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.

(WPTV)   Will the prosecution cry "Uncle" after GZ's uncle's testimony? Will the judge rule that the defense can't present a defense because it might cause the jury to decide "not guilty"? Will these Zimmerman trial threads ever end? Not today   (wptv.com) divider line 1158
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman, prosecutors, uncles, jury  
•       •       •

5220 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-07-08 07:21:55 AM  
Imbibe!
 
2013-07-08 07:35:02 AM  
I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!
 
2013-07-08 07:45:04 AM  

dittybopper: Imbibe!


Oh I like it, much classier.
 
2013-07-08 08:04:53 AM  
I don't feel guilty for DRINKing.
 
2013-07-08 08:04:59 AM  

ChaosStar: dittybopper: Imbibe!

Oh I like it, much classier.


Agreed.  Well played, like a sir!
 
2013-07-08 08:05:24 AM  
"Will the jury likely acquit because he was the only survivor of stupid shiat?"
 
2013-07-08 08:07:19 AM  

LasersHurt: "Will the jury likely acquit because he was the only survivor of stupid shiat?"


That's probably what's going to happen in a nutshell.  UNLESS the jury lets emotions override the letter of the law.
 
2013-07-08 08:08:22 AM  

nekom: LasersHurt: "Will the jury likely acquit because he was the only survivor of stupid shiat?"

That's probably what's going to happen in a nutshell.  UNLESS the jury lets emotions override the letter of the law.


Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.
 
2013-07-08 08:25:30 AM  

ChaosStar: dittybopper: Imbibe!

Oh I like it, much classier.


Someone break out the cognac...
 
2013-07-08 08:27:15 AM  
LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.
 
2013-07-08 08:28:56 AM  

nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.


It's what's called a tragedy. Or a tradegy if you're dyslexic.
 
2013-07-08 08:31:48 AM  
doglover:
It's what's called a tragedy. Or a tradegy if you're dyslexic.

Or if you can't read cursvie.
 
2013-07-08 08:34:16 AM  

nekom: doglover:
It's what's called a tragedy. Or a tradegy if you're dyslexic.

Or if you can't read cursvie.


It's really hard to read cursive on Fark because of the filter...
 
2013-07-08 08:56:58 AM  
The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.
 
2013-07-08 09:00:28 AM  

The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!


Great Scott!
 
2013-07-08 09:01:33 AM  
Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!
 
2013-07-08 09:13:01 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!


This.
 
2013-07-08 09:39:47 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.


Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.
 
2013-07-08 09:40:42 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.


As much as I think the guy is guilty as hell of manslaughter, I did laugh when I saw that shiat.

It's like....yYou do realize people that this is standard operating procedure for defense teams right?
 
2013-07-08 09:41:04 AM  

stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.


So we're both surprised that the Prosecution/Martin camp still maintains their side of the argument? Because we're scared of black people?

The hell is wrong with you people?
 
2013-07-08 09:42:24 AM  
Kinda looks like Michael Moore was right about the dangers of armed paranoid white 'merikuns.
I still don't want him waltzing through my unlocked front door with a camera crew. That's rude, man.
 
2013-07-08 09:42:52 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

As much as I think the guy is guilty as hell of manslaughter, I did laugh when I saw that shiat.

It's like....yYou do realize people that this is standard operating procedure for defense teams right?


Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.
 
2013-07-08 09:43:13 AM  

The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!


That may be your opinion now, but you can change it in an hour. Or a week. Or a year.
 
2013-07-08 09:43:24 AM  

LasersHurt: stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

So we're both surprised that the Prosecution/Martin camp still maintains their side of the argument? Because we're scared of black people?

The hell is wrong with you people?


Go ask her that. She doesn't want to the the one to make the call and therefore be the focal point for AA rage that, inevitabley, will come from an acquittal for Zimm.
 
2013-07-08 09:43:46 AM  
oldfarthenry

Kinda looks like Michael Moore was right about the dangers of armed paranoid white 'merikuns.

The only armed white 'merikuns were the cops that showed up.
 
2013-07-08 09:44:00 AM  

nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.


not murder.  manslaughter.
 
2013-07-08 09:44:03 AM  
If I use a speculum, speciously, on your speculations, am I in effect speculating on specious speculations?
 
2013-07-08 09:44:06 AM  

stellarossa: LasersHurt: So we're both surprised that the Prosecution/Martin camp still maintains their side of the argument? Because we're scared of black people?

The hell is wrong with you people?

Go ask her that. She doesn't want to the the one to make the call and therefore be the focal point for AA rage that, inevitabley, will come from an acquittal for Zimm.


Projection of the highest order.
 
2013-07-08 09:44:32 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

As much as I think the guy is guilty as hell of manslaughter, I did laugh when I saw that shiat.

It's like....yYou do realize people that this is standard operating procedure for defense teams right?


So you don't think he was defending himself?
 
2013-07-08 09:45:38 AM  

StRalphTheLiar: The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!

That may be your opinion now, but you can change it in an hour. Or a week. Or a year.


Until he testified, I had no idea there was a difference between facts and opinions.  He really opened my eyes.
 
2013-07-08 09:45:47 AM  

LasersHurt: stellarossa: LasersHurt: So we're both surprised that the Prosecution/Martin camp still maintains their side of the argument? Because we're scared of black people?

The hell is wrong with you people?

Go ask her that. She doesn't want to the the one to make the call and therefore be the focal point for AA rage that, inevitabley, will come from an acquittal for Zimm.

Projection of the highest order.


speculation after reading what the J4T crowd are saying.
 
2013-07-08 09:46:19 AM  
It's shocking how unprepared each prosecution witness was. Especially Bao. They spent half an hour with him the day before his testimony. Unfarkingbelievable to do that in any case, but especially if its airing on national TV.
 
2013-07-08 09:46:36 AM  
Will the judge reveal recover from his amnesia long enough to remember what happened in the boathouse?!   Will George reveal that he's pregnant with Trayvon's baby?!

Tune in for another episode of "Florida".
 
2013-07-08 09:46:40 AM  

stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.


I can see where my mind is headed.... I took that as Alcoholics Anonymous.

/not caffinated enough this morning
 
2013-07-08 09:47:05 AM  

ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?


He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter
 
2013-07-08 09:47:37 AM  

stellarossa: speculation after reading what the J4T crowd are saying.


If it's any consolation, I live in a largely black area. I'll let you know if things get out of hand. I doubt they will; most people seem more concerned with, you know, their jobs, and mowing their lawns and stuff.
 
2013-07-08 09:48:08 AM  

The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!



He's a doctor?

I wondered what he had been doing since "Joanie Loves Chachi" got cancelled.
 
2013-07-08 09:48:15 AM  
Just get ready for the riots in case they find him not guilty. I'm going to the shops today to stock up so I can stay out of town when the verdict comes back.
 
2013-07-08 09:48:45 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter


I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened.  But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.
 
2013-07-08 09:48:56 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.


Almost never. That's because usually the Grand Jury or pretrial hearings in self-defense cases filter out the most clear cut ones so they never go to trial. That being said there was no Grand Jury on this one (gee I wonder why) and Zimmerman waived his hearing on SYG so that JOA had a very slightly better chance than normal (by maybe 1% if that) of being granted with a case that didn't have all of this media attention. That being said this particular case was going to the jury no matter what.
 
2013-07-08 09:50:48 AM  

The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.


There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.
 
2013-07-08 09:51:10 AM  
The Muthaship:
I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened.  But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

I WANT him to be guilty because I think what he did was way out of line, but I'd agree, there's just no evidence to find for murder or manslaughter.  There may be grounds for a civil case of wrongful death, if the law doesn't shield him from that.  The whole situation just sucks for all involved, and nobody is going to bring that kid back to life, but this trial is a farce.
 
2013-07-08 09:51:24 AM  

The Muthaship: I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened. But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.


Negative, there is however a possibility of enough reasonable doubt to assume innocence which is why the prosecution should have never went for murder 2.

In any event, stock up on stuff if you live in Florida. Gonna be some riots this week.
 
2013-07-08 09:52:38 AM  

LasersHurt: The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.


There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point.  He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.
 
2013-07-08 09:53:22 AM  
i hope that zimmerman gets the maximum sentence.

if he wasn't such a wannabe cop...this wouldn't have happened.

i blame florida, too.

what a bunch of maroons.
 
2013-07-08 09:53:27 AM  

The Muthaship: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter

I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened.  But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.


The appeal to emotion on this is so overwhelming that no amount of evidence would ever get through to people. A video could surface of TM jumping GZ from behind while screaming "die, whitey!" and people would still be calling for GM to be convicted of murder.
 
2013-07-08 09:53:40 AM  

nekom: The whole situation just sucks for all involved


Agreed.
 
2013-07-08 09:53:56 AM  

The Muthaship: I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened. But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion belief.


FTFY.
 
2013-07-08 09:54:07 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Martin is the one to blame for his death.


While I don't feel any laws were broken and Martin earned his death, it's still a loss when a 17 year old kid is so farked up they need to be put down.

If society had a place for violent young thugs to get out of that life one step at a time, instead of just kicked out of regular people school, we might have caught him and people like him before shiat like this goes down. If Martin hadn't been suspended from school it would have been better for Zimmerman, better for Martin, better for everyone.

When citizens kill each other instead of helping expand prosperity, it's always a tragedy.
 
2013-07-08 09:54:29 AM  

dittybopper: Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!

This.


Not saying you guys are scary, but you guys are scary.  Fark is more than just a Zimmerman trial clearinghouse .  For now, we have the trial threads though.  So, in order to keep them, please fasten your seatbelts, use etiquette suitable for a dinner party, and try not to upset the apple cart too much.

Got it?  Good.

Now, what have I missed in the trial this morning?  And who has the best feed?
 
2013-07-08 09:54:50 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter


You didn't answer the question.
 
2013-07-08 09:54:55 AM  

The Muthaship: LasersHurt: The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.

There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point.  He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.


That "evidence" would be exactly the same if Zimmerman started the confrontation and lost.

The latter part is right, but does not mean he IS innocent. Just that, legally speaking, he'll be found not guilty in this trial.
 
2013-07-08 09:54:59 AM  

LasersHurt: The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.


He is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence.
 
2013-07-08 09:55:17 AM  
stellarossa: ...acquittal for Zimm

NOT GUILTY!
th00.deviantart.net


 
2013-07-08 09:56:39 AM  

LasersHurt: There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.


Well aside from Good's and W#8's testimony that is.
 
2013-07-08 09:57:28 AM  

nekom: The Muthaship:
I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened.  But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

I WANT him to be guilty because I think what he did was way out of line, but I'd agree, there's just no evidence to find for murder or manslaughter.  There may be grounds for a civil case of wrongful death, if the law doesn't shield him from that.  The whole situation just sucks for all involved, and nobody is going to bring that kid back to life, but this trial is a farce.


I believe that under Florida state law, if he's found not guilty by the jury, that shields him from any civil suit:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,


The way I read that, if he's acquitted by reason of self-defense, he's not liable, and can't be sued.
 
2013-07-08 09:57:30 AM  

AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.


What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?
 
2013-07-08 09:57:36 AM  
How come no questions about the content of his CHL class? In TX, they go over SYG in great detail. The instructor will also proudly tell you that you can kill a person for stealing your neighbor's TV. Yet we "value l
 
2013-07-08 09:57:40 AM  
boot up the riot machine?
 
2013-07-08 09:58:07 AM  

dittybopper: nekom: The Muthaship:
I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened.  But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

I WANT him to be guilty because I think what he did was way out of line, but I'd agree, there's just no evidence to find for murder or manslaughter.  There may be grounds for a civil case of wrongful death, if the law doesn't shield him from that.  The whole situation just sucks for all involved, and nobody is going to bring that kid back to life, but this trial is a farce.

I believe that under Florida state law, if he's found not guilty by the jury, that shields him from any civil suit:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

The way I read that, if he's acquitted by reason of self-defense, he's not liable, and can't be sued.


That's precisely correct
 
2013-07-08 09:58:43 AM  

QueenMamaBee: stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

I can see where my mind is headed.... I took that as Alcoholics Anonymous.

/not caffinated enough this morning


Well, we *did* start drinking (or, rather, imbibing) in the boobies...
 
2013-07-08 09:58:53 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The only thing tragic is the railroading of Zimmerman. Martin is the one to blame for his death. His actions led to his own death.


yeah walking home from the store talking to a girl is illegal. he didn't have a right to defend himself from a stalker in the dark who never identified himself.
a man who's word we're supposed to take as gospel. a known liar with a violent past that should have made him ineligible to license a firearm. a hot head who lost his job as a bouncer because he had anger management and is a recovering alcoholic. who's story sounds like a Dirty Harry movie with the strained dialogue. Who was negligent in his watch captain's training and duties.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:11 AM  

I_C_Weener: dittybopper: Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!

This.

Not saying you guys are scary, but you guys are scary.  Fark is more than just a Zimmerman trial clearinghouse .  For now, we have the trial threads though.  So, in order to keep them, please fasten your seatbelts, use etiquette suitable for a dinner party, and try not to upset the apple cart too much.

Got it?  Good.

Now, what have I missed in the trial this morning?  And who has the best feed?


Also, lets focus more on today's hearing than the over-arching theme of racial violence or gun rights, and lets not jump on the people just tuning in and thinking that the information they had in March 2012 is unchanged, mkay?  

Let's play nice.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:12 AM  

I_C_Weener: dittybopper: Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!

This.

Not saying you guys are scary, but you guys are scary.  Fark is more than just a Zimmerman trial clearinghouse .  For now, we have the trial threads though.  So, in order to keep them, please fasten your seatbelts, use etiquette suitable for a dinner party, and try not to upset the apple cart too much.

Got it?  Good.

Now, what have I missed in the trial this morning?  And who has the best feed?


Hey, if you look at the breasts of this thread, you'll see I'm the one trying to inject a bit of class.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:16 AM  

AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.


Yes it was, but political pressure made them seek a murder trail, so if acquitted for murder he walks.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:19 AM  

QueenMamaBee: stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

I can see where my mind is headed.... I took that as Alcoholics Anonymous.

/not caffinated enough this morning


It looks like he'll walk. Maybe the judge will declare a mistrial, but I doubt it.

Honestly, this is a case of poor prosecution. Negligent homicide would have been easy to prove -his pursuit of Martin pretty much clinches that- but they got greedy and went straight for murder even though they couldn't prove malice aforethought. That wasn't a wise tactical decision, and they never really recovered from it.

And that, my friends, is the ultimate lesson to take away from cases like this: if you want any semblance of justice, the charge must stick, and you're not going to get a second chance at that. Go only for what you can prove. If this means using words that don't mesh so well with your definition of what happened, then so be it: save your words for outside the court.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:44 AM  
I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:56 AM  

ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter

You didn't answer the question.


Justifiably to the level of force used?

No
 
2013-07-08 10:00:02 AM  

limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.


Because he was the attacker. TA-DA!
 
2013-07-08 10:00:10 AM  

doglover: Mid_mo_mad_man: Martin is the one to blame for his death.

While I don't feel any laws were broken and Martin earned his death, it's still a loss when a 17 year old kid is so farked up they need to be put down.

If society had a place for violent young thugs to get out of that life one step at a time, instead of just kicked out of regular people school, we might have caught him and people like him before shiat like this goes down. If Martin hadn't been suspended from school it would have been better for Zimmerman, better for Martin, better for everyone.

When citizens kill each other instead of helping expand prosperity, it's always a tragedy.




I firmly beleave his parents failed him. On the night of the shooting he was allowed to walk the streets even thou he was suspended for a drug incident. Dad didn't check up on him till morning. Wtf dad!
 
2013-07-08 10:01:55 AM  

LasersHurt: "Will the jury likely acquit because he was the only survivor of stupid shiat?"


Because he is the only survivor and thus, tweaks his story, and other witnesses clarify that the dead guy was a bit of a racist.
 
2013-07-08 10:01:58 AM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.

He is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence.

Yes, and for the thirtieth time for the illiterates in the back, he'll likely be found innocent because there isn't enough to convict.


Which is probably because no laws were broken by Zimmerman.

There's lots of evidence, even witnesses. What there isn't is evidence of anything but self defense.
 
2013-07-08 10:03:01 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter

You didn't answer the question.

Justifiably to the level of force used?

No


See, you can't even answer the question without having to add things to it. That indicates deception.
Do you believe he defending himself, yes or no?
 
2013-07-08 10:03:22 AM  

LasersHurt: The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.


Except the law doesn't require evidence that you are innocent.
 
2013-07-08 10:03:57 AM  
dittybopper:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

The way I read that, if he's acquitted by reason of self-defense, he's not liable, and can't be sued.


Sounds that way, but I've heard conflicting stories on that.  I've also heard that the SYG provision specifically does this, but of course this isn't a SYG case at all.
 
2013-07-08 10:04:30 AM  

TenaciousP: How come no questions about the content of his CHL class?


His professor was on the stand (for the prosecution) and he gave testimony that the actual nickname "Stand your ground" was not used but that he did use the term "Castle Doctrine" instead when discussing self-defense laws.
 
2013-07-08 10:04:57 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter


Would a reasonable person expect to be assaulted violently for walking in the same direction as someone else? If the answer to that is yes, then you live in a sad world and you can argue manslaughter.  If the answer to that is no, then it's self-defense and not manslaughter.

 
Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.
 
2013-07-08 10:05:35 AM  
Something I haven't noticed before. On the 911 call with the screaming, does the dude in the background say "he's holding a gun" a bout 2-4 seconds before the shot?
 
2013-07-08 10:05:59 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.


I doubt it.  Who wants to be:

1. Put into the poorhouse by defense costs (GZ got donations, but would you?)
2. Be essentially unemployable for years, if it's a public trial.
3. Always have to look over your shoulder.
4. Worry, in some states, about permanently being beholden to the family of the person you shot, because they sued your ass and won, even though you were acquitted in criminal court.

Besides which, according to a new report by the CDC, it's already quite common to legally defend yourself with a firearm.
 
2013-07-08 10:06:06 AM  

dittybopper: The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!

Great Scott!


What??!!
 
2013-07-08 10:07:10 AM  

limeyfellow: Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks,


The entire distance from the place where the truck was parked to Brandy Green's house is less than one block.
 
2013-07-08 10:07:13 AM  
Mr. Eugenides:
Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Well, it's more that they couldn't prove that Zimmerman did.  Martin PROBABLY did, we'll never know for sure, but there's certainly copious amounts of reasonable doubt, which means advantage: defense.
 
2013-07-08 10:08:18 AM  

gregscott: dittybopper: The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!

Great Scott!

What??!!


Korean Penis.
 
2013-07-08 10:09:13 AM  

limeyfellow: AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?


Zimmerman claims that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the cement and reaching for the gun when he shot Martin.  Therefore Zimmerman had no real option to retreat at the time of the gunshot, and it's ordinary self-defense.  Stand your Ground would have applied if Trayvon were slowly advancing towards him, Zimmerman had time to run or pull out his gun, and decided that the gun was the better choice.  In short, Stand your Ground is about when you don't fear for your life, but instead fear for your property.  In practice, of course, people who actually fear for their life at the time (but in retrospect could probably have gotten away) may use the Stand your Ground defense.
 
2013-07-08 10:09:17 AM  
What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.
 
2013-07-08 10:10:23 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.


It sounds like you are suggesting we become a nation of cowards.  I fully expect people charged with monitoring my community, be they cops or neighborhood watch, investigate suspicious behavior.  999,999 times out of a million, nothing horrible comes of it, but sometimes it does.   Such is life.  We all meet our fate one way or another and some of us will die in violent confrontations.
 
2013-07-08 10:11:24 AM  

nekom: dittybopper:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

The way I read that, if he's acquitted by reason of self-defense, he's not liable, and can't be sued.

Sounds that way, but I've heard conflicting stories on that.  I've also heard that the SYG provision specifically does this, but of course this isn't a SYG case at all.


It's not a SYG "provision", this immunity to civil action is granted to anyone justifiably using the self defense statute.
 
2013-07-08 10:11:59 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Mid_mo_mad_man: The only thing tragic is the railroading of Zimmerman. Martin is the one to blame for his death. His actions led to his own death.

yeah walking home from the store talking to a girl is illegal. he didn't have a right to defend himself from a stalker in the dark who never identified himself.
a man who's word we're supposed to take as gospel. a known liar with a violent past that should have made him ineligible to license a firearm. a hot head who lost his job as a bouncer because he had anger management and is a recovering alcoholic. who's story sounds like a Dirty Harry movie with the strained dialogue. Who was negligent in his watch captain's training and duties.




Following does not equal stalking nor is an aggressive act or even illegal. The girl he was talking plus a neighbor make it clear that Martin was an angry bigot that wanted to beat the cracker following him. And we all know of Martins past violent acts. This case shouldn't have came to trail
 
2013-07-08 10:12:14 AM  

ChaosStar: See, you can't even answer the question without having to add things to it. That indicates deception.
Do you believe he defending himself, yes or no?


Because we are getting in legalese territory which always requires things being added. And I did answer the question, no he was not defending himself to the physical level the event elevated to.

Don't like the answer, go punch a lawyer in the face.

Mr. Eugenides: Would a reasonable person expect to be assaulted violently for walking in the same direction as someone else? If the answer to that is yes, then you live in a sad world and you can argue manslaughter. If the answer to that is no, then it's self-defense and not manslaughter.

Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.


Would a reasonable person initiate contact with someone they felt threaten by who had been following them? Key point here is that Travon initiated contact because he reasonably felt threaten, contact escalated to where Zimmerman shot defending himself......HOWEVER

Had Zimmerman not initiated contact then the event would have never occurred, ergo he knowingly placed himself in that situation negligently and knowingly carrying an instrument that could result in death.

And yes, it could be argued that he was truly defending himself from what he thought was a life threatening situation, all I am arguing is that the prosecution were farking morons for attaching murder 2 to this when they could have almost assuredly slam dunked this as manslaughter.
 
2013-07-08 10:12:38 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!


These threads are great.

Go to one thread for your daily gun control, death penalty, racism, anti cops  comments all in one

One thread to rule them all.

the only think missing is abortion.
 
2013-07-08 10:13:06 AM  
This guy reminds me of the guy from hot tub time machine
 
2013-07-08 10:13:27 AM  

ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.


Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.
 
2013-07-08 10:13:42 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: See, you can't even answer the question without having to add things to it. That indicates deception.
Do you believe he defending himself, yes or no?

Because we are getting in legalese territory which always requires things being added. And I did answer the question, no he was not defending himself to the physical level the event elevated to.


No, we're really not. There is no legalese.
So you don't think GZ had his head smacked into the concrete?
 
2013-07-08 10:14:40 AM  
DLR is a rube.
 
2013-07-08 10:14:51 AM  
Is there a person that does not get the rationale of having a bullet in the chamber?
 
2013-07-08 10:15:22 AM  
Prosecution not doing a great job with Geroge's friend.
 
2013-07-08 10:15:23 AM  
ChaosStar:
It's not a SYG "provision", this immunity to civil action is granted to anyone justifiably using the self defense statute.

So that's part of the general self defense statute and not specific to SYG?  I guess he'll be protected from litigation then.  Still what a mess.  This is a teachable moment here, don't go out looking for trouble, even if it's legal it's going to wreck your life.
 
2013-07-08 10:15:55 AM  

Bauer: i hope that zimmerman gets the maximum sentence.

if he wasn't such a wannabe cop...this wouldn't have happened.

i blame florida, too.

what a bunch of maroons.


And the maximum sentence for being innocent is?
 
2013-07-08 10:15:58 AM  

WillofJ2: Is there a person that does not get the rationale of having a bullet in the chamber?


It's all "for show"
 
2013-07-08 10:16:50 AM  
I want to hear "Well, if the targets at the range were pinning him down, it would be a lot easier to hit them. I'm not certain that being beaten by the target would make it easier or more difficult."
 
2013-07-08 10:16:56 AM  
Thread is suffering some shrinkage already....
 
2013-07-08 10:17:30 AM  

nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.


This is about it.
 
2013-07-08 10:17:42 AM  

ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

As much as I think the guy is guilty as hell of manslaughter, I did laugh when I saw that shiat.

It's like....yYou do realize people that this is standard operating procedure for defense teams right?

So you don't think he was defending himself?


Well, you see, people equate zimmerman getting out of his car with some guy starting a fight at a bar and losing.   Of course, there is no evidence at all that zimmerman started the confrontation, but that doesnt stop them.

They then backtrack and say, well maybe trayvon did, but who wouldnt.  If zimmerman was in his car, Trayvon wouldnt have been there to punch him in the face and get on top of him and wail away.

Trayvon had to do it, you know.. because what if he saw zimmermans gun, so the only logicial move is to run to him and get in a fistfight.
 
2013-07-08 10:17:46 AM  

WillofJ2: Is there a person that does not get the rationale of having a bullet in the chamber?


There are plenty that are going to pretend not to, for the sake of their terrible arguments.
 
2013-07-08 10:17:46 AM  

nekom: ChaosStar:
It's not a SYG "provision", this immunity to civil action is granted to anyone justifiably using the self defense statute.

So that's part of the general self defense statute and not specific to SYG?  I guess he'll be protected from litigation then.  Still what a mess.  This is a teachable moment here, don't go out looking for trouble, even if it's legal it's going to wreck your life.


Yes, this is part of the self defense law.
There is no "SYG" to be specific to, "stand" and "ground" are simply two words used to describe your lack of duty to retreat in the provision that removes said duty for anyone in a place they have a legal right to be.
 
2013-07-08 10:18:55 AM  

ChaosStar: As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.


And this is why the prosecution called the ME who had never seen the injuries in person but only in photographs to testify. She kind of made her own testimony suspect when she was asked by the defense if a person bleeding from a broken and bleeding nose might swallow their own blood. She hemmed and hawed around that for a minute or two. Anyone who has ever had a bloody nose (not even broken) knows that you might swallow the blood just like everyone knows that having the sniffles means that your going to swallow some snot. There was absolutely no reason to say anything but yes to that question. I think that she didn't want to give the defense anything that she didn't know where it was going to lead up to ahead of time. In other words she was in the tank for the prosecution, which makes sense seeing as she is apparently a friend of the special prosecutor who decided that this case was going forward with Murder 2 no matter what, to the extent that she didn't convene a Grand Jury which is the normal thing to do.
 
2013-07-08 10:19:34 AM  

Was it my imagination, or did the good doctor mention that Trayvon was able to fight a heart wound because of all the drugs in his system?


Wasn't that on the list of things they weren't supposed to bring up?



/how much weed does that even take?
/"trace ammounts" my arse.
 
2013-07-08 10:20:02 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: See, you can't even answer the question without having to add things to it. That indicates deception.
Do you believe he defending himself, yes or no?

Because we are getting in legalese territory which always requires things being added. And I did answer the question, no he was not defending himself to the physical level the event elevated to.

Don't like the answer, go punch a lawyer in the face.

Mr. Eugenides: Would a reasonable person expect to be assaulted violently for walking in the same direction as someone else? If the answer to that is yes, then you live in a sad world and you can argue manslaughter. If the answer to that is no, then it's self-defense and not manslaughter.

Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Would a reasonable person initiate contact with someone they felt threaten by who had been following them? Key point here is that Travon initiated contact because he reasonably felt threaten, contact escalated to where Zimmerman shot defending himself......HOWEVER

Had Zimmerman not initiated contact then the event would have never occurred, ergo he knowingly placed himself in that situation negligently and knowingly carrying an instrument that could result in death.

And yes, it could be argued that he was truly defending himself from what he thought was a life threatening situation, all I am arguing is that the prosecution were farking morons for attaching murder 2 to this when they could have almost assuredly slam dunked this as manslaughter.


I would say the reasonable response would have been to turn and ash "Why are you following me?"   Instead, he chose to assault Zimmerman and continued to assault him once Zimmerman was down.
 
2013-07-08 10:20:50 AM  
How many times did we hear the word f*cking with the first witness?  I lost count
 
2013-07-08 10:21:58 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.


Your assumption is specious at best. Almost 2 years have past since Mr. Horner shot and killed 2 men robbing his next door neighbor in Pasadena, TX. That one didn't even go to trial even though the minority communties were up in arms. Both men were hispanic, both may have been "undocumented aliens".

No one has gone out of their way to replicate that day. Most people don't have an overwheling desire to kill someone. Personally, it seems like a real hassle, having to deal with the press and community activists.
 
2013-07-08 10:22:04 AM  
Work obligations will keep me out of the thread for most of the morning and early afternoon.

I will, however, pop in from time to time with amusing material.

A reading of the script for "Murderous Racism: The George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin Story"

An amusing gif
 
2013-07-08 10:22:08 AM  
"Well, Mr. Whipple, if one shot does the job, we don't usually shoot 50 times.  We aren't the LAPD."
 
2013-07-08 10:22:28 AM  

limeyfellow: AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?


Stand your ground could protect Martin if he were on trial for assault, manslaughter, murder, etc.  BHe'd have to prove it, but he's not on trial so it's completely irrelevant.  He'd very possibly lose on that.  Zimerman doesn't lose the right to self defense, especially when there's no compelling argument he started the physical altercation.  What you seem to be advocating is a situation where one person gets to declare "I stand my ground!" at the slightest provocation and then the other person is compelled to lie back and take a beating.
 
2013-07-08 10:22:31 AM  
I dont get where the prosecution was going with the recross? wanted to say "double tap" on national tv?
 
2013-07-08 10:23:14 AM  

ChaosStar: No, we're really not. There is no legalese.
So you don't think GZ had his head smacked into the concrete?


Perhaps, but then again he did follow Tray and put himself into that situation.

We'll never really know what touched it off, but one could reasonably argue that someone following you at night could be construed as threatening.
 
2013-07-08 10:23:16 AM  
PCP, MUTHAFARKAS!!!
www.imfdb.org
 
2013-07-08 10:23:27 AM  

way south: Was it my imagination, or did the good doctor mention that Trayvon was able to fight a heart wound because of all the drugs in his system?
Wasn't that on the list of things they weren't supposed to bring up?

/how much weed does that even take?
/"trace ammounts" my arse.


Did you hear the ruling the judge gave when Bao said his opinion changed on whether or not the amount of THC in Martin's system may have effected his behavior?

Even the CNN commentator said that would likely be reversible error.

This is a poor example of the administration of justice, and everybody is watching.
 
2013-07-08 10:24:10 AM  

WillofJ2: I dont get where the prosecution was going with the recross? wanted to say "double tap" on national tv?


When you're about to get your ass handed to you in front of millions of people, you start to grasp at straws.
 
2013-07-08 10:24:37 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: LasersHurt: "Will the jury likely acquit because he was the only survivor of stupid shiat?"

Because he is the only survivor and thus, tweaks his story, and other witnesses clarify that the dead guy was a bit of a racist.


His story wasn't tweaked much.

Maybe I'm just conditioned by civil trials, though, there the story told to the police, the EMTs, and to the jury often is mutually contradictory.
 
2013-07-08 10:24:48 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: I would say the reasonable response would have been to turn and ash "Why are you following me?" Instead, he chose to assault Zimmerman and continued to assault him once Zimmerman was down.


He did do that, you can even hear it on the cell phone recording
 
2013-07-08 10:25:07 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: No, we're really not. There is no legalese.
So you don't think GZ had his head smacked into the concrete?

Perhaps, but then again he did follow Tray and put himself into that situation.

We'll never really know what touched it off, but one could reasonably argue that someone following you at night could be construed as threatening.


You're purposely being obtuse, because your stance has nothing solid to stand on.
Following Martin doesn't justify lethal force, if the concrete was used, that's lethal force. What touched it off, if following is threatening, neither matter.
 
2013-07-08 10:25:10 AM  

Elegy: An amusing gif


Why are they driving backwards in that?
 
2013-07-08 10:25:23 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Bauer: i hope that zimmerman gets the maximum sentence.

if he wasn't such a wannabe cop...this wouldn't have happened.

i blame florida, too.

what a bunch of maroons.

And the maximum sentence for being innocent is?


18 and life to go
 
2013-07-08 10:26:45 AM  
Can the prosecution just stand up and say, ok for the next 10 or how ever many witnesses we accept they all are gonna say its Zimmermans voice on the tape? and get to some meat
 
2013-07-08 10:26:51 AM  

s2s2s2: I want to hear "Well, if the targets at the range were pinning him down, it would be a lot easier to hit them. I'm not certain that being beaten by the target would make it easier or more difficult."


Some, not me of course, will pay extra for that...
 
2013-07-08 10:27:01 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: And the maximum sentence for being innocent is?


Probably a lifetime of harassment.
 
2013-07-08 10:27:36 AM  

ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.


Somehow I doubt that if treyvon had killed zimmerman if zimmermans gun had misfired that you would be in all these threads rabidly attacking anyone saying treyvon was guilty.

What you also leave out is that it is up to the jury to decide whether one person's actions rise to a level justifying lethal force. You cannot simply say 'hurr I thought he'd kill me' and you definitely cannot expect the jury to ignore a little thing like how you were running around playing cop for fun in the first place.

And by the way, you have serious ignorance about what justifies lethal force. Nobody gets to go around punching people in the face and then murder the person who is too good at defending themselves. Is concrete lethal force? Sure.
Depending on the situation, so is the angry guy stalking you at night, being racist, and physically assaulting you. That is what this trial is about.

If I was out for a walk and you started beating me up, I would be justified in slipping a knife in you. You would not be justified in shooting me as I pulled it. I am under no obligation to presume you are only going to hurt me in a manner other than serious bodily harm, nor to trust that those couple mma matches I watched will let me fend you off.
 
2013-07-08 10:28:57 AM  
So the only person to definitively say that it was Trayvon is his mom?
 
2013-07-08 10:29:04 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: He did do that, you can even hear it on the cell phone recording


No. No you can not. What we have is W#8 saying that's what she thought that she heard. There is no recording of that phone call (in evidence, (maybe go ask the NSA if they have a copy in their servers somewhere).
 
2013-07-08 10:29:11 AM  

genepool lifeboat: jehovahs witness protection: And the maximum sentence for being innocent is?

Probably a lifetime of harassment.


Yeah, but probably a short lifetime.  If you really want to see race riots, just wait until they convict whoever kills him.
 
2013-07-08 10:29:22 AM  

WillofJ2: Can the prosecution just stand up and say, ok for the next 10 or how ever many witnesses we accept they all are gonna say its Zimmermans voice on the tape? and get to some meat


Are they going to call Martin's dad to say he didn't think it was Trayvon until after he spoke to a lawyer?  That's better than 10 witnesses who are sympathetic to Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-08 10:29:33 AM  

LasersHurt: nekom: LasersHurt: "Will the jury likely acquit because he was the only survivor of stupid shiat?"

That's probably what's going to happen in a nutshell.  UNLESS the jury lets emotions override the letter of the law.

Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.


Move to strike! Malicious accusery.
 
2013-07-08 10:30:11 AM  

ChaosStar: You're purposely being obtuse, because your stance has nothing solid to stand on.
Following Martin doesn't justify lethal force, if the concrete was used, that's lethal force. What touched it off, if following is threatening, neither matter.


Yes because obviously just before the fight occurred Martin was thinking to himself "That concrete is going to kill this cracker ass fool"

Fights do and happen, but just because they escalate to specific levels does not absolve you of your responsibilities for being in that fight.
 
2013-07-08 10:30:45 AM  

limeyfellow: AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?


If Martin did what you just described, he would be on trial for for Murder-2 like Zimmerman or manslaughter. You cannot defend yourself from someone who is following, but not attacking, you.
 
2013-07-08 10:30:54 AM  

Radioactive Ass: No. No you can not. What we have is W#8 saying that's what she thought that she heard. There is no recording of that phone call (in evidence, (maybe go ask the NSA if they have a copy in their servers somewhere).


"The prosecution calls Edward Snowden"
 
2013-07-08 10:31:04 AM  
Smackledorfer

Depending on the situation, so is the angry guy stalking you at night, being racist, and physically assaulting you.

...but enough about Martin.

/ba-dum-chhh
 
2013-07-08 10:31:14 AM  

The Muthaship: WillofJ2: Can the prosecution just stand up and say, ok for the next 10 or how ever many witnesses we accept they all are gonna say its Zimmermans voice on the tape? and get to some meat

Are they going to call Martin's dad to say he didn't think it was Trayvon until after he spoke to a lawyer?  That's better than 10 witnesses who are sympathetic to Zimmerman.


They just said he is on the depth chart for today, i dont think they would close with him because the prosecutor is gonna get him to say he changed his mind
 
2013-07-08 10:31:49 AM  
They should get the woman that had the restraining order testify. She's heard Georgie scream in a pleading manner, I bet.
 
2013-07-08 10:31:49 AM  

s2s2s2: So the only person to definitively say that it was Trayvon is his mom?


And she's obviously biased.  As is Zimmerman himself, of course.  Personally, I couldn't say who it is though common sense would at least SUGGEST that the person losing the fight would be the one screaming.
 
2013-07-08 10:32:33 AM  
This seems like a weird line of questioning. "Why did you think he was out of work?"
 
2013-07-08 10:32:33 AM  

TenaciousP: How come no questions about the content of his CHL class? In TX, they go over SYG in great detail. The instructor will also proudly tell you that you can kill a person for stealing your neighbor's TV. Yet we "value l


If your TX CHL instructor told you that, go find a new instructor immediately because the one you took your class from has put you in grave danger.

/TX CHL instructor.
 
2013-07-08 10:32:49 AM  

Smackledorfer: You cannot simply say 'hurr I thought he'd kill me' and you definitely cannot expect the jury to ignore a little thing like how you were running around playing cop for fun in the first place.


The jury is going to be instructed to do exactly that.  It's irrelevant under Florida law.

Smackledorfer: Nobody gets to go around punching people in the face and then murder the person who is too good at defending themselves. Is concrete lethal force?


Under Florida law, you can do exactly that, so long as you're unable to escape and in fear of great bodily harm at the moment you pull the trigger.  Section 776.032, Florida Statutes.
 
2013-07-08 10:33:16 AM  

s2s2s2: So the only person to definitively say that it was Trayvon is his mom?


No, the brother also said that, but at first (for at least 2 weeks) he was uncertain. Other than that there is the father who at first said definitively stated that it wasn't his son then later said that it was. There's a reason why the defense didn't call him to the stand.
 
2013-07-08 10:33:37 AM  

WillofJ2: i dont think they would close with him because the prosecutor is gonna get him to say he changed his mind


You're probably right, but him changing his mind can actually be viewed as even more powerful for the defense.

Due to the circumstances.

/and the ensuing HOA settlement....
 
2013-07-08 10:34:20 AM  
What is going to be very interesting is the number of TV's, sneakers, etc. that will be stolen due to rioting after Zimmerman is found 'Not Guilty'.
 
2013-07-08 10:34:23 AM  

Radioactive Ass: There's a reason why the defense didn't call him to the stan


Prosecution dammit. The defense might call him to the stand but maybe not.
 
2013-07-08 10:34:49 AM  

Radioactive Ass: s2s2s2: So the only person to definitively say that it was Trayvon is his mom?

No, the brother also said that, but at first (for at least 2 weeks) he was uncertain. Other than that there is the father who at first said definitively stated that it wasn't his son then later said that it was. There's a reason why the defense didn't call him to the stand.


There is also a reason why they asked about "being coached to say [who it was]."

The only good questions the Pros has asked are just as applicable to Sabrina.
 
2013-07-08 10:37:00 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.

Somehow I doubt that if treyvon had killed zimmerman if zimmermans gun had misfired that you would be in all these threads rabidly attacking anyone saying treyvon was guilty.

What you also leave out is that it is up to the jury to decide whether one person's actions rise to a level justifying lethal force. You cannot simply say 'hurr I thought he'd kill me' and you definitely cannot expect the jury to ignore a little thing like how you were running around playing cop for fun in the first place.

And by the way, you have serious ignorance about what justifies lethal force. Nobody gets to go around punching people in the face and then murder the person who is too good at defending themselves. Is concrete lethal force? Sure.
Depending on the situation, so is the angry guy stalking you at night, being racist, and physically assaulting you. That is what this trial is about.

If I was out for a walk and you started beating me up, I would be justified in slipping a knife in you. You would not be justified in shooting me as I pulled it. I am under no obligation to presume you are only going to hurt me in a manner other than serious bodily harm, nor to trust that those couple mma matches I watched will let me fend you off.


Of course I wouldn't, because Martin would have killed GZ without lethal provocation. Martin escalated it to lethal force, so he has no legal standing to kill GZ when GZ attempts to protect himself.

No, it's really not up to the jury to decide if whether a person's actions justify lethal force in self defense. That's the job of the investigators.

So you say I'm ignorant about lethal force, then say that what I attest was lethal force was, in fact, lethal force..? Some angry guy following you (not stalking), being racist, and even physically assaulting you is not lethal force.

If you were out for a walk, and I started beating you up, you would not be justified in putting a knife in me unless you felt your life was in danger. If I'm punching you in the arm or shoulder, pushing you around, slapping you in the face, your life is not in danger. If I'm beating your head into the concrete, or punching you squarely in the face over and over, you have legitimate fear for your life.
 
2013-07-08 10:37:14 AM  

ferretman: What is going to be very interesting is the number of TV's, sneakers, etc. that will be stolen due to rioting after Zimmerman is found 'Not Guilty'.




Hopefully they have Korean store owners. They know how to handle rioters
 
2013-07-08 10:39:16 AM  
So did we go red? If we did, I like it - only the hardcore trial watchers will be left in the thread.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

The best one, that fark won't let me post inline because 403 forbidden.
 
2013-07-08 10:39:48 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: You're purposely being obtuse, because your stance has nothing solid to stand on.
Following Martin doesn't justify lethal force, if the concrete was used, that's lethal force. What touched it off, if following is threatening, neither matter.

Yes because obviously just before the fight occurred Martin was thinking to himself "That concrete is going to kill this cracker ass fool"

Fights do and happen, but just because they escalate to specific levels does not absolve you of your responsibilities for being in that fight.


Now you resort to condescension because you have no position.
Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.
 
2013-07-08 10:40:29 AM  
Dont personalize him, full names, unless it is the victim then it is Trayvon
 
2013-07-08 10:40:34 AM  

jaybeezey: Your assumption is specious at best. Almost 2 years have past since Mr. Horner shot and killed 2 men robbing his next door neighbor in Pasadena, TX. That one didn't even go to trial even though the minority communties were up in arms. Both men were hispanic, both may have been "undocumented aliens".


The only reason Mr. Horner didn't go to trail is because a responding officer testified to the Grand Jury that he saw Mr. Horner shoot only after the individuals advanced on him.
 
2013-07-08 10:41:19 AM  
WillofJ2

Dont personalize him, full names, unless it is the victim then it is Trayvon

A lot of this. Wow.
 
2013-07-08 10:42:42 AM  
those actually paying attention, how much time is left on this trial? ending this week?
 
2013-07-08 10:43:11 AM  
So Zimmerman was a real human being, with good friends.  Not in fact a raging lunatic who can't get out a sentence without half a dozen racial slurs.  Why so many character witnesses when the technical aspects of this case so heavily favor the defense?
 
2013-07-08 10:43:20 AM  

LasersHurt: The Muthaship: But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.


After a week in these threads one would think you would have realized burden of proof is on the prosecution. I know... you hate the legal system for that fact (as you stated last thread).
 
2013-07-08 10:43:29 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: WillofJ2

Dont personalize him, full names, unless it is the victim then it is Trayvon

A lot of this. Wow.


Hell even using the word 'victim' is biased because it carries with it the implication that there was a crime.

Speaking of, 'crime scene' was a pretty common phrase used by the prosecution when Serino was on the stand.
 
2013-07-08 10:43:33 AM  

Headso: those actually paying attention, how much time is left on this trial? ending this week?


I heard there's a chance the jury gets it Thursday.
 
2013-07-08 10:44:31 AM  

WillofJ2: Dont personalize him, full names, unless it is the victim then it is widdle twayvy wayvy


FTFY
 
2013-07-08 10:44:35 AM  

Elegy: So did we go red? If we did, I like it - only the hardcore trial watchers will be left in the thread.

[i.imgur.com image 300x208]

[i.imgur.com image 300x409]

The best one, that fark won't let me post inline because 403 forbidden.


