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.

(The Smoking Gun)   New evidence strengthens Obama's contention that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon   (thesmokinggun.com) divider line 336
    More: Obvious, international sanctions, George Zimmerman, usages  
•       •       •

10740 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



336 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-09 08:27:14 AM  
DRINK!
 
2013-07-09 08:46:25 AM  

RedPhoenix122: DRINK TOKE!


FTFY

/oh hell, why not both?
 
2013-07-09 08:47:23 AM  
It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.

/me too, and millions of others.
 
2013-07-09 09:03:59 AM  
I bet he was also listening to the jazz.
 
2013-07-09 09:20:19 AM  
RedPhoenix122: DRINK!

INGEST LIQUIDS!

/We aren't using the "D" word anymore.
//Didn't you get the memo?
 
2013-07-09 09:21:02 AM  

Sybarite: I bet he was also listening to the jazz.


Could be worse.  Could have been on the jazz.

/I love it when a plan comes together.
 
2013-07-09 10:20:09 AM  
Better not eat drink or breathe either. Doing so alters your brain chemistry and might lead to....something.
 
2013-07-09 10:21:35 AM  
Because pot makes you extremely violent, as evidenced by the FDA's groundbreaking study, Reefer Madness.
 
2013-07-09 10:26:06 AM  
Libate!
 
2013-07-09 10:26:41 AM  

nekom: It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.

/me too, and millions of others.


It's funny because he can be President while millions of people caught smoking can't.
 
2013-07-09 10:28:39 AM  
Reefer-smoking negro jazz musicians are taking our white wimmins!
 
2013-07-09 10:28:53 AM  
Quaff!

So is this the official thread for today?
 
2013-07-09 10:30:12 AM  
1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
2013-07-09 10:30:52 AM  
When you look at early pictures of Trayvon, he looks like a bright boy with a love of life and a bright future. But when you look at his later photos, he's transformed into a thug or wannabe thug.

I don't really have a comment about the shooting, but it just seems like if George Z didn't do it, someone else would have at some point.

What's tragic here is the cycle of violence and culture of violence among African American youths that turns kids with a chance at success into the 70% of black men who are caught up in the American criminal justice system.
 
2013-07-09 10:31:37 AM  
This alone provides enough reasonable doubt that the jury has no choice but to find zimmerman not guilty.
 
2013-07-09 10:34:23 AM  
If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.
 
2013-07-09 10:36:52 AM  
No matter where you come down on the entire case, this was a shiatty decision by the judge.
 
2013-07-09 10:37:01 AM  
I have yet to hear about a single piece of evidence being presented at this trial.
 
2013-07-09 10:37:27 AM  
And Here. We. Go. Whoa. Dat Ass.
 
2013-07-09 10:40:11 AM  
Pot doesn't cause violence and it is better than alcohol, but it isn't true that people who smoke pot are categorically not violent.  I'm guessing the percentage of people in prison who have smoked marijuanna is pretty close to 100% vs. 50 or 60% (?) for the general population.   It's not like it is rare to find a teenage tough guy wannabe who smokes pot.
 
2013-07-09 10:40:49 AM  
Ok that's a great headline
 
2013-07-09 10:40:50 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Because pot makes you extremely violent paranoid, as evidenced by the FDA's groundbreaking study


paranoia and seeing a "creepy ass cracker" and having a history of beating up snitches is not a good combination
 
2013-07-09 10:41:55 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: When you look at early pictures of Trayvon, he looks like a bright boy with a love of life and a bright future. But when you look at his later photos, he's transformed into a thug or wannabe thug.

I don't really have a comment about the shooting, but it just seems like if George Z didn't do it, someone else would have at some point.

What's tragic here is the cycle of violence and culture of violence among African American youths that turns kids with a chance at success into the 70% of black men who are caught up in the American criminal justice system.


So is George Zimmerman. But he's just the victim of an overzealous prosecutor. No way that's ever happend to a black person.
 
2013-07-09 10:43:23 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Because pot makes you extremely violent paranoid, as evidenced by the FDA's groundbreaking study

paranoia and seeing a "creepy ass cracker" and having a history of beating up snitches is not a good combination



That explains your irrational fear of the blacks.

/Just say "no"
 
2013-07-09 10:44:47 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: tenpoundsofcheese: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Because pot makes you extremely violent paranoid, as evidenced by the FDA's groundbreaking study

paranoia and seeing a "creepy ass cracker" and having a history of beating up snitches is not a good combination


That explains your irrational fear of the blacks.

/Just say "no"


I have no such fear.
But, once again, your racism is showing.
 
2013-07-09 10:46:40 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-09 10:47:17 AM  

tricycleracer: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


Yikes, wrong thread.
 
2013-07-09 10:47:20 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: AverageAmericanGuy: When you look at early pictures of Trayvon, he looks like a bright boy with a love of life and a bright future. But when you look at his later photos, he's transformed into a thug or wannabe thug.

I don't really have a comment about the shooting, but it just seems like if George Z didn't do it, someone else would have at some point.

What's tragic here is the cycle of violence and culture of violence among African American youths that turns kids with a chance at success into the 70% of black men who are caught up in the American criminal justice system.

So is George Zimmerman. But he's just the victim of an overzealous prosecutor. No way that's ever happend to a black person.


Zimmerman isn't the victim of an overzealous prosecutor.  The prosecutor knows he isn't guilty and is just going through the motions because he was told to.  At least, that's what I ASSume.  An ahole can become a prosecutor and even be a damn fine one, but not a complete moron.
 
2013-07-09 10:47:59 AM  

calm like a bomb: No matter where you come down on the entire case, this was a shiatty an excellent decision by the judge.


FTFY
 
Ant
2013-07-09 10:51:29 AM  

SlothB77: This alone provides enough reasonable doubt that the jury has no choice but to find zimmerman not guilty.


Why? Are we imposing the death penalty on pot smokers now?
 
2013-07-09 10:51:39 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: AverageAmericanGuy: When you look at early pictures of Trayvon, he looks like a bright boy with a love of life and a bright future. But when you look at his later photos, he's transformed into a thug or wannabe thug.

I don't really have a comment about the shooting, but it just seems like if George Z didn't do it, someone else would have at some point.

What's tragic here is the cycle of violence and culture of violence among African American youths that turns kids with a chance at success into the 70% of black men who are caught up in the American criminal justice system.

So is George Zimmerman. But he's just the victim of an overzealous prosecutor. No way that's ever happend to a black person.


Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.
 
2013-07-09 10:52:25 AM  
Toxicology reports unfairly target African Americans.

/ so do background checks
 
2013-07-09 10:52:26 AM  

tricycleracer: tricycleracer: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

Yikes, wrong thread.


The court will accept this evidence.
 
2013-07-09 10:52:38 AM  
If that judge had a son, he'd look like John Goodman dressed up as Linda Tripp.

i.cdn.turner.com www.toptenz.net
 
2013-07-09 10:53:32 AM  

lantawa: calm like a bomb: No matter where you come down on the entire case, this was a shiatty  an excellent decision by the judge.


FTFY
 
2013-07-09 10:54:03 AM  

ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


On the flip side, if there's anyone that needs to rot in prison, it's someone that was defending his life from some punk that may have been under the influence of drugs.
 
2013-07-09 10:55:56 AM  

topcon: If that judge had a son, he'd look like John Goodman dressed up as Linda Tripp.

[i.cdn.turner.com image 300x400] [www.toptenz.net image 400x302]



Holy shiat, dude.
 
2013-07-09 10:56:33 AM  

ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


This ...I am ranting an raving about this whole thing.

SlothB77: This alone provides enough reasonable doubt that the jury has no choice but to find zimmerman not guilty.


2/10 for trolling ...or is that sarcasm?


I for one think that 2nd degree murder is a bit much. From what I can tell, Zimmerman made a horrible horrible mistake and a young man ended up dead. That sounds like manslaughter to me. Whether or not that mistake was driven by racial or cultural prejudice does not matter unless you judge him with your emotions. I prefer not to.

I actually don't even understand how anything is relevant past the point where Zimmerman went on foot tracking him down. Dude, you created the situation when it was easily avoided. Zimmerman was the aggressor. I might have attempted to beat his ass as well if he were following me barking orders in the middle of the night.

It just does not seem that complicated to me.
 
Ant
2013-07-09 10:56:58 AM  
Oh_Enough_Already:
Given his current thuglife course trajectory he'd have been either dead or in jail for killing somebody else within a year, and given the fact it would have been a black person who killed him or who he killed we never ever would have heard about him and (rightfully) not a single fark would have been given.

Wow! You should become an FBI profiler or something. The way you extrapolated all of that from your meager knowledge of Trayvon Martin is just amazing.
 
2013-07-09 10:58:36 AM  

Perlin Noise: I actually don't even understand how anything is relevant past the point where Zimmerman went on foot tracking him down. Dude, you created the situation when it was easily avoided. Zimmerman was the aggressor. I might have attempted to beat his ass as well if he were following me barking orders in the middle of the night.


Guilty or not, nothing changes the fact that if you subtract a fat, loser asshole looking to feel like a tough guy from the situation, nobody dies.
 
2013-07-09 10:59:31 AM  
However, during his testimony last week, Bao referenced Martin's THC level, noting that "Marijuana could have no effect or some effect."

Well, that's helpful.
 
2013-07-09 11:00:44 AM  

calm like a bomb: Perlin Noise: I actually don't even understand how anything is relevant past the point where Zimmerman went on foot tracking him down. Dude, you created the situation when it was easily avoided. Zimmerman was the aggressor. I might have attempted to beat his ass as well if he were following me barking orders in the middle of the night.

Guilty or not, nothing changes the fact that if you subtract a fat, loser asshole looking to feel like a tough guy from the situation, nobody dies.


I totally completely fully agree with this. This was his horrible mistake.
 
2013-07-09 11:01:24 AM  
She also needs to allow Martin's phone / text records.  This judge is playing sides.
 
2013-07-09 11:02:18 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: When you look at early pictures of Trayvon, he looks like a bright boy with a love of life and a bright future. But when you look at his later photos, he's transformed into a thug or wannabe thug.

I don't really have a comment about the shooting, but it just seems like if George Z didn't do it, someone else would have at some point.

What's tragic here is the cycle of violence and culture of violence among African American youths that turns kids with a chance at success into the 70% of black men who are caught up in the American criminal justice system.


That's because, sadly, their lives were tragically destroyed by the Devil Weed, the Corrupter of Youth...MARIHUANA!!!
o_0
 
Ant
2013-07-09 11:03:49 AM  

Too Pretty For Prison: On the flip side, if there's anyone that needs to rot in prison, it's someone that was defending his life from some punk that may have been under the influence of drugs.


Some punk that may have been under the influence of drugs? Yes, pot is a drug, but this isn't angel dust we're talking about. You're more likely to have to defend your bag of Chili Cheese Fritos.
 
2013-07-09 11:05:45 AM  

Oh_Enough_Already: I have to wonder if the black community is actually secretly hoping for an acquittal.

Not so they can  protest riot - they seldom need an excuse for that - but because when one or dozen of them get shot and killed by the whites they're attacking in the process they'll have one or a dozen new Trayvons to canonize, trials to follow, excuses to ratchet up their hatred of creepy-ass crackers, etc.

If you think about it, an acquittal would be very good for the outrage business and the scores of "revruns" who make a living fomenting hatred.


damn dude ...sounds like you need to join a neighborhood watch. Is your community gated as to protect it from "those people"?
 
2013-07-09 11:07:10 AM  

tricycleracer: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


*Snicker*
 
Ant
2013-07-09 11:09:54 AM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Not so they can  protest riot - they seldom need an excuse for that


I think you might be more comfortable on Stormfront
 
2013-07-09 11:10:05 AM  
decomposing?
 
