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  
•       •       •

10456 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
 
2013-07-03 04:29:30 AM

ideamaster: It isn't me either it was sarcasm.


Then I apologize.
 
GBB
2013-07-03 04:47:41 AM

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

Call the judge- you obviously have information they need at the trial if you know that's what happened.


How so?   Are we not talking hypothetical here?  I certainly thought you were.
 
2013-07-03 08:00:40 AM
www.local10.com
 
2013-07-03 08:09:46 AM

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

Please explain how, after 1.5 minutes passed since losing his "pursuer" Martin wasn't sitting at his father's GF's house telling everyone about the "crazy-ass cracker" that was following him, instead of ending up on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

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

Can i prove it? Nope. But it fits the facts, it fits the story we know, and it doesn't rely on people suddenly changing how they act.



The part of this scenario where Martin hid, and then exited his hiding spot because he thought he was found, is certainly plausible.  It does make sense.

But the part where you imagine that Martin saw the gun, and THAT is what made him attack?  The wheels came off your fruit cart with that one.  Martin had already out-run GZ once.  If he saw the gun before the altercation, then he most likely would have run a second time.  Attacking someone BECAUSE you see a gun is just implausible.  Suggesting he attacked because GZ actually PULLED his a gun is even worse.

But more to the point, since you and I both agree that Martin most likely hid behind one of the bushes or privacy screens near the site of the altercation, I wanted to ask you -- did you catch the part where the police detective testified that a SLIM JIM -- a burglar's tool used to open window and door locks -- fashioned out of a piece of metal, was found hidden in the bushes at the spot where Martin was probably hiding?

That fits, right?  Interesting piece of evidence, right?

   -- Martin, who had a history of being found with 12 pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack at school, jewelry he did not own.  He refused to identify the owner of it, and could not explain its provenance.  Does that seem suspicious for a 17 year-old male?  Uh, yes.

   -- Martin, who had a drug habit to support.

   -- Martin, who would have tossed away any incriminating objects he may have had while he was hidden.

   -- Martin, whose nickname was "Slim."

At least you're seeing things rationally now -- you can't prove the scenario you described.  For purposes of this trial, that's what matters -- what can be proven, and what is the default assumption for the things that can't.  Here, unprovable = not guilty.

I'm glad to see you're now a supporter of GZ being acquitted.
 
2013-07-03 08:20:41 AM
I think it's important to point out, before this thread closes, that the really critical element in this "Instagram" story is that West's daughters are smokin' hot, especially the one in the middle with the sunglasses.  Just look at the way she holds that ice cream cone ... she's trouble, that one.
 
2013-07-03 08:59:35 AM

fredklein: You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?


You mean like:

fredklein: Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.


RIght?
 
2013-07-03 09:22:27 AM

Radioactive Ass: fredklein: I'm not saying Zimmerman set it all up. I was just showing that context matters. You cannot just look at the fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and ignore the circumstances.

Actually you can according to Florida law as far as I understand it.


Then the law is wrong.

I've already shown that circumstances do indeed matter, so if the law does not them into account, the law is wrong.

The decision to apply deadly force is only reliant upon someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger".

And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.
 
2013-07-03 09:28:29 AM

fredklein: Radioactive Ass: fredklein: I'm not saying Zimmerman set it all up. I was just showing that context matters. You cannot just look at the fraction of a second when the trigger was pulled, and ignore the circumstances.

Actually you can according to Florida law as far as I understand it.

Then the law is wrong.

I've already shown that circumstances do indeed matter, so if the law does not them into account, the law is wrong.

The decision to apply deadly force is only reliant upon someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger".

And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.


Your state of mind is clear: Deficient. This is why we can easily dismiss your arguments.
 
2013-07-03 09:37:55 AM

Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.


You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.
 
2013-07-03 09:38:58 AM
Hey guys, haven't had a chance to read the thread yet.  How are things going?
 
ecl
2013-07-03 09:45:38 AM

Abuse Liability: Hey guys, haven't had a chance to read the thread yet.  How are things going?


img.fark.net
 
2013-07-03 09:47:14 AM

Phinn: The part of this scenario where Martin hid, and then exited his hiding spot because he thought he was found, is certainly plausible. It does make sense.