He could be one of the old hitmen from the "hitman" movie based of the video game, like the breaking bad pic
 
2013-07-08 10:45:45 AM  

Headso: those actually paying attention, how much time is left on this trial? ending this week?


O'Mara said 3-5 days for the defense, so ending this week or early next.
 
2013-07-08 10:45:47 AM  

nekom: So Zimmerman was a real human being, with good friends.  Not in fact a raging lunatic who can't get out a sentence without half a dozen racial slurs.  Why so many character witnesses when the technical aspects of this case so heavily favor the defense?


Judge is pro-prosecution so defense needs to work extra hard to make sure his character is properly portrayed.
 
2013-07-08 10:46:05 AM  
One thing I have NOT been able to find:  Is Vegas taking action on this?  Can't seem to find anywhere giving odds on the outcome.
 
2013-07-08 10:46:28 AM  

heili skrimsli: Facetious_Speciest: WillofJ2

Dont personalize him, full names, unless it is the victim then it is Trayvon

A lot of this. Wow.

Hell even using the word 'victim' is biased because it carries with it the implication that there was a crime.

Speaking of, 'crime scene' was a pretty common phrase used by the prosecution when Serino was on the stand.


I havent really payed too much attention to the terminology used by the lawyers when that hit me, looking back there may have been a lot of subliminal warfare going on,
 
2013-07-08 10:46:29 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Because we are getting in legalese territory which always requires things being added. And I did answer the question, no he was not defending himself to the physical level the event elevated to.


It is a little known fact that a women being raped has to try to rape the man raping her back and has to wait for the man raping her to escalate the level of violence by hitting her before she can hit him.
 
2013-07-08 10:46:29 AM  

Headso: those actually paying attention, how much time is left on this trial? ending this week?


The defense has said Thursday, maybe Friday but there is no guarantee on that.
 
2013-07-08 10:47:03 AM  
After watching OJ, Casey Anthony, and now this, I am guessing the very best defense attorneys are exponentially better lawyers than even the best of prosecutors.
 
2013-07-08 10:47:14 AM  

nekom: So Zimmerman was a real human being, with good friends.  Not in fact a raging lunatic who can't get out a sentence without half a dozen racial slurs.  Why so many character witnesses when the technical aspects of this case so heavily favor the defense?


I don't know man. This witness is really white. I'm starting to smell a conspiracy.
 
2013-07-08 10:47:56 AM  

ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.


Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.
 
2013-07-08 10:48:19 AM  
Is Martin's stepmother testifying for the defense? They deposed her, for some reason. She told Anderson Cooper she's pissed about being dealt out of the limelight after she did most of the raising of the kid.
 
2013-07-08 10:48:32 AM  
Waiting for the prosecutor to tear in to this little old white church lady, in front of a jury 5/6s the same
 
2013-07-08 10:48:44 AM  

nekom: One thing I have NOT been able to find:  Is Vegas taking action on this?  Can't seem to find anywhere giving odds on the outcome.


you have to use offshore for those kind of bets.
 
2013-07-08 10:49:17 AM  

Giltric: It is a little known fact that a women being raped has to try to rape the man raping her back and has to wait for the man raping her to escalate the level of violence by hitting her before she can hit him.


You said rape four times, each rape negates the other one so we're at net zero for rape

rape
 
2013-07-08 10:49:59 AM  

Cletus C.: Is Martin's stepmother testifying for the defense? They deposed her, for some reason. She told Anderson Cooper she's pissed about being dealt out of the limelight after she did most of the raising of the kid.





I wouldn't want the world to know that.
 
2013-07-08 10:50:27 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: No, we're really not. There is no legalese.
So you don't think GZ had his head smacked into the concrete?

Perhaps, but then again he did follow Tray and put himself into that situation.

We'll never really know what touched it off, but one could reasonably argue that someone following you at night could be construed as threatening.


He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.

This has been verified through witness testimony.


This is why it is not self defense if you stop fighting to go get a gun and shoot the person you are fighting.
 
2013-07-08 10:50:38 AM  
Projection isn't just a river in Egypt.

Everyone in these threads seems to have already fixed on their idea of what has happened, and will reject any data to the contrary as "bias" or "emotion" or "reverse double racism" or whatever.

I'm out.
 
2013-07-08 10:51:31 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.


I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.
I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.
Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.
 
2013-07-08 10:51:35 AM  

Cletus C.: Is Martin's stepmother testifying for the defense? They deposed her, for some reason. She told Anderson Cooper she's pissed about being dealt out of the limelight after she did most of the raising of the kid.


She had implied in many interviews that his mother was not around and did not have much to do with him for the better part of the last 12 years of his life except for special events, to the point when he did stay with the bio mom if he got sick or anything he came right back to her house, who knows if it is true she may be mad about not getting any money off of this, also said that when crumps PR people came in she and other got cut out to create a united front for the press, same reason you dont see the fathers current G/f
 
2013-07-08 10:52:41 AM  
Remember:

Trayvon Martin:
nazirahantigua.typepad.com

George Zimmerman:
img1.etsystatic.com
 
2013-07-08 10:52:42 AM  
Prosecutor making sure these peoples names are being repeated clearly and loudly?
 
2013-07-08 10:52:49 AM  

nekom: Mr. Eugenides:
Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Well, it's more that they couldn't prove that Zimmerman did.  Martin PROBABLY did, we'll never know for sure, but there's certainly copious amounts of reasonable doubt, which means advantage: defense.


Nope, Martin's girlfriend testified that Martin turned back to confront Zimmerman.  There has been zero evidence presented to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the physical approach.
 
2013-07-08 10:53:36 AM  
 
2013-07-08 10:54:26 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.


Walking behind someone is not illegal. You are trying to say that a person who has every right to be where they are is responsible for what happens to them while they are doing nothing illegal. This is like saying that a mugging victim is to blame for being somewhere where he might get mugged or a rape victim being to blame for wearing a low cut blouse. That is patently not the case and there are several cases to back that up. The mugger is always at fault and so is the rapist. How people like you don't seem to get that boggles the mind.
 
2013-07-08 10:54:45 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.


You seem to believe that under florida law, a precursor to self defense is not putting oneself in a position of possible trauma/fighting. Youd be wrong on this fact, yet you believe it.
 
2013-07-08 10:55:29 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.


Ah yes, she deserved to be raped because she walked down that dark alley...
 
2013-07-08 10:56:01 AM  
Is that Spicoli's mom?  She just doesn't know.
 
2013-07-08 10:56:05 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with


Yet in a court of law, it very often does. I guess that means you are wrong.
 
2013-07-08 10:56:57 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: nekom: Mr. Eugenides:
Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Well, it's more that they couldn't prove that Zimmerman did.  Martin PROBABLY did, we'll never know for sure, but there's certainly copious amounts of reasonable doubt, which means advantage: defense.

Nope, Martin's girlfriend testified that Martin turned back to confront Zimmerman.  There has been zero evidence presented to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the physical approach.


I still think that if I were on a jury trying Martin for assault, I would have to acquit for lack of evidence.  Just as I would in this trial.  The few witnesses we do have (excepting John Good) are clearly biased.  I SUSPECT Martin started it, but I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2013-07-08 10:57:09 AM  

Click Click D'oh: IdBeCrazyIf: Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

Ah yes, she deserved to be raped because she walked down that dark alley...


The kids at Kent State shouldn't have been protesting........then the NG would never have shot them.
 
2013-07-08 10:57:19 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Cletus C.: Is Martin's stepmother testifying for the defense? They deposed her, for some reason. She told Anderson Cooper she's pissed about being dealt out of the limelight after she did most of the raising of the kid.

I wouldn't want the world to know that.


If I was on the jury I'd wonder why Trayvon's loving dad and future stepmother were either right down the block or returning home while this happened and never bothered to find out at all where he was when he should've been there and there were cops all over the neighborhood.

Just assuming he went to the movies? Not noticing that there were police all over the place and a coroner on the scene for two hours? What?
 
2013-07-08 10:57:23 AM  
binaryapi.ap.org
Sums up how prosecutors feel about most of their witnesses
 
2013-07-08 10:57:30 AM  
WillofJ2

Is there a person that does not get the rationale of having a bullet in the chamber?

Even the twits whargarbling about it understand the rational. They're the same folks that disagree with lawful carry in the first place and are simply trying to use logical fallacies to drum up emotion..
 
2013-07-08 10:58:31 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter


Only if you think that it was reasonably forseeable that walking up to someone and asking them what they are up to would result in having your nose broken and your head bashed against a sidewalk.
 
2013-07-08 10:59:02 AM  

OnlyM3: WillofJ2

Is there a person that does not get the rationale of having a bullet in the chamber?
Even the twits whargarbling about it understand the rational. They're the same folks that disagree with lawful carry in the first place and are simply trying to use logical fallacies to drum up emotion..


I dont carry or own, but if I did it would seem that would be the only way would want to, but sometimes logic gets in my way
 
2013-07-08 11:00:06 AM  
Can we get some updates about the testimony for those of us that can't listen to the testimony at work instead of the needle endlessly skipping on the record player?
 
2013-07-08 11:00:16 AM  

Elegy: So did we go red? If we did, I like it - only the hardcore trial watchers will be left in the thread.

[i.imgur.com image 300x208]

[i.imgur.com image 300x409]

The best one, that fark won't let me post inline because 403 forbidden.


Did you see the barcode tattoo on the back of his head?

I hope he wears a red tie on closing arguments.
 
2013-07-08 11:00:24 AM  

MyRandomName: You seem to believe that under florida law, a precursor to self defense is not putting oneself in a position of possible trauma/fighting. Youd be wrong on this fact, yet you believe it.


negligently putting yourself in a situation makes you responsible for the outcome of that situation

Click Click D'oh: Ah yes, she deserved to be raped because she walked down that dark alley...


She was so damn sexy

ChaosStar: I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.
I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.
Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.


On technicality a fist is a lethal object

Stop being a abject obtuse moron

Giltric: He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.


Possible aggressor, we'll honestly never know. I've just been arguing from the point that the prosecution were idiots for attaching murder 2 when it could have been much easier for a manslaughter charge.

I personally feel that Zimmerman bears some responsibility for trying to play pretend cop that night, even if he was attacked his ass shouldn't have been out there playing cops and robbers.
 
2013-07-08 11:01:07 AM  

limeyfellow: AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?


None of what Zimmerman did constitutes a need for self defense. Being followed or asking someone a question (which is what Zimmerman did) did not give Martin the right or legal option to assualt Zimmerman. Especially if you take into account that Martin may have looped back around to confront Zimmerman, the idea that Zimmerman was stalking the kid doesn't meat the muster of "fearing for his life."

Now if Zimmerman was beating the kid within an inch of his life with a baton, or slamming his head into a light pole or (in this case concrete) and Martin shot Zimmerman, he could claim self defense. As the evidence is presented here, however, Martin confronted Zimmerman, a fight broke out, and martin was slamming Zimmermans head into the concrete. That is self defense.
 
2013-07-08 11:01:09 AM  
The Muthaship

We're currently going through people who know Zimmerman testifying it's him yelling for help on the 911 calls.
 
2013-07-08 11:01:30 AM  

ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.
I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.
Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.


Where were you fighting, inside a padded room? I've been in play fights with friends where we came close to smashing a skull in on a concrete floor or a metal support beam. You cannot perform the simplest of take-downs on a hard surface with in a room with hard furniture without there being a risk of serious bodily harm, and nobody defending themselves against an assailant they don't know, who is attacking them for reasons they don't know, should ever be forced to hold back to meet whatever silly fighting etiquette you believe exists.

Giltric: He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.


I'm surprised. I didn't think you would be in support of a duty to retreat.
 
2013-07-08 11:01:40 AM  
Smackledorfer:

It's not lethal provocation if they did it in defense of their own life because you're possibly taking their life by smacking their head into concrete. What position they do it in is irrelevant.

No, you claim self defense to the investigators, the investigators... you know... investigate, then they collaborate with the DA's office and bring charges against you. You can claim self defense, but it's not up to the jury to decide if you were defending yourself, it's up to them to decide if you're not guilty of murder, manslaughter, what have you. You're innocent until proven guilty, remember?

You really have no idea how the legal system works do you? Your reply to Scerpes indicates you do not.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:00 AM  
For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?
 
2013-07-08 11:02:20 AM  

limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.


They do apply, but it doesn't make much of a difference. It's quite true that Zimmerman's right to defend himself does not negate Martin's, but that cuts both ways: Martin's right to defend himself does not negate Zimmerman's either. If we're to determine that one or the other wasn't acting appropriately, then we need to use other factors.

That's the thing about deadly conflicts. They don't determine who is right, only who is left. It's more common to hear that said about war, but it scales down to interpersonal conflict when things turn that sour.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

Strictly speaking, that's the basic right of self-defense, not the stand-your-ground principle. But legally speaking, the basic right carries with it a number of restrictions, and one of the big ones is that you have to retreat first if you're able to do so.

Stand-your-ground laws, at their core, are about relaxing that restriction: they state that there are some circumstances where you do not have to retreat first. For example, some versions state that you don't have to retreat if you're already in your own home (when this is the only thing in the statute, it is often called the "castle doctrine" instead). Florida's law allows for a number of other situations, and what's at stake in the Zimmerman trial is whether or not his situation was one of them.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:30 AM  
I have a question.  People keep on talking about Zimmerman getting convicted of Manslaughter.  I had read that Florida only charged him with Second Degree Murder.  I thought that the defence had the option of going for all or nothing, not allowing the jury to consider lesser included offences.  Either he gets convicted of murder or walks out a free man.  Is this true, not true in general, or just not true in Florida's bizarre legal system?

Because if it is possible, I think that would be the smartest move.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:28 AM  

The Muthaship: Can we get some updates about the testimony for those of us that can't listen to the testimony at work instead of the needle endlessly skipping on the record player?


All of zimmermans friends think it was george zimmerman on 911 tape, they still havent called the janitor from his preschool but he will probably agree

Osterman the friend got up to talk about zimmermans gun training  tried to explain why having a bullet in the chamber is a bad idea and that zimmerman should have double tapped martin

Prosecutor taking every opportunity to play "farking punks" but is looking like an idiot each time
 
2013-07-08 11:03:32 AM  

limeyfellow: Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?


No.  The difference may seem subtle, but it is VERY important.

Stand Your Ground states that you have no duty to retreat and are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.  The legal standard for the use of lethal force in self-defense is that you are in imminent fear of grievous bodily harm or death or another person is at risk of same (defense of others).  The key words are imminent and grievous bodily harm.

According to all accounts, Martin initiated the physical confrontation.  As soon as he threw the first punch it was assault, not self-defense.  There is also no evidence that he was in fear and witness testimony that he was actively seeking an engagement with Zimmerman.  I was afraid so I attacked him in self-defense doesn't fly, especially here.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:39 AM  

The Muthaship: Can we get some updates about the testimony for those of us that can't listen to the testimony at work instead of the needle endlessly skipping on the record player?


The Defense has paraded 3(?) witnesses who knew Zimmerman and say that is his voice on the 911 call screaming help.  One talked a lot about concealed carry and that Zimmerman was appropriate in his carrying of the gun like he did (one in the chamber and a full magazine).

No one mentioned that the superior trained police routinely shoot a suspect in self-defense more than one time, though.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:52 AM  

RaceBoatDriver: For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?


If he kills a black teen and gets away with it, I can imagine at least 3 cities asking him to be their police chief.
 
2013-07-08 11:04:06 AM  
Pumpernickel bread
2013-07-08 10:47:03 AM


After watching OJ, Casey Anthony, and now this, I am guessing the very best defense attorneys are exponentially better lawyers than even the best of prosecutors.

Defense lawyers = Private practice
Prosecutors = government jobs

Obviously the more skilled individuals will be in private practice.

/// can't wait till all medical jobs are government jobs.
 
2013-07-08 11:04:08 AM  
RaceBoatDriver

For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?

I don't think so. I wouldn't even want him as a neighbor.

/shrug
 
2013-07-08 11:04:22 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: nekom: Mr. Eugenides:
Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Well, it's more that they couldn't prove that Zimmerman did.  Martin PROBABLY did, we'll never know for sure, but there's certainly copious amounts of reasonable doubt, which means advantage: defense.

Nope, Martin's girlfriend testified that Martin turned back to confront Zimmerman.  There has been zero evidence presented to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the physical approach.


If you're trying to make a point and start with this, just stop and consider your other options.
 
2013-07-08 11:05:02 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: MyRandomName: You seem to believe that under florida law, a precursor to self defense is not putting oneself in a position of possible trauma/fighting. Youd be wrong on this fact, yet you believe it.

negligently putting yourself in a situation makes you responsible for the outcome of that situation

Click Click D'oh: Ah yes, she deserved to be raped because she walked down that dark alley...

She was so damn sexy

ChaosStar: I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.
I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.
Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.

On technicality a fist is a lethal object

Stop being a abject obtuse moron

Giltric: He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.

Possible aggressor, we'll honestly never know. I've just been arguing from the point that the prosecution were idiots for attaching murder 2 when it could have been much easier for a manslaughter charge.

I personally feel that Zimmerman bears some responsibility for trying to play pretend cop that night, even if he was attacked his ass shouldn't have been out there playing cops and robbers.





The various cops, 911 operator and watch teacher have proved Zimmerman was not Barney Fife on patrol.
 
2013-07-08 11:05:36 AM  

RaceBoatDriver: For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?


No such thing.
 
2013-07-08 11:05:59 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter


The nasty skank that charged me with rape was told by her mother not to go out dressed like that, but she didn't listen and it was her fault for getting raped. Luckily she couldn't defend herself so I didn't get shot or stabbed, but my case has no similarity to this case. Had she defended herself I would be sueing her and charging her with battery since she put herself into a rape position by not listening to her mother.
 
2013-07-08 11:06:15 AM  

RaceBoatDriver: For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?


Well, he shot and killed with one shot.  LAPD can't even do that with 50+ shots.

Also, for those needing a fresher on the law in Florida, and one reporter's opinion.

Link
 
2013-07-08 11:06:17 AM  

I_C_Weener: The Defense has paraded 3(?) witnesses who knew Zimmerman and say that is his voice on the 911 call screaming help.  One talked a lot about concealed carry and that Zimmerman was appropriate in his carrying of the gun like he did (one in the chamber and a full magazine).

No one mentioned that the superior trained police routinely shoot a suspect in self-defense more than one time, though.


WillofJ2: All of zimmermans friends think it was george zimmerman on 911 tape, they still havent called the janitor from his preschool but he will probably agree

Osterman the friend got up to talk about zimmermans gun training  tried to explain why having a bullet in the chamber is a bad idea and that zimmerman should have double tapped martin

Prosecutor taking every opportunity to play "farking punks" but is looking like an idiot each time


Facetious_Speciest: We're currently going through people who know Zimmerman testifying it's him yelling for help on the 911 calls.


Thanks!
 
2013-07-08 11:06:32 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: The Muthaship

We're currently going through people who know Zimmerman testifying it's him yelling for help on the 911 calls.


Sure sounds like him.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-08 11:06:34 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: I have a question.  People keep on talking about Zimmerman getting convicted of Manslaughter.  I had read that Florida only charged him with Second Degree Murder.  I thought that the defence had the option of going for all or nothing, not allowing the jury to consider lesser included offences.  Either he gets convicted of murder or walks out a free man.  Is this true, not true in general, or just not true in Florida's bizarre legal system?

Because if it is possible, I think that would be the smartest move.


I have been wondering that also, someone implied if they dont include the lessers he can be tried for them at a later day, but I have no idea, no one really explains it well

Side note, isnt the prosecutor buffing up all these claims that they know zimmermans voice by doing this?  They have basically just certified all these people in experts of zimmermans voice
 
2013-07-08 11:06:48 AM  
WillofJ2

Osterman the friend got up to talk about zimmermans gun training tried to explain why having a bullet in the chamber is a bad idea and that zimmerman should have double tapped martin

Osterman said one should carry with a round chambered. The prosecution tried to make it look bad and talked about double-tapping. Is that what you meant?
 
2013-07-08 11:07:21 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: I have a question.  People keep on talking about Zimmerman getting convicted of Manslaughter.  I had read that Florida only charged him with Second Degree Murder.  I thought that the defence had the option of going for all or nothing, not allowing the jury to consider lesser included offences.  Either he gets convicted of murder or walks out a free man.  Is this true, not true in general, or just not true in Florida's bizarre legal system?

Because if it is possible, I think that would be the smartest move.


The jury can still get him on manslaughter, but even that's a pipe dream at this point with the way the pros has handled this case
 
2013-07-08 11:07:23 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf:

No, a fist is not legally a deadly weapon. Try again.
 
2013-07-08 11:08:22 AM  
My heart can scarcely bear the warmth and goodwill that this court case brings out:

i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-08 11:08:32 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: WillofJ2

Osterman the friend got up to talk about zimmermans gun training tried to explain why having a bullet in the chamber is a bad idea and that zimmerman should have double tapped martin

Osterman said one should carry with a round chambered. The prosecution tried to make it look bad and talked about double-tapping. Is that what you meant?


Exactly, sorry, reading that didnt come out the way I meant
 
2013-07-08 11:08:53 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: On technicality a fist is a lethal object


This actually was the law in parts of France, a few centuries ago. In response, people developed the fighting style that later came to be called savate, which specializes in kicks, open-handed slaps, and other means of dancing around the "a fist is a deadly weapon" rule.
 
2013-07-08 11:09:44 AM  
The uncle was incredible, and the old lady testifying right now is another great witness. The prosecution is failing so hard right now.
 
2013-07-08 11:09:59 AM  
This is like a bad hypnotist saying "you are getting sleepy, very sleepy"
 
2013-07-08 11:10:03 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: negligently putting yourself in a situation makes you responsible for the outcome of that situation


Not when the outcome of the situation is because of criminal activity on the part of another.  Negligence requires a person to ignore the likely result of a situation.  Criminal activity can never be required for consideration as a likely result.  Or else you are negligent for not wearing body armor every time you go to the bank.  It might be robbed you know.
 
2013-07-08 11:10:18 AM  
RaceBoatDriver


For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?

No, the only good cop is...

so of the two, treyvon would be the better cop.
 