2013-07-09 11:11:24 AM  

calm like a bomb: No matter where you come down on the entire case, this was a shiatty decision by the judge.


Depends.  This could work for the prosecution, if they can convince the jury that Martin was too high to be aggressive.
 
2013-07-09 11:22:29 AM  

Oh_Enough_Already: "revruns"


?
 
2013-07-09 11:33:31 AM  
I found myself thinking "Michelle's not too old" then I looked her up... I didn't know the daughters were biological alarm clock babies.
 
2013-07-09 11:36:42 AM  

Oh_Enough_Already: I have to wonder if the black community is actually secretly hoping for an acquittal.

Not so they can  protest riot - they seldom need an excuse for that - but because when one or dozen of them get shot and killed by the whites they're attacking in the process they'll have one or a dozen new Trayvons to canonize, trials to follow, excuses to ratchet up their hatred of creepy-ass crackers, etc.

If you think about it, an acquittal would be very good for the outrage business and the scores of "revruns" who make a living fomenting hatred.


I don't what you said in the past that made me farkie you as a racist, but you sure have lived up to the title.  Good job.
 
2013-07-09 11:38:29 AM  

ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.



Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

i.cdn.turner.com

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-07-09 11:41:49 AM  

SlothB77: This alone provides enough reasonable doubt that the jury has no choice but to find zimmerman not guilty.




The fact that the lead prosecution witness admitted to lying is enough for reasonable doubt this is just the icing on the cake.
 
2013-07-09 11:46:43 AM  
jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.



You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.

People like you are the reason he never really comments on issues of race. He never claimed that anyone was guilty or innocent. The President called for a FULL INVESTIGATION. But all you were able to remember is that he said Trayvon would hav looked like him. You've taken that one part of the statement and flipped it to mean, "I think George Zimmerman should go to jail and all blacks should get reperations."

Its pretty ridiculous.
 
2013-07-09 11:48:49 AM  

hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]



Oh, so NOW Farkers hate guns and weed? Lol. You all are a trip.
 
2013-07-09 11:49:53 AM  

Perlin Noise: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.

This ...I am ranting an raving about this whole thing.

SlothB77: This alone provides enough reasonable doubt that the jury has no choice but to find zimmerman not guilty.

2/10 for trolling ...or is that sarcasm?


I for one think that 2nd degree murder is a bit much. From what I can tell, Zimmerman made a horrible horrible mistake and a young man ended up dead. That sounds like manslaughter to me. Whether or not that mistake was driven by racial or cultural prejudice does not matter unless you judge him with your emotions. I prefer not to.

I actually don't even understand how anything is relevant past the point where Zimmerman went on foot tracking him down. Dude, you created the situation when it was easily avoided. Zimmerman was the aggressor. I might have attempted to beat his ass as well if he were following me barking orders in the middle of the night.

It just does not seem that complicated to me.


If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.
 
2013-07-09 11:50:47 AM  

hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]


This.  He was a complete idiot for having his booger hook on the bang switch, especially on a gun with a closed slide like that.  Despite the removed magazine, there could still be a round in the chamber.
 
2013-07-09 11:51:17 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.

People like you are the reason he never really comments on issues of race. He never claimed that anyone was guilty or innocent. The President called for a FULL INVESTIGATION. But all you were able to remember is that he said Trayvon would hav looked like him. You've taken that one part of the statement and flipped it to mean, "I think George Zimmerman should go to jail and all blacks should get reperations."

Its pretty ridiculous.


You have a good point. Strange days we're in.......here....have a HOLSTEE MANIFESTO:

i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-09 11:54:47 AM  

hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]


I shudder to think of the crimes this guy is contemplating:

2.bp.blogspot.com

Clearly everybody who has a picture of themselves with a gun on the intarwebs is a violent tragedy waiting to happen.
 
2013-07-09 11:58:54 AM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: Oh, so NOW Farkers hate guns and weed? Lol. You all are a trip.

yup
 
2013-07-09 11:59:00 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.

People like you are the reason he never really comments on issues of race. He never claimed that anyone was guilty or innocent. The President called for a FULL INVESTIGATION. But all you were able to remember is that he said Trayvon would hav looked like him. You've taken that one part of the statement and flipped it to mean, "I think George Zimmerman should go to jail and all blacks should get reperations."

Its pretty ridiculous.


The Obama angle is really the best part about these threads.

/ALL OF THIS IS A MASTERFUL PUPPET SHOW FOR NEFARIOUS POLITICAL GAIN
//ALL OF IT I SAY!
 
2013-07-09 11:59:01 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: "I think George Zimmerman should go to jail and all blacks should get reperations."

Its pretty ridiculous.


Nope, no reparations here .....move along.
 
2013-07-09 12:00:12 PM  
When did Fark get this racist? Yeezus.
 
2013-07-09 12:01:28 PM  
Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?
 
2013-07-09 12:02:44 PM  
...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.
 
2013-07-09 12:02:46 PM  

megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?


Given where you live, how have you avoided killing anyone up to this point?
 
2013-07-09 12:03:22 PM  

megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.


Did you roll it up and smoke it?  Like a cigarette?
 
2013-07-09 12:03:57 PM  

megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?


What do you mean?  Trayvon didn't kill anyone.
 
2013-07-09 12:04:54 PM  

calm like a bomb: megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.

Did you roll it up and smoke it?  Like a cigarette?


Yes! Oh god what have I done!?!
 
2013-07-09 12:04:57 PM  

Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.


I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.
 
2013-07-09 12:06:26 PM  

Lem Motlow: megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?

What do you mean?  Trayvon didn't kill anyone.


No. BUT he DEFINITELY would have because apparently it's relevant to this trial. It was a matter of time.
 
2013-07-09 12:06:29 PM  

megarian: calm like a bomb: megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.

Did you roll it up and smoke it?  Like a cigarette?

Yes! Oh god what have I done!?!


I think it means the Hot Cops are on their way to arrest you.
 
2013-07-09 12:07:21 PM  

Ant: Oh_Enough_Already:
Given his current thuglife course trajectory he'd have been either dead or in jail for killing somebody else within a year, and given the fact it would have been a black person who killed him or who he killed we never ever would have heard about him and (rightfully) not a single fark would have been given.

Wow! You should become an FBI profiler or something. The way you extrapolated all of that from your meager knowledge of Trayvon Martin is just amazing.


You're too stupid to be Commenting
 
2013-07-09 12:08:07 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.

I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.


This.
 
2013-07-09 12:08:42 PM  

calm like a bomb: megarian: calm like a bomb: megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.

Did you roll it up and smoke it?  Like a cigarette?

Yes! Oh god what have I done!?!

I think it means the Hot Cops are on their way to arrest you.


Crap. Brb. Must erase all recent searches/destroy the hard drive.
 
2013-07-09 12:09:38 PM  
So they're gonna go with a "blacks are scary" defense? Sounds legit to me. I mean, look at what he was wearing! Of course he was asking for it
 
2013-07-09 12:10:03 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.

I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman

 MARTIN was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

FTFY

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

NO. He was observing and reporting (accurately reporting that he was viewing a drug-affected individual) FACT.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.

Martin's character is at THE ESSENCE of this case.  You cannot ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the room.  Not yours...
 
2013-07-09 12:10:54 PM  

calm like a bomb: Clearly everybody who has a picture of themselves with a gun on the intarwebs is a violent tragedy waiting to happen.


No,

But taken in totality with the drugs getting kicked out of his house, getting kicked out of school  etc.  then yes a violent tragedy waiting to happen

24.media.tumblr.com

24.media.tumblr.com
 
Ant
2013-07-09 12:11:54 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Oh, so NOW Farkers hate guns and weed? Lol. You all are a trip.


No. They hate black people with guns and weed. An old white guy with guns and weed would be a patriot with glaucoma, or something.
 
2013-07-09 12:13:17 PM  
Well I hope everyone in FLA owns a gun, because that state is fixing to burn
 
Ant
2013-07-09 12:13:22 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Ant: Oh_Enough_Already:
Given his current thuglife course trajectory he'd have been either dead or in jail for killing somebody else within a year, and given the fact it would have been a black person who killed him or who he killed we never ever would have heard about him and (rightfully) not a single fark would have been given.

Wow! You should become an FBI profiler or something. The way you extrapolated all of that from your meager knowledge of Trayvon Martin is just amazing.

You're too stupid to be Commenting


I agree. Oh_Enough_Already is too stupid to be commenting.
 
2013-07-09 12:15:20 PM  

megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?


megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.


You're basically farked. Better turn yourself in before somebody decides to stand his ground against you.
 
2013-07-09 12:15:47 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.

I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.


You are correct that the sucker punch is hearsay.  But what you are ignoring is that TM had time to JUST GO HOME.  Unless you consider yourself some sort of tough guy thug who feels dissed because some cracker is following you, you would JUST GO HOME.
 
2013-07-09 12:15:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: When did Fark get this racist? Yeezus.


I know! Even if they're trolls the things being stated are still pretty messed up.
 
2013-07-09 12:15:57 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Oh, so NOW Farkers hate guns and weed? Lol. You all are a trip.


I love guns.  I love weed.  But I don't love guns and weed at the same time.  Probably a bad combo.
 
2013-07-09 12:19:51 PM  

hasty ambush: calm like a bomb: Clearly everybody who has a picture of themselves with a gun on the intarwebs is a violent tragedy waiting to happen.

No,

But taken in totality with the drugs getting kicked out of his house, getting kicked out of school  etc.  then yes a violent tragedy waiting to happen

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x750]

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x621]


Sh*t.  That second picture made my groin go all shivery.  Too much information, I know....but, dayum!
 
2013-07-09 12:20:27 PM  
www.politifake.org
 
2013-07-09 12:21:37 PM  

lantawa: Martin's character is at THE ESSENCE of this case.  You cannot ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the room.  Not yours...


Looks like you have been properly distracted. Hook line and sinker.

See how they make you think he deserved to be killed?

Again, I just think Zimmerman made a really really bad/stupid call... I don't think he is a criminal.
 
2013-07-09 12:22:41 PM  

Summercat: Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.

This.


Right.  Because if he's an innocent 12 year old, then it's far easier to get a conviction of that awful, white racist who killed him.
 
2013-07-09 12:22:45 PM  
www.politifake.org
 
2013-07-09 12:22:46 PM  

lantawa: Martin's character is at THE ESSENCE of this case.  You cannot ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the room.  Not yours...


So the essence of the case is that Martin smoked the marihuana cigarettes and therefore such as?

Brilliant defense, guys. Brilliant.
 
2013-07-09 12:23:30 PM  

Perlin Noise: lantawa: Martin's character is at THE ESSENCE of this case.  You cannot ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the room.  Not yours...

Looks like you have been properly distracted. Hook line and sinker.

See how they make you think he deserved to be killed?

Again, I just think Zimmerman made a really really bad/stupid call... I don't think he is a criminal.


Isn't that largely what criminals do, though? Make really bad decisions that end up breaking the law?
 
2013-07-09 12:23:58 PM  

offmymeds: megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?

megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.

You're basically farked. Better turn yourself in before somebody decides to stand his ground against you.


I just called the Detroit police and told them that I smoked marijuana.

They lol'd.
 
2013-07-09 12:24:39 PM  
Do they even know what pot does to a person?

Unless Zimmerman was dressed up as a bag of Cheetos, being high on weed would have made him even 'less' likely to be aggressive toward him.
 
2013-07-09 12:24:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: lantawa: Martin's character is at THE ESSENCE of this case.  You cannot ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the room.  Not yours...

