed?

He just knew he was a cracker.

It is not legal to attack crackers or anyone else because you don't like that they are following you.


Following someone is not illegal unless there is a restraining order.
 
2013-07-02 10:02:58 PM

I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.


Then stalking is legal?

And, yes, following someone could be interpreted as a threat.
 
2013-07-02 10:04:04 PM

GBB: If by "defend" you mean "go on the offensive and throw the first punch", then yes, that's not legal.


Call the judge- you obviously have information they need at the trial if you know that's what happened.
 
2013-07-02 10:04:06 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George


Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?
 
2013-07-02 10:04:20 PM

fredklein: So, was Zimmerman on the grass, or the concrete?


Yes.
 
2013-07-02 10:05:12 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: This guy is gonna spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder (as he should). Even if he gets off, I don't envy him. The dumbass deserves it though, as of the instant he ignored police orders not to pursue Martin.


That's stupid.  The police dispatcher testified that he did not order Zimmerman to do or not do anything.  He further testified that he had no authority to order Zimmerman to do or not do anything.
 
2013-07-02 10:06:21 PM

fredklein: you use certain words ("nice dark back-alley") to imply that Trayvon was doing wrong, but defend Zimmerman for being in that very same place.


You seem to be confused about what this trial is about.  It's not about who was in the wrong in the confrontation initially.  It's about whether George Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger.  That's it.  The sole detail the court needs to decide in order to determine guilt or innocence.  If you were hoping they were going to end this thing with some conclusive statement about who was right and who was wrong, prepare for disappointment.
 
2013-07-02 10:07:25 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?


Martin's GF's testimony: "Crazy-ass cracker" said by Martin.
 
2013-07-02 10:07:33 PM

Yogimus: fredklein: So, was Zimmerman on the grass, or the concrete?

Yes.


3 dimensional space and time ... how does it work?
 
2013-07-02 10:07:35 PM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: fredklein: Nutsac_Jim: fredklein: ..."in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."

Is that not when Zimmerman said "OK" and then turned around?

If you believe him, yes. Unfortunately, his actions and attitude up to that point don't really jibe with that. He was armed. He followed Trayvon by vehicle, got out and followed him on foot. He referred to Trayvon as one of "these assholes" who "always get away". ... and then he just gave up and turned around??


No.  That was not specifically about Martin since he didn't know anything about Martin when he said that.
He was referring to people who are actually committing crimes.  Not suspects.

Stop lying. It doesn't make your case any better.

From the transcript:

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
...
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away.

So, Zimmerman says there's a suspicious person, and then says "These assholes they always get away." It's plain as day that he's assuming this 'suspicious' person (Trayvon) is one of "these assholes".

No lying needed.


Looks like you don't understand context

George wasn't complaining of innocent people or suspicious getting away only guilty people

He didnt know if Martin was guilty only that he was suspicious. That is farking why he called 911.

I am not sure if you are trolling or you really don't understand.
 
2013-07-02 10:07:55 PM

King Something: Phinn: NorCalLos: They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.

Show us where that is a meaningful component of the law of murder and/or self-defense.

He stopped his vehicle, got out, went looking for a fight (against the advice of the 911 operator), got into a fight, then shot and killed his opponent.

I'm fairly certain that you can't go that far out of your way looking for a fight and then claim that you had to use deadly force in self-defense in that very fight, especially when the guy you're fighting had been going out of his way to avoid that same fight.


How do you know he went looking for a fight? You assume too much.
 
2013-07-02 10:09:22 PM

MarkEC: Who had the last chance to avoid the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin?


Like I said, you don't see the forest for the tree. By focusing on that one moment, you blind yourself to the big picture.
 
2013-07-02 10:09:43 PM

fredklein: MarkEC: Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"?

Yes- IF Trayvon was scared of the crazy guy with a gun following him, and acted in Self Defense.


It isn't legal to break someone's nose of you are scared of them.

Seriously are you trolling or you don't understand?

I scared of you if you don't understand. Can I break your nose
 
2013-07-02 10:11:28 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?


He spouted them to precious.

That is what he went into the confrontation doing.
 
2013-07-02 10:11:30 PM

Scerpes: Hobodeluxe: Tatsuma: Also one thing I really found interesting about the trial. Turns out a police officer, trying to make Zimmerman slip up and see if he was lying, told him 'Turns out that someone filmed the whole incident on their phone' and Zimmerman immediately closed his eyes, said 'Thank G-d!' and sighed in relief.

of course he said that. he's taken criminal justice and knows their tactics

Yes...lie to the suspect about the existence of a video is a course in it's own right.


telling them you have evidence you don't is one of the oldest tricks in the book to try to get them to change their story
 
2013-07-02 10:12:21 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?


He was spouting them on the phone to his girlfriend.
 
2013-07-02 10:12:25 PM

Phinn: fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.

You're not familiar with the concept in self-defense of an threat needing to be IMMINENT, are you?

Does it ring any bells at all?  Any flicker of comprehension going on in there?


So, you're being followed by a crazy guy with a gun. He grabs his gun, maybe points it at you. Is that "IMMINENT" enough?

The truth is, we don't know what happened. But it's certainly possible that Trayvon was in fear for his life when he jumped Zimmerman. Why else would he change from 'running away' to 'confronting', if nothing had happened?
 
2013-07-02 10:14:21 PM

Mi-5: mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.

BY calling the witness "Jabba" only serves to display YOUR stupidity and undermines any argument you may attempt to make.  Name-calling only allows us to point and laugh at you and say "Oh my god! He honestly believes he improves the effectiveness of his argument by calling the witness funny names!  What a jackass!"

Congrats! You've openly shown your stupidity in a worldwide forum, <b>mikeray>/b>!


I may just be a creepy ass cracker!
 
2013-07-02 10:16:51 PM

Hobodeluxe: Scerpes: Hobodeluxe: Tatsuma: Also one thing I really found interesting about the trial. Turns out a police officer, trying to make Zimmerman slip up and see if he was lying, told him 'Turns out that someone filmed the whole incident on their phone' and Zimmerman immediately closed his eyes, said 'Thank G-d!' and sighed in relief.

of course he said that. he's taken criminal justice and knows their tactics

Yes...lie to the suspect about the existence of a video is a course in it's own right.

telling them you have evidence you don't is one of the oldest tricks in the book to try to get them to change their story


There's been no one on either side of this that has said that they think Zimmerman is smarter than a box of rocks. Your argument is really that he's a criminal mastermind and knew exactly how to react when given that scenario? Really? Wow.
 
2013-07-02 10:16:59 PM

fredklein: I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.

Then stalking is legal?

And, yes, following someone could be interpreted as a threat.


So, in your mind following someone is reason to assault and beat a person. But using a gun when you are trapped by a person top of you beating you senseless is murder?

You play a good game baiting people but this logic thing is over your head.
 
2013-07-02 10:17:11 PM

fredklein: MarkEC: Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"?

Yes- IF Trayvon was scared of the crazy guy with a gun following him, and acted in Self Defense.


Zimmerman admits he went for his pocket saying he was grabbing for his phone. I personally think that is when he went for his gun and Trayvon clocked him before he got it. but that's jmho.
Zimmerman isn't trustworthy. He lied about the addresses and he lied about not following him after he said ok. he lied about the money they had. and I think he lied about Trayvon speaking to him after he shot him . The doctors that looked at the ME report that I've heard from say death was instant. the hollow point destroyed his heart and lungs. the best he could have done is spit up blood and gurgle.
 
2013-07-02 10:17:12 PM

fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.


And there's reasonable doubt.
 
2013-07-02 10:18:04 PM

fredklein: Phinn: fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Beating the crap out of someone is not legal.
So your logic doesn't apply in this case.

doesn't look like Martin was innocent of assaulting George.

It's not legal to defend yourself against an armed crazy guy following you... but it's legal to gun down an innocent person walking home after following them by car and on foot.

Interesting interpretation of the law.

You're not familiar with the concept in self-defense of an threat needing to be IMMINENT, are you?

Does it ring any bells at all?  Any flicker of comprehension going on in there?

So, you're being followed by a crazy guy with a gun. He grabs his gun, maybe points it at you. Is that "IMMINENT" enough?

The truth is, we don't know what happened. But it's certainly possible that Trayvon was in fear for his life when he jumped Zimmerman. Why else would he change from 'running away' to 'confronting', if nothing had happened?


At this point fredklein, you are coming across as pretty biased and willing to think of any circumstances to justify your stance.

Best just to wait until the entirety of the trial.  Right now, it's not looking good for the prosecution--and the "Creepy ass cracker" comments + "Dee Dee's" testimony certainly puts the situation in a rather favorable light for the defense.
 
2013-07-02 10:18:17 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.

And there's reasonable doubt.


which is why i think they'll get him for negligent manslaughter
 
2013-07-02 10:18:44 PM

Hobodeluxe: Zimmerman admits he went for his pocket saying he was grabbing for his phone. I personally think that is when he went for his gun and Trayvon clocked him before he got it.


Based on what?  You're pulling that out of your ass.
 
2013-07-02 10:19:19 PM

Hobodeluxe: Scerpes: fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.

And there's reasonable doubt.

which is why i think they'll get him for negligent manslaughter


Reasonable doubt is going to cut across manslaughter as well.
 
2013-07-02 10:19:37 PM

mikeray: I may just be a creepy ass cracker!


Who knows?  I don't care either way.  But I do know you have no credibility.
 
2013-07-02 10:21:48 PM

Mi-5: mikeray: I may just be a creepy ass cracker!

Who knows?  I don't care either way.  But I do know you have no credibility.


Creepy ass crackers don't have credibility.
 
2013-07-02 10:23:55 PM

MarkEC: Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?

Martin's GF's testimony: "Crazy-ass cracker" said by Martin.


...that's it? One instance of "cracker"? And when did "cracker" become a horrible racial slur?
 
2013-07-02 10:25:11 PM

mikeray: Mi-5: mikeray: I may just be a creepy ass cracker!

Who knows?  I don't care either way.  But I do know you have no credibility.

Creepy ass crackers don't have credibility.


HAHAH!! You make me laugh!  Please continue, <b>mikeray</b>.
 
2013-07-02 10:26:14 PM
I'm back. I'm not going to bother trying to catch up with the thread, but I apologize if I misquoted anyone earlier. Anyhow, if either of the two of you I was discussing with earlier would like to place a wager on the verdict, I'm game. I believe someone said not guilty in less than two days?
 