2013-07-08 11:10:47 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: I personally feel that Zimmerman bears some responsibility for trying to play pretend cop that night, even if he was attacked his ass shouldn't have been out there playing cops and robbers.


Says who?
 
2013-07-08 11:11:12 AM  

WillofJ2: Osterman the friend got up to talk about zimmermans gun training tried to explain why having a bullet in the chamber is a bad idea and that zimmerman should have double tapped martin


I think you have that really backward.

BDLR tried to make it sound like a round in the chamber and not double-tapping was a bad idea. Osterman most certainly said he does advise a round in the chamber and topping off the magazine because it is 'better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it' as well as saying that you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:15 AM  

heili skrimsli: WillofJ2: Osterman the friend got up to talk about zimmermans gun training tried to explain why having a bullet in the chamber is a bad idea and that zimmerman should have double tapped martin

I think you have that really backward.

BDLR tried to make it sound like a round in the chamber and not double-tapping was a bad idea. Osterman most certainly said he does advise a round in the chamber and topping off the magazine because it is 'better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it' as well as saying that you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill.


yeah, just typed it wrong, watching and typing at the same time
 
2013-07-08 11:12:23 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.
I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.
Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.

Where were you fighting, inside a padded room? I've been in play fights with friends where we came close to smashing a skull in on a concrete floor or a metal support beam. You cannot perform the simplest of take-downs on a hard surface with in a room with hard furniture without there being a risk of serious bodily harm, and nobody defending themselves against an assailant they don't know, who is attacking them for reasons they don't know, should ever be forced to hold back to meet whatever silly fighting etiquette you believe exists.

Giltric: He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.

I'm surprised. I didn't think you would be in support of a duty to retreat.


In a perfect world nobody should be forced by the law to run from the person attacking them.

In this case I am just trying to put the timeline in perspective for those who thought Zimmerman should have walked away....which he did.

When I am with my family, my first order of business is to extricate them from the situation and not jump up and start blasting people in the head like they were steel plates at 25 yards.

There are different rules when I am flying solo.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:28 AM  
Prosecutor is grasping at straws trying to make a case that Zimmerman was running based on that old lady.
 
2013-07-08 11:13:00 AM  

RaceBoatDriver: For all the acquitters, would Zimmerman make a good cop?


No, because he didn't shoot Trayvon 52 times the moment Trayvon pretended to have a gun in his waistband.
 
2013-07-08 11:13:07 AM  
This line of questioning is as dead horse sand BDLR is beating it over and over again
 
2013-07-08 11:13:09 AM  
Hi guys, I'm just tuning in now... Is this woman another voice recognition expert or something?
 
2013-07-08 11:13:24 AM  
I can't believe the judge overruled the objection for that farking ridiculous question!
 
2013-07-08 11:13:25 AM  

Cletus C.: Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.


Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.

What's really on trial here is the continued viability of using "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as a mitigating factor in anti-social behavior. Zimmerman observed Martin coming out of a neighbor's back yard, dressed in clothing which obscured him enough to prevent positive identification, so he followed Martin, and summoned the authorities. Nowhere here is antisocial behavior displayed. Martin, on the other hand, led Zimmerman into a secluded area, where the confrontation and altercation took place. Martin was not only taller than Zimmerman, he was also a football player. One does not become a football player by displaying traits tending towards passivity. The testimony of Martin's "friend" clearly demonstrates the antisocial, racist mindset of his clique.

Ironically, Obama claims that Martin "could have been his son". If Martin was Obama's son, Obama would never have been elected President. The "Creepy-ass Cracker" mentality would have instantly doomed him from the start.
 
2013-07-08 11:13:25 AM  

Smackledorfer: Where were you fighting, inside a padded room? I've been in play fights with friends where we came close to smashing a skull in on a concrete floor or a metal support beam. You cannot perform the simplest of take-downs on a hard surface with in a room with hard furniture without there being a risk of serious bodily harm, and nobody defending themselves against an assailant they don't know, who is attacking them for reasons they don't know, should ever be forced to hold back to meet whatever silly fighting etiquette you believe exists.


No, most of the time I was fighting in a bar because it was my job to eject them and they decided to take the matter physical.
You're confusing consensual activity with illegal attacks, you said it yourself "play fights".
You're also, I would hope, not continuing to strike your friends in a way that could end their life after the first mistake. Had you actually smashed your friend's skull into that concrete floor or metal support beam would you have continued to do so?
Hopefully your answer is no. This is where yet another dovetail happens, as your friend doesn't reasonably believe you're trying to kill him.

This isn't fighting etiquette, this is the law. You can rave against it all you want, but it's still the law.
 
2013-07-08 11:14:06 AM  
The judge finally overruled a defense objection, thank god she was looking biased
 
2013-07-08 11:14:09 AM  

Tatsuma: I can't believe the judge overruled the objection for that farking ridiculous question!


By now, it should be easy to believe.
 
2013-07-08 11:14:22 AM  

ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf:

No, a fist is not legally a deadly weapon. Try again.


Well, unless you're Chuck Norris of course.
 
2013-07-08 11:14:23 AM  
Tatsuma

Prosecutor is grasping at straws trying to make a case that Zimmerman was running based on that old lady.

Seriously.
 
2013-07-08 11:15:01 AM  
This case is an example of what happens when a "wanna be cop" crosses paths with a "wanna be gangsta*".


*How Trayvon self Identified.
 
2013-07-08 11:15:08 AM  

Cataholic: Only if you think that it was reasonably forseeable that walking up to someone and asking them what they are up to would result in having your nose broken and your head bashed against a sidewalk.


It is always a possibility. Outside of the movies it is highly unlikely that everyone wakes up just fine the next day after an actual fight. A fifteen year old in my high school got pushed by a student, punched him in the face in response, resulting in his falling into a locker.  They had to hospitalize and drain pressure building up inside his skull because he fell against the locker so badly.  Without the trip to the hospital he would have died.  One punch from a teenager that went wrong.

It is why I don't walk my streets at night playing cop and attempting to force everyone I deem suspicious to stop and explain themselves to me.  Well, that and I'm not a wannabe cop retard.   So far it has saved me a lot of trouble.


This situation is one in which we have an adult making extremely stupid decisions and a youth (who yes, I give far more leeway to in terms of doing stupid shiat) making perhaps equally stupid decisions, all of which wound up with someone dead. It sucks for everyone involved.  I don't think either had any intent to kill the other at the start of the confrontation. I think both of them made decisions that lead to a physical encounter. I think physical encounters between angry strangers stand a good chance of getting out of hand.

Who got physical first (and fwiw there are a variety of pre-assault indicators that can justify a first strike, too)? I have no idea. What specifically was said? I also have no idea. Either could have been the aggressor here. Both likely could have made different decisions that resulted in a better outcome for all involved.
 
2013-07-08 11:15:09 AM  

Yes please: genepool lifeboat: jehovahs witness protection: And the maximum sentence for being innocent is?

Probably a lifetime of harassment.

Yeah, but probably a short lifetime.  If you really want to see race riots, just wait until they convict whoever kills him.


White people haven't rioted since the 20's.
 
2013-07-08 11:15:38 AM  
Did anyone imagine this lady would be on the stand longer then martins mother?
 
2013-07-08 11:15:42 AM  

The Muthaship: By now, it should be easy to believe.


I guess I'm naive, I'd expect her to at least pretend to be somewhat objective.

Facetious_Speciest: Seriously.


Yeah he's doing such a bad job right now. He must be drinking so hard when he comes back at night, and just cry in his drink that he's been cursed pursuing that case.
 
2013-07-08 11:15:50 AM  

Radioactive Ass: ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf:

No, a fist is not legally a deadly weapon. Try again.

Well, unless you're Chuck Norris of course.


Stop helping the derp lol :p
 
2013-07-08 11:16:01 AM  

The Muthaship: Can we get some updates about the testimony for those of us that can't listen to the testimony at work instead of the needle endlessly skipping on the record player?


So far, its just the Prosecutor saying "farking punks" on an endless loop and trying to make Zimmerman's witnesses admit that it was said in anger. The witnesses all contend that it was just a statement that was not said with any malice.
 
2013-07-08 11:16:12 AM  

WillofJ2: This line of questioning is as dead horse sand BDLR is beating it over and over again


He seems to like to repeat 'assholes' and 'farking punks' as much as he can in front of every female witnesses the defense puts on the stand.
 
2013-07-08 11:16:12 AM  

creepy ass-cracka: Hi guys, I'm just tuning in now... Is this woman another voice recognition expert or something?


White female supporter of the patriarchy.
 
2013-07-08 11:17:03 AM  

heili skrimsli: WillofJ2: This line of questioning is as dead horse sand BDLR is beating it over and over again

He seems to like to repeat 'assholes' and 'farking punks' as much as he can in front of every female witnesses the defense puts on the stand.


George Carlan would be proud
 
2013-07-08 11:17:24 AM  
Have they not lynched Zimmerman yet? WTF people?
 
2013-07-08 11:17:25 AM  
Alright alright, I apologize for that one perhaps that was over the top.

Time for me to take a break I guess.

/walking away
 
2013-07-08 11:17:29 AM  

neversubmit: White people haven't rioted since the 20's.

*

*Other than paid "anarchists".
 
2013-07-08 11:17:38 AM  
Calin
 
2013-07-08 11:17:48 AM  
What is the state trying to do with this witness? They're asking her everything from "What does the change in the voice indicate?" to "Do you use profanity?"

WTF?
 
2013-07-08 11:18:32 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.

Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.

What's really on trial here is the continued viability of using "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as a mitigating factor in anti-social behavior. Zimmerman observed Martin coming out of a neighbor's back yard, dressed in clothing which obscured him enough to prevent positive identification, so he followed Martin, and summoned the authorities. Nowhere here is antisocial behavior displayed. Martin, on the other hand, led Zimmerman into a secluded area, where the confrontation and altercation took place. Martin was not only taller than Zimmerman, he was also a football player. One does not become a football player by displaying traits tending towards passivity. The testimony of Martin's "friend" clearly demonstrates the antisocial, racist mindset of his clique.

Ironically, Obama claims that Martin "could have been his son". If Martin was Obama's son, Obama would never have been elected President. The "Creepy-ass Cracker" mentality would have instantly doomed him from the start.


What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.
 
2013-07-08 11:18:42 AM  
I bet Aunt Bea here is connecting with the all-female jury better than Mr. Whipple.  I can envision the witness reminding the jury members of their favorite auntie who makes a killer corn casserole.
 
2013-07-08 11:18:45 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: So far, its just the Prosecutor saying "farking punks" on an endless loop and trying to make Zimmerman's witnesses admit that it was said in anger. The witnesses all contend that it was just a statement that was not said with any malice.


Thanks!  I got to listen for about 5 hours in the car Friday.  Damn, that is a mess!

Tatsuma: I'd expect her to at least pretend to be somewhat objective.


Recipe for disappointment.
 
2013-07-08 11:18:56 AM  
The defense should call an English teacher to explain to the jury the fundamental difference in the words "these" and "this", "him" and "they".
 
2013-07-08 11:19:03 AM  

The Muthaship: WillofJ2: i dont think they would close with him because the prosecutor is gonna get him to say he changed his mind

You're probably right, but him changing his mind can actually be viewed as even more powerful for the defense.

Due to the circumstances.

/and the ensuing HOA settlement....


With this judge, I wouldn't call him if I was the defense.  Judge would be likely to sustain objections to questions/evidence about what the father previously said/thought.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:07 AM  
Wow and the state just said that Zimmerman said 'HE'S A BLACK MALE, EFFING PUNK', which never happened.

What the fark, fark that judge and fark the prosecution and fark this whole witch hunt.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:09 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: The Muthaship: Can we get some updates about the testimony for those of us that can't listen to the testimony at work instead of the needle endlessly skipping on the record player?

So far, its just the Prosecutor saying "farking punks" on an endless loop and trying to make Zimmerman's witnesses admit that it was said in anger. The witnesses all contend that it was just a statement that was not said with any malice.


I can see allowing the question once or twice with that specific language, but after awhile the prosecutor is just trying to prove guilty by vulgarity.

Mr. Whipple came across as angry.  Not sure that was what he wanted.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:14 AM  
Damn touch screens George Carlin, any how

Sustained  boom goes they dynamite nelson finally got tired of the profanity
 
2013-07-08 11:19:16 AM  

s2s2s2: neversubmit: White people haven't rioted since the 20's.*

*Other than paid "anarchists".


At least they have a job.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:25 AM  
So prosecution is trying to get people to say that Zimmerman using profanities indicates he was angry or whatever.

At the same time, Martin using bigoted terms somehow isn't indicative of his racial/ethnic biases.

Right.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:45 AM  

nekom: Mr. Eugenides: nekom: Mr. Eugenides:
Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Well, it's more that they couldn't prove that Zimmerman did.  Martin PROBABLY did, we'll never know for sure, but there's certainly copious amounts of reasonable doubt, which means advantage: defense.

Nope, Martin's girlfriend testified that Martin turned back to confront Zimmerman.  There has been zero evidence presented to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the physical approach.

I still think that if I were on a jury trying Martin for assault, I would have to acquit for lack of evidence.  Just as I would in this trial.  The few witnesses we do have (excepting John Good) are clearly biased.  I SUSPECT Martin started it, but I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.


Aren't you forgetting about the police officers, that could have very well been biased towards GZ due to what he put them through on the assault of the homeless guy? Yet, they we're just as good for the defense as John Good was.
 
2013-07-08 11:20:09 AM  

I_C_Weener: dittybopper: Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!

This.

Not saying you guys are scary, but you guys are scary.  Fark is more than just a Zimmerman trial clearinghouse .  For now, we have the trial threads though.  So, in order to keep them, please fasten your seatbelts, use etiquette suitable for a dinner party, and try not to upset the apple cart too much.

Got it?  Good.

Now, what have I missed in the trial this morning?  And who has the best feed?

 
2013-07-08 11:20:16 AM  

heili skrimsli: WillofJ2: This line of questioning is as dead horse sand BDLR is beating it over and over again

He seems to like to repeat 'assholes' and 'farking punks' as much as he can in front of every female witnesses the defense puts on the stand.


He is really pushing for the ill will aspect.

That's why he claimed pulling the trigger in self defense when someone is bashing your head against concrete is ill will and worthy of a gulag in Rura Pente.
 
2013-07-08 11:20:18 AM  

nekom: No outcome is good. A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died. It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.


Wait, was this a bike accident?
 
2013-07-08 11:20:44 AM  

Cletus C.: He was stalking him.


George Zimmerman KNEW he had 1 minute and 45 seconds with which to locate and dispatch his prey.
FACT
 
2013-07-08 11:21:01 AM  

s2s2s2: WillofJ2: Is there a person that does not get the rationale of having a bullet in the chamber?

There are plenty that are going to pretend not to, for the sake of their terrible arguments.


I'm glad he wasn't carrying a revolver.  Those have 5-6 bullets in the chambers ALL THE TIME!
 
2013-07-08 11:21:26 AM  
This is funny.

"Have you heard your sons use the word "a-holes"... have you heard the word "shait""
 
2013-07-08 11:22:12 AM  
Hahaha this witness is destroying the prosecutor.
 
2013-07-08 11:22:41 AM  

Cletus C.: He was stalking him.


If Trayvon could have just seen that as his biggest fan, Georgie was the person he was supposed to love forever and ever, he would still be alive. FACT!
 
2013-07-08 11:22:48 AM  

s2s2s2: Cletus C.: He was stalking him.

George Zimmerman KNEW he had 1 minute and 45 seconds with which to locate and dispatch his prey.
FACT


Much like those bank robbing movies where they test response time that is why he called 60 times in the past for this one special day when everything was right and he could finally get one of those farking A$$hole punks that always get away, I see it now

(sarcasm)
 
2013-07-08 11:24:58 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: Smackledorfer:

It's not lethal provocation if they did it in defense of their own life because you're possibly taking their life by smacking their head into concrete. What position they do it in is irrelevant.

No, you claim self defense to the investigators, the investigators... you know... investigate, then they collaborate with the DA's office and bring charges against you. You can claim self defense, but it's not up to the jury to decide if you were defending yourself, it's up to them to decide if you're not guilty of murder, manslaughter, what have you. You're innocent until proven guilty, remember?

You really have no idea how the legal system works do you? Your reply to Scerpes indicates you do not.

Either you are incredibly bad at articulating your thoughts, or you don't know your ass from your elbow.


You somehow have it in your head that if GZ pulled his weapon in response to the lethal force used against him having him fearing for his life and the weapon misfired, Martin would be justified in killing GZ. This is false.

A trial is not an investigation, the investigation comes before the trial, If the investigation finds your claim of self defense to be true, you don't go to trial (you're not supposed to anyway). If they do, they recommend charges, charges are filed, the jury decides your guilt on those charges.

I really can't spell it out any clearer.
 
2013-07-08 11:26:04 AM  
Seriously tho, who stands in the pouting rain eating skittles and drinking Arizona iced tea? It's as disturbing as a child flying a kite at night...
 
2013-07-08 11:26:06 AM  
Is there some sort of bullpen where there is an endless supply of Farkers waiting to come in a post the exact same crap over and over.
 
2013-07-08 11:26:13 AM  

WillofJ2: Much like those bank robbing movies where they test response time that is why he called 60 times in the past for this one special day when everything was right and he could finally get one of those farking A$$hole punks that always get away, I see it now


"The prosecution would like to call WillofJ2 to the stand!"
 
2013-07-08 11:26:28 AM  

Tatsuma: Hahaha this witness is destroying the prosecutor.


"Hey white old lady, do you agree that George Zimmerman was a racist who liked to hunt down black children in his spare time?"

Defense should ask, "If George said, I can see this creepy ass cracker, and they always get away, is that indicative of his anger?"
 
2013-07-08 11:27:18 AM  
Where are all of these witnesses before they are called? are they sitting together?
 
2013-07-08 11:27:50 AM  

Giltric: That's why he claimed pulling the trigger in self defense when someone is bashing your head against concrete is ill will and worthy of a gulag in Rura Pente.


Yes, Mantei's entire ill-will argument was that defending yourself is absolute evidence of ill will.
 
2013-07-08 11:28:20 AM  

WillofJ2: Where are all of these witnesses before they are called? are they sitting together?


Usually in the hallway.  And, yes.
 
2013-07-08 11:28:28 AM  

neversubmit: Yes please: genepool lifeboat: jehovahs witness protection: And the maximum sentence for being innocent is?

Probably a lifetime of harassment.

Yeah, but probably a short lifetime.  If you really want to see race riots, just wait until they convict whoever kills him.

White people haven't rioted since the 20's.


You, apparently, have forgotten the Cabbage Patch Dolls riots of the early '80s. Shudder.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-08 11:28:29 AM  

ChaosStar: No, most of the time I was fighting in a bar because it was my job to eject them and they decided to take the matter physical.


Oh boy! Its ITG time everybody!

ChaosStar: You're confusing consensual activity with illegal attacks, you said it yourself "play fights".


No, I'm not.  I pointed out that even in a play fight things can get dangerous quickly, which makes your claim that real fights and illegal assaults can so easily be prevented from spilling into the realm of serious bodily harm (yea that guy was beating the shiat out of me, but I didn't bump into any concrete so it's cool) was absolutely ridiculous.
 
2013-07-08 11:29:01 AM  
I think one thing is damn clear at this point: Trayvon wasnt the innocent little angel his parents and media tried to pretend he was....in fact quite the opposite..he was a little thug on his way to being a bigger thug.

Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.

Someone following you is not justification for attacking that person.

TM may not have had a weapon when it started, but the sidewalk became his weapon...and he tried taking GZ's pistol.

Anyone who still thinks TM was just strolling around and was completely innocent of his fate is a complete and total moron.
 
2013-07-08 11:29:19 AM  
kerrigand:
Aren't you forgetting about the police officers, that could have very well been biased towards GZ due to what he put them through on the assault of the homeless guy? Yet, they we're just as good for the defense as John Good was.

They certainly didn't hurt the case either.  I'm generally extremely suspicious of police officers, but on the other hand they ARE trained to notice things that the average person might overlook.  Still, I'm calling John Good the "star" witness for the defense.  No reason whatsoever to lie, and he saw Martin on top.  There goes the prosecution's case right there.
 
2013-07-08 11:30:27 AM  
They gonna sneak opinions on the pictures since he is a retired pa?
 
2013-07-08 11:30:50 AM  

The more you eat the more you fart: Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.


Actually as far as we know, Zimmerman didn't use racial epithets.
 
2013-07-08 11:30:51 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.
I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.
Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.

Where were you fighting, inside a padded room? I've been in play fights with friends where we came close to smashing a skull in on a concrete floor or a metal support beam. You cannot perform the simplest of take-downs on a hard surface with in a room with hard furniture without there being a risk of serious bodily harm, and nobody defending themselves against an assailant they don't know, who is attacking them for reasons they don't know, should ever be forced to hold back to meet whatever silly fighting etiquette you believe exists.

Giltric: He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.

I'm surprised. I didn't think you would be in support of a duty to retreat.


You seem to be missing some important points that are critical for being able to understanding the big picture here.   When you are horsing around with your friends, there is no intent to actually hurt someone.  If someone does get hurt, you stop and check if the person is alright, you don't keep raining down punches.
 
2013-07-08 11:31:02 AM  

The more you eat the more you fart: I think one thing is damn clear at this point: Trayvon wasnt the innocent little angel his parents and media tried to pretend he was....in fact quite the opposite..he was a little thug on his way to being a bigger thug.

Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.


What racial epithet did GZ use?  As far as I've heard, only TM used one.
 
2013-07-08 11:31:14 AM  

The more you eat the more you fart: I think one thing is damn clear at this point: Trayvon wasnt the innocent little angel his parents and media tried to pretend he was....in fact quite the opposite..he was a little thug on his way to being a bigger thug.

Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.

Someone following you is not justification for attacking that person.

TM may not have had a weapon when it started, but the sidewalk became his weapon...and he tried taking GZ's pistol.

Anyone who still thinks TM was just strolling around and was completely innocent of his fate is a complete and total moron.





Amen brother testify!
 
2013-07-08 11:31:41 AM  

Tatsuma: The uncle was incredible, and the old lady testifying right now is another great witness. The prosecution is failing so hard right now.


I agree; the uncle came across as extremely credible & inscrutable.
 