So the essence of the case is that Martin smoked the marihuana cigarettes and therefore such as?

Brilliant defense, guys. Brilliant.


^THIS^
 
2013-07-09 12:25:01 PM  

Lem Motlow: But what you are ignoring is that TM had time to JUST GO HOME


What Trayvon does legally with his time is not Zimmerman's business.

Just going home is irrelevant. The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.
 
2013-07-09 12:26:41 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: But what you are ignoring is that TM had time to JUST GO HOME

What Trayvon does legally with his time is not Zimmerman's business.

Just going home is irrelevant. The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.


Don't be obtuse, Trayvon Martin was plainly in violation of Florida law.  He was clearly Being Black after 8pm in Public.  That's a class A felony, you know.
 
2013-07-09 12:27:08 PM  
Hey, what's going in this thread?

Whoa.

/backs out slowly
 
2013-07-09 12:27:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Isn't that largely what criminals do, though? Make really bad decisions that end up breaking the law?


No, I think what you are talking about is intent. I do not believe Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon or even harm him. He just created a really bad situation unwittingly.
 
2013-07-09 12:28:02 PM  

megarian: offmymeds: megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?

megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.

You're basically farked. Better turn yourself in before somebody decides to stand his ground against you.

I just called the Detroit police and told them that I smoked marijuana.

They lol'd.


Yeah? Well they won't be laughing when they find you standing over the bloody, mutilated remains of your next victim!
;)
 
2013-07-09 12:28:25 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.

People like you are the reason he never really comments on issues of race. He never claimed that anyone was guilty or innocent. The President called for a FULL INVESTIGATION. But all you were able to remember is that he said Trayvon would hav looked like him. You've taken that one part of the statement and flipped it to mean, "I think George Zimmerman should go to jail and all blacks should get reperations."

Its pretty ridiculous.


Keep your head in the sand kid. There has never been a president that had the media in his back pocket like Obama. I give credit where it is due, and the guy is a master. He knows he can't come out and comment on guilt, but he can make a statement to get the media behind a movement.

They looked at the evidence and decided not to charge Zimmerman, until the media hype. Then they didn't take it before a grand jury because they knew that it likely woudn't pass muster.

Obama is free to comment on issues of race all he wants. I would welcome it. I'd love to hear someone explain why the trillions spent on the War on Poverty has only lead to more broken  homes, more black men in prison, more young black kids being raised without fathers and wholesale decline of some urban environments.

Why are African immigrants in America doing better than African Americans? What can these immigrants teach us about ourselves that no one else seems to be able to see?

www.100blackmen.org is a good start to solving some of these problems.
 
2013-07-09 12:28:56 PM  

Perlin Noise: cameroncrazy1984: Isn't that largely what criminals do, though? Make really bad decisions that end up breaking the law?

No, I think what you are talking about is intent. I do not believe Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon or even harm him. He just created a really bad situation unwittingly.


At best, he was a moron, aggressively going after some kid on some vague suspicion that may or may not have been racially motivated.

Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.
 
2013-07-09 12:29:56 PM  
Not true either.  TM did not live in that complex.

And loitering?  Maybe loitering and getting confronational with a stranger in the middle of the night.  Like I said, that's a bad idea because a) he might be a bigger tough guy than you think you are, and b) he might be carrying a weapon.
 
2013-07-09 12:30:27 PM  
Yeah, whether or not he smoked weed has no relevance to the case at all.  I mean he was a suburban black youth.  If he DIDN'T smoke weed it would have more relevance.
 
2013-07-09 12:30:43 PM  
So marijuana is a reason to murder, but Twinkies can be a defense to murder.  I can't wrap my head around that...
 
2013-07-09 12:31:09 PM  
If Trayvon had not died, he'd be looking at hate crimes charges. Clearly his rage against Zimmerman was that he saw him as a "cracker".

People are saying "justice for Trayvon". Trayvon already got justice. I just hope Zimmerman can recover from Martin's parents the money he is due for medical and pain and suffering.
 
2013-07-09 12:31:47 PM  

Lem Motlow: Not true either.  TM did not live in that complex.

And loitering?  Maybe loitering and getting confronational with a stranger in the middle of the night.  Like I said, that's a bad idea because a) he might be a bigger tough guy than you think you are, and b) he might be carrying a weapon.


That was supposed to be a reply to Perlin.
 
2013-07-09 12:32:13 PM  

Infernalist: At best, he was a moron, aggressively going after some kid on some vague suspicion that may or may not have been racially motivated.

Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.


yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.
 
2013-07-09 12:32:35 PM  

SevenizGud: If Trayvon had not died, he'd be looking at hate crimes charges. Clearly his rage against Zimmerman was that he saw him as a "cracker".

People are saying "justice for Trayvon". Trayvon already got justice. I just hope Zimmerman can recover from Martin's parents the money he is due for medical and pain and suffering.


Is it just me or is the average troll getting increasingly boring and predictable these days?  God, I miss the old ones that knew what they were doing.
 
2013-07-09 12:33:19 PM  

Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.


If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.
 
2013-07-09 12:33:33 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.

I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.


That's simply legally incorrect.

Zimmerman had the legal right to be where he was.  Following Martin does not in any way, shape, or form make him the aggressor, nor is it in any way, shape, or form an illegal act.

The aggressor is the one who threw the first punch, and given available information that was Martin.  But legally that is a bit of a distraction as well.

The use of deadly force is justified when you have a reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily harm.  If Martin placed Zimmerman in that position, then Zimmerman was legally justified.  And given that there is no evidence to the contrary, Zimmerman is not guilty of any crime.

It's a tragic situation.  Any number of things could have gone differently that would have resulted in a different outcome.  But that doesn't mean Zimmerman committed a crime.
 
2013-07-09 12:33:41 PM  

Perlin Noise: Infernalist: At best, he was a moron, aggressively going after some kid on some vague suspicion that may or may not have been racially motivated.

Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.


Probably hoping that Zimmerman will be smart for the first time in his life and plea down to manslaughter.
 
2013-07-09 12:33:43 PM  

Perlin Noise: The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.


With people like Trayvon in his neighborhood no wonder they had a watch.

media.tumblr.com
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-09 12:34:38 PM  

Perlin Noise: yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.


If only getting out of your truck and walking around in the dark was a crime.  Then you might actually get to lock him up.
 
2013-07-09 12:34:51 PM  

nekom: It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.

/me too, and millions of others.


Not me.
 
2013-07-09 12:34:56 PM  

offmymeds: megarian: offmymeds: megarian: Oh, oh fark guys...

I smoked pot marijuana recently. How...how long do I have before I kill someone?

megarian: ...and it was a lot. Maybe ten marihuanas.

You're basically farked. Better turn yourself in before somebody decides to stand his ground against you.

I just called the Detroit police and told them that I smoked marijuana.

They lol'd.

Yeah? Well they won't be laughing when they find you standing over the bloody, mutilated remains of your next victim!
;)


Sounds sexy.

/probably because of the marihuanas
 
2013-07-09 12:35:21 PM  

Infernalist: Probably hoping that Zimmerman will be smart for the first time in his life and plea down to manslaughter.


LOL  And you accuse others of trolling.
 
2013-07-09 12:35:35 PM  

Infernalist: At best, he was a moron, aggressively going after some kid on some vague suspicion that may or may not have been racially motivated.


I doubt there was any racial motivation, as Zimmerman couldn't have known that Martin thought he was a cracker.
 
2013-07-09 12:36:04 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.


Zimmerman himself has proven that he instigated the conflict by approaching Martin.  It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy.  By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.
 
2013-07-09 12:36:52 PM  

Lem Motlow: Not true either.  TM did not live in that complex.

And loitering?  Maybe loitering and getting confronational with a stranger in the middle of the night.  Like I said, that's a bad idea because a) he might be a bigger tough guy than you think you are, and b) he might be carrying a weapon.


Ok ...So he did not live there ...irrelevant.

From his perspective he was being stalked/harassed. Really? Is it that hard to see that? Listen, I'm not saying Trayvon is a saint or reacted well but he did not instigate the situation. Period.

Neither of these two people did the right thing. One is still alive, and he farked up bad. He should be punished for it.
 
2013-07-09 12:37:20 PM  

Perlin Noise: lantawa: Martin's character is at THE ESSENCE of this case.  You cannot ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the room.  Not yours...

Looks like you have been properly distracted. Hook line and sinker.

See how they make you think he deserved to be killed?

Again, I just think Zimmerman made a really really bad/stupid call... I don't think he is a criminal.



Nice try..........BUT....

i466.photobucket.com

No one deserved to die. No one "won" in this whole dog and pony show.
(Except maybe the extended Martin family and attorneys, who have already recieved a one million dollar + settlement in this case----can anyone give me a "MONEY GRAB"?)
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-11/news/os-trayvon-hoa-s et tlement-motion-20130411_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-sybrina-fult on
Gee.  I wonder if the Martin family has any bias, above and beyond grief and seeking justice, due to financial issues surrounding this case. One just has to wonder, doesn't one?

At least you got right the part about Zimmerman NOT being a criminal.

 
2013-07-09 12:37:24 PM  

Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.


Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.
 
2013-07-09 12:37:30 PM  

Tumunga: nekom: It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.

/me too, and millions of others.

Not me.


You should try it before you eat your reward cookie.
 
2013-07-09 12:37:41 PM  

topcon: If that judge had a son, he'd look like John Goodman dressed up as Linda Tripp.

[i.cdn.turner.com image 300x400] [www.toptenz.net image 400x302]


Totally forgot about the Goodman/Tripp thing, but you're right.
 
2013-07-09 12:38:55 PM  
If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he's going to get flayed alive by one question:

"Mr. Zimmerman, the 911 call recorded you saying 'punks like him are always getting away.'  When you say 'punks like him', what group were you referring to?  Urban youths or black youths?  Hoodie wearers?  Skittle lovers?  Tea drinkers?  People who don't own a car?  What group did you have in mind when you said 'punks like him?'
 
2013-07-09 12:39:30 PM  

lantawa: here....have a HOLSTEE MANIFESTO:

[i466.photobucket.com image 710x950]


www.galaide.org

Far out.
 
2013-07-09 12:40:11 PM  

Infernalist: If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he's going to get flayed alive by one question:

"Mr. Zimmerman, the 911 call recorded you saying 'punks like him are always getting away.'  When you say 'punks like him', what group were you referring to?  Urban youths or black youths?  Hoodie wearers?  Skittle lovers?  Tea drinkers?  People who don't own a car?  What group did you have in mind when you said 'punks like him?'


1/10
 
2013-07-09 12:40:50 PM  

hasty ambush: Perlin Noise: The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.

With people like Trayvon in his neighborhood no wonder they had a watch.

[media.tumblr.com image 350x250]
[media.tumblr.com image 500x580]


And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?
 
2013-07-09 12:41:08 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.


People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.
 
2013-07-09 12:41:17 PM  

Scerpes: Perlin Noise: yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.

If only getting out of your truck and walking around in the dark was a crime.  Then you might actually get to lock him up.


Walking around? He was following Trayvon. It was a good attempt at spin, though.
 
2013-07-09 12:41:45 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.


Yep.....
 
2013-07-09 12:42:02 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he's going to get flayed alive by one question:

"Mr. Zimmerman, the 911 call recorded you saying 'punks like him are always getting away.'  When you say 'punks like him', what group were you referring to?  Urban youths or black youths?  Hoodie wearers?  Skittle lovers?  Tea drinkers?  People who don't own a car?  What group did you have in mind when you said 'punks like him?'

1/10


How would you answer it, old son?  Take your time.
 
