Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Weird, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

10481 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2013 at 6:37 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report