2013-07-08 11:31:51 AM  
kerrigand:

Aren't you forgetting about the police officers, that could have very well been biased towards GZ due to what he put them through on the assault of the homeless guy? Yet, they we're just as good for the defense as John Good was.

I wonder what the odd of that story making it into evidence are?  I can't think of a better way to demonstrate character.
 
2013-07-08 11:32:04 AM  

Tatsuma: The more you eat the more you fart: Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.

Actually as far as we know, Zimmerman didn't use racial epithets.


I stand corrected.
 
2013-07-08 11:32:13 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: No, most of the time I was fighting in a bar because it was my job to eject them and they decided to take the matter physical.

Oh boy! Its ITG time everybody!


You think he was a bouncer in Second Life?
 
2013-07-08 11:32:28 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The more you eat the more you fart: I think one thing is damn clear at this point: Trayvon wasnt the innocent little angel his parents and media tried to pretend he was....in fact quite the opposite..he was a little thug on his way to being a bigger thug.

Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.

What racial epithet did GZ use?  As far as I've heard, only TM used one.


Yeah, I was going to ask this exact same thing. And TM used more than one racial term.
 
2013-07-08 11:32:40 AM  
They'll think that anyway.

We don't need almost evidence-free high profile cases going "guilty" just because of feelings. The system in this country is way too stacked against defense as it is.
 
2013-07-08 11:32:46 AM  

neversubmit: White people haven't rioted since the 20's.


I can think of a couple in the 1940s, although a few of them depend on whether you consider union riots to be primarily white-people riots.

\Zoot Suit riots.
\\Ironically, that would have been white people against Zimmerman's folks.
 
2013-07-08 11:33:24 AM  
cdn.c.photoshelter.com
 
2013-07-08 11:33:31 AM  
Why is everyone talking about buying clothes for George Zimmerman? Doesn't he get free clothes from his Men's Wearhouse stores?
 
2013-07-08 11:33:42 AM  
I'll admit, it's still funny to me that Zimmerman shops at Men's Wearhouse.

/shrug
 
2013-07-08 11:34:01 AM  

Tatsuma: Actually as far as we know, Zimmerman didn't use racial epithets.


"These" "They" C'mon, we all know what he meant! ;)
 
2013-07-08 11:35:08 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because shooting the person who's punching your head into concrete makes you a vigilante..


Yes, that makes him a vigilante---because his head was being punched into the concrete. 

How did he end up in that situation in the first place?  Because he was a vigilante.  He was supposed to call the cops and then stay in his car playing Angry Birds; instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him.  That's a pretty clear-cut case of taking the law into your own hands.
 
2013-07-08 11:35:32 AM  
I certainly hope this jury doesn't find Zimmerman guilty, as it might state a new precedent that gun owners in America should be careful and follow the letter of the law.
 
2013-07-08 11:35:34 AM  

stellarossa: I agree; the uncle came across as extremely credible & inscrutable.


He was like a Latino Clint Eastwood character. Honorably Discharged marine, Law Enforcement officer, straight as an iron bar. A no-nonsense real man. And he was great, succinct and credibility beyond reproach. He made a fool out of the state when they even dared to question whether he'd lie for Zimmerman AND he knew that the voice on the tape was Zimmerman's without even knowing what the context of that 9-1-1 call from outside the room.

The two witnesses today are great too so far.

The more you eat the more you fart: I stand corrected.


No problems. So many idiots just screaming about how Zimmerman is a racist that it's easy to forget that there is no credible proof of that, while we do have proof that Martin used racist epithets.
 
2013-07-08 11:36:24 AM  
It's been well established that Zimmerman is a farking loser, but the prosecution needs to do better.
 
2013-07-08 11:36:25 AM  

stellarossa: I agree; the uncle came across as extremely credible & inscrutable.


The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude.
 
2013-07-08 11:36:32 AM  

ChaosStar: You somehow have it in your head that if GZ pulled his weapon in response to the lethal force used against him having him fearing for his life and the weapon misfired, Martin would be justified in killing GZ. This is false.


I was just going by what you claimed the law was, that nothing up until the last bit mattered.  You said that nothing mattered up until the concrete was used.  Except what we don't know, because somebody is dead and can't say, is whether or not they felt and could articulate a belief that they would be facing serious bodily harm if weren't giving the fight their all. My point is that it does.  I'm glad we agree now, that your earlier statement was incorrect.

ChaosStar: A trial is not an investigation, the investigation comes before the trial, If the investigation finds your claim of self defense to be true, you don't go to trial (you're not supposed to anyway). If they do, they recommend charges, charges are filed, the jury decides your guilt on those charges.

I really can't spell it out any clearer.


Is self-defense a defense at trial or not? Are trials decided by juries or not? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then juries do in fact make determinations on the justification of use of deadly force. The fact that there are pretrial decisions made by the prosecution and law enforcement do not eliminate that fact.

Amusingly enough you are arguing with me about this in a farking thread in which you believe that Zimmerman is not guilty because he was justified in shooting Treyvon because his head hit concrete.  So in this case, the investigators and prosecution decided that no, it was not self defense, and the defense is arguing that it is self-defense, and this may amaze the hell out of you, but the jury is going to decide who is right.

At this point you have to be trolling.
 
2013-07-08 11:36:42 AM  
Xcott

...instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him.

There's nothing to suggest Zimmerman confronted Martin. Martin's friend Jeantel said Martin confronted him.
 
2013-07-08 11:37:11 AM  
fark the prosecution is hitting out of the park with their character witnesses.

The uncle, the sweet and honest old lady, and now a farking 'Nam vet.
 
2013-07-08 11:37:13 AM  
I too would like to know the relevance of a Nam' vet sleeping, eating, showering, and sharing bunks with his fellow soldiers, this is a farking circus.
 
2013-07-08 11:37:27 AM  
For those out there still think Zimmerman is angry bigot hunting black young men heres a question.
If you beleave the states case is so solid why wouldn't a grand jury indite him?
 
2013-07-08 11:37:50 AM  
This whole case has given me an idea for my next screenplay.

It's called "Yahoo with a Gun." It will be about a neighborhood watch volunteer who breaks up a drug ring, bumbling his way through the entire farcical story.

Think "Paul Blart," but darker.
 
2013-07-08 11:38:17 AM  

ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.


Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.
 
2013-07-08 11:39:32 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: For those out there still think Zimmerman is angry bigot hunting black young men heres a question.
If you beleave the states case is so solid why wouldn't a grand jury indite him?


The grand jury never got the chance.  The State Attorney was planning on presenting the case to the grand jury before the governor stepped in and appointed a special prosecutor.  She chose to bring charges via information rather than indictment.
 
2013-07-08 11:40:00 AM  
IF simmerman actually takes the stand I call "legal malpractice" by his attorneys. I think the guy is guilty as hell and should spend 20 years in jail, but professionally my analysis is that the Defense has "reasonable doubt" in the bag right now, and putting Zimm on is a huge mistake. It will allow all sorts of currently excluded testimony in, and the only thing it can do is hurt his case.
 
2013-07-08 11:40:06 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: No, most of the time I was fighting in a bar because it was my job to eject them and they decided to take the matter physical.

Oh boy! Its ITG time everybody!

ChaosStar: You're confusing consensual activity with illegal attacks, you said it yourself "play fights".

No, I'm not.  I pointed out that even in a play fight things can get dangerous quickly, which makes your claim that real fights and illegal assaults can so easily be prevented from spilling into the realm of serious bodily harm (yea that guy was beating the shiat out of me, but I didn't bump into any concrete so it's cool) was absolutely ridiculous.


You seem to be projecting.
You asked where I was fighting, I chose to ignore the rhetorical condescension of the question and answer you. Where you get ITG from I don't know, but I do know you're just using it as a backhanded insult since you can't make any traction with your position.

I never claimed that fights or assaults can be easily prevented from spilling into the realm of serious bodily harm. Please quote where I did.
I said that by using the concrete, that elevates it to lethal force.
It would have been lethal force if Martin had continued to punch Z in the face.
It would have been lethal force if Martin had gotten Z's gun.
Ergo don't try to beat your fighting opponent to death with blunt force trauma, or try to get their gun, and you won't get shot.

It would not be lethal force if you or your buddy wanged your head on a beam or smacked the concrete during one of your "play" sessions. This is dangerous, yes, I never said it wasn't, but I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here.
 
2013-07-08 11:40:20 AM  

doczoidberg: This whole case has given me an idea for my next screenplay.

It's called "Yahoo with a Gun." It will be about a neighborhood watch volunteer who breaks up a drug ring, bumbling his way through the entire farcical story.

Think "Paul Blart," but darker.



www.overallsite.com
 
2013-07-08 11:40:29 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: For those out there still think Zimmerman is angry bigot hunting black young men heres a question.
If you beleave the states case is so solid why wouldn't a grand jury indite him?


Believing that first sentence you said doesn't actually imply believing the second one.
 
2013-07-08 11:41:04 AM  

Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.


1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.
 
2013-07-08 11:41:26 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: For those out there still think Zimmerman is angry bigot hunting black young men heres a question.
If you beleave the states case is so solid why wouldn't a grand jury indite him?


They believe it because of racism obviously.  The Sanford police department, the FBI, all racist for not charging Zimmerman.  Let's not take into account that Zimmerman tried to get two white cops fired for beating a black man and went on a year-long crusade to get justice for him.  Oh, and those cops were on the investigation team for this case and STILL didn't want to bring charges against Zimmerman.

That or they're retards.
 
2013-07-08 11:41:30 AM  
Yeah there is just no way Zimmerman is going on the stand, why would he? He already has it in the bag, and wins nothing from going on the stand and could lose everything if the prosecution trips him up over bullshiat.
 
2013-07-08 11:41:37 AM  

doczoidberg: This whole case has given me an idea for my next screenplay.

It's called "Yahoo with a Gun." It will be about a neighborhood watch volunteer who breaks up a drug ring, bumbling his way through the entire farcical story.

Think "Paul Blart," but darker.


You need a sidekick.
 
2013-07-08 11:41:56 AM  

Jake Havechek: It's been well established that Zimmerman is a farking loser, but the prosecution needs to do better.


Has it been? How so?
 
2013-07-08 11:42:20 AM  

Xcott: How did he end up in that situation in the first place? Because he was a vigilante. He was supposed to call the cops and then stay in his car playing Angry Birds; instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him. That's a pretty clear-cut case of taking the law into your own hands.


How dare he act like he had the legal right to walk around his own neighborhood and observe and report on the suspicious behavior of someone who looked out of place and was exhibiting odd behavior for the weather conditions!
 
2013-07-08 11:42:29 AM  

limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.



uhhhh, because Trayvon isn't on trial?

He is also dead.
 
2013-07-08 11:42:40 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: Xcott

...instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him.

There's nothing to suggest Zimmerman confronted Martin. Martin's friend Jeantel said Martin confronted him.


Well that WAS inconvenient of her to say that...
 
2013-07-08 11:42:58 AM  

Tatsuma: He already has it in the bag


I see what you did there.
 
2013-07-08 11:43:34 AM  

jaybeezey: ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.

Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.


Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?

I wouldn't. I think this man with past assault charges and domestic violence charges who has now killed a teenager under questionable circumstances should not be allowed to own a fire arm.

He clearly acted with reckless disregard for human life, he is a proven liar, his story from that night does not add up, and while there is not enough evidence for murder I think manslaughter is a slam dunk. I hope the jury has that option.
 
2013-07-08 11:43:53 AM  
Defense when the judge talks, "Yes ma'am."
Prosecution when the judge talks, "_______".
 
2013-07-08 11:44:02 AM  

Tatsuma: Yeah there is just no way Zimmerman is going on the stand, why would he? He already has it in the bag, and wins nothing from going on the stand and could lose everything if the prosecution trips him up over bullshiat.


Agreed.  There is no reason for him to testify.
 
2013-07-08 11:44:03 AM  
 Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

No, he was following him to give the police the description of activities.  Most people do not
do their " stalk and kill " while on the phone with the cops.

Just think about that.  I know there are some  dumb convicts out there, but it really takes a prize ribbon to do your malice while you are on the phone with the po po.


If you want creepy, how about gesturing and circling someone in a car.
 
2013-07-08 11:44:12 AM  
neversubmit:
White people haven't rioted since the 20's.

Haven't seen the OWS in Oakland, have you?
 
2013-07-08 11:44:15 AM  
I really hope this bit with the current witness is going somewhere useful. It's been a long time, but I'm sure he doesn't really want to talk about being a combat medic during the Tet Offensive.

Get it to him talking about how peoples' voices change under stress, and how he's familiar with it. Geez.
 
2013-07-08 11:44:18 AM  

The Muthaship: nekom: The whole situation just sucks for all involved

Agreed.


Nah George will get rich
 
2013-07-08 11:45:41 AM  

limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.


Self defense cannot be invoked during the commission of a felony (aggravated assault)
 
2013-07-08 11:46:29 AM  

ELKAY: Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?


Perfectly.  But then I don't look in stranger's windows.
 
2013-07-08 11:46:40 AM  
The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed.  And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing.  Right?
 
2013-07-08 11:46:49 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Nah George will get rich


How much money would he have to make from this in order for you to want to trade places with him?

And where will this money come from?
 
2013-07-08 11:46:56 AM  
HAMMERTOE:

Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.


As a black kid in the 70s and 80s, the movies I remember were about the young black kid who was out trying to do the right thing. The turning point in those movies is when the kid gets killed by people who believe themselves to be authorities because the he fit the description. (See: "Cornbread, Earl and Me"). In these movies, the black underclass, finally tired of being the victims of criminals and the police, rise up and defend themselves against the police state in the ghettos of America. Well, this is no different. No longer will black people accept that we all should be treated like criminals because there are black people who commit crimes. The original issue here was that the initial decision not to charge George Zimmerman based on his own recounting of the events leading to the death of a 17 year old seemed to be out of line with how police normally treat these cases. Now, the issue for myself is how ready many non-minorities are to let a man go free based on the criminal behavior of OTHER black people. The defense seems to be saying, "well, there have been break-ins by black people, so any person would be well within their rights to approach and questionany black person at any time to determine wether they "belong" there. Sadly, the people advocating this criminal treatment of citizens by other citizens cannot imagine a scenerio where THEY are asked if they belong. I'm sure they would be as accepting if they went to an inner city and they were followed and questioned by a resident.

What's really on trial here is the continued viability of using "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as a mitigating factor in anti-social behavior. Zimmerman observed Martin coming out of a neighbor's back yard, dressed in clothing which obscured him enough to prevent positive identification, so he followed Martin, and summoned the authorities. Nowhere here is antisocial behavior displayed. Martin, on the other hand, led Zimmerman into a secluded area, where the confrontation and altercation took place. Martin was not only taller than Zimmerman, he was also a football player. One does not become a football player by displaying traits tending towards passivity. The testimony of Martin's "friend" clearly demonstrates the antisocial, racist mindset of his clique.</i>

No, what's really on trial here is the ability for non-minorities to use the "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as an explanation for why they took some action against a black man. Even at 17 years old, they're so scary and blood thirsty that following one of them on a dark and rainy night with a gun, first in a vehicle and then on foot (a totally innocent action), will get you killed. So, starting an altercation with a black man which results in his death is totally justifiable because common knowledge suggests that even an unarmed black kid who was going about his business will kill you, if given a chance. Hey blacks, don't forget to keep your hood off in the rain, unless you want to be mistaken for an intruder. Smh.
 
2013-07-08 11:46:56 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The more you eat the more you fart: I think one thing is damn clear at this point: Trayvon wasnt the innocent little angel his parents and media tried to pretend he was....in fact quite the opposite..he was a little thug on his way to being a bigger thug.

Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.

What racial epithet did GZ use?  As far as I've heard, only TM used one.


I think J4T is arguing that when he said something like "these guys get away all the time" the "these guys" description is racist.
 
2013-07-08 11:47:00 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.


It does happen, but not very often.

It absolutely never happens in high profile cases wrapped in politics.  This one was going to a jury the day a special prosecutor was appointed.
 
2013-07-08 11:47:12 AM  

Radioactive Ass: LasersHurt: There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.

Well aside from Good's and W#8's testimony that is.


Neither of which saw the start of the fight or actual blows landing or see which one was screaming
 
2013-07-08 11:47:26 AM  

Xcott: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because shooting the person who's punching your head into concrete makes you a vigilante..

Yes, that makes him a vigilante---because his head was being punched into the concrete.

How did he end up in that situation in the first place?  Because he was a vigilante.  He was supposed to call the cops and then stay in his car playing Angry Birds; instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him.  That's a pretty clear-cut case of taking the law into your own hands.


Looking to see where someone went is "law enforcement" to you?  Do you even know what a vigilante is?  I guess cops hope there's a lot of vigilantes out there considering how often they ask the public to look for suspects, and even keep an eye on them if possible.  Do you have any evidence that George approached Treyvon?  Because the whole fight took place about 50 feet from George's truck, and over 2 minutes later.  How do you explain that distance?  Does Treyvon walk that slowly, or did George stay in the same area, and Treyvon returned later, approaching George.
 
2013-07-08 11:47:33 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.




It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.
 
2013-07-08 11:47:40 AM  

s2s2s2: The defense should call an English teacher to explain to the jury the fundamental difference in the words "these" and "this", "him" and "they".


The jury would probably understand that more than the good people of fark
 
2013-07-08 11:47:58 AM  

Xenomech: The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed.  And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing.  Right?


That sounds like the jist of the Martin defenders position.
 
2013-07-08 11:48:08 AM  
Geez, this guy's gonna have a flashback on the stand.
 
2013-07-08 11:48:27 AM  

Xenomech: The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed.  And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing.  Right?


Winner!!!
 
2013-07-08 11:48:59 AM  

The Muthaship: Hobodeluxe: Nah George will get rich

How much money would he have to make from this in order for you to want to trade places with him?

And where will this money come from?


NBC most likely
 
2013-07-08 11:49:08 AM  
Oh that witness is just so farking awesome.
 
2013-07-08 11:49:18 AM  

HAMMERTOE: You can't change the facts.


They do a great job of ignoring them, though.
 
2013-07-08 11:49:59 AM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: You somehow have it in your head that if GZ pulled his weapon in response to the lethal force used against him having him fearing for his life and the weapon misfired, Martin would be justified in killing GZ. This is false.

I was just going by what you claimed the law was, that nothing up until the last bit mattered. You said that nothing mattered up until the concrete was used. Except what we don't know, because somebody is dead and can't say, is whether or not they felt and could articulate a belief that they would be facing serious bodily harm if weren't giving the fight their all. My point is that it does. I'm glad we agree now, that your earlier statement was incorrect.


No, you're inventing things to change the scenario.
Nothing, at all, prior to Martin using the concrete or going for the gun, matters in the scope of this trial. Those two events gave Z cause to fear for his life and defend it.
If you want to start changing things with hypotheticals, then the prior fact could very well change.

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: A trial is not an investigation, the investigation comes before the trial, If the investigation finds your claim of self defense to be true, you don't go to trial (you're not supposed to anyway). If they do, they recommend charges, charges are filed, the jury decides your guilt on those charges.

I really can't spell it out any clearer.

Is self-defense a defense at trial or not? Are trials decided by juries or not? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then juries do in fact make determinations on the justification of use of deadly force. The fact that there are pretrial decisions made by the prosecution and law enforcement do not eliminate that fact.

Amusingly enough you are arguing with me about this in a farking thread in which you believe that Zimmerman is not guilty because he was justified in shooting Treyvon because his head hit concrete. So in this case, the investigators and prosecution decided that no, it was not self defense, and the defense is arguing that it is self-defense, and this may amaze the hell out of you, but the jury is going to decide who is right.

At this point you have to be trolling.


Self defense is an affirmative defense, yes, and if we lived in a country where you were guilty until proven innocent then you would be correct.
Fortunately, we are all innocent until proven guilty, so the jury doesn't decide if your defense is correct, they decide if the accusation of guilt is correct. In this case, the police and DA's office decided it was self defense, there was immense social pressure, and an outside source circumvented the legal process and filed charges to bring about an illegal trial. The jury is not deciding who's right, they are deciding if GZ is guilty of the charges levied at him.
It's ok, most people don't fully understand how the legal system is supposed to work either, so it's a common mistake (as is evident by a lot of posts in these threads).
 
2013-07-08 11:50:15 AM  

redmid17: NBC most likely


He should get a nice check from them.

/Also, turn Melissa Harris-Perry upside down and shake whatever is in her pockets out.
 
2013-07-08 11:50:25 AM  

s2s2s2: So the only person to definitively say that it was Trayvon is his mom?


His brother and a neighbor/witness
 
2013-07-08 11:50:36 AM  
DROxINxTHExWIND

I'm sure they would be as accepting if they went to an inner city and they were followed and questioned by a resident.

I don't think the proper response is to punch someone in the face.
 
2013-07-08 11:50:54 AM  

ELKAY: jaybeezey: ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.

Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.

Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

YES

Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?

YES

I wouldn't. I think this man with past assault charges and domestic violence charges who has now killed a teenager under questionable circumstances should not be allowed to own a fire arm.

Authorities believed differently at the time of the fatal encounter. Future evaluation will be in the hands of the appropriate authorities.

He clearly acted with reckless disregard for human life, he is a proven liar, his story from that night does not add up, and while there is not enough evidence for murder I think manslaughter is a slam dunk. I hope the jury has that option.

He clearly did NOT act with reckless disregard for human life.  He is NOT a proven liar. His story DOES add up. Neither murder 2nd nor manslaughter is likely as an outcome in this case.

 
2013-07-08 11:51:09 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Hey blacks, don't forget to keep your hood off in the rain, unless you want to be mistaken for an intruder. Smh.


Come on, Dro. I know you better. The hood would have meant nothing if Zimmerman hadn't seen Martin coming out of somebody else's back yard.

Hood != "intruder".

Trespassing = "Intruder".

Or are you claiming to be less intelligent than Zimmerman?
 
2013-07-08 11:51:18 AM  

AngryDragon: limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.

Self defense cannot be invoked during the commission of a felony (aggravated assault)


"The crazy ass LARP cop ran me down and threatened my life. He had a gun and was gonna killed me. Once I had the super hand I couldn't stop hitting him till I knew he wasn't getting up. So sad he died"

There'd be pretty much the same amount of evidence as to who started what as we have now.
 