2013-07-09 12:42:37 PM  

lantawa: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

Yep.....


Nope.
 
2013-07-09 12:43:44 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.


Aggressively?  There's no evidence of that.  And yes...you're perfectly entitled to walk up to stranger on the street and say "What are you doing?"  That's not illegal, handgun or not.
 
2013-07-09 12:44:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: Perlin Noise: yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.

If only getting out of your truck and walking around in the dark was a crime.  Then you might actually get to lock him up.

Walking around? He was following Trayvon. It was a good attempt at spin, though.


Even if he was following, there's nothing illegal about that.
 
2013-07-09 12:45:07 PM  

hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]


And how has nobody commented on the fact that dear widdle TM had a FARKING HANDGUN when he was underage? The only way he could have acquired that piece is if he purchased it illegally, and if I recall correctly most states also regard drug possession while carrying a firearm a major offense. So,  we have drug usage (illegal, despite farkers wishes that it wasn't) combined with Felony Possession of a Firearm. Now if he had wanted to dance around the law on that he should have had a "Antique Firearm" (according to BATFE) like this 1858 Remington reproduction:
www.imfdb.org
.44 caliber, 6 shots, easy swappable cylinder, AND  perfectly legal for him to own, even after committing a federal crime resulting in the removal of his right to bear arms.
 
2013-07-09 12:45:25 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he's going to get flayed alive by one question:

"Mr. Zimmerman, the 911 call recorded you saying 'punks like him are always getting away.'  When you say 'punks like him', what group were you referring to?  Urban youths or black youths?  Hoodie wearers?  Skittle lovers?  Tea drinkers?  People who don't own a car?  What group did you have in mind when you said 'punks like him?'

1/10

How would you answer it, old son?  Take your time.


Simple - suspicious characters.  Manner of dress and looking in windows makes you suspicious.  Though it doesn't matter because there's no way he's taking the stand.
 
2013-07-09 12:45:57 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.

Zimmerman himself has proven that he instigated the conflict by approaching Martin.  It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy.  By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.


I'm not aware of any law that says I can't approach someone in public.

In fact, I'm incredibly sure that approaching another person in public is legal.  I can even legally talk to them.  And if I happened to be carrying a gun, that doesn't change.
 
2013-07-09 12:46:32 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: Not true either.  TM did not live in that complex.

And loitering?  Maybe loitering and getting confronational with a stranger in the middle of the night.  Like I said, that's a bad idea because a) he might be a bigger tough guy than you think you are, and b) he might be carrying a weapon.

Ok ...So he did not live there ...irrelevant.

From his perspective he was being stalked/harassed. Really? Is it that hard to see that? Listen, I'm not saying Trayvon is a saint or reacted well but he did not instigate the situation. Period.

Neither of these two people did the right thing. One is still alive, and he farked up bad. He should be punished for it.


It may or may not be relevant.

My point is this:

If it were me, I'd have gone home and stayed safe.  I don't have much tough guy thug in me and would not find it necessary to confront someone who was following me.

Trayvon figured he was some sort of tough guy and doubled back to confront a stranger in the middle of the night.  The tough guy ended up pounding the stranger's head on the pavement.  Stranger ended up having a gun.

I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.  Someone is following you?  So what, go home.  Did he look at you funny?  So what, go home.  Did he dis' you?  So what, go home.

I would have gone home and enjoyed my Skittles.
 
2013-07-09 12:46:36 PM  

Scerpes: cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: Perlin Noise: yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.

If only getting out of your truck and walking around in the dark was a crime.  Then you might actually get to lock him up.

Walking around? He was following Trayvon. It was a good attempt at spin, though.

Even if he was following, there's nothing illegal about that.


Except in cases where the following instigates a confrontation...
 
2013-07-09 12:47:36 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.

Aggressively?  There's no evidence of that.  And yes...you're perfectly entitled to walk up to stranger on the street and say "What are you doing?"  That's not illegal, handgun or not.


No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.
 
2013-07-09 12:48:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: Perlin Noise: yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.

If only getting out of your truck and walking around in the dark was a crime.  Then you might actually get to lock him up.

Walking around? He was following Trayvon. It was a good attempt at spin, though.

Even if he was following, there's nothing illegal about that.

Except in cases where the following instigates a confrontation...


Not even remotely true.  I can follow all I like.  If you choose to confront me, that doesn't make the following illegal.  If you choose to strike me, that doesn't make the following illegal.  If you strike me and place me in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm forcing me to kill you, that doesn't make the following illegal.
 
2013-07-09 12:48:37 PM  

nekom: It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.

/me too, and millions of others.


I guess stoners believe in "innocence by association."

/ Just calling a stoner a stoner
// You're a bad person and you should feel bad
// Slashies!
 
2013-07-09 12:49:10 PM  

Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.


You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?
 
2013-07-09 12:49:42 PM  

Infernalist: It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy. By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.


FAIL

At least you're not hiding behind race, I'll give you that. However, the fact has been established that Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. This fact is accepted by both sides. Walking up to and talking to somebody is most certainly not grounds for "taking responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict." Martin knew he was a stranger in the neighborhood. Martin also knew he had been trespassing. Whether that involved casing homes for subsequent robbery, or just taking a shortcut through somebody's back yard, we'll never know. Fact is: Zimmerman caught him trespassing and called 911 while trying to do nothing more than maintain observation of Martin's whereabouts. Martin told his "friend" that he was near "home" then turned around to instigate a confrontation with the "creepy-ass cracker," rather than let Zimmerman know exactly where to send the po-po that he reasonably could have expected to be called as a result of his own actions.

Game- set- match.
 
2013-07-09 12:49:45 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he's going to get flayed alive by one question:

"Mr. Zimmerman, the 911 call recorded you saying 'punks like him are always getting away.'  When you say 'punks like him', what group were you referring to?  Urban youths or black youths?  Hoodie wearers?  Skittle lovers?  Tea drinkers?  People who don't own a car?  What group did you have in mind when you said 'punks like him?'

1/10

How would you answer it, old son?  Take your time.

Simple - suspicious characters.  Manner of dress and looking in windows makes you suspicious.  Though it doesn't matter because there's no way he's taking the stand.


"Suspicious, sir?  Your own statement states that Trayvon was walking down the street.  You made no mention of looking in windows.  Are you lying now, or did you lie to the police when you made your multiple statements?  And what exactly is suspicious about wearing a hoodie, sir?  Does it cover the face?  Is 'grey' a color that blends into the darkness?  Are all hoodie wearers deserving of that suspicion and armed aggression?"
 
2013-07-09 12:49:45 PM  

Scerpes: cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: Perlin Noise: yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.

If only getting out of your truck and walking around in the dark was a crime.  Then you might actually get to lock him up.

Walking around? He was following Trayvon. It was a good attempt at spin, though.

Even if he was following, there's nothing illegal about that.

Except in cases where the following instigates a confrontation...

Not even remotely true.  I can follow all I like.  If you choose to confront me, that doesn't make the following illegal.  If you choose to strike me, that doesn't make the following illegal.  If you strike me and place me in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm forcing me to kill you, that doesn't make the following illegal.


You've never heard of harassment, have you.
 
2013-07-09 12:50:20 PM  
Or stalking, for that matter.
 
2013-07-09 12:50:52 PM  
17 year-olds are known for their sound decision making skills.

Have they brought Zimmerman's history (as an adult) of being a arrest-resisting domestic abuser? I find that even more relevant than whether or not Trayvon had smoked a drug so widely known for its propensity to incite violence in users, like marijuana.
 
2013-07-09 12:51:14 PM  

Infernalist: No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.


You're being dishonest.  There's absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun in his hand until he was on his back.  More than that, there's absolutely no evidence that Martin new Zimmerman had a gun until Zimmerman was on his back.
 
2013-07-09 12:51:41 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy. By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

FAIL

At least you're not hiding behind race, I'll give you that. However, the fact has been established that Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. This fact is accepted by both sides. Walking up to and talking to somebody is most certainly not grounds for "taking responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict." Martin knew he was a stranger in the neighborhood. Martin also knew he had been trespassing. Whether that involved casing homes for subsequent robbery, or just taking a shortcut through somebody's back yard, we'll never know. Fact is: Zimmerman caught him trespassing and called 911 while trying to do nothing more than maintain observation of Martin's whereabouts. Martin told his "friend" that he was near "home" then turned around to instigate a confrontation with the "creepy-ass cracker," rather than let Zimmerman know exactly where to send the po-po that he reasonably could have expected to be called as a result of his own actions.

Game- set- match.


Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking the boy.  Following after someone and then claiming self defense when they react to that stalking is like being an 8 year old girl waving your hands around your brother's face going "I'm not touching you!  I'm not touching you!"
 
2013-07-09 12:51:41 PM  

calm like a bomb: hasty ambush: Perlin Noise: The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.

With people like Trayvon in his neighborhood no wonder they had a watch.

[media.tumblr.com image 350x250]
[media.tumblr.com image 500x580]

And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?


Like the prosecution you are making the accusation , burden of proof is on you.  I would remind you that the lead prosecution witness has already admitted to lying.
 
2013-07-09 12:52:01 PM  

DarkVader: The use of deadly force is justified when you have a reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily harm.  If Martin placed Zimmerman in that position, then Zimmerman was legally justified.  And given that there is no evidence to the contrary, Zimmerman is not guilty of any crime.

It's a tragic situation.  Any number of things could have gone differently that would have resulted in a different outcome.  But that doesn't mean Zimmerman committed a crime.


Thank you for your reasonable tone.

I disagree that stalking/harassing someone can not be considered aggressive. However, you make a good point and I would not say Zimmerman committed a crime exactly. Sounds more like manslaughter because of what I consider aggressive behavior. He created the situation where there was a potential of serious bodily harm. That's the key.

That being said, I can certainly see where you are coming from. Unfortunately we really don't know exactly what happened (no matter what we hear in court). The only thing there really is to go on is the phone conversations and patchy "witness" statements.

I think Zimmerman will be found not guilty... and I also think that is unfortunate because I truly believe (no matter what the law says) Trayvon's death is Zimmeraman's fault. He created the situation, Trayvon may or may not have escalated it. I doubt we will ever know for sure.
 
2013-07-09 12:52:32 PM  
Neither Tray-tray or Zimm-zimm are particularly good people.

Let us come together and unite ourselves in knowing that one of them is dead and the other one may go to prison.
 
2013-07-09 12:53:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Not even remotely true.  I can follow all I like.  If you choose to confront me, that doesn't make the following illegal.  If you choose to strike me, that doesn't make the following illegal.  If you strike me and place me in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm forcing me to kill you, that doesn't make the following illegal.

You've never heard of harassment, have you.


I have...and none of that conduct constitutes harassment under Florida statute.
 
2013-07-09 12:54:08 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: When you look at early pictures of Trayvon, he looks like a bright boy with a love of life and a bright future. But when you look at his later photos, he's transformed into a thug or wannabe thug.

I don't really have a comment about the shooting, but it just seems like if George Z didn't do it, someone else would have at some point.

What's tragic here is the cycle of violence and culture of violence among African American youths that turns kids with a chance at success into the 70% of black men who are caught up in the American criminal justice system.


...Or, you know, he would've grown up, gotten a job, and moved on with his life, just like both of my little brothers did after doing nearly exactly the same stupid crap (though they hid their weed smoking better).

This is a stage  every teen boy goes through, because  teenagers are really goddamn stupid. It doesn't magically turn them into criminals.
 
2013-07-09 12:54:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?


Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.
 
2013-07-09 12:55:24 PM  
I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.
 
2013-07-09 12:55:32 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.