2013-07-02 10:27:27 PM

thenumber5: I_C_Weener: Wait, what?  I'm confused at the legal significance here.

Attacking a witness in a public forum after giving testimony, intimidating future witnesses with the idea that if you are not well spoken you will be "Shamed" by the defense


The comment was concerning his opening statements the day before, not about any witnesses. In fact it was posted on trial day 2 and W#8's testimony was on trial day 3 and 4. Unless she borrowed Obamas time machine to see the testimony of W#8's testimony on Monday or Tuesday there is no way that anyone can infer that she was talking about anything else.

Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.


He never said he couldn't find an address number, it was the street name that he had forgotten and there were no street signs around to remind him. However he did know the street name one block over (across the top of the "T") so he went there to get an address. The prosecution knows this because they presented the video walkthrough yesterday. They misrepresented what Zimmerman said in it. The laws for self-defense have shiat-all to do with current injuries, it mainly concerns possible future injuries, one can have zero injuries and still be justified in a self-defense claim. The lead investigator even said this on the stand yesterday.
 
2013-07-02 10:30:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?

He spouted them to precious.

That is what he went into the confrontation doing.


He said it to his girlfriend? When did he say it to Zimmerman?
 
2013-07-02 10:30:46 PM

Mi-5: mikeray: I may just be a creepy ass cracker!

Who knows?  I don't care either way.  But I do know you have no credibility.


in his defense, no one here has any credibility on the case. Also, this has turned into a team sport at this point, with Team Zimm Vs. Team Marty
 
2013-07-02 10:32:32 PM

Hobodeluxe: He lied about the addresses and he lied about not following him after he said ok.


What lie about the address? Being stressed and drawing a blank is lying?
Have you listened to the recording? After he said ok, the wind noise on his phone stopped and his breathing returned to normal. Explain how, during the following 1.5 minutes that he was still talking to the dispatcher, he was still following Martin. Plus, Martin was well within 1.5 minutes walking distance to his Father's GF's house where he was staying.
 
2013-07-02 10:36:32 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: He said it to his girlfriend? When did he say it to Zimmerman?


The point was Martin brought racial animus to the confrontation.
 
2013-07-02 10:37:57 PM

Phinn: fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.

The next time we're talking about a case being tried in a court of rightness, your opinions may be worth something.


Were you born such an insufferable prick or did you have to study?
 
2013-07-02 10:42:09 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: MarkEC: Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?

Martin's GF's testimony: "Crazy-ass cracker" said by Martin.

...that's it? One instance of "cracker"? And when did "cracker" become a horrible racial slur?


If a white calls a black the "N" word it's racist. If a black calls a white "cracker" it's racist. Do we really need to come up with guidelines on levels of being racist for this discussion?
 
2013-07-02 10:43:31 PM
No way would they be in it for the money, not with there history.

Where history?
 
2013-07-02 10:50:25 PM

Scerpes: fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.

And there's reasonable doubt.


it is more than that.


on the one hand there are collaborating witnesses and physical evidence to George's account

on the other hand there is...there is uhhhh...there are some theories or something about an alternate series of events that says that George had absolutely no reason to feel threatened and decided to shoot Martin anyway.
 
2013-07-02 10:51:55 PM

Hobodeluxe: he lied about the money they had.


you are lying about that.

George never lied about the money they had.

His wife did.  He is not responsible for what his wife says.
 
2013-07-02 10:53:22 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: No it doesn't look like that at all
Especially given George's history of calls

There was one person who went into the fateful meeting spouting racist comments.

It wasn't George

Never heard anything about Trayvon spouting racist comments to Zimmerman. Transcripts? Citation?

He spouted them to precious.

That is what he went into the confrontation doing.

He said it to his girlfriend? When did he say it to Zimmerman?


I never said he said anything to George.
I said he went into the confrontation spouting racist comments with Precious confirmed.
 
2013-07-02 10:53:53 PM

fredklein: So, you're being followed by a crazy guy with a gun. [All kinds of IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OMITTED.] He grabs his gun, maybe points it at you.



Prove that GZ "grabbed his gun" before Martin made an aggressive move against him, and I'll discuss it.

By the way, the "maybes" in your speculations go in the Defendant's favor.  That's how "proof" in a criminal trial works.

fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.



Then you can't prove GZ is guilty.
 
2013-07-02 10:55:50 PM
I wonder how many 40 pound boxes were prevented that night?

Really not fair that the defense cannot show anything about Traypack. Dude was as thuggish and nasty as they can be. But only Zimmerman's past can be brought up, and that just ain't right.
 
2013-07-02 10:58:06 PM

Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.


Except the ME never actually saw the wounds just pictures of the wounds. The defence will call the the doctor that actually treated the wounds, and the paramedics that examined the wounds at the scene.  Also the severity of the wounds doesn't actually matter, what matters is how severe zimmerman reasonably THOUGHT the wounds were at the time.  If he reasonably THOUGHT they were severe he was justified.
 
2013-07-02 10:58:20 PM

Hobodeluxe: Scerpes: fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.

And there's reasonable doubt.

which is why i think they'll get him for negligent manslaughter



Self-defense is a complete defense to all homicides.

No one should be forced to choose between defending his life (which, if you think about it for two seconds, is the most basic, fundamental human right possible) and committing a felony by the very same act.

If you can't disprove the claim that he acted in self-defense, then he cannot be guilty on any of the homicide offenses.
 
2013-07-02 10:59:49 PM

Phinn: fredklein: So, you're being followed by a crazy guy with a gun. [All kinds of IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OMITTED.] He grabs his gun, maybe points it at you.

Prove that GZ "grabbed his gun" before Martin made an aggressive move against him, and I'll discuss it.

By the way, the "maybes" in your speculations go in the Defendant's favor.  That's how "proof" in a criminal trial works.

fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.

Then you can't prove GZ is guilty.



They don't need to prove him guilty. They just have to find him guilty.
 
2013-07-02 11:01:04 PM

Thunderpipes: I wonder how many 40 pound boxes were prevented that night?

Really not fair that the defense cannot show anything about Traypack. Dude was as thuggish and nasty as they can be. But only Zimmerman's past can be brought up, and that just ain't right.


we will see if they bring up that George defended the rights of a poor black person and went after the police department, including two officers who testified FOR him in this trial.

Oh, he also spent his Sundays walking through black neighborhoods handing out flyers to get their support for that case.
 
2013-07-02 11:05:02 PM

AndreMA: Phinn: fredklein: What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.

The next time we're talking about a case being tried in a court of rightness, your opinions may be worth something.

Were you born such an insufferable prick or did you have to study?



I find muddled emotionalism masquerading as legal reasoning to be insufferable.

I'm all in favor of having a rich emotional life, but don't dress up your hate and urge for vengeance and call it "justice."
 
2013-07-02 11:05:04 PM

HK-MP5-SD: Hobodeluxe: big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.

Except the ME never actually saw the wounds just pictures of the wounds. The defence will call the the doctor that actually treated the wounds, and the paramedics that examined the wounds at the scene.  Also the severity of the wounds doesn't actually matter, what matters is how severe zimmerman reasonably THOUGHT the wounds were at the time.  If he reasonably THOUGHT they were severe he was justified.


it would be interesting for the defense to have a witness on the stand who is then punched in nose, dropped to the ground and have someone on top of them MMA style who then hits the victim (witness saying his arms were raining down on him) and slamming his head into the floor a couple times.

Then getting up and asking the guy if he felt that he was danger of being seriously hurt.
 
2013-07-02 11:08:20 PM

MarkEC: If a white calls a black the "N" word it's racist. If a black calls a white "cracker" it's racist. Do we really need to come up with guidelines on levels of being racist for this discussion?


I'm sorry, but some "racist words" just cannot be taken seriously as a horrible insult. "Cracker" is one of them. If you get insulted by being called a food product, then you're the one with the problem.

tenpoundsofcheese: I never said he said anything to George.
I said he went into the confrontation spouting racist comments with Precious confirmed.


Then what's the problem?
And any reason you keep calling Trayvon's girlfriend "Precious"?

Thunderpipes: I wonder how many 40 pound boxes were prevented that night?

Really not fair that the defense cannot show anything about Traypack. Dude was as thuggish and nasty as they can be. But only Zimmerman's past can be brought up, and that just ain't right.


Yeah, a few tweets, no police record, and getting a suspension from school like many other boys of all races have done totally makes Trayvon a demon beast totally bent on murder and rape and destruction. Maybe you should go out and the heroic thing and slaughter all of those other boys who've done the same thing before they turn into menaces II society.
 
2013-07-02 11:14:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: MarkEC: discussion?

I'm sorry, but some "racist words" just cannot be taken seriously as a horrible insult. "Cracker" is one of them. If you get insulted by being called a food product, then you're the one with the problem.


Ever been insulted by being called a type of flower? a small, winged, mythical creature? a cigarette or twig? Then you're the one with the problem.
 
2013-07-02 11:15:40 PM
I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.


(2)A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. "Willful" means intentionally instead of accidentally. "Maliciously" means "characterized by wicked motives or intentions." "Repeatedly" means "more than once."

Zimmerman intentionally followed Trayvon. When Zimmerman called Trayvon an "asshole" and a "punk," he revealed his wicked or mischevious motives or intentions. Zimmerman followed Trayvon repeatedly; first in his car, until he lost sight of him. When he sighted Trayvon again, he followed on foot--however briefly.

George Zimmerman criminally stalked Trayvon Martin within the meaning of Florida law.
 
2013-07-02 11:17:23 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: I never said he said anything to George.
I said he went into the confrontation spouting racist comments with Precious confirmed.

Then what's the problem?


I didn't say there was a problem.  I just said that only one of the two people went into the confrontation spouting racist comments.

And any reason you keep calling Trayvon's girlfriend "Precious"?

In another thread someone pointed out that she looks like that famous movie star who was in the Precious movie.  I believe her character was also called Precious.
That movie star even got an Academy Award Nomination for Best Actress!!!
 
2013-07-02 11:18:06 PM

wellreadneck: Keizer_Ghidorah: MarkEC: discussion?

I'm sorry, but some "racist words" just cannot be taken seriously as a horrible insult. "Cracker" is one of them. If you get insulted by being called a food product, then you're the one with the problem.

Ever been insulted by being called a type of flower? a small, winged, mythical creature? a cigarette or twig? Then you're the one with the problem.


No I haven't, actually. Words only have power over you when you allow them to, and most insults aren't even worthy of a condescending sigh.
 
2013-07-02 11:21:39 PM

aceline: I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.


