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  
•       •       •

10461 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2013 at 6:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report