You're being dishonest.  There's absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun in his hand until he was on his back.  More than that, there's absolutely no evidence that Martin new Zimmerman had a gun until Zimmerman was on his back.


It doesn't matter if he had the gun out or if he kept it hidden until the fight got physical.  Zimmerman KNEW that he had the gun and knew that he had no right to instigate a conflict and then rely on that gun for self defense.

He did it anyways.

It's akin to the old Southern tradition of shooting someone and then dragging them halfway onto your porch and then claiming that you caught them trying to break in to your home.

If you have a gun, you are, ironically enough, under more restrictions when it comes to conflict than if you were completely unarmed.
 
2013-07-09 12:56:17 PM  

Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened. But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.



That is an infuriating argument. You are transferring all the responsibility to the person who didn't break the law, and not giving any of it to the person who attacked him. You are saying that GZ should have acted with perfect wisdom and forethought and restraint, but basically assuming that TM was a violent animal who can't be blamed for giving in to his base instinct to attack anyone who was annoying him.


It in a way, it really isn't all that different than the "she asked for it because of what she was wearing" argument. They both put the responsibility on the victim because the victim is the only one who is assumed to have any control over their actions. The other is just a force of nature that does what it does.
 
2013-07-09 12:56:29 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.



I know you were just as outraged when people did similar and worse things to George Bush, weren't you?
 
2013-07-09 12:58:10 PM  

Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.


There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?
 
2013-07-09 12:59:11 PM  

happydude45: DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.


I know you were just as outraged when people did similar and worse things to George Bush, weren't you?


Yes, but Bush deserved it. And you know who else disagrees with Obama? Tea Party racists with misspelled signs.
 
2013-07-09 12:59:18 PM  

ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Can you defame someone by using their actions against him? Not like they are lying. It was in the tox report. It isn't 2nd hand accounts.
 
2013-07-09 12:59:35 PM  

Infernalist: It doesn't matter if he had the gun out or if he kept it hidden until the fight got physical.  Zimmerman KNEW that he had the gun and knew that he had no right to instigate a conflict and then rely on that gun for self defense.

He did it anyways.

It's akin to the old Southern tradition of shooting someone and then dragging them halfway onto your porch and then claiming that you caught them trying to break in to your home.

If you have a gun, you are, ironically enough, under more restrictions when it comes to conflict than if you were completely unarmed.


LOL  You're either intentionally lying or you have no clue what you're talking about.  Under Florida statute, Zimmerman was under no further restrictions than he would have been if unarmed.

And no...it's noting like shooting someone and dragging them onto your porch.  But you keep lying.
 
2013-07-09 01:01:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: When did Fark get this racist? Yeezus.


You've just noticed this...?
 
2013-07-09 01:01:13 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened. But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.


That is an infuriating argument. You are transferring all the responsibility to the person who didn't break the law, and not giving any of it to the person who attacked him. You are saying that GZ should have acted with perfect wisdom and forethought and restraint, but basically assuming that TM was a violent animal who can't be blamed for giving in to his base instinct to attack anyone who was annoying him.


It in a way, it really isn't all that different than the "she asked for it because of what she was wearing" argument. They both put the responsibility on the victim because the victim is the only one who is assumed to have any control over their actions. The other is just a force of nature that does what it does.


When you buy a gun and use it with Concealed Carry or Open Carry, you take on additional responsibilities.  That's also one of the first things that they teach you.

If you want an example, watch any number of videos where an armed guard or police officer literally has to wait someone pulls out a gun to shoot him/her before responding with deadly force.  They're under HEAVY restrictions regarding their gun usage.

Secondly, again, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking TM.  He provoked a conflict that he had no right provoking considering his armed status.  He owns that mistake.
 
2013-07-09 01:01:30 PM  

Infernalist: There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?


You know less about forensics than you know about law.  You don't get skin or blood under your fingernails when you attack with your fists.
 
2013-07-09 01:02:34 PM  

Infernalist: Secondly, again, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking TM.  He provoked a conflict that he had no right provoking considering his armed status.  He owns that mistake.


You're still lying.  Say it as much as you want.  It doesn't make it true.
 
2013-07-09 01:02:52 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?


You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.
 
2013-07-09 01:04:06 PM  

Ned Stark: /not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.


You very very wrong there. 
Not guilty means not guilty... that is all.

The USA has NEVER judged a single person innocent.
We don't care if they are innocent, only if they can be proven guilty. So, not guilty.
 
2013-07-09 01:04:12 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: It doesn't matter if he had the gun out or if he kept it hidden until the fight got physical.  Zimmerman KNEW that he had the gun and knew that he had no right to instigate a conflict and then rely on that gun for self defense.

He did it anyways.

It's akin to the old Southern tradition of shooting someone and then dragging them halfway onto your porch and then claiming that you caught them trying to break in to your home.

If you have a gun, you are, ironically enough, under more restrictions when it comes to conflict than if you were completely unarmed.

LOL  You're either intentionally lying or you have no clue what you're talking about.  Under Florida statute, Zimmerman was under no further restrictions than he would have been if unarmed.

And no...it's noting like shooting someone and dragging them onto your porch.  But you keep lying.


Yes, he is. Under the Concealed Carry law, he is noted as carrying a lethal weapon.  This means that if a conflict arises and someone gets hurt because of that gun, he has to PROVE that it was a matter of self defense.

And stalking the boy instigated a conflict that didn't exist before Zimmerman provoked it.  So he owns it.  Even if Martin attacked him after being provoked by the stalking, Zimmerman still owns it.  There's no two ways around it, there's no evading it, there's no denying it.

Zimmerman, armed with a hand gun, provoked a conflict and then shot the boy.
 
2013-07-09 01:05:00 PM  
nekom It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.
/me too, and millions of others.

So you're luckier than the Calif guy serving a Life Sentence even tho it's legal there because, well, just because?...
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/18/dilberts-scott-adams-obamas-medica l- mari

infernalist Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.

broken nose, head bashed...I find it hard to believe you're  Yooper with a P.O.V. like that
 
2013-07-09 01:05:19 PM  

hasty ambush: Perlin Noise: The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.

With people like Trayvon in his neighborhood no wonder they had a watch.

[media.tumblr.com image 350x250]
[media.tumblr.com image 500x580]


Oh wow! secret agent Zim got beat up by a kid and lived to tell about it.
now post a picture of Trayvon with the lethal bullet wound.
 
2013-07-09 01:06:07 PM  

super_grass: happydude45: DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.


I know you were just as outraged when people did similar and worse things to George Bush, weren't you?

Yes, but Bush deserved it. And you know who else disagrees with Obama? Tea Party racists with misspelled signs.


You have no concept of logic and no common sense, do you?
 
2013-07-09 01:06:26 PM  

Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.


There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.
 
2013-07-09 01:06:50 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: But what you are ignoring is that TM had time to JUST GO HOME

What Trayvon does legally with his time is not Zimmerman's business.

Just going home is irrelevant. The worst he was doing is loitering in his own neighborhood.


Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.
 
2013-07-09 01:07:05 PM  

jaybeezey: Why are African immigrants in America doing better than African Americans? What can these immigrants teach us about ourselves that no one else seems to be able to see?


How about they haven't been taught that they are inferior since the day they were born?
 
2013-07-09 01:07:26 PM  

Perlin Noise: Ned Stark: /not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

You very very wrong there. Sometimes I read too fast.
Not guilty means not guilty... that is all.

The USA has NEVER judged a single person innocent.
We don't care if they are innocent, only if they can be proven guilty. So, not guilty.

 
2013-07-09 01:07:31 PM  

Lem Motlow: You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight. You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight. Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.


Or if you fight like a girl.

Fights aren't like they appear in movies.  Dirty scrapping is dirty.  Jockeying for position, anything can happen.

Again, Zimmerman is a pussy if he can't handle a child in a round of fisticuffs.  Total manlett.
 
2013-07-09 01:07:37 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: It doesn't matter if he had the gun out or if he kept it hidden until the fight got physical.  Zimmerman KNEW that he had the gun and knew that he had no right to instigate a conflict and then rely on that gun for self defense.

He did it anyways.

It's akin to the old Southern tradition of shooting someone and then dragging them halfway onto your porch and then claiming that you caught them trying to break in to your home.

If you have a gun, you are, ironically enough, under more restrictions when it comes to conflict than if you were completely unarmed.

LOL  You're either intentionally lying or you have no clue what you're talking about.  Under Florida statute, Zimmerman was under no further restrictions than he would have been if unarmed.

And no...it's noting like shooting someone and dragging them onto your porch.  But you keep lying.

Yes, he is. Under the Concealed Carry law, he is noted as carrying a lethal weapon.  This means that if a conflict arises and someone gets hurt because of that gun, he has to PROVE that it was a matter of self defense.

And stalking the boy instigated a conflict that didn't exist before Zimmerman provoked it.  So he owns it.  Even if Martin attacked him after being provoked by the stalking, Zimmerman still owns it.  There's no two ways around it, there's no evading it, there's no denying it.

Zimmerman, armed with a hand gun, provoked a conflict and then shot the boy.


LOL  You're a joke.  Under the law in Florida, even if Zimmerman struck Martin first, so long as he was unable to escape and in fear of great bodily injury at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's still entitled to use deadly force in self defense. - Section 776.032, Florida Statutes.
 
2013-07-09 01:07:50 PM  

FlyingJ: nekom It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.
/me too, and millions of others.

So you're luckier than the Calif guy serving a Life Sentence even tho it's legal there because, well, just because?...
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/18/dilberts-scott-adams-obamas-medica l- mari

infernalist Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.

broken nose, head bashed...I find it hard to believe you're  Yooper with a P.O.V. like that


Yeah, most Yoopers are rednecks.

Me, I believe in personal responsibility.  Crazy notion, I know.

Zimmerman's going to have a grand old time.
 
2013-07-09 01:08:57 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?


Definitely a little weird, yeah. Especially if the account of Martin grabbing Zimmerman's head and pounding it into the pavement is true.


Not exactly something I'd convict on though.
 
2013-07-09 01:09:14 PM  

happydude45: super_grass: happydude45: DROxINxTHExWIND: jaybeezey:
Is the President of the United States weighing in on a lot of cases these days or just cases where a black person seems to be done wrong by whitey...or a half cuban half jewish mix of some kind?

There is no doubt that folks get railroaded by overeager DA looking to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime. And there are waaaaaay to many kids in jail on bs possesion charges, but let's be honest about the nature of this case.


You're talking about the President who had someone during his State of the Union and call him a liar? The President who has folks walking around with pictures of him on a dollar bill eating cicken and watermelon? The President who had a look-a-like play Satan in a documentary about the last days? The President who has local sheriff departments and governors saying that they won't enforce laws because he influcenced their implementation? That guy now has the power to get people charged in Florida? Yeah ok.


I know you were just as outraged when people did similar and worse things to George Bush, weren't you?

Yes, but Bush deserved it. And you know who else disagrees with Obama? Tea Party racists with misspelled signs.

You have no concept of logic and no common sense, do you?


You don't agree with my watertight logic? You must be a Tea Party racist then.

Now I get to ignore all of your arguments and keep calling you that name.

/ And Racism and Republican just happen to start with the same letter, funny that.
 
2013-07-09 01:09:38 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.

Zimmerman himself has proven that he instigated the conflict by approaching Martin.  It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy.  By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.


Can you cite florida law that approaching someone you don't know is illegal? If trayvon had gone home none of this would have happened either.
 
2013-07-09 01:09:39 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: It doesn't matter if he had the gun out or if he kept it hidden until the fight got physical.  Zimmerman KNEW that he had the gun and knew that he had no right to instigate a conflict and then rely on that gun for self defense.