Thank you.

But the part where you imagine that Martin saw the gun, and THAT is what made him attack? The wheels came off your fruit cart with that one. Martin had already out-run GZ once. If he saw the gun before the altercation, then he most likely would have run a second time.

Trayvon can out-run bullets? WOW, he's fast!

Attacking someone BECAUSE you see a gun is just implausible. Suggesting he attacked because GZ actually PULLED his a gun is even worse.

A gun is a long range weapon. If someone has a knife, you can knock them down, take a step back, and be safe (barring any uber knife-throwing skills on their part). But with a gun, they can be knocked down, 100 feet away, with two broken legs and one broken arm, and still kill you. If some one is attacking you with a gun, there are only 2 sure ways to be safe: take the gun, or knock them out. According to Zimmerman's story, Trayvon tried to do both those things.

But more to the point, since you and I both agree that Martin most likely hid behind one of the bushes or privacy screens near the site of the altercation, I wanted to ask you -- did you catch the part where the police detective testified that a SLIM JIM -- a burglar's tool used to open window and door locks -- fashioned out of a piece of metal, was found hidden in the bushes at the spot where Martin was probably hiding?

No, I didn't catch that. However...

1) Now suddenly we 'know' he was hiding? And, not only that, we know exactly where he was hiding? Funny- No one even acknowledged the possibility until your post.
2) Cops lie. Sorry, but it's true. Cops make stuff up all the time. Cops 'interpret' things how they want. A screwdriver in your pocket? "Burglary tools".
3) Any finger prints linking it to Trayvon? He wasn't wearing gloves that night, was he?
4) If he found a good hiding spot, isn't it possible a real burglar found and used that same good hiding spot on another occasion?

-- Martin, who had a history of being found with 12 pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack at school, jewelry he did not own. He refused to identify the owner of it, and could not explain its provenance.

"The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen." - wikipedia

-- Martin, who had a drug habit to support.

Cite? "Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe, and an empty bag containing marijuana residue. Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents and did not have a juvenile record." - wikipedia

-- Martin, who would have tossed away any incriminating objects he may have had while he was hidden.

...after carefully wiping them of prints while being chased by a gun-wielding maniac. (Well, from his point of view...)

-- Martin, whose nickname was "Slim."

Now you're really reaching.

At least you're seeing things rationally now -- you can't prove the scenario you described. For purposes of this trial, that's what matters -- what can be proven, and what is the default assumption for the things that can't. Here, unprovable = not guilty.

You left out the "reasonable doubt" part. It's "prove beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
2013-07-03 09:48:44 AM

s2s2s2: fredklein: You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?

You mean like:

fredklein: Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

RIght?


Not leading a stalker to your front door is hardly convoluted. Losing someone following you is practically instinct.
 
2013-07-03 09:58:31 AM

fredklein: Losing someone following you is practically instinct.


Waiting for them to leave so you can go home would be a part of that, right?
 
2013-07-03 10:04:36 AM

s2s2s2: fredklein: Losing someone following you is practically instinct.

Waiting for them to leave so you can go home would be a part of that, right?


Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'.
 
2013-07-03 10:08:22 AM

fredklein: s2s2s2: fredklein: You really think Trayvon should have come up with convoluted schemes and tricks, while being hunted in the rain?

You mean like:

fredklein: Riiiiiight... because, when being followed at night by a crazy armed guy, the first thing you do is lead him right to your front door.

RIght?

Not leading a stalker to your front door is hardly convoluted. Losing someone following you is practically instinct.


When you're being following the smart, and recommend, thing to do is go to a public or securable place (like your home or work, and call the police. If you can hide without them seeing you you can do an 800m sprint and get home and lock the door.

The thing you don't do is confront the person following you because hey they might have a gun.
 
2013-07-03 10:10:25 AM
Are we getting a new thread to use or we using this one?
 
2013-07-03 10:11:27 AM

fredklein: Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'


You mean attack. You are just like all the other prosecution witnesses.

Carth: 800m


Wast it that far from the T to the door of the house he was staying at?
 