(2)A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. "Willful" means intentionally instead of accidentally. "Maliciously" means "characterized by wicked motives or intentions." "Repeatedly" means "more than once."


Oh, you again.
Well this will be easy...
When did George REPEATEDLY follow Martin.

He never called Martin an "asshole" or a "punk".  He made a general statement about people who commit crimes who get away with it.  He was never specific about Martin.

Is the prosecution done preparing for tomorrow?  Is that why you are posting now?


George Zimmerman criminally stalked Trayvon Martin within the meaning of Florida law.
 
2013-07-02 11:22:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Keizer_Ghidorah: tenpoundsofcheese: I never said he said anything to George.
I said he went into the confrontation spouting racist comments with Precious confirmed.

Then what's the problem?

I didn't say there was a problem.  I just said that only one of the two people went into the confrontation spouting racist comments.


Saying one word to his girlfriend before the confrontation =/= "going into the confrontation spouting".

And any reason you keep calling Trayvon's girlfriend "Precious"?

In another thread someone pointed out that she looks like that famous movie star who was in the Precious movie.  I believe her character was also called Precious.
That movie star even got an Academy Award Nomination for Best Actress!!!


How retarded.
 
2013-07-02 11:22:34 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: wellreadneck: Keizer_Ghidorah: MarkEC: discussion?

I'm sorry, but some "racist words" just cannot be taken seriously as a horrible insult. "Cracker" is one of them. If you get insulted by being called a food product, then you're the one with the problem.

Ever been insulted by being called a type of flower? a small, winged, mythical creature? a cigarette or twig? Then you're the one with the problem.

No I haven't, actually. Words only have power over you when you allow them to, and most insults aren't even worthy of a condescending sigh.


So you are okay with what Paula Dean said?
You think that there should have been no consequences?
 
2013-07-02 11:25:34 PM

fredklein: HAMMERTOE: They've also proved that Trayvon was meandering through yards at night,

If by that you mean 'walking on the sidewalk', then yes.


Zimmerman has stated that the suspicious behavior was that he wasn't walking on the sidewalk but walking on peoples lawns and looking at the windows of the houses as he passed them.

in the rain,

Trayvon didn't control the weather. What's he supposed to do, wait for the sun to shine before he goes home?

and then led the "creepy cracker" who spotted him doing so into a nice dark back-alley

What a "nice dark back-alley" looks like:

[www1.pictures.zimbio.com image 404x594]
[imageshack.us image 755x502]


Well those are the back of the houses with no street in between them so it is very close to being an alley. As to the dark part it's very disingenuous to show a daylight picture to make your point, however seeing as you did it's quite clear that there are no streetlights back there so it definitely was dark.

suitable for an ambush

::Sigh::

I guess you're one of those people who believe that Zimmerman, who was actively chasing Trayvon the whole time (by vehicle and on foot), and who was pissed at "these assholes" who "always get away", suddenly had a change of heart and 'just decided to go back to his truck' at the exact same moment that Trayvon, who was running away from the "creepy cracker" (your words) following him happened to decide to turn and confront him for no reason.

That is to say, two people who were showing one type of behavior (hunter, prey) suddenly, and for no reason, changed into the other. At the same time.

Note that, at no time did Zimmerman commit trespassing or any other crime

You use certain words ("nice dark back-alley") to imply that Trayvon was doing wrong, but defend Zimmerman for being in that very same place.

in trying to keep Martin under surveillance until the po-po arrived"

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."


Actually before that the 911 operator had asked Zimmerman "What is he doing now" a couple of times so one could argue that he was doing what they asked him to do. In addition Zimmerman responded in the affirmative after they said that.

Now let me ask you a question. Seeing as Zimmerman had already passed the place where the altercation started when he went to the far street to get an address that he could tie to a street then why didn't Martin start it then or How did Zimmerman miss seeing him? Could it be that he had gone down the Leg of the "T" and then returned to confront Zimmerman? I mean he had quite a lead on Zimmerman, he was a member of the football team so obviously he wasn't out of shape running-wise and he had told his friend on the phone that he was near or next to his house at one point in the conversation after he had lost Zimmerman. Why was he at the top of the "T" when Zimmerman was walking back to his truck?
 
2013-07-02 11:26:02 PM

Yogimus: Phinn: fredklein: So, you're being followed by a crazy guy with a gun. [All kinds of IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OMITTED.] He grabs his gun, maybe points it at you.

Prove that GZ "grabbed his gun" before Martin made an aggressive move against him, and I'll discuss it.

By the way, the "maybes" in your speculations go in the Defendant's favor.  That's how "proof" in a criminal trial works.

fredklein: The truth is, we don't know what happened.

Then you can't prove GZ is guilty.

They don't need to prove him guilty. They just have to find him guilty.



You're confused.

The jury will be asked to determine if the prosecution has proven GZ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  They will be told that the law requires that if they have a doubt that GZ is guilty, and that doubt is based on reason and evidence, then they must find him not guilty.

The State is required to present sufficient evidence to disprove the claim that GZ acted in self-defense.  If the State fails to conclusively prove that GZ did not act in self-defense, then he cannot be found guilty.

In fact, even before the case goes to the jury, the judge is supposed to determine on her own if a guilty verdict is even legitimately possible, given the evidence presented.  A Not Guilty verdict should clearly be entered by the judge in this case, but I have little reason to think that the judge will be brave enough to do that.  Judges are elected, after all, and elected offices breed cowards.
 
2013-07-02 11:26:32 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, but some "racist words" just cannot be taken seriously as a horrible insult. "Cracker" is one of them. If you get insulted by being called a food product, then you're the one with the problem.


It's not a matter of how insulting is is to someone on the receiving end. It speaks to what racial motives the person who uses such language has. Or does that no longer matter since the filtered audio shows Zimmerman didn't utter a racial epithet, and one uttered by Martin doesn't matter since he's black and we all know blacks can't be racist?
 
2013-07-02 11:35:13 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: MarkEC: If a white calls a black the "N" word it's racist. If a black calls a white "cracker" it's racist. Do we really need to come up with guidelines on levels of being racist for this discussion?

I'm sorry, but some "racist words" just cannot be taken seriously as a horrible insult. "Cracker" is one of them. If you get insulted by being called a food product, then you're the one with the problem.

tenpoundsofcheese: I never said he said anything to George.
I said he went into the confrontation spouting racist comments with Precious confirmed.

Then what's the problem?
And any reason you keep calling Trayvon's girlfriend "Precious"?

Thunderpipes: I wonder how many 40 pound boxes were prevented that night?

Really not fair that the defense cannot show anything about Traypack. Dude was as thuggish and nasty as they can be. But only Zimmerman's past can be brought up, and that just ain't right.

Yeah, a few tweets, no police record, and getting a suspension from school like many other boys of all races have done totally makes Trayvon a demon beast totally bent on murder and rape and destruction. Maybe you should go out and the heroic thing and slaughter all of those other boys who've done the same thing before they turn into menaces II society.


Uh huh. And you missed the facebook stuff where his buddies are saying they need some weed? Pictures of him with a gun? Suspensions, burglary tools..... Gold teefs? No_LIMIT_NI**A? Really?
 
2013-07-02 11:36:42 PM
I don't know why the Zimmerman supporters even try to reason/argue with the Martin supporters.  It's over.  There's a trial going on and the prosecution is getting absolutely destroyed.  And there's a reason why this is happening ... if you take Zimmerman's story at face value, he didn't commit a crime ... and there's one other eye witness and he corroborates Zimmerman's story ... and there are no witnesses (or frankly any other evidence) that suggests he's lying.  Wait a week and point to the scoreboard.

The prosecutor should be disbarred for bringing a prosecution a 1L would know she couldn't win.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:40 PM

SunsetLament: I don't know why the Zimmerman supporters even try to reason/argue with the Martin supporters.  It's over.  There's a trial going on and the prosecution is getting absolutely destroyed.


No, not really.  So far the witnesses have all been for the defense.  Once the prosecution starts with their witnesses, who knows how they will do?
 
2013-07-02 11:41:56 PM

aceline: I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.


(2)A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. "Willful" means intentionally instead of accidentally. "Maliciously" means "characterized by wicked motives or intentions." "Repeatedly" means "more than once."

Zimmerman intentionally followed Trayvon. When Zimmerman called Trayvon an "asshole" and a "punk," he revealed his wicked or mischevious motives or intentions. Zimmerman followed Trayvon repeatedly; first in his car, until he lost sight of him. When he sighted Trayvon again, he followed on foot--however briefly.

George Zimmerman criminally stalked Trayvon Martin within the meaning of Florida law.

 
2013-07-02 11:43:42 PM

Phinn: You're confused.


I was attempting to bring light to the fact that the jury box is as human as FARK is.  They will apply their own views and their own logic to the case, regardless of instructions.
 
2013-07-02 11:46:45 PM

Magnus: aceline: I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.


(2)A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. "Willful" means intentionally instead of accidentally. "Maliciously" means "characterized by wicked motives or intentions." "Repeatedly" means "more than once."

Zimmerman intentionally followed Trayvon. When Zimmerman called Trayvon an "asshole" and a "punk," he revealed his wicked or mischevious motives or intentions. Zimmerman followed Trayvon repeatedly; first in his car, until he lost sight of him. When he sighted Trayvon again, he followed on foot--however briefly.

George Zimmerman criminally stalked Trayvon Martin within the meaning of Florida law.


Some people here have been torturing words to try to make a point...and fail.
Happened yesterday too.

Here, let me predict what the response will be.

"He was repeatedly following him".
"He followed him from 7:05 to 7:06 AND then again from 7:06 to 7:07...and...wait for it...again from 7:07 to 7:08."
"As I set forth (an actual phrase used yesterday), that means it was repeated!!".

Look at how badly the phrase "malicious" was tortured.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: SunsetLament: I don't know why the Zimmerman supporters even try to reason/argue with the Martin supporters.  It's over.  There's a trial going on and the prosecution is getting absolutely destroyed.

No, not really.  So far the witnesses have all been for the defense.  Once the prosecution starts with their witnesses, who knows how they will do?


Okay, you made me laugh.  Kudos.

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-02 11:59:18 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: if his friend is to be believed, he took something like 40 minutes to make a 3 minute walk.


I put it closer to a 20 minute walk (it was about a mile and someone of his size could easily do it in that period of time without rushing). I do it all of the time when I go to the local grocery store and it's about a mile both ways (and I'm 50 and a smoker of over 35 years where half of the trip is uphill).