He did it anyways.

It's akin to the old Southern tradition of shooting someone and then dragging them halfway onto your porch and then claiming that you caught them trying to break in to your home.

If you have a gun, you are, ironically enough, under more restrictions when it comes to conflict than if you were completely unarmed.

LOL  You're either intentionally lying or you have no clue what you're talking about.  Under Florida statute, Zimmerman was under no further restrictions than he would have been if unarmed.

And no...it's noting like shooting someone and dragging them onto your porch.  But you keep lying.

Yes, he is. Under the Concealed Carry law, he is noted as carrying a lethal weapon.  This means that if a conflict arises and someone gets hurt because of that gun, he has to PROVE that it was a matter of self defense.

And stalking the boy instigated a conflict that didn't exist before Zimmerman provoked it.  So he owns it.  Even if Martin attacked him after being provoked by the stalking, Zimmerman still owns it.  There's no two ways around it, there's no evading it, there's no denying it.

Zimmerman, armed with a hand gun, provoked a conflict and then shot the boy.

LOL  You're a joke.  Under the law in Florida, even if Zimmerman struck Martin first, so long as he was unable to escape and in fear of great bodily injury at the moment he pulled the trigger, he's still entitled to use deadly force in self defense. - Section 776.032, Florida Statutes.


Doesn't work that way.  Zimmerman owns the whole mess from start to finish.  You can't hide behind a misinterpretation of state law, friend.

Don't be surprised if they announce Zimmerman taking a plea deal before this goes to the jury.
 
2013-07-09 01:10:23 PM  

Infernalist: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy. By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

FAIL

At least you're not hiding behind race, I'll give you that. However, the fact has been established that Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. This fact is accepted by both sides. Walking up to and talking to somebody is most certainly not grounds for "taking responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict." Martin knew he was a stranger in the neighborhood. Martin also knew he had been trespassing. Whether that involved casing homes for subsequent robbery, or just taking a shortcut through somebody's back yard, we'll never know. Fact is: Zimmerman caught him trespassing and called 911 while trying to do nothing more than maintain observation of Martin's whereabouts. Martin told his "friend" that he was near "home" then turned around to instigate a confrontation with the "creepy-ass cracker," rather than let Zimmerman know exactly where to send the po-po that he reasonably could have expected to be called as a result of his own actions.

Game- set- match.

Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking the boy.  Following after someone and then claiming self defense when they react to that stalking is like being an 8 year old girl waving your hands around your brother's face going "I'm not touching you!  I'm not touching you!"


You know what? I've been an inner-city teenager up to no good at times. Never have I expected not to be observed and/ or followed when I was trespassing. *But* I don't have rage or "whitey" issues to hide behind. Zimmerman did not instigate by following; Martin instigated by trespassing.
 
2013-07-09 01:10:35 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?


that depends, in TM's previous fights was he known to fight like an alleycat, using the scratchy hissyfit technique?
 
2013-07-09 01:10:50 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

Definitely a little weird, yeah. Especially if the account of Martin grabbing Zimmerman's head and pounding it into the pavement is true.


Not exactly something I'd convict on though.


You mean Zimmerman's account of how things happened?  Yeah, I'm not at all surprised that his point of view is...suspiciously at odds with reality.
 
2013-07-09 01:11:00 PM  

Infernalist: lantawa: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

Yep.....

Nope.


YEP...
 
2013-07-09 01:11:56 PM  

MyRandomName: Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.


You mean like batman?

Yep ...Zimmerman is just like Batman... what an awesome guy. Good for him. Where is the commissioner when you need him?!

Oh wait, Batman does not use guns ...so.... the Punisher maybe?
 
2013-07-09 01:11:58 PM  

Infernalist: Secondly, again, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking TM. He provoked a conflict that he had no right provoking considering his armed status. He owns that mistake.



So the lesson for the citizenry is: You are responsible for the actions of violent criminals if you do anything other than cower and piss yourself in fear, even if what you do is perfectly legal.


I hope for your sake that you are never judged by the same standards of restraint and foresight that you impose on other people.
 
2013-07-09 01:12:09 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy. By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

FAIL

At least you're not hiding behind race, I'll give you that. However, the fact has been established that Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. This fact is accepted by both sides. Walking up to and talking to somebody is most certainly not grounds for "taking responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict." Martin knew he was a stranger in the neighborhood. Martin also knew he had been trespassing. Whether that involved casing homes for subsequent robbery, or just taking a shortcut through somebody's back yard, we'll never know. Fact is: Zimmerman caught him trespassing and called 911 while trying to do nothing more than maintain observation of Martin's whereabouts. Martin told his "friend" that he was near "home" then turned around to instigate a confrontation with the "creepy-ass cracker," rather than let Zimmerman know exactly where to send the po-po that he reasonably could have expected to be called as a result of his own actions.

Game- set- match.

Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking the boy.  Following after someone and then claiming self defense when they react to that stalking is like being an 8 year old girl waving your hands around your brother's face going "I'm not touching you!  I'm not touching you!"

You know what? I've been an inner-city teenager up to no good at times. Never have I expected not to be observed and/ or followed when I was trespassing. *But* I don't have rage or "whitey" issues to hide behind. Zimmerman did not instigate by following; Martin instigated by trespassing.


How does one trespass onto public property like a public street?  Does it take a special hoodie?

Also, you should refresh yourself with the definition of 'stalking' and how it applies to this situation.
 
2013-07-09 01:12:31 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.

Aggressively?  There's no evidence of that.  And yes...you're perfectly entitled to walk up to stranger on the street and say "What are you doing?"  That's not illegal, handgun or not.

No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.


Your proof on zimmerman "aggressively involving" himself? Whatever that means.
 
2013-07-09 01:14:29 PM  

lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

Yep.....

Nope.

YEP...


NOU

Magnanimous_J: Infernalist: Secondly, again, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking TM. He provoked a conflict that he had no right provoking considering his armed status. He owns that mistake.


So the lesson for the citizenry is: You are responsible for the actions of violent criminals if you do anything other than cower and piss yourself in fear, even if what you do is perfectly legal.


I hope for your sake that you are never judged by the same standards of restraint and foresight that you impose on other people.


Nope, not the case at all.  If Zimmerman had simply reported what he was seeing and kept away from Martin and did as the 911 operator had suggested, then none of this would have happened.  No one would have died and Zimmerman wouldn't be facing a lifetime behind bars for being stupid.

Gun owners have to show more restraint than people who don't have guns.  If this seems unreasonable or irrational to you, then you clearly don't deserve to carry a gun.
 
2013-07-09 01:14:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Or stalking, for that matter.


Did you decide to take the role of uniformed of actual facts in the thread? The usual participant hasn't showed up uet.
 
2013-07-09 01:15:02 PM  

Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.


No.  What makes more sense?
a)  I was losing this fight and I don't have a scratch on me.
b)  I was beating on this cracker and I don't have a scratch on me.
 
2013-07-09 01:15:31 PM  

WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.


Yeah!  A sissy! You should offer him your dick......
 
2013-07-09 01:15:56 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy. By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

FAIL

At least you're not hiding behind race, I'll give you that. However, the fact has been established that Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. This fact is accepted by both sides. Walking up to and talking to somebody is most certainly not grounds for "taking responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict." Martin knew he was a stranger in the neighborhood. Martin also knew he had been trespassing. Whether that involved casing homes for subsequent robbery, or just taking a shortcut through somebody's back yard, we'll never know. Fact is: Zimmerman caught him trespassing and called 911 while trying to do nothing more than maintain observation of Martin's whereabouts. Martin told his "friend" that he was near "home" then turned around to instigate a confrontation with the "creepy-ass cracker," rather than let Zimmerman know exactly where to send the po-po that he reasonably could have expected to be called as a result of his own actions.

Game- set- match.

Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking the boy.  Following after someone and then claiming self defense when they react to that stalking is like being an 8 year old girl waving your hands around your brother's face going "I'm not touching you!  I'm not touching you!"

You know what? I've been an inner-city teenager up to no good at times. Never have I expected not to be observed and/ or followed when I was trespassing. *But* I don't have rage or "whitey" issues to hide behind. Zimmerman did not instigate by following; Martin instigated by trespassing.


Yes, but you're not a disadvantaged black youth who is constantly targeted by the white man.

You have no idea the struggles associated with the African-American experience like I did after extensive studies on internet news forums and talking to that Ethnic Studies major during a cocktail party.
 
2013-07-09 01:16:05 PM  

MyRandomName: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.

Aggressively?  There's no evidence of that.  And yes...you're perfectly entitled to walk up to stranger on the street and say "What are you doing?"  That's not illegal, handgun or not.

No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.

Your proof on zimmerman "aggressively involving" himself? Whatever that means.


Stalking, approaching, demanding information from a complete stranger while lacking any authority to do so.  The 911 operator told him not to approach TM and he ignored her and hung up on her and did just that and then someone died.

This is all stuff that he's freely admitted to doing, by the way.
 
2013-07-09 01:16:30 PM  

washington-babylon: hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]

And how has nobody commented on the fact that dear widdle TM had a FARKING HANDGUN when he was underage? The only way he could have acquired that piece is if he purchased it illegally, and if I recall correctly most states also regard drug possession while carrying a firearm a major offense. So,  we have drug usage (illegal, despite farkers wishes that it wasn't) combined with Felony Possession of a Firearm. Now if he had wanted to dance around the law on that he should have had a "Antique Firearm" (according to BATFE) like this 1858 Remington reproduction:
[www.imfdb.org image 400x185]
.44 caliber, 6 shots, easy swappable cylinder, AND  perfectly legal for him to own, even after committing a federal crime resulting in the removal of his right to bear arms.


Yeah, no.  Depends on the state.  California says no.
 
2013-07-09 01:16:49 PM  

derpy: jaybeezey: Why are African immigrants in America doing better than African Americans? What can these immigrants teach us about ourselves that no one else seems to be able to see?

How about they haven't been taught that they are inferior since the day they were born?


You're going with that? Who's saying that? Parents? Teachers? Pastors? Every other person they see? Please elaborate.
 
2013-07-09 01:17:09 PM  

Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

No.  What makes more sense?
a)  I was losing this fight and I don't have a scratch on me.
b)  I was beating on this cracker and I don't have a scratch on me.


The results of that question is irrelevant.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck and pursued TM.
 
2013-07-09 01:17:14 PM  

Infernalist: lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

Yep.....

Nope.

YEP...

NOU


LOL
 
2013-07-09 01:17:22 PM  

Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.


Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!
 
2013-07-09 01:17:52 PM  

lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

Yep.....

Nope.

YEP...

NOU

LOL


It had to be done.
 
2013-07-09 01:17:59 PM  

ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


hindssermons.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-09 01:18:54 PM  

MyRandomName: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!


Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.
 
2013-07-09 01:18:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?


No, I don't see how you get from A to B because I WOULD HAVE GONE HOME.  I would not have doubled back to confront him.  He was acting like a tough guy, wanna-be thug.  If you want to get on that ship, you are going to have the deal with where it takes you.
 
2013-07-09 01:19:02 PM  
Come on everyone ...can we at least agree that Zimmerman IS a cracker???

I mean really, look at the guy.
 
2013-07-09 01:19:32 PM  

Perlin Noise: MyRandomName: Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.

You mean like batman?

Yep ...Zimmerman is just like Batman... what an awesome guy. Good for him. Where is the commissioner when you need him?!

Oh wait, Batman does not use guns ...so.... the Punisher maybe?


Another fact you get wrong, awesome. Early batman did use guns.
 
2013-07-09 01:20:33 PM  

WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.