2013-07-08 11:51:33 AM  

AngryDragon: kerrigand:

Aren't you forgetting about the police officers, that could have very well been biased towards GZ due to what he put them through on the assault of the homeless guy? Yet, they we're just as good for the defense as John Good was.

I wonder what the odd of that story making it into evidence are?  I can't think of a better way to demonstrate character.


I am surprised that did not come up in the cross of the witnesses.
IIANAL and maybe the prosecution would have squashed it.  But asking if they had any previous interactions with George would seem like an allowable question
 
2013-07-08 11:52:39 AM  

Scerpes: She chose to bring charges via information rather than indictment.


And let's not forget that she (apparently intentionally seeing as she had it in her possession) excluded exculpatory evidence from that indictment when it was given to a judge to approve at the preliminary hearing before Zimmerman was arrested. Specifically Zimmerman's injury photographs.
 
2013-07-08 11:52:39 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Radioactive Ass: LasersHurt: There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.

Well aside from Good's and W#8's testimony that is.

Neither of which saw the start of the fight or actual blows landing or see which one was screaming


Wait, are you one of those people that thinks just because the witness could only see a punching motion and not the actual fist hitting face, that the fact that Martin punched Zimmerman is in doubt?
 
2013-07-08 11:53:05 AM  

ELKAY: Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?


I would rather have him as my neighbor than some of my actual neighbors.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:09 AM  

limeyfellow: isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?


No, and that confusion is been the most frustrating part of this whole thing.

SYG simply says you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat.

The right to fight back with any weapon at your disposal when you (legitimately) fear for your life is the basic right of self defense.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:21 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: Xcott

...instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him.

There's nothing to suggest Zimmerman confronted Martin. Martin's friend Jeantel said Martin confronted him.


And she was totally a reliable witness.  Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:36 AM  
Ned Stark

"The crazy ass LARP cop ran me down and threatened my life. He had a gun and was gonna killed me. Once I had the super hand I couldn't stop hitting him till I knew he wasn't getting up. So sad he died"

There'd be pretty much the same amount of evidence as to who started what as we have now.


If the players were reversed with the same evidence (or lack thereof) that we have currently, I'd say Martin should walk.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:36 AM  
And O'Mara scores!


And the State can't do shiat all about this witness because they will end up looking like major cocks they have to treat him with kids' gloves.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:42 AM  

Ned Stark: AngryDragon: limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.

Self defense cannot be invoked during the commission of a felony (aggravated assault)

"The crazy ass LARP cop ran me down and threatened my life. He had a gun and was gonna killed me. Once I had the super hand I couldn't stop hitting him till I knew he wasn't getting up. So sad he died"

There'd be pretty much the same amount of evidence as to who started what as we have now.


Reasonable doubt then says he walks.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:51 AM  

Cletus C.: Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.


"Can I help you?"
"What are you doing here?"
"Go fark yourself, I live on the next block."

Situation diffused.
Or you can go back and teach cracker ass cracker a lesson for following you and after you circled him in his car.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:56 AM  
Zimmerman will be rightfully acquitted under the law as it stands.

The law as it stands, however, is a multi-faceted ten carat gem of farkwittage.
 
2013-07-08 11:54:40 AM  
The Singing Bush

And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.

Obviously not, but she's the only person to offer a course of events other than Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-08 11:54:44 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Radioactive Ass: LasersHurt: There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.

Well aside from Good's and W#8's testimony that is.

Neither of which saw the start of the fight or actual blows landing or see which one was screaming


John Good specifically stated during his testimony that he saw Martin punching Zimmerman (or at least the man dressed like Martin was punching the man dressed like Zimmerman). Since there were not two identical fights breaking out on his lawn at the same time, it's fairly safe to say at least one person aside from Zimmerman saw punches thrown.
 
2013-07-08 11:54:59 AM  

Ned Stark: AngryDragon: limeyfellow: What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin.

Self defense cannot be invoked during the commission of a felony (aggravated assault)

"The crazy ass LARP cop ran me down and threatened my life. He had a gun and was gonna killed me. Once I had the super hand I couldn't stop hitting him till I knew he wasn't getting up. So sad he died"

There'd be pretty much the same amount of evidence as to who started what as we have now.


Except there's no evidence of 99% of that happening, and lots of evidence showing the opposite of it happened.
Bold would get you convicted.
 
2013-07-08 11:55:26 AM  

neversubmit: white people haven't rioted since the 20's


really? what's this then, youthful hijinks?:
www.umass.edu
 
2013-07-08 11:56:33 AM  

lantawa: ELKAY: jaybeezey: ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.

Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.

Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

YES

Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?

YES

I wouldn't. I think this man with past assault charges and domestic violence charges who has now killed a teenager under questionable circumstances should not be allowed to own a fire arm.

Authorities believed differently at the time of the fatal encounter. Future evaluation will be in the hands of the appropriate authorities.

He clearly acted with reckless disregard for human life, he is a proven liar, his story from that night does not add up, and while there is not enough evidence for murder I think manslaughter is a slam dunk. I hope the jury has that option.

He clearly did NOT act with reckless disregard for human life.  He is NOT a proven liar. His story DOES add up. Neither murder 2nd nor manslaughter is likely as an outcome in this case.


He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong. He would be an idiot to testify since the biggest problem with his defense is him. Did you look at the website he put up before his lawyer made him take it down? To me that is all I need to know about Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-08 11:56:40 AM  
LasersHurt:

There's also no evidence to support that he's an innocent man who was attacked and had to defend himself. It's just that he's the only one alive to tell his side.

Presumed innocent. But you didn't just forget that, you forgot the lacerations on the back of his head, the smashed in face, and the eyewitness testimony that "the guy in the red sweater" was getting pummeled, and the "guy doing the pummeling" was the one motionless on the ground after the altercation.

But yeah, other than those details, there's no evidence... Your response does make me wonder however, just what are YOU guilty of... I know you're guilty of something - using evidence, prove to me you did NOT rape a transexual truck stop hooker in 1994...
 
2013-07-08 11:57:34 AM  

The Singing Bush: And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.


Are you retarded, sir?
 
2013-07-08 11:57:45 AM  

ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong


Citation needed
 
2013-07-08 11:58:42 AM  

dittybopper: You haven't been paying attention to the actual evidence and testimony, have you?


Weighing facts and being objective?

Where the fark do you think you are, some place teeming with reasonable adults?
 
2013-07-08 11:59:18 AM  

ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed


Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.
 
2013-07-08 12:00:16 PM  

Tatsuma: dittybopper: You haven't been paying attention to the actual evidence and testimony, have you?

Weighing facts and being objective?

Where the fark do you think you are, some place teeming with reasonable adults?


Touche'.
 
2013-07-08 12:00:18 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Scerpes: She chose to bring charges via information rather than indictment.

And let's not forget that she (apparently intentionally seeing as she had it in her possession) excluded exculpatory evidence from that indictment when it was given to a judge to approve at the preliminary hearing before Zimmerman was arrested. Specifically Zimmerman's injury photographs.


There was no indictment.
 
2013-07-08 12:00:41 PM  

Smackledorfer: ChaosStar: You somehow have it in your head that if GZ pulled his weapon in response to the lethal force used against him having him fearing for his life and the weapon misfired, Martin would be justified in killing GZ. This is false.

I was just going by what you claimed the law was, that nothing up until the last bit mattered.  You said that nothing mattered up until the concrete was used.  Except what we don't know, because somebody is dead and can't say, is whether or not they felt and could articulate a belief that they would be facing serious bodily harm if weren't giving the fight their all. My point is that it does.  I'm glad we agree now, that your earlier statement was incorrect.

ChaosStar: A trial is not an investigation, the investigation comes before the trial, If the investigation finds your claim of self defense to be true, you don't go to trial (you're not supposed to anyway). If they do, they recommend charges, charges are filed, the jury decides your guilt on those charges.

I really can't spell it out any clearer.

Is self-defense a defense at trial or not? Are trials decided by juries or not? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then juries do in fact make determinations on the justification of use of deadly force. The fact that there are pretrial decisions made by the prosecution and law enforcement do not eliminate that fact.

Amusingly enough you are arguing with me about this in a farking thread in which you believe that Zimmerman is not guilty because he was justified in shooting Treyvon because his head hit concrete.  So in this case, the investigators and prosecution decided that no, it was not self defense, and the defense is arguing that it is self-defense, and this may amaze the hell out of you, but the jury is going to decide who is right.

At this point you have to be trolling.


The prosecutor's are bound by an extra section of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct to not bring charges if there is not probable cause.  Rule 4-3.8(a).  Too bad it's not the Crown Code for Prosecutor's which states that they cannot bring the charges if there is not a chance that the jury would convict.
 
2013-07-08 12:00:50 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: No, what's really on trial here is the ability for non-minorities to use the "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as an explanation for why they took some action against a black man.


It sounds more to me like some people are trying to use angry black man syndrome as a justifying factor when beating someone's head against concrete for daring to suspect that they don't live in a particular neighborhood.
 
2013-07-08 12:01:59 PM  

heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.


He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:22 PM  
Anyone else notice what the prosecution did there with the 911 call and feel it was intentional?

They stopped the call immediately after the 911 operator asked what race the suspect was, questioned the witness with some pointless banter for a minute or two, then as soon as they resumed the call it started with Zimmerman saying "black male".

I get the feel that was intentional to try to plant it in the jurors' minds that Zimmerman was making it a point to mention the suspect was black.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:31 PM  
What the hell is the prosecution trying to prove here?
 
2013-07-08 12:02:51 PM  

ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.


No...his wife did.
 
2013-07-08 12:03:02 PM  

ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.


Yep..totally guilty of murder now!

You solved the case Sherlock!
 
2013-07-08 12:03:33 PM  

ELKAY: The more you eat the more you fart: ELKAY: Scerpes: ELKAY: Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

Perfectly.  But then I don't look in stranger's windows.

Where is the evidence that Trayvon was looking into stranger's windows? There's none. But that doesn't stop the pro-Zimmerman crowd from slandering a dead teenager.

Trayvon never got his day in court because a maniac neighborhood watch man decided to act as judge/ jury/ and executioner.

Thats part of the problem with being a thug..if someone kills you for attacking them, then you also lose the chance to testify in court.

Where is the evidence that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman? Are we watching different trials?

Zimmerman said he never followed Trayvon but security camera clearly shows Trayvon walking away and being followed. Zimmerman is a liar and a hothead.


Did I miss something? Where is this security camera video evidence that you state it shows Zimm following Martin? I must've missed something here.

Can anyone cite this for me as I don't remember seeing this or hearing about it?
 
2013-07-08 12:03:37 PM  

gregscott: dittybopper: The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!

Great Scott!

What??!!


You shut your whore mouth you farkin' imposter!
 
2013-07-08 12:03:39 PM  

ELKAY: lantawa: ELKAY: jaybeezey: ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.

Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.

Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

YES

Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?

YES

I wouldn't. I think this man with past assault charges and domestic violence charges who has now killed a teenager under questionable circumstances should not be allowed to own a fire arm.

Authorities believed differently at the time of the fatal encounter. Future evaluation will be in the hands of the appropriate authorities.

He clearly acted with reckless disregard for human life, he is a proven liar, his story from that night does not add up, and while there is not enough evidence for murder I think manslaughter is a slam dunk. I hope the jury has that option.

He clearly did NOT act with reckless disregard for human life.  He is NOT a proven liar. His story DOES add up. Neither murder 2nd nor manslaughter is likely as an outcome in this case.

He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong. He would be an idiot to testify since the biggest problem with his defense is him. Did you look at the website he put up before his lawyer made him take it down? To me that is all I need to know about Zimmerman.




First of all your a very angry person. Seek help. If you think Zimmerman is guilty watch his police statement. When the cop tried to bluff that someone recorded the shooting Zimmerman actually said thank goodness. Not a guilty mans actions.
 
2013-07-08 12:04:42 PM  
Bunch of creepy ass crackers in this thread. Plus, racism!
 
2013-07-08 12:04:45 PM  

ELKAY: Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?


Now, with people gunning for him? Not so much. Previously, sure.

ELKAY: Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?


There are probably some in your neighborhood. Do you feel less safe, now?

ELKAY: Where is the evidence


...that anything George has said about the events of that night being anything but true?
 
2013-07-08 12:05:16 PM  

ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.


Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.
George never lied or said anything.
The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.
George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies
 
2013-07-08 12:06:10 PM  

ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.


This isn't 1850. His wife is not an extension of him and her lies are not his responsibility.

Women in the United States do not testify as the property of or under the authority of their husbands.
 
2013-07-08 12:06:48 PM  
Seriously, is the state prosecutor retarded?


'If you had never met George Zimmerman before and never heard his voice before, could you identify it today if I made you listen to it'


WELL NO SHIAT SHERLOCK: the sequel.
 
2013-07-08 12:06:55 PM  

Tigger: Zimmerman will be rightfully acquitted under the law as it stands.

The law as it stands, however, is a multi-faceted ten carat gem of farkwittage.


Why?  What part of the law would you change?
 
2013-07-08 12:07:17 PM  
I went to lunch how has this P.A. guy been?
 
2013-07-08 12:08:43 PM  
The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.
 
2013-07-08 12:09:16 PM  

ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong. He would be an idiot to testify since the biggest problem with his defense is him. Did you look at the website he put up before his lawyer made him take it down? To me that is all I need to know about Zimmerman.


That word; "proven." I don't think that word means what you think it means. If you have a link to the shots of Zimmerman's site that was taken down, post 'em, please. Despite my relatively bear-trapped mentality regarding this case, I'm always ready to look at new or old facts that I may have overlooked.
 
2013-07-08 12:09:21 PM  

WillofJ2: I went to lunch how has this P.A. guy been?


BDLR didn't really attack him with swearing as much, but did raise issue with bringing up his background in Vietnam and potential PTSD from hearing the 911 call that Lauer made.
 
2013-07-08 12:09:22 PM  
Nevermind he just gave this court is about truth speech and he would never lie, wow hell of a way to finish
 
2013-07-08 12:09:39 PM  
Well that was another absolutely smashing success for the defense. The combination of Uncle, Surrogate Old Lady Mother and Surrogate Nam Medic Father is a farking KO that the prosecution will struggle getting back up, if at all.
 
2013-07-08 12:09:57 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.


They have nothing.  I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer:  What could the prosecution be doing differently?  When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.
 
2013-07-08 12:10:23 PM  
Witness after witness confirming the voice is Georges'. Prosecutors just had the Mom, hell bent on destruction, and the brother, who said before he was unsure. Martin's dad said before he was not sure. Gee. Martin family lie much?
 
2013-07-08 12:10:26 PM  

heili skrimsli: ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

This isn't 1850. His wife is not an extension of him and her lies are not his responsibility.

Women in the United States do not testify as the property of or under the authority of their husbands.


IIRC she used words like "I am not sure".  Which, if she wasn't directly involved, is understandable or she wasn't sure if they had $100k or $140k, it is more sloppy questioning than lying.
I could be wrong.
But regardless, you are correct.
 
2013-07-08 12:11:25 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.


Yeah seriously I thought the defense were great when the State were laying down their case, but now they are just decimating them. I seriously feel bad for the prosecution at this point.
 
2013-07-08 12:11:40 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: The Singing Bush

And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.

Obviously not, but she's the only person to offer a course of events other than Zimmerman.


And that's unfortunate, because I don't like the idea of taking his word for it either.

What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position.  If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.
 
2013-07-08 12:11:51 PM  

Hobodeluxe: His brother and a neighbor/witness


What I mean is "consistently". The brother hasn't always been so sure. I didn't hear the neighbor that said it was definitely him, unless I heard, and you are incorrect.
 
2013-07-08 12:12:44 PM  

Thunderpipes: Witness after witness confirming the voice is Georges'. Prosecutors just had the Mom, hell bent on destruction, and the brother, who said before he was unsure. Martin's dad said before he was not sure. Gee. Martin family lie much?


Actually, I believe Martin's dad first said that it was not Martin.
Later he changed his story.
 
2013-07-08 12:12:57 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.


Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.
 
2013-07-08 12:13:14 PM  

The Singing Bush: What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.


Where's the requirement that jurors have to believe either all or none of a witness's testimony?
 
2013-07-08 12:13:17 PM  

Thunderpipes: Witness after witness confirming the voice is Georges'. Prosecutors just had the Mom, hell bent on destruction, and the brother, who said before he was unsure. Martin's dad said before he was not sure. Gee. Martin family lie much?


Not sure they lied as much as confirmation bias. They probably couldn't identify trayvon because it wasn't him, and once they realize just how important that 9-1-1 call was, they convinced themselves it was in fact their son/brother.
 
2013-07-08 12:14:23 PM  

heili skrimsli: Where's the requirement that jurors have to believe either all or none of a witness's testimony?


Up there with Zimmerman's racist statements or the fact that he was a fit 30 year old guy and not clinically obese and out of shape.
 
2013-07-08 12:16:08 PM  
Funny that Zimmermans mom to me came across as the weakest identifier, I may have missed it but other than getting to swear more in a couple hours then most do in a month and use the phrase "double tap"  Did the prosecution score any points? Seriously, sometimes I dont understand their strategy if anyone can help me out
 
2013-07-08 12:16:09 PM  
Sadly, I still think there is a chance for George to be convicted of something. The case so far, does not even come close to warranting being convicted of so much as jaywalking. Manslaughter is not even in the realm of possibility according to the evidence.

Hope he is cleared of all, and can go full out on offense with massive lawsuits against a whole bunch of people and companies. Nutrisystem would help too.
 
2013-07-08 12:16:13 PM  

The Singing Bush: Facetious_Speciest: The Singing Bush

And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.

Obviously not, but she's the only person to offer a course of events other than Zimmerman.

And that's unfortunate, because I don't like the idea of taking his word for it either.

What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position.  If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.


True.  But her role is to help the state prove their case.  And even if unreliable, and untruthful, one of her statements absolutely hurts the side she's there to help.  That is important.

That said, I'm not sure she lied.  I don't think she issmart enough to intentionally mislead.  I think she is just not very bright. and cant tell the difference between what she thinks and what she knows.  "I heard wet grass."
 
2013-07-08 12:16:15 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Neither of which saw the start of the fight


Agreed (W#8 was on the phone so of course she couldn't see it) however she did say on the stand that Martin was near his house and that she took that to mean right by it and seeing as the altercation started many houses away one can easily infer that Martin confronted Zimmerman and not the other way around. Plus she said that he said that he was going back to confront that creepy ass cracker. Other than that, sure, she didn't witness the start of the altercation, just heard what Martin was saying in the moments before it.

or actual blows landing or see which one was screaming

This is where you are 99% incorrect. Goods testimony was that he saw a man in a light white or red coat (in other words not Martin who was in a blue coat) being punched MMA Ground and pound style by someone whose back was to him. He also stated that the person who was facing him, (also not Martin) was the one screaming out for help. The only thing that he came short of was saying with 100% certainty was that he saw blows land due to it being dark. When crossed he was clear that because he didn't actually see them that he wasn't going to testify that they did. So the evidence is in 99% compliance with Zimmerman's statement to the police. Note that that 1% does not give reasonable doubt to Martins side but to Zimmerman instead.

Lets also not forget that Good asked Martin to stop and that he was calling 911 while he continued his hitting motions. No other witnesses saw anything else until several seconds to up to a minute after the gunshot where they saw him on top of Martin.
 
2013-07-08 12:16:40 PM  

nekom: Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.

They have nothing.  I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer:  What could the prosecution be doing differently?  When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.


I think the situation here is people feel like what happened was wrong but technically it isn't illegal so there's a disconnect between what mob rule wants and what can be delivered. I personally feel that at a fundamental level that Martin's death is the fault of Zimmerman, he set the rube goldberg machine in motion.
 
2013-07-08 12:17:47 PM  
Side note, the cnn anchor right now is looking kinda hot with the tan and low cut top, she is enjoying being down in Florida it would seem
 
2013-07-08 12:18:24 PM  

heili skrimsli: The Singing Bush: What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.

Where's the requirement that jurors have to believe either all or none of a witness's testimony?


Sometimes a witness's testimony is stricken from the record.  I'm very surprised that didn't happen in this case.

In any case, if I'm a juror and I suspect that a witness is lying or making up stories, I'm not going to believe anything they say because they're unreliable.
 
2013-07-08 12:18:32 PM  
The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Just remember the crocodile tears later.

/that what these threads teach me
 
2013-07-08 12:19:04 PM  
Headso:
I think the situation here is people feel like what happened was wrong but technically it isn't illegal so there's a disconnect between what mob rule wants and what can be delivered. I personally feel that at a fundamental level that Martin's death is the fault of Zimmerman, he set the rube goldberg machine in motion.

I definitely agree.  It's just not murder and this should have never went to trial.  There are plenty of critical moments where either Zimmerman or Martin could have prevented this, but due to ego, pride and poor decision making, it all came together.
 
2013-07-08 12:20:02 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: DROxINxTHExWIND

I'm sure they would be as accepting if they went to an inner city and they were followed and questioned by a resident.

I don't think the proper response is to punch someone in the face.



Nether do I. Not sure what your point was. You have no evidence that is what happened, except for the words of the person who is trying not to go to prison for murder. I'm pretty sure Aaron Hernandez has a story too. Should we take his word as well?
 
2013-07-08 12:20:03 PM  

Cletus C.: Mid_mo_mad_man: HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.




Following someone at a distance while watching them is neither aggressive nor crimmianal. Zimmerman did not have a history of racist activity. Martin did. Martin had a chip on his shoulder and was the aggressor.
 
2013-07-08 12:20:45 PM  

TenaciousP: It's shocking how unprepared each prosecution witness was. Especially Bao. They spent half an hour with him the day before his testimony. Unfarkingbelievable to do that in any case, but especially if its airing on national TV.


I have to agree.  It seems as if the prosecution really went all in on their opening, and kinda left the preparation of witnesses to chance.  I've busted up some prosecution witnesses because they were woefully prepared.  But it is also true that the prosecution has other cases to deal with, and this isn't likely the only one they had to prepare.  And their lack of preparation will likely lead to a bad result for them.