Keizer_Ghidorah: There's something to be said for not showing people who are following you where you live. PSAs, teachers, the police, and parents say that all the time.


By all accounts (W#8 and Zimmerman via his phone call) Martin had gotten away and he knew it. There was no longer anything to indicate "Stranger Danger". All of that aside Martin was not a little kid, he was old enough to go into the military, old enough to legally go see an R rated move unescorted and old enough to know better than to pick a fight with a pudgy Creepy-Ass Cracker.

fredklein: MarkEC: Was Zimmerman's nose getting broken "perfectly legal"?

Yes- IF Trayvon was scared of the crazy guy with a gun following him, and acted in Self Defense.


There is no evidence that Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed until he was on top of him MMA style. None whatsoever.
 
2013-07-03 12:05:58 AM

King Something: If someone (whether or not they are a 911 operator) tells you that drinking antifreeze is a bad idea and they don't need you to do that, but you drink it anyway, would it be correct to say that you drank antifreeze against that person's advice?


Your argument is retarded, it's like saying that if someone asked a doctor 'Hey, should I run 5 miles every day?' and the doctors says 'That's not necessary.' then went around saying 'Running 5 miles a day is against a doctor's advice'.

'That's  not necessary' is all the 911 operator said, so Zimmerman did nothing that was against his advice.
 
2013-07-03 12:06:39 AM

mikeray: The girl has a point. Even if your on the prosecutions side you can not say that Jabba is not stupid. I mean if she was my kid and acted like she did in court I would would just tell her " Jabba, I love ya honey but your pretty stupid" then I would hope she can get out of high school in the next 3 years.


Welcome to the wonderful world of dealing with teenagers. They're  all stupid.

/Except me, obviously, I was perfect as a teenager. :p
 
2013-07-03 12:09:22 AM

Yogimus: Phinn: You're confused.

I was attempting to bring light to the fact that the jury box is as human as FARK is.  They will apply their own views and their own logic to the case, regardless of instructions.



There comes a point when the evidence could not support a legitimate by-the-rules guilty verdict.  The judge is supposed to decide, before the jury is given the chance to deliberate, whether a reasonable jury COULD reach a verdict of guilty.  When making this determination, the judge is supposed to assume that the jury would follow the law, as instructed, if given the opportunity.

But sure, people are all fallible.  Police, prosecutors, judges, juries, legislators, appellate judges, supreme court judges.  Even Fark commenters.

Reasonable people can reason together.  Reason allows for a legitimate difference of opinion, but the system as a whole depends on everyone using reason and evidence, or at least trying to.  The system is designed to operate with so many people precisely because people are fallible.  They check each other's errors.

But if, in the chain of people involved in the criminal-court-decision-making process, one or more of them decides to make decisions based on something other than reason and evidence, then it's no longer criminal justice at all.  It's just a highly-stylized revenge ritual. It's just a glorified beauty contest.  It's just politics.

If the process is just going to be reduced to a show trial, it's better to dispense with the "show" part of it, and just gut the accused like a fish out in the parting lot.  Dispense with the hypocrisy and pretense and be honest about what you're doing.
 
2013-07-03 12:14:58 AM

Phinn: The judge is supposed to decide, before the jury is given the chance to deliberate, whether a reasonable jury COULD reach a verdict of guilty.


How do you believe the judge has acted during this trial?
Fair and balanced or other?
 
2013-07-03 12:21:59 AM

SunsetLament: The prosecutor should be disbarred for bringing a prosecution a 1L would know she couldn't win.


We all know why the charges were laid. It's because this is motivated by politics and emotions and not by evidence and facts. I kinda figured that this was going to be the result seeing as the special prosecutor bypassed a grand jury when she indicted Zimmerman with murder 2 charges. As the old saying goes a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It's becoming painfully obvious that this case doesn't even reach "Ham Sandwich" levels of guilt and that she had to know it which is why she bypassed that step.

I actually feel kind of sorry for the prosecutors that are in the courtroom trying this case. They got handed a shiat sandwich instead of a ham sandwich and were told to eat it enthusiastically while swearing up and down that it tasted great and was even better than a ham sandwich.
 
2013-07-03 12:23:40 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Magnus: aceline: I_C_Weener: You don't need to defend against someone following you. Following is not assault, battery, or orherwise illegal or even physical.


(2)A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. "Willful" means intentionally instead of accidentally. "Maliciously" means "characterized by wicked motives or intentions." "Repeatedly" means "more than once."

Zimmerman intentionally followed Trayvon. When Zimmerman called Trayvon an "asshole" and a "punk," he revealed his wicked or mischevious motives or intentions. Zimmerman followed Trayvon repeatedly; first in his car, until he lost sight of him. When he sighted Trayvon again, he followed on foot--however briefly.

George Zimmerman criminally stalked Trayvon Martin within the meaning of Florida law.

Some people here have been torturing words to try to make a point...and fail.
Happened yesterday too.

Here, let me predict what the response will be.

"He was repeatedly following him".
"He followed him from 7:05 to 7:06 AND then again from 7:06 to 7:07...and...wait for it...again from 7:07 to 7:08."
"As I set forth (an actual phrase used yesterday), that means it was repeated!!".

Look at how badly the phrase "malicious" was tortured.


Yeah.... and all irrelevant.  The only issue at hand is at the moment that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, did he truly believe his life was in danger?  If yes, not guilty.  If no, guilty of 2nd degree murder.  There is no stalking charge, the jury doesn't really have an option of "negligent manslaughter" as Hobodeluxe wants.   That is the only question to be discussed here.  The prosecution has conceded that Zimmerman's timeline and statement all the way up to the moment that the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman became violent are uncontestable by any evidence.  Their only attempt at discrediting Zimmerman's timeline was witness # 8 and that fell apart dramatically.  There is no fallback position for the prosecution.

The fact that the prosecution is conceding that a violent interaction took place between Martin and Zimmerman, that the state's witness, Good, testified to Martin striking Zimmerman from a dominant and incapacitating position over Zimmerman, the ME testified that injuries did exist consistent with an assault upon Zimmerman by Martin, and up to this point the only question is if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, tells me the prosecution has little to no chance for a conviction unless the prosecution pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

All that matters is if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger.  That is what should be discussed.  Not stalking, not race, not whether witness #8 speaks Creole or can read cursive, if the 9 mm handgun has a safety, or whatever else gets tossed in with the kitchen sink.

I think I'm going to take someone else's suggestion and just hush and wait for the scoreboard at the end of the trial.  Rational discussion is hard to come by as demonstrated by the tortuous back and forth of supposition, theories, guesses, and amateur night at the Apollo School of Law discussions that gets dragged across these threads.

Yeah...I'm with you on the torture.  Definitely.
 
2013-07-03 12:32:08 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Phinn: The judge is supposed to decide, before the jury is given the chance to deliberate, whether a reasonable jury COULD reach a verdict of guilty.

How do you believe the judge has acted during this trial?
Fair and balanced or other?



I've seen so little of it, I can't really say.  But before the trial even started, it was obvious that this case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence.  Nothing has come out of the trial that has improved the strength of the prosecution's case since then.

But letting a case go to trial is less risky, from a judge's perspective, than dismissing the case pre-trial.  The judge gets several additional chances to evaluate the evidence -- after the close of the State's case, at the end of the Defense's case, and again after the jury reaches a verdict.  That's four chances for a judge to protect a defendant from a bad prosecution.  Each of those chances is less risky than the one before, and letting a jury reach a Not Guilty verdict on its own essentially immunizes the Defendant forever.  But the risk that comes with waiting until that last chance is that the jury might go the other way, in which case the judge would effectively have to admit that he/she should have never given the case to the jury in the first place.

The chances of that happening in this case at any point have got to be virtually zero.  Not with Obama and Holder personally declaring that they're "looking into it."
 
2013-07-03 12:36:04 AM

Magnus: All that matters is if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger. That is what should be discussed. Not stalking, not race, not whether witness #8 speaks Creole or can read cursive, if the 9 mm handgun has a safety, or whatever else gets tossed in with the kitchen sink.


If someone claims that being hit in the face, in the dark, in the rain, with enough force to break their nose, then grappling with the person doing the nose breaking for 30 feet, in the dark, in the rain, then getting thrown to the ground by the person who broke their nose and having their head "Impacted" against concrete while their attacker is sitting on their waist area, in the dark, in the rain, then their attacker starts raining blows upon their head and face, in the dark, in the rain, then that attacker says "You are going to die tonight" as they reach for a gun that you know is there and loaded and is just a trigger pull away from killing them and say that there's no chance that they would be reasonably expected to be in fear for their life then they are lying.
 
2013-07-03 12:44:37 AM

Phinn: The judge gets several additional chances to evaluate the evidence


This judge apparently hasn't evaluated much of the evidence pretrial outside of general admissibility. Today when the prosecution tried to use Zimmerman's past college records, classwork and grades (there were 4 items but I can't recall right now what they were but that's the gist of it) regarding Zimmerman's education regarding his knowledge of criminal justice (and the defense objected) she said, and I quote, "I haven't seen it" several times. I would think that this evidence would have some weight given the self-defense claims and that a prudent judge would have at the very least perused it at some point before then as it would probably have an effect on what Zimmerman knew or didn't know regarding self-defense laws before the incident.
 
2013-07-03 12:46:21 AM

Radioactive Ass: Magnus: All that matters is if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger. That is what should be discussed. Not stalking, not race, not whether witness #8 speaks Creole or can read cursive, if the 9 mm handgun has a safety, or whatever else gets tossed in with the kitchen sink.

If someone claims that being hit in the face, in the dark, in the rain, with enough force to break their nose, then grappling with the person doing the nose breaking for 30 feet, in the dark, in the rain, then getting thrown to the ground by the person who broke their nose and having their head "Impacted" against concrete while their attacker is sitting on their waist area, in the dark, in the rain, then their attacker starts raining blows upon their head and face, in the dark, in the rain, then that attacker says "You are going to die tonight" as they reach for a gun that you know is there and loaded and is just a trigger pull away from killing them and say that there's no chance that they would be reasonably expected to be in fear for their life then they are lying.


and of that list the only part that could possible be contested from your summary is the line from the attacker since that is a statement from the defendant.
All the other info is supported by testimony from the prosecution.

the other thing is that it appears that George didn't know that Martin was killed.  The officer testified that George was surprised and upset by that.  So it appears that George only knew that the gun shot stopped the fight, not that it killed Martin.
 