Which is why the defense somehow convinced the judge to include his pot smoking into evidence. They're counting on the jury's ignorance to explain exactly how that happened. After all, you can't just go around saying that some black kid got the better of some white-ass cracker. That's just bad press for all self-appointed law enforcement wannabe's.
 
2013-07-09 01:20:45 PM  

lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

Yep.....

Nope.

YEP...

NOU

LOL


Gotta love blaming the victim ...Look what he was wearing, he was asking for it!
 
2013-07-09 01:20:55 PM  

Lem Motlow: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

No, I don't see how you get from A to B because I WOULD HAVE GONE HOME.  I would not have doubled back to confront him.  He was acting like a tough guy, wanna-be thug.  If you want to get on that ship, you are going to have the deal with where it takes you.


TM had every right in the world to go to the store and buy something and then head home again.  No private citizen has the right to stalk another simply because they feel that he's being suspicious.  Investigating such things is not the purvey or domain of private citizens, but the police.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck and simply been smart.  So, he owns the whole mess.
 
2013-07-09 01:21:07 PM  

Perlin Noise: Come on everyone ...can we at least agree that Zimmerman IS a cracker???

I mean really, look at the guy.


Isn't he like half ethnic jewish and half hispanic?

Not exactly the WASP-iest of people.
 
2013-07-09 01:21:23 PM  
hasty ambush:
And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?

Like the prosecution you are making the accusation , burden of proof is on you.  I would remind you that the lead prosecution witness has already admitted to lying.


Your insinuation was that the dead kid was the instigator.  I asked you how you knew that.  You couldn't answer it, I guess.
 
2013-07-09 01:21:51 PM  

Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.

Aggressively?  There's no evidence of that.  And yes...you're perfectly entitled to walk up to stranger on the street and say "What are you doing?"  That's not illegal, handgun or not.

No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.

Your proof on zimmerman "aggressively involving" himself? Whatever that means.

Stalking, approaching, demanding information from a complete stranger while lacking any authority to do so.  The 911 operator told him not to approach TM and he ignored her and hung up on her and did just that and then someone died.

This is all stuff that he's freely admitted to doing, by the way.


911 never offered a command to not follow. This was in testimony. He never hung up on her, connection was spotty all night and they had multiple disconnects, this was in trial. Do you have any facts that are true?
 
2013-07-09 01:21:57 PM  

Perlin Noise: Come on everyone ...can we at least agree that Zimmerman IS a cracker???

I mean really, look at the guy.


Full on redneck cracker-ass cracker types would disagree.
 
2013-07-09 01:22:11 PM  

MyRandomName: Early batman did use guns.


ibankcoin.com

/I keeeed, I keeeed
 
2013-07-09 01:22:48 PM  

Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!

Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.


So, Zimmerman owned the conflict when Trayvon approach him face to face and asked "Excuse me sir, why are you following me.  I am simply returning from a Skittles run and trying to get out of the rain."

Did he own that part too?

Oh right...
 
2013-07-09 01:22:50 PM  

WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.


I heard some of the testimony from the guy that owned the gym Zimmerman went to.  To summarize:  "Nice guy, but even after a year of training remained a soft, wimpy fatass".
 
2013-07-09 01:23:01 PM  

MyRandomName: Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.

Great theory.  Too bad thats not the law in Florida.  If Martin had just gone home, none of this would have happened.  He owns the results.  For better or worse.

People are allowed to walk to the store and buy something.  They're not allowed to aggressive approach someone with a hand gun.  Zimmerman is the one at fault here.  He stuck his stupid face into a situation based solely on the fact that he had the edge due to his carrying a gun.  He stuck his face into a conflict against the advice of the 911 operator and a kid died from it.

Zimmerman is going to be 'very' popular in general population.

Aggressively?  There's no evidence of that.  And yes...you're perfectly entitled to walk up to stranger on the street and say "What are you doing?"  That's not illegal, handgun or not.

No, it's really not.  If you doubt it, go buy a gun, keep it in hand and try walking up to someone on the street and see what happens.

Better yet, try walking up to a cop and saying that.

They 'teach' you this stuff in Open Carry classes.  You can't aggressively involve yourself in any situation outside of defending someone from harm.  That's like...the first thing that they teach you.  The gun is there for SELF DEFENSE, not being a hero and going all 'citizens arrest' on someone.

Zimmerman ignored this primary rule and he's going to burn for it.

Your proof on zimmerman "aggressively involving" himself? Whatever that means.

Stalking, approaching, demanding information from a complete stranger while lacking any authority to do so.  The 911 operator told him not to approach TM and he ignored her and hung up on her and did just that and then someone died.

This is all stuff that he's freely admitted to doing, by the way.

911 never o ...


My apologies, she SUGGESTED that he not follow TM.  Other than that, it's the same thing.  He owns the end results of his stupidity.  That's why it's manslaughter and not 2nd degree murder.  He's a victim of his own stupidity.
 
2013-07-09 01:23:48 PM  

Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!

Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.


Again florida laws says differently. When you get a single fact of the case right, I may respind again. There is no precondition for self defense predicated on who started what in florida law. None.
 
2013-07-09 01:24:23 PM  

jaybeezey: Full on redneck cracker-ass cracker types would disagree.


Even in the middle of the night, high on the marijuana?
 
2013-07-09 01:25:00 PM  

super_grass: Yes, but you're not a disadvantaged black youth who is constantly targeted by the white man.

You have no idea the struggles associated with the African-American experience like I did after extensive studies on internet news forums and talking to that Ethnic Studies major during a cocktail party.


I lived in a foster home on the "black side of town". While I had friends of both colors, we had one thing in common: we were poor as hell.
 
2013-07-09 01:25:07 PM  

Infernalist: Lem Motlow: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

No, I don't see how you get from A to B because I WOULD HAVE GONE HOME.  I would not have doubled back to confront him.  He was acting like a tough guy, wanna-be thug.  If you want to get on that ship, you are going to have the deal with where it takes you.

TM had every right in the world to go to the store and buy something and then head home again.  No private citizen has the right to stalk another simply because they feel that he's being suspicious.  Investigating such things is not the purvey or domain of private citizens, but the police.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck and simply been smart.  So, he owns the whole mess.


You do know stalking has a legal definition. Prosecution didn't even try down that route for a reason...
 
2013-07-09 01:25:12 PM  

Lem Motlow: Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!

Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.

So, Zimmerman owned the conflict when Trayvon approach him face to face and asked "Excuse me sir, why are you following me.  I am simply returning from a Skittles run and trying to get out of the rain."

Did he own that part too?

Oh right...


TM would never have had the opportunity to respond to Zimmerman's stalking if he'd stayed in the truck like he was encouraged to do so by the 911 operator.  Instead, Zimmerman got out and went after the boy, probably feeling extra manly with that gun he had hidden on his person.

So, again, Zimmerman owns it.  And if he got his face bashed in as a result, then that's a bit more incentive to not be stupid in the future, not that it matters once he's serving 40 to life.
 
2013-07-09 01:25:56 PM  

Infernalist: Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ. Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.


Unless Zimmerman got out of his truck swinging at Martin, you're completely wrong.
 
2013-07-09 01:26:33 PM  

MyRandomName: You do know stalking has a legal definition. Prosecution didn't even try down that route for a reason...


T. H. I. S.
 
2013-07-09 01:26:42 PM  

MyRandomName: Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!

Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.

Again florida laws says differently. When you get a single fact of the case right, I may respind again. There is no precondition for self defense predicated on who started what in florida law. None.


That's funny since the whole basis behind "Stand Your Ground" is there are preconditions for using a weapon in self defense.

You're adorable.
 
2013-07-09 01:26:45 PM  

Infernalist: Gun owners have to show more restraint than people who don't have guns. If this seems unreasonable or irrational to you, then you clearly don't deserve to carry a gun.



Restraint? Sure. Don't get drunk, don't leave it lying around, don't brag about it.


Walking down your own street to check out a suspicious person? Nope. You can still do that.
 
2013-07-09 01:26:58 PM  

Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.

I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.


The problem is this: if TM had every right to be walking there (and he did), then so did GZ. Whether or not it was a Bad Idea TM, GZ did nothing wrong - legally or morally -  by following TM. Those are facts. What you wrote is not.
 
2013-07-09 01:28:04 PM  

lantawa: WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.

Yeah!  A sissy! You should offer him your dick......


He couldn't handle it.  He would just end up getting beaten and bloodied again.
 
2013-07-09 01:28:38 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Infernalist: Gun owners have to show more restraint than people who don't have guns. If this seems unreasonable or irrational to you, then you clearly don't deserve to carry a gun.


Restraint? Sure. Don't get drunk, don't leave it lying around, don't brag about it.


Walking down your own street to check out a suspicious person? Nope. You can still do that.


Instigating a conflict isn't allowed by law, even without a gun.  Instigating one while armed with a deadly weapon is especially stupid and illegal.

Why is this so hard to grasp for some people?
 
2013-07-09 01:29:32 PM  

offmymeds: WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.

Which is why the defense somehow convinced the judge to include his pot smoking into evidence. They're counting on the jury's ignorance to explain exactly how that happened. After all, you can't just go around saying that some black kid got the better of some white-ass cracker. That's just bad press for all self-appointed law enforcement wannabe's.


Um, he's not white.  Just a pussy hiding behind a gun.
 
2013-07-09 01:30:15 PM  

Carousel Beast: Those are facts. What you wrote is not.


So Zimmerman was not taking the law into his own hands huh? How did I get that wrong?
 
2013-07-09 01:30:18 PM  

Carousel Beast: Perlin Noise: Lem Motlow: If I were being followed in the middle of the night and I had a chance to reach my destination unmolested, I would do just that.  Not make a U-turn and find the person following me and sucker punch them.  You never know if he might be carrying a weapon.

I actually agree with you and in no way condone any violent action on either of their parts. However, that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Plus, I don't think we can trust a sucker punch claim from the guy when nobody can corroborate it, especially when he killed the kid. I'm not saying it did not happen, only that it is not convincing evidence (if you can even call it that).

What we do have to go on is facts, not hearsay testimony. If he had stayed in the vehicle, everything would have been fine. As soon as he went tracking him down, he was taking the law into his own hands.

Trayvon's character matters little. It is just a distraction.

The problem is this: if TM had every right to be walking there (and he did), then so did GZ. Whether or not it was a Bad Idea TM, GZ did nothing wrong - legally or morally -  by following TM. Those are facts. What you wrote is not.


Zimmerman instigated a conflict by pursuing TM outside of his vehicle, after Zimmerman's stalking provoked TM into leaving the street and trying to cut through some backyards to get away from the strange person following him.

Zimmerman is a victim of his own stupidity.
 
2013-07-09 01:31:04 PM  

calm like a bomb: WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.

I heard some of the testimony from the guy that owned the gym Zimmerman went to.  To summarize:  "Nice guy, but even after a year of training remained a soft, wimpy fatass".


Dude better get himself some muscle milk and a copy of Starting Strength.
 
2013-07-09 01:31:44 PM  

HAMMERTOE: super_grass: Yes, but you're not a disadvantaged black youth who is constantly targeted by the white man.

You have no idea the struggles associated with the African-American experience like I did after extensive studies on internet news forums and talking to that Ethnic Studies major during a cocktail party.

I lived in a foster home on the "black side of town". While I had friends of both colors, we had one thing in common: we were poor as hell.


I loved you in 8 Mile.
 
2013-07-09 01:31:54 PM  
lantawa:

Nice try..........BUT....

[i466.photobucket.com image 293x172]

No one deserved to die. No one "won" in this whole dog and pony show.
(Except maybe the extended Martin family and attorneys, who have already recieved a one million dollar + settlement in this case----can anyone give me a "MONEY GRAB"?)