2013-07-03 10:18:06 AM
Another prosecution witness being turned.
Judge still trying to make the prosecution case for them.
 
2013-07-03 10:18:13 AM

s2s2s2: fredklein: Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'

You mean attack. You are just like all the other prosecution witnesses.

Carth: 800m

Wast it that far from the T to the door of the house he was staying at?


Looking at the map Martin was only about 1/4 mile from home so only 400m: An in shape male can do that in about 1min 30 seconds. I usually use 800 meters as an example because it is about how far an average person can sprint without needing to walk.
 
2013-07-03 10:21:35 AM
Man sees suspicious behavior
Calls non-emergency
Tries to maintain visual
Suspicious person becomes an attacker (from suspicious to criminal)
Victim ends the attack
 
2013-07-03 10:22:29 AM
LOL
Is the witness auditioning for the prosecution?
 
2013-07-03 10:24:05 AM
Witness officially turned.
 
2013-07-03 10:26:37 AM

Carth: s2s2s2: fredklein: Unless you see them heading right for you. Then 'flight' becomes 'fight'

You mean attack. You are just like all the other prosecution witnesses.

Carth: 800m

Wast it that far from the T to the door of the house he was staying at?

Looking at the map Martin was only about 1/4 mile from home so only 400m: An in shape male can do that in about 1min 30 seconds. I usually use 800 meters as an example because it is about how far an average person can sprint without needing to walk.


Reports seem to indicate about 100 yards from T to Martin's house.  80 yards from Zimmerman's truck to T.
 
2013-07-03 10:26:44 AM

Carth: how far an average person can sprint without needing to walk.


Let alone a person imbued with the power of "flight" and or "fight".

Something to point out. Someone experiencing fight of flight is also, stronger, faster, smarter, and has more stamina.
 
2013-07-03 10:30:51 AM
Does this prosecution guy think he's on LA Law?
 
2013-07-03 10:31:39 AM

NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.


Coming from you, that's quite a compliment.

You've been added to the hit parade.

i.imgur.com

Check the profile.
 
2013-07-03 10:43:36 AM

fredklein: And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.


Or, you know...ask them.
 
2013-07-03 10:54:02 AM

Elegy: NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.

Coming from you, that's quite a compliment.

You've been added to the hit parade.

[i.imgur.com image 152x200]

Check the profile.


Nice deflection. Of course anyone with an above room temp IQ will see it for exactly what it is. You made a blatantly false statement, you got called on, and you then deflected.

Nice try, skippy.
 
2013-07-03 10:54:58 AM

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

Fark, all Zimmerman, all the time.

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


2013-07-02 06:48:27 PM

NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.


2013-07-03 09:37:55 AM

From:
http://www.fark.com/comments/7823898/Let-perjury-begin-Welcome-all-t o- daily-Zimmerman-Trial-thread&new=1#new

NightOwl2255: Keeping in mind you have been posting non-stop for days praising St. George (I noticed on Friday you posted non-stop for over 16 hours, dude, get a life) so objectivity is not your strong suit.

There's interested, obsessed and zealotry in this case. You make a zealot look uninterested.


Guess we can use your own benchmark for objectivity now huh?
/Pot, meet Kettle
 
2013-07-03 11:06:36 AM

NightOwl2255: Elegy: NightOwl2255: Elegy: The child molestation charges are irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable. So slander, in other words.

You are easily the slimiest of the ZAC, and that's quite an accomplishment. You damn well know what the word slander means. Being "irrelevant, anonymous, past the statute of limitations, and unprovable." have nothing, nada, zero to do with slander. It doesn't make the accusation slander in other words, or any words. Slander is an untruth. Period. Unless you know for a fact it's not true, it's not slander, and you know it. You use words like that, knowing it's not true to bolster your narrative. You sir, are a bad person.

Coming from you, that's quite a compliment.

You've been added to the hit parade.

[i.imgur.com image 152x200]

Check the profile.

Nice deflection. Of course anyone with an above room temp IQ will see it for exactly what it is. You made a blatantly false statement, you got called on, and you then deflected.

Nice try, skippy.