2013-07-03 12:50:45 AM
Magnus:

"He was repeatedly following him".
"He followed him from 7:05 to 7:06 AND then again from 7:06 to 7:07...and...wait for it...again from 7:07 to 7:08."
"As I set forth (an actual phrase used yesterday), that means it was repeated!!".

Look at how badly the phrase "malicious" was tortured.

Yeah.... and all irrelevant.  The only issue at hand is at the moment that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, did he truly believe his life was in danger?  If yes, not guilty.  If no, guilty of 2nd degree murder.  There is no stalking charge, the jury doesn't really have an option of "negligent manslaughter" as Hobodeluxe wants.   That is the only question to be discussed here.  The prosecution has conceded that Zimmerman's timeline and statement all the way up to the moment that the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman became violent are uncontestable by any evidence.  Their only attempt at discrediting Zi ...


agreed...
I am not sure why I even follow this anymore except I thought I knew the story but was surprised by the broken nose, witness testimony about the MMA beat down and even George's work against the police department (and the same officers who testified for him in this trial) for the rights of the poor black person who was beaten.
Between that and the other media garbage and Spike Lee and Roseann tweeting the ZImmerman's addresses, I kind of wish people will learn from this one.
 
2013-07-03 01:03:38 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: and of that list the only part that could possible be contested from your summary is the line from the attacker since that is a statement from the defendant.
All the other info is supported by testimony from the prosecution.

the other thing is that it appears that George didn't know that Martin was killed. The officer testified that George was surprised and upset by that. So it appears that George only knew that the gun shot stopped the fight, not that it killed Martin.


The point in that narrative where "I" personally would have been in fear for my life is when my head was "impacted" to concrete. I'm quite aware if what that could mean and the results are certainly not in my favor. The MMA style ground and pound would have also gotten me to that point even if the concrete part was omitted. I know that real MMA fights are in a ring where the ring floor is intentionally designed with some "Give". Otherwise the blows being given are actually more than doubled in strength compared to a vertical blow where the head can move back upon impact. The head cannot move backwards when it against an immovable object (and yes even grass would be bad, much less concrete). Given that that action was witnessed by Good I cannot see how "Not in fear for your life" could be invoked by anyone with any common sense and no agenda to push.
 
2013-07-03 01:03:54 AM
Or we can check Zimmerman's work history...

"Usually he was just a cool guy," said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn't name. "But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped." The Daily News said Zimmerman earned $50 to $100 a night for the parties. He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons.
"He had a temper and he became a liability," the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted," he said. "It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."

But he was totally in his right mind, in the rain, chasing down one of the assholes that always get away.

You know, because that is how a rational person would look at it.
 
2013-07-03 01:13:14 AM
When the detective told George the whole thing was videotaped, and George said "thank god"?

Case right there.

George is innocent. A disgusting thug is off the streets before he can murder more people. All is well. All that has to happen now is justice. Everyone really knows it, they just are too racist and liberal to admit it. Tray would have killed many blacks, as well as whites as he grew older, and emboldened by his murder of the neighborhood watch guy.
 
2013-07-03 01:24:54 AM
Within 15 days. YOU GOT HIM!

Damn there is an extra does of stupid in this thread tonight, and if you read this and think to agree, I probably mean you.
 
2013-07-03 01:27:59 AM

Radioactive Ass: tenpoundsofcheese: and of that list the only part that could possible be contested from your summary is the line from the attacker since that is a statement from the defendant.
All the other info is supported by testimony from the prosecution.

the other thing is that it appears that George didn't know that Martin was killed. The officer testified that George was surprised and upset by that. So it appears that George only knew that the gun shot stopped the fight, not that it killed Martin.

The point in that narrative where "I" personally would have been in fear for my life is when my head was "impacted" to concrete. I'm quite aware if what that could mean and the results are certainly not in my favor. The MMA style ground and pound would have also gotten me to that point even if the concrete part was omitted. I know that real MMA fights are in a ring where the ring floor is intentionally designed with some "Give". Otherwise the blows being given are actually more than doubled in strength compared to a vertical blow where the head can move back upon impact. The head cannot move backwards when it against an immovable object (and yes even grass would be bad, much less concrete). Given that that action was witnessed by Good I cannot see how "Not in fear for your life" could be invoked by anyone with any common sense and no agenda to push.


My turning point would be when I was obviously losing, didn't have any chance to fight back and screaming for him to stop.  If I realized that he just kept going with the beat down any way, then I would have to assume the worse.

Good point on the head having to absorb the full impact of the blows.
 
2013-07-03 01:36:45 AM

thiefofdreams: Or we can check Zimmerman's work history...

"Usually he was just a cool guy," said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn't name.



ohhh, another anonymous person calls in an attack.  How do you know it wasn't a friend of Martin's who claims to be the anonymous co-worker?

Tell you what, why don't you call the paper tomorrow and tell them that you are an anonymous ex-roommate and spill the beans on how George never put the toilet seat down?  That will be just as credible.
 
2013-07-03 01:44:38 AM

MarkEC: fredklein: "Was still looking for him", then. Sheesh.

Please explain how, after 1.5 minutes passed since losing his "pursuer" Martin wasn't sitting at his father's GF's house telling everyone about the "crazy-ass cracker" that was following him, instead of ending up on top of Zimmerman beating him.


Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

AS I have already said: My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed him, then hung up with the cops and turned to go back to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy guy who's been chasing him turn and walk back toward his hiding place, assumes Zimmerman had found his hiding place (or was about to). That's when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Somewhere in there, Trayvon realizes Zimmerman is armed. (How? Maybe Zimmerman pulled or flashed his gun. Maybe Trayvon saw it as Zimmerman put his cell phone away after hanging up with the cops. Doesn't matter.) So, Trayvon jumps the crazy armed guy following him... in self defense.

Can i prove it? Nope. But it fits the facts, it fits the story we know, and it doesn't rely on people suddenly changing how they act.
 
2013-07-03 01:47:43 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Did Martin know George was armed?


I don't know. Zimmerman's own testimony (if you want to believe it) says that there was a point when Trayvon noticed the gun.

It is not legal to attack crackers or anyone else because you don't like that they are following you.

But it IS legal to 'attack' someone threatening you with severe bodily harm. Like, with a gun.
 
2013-07-03 01:48:54 AM

Radioactive Ass: Yet after that Zimmerman went on a tiny crusade (which you have conveniently omitted) against the Sanford PD in the beating death of a black homeless person (a crusade by the way which negatively included two of the officers in his trial giving testimony which showed him in a favorable light). This included community organizer type actions such as passing out flyers and so on when the "Black Community" was ignoring it. This is the person that you are trying to portray as a horrible racist. A man who went well out of his way to get justice for what most would consider to be at the very bottom of the ladder of society (homeless and black) and was being ignored by the police most likely because of that (and who the suspect was).


Yeah, that whole story really surprised me in that I only learned of it a couple of days ago.  Not that I was following this that closely before the trial, but when the press and others were depicted him as a racist gunning down kids in the street, I would have thought that story would have come up.

Prior actions that can be proven, and not ones that are alleged, are what you should be looking at and more recent actions should carry more weight than actions before that (in my opinion) because it may show that someone has had a change of heart from their previous positions. I know that I have done things in that past that at the time were wrong but I didn't realize it for whatever reason but now know that they were and regret them.

I thought there was also an issue of alcohol a while ago playing a factor.  Seems he was defending his friend against a cop (there he goes again defending people) when things got out of hand at a bar.  But I think that was 7 years ago.
 
2013-07-03 01:51:13 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: George wasn't complaining of innocent people or suspicious getting away only guilty people

He didnt know if Martin was guilty only that he was suspicious. That is farking why he called 911.

I am not sure if you are trolling or you really don't understand.


So, your argument is that, when he was looking at and talking about Trayvon, and said "These people", he ... wasn't referring to Trayvon?
 
2013-07-03 01:54:42 AM

I_C_Weener: So, in your mind following someone is reason to assault and beat a person.


Being threatened by someone following you is reason, yes.

But using a gun when you are trapped by a person top of you beating you senseless is murder?

Setting up the situation whereby I'll be 'forced' to shoot them is indeed murder.
 
2013-07-03 01:55:22 AM

fredklein: MarkEC: fredklein: "Was still looking for him", then. Sheesh.

Please explain how, after 1.5 minutes passed since losing his "pursuer" Martin wasn't sitting at his father's GF's house telling everyone about the "crazy-ass cracker" that was following him, instead of ending up on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

AS I have already said: My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed him, then hung up with the cops and turned to go back to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy guy who's been chasing him turn and walk back toward his hiding place, assumes Zimmerman had found his hiding place (or was about to). That's when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Somewhere in there, Trayvon realizes Zimmerman is armed. (How? Maybe Zimmerman pulled or flashed his gun. Maybe Trayvon saw it as Zimmerman put his cell phone away after hanging up with the cops. Doesn't matter.) So, Trayvon jumps the crazy armed guy following him... in self defense.

Can i prove it? Nope. But it fits the facts, it fits the story we know, and it doesn't rely on people suddenly changing how they act.


How dark was it and how far away was Martin from George when you think he could have seen and recognized that George was carrying a gun?
It is not self defense to jump someone who is walking near you.

Secondly, George keeping track of where Martin was is hardly Martin being chased by George.  You don't need to be melodramatic if you are trying to make a rationale argument.

Lastly, legally in your description, Martin would be responsible since he could have avoided the confrontation by either staying hidden, calling 911, or surrendering to the creepy a$$ cracker (after telling him that he took his picture and sent it to the police already).
 
2013-07-03 01:57:36 AM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: George wasn't complaining of innocent people or suspicious getting away only guilty people

He didnt know if Martin was guilty only that he was suspicious. That is farking why he called 911.

I am not sure if you are trolling or you really don't understand.

So, your argument is that, when he was looking at and talking about Trayvon, and said "These people", he ... wasn't referring to Trayvon?


By definition, people who get away with something did something illegal.  George did not tell the 911 operator that Martin did anything illegal.
 
2013-07-03 01:59:18 AM
Huh, the post I was going to reply to evaporated. Not gonna lose this post, so here it is.

So, to thiefofdreams:
Seriously, you are spouting some of the most slanderous and one-sided bullshiat you could float out there while ignoring the actual facts of the case itself. With your passion for truth and justice, I just know you've been watching the trial every day and have the actual facts at hand, right? This being the case, let's discuss some of those points you raised.