But, Mark O'Mara is one of the talkiest talkers around.  And BORING as hell, while doing it.  I mean, his motion to dismiss was a rambling mess.  I mean, I knew the judge was going to deny it, but if I were her, I would've stopped him during that long, disorganized  rambling and said "please, STFU.  You aren't making sense and you are repeating the same crap."
 
2013-07-08 12:20:49 PM  

Cletus C.: Mid_mo_mad_man: HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.


Meh.  He called 911.  He was keeping track of where Martin was.  He did the same thing before so that when the police showed up he can direct him to where the person is.  If the gun was "locked" why do you have so much butt hurt?
 
2013-07-08 12:20:57 PM  

Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Just remember the crocodile tears later.

/that what these threads teach me


Really?

Go troll another thread, we've played this game way to many times.
 
2013-07-08 12:22:58 PM  

Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.


So that's "what these threads teach me," meaning teach you. Huh......
 
2013-07-08 12:23:08 PM  
I think there needs to be a hottest/least attractive legal analyst and/or anchor thread dealing with this trial.
 
2013-07-08 12:23:40 PM  
I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.
 
2013-07-08 12:23:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.
George never lied or said anything.
The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.
George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies


I would commend you to the study of the crimes "subornation of Perjury" and "Misprison of a Felony" both of which GZ committed during his bond hearing, which, if he takes the stand will be fair game for the prosecutors to talk about because a witnesses' credibility is always relevant to his testimony
 
2013-07-08 12:24:04 PM  

Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Just remember the crocodile tears later.

/that what these threads teach me


1/10
Please try a little bit harder.  I grade on a curve.
 
2013-07-08 12:24:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Just remember the crocodile tears later.

/that what these threads teach me

Really?

Go troll another thread, we've played this game way to many times.


The only winning move is to not play.
 
2013-07-08 12:25:12 PM  

Nabb1: Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.



Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime.  How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant.  All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution.  We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.
 
2013-07-08 12:25:54 PM  

Magorn: tenpoundsofcheese: ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.
George never lied or said anything.
The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.
George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies

I would commend you to the study of the crimes "subornation of Perjury" and "Misprison of a Felony" both of which GZ committed during his bond hearing, which, if he takes the stand will be fair game for the prosecutors to talk about because a witnesses' credibility is always relevant to his testimony


I wouldn't bother. The Zimmerman fan club will never admit that Saint Zimmerman ever did anything wrong.
 
2013-07-08 12:25:56 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.


You're projecting your racism onto us.  If the teen attacks, it's his fault he gets shot.  Stop making this about race, this is about law.
 
2013-07-08 12:26:18 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.


Including you?

You are obviously speaking for yourself.  That is your issue, don't project it on everyone else.
 
2013-07-08 12:26:29 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.


This
 
2013-07-08 12:26:37 PM  

WillofJ2: Seriously, sometimes I dont understand their strategy if anyone can help me out


'How can we make sure we don't look like too big of idiots and don't get shot after the trial when we inevitably lose' 101
 
2013-07-08 12:27:04 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.


We need a Shorp of the defense as the globe trotters, and the prosecution as the Generals.
 
2013-07-08 12:27:17 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.


Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.

The people projecting racism into this case are the ones with the strongest dose of it.
 
2013-07-08 12:27:48 PM  

ELKAY: Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

This


Unlike you two, there are a lot of adults who don't make their decisions based on race but rather facts.
 
2013-07-08 12:27:57 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.


You'd be wrong.
 
2013-07-08 12:28:28 PM  

nekom: Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.

They have nothing. I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer: What could the prosecution be doing differently? When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.


Like I said before, they could have gone with what they knew they could prove. If they'd pressed charges of negligent homicide, this case would have been all but a slam-dunk: the undisputed facts alone are enough to pin Zimmerman into a corner, and with some of the stuff that's being fought out now, they could have nailed him with no trouble.

But the mob demanded a murder charge, and the prosecution caved. They can't prove malice aforethought, and so the charge killed the case. If they hadn't gotten greedy, Zimmerman could have been starting a very long prison sentence by now.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Mid_mo_mad_man: HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.

Meh.  He called 911.  He was keeping track of where Martin was.  He did the same thing before so that when the police showed up he can direct him to where the person is.  If the gun was "locked" why do you have so much butt hurt?


Locked and loaded. I thought it was a thing.

Anyway, cop wannabe running down anyone suspicious in the neighborhood. Call the cops and go home, junior. We don't need you to follow him. Bad things can happen.
 
2013-07-08 12:30:46 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.


But would the white kid have tried yo sneak up on him and initiate a fight in which he bashed the black man's head on the cement and then tried to take his gun?


Bc u know..u left all that out.
 
2013-07-08 12:31:39 PM  

Millennium: nekom: Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.

They have nothing. I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer: What could the prosecution be doing differently? When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.

Like I said before, they could have gone with what they knew they could prove. If they'd pressed charges of negligent homicide, this case would have been all but a slam-dunk: the undisputed facts alone are enough to pin Zimmerman into a corner, and with some of the stuff that's being fought out now, they could have nailed him with no trouble.

But the mob demanded a murder charge, and the prosecution caved. They can't prove malice aforethought, and so the charge killed the case. If they hadn't gotten greedy, Zimmerman could have been starting a very long prison sentence by now.


Nope. No evidence anywhere that shows any wrong doing by Zimmerman, none.
 
2013-07-08 12:31:42 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Facetious_Speciest: DROxINxTHExWIND

I'm sure they would be as accepting if they went to an inner city and they were followed and questioned by a resident.

I don't think the proper response is to punch someone in the face.


Nether do I. Not sure what your point was. You have no evidence that is what happened, except for the words of the person who is trying not to go to prison for murder. I'm pretty sure Aaron Hernandez has a story too. Should we take his word as well?


You haven't been following this case have you? Plenty of evidence besides ZMs word on what actually happened
 
2013-07-08 12:31:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: You have no evidence that is what happened


The court does.
 
2013-07-08 12:31:44 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Just remember the crocodile tears later.

/that what these threads teach me

1/10
Please try a little bit harder.  I grade on a curve.


Truly, ya don't have to do all that crap, just carry a drop piece and you can kill who you wanta kill. This one time in Reno I shot a man just to watch him die.
 
2013-07-08 12:33:13 PM  

TheWhoppah: Nabb1: Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.


Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime.  How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant.  All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution.  We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.



That's not true.  The defense motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, because the prosecution's evidence, even if taken as 100% true, did not rule out the reasonable hypothesis that GZ acted in an innocent manner.  The State's evidence, even if all of it is to be believed, failed to eliminate all of the scenarios whereby GZ is not guilty, leaving a guilty hypothesis as the only one.

That's the standard when the evidence is circumstantial.

No reasonable juror could conclude that GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  With this evidence, if believed, a juror could reasonably conclude he's probably guilty, but probably doesn't cut it.
 
2013-07-08 12:34:05 PM  

NeoKhan: limeyfellow: AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:
Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good.  A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died.  It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder.  manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

Zimmerman claims that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the cement and reaching for the gun when he shot Martin.  Therefore Zimmerman had no real option to retreat at the time of the gunshot, and it's ordinary self-defense.  Stand your Ground would have applied if Trayvon were slowly advancing towards him, Zimmerman had time to run or pull out his gun, and decided that the gun was the better choice.  In short, Stand your Ground is about when you don't fear for your life, but instead fear for your property.  In practice, of course, people who actually fear for their life at the time (but in retrospect could probably have gotten away) may use the Stand your Ground defense.


In theory and in practice, SYG laws were put into place to allow abused women who rightly fear assault or death at the hands of their husband/significant other to shoot and kill them within their own home, without having to retreat.  Technically this was just a clarification of the standard self-defense doctrine, because your home is considered a 'safe place' to retreat to in any circumstance.  It was added to make this action explicit, and generalized so that you need not be the legal owner of an area - it is now simply a place in which you're legally allowed to be.

While most battered women who resorted to violence against their attacker are acquitted of charges, it's long and drawn out, financially difficult at a time when they may be cut off from their sole source of income (the abuser) and unnecessarily difficult if the woman did not kill the attacker outright, so they also rejiggered things to allow for a special SYG pretrial hearing which would expedite the entire case.

Based on a non-braindead analysis of the purpose of this law, and the prior case history where it has been invoked, and his own description of the events, it's unreasonable to expect that Zimmerman would have been able to get the case dismissed based on a SYG premise.  It's even less likely that Martin - had he survived, or killed zimmerman instead - would have been able to invoke it.

Really, all it is, is just a way to get rabid anti-gun crowds whipped up into a frenzy, and frenzy means readership to media sources.
 
2013-07-08 12:35:00 PM  

ELKAY: The Zimmerman fan club will never admit that Saint Zimmerman ever did anything wrong.



No, the Due Process Fan Club will stand by the position that the State has insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman.

But, hey, Obama got his show trial.  That's what matters.
 
2013-07-08 12:35:07 PM  

The Muthaship: There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point.  He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.


For Fark's sake.  All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark.  Never mind. Carry on.
 
2013-07-08 12:35:11 PM  
Talking heads on CNN and FOX have both noted that the jury decided not to take any breaks until lunch, saying that this is indicative of them wanting to get this over with. I wonder if the jury has already heard enough to reach a verdict.
 
2013-07-08 12:36:19 PM  

Cletus C.: Sure, the guy walking home trespassing unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.

Of course not. But he needed to, to determine where to send the police.
 
2013-07-08 12:36:25 PM  

Scerpes: There was no indictment.


"No person shall be held to answer for a  capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

So says the 5th amendment. There are exceptions in some jurisdictions where instead of using a Grand Jury the same evidence that one would show to the Grand Jury can be shown to a judge instead to make a determination on whether the evidence is good enough to show that a jury may convict no matter by how slim of a margin it might be. Hence the old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich as the evidence bar is set very low at that point.

An indictment must always be signed off on by a judge although if a Grand Jury has signed off on it is simply signed as a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a legal sense. The judge isn't going to bother looking at the evidence.
 
2013-07-08 12:36:29 PM  
Deucednuisance

For Fark's sake. All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark. Never mind. Carry on.


This post is so ironic it's wearing tight jeans and oversized vintage glasses.
 
2013-07-08 12:37:00 PM  

ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.


Are you sure or are you just saying that? If you are going to grasp at straws maybe you should grasp a bigger one.
 
2013-07-08 12:37:21 PM  

Boojum2k: Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.


This.
 
2013-07-08 12:39:05 PM  
For all the manslaughter wanting people, no evidence for that either. According to what we have seen, the defense didn't even need to present a case. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Compare it to manslaughter in a car, you have to be doing something negligent. George was not, no matter how many douches say keeping an eye on someone is illegal.
 
2013-07-08 12:39:38 PM  

Deucednuisance: The Muthaship: There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point.  He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

For Fark's sake.  All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark.  Never mind. Carry on.



You're not going to make me cite the case law that says that the State is required to disprove a claim of self-defense, are you?

Because I will.

If you want to embarrass yourself, please do.  I'll be waiting with my legal citation.  Tell us all about how the defendant must prove his self-defense claim.  Go on.
 
2013-07-08 12:39:58 PM  
There should be no expectation that a 28 year old boy will exercise better judgement than a 17 year old hardened thug.
 
2013-07-08 12:39:59 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Boojum2k: Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.

This.


Yep.  If some white punk (and make no mistake, all races contain punks) attacked a black man under identical circumstances, I would say the very same.  Unfortunate that the kid is dead, but NOT murder.
 
2013-07-08 12:40:45 PM  

The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!


what channel is broadcasting it on SirsXM?
 
2013-07-08 12:41:24 PM  

ELKAY: Magorn: tenpoundsofcheese: ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.
George never lied or said anything.
The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.
George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies

I would commend you to the study of the crimes "subornation of Perjury" and "Misprison of a Felony" both of which GZ committed during his bond hearing, which, if he takes the stand will be fair game for the prosecutors to talk about because a witnesses' credibility is always relevant to his testimony

I wouldn't bother. The Zimmerman fan club will never admit that Saint Zimmerman ever did anything wrong.


You claimed he lied to the court about his finances.
That, along with almost all you other "facts", is wrong.
Deal with it.

George is not perfect, but people like you who are either ignorant of the facts, liars, or even worse, unwilling to change their understanding of the "facts" when presented with evidence are far less perfect than George.
 
2013-07-08 12:42:16 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter


Uhh... You know that one interpretation of this is that black people/teenagers/males are totally out of control of their behavior and can not be held responsible for their actions? If it turns out Martin was the first to open the can of woop@ass, you could compare the situation to an idiot tourist being held responsible for the death of a lion because he jumped into its cage and was forced to shoot it when the lion attacked him. That is basically the highest form of racism/age/sex-ism. Slave owners thought they were doing their slaves a favor by providing them food, clothing, place to stay, etc. because they thought their slaves were too incompetent to look after themselves.
 
2013-07-08 12:43:48 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Deucednuisance

For Fark's sake. All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark. Never mind. Carry on.

This post is so ironic it's wearing tight jeans and oversized vintage glasses.


Thanks.
You beat me too it.
It made me laugh when I read it.
 
2013-07-08 12:43:55 PM  

Deucednuisance: The Muthaship: There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point.  He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

For Fark's sake.  All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark.  Never mind. Carry on.


To be fair, he really doesn't have to prove he's innocent with an affirmative defense, just show evidence that the self defense was justified. Reasonable doubt can still exist.
 
2013-07-08 12:43:59 PM  

stellarossa: Thunderpipes: George was following at a distance, a suspicious person in his neighborhood with a series of break ins. Traypack circled his car. George was on his way back to his car, and was savagely attacked.

Why on Earth is any of that George's fault? Now citizens cannot even observe and report suspicious activity? George is sort of white, Tray is black. Only reason this case even went forward.

surprised the fark modmins haven't pulled this. You nailed it, it's the uncomfortable truth of the situation. people will avoid this topic like the farkin' plague and mither on about SYG or stalking or whatnot.


Sad thing is, the vast majority of black kids killed are killed by other black people, and nobody bats an eye. Perhaps if awareness was raised, that crap would stop. I mean, this is bigger than the OJ trial. The whole country is divided on a pretty clear case of self defense. How many hundreads have been gunned down with real malice since this started?
 
2013-07-08 12:45:26 PM  
George did nothing criminally neglegent, period. Can be no manslaughter barring flat out corruption of the jury.
 
2013-07-08 12:46:10 PM  

Cletus C.: Treygreen13: Cletus C.: Treygreen13: Cletus C.: Anyway, cop wannabe running down anyone suspicious in the neighborhood. Call the cops and go home, junior. We don't need you to follow him.

Why do you keep coming back here if you aren't learning anything?

What am I supposed to be learning? That it's a good thing people like George Zimmerman are out here turning allegedly suspicious behavior into a dead teen and a farce of a trial?

The only reason it's a farce of a trial is because people like you have already made up your mind and don't care about what *actually* happened.

You're right. I've made up my mind that Zimmerman is not guilty. Which is not the same thing as innocent.


Definition of innocent:  "Not guilty of a crime or offense"

Are you trying to divide by zero?
 
2013-07-08 12:47:04 PM  
After the prosecution has rested its case and all their evidence is out in the open, I think it's pretty obvious to see that they did not meet the legal standard for proving that it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.


Not much to say after that.
 
2013-07-08 12:47:18 PM  
willfullyobscure

Because Murica in general and the deep south in particular has a long, ugly history of white men murdering black boys on account of their skin color and then getting away with it thanks to the support of the local authorities and courts?

But a white man didn't murder a black boy, and this didn't take place in the Deep South. So...huh?
 
2013-07-08 12:48:07 PM  
Thunderpipes:
Sad thing is, the vast majority of black kids killed are killed by other black people, and nobody bats an eye. Perhaps if awareness was raised, that crap would stop. I mean, this is bigger than the OJ trial. The whole country is divided on a pretty clear case of self defense. How many hundreads have been gunned down with real malice since this started?

There are quite a few people in the black community who are TRYING to tackle that very issue, but it's a tough nut to crack.  Poverty, the destruction of the black family, racism, there are a ton of reasons for the situation, and in many ways we're STILL seeing the results of slavery turned into an underclass.  I have NO IDEA how one could go about solving it, but I do realize how deep the problem is.
 
2013-07-08 12:48:44 PM  
over/under on the post count, anyone? I'll take $5 on 1300-1500 derpsposts.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-08 12:49:36 PM  

Phinn: TheWhoppah: Nabb1: Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.


Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime.  How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant.  All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution.  We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.

That's not true.  The defense motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, because the prosecution's evidence, even if taken as 100% true, did not rule out the reasonable hypothesis that GZ acted in an innocent manner.  The State's evidence, even if all of it is to be believed, failed to eliminate all of the scenarios whereby GZ is not guilty, leaving a guilty hypothesis as the only one.

That's the standard when the evidence is circumstantial.

No reasonable juror could conclude that GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  With this evidence, if believed, a juror could reasonably conclude he's probably guilty, but probably doesn't cut it.


The evidence is nowhere NEAR that clear cut.  Remember, the jury is the SOLE judge of the credibility of all witnesses and what the facts are in this case.  If they chose to believe the wtiness who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, rather than the witness who claimed the opposite.  If they chose to believe the one who said Martin was the one calling for hlp, rather than the ones who identified Zimmerman,  all of which they are completely within their rights to do,   then they could easily convict, and ther would be zero grounds for a "Judgment NOV" from the judge vacating the conviction.  Do I find that likely?  No in the slightest, but could they convict on the evidence presented? Yes indeed.  And the likelyhood of conviction in my estimation goes up significantlyis GZ takes the stand in his own defense.
 
2013-07-08 12:50:02 PM  
I curious as to why the defense is even putting on a defense.  Why not just rest?  The prosecution farked this up so badly they could already appeal if the jury convicts.
 
2013-07-08 12:51:21 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.


Is it MMA style?
 
2013-07-08 12:51:36 PM  

willfullyobscure: over/under on the post count, anyone? I'll take $5 on 1300-1500 derpsposts.

[i.imgur.com image 318x174]


I doubt it.
There seems to be much less activity here than last week.

After the prosecution kept calling all those defense witnesses I think people got confused.
 
2013-07-08 12:51:42 PM  
Magorn

If they chose to believe the wtiness who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, rather than the witness who claimed the opposite.

Random nitpick, but there's no contradiction there.
 
2013-07-08 12:52:25 PM  

nekom: Thunderpipes:
Sad thing is, the vast majority of black kids killed are killed by other black people, and nobody bats an eye. Perhaps if awareness was raised, that crap would stop. I mean, this is bigger than the OJ trial. The whole country is divided on a pretty clear case of self defense. How many hundreads have been gunned down with real malice since this started?

There are quite a few people in the black community who are TRYING to tackle that very issue, but it's a tough nut to crack.  Poverty, the destruction of the black family, racism, there are a ton of reasons for the situation, and in many ways we're STILL seeing the results of slavery turned into an underclass.  I have NO IDEA how one could go about solving it, but I do realize how deep the problem is.


What, you mean that black people haven't overcome the slavery and oppression issue yet? I was born in 1978, which means that just a little over 100 years before my birth, I could have purchased a black man just a few miles from here at a slave auction. The last Civil War veteran died just 20 years before I was born. There were still literacy tests for black people enforced just a little more than a decade before I was born. Clearly, I have had no advantages being a white person living in the South, even if I moved here just two years ago. Clearly.
 
2013-07-08 12:52:41 PM  

doczoidberg: It's called "Yahoo with a Gun." It will be about a neighborhood watch volunteer who breaks up a drug ring, bumbling his way through the entire farcical story.

Think "Paul Blart," but darker.


AMC already has it. It's called Breaking Bad.
 
2013-07-08 12:52:45 PM  

FitzShivering: I curious as to why the defense is even putting on a defense.  Why not just rest?  The prosecution farked this up so badly they could already appeal if the jury convicts.


I am really getting the impression they truly do not like each other  and not only do they want to win they want to beat their heads into a side walk(only once though, the non dangerous way)
 
2013-07-08 12:52:57 PM  
KellyX

You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"

I don't, but willfullyobscure does. Who knows?
 
2013-07-08 12:52:59 PM  

TheWhoppah: Nabb1: Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.


Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime.  How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant.   All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution.  We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.



Funny how this is an issue NOW, but its not an issue when folks are quoting their per capita crime statistics to prove that black people are evil.
 
2013-07-08 12:53:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: willfullyobscure: over/under on the post count, anyone? I'll take $5 on 1300-1500 derpsposts.

[i.imgur.com image 318x174]

I doubt it.
There seems to be much less activity here than last week.

After the prosecution kept calling all those defense witnesses I think people got confused.


So you're good for $5? we can do paypal after the thread closes. Want any odds on it? Make me an offer.
 
2013-07-08 12:53:39 PM  

Hobodeluxe: s2s2s2: So the only person to definitively say that it was Trayvon is his mom?

His brother and a neighbor/witness


The neighbor is the one claiming that Martin was wearing a red shirt and laying on their back while Zimmerman was on top wearing a hoodie?

Or did a different witness claim it was martin screaming?
 
2013-07-08 12:54:14 PM  
I saw 2 young black men (could have been 16, could have been 20 something) walking down the street last year and pausing and looking into parked vehicles. They could not see me because I was standing behind a bush and some wrought iron. After observing them look into the 5th car I walked out around my bush and stood in my front yard, staring at them.

It took a few moments for them to notice me. When they did their pace quickened slightly, they went eyes front, and turned at the next corner, without looking my way. I walked out to the end of my driveway to watch them go down the side street. After about 2 blocks they both turned around and looked back seeing me still standing there. They turned at the next corner and I did not see them any more.

I did not call the police because no crime had been committed and this is New Orleans so the cops typically have other things going on.

I have thought about the potential bad ways that might have gone if my staring had provoked some kind of other response from them. That said, I could not in good conscious, watch them case my neighbors cars without doing something.

I am a concealed carry permit holder and think you should conduct all matter regarding your personal safety as if you are NOT carrying a gun. I think some people are emboldened by the possession of a firearm and do stupid things they normally wouldn't (e.g. - parking in a high crime area, escalating an argument etc.).

George Zimmerman is of the emboldened stripe and put himself in that situation.
 
2013-07-08 12:54:18 PM  

KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple


Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.
 
