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 57
    More: Weird, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

10463 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

They keep doing ridiculously stupid things and will go on for much longer than necessary?
2013-07-02 06:07:14 PM  
4 votes:
If you want to effectively argue against something it can often be helpful to address and rebut any points that are made. I understand trying to distract with something meaningless and making up your own argument is easier, but less effective in the long run.

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

But to just focus on the ice cream picture like that is what matters is dishonest and lazy.
2013-07-02 08:22:53 PM  
3 votes:

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


Too bad that's not what a reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions as doing then. Hell, if the roles were reversed, the ITG crowd here would shoot the black person for pursuing them, and justify feeling threatened in that position, too. "Shoot the black guy" is the only constant I see here on Fark from your little faction of supremacist wack jobs.
2013-07-02 07:46:29 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

Ditto regarding your next point. And the last thing you said was just whargarbl
2013-07-02 07:40:16 PM  
3 votes:
Also one thing I really found interesting about the trial. Turns out a police officer, trying to make Zimmerman slip up and see if he was lying, told him 'Turns out that someone filmed the whole incident on their phone' and Zimmerman immediately closed his eyes, said 'Thank G-d!' and sighed in relief.
2013-07-02 10:16:59 PM  
2 votes:

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

Then stalking is legal?

And, yes, following someone could be interpreted as a threat.


So, in your mind following someone is reason to assault and beat a person. But using a gun when you are trapped by a person top of you beating you senseless is murder?

You play a good game baiting people but this logic thing is over your head.
2013-07-02 09:32:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:58:52 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

imageshack.us
2013-07-02 08:39:21 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


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

What is "Legal" is not always "Right". And what's "Right" is not always "Legal". If a series of 'perfectly legal' steps end up with an innocent person dead... I have to question the Rightness of the Law.
2013-07-02 08:23:18 PM  
2 votes:
Part of the problem is that some people are looking at the forest, and some are looking at one tree.

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

To those looking at the tree, the one instant Zimmerman was getting beat, they see... well, nothing but that one instant. And without context, what they see is.. useless for basing a decision on. But that doesn't stop them.
2013-07-02 08:17:37 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


This is one of the giant disconnects our "Fark Independents" cannot and will not address. Just let it go. They are never going to listen to reason as long as reason keeps telling them something other than "its the black guys fault"
2013-07-02 08:14:40 PM  
2 votes:

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


In what world does, "Why are you following me?" constitute the same?
2013-07-02 08:14:38 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

in the rain,


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

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

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

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
imageshack.us

suitable for an ambush

::Sigh::

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

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

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

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

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

Despite being told "We don't need you to do that, Sir."
2013-07-02 07:05:27 PM  
2 votes:

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


You shut your whore mouth.

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

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

/white guy
//zimmerman would've shot me if I was wearing a hoodie.
///btw: it was raining.  everyone wears hoodies in fla in february if its going to rain -- because its got a f*cking hood.
2013-07-02 06:55:52 PM  
2 votes:
I can see only two possible outcomes for the trial:

A) Zimmerman is acquitted, followed shortly thereafter by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
B) Zimmerman is convicted, followed immediately by Governor Rick Scott issuing him a pardon just to spite black people (and possibly also the FL legislature passing a law specifically designed to prevent Trayvon Martin's family from suing anybody even tangentially involved in the trial but carefully worded so Martin's family can't get it overturned as a violation of the whole "no Bills of Attainder" bit in the US Constitution), in turn followed by the biggest riots this country has seen in 20 years
2013-07-02 06:47:05 PM  
2 votes:

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


Attacking a witness in a public forum after giving testimony, intimidating future witnesses with the idea that if you are not well spoken you will be "Shamed" by the defense
2013-07-02 06:14:02 PM  
2 votes:

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


And it's also how subby got this nice greenlight
2013-07-03 12:23:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:59 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-02 11:25:34 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Zimmerman has stated that the suspicious behavior was that he wasn't walking on the sidewalk but walking on peoples lawns and looking at the windows of the houses as he passed them.

in the rain,

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

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

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

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


Well those are the back of the houses with no street in between them so it is very close to being an alley. As to the dark part it's very disingenuous to show a daylight picture to make your point, however seeing as you did it's quite clear that there are no streetlights back there so it definitely was dark.

suitable for an ambush

::Sigh::

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

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

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

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

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

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


Actually before that the 911 operator had asked Zimmerman "What is he doing now" a couple of times so one could argue that he was doing what they asked him to do. In addition Zimmerman responded in the affirmative after they said that.

Now let me ask you a question. Seeing as Zimmerman had already passed the place where the altercation started when he went to the far street to get an address that he could tie to a street then why didn't Martin start it then or How did Zimmerman miss seeing him? Could it be that he had gone down the Leg of the "T" and then returned to confront Zimmerman? I mean he had quite a lead on Zimmerman, he was a member of the football team so obviously he wasn't out of shape running-wise and he had told his friend on the phone that he was near or next to his house at one point in the conversation after he had lost Zimmerman. Why was he at the top of the "T" when Zimmerman was walking back to his truck?
2013-07-02 10:12:21 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

It wasn't George

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


He was spouting them on the phone to his girlfriend.
2013-07-02 09:53:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:51:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.
GBB
2013-07-02 09:42:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:41:55 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-02 09:37:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:27:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:24:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:08:28 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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



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

Stop lying. It doesn't make your case any better.
2013-07-02 09:03:55 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

in the rain,

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

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

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

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

suitable for an ambush

::Sigh::

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


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

After so many threads on this subject, I have to conclude everyone who posts such dishonest statements in these threads must have a mental illness. The transcript and audio of Zimmerman's conversation with the dispatcher have been posted so many times, yet there are posters who still claim ZImmerman chased Martin right up until the fight, and that he disobeyed the dispatcher. Both of those assertions are demonstrably false by any reasonable reading of the transcript and simply listening to the audio. Make your arguments within the known facts, not from your imagination.
2013-07-02 09:00:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


Yes.  That's exactly what happened.  And there's NOTHING to contradict it.
2013-07-02 08:46:09 PM  
1 votes:

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

You shut your whore mouth.