Calling the police 42 times on young black males
Demonstrably false. It was 6 times, the same number of tapes the prosecution entered into evidence. Don't you think if the prosecution had 42 examples of Zimmerman calling about black males they would have entered all of those into evidence, as it would make a much stronger case for "profiling" than the paltry 6 examples they let the jury listen to?

Of course, you knew that already, because you've been watching the trial to learn the true facts of this case and you're not just running off of emotion, right?

Witness number 9, child molestation charges, charges of racism
The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

Now, the accusations of racism. Witness 9 claimed that Zimmerman's hatred of blacks was so prevalent in his character that she said the police should "get character reports from other people and see if he's ever said anything about black people, about being racist or anything like that because I guarantee you there's somebody out there who will say it."

Don't you find it strange that Zimmerman apparently HATED blacks with a passion, yet the prosecution hasn't called a single character witness to indicate that this was the case? Wouldn't that really lock in the claims of "profiling"? Curious then, isn't it, that we haven't seen a single character witness testifying to this fact, yes?

Of course, you knew the prosecution hasn't called any such witnesses, since I'm almost positive you've been watching the trial given your passion for truth and justice.

The "resisting officer with violence" claim

Since you've been following the trial and getting the facts, you know that this situation was brought up on proffer with the jury out of the courtroom. I know you remember the discussion that it was an undercover police officer that Zimmerman didn't actually know was a police officer, just like I know you were watching the trial when it was made plain that Zimmerman went through a pre-trial diversion program and was never formally convicted of any charge.

The restraining order
Likewise discussed during the same proffer, which I know you were paying close attention to because of your sincere dedication to justice. You knew, of course, that it was a mutual restraining order taken out by both parties, and that there was no evidence of abuse, and that the court considered it a "routine matter" at the time.


All of your points are slanderous bullshiat, on the exact same level as discussing Martin's social media posts, and have no real relevance to the question of self defense. There was no past conviction, no evidence of anger issues or racism, and no impeachment of character - or the prosecution would have attempted to bring all of it into the case, as they did with the restraining order and the assault on an officer charge. I have many (normally) law abiding friends that, at 27, had a longer rap sheet than Zimmerman did.

Given the vindictiveness you seem to feel for Zimmerman and those that support him, know that I feel a great sense of satisfaction that Zimmerman is getting his day in court and the fact that the prosecution of him has thus far been completely without merit, and the prosecutions own witnesses have supported his story of self-defense 100%.

In short, I'm glad out justice system is based on a rational set of rules, not the hysterical character assassination you seem to think should substitute for justice.

/perhaps next time you should try watching the trial and learning about the actual evidence before you comment
 
2013-07-03 01:59:50 AM

Phinn: fredklein: So, you're being followed by a crazy guy with a gun. [All kinds of IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OMITTED.] He grabs his gun, maybe points it at you.

Prove that GZ "grabbed his gun" before Martin made an aggressive move against him, and I'll discuss it.

Hobodeluxe said it best at 2013-07-02 10:17:11 PM:
Zimmerman admits he went for his pocket saying he was grabbing for his phone. I personally think that is when he went for his gun and Trayvon clocked him before he got it.

 
2013-07-03 02:05:01 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: He never called Martin an "asshole" or a "punk". He made a general statement about people who commit crimes who get away with it. He was never specific about Martin.


And that's bullshiat.

'I have a suspicious person here'...'these assholes always get away.'

THESE- the plural form of 'this'
THIS- The (thing) here (used in indicating something or someone nearby)

So, who nearby was he referring to when he said THESE??

If he was referring to someone other then the person he was looking at (Trayvon), then he would have said "those". By saying "these", he was including Trayvon.
 
2013-07-03 02:07:37 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: My turning point would be when I was obviously losing, didn't have any chance to fight back and screaming for him to stop. If I realized that he just kept going with the beat down any way, then I would have to assume the worse.

Good point on the head having to absorb the full impact of the blows.


Losing a fight does not always mean "fear for life". Calling out for help (he is in MMA terms expecting a ref to go in and stop the fight) is where it changes from a brawl to assault when the brawl continues after that. The person calling for help is clearly (in MMA terms) "Tapping out". In an MMA fight Martin would have been pulled off by the referee and declared the winner there and then (Martin wins).

Goods testimony makes it pretty clear that Zimmerman was the person on the bottom calling for help. He had essentially tapped out at that point. That is when it went from defense to assault. As long as Zimmerman can show that he felt that the ongoing assault was placing his life or long term well being was being put in jeopardy then he should win as a matter of law regarding self defense.
 
2013-07-03 02:11:59 AM

Radioactive Ass: Now let me ask you a question. Seeing as Zimmerman had already passed the place where the altercation started when he went to the far street to get an address that he could tie to a street then why didn't Martin start it then or How did Zimmerman miss seeing him? Could it be that he had gone down the Leg of the "T" and then returned to confront Zimmerman? I mean he had quite a lead on Zimmerman, he was a member of the football team so obviously he wasn't out of shape running-wise and he had told his friend on the phone that he was near or next to his house at one point in the conversation after he had lost Zimmerman. Why was he at the top of the "T" when Zimmerman was walking back to his truck?


I've already answered:

My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid. I mean, why lead the crazy guy following you straight to your house?? (Note- Zimmerman showed a similar logic when refusing to speak his address while on the phone to the cops.) Zimmerman passed him, then hung up with the cops and turned to go back to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy guy who's been chasing him turn and walk back toward his hiding place, assumes Zimmerman had found his hiding place (or was about to). That's when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Somewhere in there, Trayvon realizes Zimmerman is armed. (How? Maybe Zimmerman pulled or flashed his gun. Maybe Trayvon saw it as Zimmerman put his cell phone away after hanging up with the cops. Doesn't matter.) So, Trayvon jumps the crazy armed guy following him... in self defense.

Can I prove it? Nope. But it fits the facts we know. It fits the story Zimmerman tells, and it fits the way they were acting earlier. Unlike other... theories... that rely on one or both of them to suddenly reverse the way they are acting (ie: the hunter meekly gives up, the prey suddenly attacks for no reason).
 
2013-07-03 02:17:44 AM

fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: He never called Martin an "asshole" or a "punk". He made a general statement about people who commit crimes who get away with it. He was never specific about Martin.

And that's bullshiat.

'I have a suspicious person here'...'these assholes always get away.'


Oh look, you conveniently edited out via the "..."  and you lied by putting incorrect words in quotes

do you work for the MSM?

/quotes, how do they work?
/Context, how does it work?

if you can't be honest, it isn't worth it.
I am glad there is an ignore button here.
 
2013-07-03 02:21:58 AM

Magnus: The only issue at hand is at the moment that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, did he truly believe his life was in danger? If yes, not guilty. If no, guilty of 2nd degree murder.


The problem with that is that it completely ignores the setup.

Lets say I go out of my way to piss you off, maybe key your car, spray weed killer on your flower beds, toss rocks through your windows, sleep with your daughter, and so on. Then I show up on your door step and admit to all this. You, being pissed off, draw back your fist to punch me. I "truly believe my life is in danger" (Hey, people can die from being punched, after all!) "at that moment", and shoot you dead.

Should I get away with it?

Of course not. I deliberately set up the circumstances so that I could be "threatened" by you, and kill you. Deliberately arranging to kill someone is murder.

The setup is important. The context is important. And focusing on 'at that moment', you miss all that.
 
2013-07-03 02:28:25 AM

fredklein: My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid.


Stop right there. Evidence given by the prosecution no less has no evidence of that. That is your assumption and shows your bias. There is direct evidence that shows that Martin was free and clear of a fear of physical actions against him by Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-03 02:33:38 AM

fredklein: Magnus: The only issue at hand is at the moment that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, did he truly believe his life was in danger? If yes, not guilty. If no, guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The problem with that is that it completely ignores the setup.

Lets say I go out of my way to piss you off, maybe key your car,


An illegal action

 spray weed killer on your flower beds,

An illegal action.

toss rocks through your windows,

An illegal action

sleep with your daughter,

An illegal action

and so on.

Then I show up on your door step and admit to all this. You, being pissed off, draw back your fist to punch me. I "truly believe my life is in danger" (Hey, people can die from being punched, after all!) "at that moment", and shoot you dead.

Should I get away with it?


No.  You took illegal actions and you responded with lethal force to the potential for violence.  There are plenty of times that a person would draw back their fist and then pull back.

Of course not. I deliberately set up the circumstances so that I could be "threatened" by you, and kill you. Deliberately arranging to kill someone is murder.

Which is irrelevant to this case unless you are claiming that George set out to deliberately arrange to kill a stranger.  I haven't heard even the wackiest of nutjobs claim that in this case.


The setup is important. The context is important. And focusing on 'at that moment', you miss all that.

No it is not important.  What is important is whether the jury believes in your example that the mere threat of a punch (that may have been pulled back, or missed, or grazed your elbow) is a reasonable belief that you were in serious danger.

Heck, take you silly example one step further and claim that since you are 100 pounds and 5 feet tall and the other guy is 6'5' 250 pounds of all muscle, that once he made a face at you you were scared for your life.
 
2013-07-03 02:36:11 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: George keeping track of where Martin was is hardly Martin being chased by George. You don't need to be melodramatic if you are trying to make a rationale argument.


...because Trayvon was fully aware of Zimmerman's intentions. He knew Zimmerman was only watching him, not trying to catch him. He knew this because he could read the mind of the crazy guy following him.

Oh, wait- he couldn't.

Lastly, legally in your description, Martin would be responsible since he could have avoided the confrontation by either staying hidden

Guess you missed the part where he was already found (or assumed he was).

calling 911

Yes, because callign 911 will stop you from being killed by a crazy guy following you through back alleys in the rain. It's magic like that.

or surrendering to the creepy a$$ cracker (after telling him that he took his picture and sent it to the police already).

You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?
 
2013-07-03 02:36:17 AM

Farxist: fredklein: Magnus: The only issue at hand is at the moment that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, did he truly believe his life was in danger? If yes, not guilty. If no, guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The problem with that is that it completely ignores the setup.

Lets say I go out of my way to piss you off, maybe key your car,

An illegal action

 spray weed killer on your flower beds,

An illegal action.

toss rocks through your windows,

An illegal action

sleep with your daughter,

An illegal action

and so on.

Then I show up on your door step and admit to all this. You, being pissed off, draw back your fist to punch me. I "truly believe my life is in danger" (Hey, people can die from being punched, after all!) "at that moment", and shoot you dead.

Should I get away with it?