SLANDER
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed
(...)
Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious


So, exactly what part of an unprovable allegation of child molestation made by an anonymous accuser who hasn't revealed their identity wasn't slanderous, again?

True, there's no proof that Zimmerman didn't molest his cousin when he was a child, but you do know how hard it is to prove a negative. There's no proof that Zimmerman didn't meet with the lizard people and conspire for world domination either, but that doesn't mean it happened.
 
2013-07-03 11:10:37 AM

ChaosStar: Guess we can use your own benchmark for objectivity now huh?
/Pot, meet Kettle


You posted non-stop for 16 hours in one thread. I can't compare with your zealotry, I know it, I accept it.
 
2013-07-03 11:15:31 AM

Elegy: So, exactly what part of an unprovable allegation of child molestation made by an anonymous accuser who hasn't revealed their identity wasn't slanderous, again?


What part? None. Nada. Focus on one word, untrue. That's the only word that would make the allegations slander. Untrue. That's it. No other words needed or count. Man, you are really, really losing it here, trying to redefine a word to suit you.
 
2013-07-03 12:22:03 PM

fredklein: Phinn: The part of this scenario where Martin hid, and then exited his hiding spot because he thought he was found, is certainly plausible. It does make sense.

Thank you.

But the part where you imagine that Martin saw the gun, and THAT is what made him attack? The wheels came off your fruit cart with that one. Martin had already out-run GZ once. If he saw the gun before the altercation, then he most likely would have run a second time.

Trayvon can out-run bullets? WOW, he's fast!

Attacking someone BECAUSE you see a gun is just implausible. Suggesting he attacked because GZ actually PULLED his a gun is even worse.

A gun is a long range weapon. If someone has a knife, you can knock them down, take a step back, and be safe (barring any uber knife-throwing skills on their part). But with a gun, they can be knocked down, 100 feet away, with two broken legs and one broken arm, and still kill you. If some one is attacking you with a gun, there are only 2 sure ways to be safe: take the gun, or knock them out. According to Zimmerman's story, Trayvon tried to do both those things.

But more to the point, since you and I both agree that Martin most likely hid behind one of the bushes or privacy screens near the site of the altercation, I wanted to ask you -- did you catch the part where the police detective testified that a SLIM JIM -- a burglar's tool used to open window and door locks -- fashioned out of a piece of metal, was found hidden in the bushes at the spot where Martin was probably hiding?

No, I didn't catch that. However...

1) Now suddenly we 'know' he was hiding? And, not only that, we know exactly where he was hiding? Funny- No one even acknowledged the possibility until your post.
2) Cops lie. Sorry, but it's true. Cops make stuff up all the time. Cops 'interpret' things how they want. A screwdriver in your pocket? "Burglary tools".
3) Any finger prints linking it to Trayvon? He wasn't wearing gloves that night, was he?
4) If he found a good hidi ...


You.Are.Clueless.

A cop (or anyone else, including you) is justified in shooting someone if someone with a knife in their hand  is about 20 feet or less away if that person is making threats at the moment. You are fantasizing when you say knock down a person with a knife and stepping back is "Safe". There is no requirement for Uber knife throwing skills because that is based upon normal human reaction times if someone starts running at you, not throwing it. The assumption is that that person will be able to stab you before you can get your gun up and shoot in less than that distance. Real life is not a Chuck Norris movie.

Mere threats of Stab wounds are always considered life threatening before they happen because there are so many different ways that they can happen where even a cut that goes less than a mere inch into ones flesh can kill you.
 
2013-07-03 03:00:25 PM

I_C_Weener: fredklein: And, unless you can literally read people's minds, the only way to 'know' someones state of mind at the instant of "Pulling the trigger" is to look at the circumstances.

Or, you know...ask them.


Yes, because people on trial for murder always tell the truth. ::eyeroll::
 
2013-07-04 03:07:43 AM

Radioactive Ass: A cop (or anyone else, including you) is justified in shooting someone if someone with a knife in their hand is about 20 feet or less away if that person is making threats at the moment.


...but Trayvon couldn't defend himself against a crazy dude with a gun who was following him?
 
Displayed 36 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