2013-07-08 12:54:28 PM  

Magorn: The evidence is nowhere NEAR that clear cut. Remember, the jury is the SOLE judge of the credibility of all witnesses and what the facts are in this case. If they chose to believe the wtiness who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, rather than the witness who claimed the opposite. If they chose to believe the one who said Martin was the one calling for hlp, rather than the ones who identified Zimmerman, all of which they are completely within their rights to do, then they could easily convict, and ther would be zero grounds for a "Judgment NOV" from the judge vacating the conviction. Do I find that likely? No in the slightest, but could they convict on the evidence presented? Yes indeed. And the likelyhood of conviction in my estimation goes up significantlyis GZ takes the stand in his own defense.



In a case based on circumstantial evidence, that is not the standard for evaluating the evidence.  The standard is that the evidence must conclusively rule out the not-guilty hypotheses, and leave only the guilty hypothesis as the sole reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

This evidence doesn't do that.

As a result, the case should not go to the jury.

But it will, because Obama and Holder turned this case into a political show trial.  Nothing about this judge indicates she has the requisite level of intelligence and integrity to stand up to that degree of political pressure.
 
2013-07-08 12:55:38 PM  

ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.


Well put.
 
2013-07-08 12:56:24 PM  

doglover: Mid_mo_mad_man: Martin is the one to blame for his death.

While I don't feel any laws were broken and Martin earned his death, it's still a loss when a 17 year old kid is so farked up they need to be put down.

If society had a place for violent young thugs to get out of that life one step at a time, instead of just kicked out of regular people school, we might have caught him and people like him before shiat like this goes down. If Martin hadn't been suspended from school it would have been better for Zimmerman, better for Martin, better for everyone.

When citizens kill each other instead of helping expand prosperity, it's always a tragedy.


I'm sorry, your well-reasoned comment doesn't belong on this forum. I believe you have accidentally clicked on 'Fark.com' instead of the site you meant.
 
2013-07-08 12:57:39 PM  

give me doughnuts: The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!


He's a doctor?

I wondered what he had been doing since "Joanie Loves Chachi" got cancelled.


Bob Loblaw.
 
2013-07-08 12:57:54 PM  

Xenomech: The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed.  And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing.  Right?


Wrong, there is a slight difference: with your skimpy dress, you would also have to carry a big sign saying $20/night. And after you get your $20, file for rape.
 
2013-07-08 12:58:01 PM  

nekom: HAMMERTOE: Boojum2k: Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.

This.

Yep.  If some white punk (and make no mistake, all races contain punks) attacked a black man under identical circumstances, I would say the very same.  Unfortunate that the kid is dead, but NOT murder.


Exactly.

I don't care what color the participants are, if the one getting his head beaten into the concrete by the one straddling his chest shoots the attacker, that's self defense.
 
2013-07-08 12:59:04 PM  
Slight threadjack. Why does fark delete posts that reference posts that get deleted? It's happened a lot to me today.
 
2013-07-08 12:59:38 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: After the prosecution has rested its case and all their evidence is out in the open, I think it's pretty obvious to see that they did not meet the legal standard for proving that it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.


Not much to say after that.


Well, I agree. But I'd also like to add that, because this Martin guy could not talk, they had an uphill battle to begin with.
 
2013-07-08 12:59:38 PM  
sad times less hot cnn anchor
 
2013-07-08 12:59:39 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Scerpes: There was no indictment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a  capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

So says the 5th amendment. There are exceptions in some jurisdictions where instead of using a Grand Jury the same evidence that one would show to the Grand Jury can be shown to a judge instead to make a determination on whether the evidence is good enough to show that a jury may convict no matter by how slim of a margin it might be. Hence the old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich as the evidence bar is set very low at that point.

An indictment must always be signed off on by a judge although if a Grand Jury has signed off on it is simply signed as a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a legal sense. The judge isn't going to bother looking at the evidence.


They couldn't pursue 1st degree murder without an indictment in Florida.  They can and have gone for 2nd degree murder.
 
drp
2013-07-08 01:00:05 PM  

OnlyM3: Defense lawyers = Private practice
Prosecutors = government jobs

Obviously the more skilled individuals will be in private practice.

/// can't wait till all medical jobs are government jobs.


Can't really compare the two.

Law school admission is not competitive at all, except at the big names.  You can get a law degree from a strip-mall diploma mill, and if you pass the bar, you're a lawyer.  Lawyers are VASTLY overproduced and the job market is extraordinarily tight.  There are huge numbers of terrible lawyers out there ... many so bad they don't even practice law because they're unemployable.

Medical school is very competitive at even the lowest ranked schools.  Doctors are constantly underproduced, to the point that people are seriously talking about expanding the scope of practice for midlevel nurses, just to make up the shortfall.  US doctors who work for the government (including the military) mostly have those specific jobs because one or another government program paid their medical school tuition.

Where you find the worst doctors is in private practice in poor rural areas where
- high earners don't want to live
- patients can't afford to choose their doctors
- there are so few doctors that there's no choosing to be done anyway

Direct gov-employed doctors have a reputation for being quacks, but that's mostly incorrect and a result of misunderstanding how doctors get those jobs.


No, the risk you're about to collide with when government fully takes over health care is that the government, or its delegated insurance bean-counter clown middlemen, will tell you that you don't get to see doctor, and that the nurse practitioner with a few extra months of OJT and some online classes is just as good as a doctor.
 
2013-07-08 01:01:12 PM  

ELKAY: jaybeezey: ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.

Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.

Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?

I wouldn't. I think this man with past assault charges and domestic violence charges who has now killed a teenager under questionable circumstances should not be allowed to own a fire arm.

He clearly acted with reckless disregard for human life, he is a proven liar, his story from that night does not add up, and while there is not enough evidence for murder I think manslaughter is a slam dunk. I hope the jury has that option.


1. I wouldn't feel unsafe.
2. I wouldn't feel unsafe.
3. Domestic violence charges were debunked a long time ago, and were cleared up in this case by his lawyer
4. How did Zimmerman act with reckless disregard for human life? That's what Trayvon Martin did when he assaulted Zimmerman for no reason. Zimmerman's story not only adds up perfectly, but is currently supported by all available evidence and witnesses. Not only is there absolutely no chance at a murder conviction, manslaughter is totally off the table as well because self defense is an absolute legal defense.

I feel bad that you're so woefully misinformed.
 
2013-07-08 01:01:47 PM  

Deucednuisance: ChaosStar: To be fair, he really doesn't have to prove he's innocent with an affirmative defense, just show evidence that the self defense was justified. Reasonable doubt can still exist.

Actually, Counselor, that's exactly backwards. "Affirmative defense" means "defense that has to be proven". Not just "justified", but "that it occurred".

And reasonable doubt pertains to doubt about guilt, not defenses.

Don't quit your day job.



Go read the Montijo v. State case.  It's at 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Reasonable doubt pertains to a claim of self-defense, too.

A defendant claiming self-defense only needs to be able to point to some evidence that justifies his assertion of the defense.  That evidence can come from anywhere -- the defendant's evidence (if he elects to present any), cross-examination of the state's witnesses, or even the inherent nature of the state's allegations.

A self-defense claimant is not required to prove anything. He merely needs to make a plausible, legitimate assertion of self-defense.

The State is required to disprove the self-defense claim, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

We'll be accepting your apologies any time you're ready to give them.
 
2013-07-08 01:01:48 PM  

Phinn: TheWhoppah: Nabb1: Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.


Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime.  How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant.  All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution.  We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.

That's not true.  The defense motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, because the prosecution's evidence, even if taken as 100% true, did not rule out the reasonable hypothesis that GZ acted in an innocent manner.  The State's evidence, even if all of it is to be believed, failed to eliminate all of the scenarios whereby GZ is not guilty, leaving a guilty hypothesis as the only one.

That's the standard when the evidence is circumstantial.

No reasonable juror could conclude that GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  With this evidence, if believed, a juror could reasonably conclude he's probably guilty, but probably doesn't cut it.



You clearly can't divorce the proffered evidence from your feelings about said evidence.  Its like you can't even SEE that any evidence was presented that contradicts your opinion.
No offense, but you would make alousy judge.
 
2013-07-08 01:01:52 PM  
apparently people in egypt attack the military with fireworks and laser pointers and find out bullets trump those toys
 
2013-07-08 01:02:09 PM  

drp: No, the risk you're about to collide with when government fully takes over health care is that the government, or its delegated insurance bean-counter clown middlemen, will tell you that you don't get to see doctor, and that the nurse practitioner with a few extra months of OJT and some online classes is just as good as a doctor.


Weird. For the past 10+ years, my wallet and area health care providers/insurers have been telling me the exact same thing.
 
2013-07-08 01:03:27 PM  
I'm hoping that the defense team gets Benjamin Crump up on the stand and tears his scheming, lying ass apart, causing him both to perjure himself and completely disqualify himself as a reasonable and ethical attorney. (I think that he's already done the latter to himself, BTW). Dump the Crump, you J4T folk, and you'll be that much better for it.....
 
2013-07-08 01:03:43 PM  
If Martin had lived he would be serving a dime for aggravated assault.
 
2013-07-08 01:04:22 PM  

Wangiss: ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.

Well put.



Unless GZ displayed the gun FIRST and TM was attempting to use the concrete to disarm him... In that scenario the use of the concrete was justified and GZ is guilty of murder.
 
2013-07-08 01:04:32 PM  

lantawa: I'm hoping that the defense team gets Benjamin Crump up on the stand and tears his scheming, lying ass apart, causing him both to perjure himself and completely disqualify himself as a reasonable and ethical attorney. (I think that he's already done the latter to himself, BTW). Dump the Crump, you J4T folk, and you'll be that much better for it.....


Can he claim some legal immunity because he represents the victims as a civil attorney?
 
2013-07-08 01:06:43 PM  

billwill: If Martin had lived he would be serving a dime for aggravated assault.


I think this what many people miss out on, unless people really think Zimmerman touched him or tried to detain him, seeing they established following and confronting are not illegal, but punching someone for doing it is
 
2013-07-08 01:07:45 PM  

TheWhoppah: You clearly can't divorce the proffered evidence from your feelings about said evidence. Its like you can't even SEE that any evidence was presented that contradicts your opinion.
No offense, but you would make alousy judge.



I can read the law.

More importantly, I can understand it.

The law says that in circumstantial-evidence cases, the prosecution's evidence must rule out the not-guilty hypotheses.

Not even the FAP Team is prepared to embarrass themselves by claiming that, in this case, the State's evidence accomplishes this task.

I get it.  Due Process sticks in your craw when you have a bloodlust for a guy you really, really hate.  It's a bitter pill for you.  But just choke it on down, just the same.
 
2013-07-08 01:08:24 PM  
TheWhoppah:
Unless GZ displayed the gun FIRST and TM was attempting to use the concrete to disarm him... In that scenario the use of the concrete was justified and GZ is guilty of murder.

That's a difficult argument to make.  The proper response to seeing someone with a gun is making sure they don't feel threatened, not attacking them, that would just be foolish.  "Woah, now let's not escalate this!" is the smart response.
 
2013-07-08 01:08:58 PM  

stellarossa: LasersHurt: stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

So we're both surprised that the Prosecution/Martin camp still maintains their side of the argument? Because we're scared of black people?

The hell is wrong with you people?

Go ask her that. She doesn't want to the the one to make the call and therefore be the focal point for AA rage that, inevitabley, will come from an acquittal for Zimm.


I thought one of the 12 Steps had to do with making amends.
 
2013-07-08 01:11:10 PM  

TheWhoppah: Wangiss: ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.

Well put.


Unless GZ displayed the gun FIRST and TM was attempting to use the concrete to disarm him... In that scenario the use of the concrete was justified and GZ is guilty of murder.


Wrong
GZ could have pulled up his shirt and said "see my gat!" and TM still couldn't have attacked him and certainly couldn't have used the concrete to disarm him, however in the world that would work.
 
2013-07-08 01:11:10 PM  

Magorn: on this subject your views are colored by bias



Heh .. colored.
 
2013-07-08 01:11:42 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm pretty sure Aaron Hernandez has a story too. Should we take his word as well?


Probably not. Hernandez wasn't smart enough to get rid of the evidence. Ray Lewis was smart enough to make sure that suit never got found.

\coincidentally, he won't be receiving a lethal injection in the near future
 
2013-07-08 01:12:22 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.


I ten tend to agree. If he was really afraid he would have hidden or just out run fat Zimmerman and headed home to call the cops.

To some degree Trayvon died of testosterone poisoning.
 
2013-07-08 01:12:59 PM  
Magorn

TP, I'mma lay it on the line, You seem like a decent person by and large, if a reflexively conservative one poltically. but on this subject your views are colored by bias. You, and a half a dozen of the most vocal Zimmerman defenders on this thread are, whether you realize it or not, stone cold racists, and your worldview is so warped you don't even realize it.

Dude, this goes both ways. I've never talked about Martin's pictures of guns, called him a thug, or mentioned his drug-use save to assert it doesn't mean anything. And there have been people telling me that literally the only reason I think Zimmerman should walk is because I "secretly want to kill black people."

It's that crazy. And it's spinning from every angle.
 
2013-07-08 01:12:59 PM  

iucpa: The Muthaship: I listened to the testimony on satellite radio as I drove to Chicago Friday.  Jesus, Dr, Bao is a moron!

what channel is broadcasting it on SirsXM?


It was on HLN, I think.
 
2013-07-08 01:13:30 PM  

bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.


Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...
 
2013-07-08 01:14:49 PM  

nekom: Poverty, the destruction of the black family, racism, there are a ton of reasons for the situation, and in many ways we're STILL seeing the results of slavery turned into an underclass.


I get the first two, but what do racism and slavery have to do with black-on-black violence?
 
2013-07-08 01:15:39 PM  

Scerpes: They couldn't pursue 1st degree murder without an indictment in Florida. They can and have gone for 2nd degree murder.


I have read differently regarding this. I've read that a Grand Jury is required for Murder 1 but for anything less a judge can review the evidence and go from there based upon what was before him. Essentially a Grand Jury finding from the bench if you will. This is done to prevent malicious prosecutions from occurring by adding a level of judicial review instead of just letting prosecutors run amok. I mean otherwise a prosecutor with an axe to grind could really cause some damage financially and to a persons reputation as they defend themselves on trumped up charges right?
 
2013-07-08 01:15:43 PM  

Thunderpipes: Sad thing is, the vast majority of black kids killed are killed by other black people, and nobody bats an eye.



I know you're just doing your little thing hre, but I'm going to use your post to expose this frequently told lie.

NAACP march against black-on-black crime
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/07/sclc_organizing_march_against.htm l">http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/07/sclc_organizing_march_against. html

Even giving you the counter-point from an African-American who crusades against black-on-black crime and says that the NAACPs methods are not helping
http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/05/naacp-marches-aga i nst-pirate-on-black.html">http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com /2009/05/naacp-marches-agai nst-pirate-on-black.html


Stop the violence Hip-Hop concert in Philly
http://hiphopwired.com/2011/07/26/trina-joins-stop-the-violence-movem e nt-in-philadelphia/">http://hiphopwired.com/2011/07/26/trina-joins-st op-the-violence-moveme nt-in-philadelphia/


Hip-Hop artists joining with Mayor Bloomberg to unite against violence
http://allhiphop.com/2011/10/18/swizz-beatz-rappers-joins-mayor-bloom b erg-to-denounce-violenxe/">http://allhiphop.com/2011/10/18/swizz-beat z-rappers-joins-mayor-bloomb erg-to-denounce-violenxe/


The lie may help you to keep the boogeyman alive, but as a black man, I'm as troubled by violence as any of you. To suggest otherwise would be foolish.
 
2013-07-08 01:17:17 PM  

KellyX: bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.

Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...


Man go to clay county, south past middleburg and all that area in between saint augustine and the gulf all that farming and logging area you will feel really out of place confederate flags everywhere, its wild almost seems like a different place completely
 
2013-07-08 01:17:49 PM  

KellyX: bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.

Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...


Florida isn't the deep south. There are some areas, like Live Oak, that are indistinguishable from rural Georgia, but no one lives in those areas. Coastal Florida (where the people live) is very cosmopolitan. Anyone suggesting that 2013 Florida is "deep south" is either an idiot, or lying for political reasons.
 
2013-07-08 01:17:55 PM  
Have not followed the case for half a week or so (too much BBQ, you know). I come back to more or less the same things going back and forth. So, let me get a few things clear for both sides

1. There is no independent source to verify that TM was actually acting suspicious. He may have been walking as fast as possible without looking at anything. There is no way to know. The time stamp from 7-Eleven does not say anything either. He may waited someone for the rain to slow down, or talk to someone or whatever. Simply, there is nothing to show one way or another that he was acting suspicious.

2. For either group, whatever the court verdict is, that is what justice, for of them. If you are saying we want justice for TM/GZ and therefore we want him convicted/not convicted, you are contradicting yourself. You may say, you don't agree with the law then, but that is what still considered justice.

3. With his "insignificant" injury, less than a minute long fight with a guy 40lb lighter than he is, there is nothing to prove that his life was ever in danger. You may say, that is what he felt, but if I just look at a big black guy in a dark alley, and feel my life is in danger, that is my problem, not the other guy's.

4. There are more than one way to start a fight than physically throwing the first punch.

5. Martin acted stupidly. Was it because he was high, or it came natural, does not matter.

6. When a dispatcher said, we don't need you to do that, is in their jargon, do not do it. Because he is not the boss of GZ, he could not directly say that. That may not be illegal, but sure as hell stupid.
 
2013-07-08 01:18:53 PM  

This text is now purple: nekom: Poverty, the destruction of the black family, racism, there are a ton of reasons for the situation, and in many ways we're STILL seeing the results of slavery turned into an underclass.

I get the first two, but what do racism and slavery have to do with black-on-black violence?


Well, there is no doubt in my mind that slavery is ultimately responsible for creating the black underclass.  It's obviously gotten a LOT better over the years, but the statistics still show that blacks are nowhere near economic parity with whites.  Racism probably also originated from slavery, you'd really have to completely dehumanize a race of people in order to treat them as property and still be able to sleep at night.
 
2013-07-08 01:19:12 PM  

The Muthaship: Hobodeluxe: Nah George will get rich

How much money would he have to make from this in order for you to want to trade places with him?

And where will this money come from?


Book money. TV appearance money. His website. etc.
 
2013-07-08 01:19:40 PM  

lantawa: I'm hoping that the defense team gets Benjamin Crump up on the stand and tears his scheming, lying ass apart, causing him both to perjure himself and completely disqualify himself as a reasonable and ethical attorney. (I think that he's already done the latter to himself, BTW). Dump the Crump, you J4T folk, and you'll be that much better for it.....


He will just claim attorney client privilege on any question asked. You're better off taking him in front of the state bar which has looser standards in that regard.
 
2013-07-08 01:20:01 PM  

ChaosStar: TheWhoppah: Wangiss: ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.

Well put.


Unless GZ displayed the gun FIRST and TM was attempting to use the concrete to disarm him... In that scenario the use of the concrete was justified and GZ is guilty of murder.

Wrong
GZ could have pulled up his shirt and said "see my gat!" and TM still couldn't have attacked him and certainly couldn't have used the concrete to disarm him, however in the world that would work.


I actually remember a drug dealer/buyer getting shot because he told another person he was packing heat. I'm trying to find it via google but I am getting lazier and lazier as my search continues.
 
2013-07-08 01:20:46 PM  

mayIFark: Have not followed the case for half a week or so (too much BBQ, you know). I come back to more or less the same things going back and forth. So, let me get a few things clear for both sides

1. There is no independent source to verify that TM was actually acting suspicious. He may have been walking as fast as possible without looking at anything. There is no way to know. The time stamp from 7-Eleven does not say anything either. He may waited someone for the rain to slow down, or talk to someone or whatever. Simply, there is nothing to show one way or another that he was acting suspicious.

2. For either group, whatever the court verdict is, that is what justice, for of them. If you are saying we want justice for TM/GZ and therefore we want him convicted/not convicted, you are contradicting yourself. You may say, you don't agree with the law then, but that is what still considered justice.

3. With his "insignificant" injury, less than a minute long fight with a guy 40lb lighter than he is, there is nothing to prove that his life was ever in danger. You may say, that is what he felt, but if I just look at a big black guy in a dark alley, and feel my life is in danger, that is my problem, not the other guy's.

4. There are more than one way to start a fight than physically throwing the first punch.

5. Martin acted stupidly. Was it because he was high, or it came natural, does not matter.

6. When a dispatcher said, we don't need you to do that, is in their jargon, do not do it. Because he is not the boss of GZ, he could not directly say that. That may not be illegal, but sure as hell stupid.


NOPE. Go back to your BBQ.
 
2013-07-08 01:20:57 PM  

Elegy: Work obligations will keep me out of the thread for most of the morning and early afternoon.

I will, however, pop in from time to time with amusing material.

A reading of the script for "Murderous Racism: The George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin Story"

An amusing gif


LOL!

That's pretty much all of NBC's coverage.
 
2013-07-08 01:21:03 PM  

WillofJ2: lantawa: I'm hoping that the defense team gets Benjamin Crump up on the stand and tears his scheming, lying ass apart, causing him both to perjure himself and completely disqualify himself as a reasonable and ethical attorney. (I think that he's already done the latter to himself, BTW). Dump the Crump, you J4T folk, and you'll be that much better for it.....

Can he claim some legal immunity because he represents the victims as a civil attorney?


He can claim he's a ham sandwich, if he wants to.
 
2013-07-08 01:21:11 PM  

ChaosStar: TheWhoppah: Wangiss: ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.
None of it. At all. Period.
Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.
Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.
The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.
Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.
Not my opinion, that's the law.

Well put.


Unless GZ displayed the gun FIRST and TM was attempting to use the concrete to disarm him... In that scenario the use of the concrete was justified and GZ is guilty of murder.

Wrong
GZ could have pulled up his shirt and said "see my gat!" and TM still couldn't have attacked him and certainly couldn't have used the concrete to disarm him, however in the world that would work.


Are you sure?  If he pulled his shirt up and said "see my gat!", isn't that brandishing, which is a felony?  Doesn't self-defense go out the window during the commission of a felony?
 
2013-07-08 01:21:32 PM