No.  You took illegal actions and you responded with lethal force to the potential for violence.  There are plenty of times that a person would draw back their fist and then pull back.

Of course not. I deliberately set up the circumstances so that I could be "threatened" by you, and kill you. Deliberately arranging to kill someone is murder.

Which is irrelevant to this case unless you are claiming that George set out to deliberately arrange to kill a stranger.  I haven't heard even the wackiest of nutjobs claim that in this case.


The setup is important. The context is important. And focusing on 'at that moment', you miss all that.

No it is not important.  What is important is whether the jury believes in your example that the mere threat of a punch (that may have been pulled back, or missed, or grazed your elbow) is a reasonable belief that you were in serious danger.

Heck, take you silly example one step further and claim that since you are 100 pounds and 5 feet tall and the other guy is 6'5' 250 pounds of all muscle, that once he made a face at you you were scared for your life.


Oh one other thing.  The jury would have to also believe that the shooting was the most reasonable course of action to prevent the harm, vs. closing the door or running from the guy or ducking or putting your hands up and surrendering and apologizing.
 
2013-07-03 02:39:39 AM

fredklein: Lets say I go out of my way to piss you off, maybe key your car, spray weed killer on your flower beds, toss rocks through your windows, sleep with your daughter, and so on. Then I show up on your door step and admit to all this. You, being pissed off, draw back your fist to punch me. I "truly believe my life is in danger" (Hey, people can die from being punched, after all!) "at that moment", and shoot you dead.

Should I get away with it?

Of course not. I deliberately set up the circumstances so that I could be "threatened" by you, and kill you. Deliberately arranging to kill someone is murder.


This is wrong an several levels but I'll only address the most obvious one. The incident didn't last long enough to be clever and arrange all that you described. What happened happened within minutes and not hours or days. It was 12 to 14 minutes depending upon how you want to count it.
 
2013-07-03 02:41:18 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: He never called Martin an "asshole" or a "punk". He made a general statement about people who commit crimes who get away with it. He was never specific about Martin.

And that's bullshiat.

'I have a suspicious person here'...'these assholes always get away.'

Oh look, you conveniently edited out via the "..."  and you lied by putting incorrect words in quotes


It's called editing. Do you always quote the entire post you are responding to, or just the parts of it you are responding to? And the single quote were used to indicate they were not exact quotations.

Now, how about arguing the content, not the punctuation?
 
2013-07-03 02:46:52 AM

fredklein: Can I prove it? Nope


And this is worth pointing out.

If you cannot prove something then by default, in our legal system, you are innocent. End of story.
 
2013-07-03 02:51:53 AM

Farxist: sleep with your daughter,

An illegal action


No it's not. Unless she's underage, I suppose. Funny you thought of that situation first.

There are plenty of times that a person would draw back their fist and then pull back.

And there are plenty of people who bang someones head against the ground... and don't kill them.

Which is irrelevant to this case unless you are claiming that George set out to deliberately arrange to kill a stranger. I haven't heard even the wackiest of nutjobs claim that in this case.

And I'm not claiming that either. My point was just that context matters. The circumstances matter. You cannot just look at that fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and completely ignore what led up to it. Otherwise, you'd have to completely ignore the keying of the car, etc., in my example.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:01 AM

Radioactive Ass: The incident didn't last long enough to be clever and arrange all that you described. What happened happened within minutes and not hours or days. It was 12 to 14 minutes depending upon how you want to count it.


I'm not saying Zimmerman set it all up. I was just showing that context matters. You cannot just look at the fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and ignore the circumstances.
 
2013-07-03 03:08:03 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Look at how badly the phrase "malicious" was tortured.


Calling the police and following someone with the intent of keeping track of their location so the police can find someone is malicious.  And apparently calling the police so they can do their job makes you some sort of vigilantie.

This is why florida can't have nice things.  This is a tragedy, mistakes were made.  Treyvon made bad judgement (while walking and talking on a cellphone) and all the facts point to T assaulting Z first.
 
2013-07-03 03:56:25 AM

ideamaster: Calling the police and following someone with the intent of keeping track of their location so the police can find someone is malicious


Someone doesn't know the meaning of malicious.

Hint: It's not me.
 
2013-07-03 04:07:11 AM

fredklein: I'm not saying Zimmerman set it all up. I was just showing that context matters. You cannot just look at the fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and ignore the circumstances.


Actually you can according to Florida law as far as I understand it. The decision to apply deadly force is only reliant upon someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger". If you can show that a reasonable person would have felt that their life was in danger at that specific point in time then it is justifiable homicide and self-defense. Not murder 2. Not negligent homicide. Not manslaughter. In other states that may be so, but not in Florida. This may be where the confusion is coming in from others.
 
2013-07-03 04:25:40 AM

Radioactive Ass: ideamaster: Calling the police and following someone with the intent of keeping track of their location so the police can find someone is malicious

Someone doesn't know the meaning of malicious.

Hint: It's not me.


It isn't me either it was sarcasm.
 
2013-07-03 04:29:30 AM

ideamaster: It isn't me either it was sarcasm.


Then I apologize.
 
GBB
2013-07-03 04:47:41 AM

fredklein: GBB: If by "defend" you mean "go on the offensive and throw the first punch", then yes, that's not legal.

Call the judge- you obviously have information they need at the trial if you know that's what happened.


How so?   Are we not talking hypothetical here?  I certainly thought you were.
 
2013-07-03 08:00:40 AM
www.local10.com
 
2013-07-03 08:09:46 AM

fredklein: MarkEC: fredklein: "Was still looking for him", then. Sheesh.

Please explain how, after 1.5 minutes passed since losing his "pursuer" Martin wasn't sitting at his father's GF's house telling everyone about the "crazy-ass cracker" that was following him, instead of ending up on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

AS I have already said: My theory of what happened is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed him, then hung up with the cops and turned to go back to his truck. Trayvon, seeing the crazy guy who's been chasing him turn and walk back toward his hiding place, assumes Zimmerman had found his hiding place (or was about to). That's when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Somewhere in there, Trayvon realizes Zimmerman is armed. (How? Maybe Zimmerman pulled or flashed his gun. Maybe Trayvon saw it as Zimmerman put his cell phone away after hanging up with the cops. Doesn't matter.) So, Trayvon jumps the crazy armed guy following him... in self defense.

Can i prove it? Nope. But it fits the facts, it fits the story we know, and it doesn't rely on people suddenly changing how they act.



The part of this scenario where Martin hid, and then exited his hiding spot because he thought he was found, is certainly plausible.  It does make sense.

But the part where you imagine that Martin saw the gun, and THAT is what made him attack?  The wheels came off your fruit cart with that one.  Martin had already out-run GZ once.  If he saw the gun before the altercation, then he most likely would have run a second time.  Attacking someone BECAUSE you see a gun is just implausible.  Suggesting he attacked because GZ actually PULLED his a gun is even worse.

But more to the point, since you and I both agree that Martin most likely hid behind one of the bushes or privacy screens near the site of the altercation, I wanted to ask you -- did you catch the part where the police detective testified that a SLIM JIM -- a burglar's tool used to open window and door locks -- fashioned out of a piece of metal, was found hidden in the bushes at the spot where Martin was probably hiding?

That fits, right?  Interesting piece of evidence, right?

   -- Martin, who had a history of being found with 12 pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack at school, jewelry he did not own.  He refused to identify the owner of it, and could not explain its provenance.  Does that seem suspicious for a 17 year-old male?  Uh, yes.

   -- Martin, who had a drug habit to support.

   -- Martin, who would have tossed away any incriminating objects he may have had while he was hidden.

   -- Martin, whose nickname was "Slim."

At least you're seeing things rationally now -- you can't prove the scenario you described.  For purposes of this trial, that's what matters -- what can be proven, and what is the default assumption for the things that can't.  Here, unprovable = not guilty.

I'm glad to see you're now a supporter of GZ being acquitted.
 
2013-07-03 08:20:41 AM
I think it's important to point out, before this thread closes, that the really critical element in this "Instagram" story is that West's daughters are smokin' hot, especially the one in the middle with the sunglasses.  Just look at the way she holds that ice cream cone ... she's trouble, that one.
 
2013-07-03 08:59:35 AM

fredklein: You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?


You mean like:

fredklein: Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.


RIght?
 
2013-07-03 09:22:27 AM

Radioactive Ass: fredklein: I'm not saying Zimmerman set it all up. I was just showing that context matters. You cannot just look at the fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and ignore the circumstances.

Actually you can according to Florida law as far as I understand it.


Then the law is wrong.

I've already shown that circumstances do indeed matter, so if the law does not them into account, the law is wrong.

The decision to apply deadly force is only reliant upon someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger".

And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.
 
2013-07-03 09:28:29 AM

fredklein: Radioactive Ass: fredklein: I'm not saying Zimmerman set it all up. I was just showing that context matters. You cannot just look at the fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and ignore the circumstances.

Actually you can according to Florida law as far as I understand it.

Then the law is wrong.

I've already shown that circumstances do indeed matter, so if the law does not them into account, the law is wrong.

The decision to apply deadly force is only reliant upon someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger".

And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.


Your state of mind is clear: Deficient. This is why we can easily dismiss your arguments.
 
2013-07-03 09:37:55 AM

Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.


You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.
 
2013-07-03 09:38:58 AM
Hey guys, haven't had a chance to read the thread yet.  How are things going?
 
ecl
2013-07-03 09:45:38 AM

Abuse Liability: Hey guys, haven't had a chance to read the thread yet.  How are things going?


img.fark.net
 
2013-07-03 09:47:14 AM

Phinn: The part of this scenario where Martin hid, and then exited his hiding spot because he thought he was found, is certainly plausible. It does make sense.


Thank you.

But the part where you imagine that Martin saw the gun, and THAT is what made him attack? The wheels came off your fruit cart with that one. Martin had already out-run GZ once. If he saw the gun before the altercation, then he most likely would have run a second time.

Trayvon can out-run bullets? WOW, he's fast!

Attacking someone BECAUSE you see a gun is just implausible. Suggesting he attacked because GZ actually PULLED his a gun is even worse.

A gun is a long range weapon. If someone has a knife, you can knock them down, take a step back, and be safe (barring any uber knife-throwing skills on their part). But with a gun, they can be knocked down, 100 feet away, with two broken legs and one broken arm, and still kill you. If some one is attacking you with a gun, there are only 2 sure ways to be safe: take the gun, or knock them out. According to Zimmerman's story, Trayvon tried to do both those things.