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

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

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

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


Trayvon was walking home. How is that "not getting out of the rain"?
2013-07-02 08:41:03 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

/I'm not disputing that the 911 dispatcher never ordered Zimmerman to stay in his car; they merely advised him to stay put
//notice how above, I said "against the advice of the 911 operator" instead of "against the ordersof the 911 operator"
ecl
2013-07-02 08:40:48 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


His hunter/prey?prey/hunter story is unbelievable at best.
ecl
2013-07-02 08:37:11 PM  
1 votes:

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

How am I being a coward, sexist?


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

Does that cover it?
2013-07-02 08:30:47 PM  
1 votes:

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


And here you are, calling someone else stupid.
2013-07-02 08:25:20 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


imageshack.us
2013-07-02 07:55:37 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

Then you misunderstand.  The statute is clear:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

* * *(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or* * *


Thanks. I don't believe either of these two conditions were met.
2013-07-02 07:53:51 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Two words for you. Redd It.

Okay, one word.
2013-07-02 07:53:32 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

What do you mean by mutual combatant?


I meant "willing combatant."


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

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

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


See disclaimer above. Where did you get your lack of reading comprehension?
2013-07-02 07:46:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

I'm fairly certain that you can't go that far out of your way looking for a fight and then claim that you had to use deadly force in self-defense in that very fight, especially when the guy you're fighting had been going out of his way to avoid that same fight.
2013-07-02 07:41:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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


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

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


This ain't baseball, and you ain't got shiat.
2013-07-02 07:39:32 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Unless there is another eyewitness?


He admits to following him in a car. Strike one. The confrontation occurs outside the car: strike two. This isn't baseball, so there's really no need for three strikes. The guy was scared s-less that he actually found a "suspicious person" while out on neighborhood watch. The only reason he got out of his car is that he knew he had a gun. Self-defense requires that your fear for your life is reasonable. I don't think he had any reasonable fear that his life was in danger.
2013-07-02 07:29:40 PM  
1 votes:

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


Well they had a joke fall flat, but fine I'll give you this one win.
2013-07-02 07:22:59 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


They can prove he killed Trayvon. They can prove he didn't make any effort to avoid an altercation.
2013-07-02 07:19:27 PM  
1 votes:

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


Their opening statement didn't include a knock knock joke. That was a big win.
2013-07-02 07:18:24 PM  
1 votes:
Strange that we have so much racial tension in this case when Zimmerman is as white as Obama.
2013-07-02 07:11:59 PM  
1 votes:

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


GZ has been caught in at least a dozen of them. So what? Just because everyone knows he is a lying sack of shiat doesn't change the fact that the prosecution has no one who -can- prove what happened. Still no case no matter how many lies he is caught in.
2013-07-02 07:11:00 PM  
1 votes:
Heaven forbid a man's daughters would tell the world they were proud of him.  The amount of prosecution butthurt on this one takes the cake.
2013-07-02 07:09:07 PM  
1 votes:

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


When I was farking your mom.
2013-07-02 07:07:26 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

i.dailymail.co.uk

/bring it!
2013-07-02 07:03:32 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


I sincerely doubt there will be riots, in Florida at least. There are over 1,000,000 issued CCW permits in Florida outstanding and gun ownership in the state is extremely high. Blacks are also greatly outnumbered by whites and/or hispanics in basically the entire state. Rioting would be just short of going over the top of a WW1 trench and rushing enemy machine gun nests.
2013-07-02 07:02:27 PM  
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 Who needs evidence ?
2013-07-02 06:53:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


I don't blame the defense for making such insinuations, that's their job. Anyway, I was recently summoned and chosen to sit on a jury for a 2nd degree murder case (non-capital punishment). I was disgusted with the attitude of my fellow jurors (wahhh, I don't want to be here, I'll go with whatever the rest of you decide, etc...) and that of the prosecution and defense. I really wish we didn't have an adversarial system and instead had one that actively sought the truth or at least the facts as available. But this is probably a pipe dream.
2013-07-02 06:50:34 PM  
1 votes:
big day for prosecution today. Zimmerman caught in a huge lie. (had to walk all the way through the alley to find an address) all those houses have addresses on the front right beside the outside light. even George's house had one there. He knew where he was.
the medical examiner also said his injuries were insignificant, not a result of head being slammed into the concrete several times. no stitches, no real trauma. just small scratches and a couple of small knots.
2013-07-02 06:46:44 PM  
1 votes:
Judge needs to take prosecutor into chambers and slap him around.
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-07-02 05:54:41 PM  
1 votes:
I've seen this story several times. It's a picture of a guy eating ice-cream cones with his daughters. Where's  the problem??
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report