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  
•       •       •

10459 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 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
 
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