But more to the point, since you and I both agree that Martin most likely hid behind one of the bushes or privacy screens near the site of the altercation, I wanted to ask you -- did you catch the part where the police detective testified that a SLIM JIM -- a burglar's tool used to open window and door locks -- fashioned out of a piece of metal, was found hidden in the bushes at the spot where Martin was probably hiding?

No, I didn't catch that. However...

1) Now suddenly we 'know' he was hiding? And, not only that, we know exactly where he was hiding? Funny- No one even acknowledged the possibility until your post.
2) Cops lie. Sorry, but it's true. Cops make stuff up all the time. Cops 'interpret' things how they want. A screwdriver in your pocket? "Burglary tools".
3) Any finger prints linking it to Trayvon? He wasn't wearing gloves that night, was he?
4) If he found a good hiding spot, isn't it possible a real burglar found and used that same good hiding spot on another occasion?

-- Martin, who had a history of being found with 12 pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack at school, jewelry he did not own. He refused to identify the owner of it, and could not explain its provenance.

"The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen." - wikipedia

-- Martin, who had a drug habit to support.

Cite? "Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe, and an empty bag containing marijuana residue. Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents and did not have a juvenile record." - wikipedia

-- Martin, who would have tossed away any incriminating objects he may have had while he was hidden.

...after carefully wiping them of prints while being chased by a gun-wielding maniac. (Well, from his point of view...)

-- Martin, whose nickname was "Slim."

Now you're really reaching.

At least you're seeing things rationally now -- you can't prove the scenario you described. For purposes of this trial, that's what matters -- what can be proven, and what is the default assumption for the things that can't. Here, unprovable = not guilty.

You left out the "reasonable doubt" part. It's "prove beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
2013-07-03 09:48:44 AM

s2s2s2: fredklein: You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?

You mean like:

fredklein: Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

RIght?


Not leading a stalker to your front door is hardly convoluted. Losing someone following you is practically instinct.
 
2013-07-03 09:58:31 AM

fredklein: Losing someone following you is practically instinct.


Waiting for them to leave so you can go home would be a part of that, right?
 
2013-07-03 10:04:36 AM

s2s2s2: fredklein: Losing someone following you is practically instinct.

Waiting for them to leave so you can go home would be a part of that, right?


Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'.
 
2013-07-03 10:08:22 AM

fredklein: s2s2s2: fredklein: You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?

You mean like:

fredklein: Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

RIght?

Not leading a stalker to your front door is hardly convoluted. Losing someone following you is practically instinct.


When you're being following the smart, and recommend, thing to do is go to a public or securable place (like your home or work, and call the police. If you can hide without them seeing you you can do an 800m sprint and get home and lock the door.

The thing you don't do is confront the person following you because hey they might have a gun.
 
2013-07-03 10:10:25 AM
Are we getting a new thread to use or we using this one?
 
2013-07-03 10:11:27 AM

fredklein: Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'


You mean attack. You are just like all the other prosecution witnesses.

Carth: 800m


Wast it that far from the T to the door of the house he was staying at?
 
2013-07-03 10:18:06 AM
Another prosecution witness being turned.
Judge still trying to make the prosecution case for them.
 
2013-07-03 10:18:13 AM

s2s2s2: fredklein: Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'

You mean attack. You are just like all the other prosecution witnesses.

Carth: 800m

Wast it that far from the T to the door of the house he was staying at?


Looking at the map Martin was only about 1/4 mile from home so only 400m: An in shape male can do that in about 1min 30 seconds. I usually use 800 meters as an example because it is about how far an average person can sprint without needing to walk.
 
2013-07-03 10:21:35 AM
Man sees suspicious behavior
Calls non-emergency
Tries to maintain visual
Suspicious person becomes an attacker (from suspicious to criminal)
Victim ends the attack
 
2013-07-03 10:22:29 AM
LOL
Is the witness auditioning for the prosecution?
 
2013-07-03 10:24:05 AM
Witness officially turned.
 
2013-07-03 10:26:37 AM

Carth: s2s2s2: fredklein: Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'

You mean attack. You are just like all the other prosecution witnesses.

Carth: 800m

Wast it that far from the T to the door of the house he was staying at?

Looking at the map Martin was only about 1/4 mile from home so only 400m: An in shape male can do that in about 1min 30 seconds. I usually use 800 meters as an example because it is about how far an average person can sprint without needing to walk.


Reports seem to indicate about 100 yards from T to Martin's house.  80 yards from Zimmerman's truck to T.
 
2013-07-03 10:26:44 AM

Carth: how far an average person can sprint without needing to walk.


Let alone a person imbued with the power of "flight" and or "fight".

Something to point out. Someone experiencing fight of flight is also, stronger, faster, smarter, and has more stamina.
 
2013-07-03 10:30:51 AM
Does this prosecution guy think he's on LA Law?
 
2013-07-03 10:31:39 AM

NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.


Coming from you, that's quite a compliment.

You've been added to the hit parade.

i.imgur.com

Check the profile.
 
2013-07-03 10:43:36 AM

fredklein: And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.


Or, you know...ask them.
 
2013-07-03 10:54:02 AM

Elegy: NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.

Coming from you, that's quite a compliment.

You've been added to the hit parade.

[i.imgur.com image 152x200]

Check the profile.


Nice deflection. Of course anyone with an above room temp IQ will see it for exactly what it is. You made a blatantly false statement, you got called on, and you then deflected.

Nice try, skippy.
 
2013-07-03 10:54:58 AM

NightOwl2255: Yes, just what fark needs, another Zimmerman thread.

Fark, all Zimmerman, all the time.

But then again, as the average thread gets about 100 comments, Zimmerman is a cash cow for Drew.


2013-07-02 06:48:27 PM

NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.


2013-07-03 09:37:55 AM

From:
http://www.fark.com/comments/7823898/Let-perjury-begin-Welcome-all-t o- daily-Zimmerman-Trial-thread&new=1#new

NightOwl2255: Keeping in mind you have been posting non-stop for days praising St. George (I noticed on Friday you posted non-stop for over 16 hours, dude, get a life) so objectivity is not your strong suit.

There's interested, obsessed and zealotry in this case. You make a zealot look uninterested.


Guess we can use your own benchmark for objectivity now huh?
/Pot, meet Kettle
 
2013-07-03 11:06:36 AM

NightOwl2255: Elegy: NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.

Coming from you, that's quite a compliment.

You've been added to the hit parade.

[i.imgur.com image 152x200]

Check the profile.

Nice deflection. Of course anyone with an above room temp IQ will see it for exactly what it is. You made a blatantly false statement, you got called on, and you then deflected.

Nice try, skippy.


SLANDER
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed
(...)
Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious


So, exactly what part of an unprovable allegation of child molestation made by an anonymous accuser who hasn't revealed their identity wasn't slanderous, again?

True, there's no proof that Zimmerman didn't molest his cousin when he was a child, but you do know how hard it is to prove a negative. There's no proof that Zimmerman didn't meet with the lizard people and conspire for world domination either, but that doesn't mean it happened.
 
2013-07-03 11:10:37 AM

ChaosStar: Guess we can use your own benchmark for objectivity now huh?
/Pot, meet Kettle


You posted non-stop for 16 hours in one thread. I can't compare with your zealotry, I know it, I accept it.
 
2013-07-03 11:15:31 AM

Elegy: So, exactly what part of an unprovable allegation of child molestation made by an anonymous accuser who hasn't revealed their identity wasn't slanderous, again?


What part? None. Nada. Focus on one word, untrue. That's the only word that would make the allegations slander. Untrue. That's it. No other words needed or count. Man, you are really, really losing it here, trying to redefine a word to suit you.
 
2013-07-03 12:22:03 PM

fredklein: Phinn: The part of this scenario where Martin hid, and then exited his hiding spot because he thought he was found, is certainly plausible. It does make sense.

Thank you.

But the part where you imagine that Martin saw the gun, and THAT is what made him attack? The wheels came off your fruit cart with that one. Martin had already out-run GZ once. If he saw the gun before the altercation, then he most likely would have run a second time.

Trayvon can out-run bullets? WOW, he's fast!

Attacking someone BECAUSE you see a gun is just implausible. Suggesting he attacked because GZ actually PULLED his a gun is even worse.

A gun is a long range weapon. If someone has a knife, you can knock them down, take a step back, and be safe (barring any uber knife-throwing skills on their part). But with a gun, they can be knocked down, 100 feet away, with two broken legs and one broken arm, and still kill you. If some one is attacking you with a gun, there are only 2 sure ways to be safe: take the gun, or knock them out. According to Zimmerman's story, Trayvon tried to do both those things.

But more to the point, since you and I both agree that Martin most likely hid behind one of the bushes or privacy screens near the site of the altercation, I wanted to ask you -- did you catch the part where the police detective testified that a SLIM JIM -- a burglar's tool used to open window and door locks -- fashioned out of a piece of metal, was found hidden in the bushes at the spot where Martin was probably hiding?

No, I didn't catch that. However...

1) Now suddenly we 'know' he was hiding? And, not only that, we know exactly where he was hiding? Funny- No one even acknowledged the possibility until your post.
2) Cops lie. Sorry, but it's true. Cops make stuff up all the time. Cops 'interpret' things how they want. A screwdriver in your pocket? "Burglary tools".
3) Any finger prints linking it to Trayvon? He wasn't wearing gloves that night, was he?
4) If he found a good hidi ...


You.Are.Clueless.

A cop (or anyone else, including you) is justified in shooting someone if someone with a knife in their hand  is about 20 feet or less away if that person is making threats at the moment. You are fantasizing when you say knock down a person with a knife and stepping back is "Safe". There is no requirement for Uber knife throwing skills because that is based upon normal human reaction times if someone starts running at you, not throwing it. The assumption is that that person will be able to stab you before you can get your gun up and shoot in less than that distance. Real life is not a Chuck Norris movie.

Mere threats of Stab wounds are always considered life threatening before they happen because there are so many different ways that they can happen where even a cut that goes less than a mere inch into ones flesh can kill you.
 
2013-07-03 03:00:25 PM

I_C_Weener: fredklein: And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.

Or, you know...ask them.


Yes, because people on trial for murder always tell the truth. ::eyeroll::
 
2013-07-04 03:07:43 AM

Radioactive Ass: A cop (or anyone else, including you) is justified in shooting someone if someone with a knife in their hand is about 20 feet or less away if that person is making threats at the moment.


...but Trayvon couldn't defend himself against a crazy dude with a gun who was following him?
 
Displayed 386 of 386 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report