So I take it you can give me your scout's honor that you would not sue the ever-loving piss out of the group that the man who killed you child was affiliated with and acting on their behalf. Scratch that, I know your post was an overzealous attempt to paint GZ in a favorable light by attempting to de-humanize anyone who might oppose GZ's version of events.

/Because they must've forgot they had a son for 17 farking years when they were awarded 1 measly farking million
 
2013-07-09 01:32:14 PM  

calm like a bomb: hasty ambush:
And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?

Like the prosecution you are making the accusation , burden of proof is on you.  I would remind you that the lead prosecution witness has already admitted to lying.

Your insinuation was that the dead kid was the instigator.  I asked you how you knew that.  You couldn't answer it, I guess.


And how do you know Zimmerman is the instigator?  Did he assault Martin?  Zimmerman is the accused, burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the accusers.  Prosecution has already failed on the reasonable doubt level with an admitted liar as their lead witness.
 
2013-07-09 01:32:45 PM  

studs up: HAMMERTOE: super_grass: Yes, but you're not a disadvantaged black youth who is constantly targeted by the white man.

You have no idea the struggles associated with the African-American experience like I did after extensive studies on internet news forums and talking to that Ethnic Studies major during a cocktail party.

I lived in a foster home on the "black side of town". While I had friends of both colors, we had one thing in common: we were poor as hell.

I loved you in 8 Mile.


lol

Perfect note for me to head off.  Thanks for the entertainment, chaps.
 
2013-07-09 01:33:04 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: washington-babylon: hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]

And how has nobody commented on the fact that dear widdle TM had a FARKING HANDGUN when he was underage? The only way he could have acquired that piece is if he purchased it illegally, and if I recall correctly most states also regard drug possession while carrying a firearm a major offense. So,  we have drug usage (illegal, despite farkers wishes that it wasn't) combined with Felony Possession of a Firearm. Now if he had wanted to dance around the law on that he should have had a "Antique Firearm" (according to BATFE) like this 1858 Remington reproduction:
[www.imfdb.org image 400x185]
.44 caliber, 6 shots, easy swappable cylinder, AND  perfectly legal for him to own, even after committing a federal crime resulting in the removal of his right to bear arms.

Yeah, no.  Depends on the state.  California says no.


heheheh. California says no to everything. Most ORDINARY states do respect the BATFE guidelines regarding Firearms ownership.
 
2013-07-09 01:33:50 PM  

WhiskeySticks: lantawa: WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.

Yeah!  A sissy! You should offer him your dick......

He couldn't handle it.  He would just end up getting beaten and bloodied again.


Oh FFS.....
 
2013-07-09 01:34:28 PM  
What is this "owned" thing?  Did you take too many psychology courses in college?  Or watch too much Dr. Phil?

Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch.  It was his duty to keeps tabs on people weaving in and out of houses and peering into window in the middle of a rainy night.
 
2013-07-09 01:36:29 PM  

Lem Motlow: What is this "owned" thing?  Did you take too many psychology courses in college?  Or watch too much Dr. Phil?

Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch.  It was his duty to keeps tabs on people weaving in and out of houses and peering into window in the middle of a rainy night.


Meant as a reply to Infernalist.  Gotta work on my internets skillz.
 
2013-07-09 01:36:58 PM  

Lem Motlow: What is this "owned" thing?  Did you take too many psychology courses in college?  Or watch too much Dr. Phil?

Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch.  It was his duty to keeps tabs on people weaving in and out of houses and peering into window in the middle of a rainy night.


Yep.

Nothing more scary better than a self righteous busy body with a gun. I feel safer already
 
2013-07-09 01:37:00 PM  

WhiskeySticks: offmymeds: WhiskeySticks: I still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.

This dude must be a major pussy.

Which is why the defense somehow convinced the judge to include his pot smoking into evidence. They're counting on the jury's ignorance to explain exactly how that happened. After all, you can't just go around saying that some black kid got the better of some white-ass cracker. That's just bad press for all self-appointed law enforcement wannabe's.

Um, he's not white.  Just a pussy hiding behind a gun.


You're right. I stand corrected.
 
2013-07-09 01:37:57 PM  

jaybeezey: How about they haven't been taught that they are inferior since the day they were born?

You're going with that? Who's saying that? Parents? Teachers? Pastors? Every other person they see? Please elaborate.


Well, about a dozen people in this thread, for starters.  But usually, it's a more of a subtle, implied phenomenon.

African Americans are significantly more likely than white people to be borne into poverty, or to go to prison at some point in their lives.  When people deny the existence of institutional racism, it is implied that the cause for these disparities is innate: blacks go to prison more often not because they are targeted by drug laws and sentencing disparities, but because they are by nature less civilized, more anti-social than white people; they are poorer not because of generations of property seizure and systemic economic inequality, but because they are more lazy than white people.
 
2013-07-09 01:38:47 PM  

Infernalist: Zimmerman is a victim of his own stupidity.


being stupid ain't illegal. Assaulting a person is.
 
2013-07-09 01:40:12 PM  

washington-babylon: Psycoholic_Slag: washington-babylon: hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]

And how has nobody commented on the fact that dear widdle TM had a FARKING HANDGUN when he was underage? The only way he could have acquired that piece is if he purchased it illegally, and if I recall correctly most states also regard drug possession while carrying a firearm a major offense. So,  we have drug usage (illegal, despite farkers wishes that it wasn't) combined with Felony Possession of a Firearm. Now if he had wanted to dance around the law on that he should have had a "Antique Firearm" (according to BATFE) like this 1858 Remington reproduction:
[www.imfdb.org image 400x185]
.44 caliber, 6 shots, easy swappable cylinder, AND  perfectly legal for him to own, even after committing a federal crime resulting in the removal of his right to bear arms.

Yeah, no.  Depends on the state.  California says no.

heheheh. California says no to everything. Most ORDINARY states do respect the BATFE guidelines regarding Firearms ownership.


That's why the song is titled "California Uber Alles". We constantly screw up the curve on stupid out here.
/It's the suede denim secret police
 
2013-07-09 01:41:13 PM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.


Well, the fact that he was told by the 911 dispatcher not to get out of his car and follow Martin, and yet he did that very thing and took his gun with him seems pretty damning.
 
2013-07-09 01:43:26 PM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.

Zimmerman himself has proven that he instigated the conflict by approaching Martin.  It's entirely irrelevant if Martin attacked him after Zimmerman made himself known to the boy.  By approaching Martin and instigating the interaction, Martin takes on the full responsibility for instigating the subsequent conflict.

In short, if the farker had stayed in his truck and stayed away from Martin, none of this would have happened.  But, he didn't, so he owns the results, for better or worse.


So the girl who approaches and says "Hello" at a party to the guy who later rapes her after she passes out is totally responsible for instigating the subsequent conflict?

Nice.
 
2013-07-09 01:44:03 PM  
They should really just call this trial off and convict Zimbo.  Trials need to stop looking at facts and take the emotionality into consideration.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-09 01:44:22 PM  

kendelrio: So the girl who approaches and says "Hello" at a party to the guy who later rapes her after she passes out is totally responsible for instigating the subsequent conflict?

Nice.


Depends how she's dressed.
 
2013-07-09 01:44:24 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: Scerpes: Infernalist: Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

If only you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated.  You simply can't do it.

Well, the fact that he was told by the 911 dispatcher not to get out of his car and follow Martin, and yet he did that very thing and took his gun with him seems pretty damning.


He was never told not to get out of his car.
 
2013-07-09 01:44:35 PM  

mr lawson: Infernalist: Zimmerman is a victim of his own stupidity.

being stupid ain't illegal. Assaulting a person is.


how about criminal negligence, or ignorance of the law. Both of those things can land you trouble and can easily be caused by stupidity.
 
2013-07-09 01:45:49 PM  
Never figured that statement out: Did Obama have sex with Trayvon's mother or did Trayvon's father have sex with Michelle?
 
2013-07-09 01:47:19 PM  
Just in case anyone needs a good live link to the court case, here is.....for you.....from me.....free!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-live-george-zimmerman-trial-070913/

Hopefully, it'll help some of you Martin-Fanboys/Reality-Deniers snap out of your fantasyland scenarios that you've been so cleverly been led into.......
 
2013-07-09 01:47:43 PM  

Carousel Beast: The problem is this: if TM had every right to be walking there (and he did), then so did GZ. Whether or not it was a Bad Idea TM, GZ did nothing wrong - legally or morally - by following TM.


Did nothing wrong?  By stalking a complete stranger on a public street based solely on his "suspicious appearance" i.e., his race?

And doing so while brandishing a deadly weapon?

You seriously want to argue that he did nothing wrong?  "Not guilty of murder" I can understand, but "did nothing wrong" seems quite a stretch when a child was murdered in cold blood.
 
2013-07-09 01:47:57 PM  

udhq: When people deny the existence of institutional racism, it is implied that the cause for these disparities is innate: blacks go to prison more often not because they are targeted by drug laws and sentencing disparities, but because they are by nature less civilized, more anti-social than white people; they are poorer not because of generations of property seizure and systemic economic inequality, but because they are more lazy than white people.


You know this may be true, but not in the way you're intending. Paula Deen apparently deserves to lose her livelihood over something stupid she said decades ago, but here you are, glossing over Martin's admitted racist comments, aggressive actions, and antisocial behavior.

Sounds to me like your expectations of Martin are significantly lower than the prevalent expectations of the dim past of an old white woman. How much property has he had seized again?
 
2013-07-09 01:50:38 PM  

udhq: By stalking a complete stranger on a public street based solely on his "suspicious appearance" i.e., his race?


No.

By attempting to maintain visual observation of a stranger in the neighborhood that had experienced recent break-ins, after he observed that stranger coming out of somebody's back yard, under cover of night. It's apparently lost on you, but there's a reason he wasn't charged with "stalking" Martin.
 
2013-07-09 01:52:03 PM  

udhq: Carousel Beast: The problem is this: if TM had every right to be walking there (and he did), then so did GZ. Whether or not it was a Bad Idea TM, GZ did nothing wrong - legally or morally - by following TM.

Did nothing wrong?  By stalking a complete stranger on a public street based solely on his "suspicious appearance" i.e., his race?

And doing so while brandishing a deadly weapon?

You seriously want to argue that he did nothing wrong?  "Not guilty of murder" I can understand, but "did nothing wrong" seems quite a stretch when a child was murdered in cold blood.


Had nothing to do with his race. He was not brandishing a deadly weapon.
 
2013-07-09 01:53:32 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Sounds to me like your expectations of Martin are significantly lower than the prevalent expectations of the dim past of an old white woman. How much property has he had seized again?


What about an armed, profiling, overzealous neighborhood watch guy?

There are no saints to be found in this case. Only victims of stupid actions and societal pressures.
 
2013-07-09 01:58:54 PM  

Perlin Noise: What about an armed, profiling, overzealous neighborhood watch guy?


I see a stranger come out of my neighbor's back yard, I'm going to "profile" them too, no matter what their color. What exactly is "overzealous" about trying to maintain observation of a suspect?
 
2013-07-09 02:00:11 PM  
Infernalist: The results of that question is irrelevant.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck and pursued TM.

Not in any real world setting, ever. If I lived in your hood maybe I'd follow you. Would you hide in the bushes and then pop out later to confront me?

This moronic logic is getting old.

/and don't do this speculation crap, the trial is ongoing, and ZERO evidence has been presented that shows Zimmerman being intimidating. For all Martin knew Zimmerman was getting out of his car to drop off some crap at a neighbors house, and eyed him because...I don't know, he's walking behind people's houses in the dark and rain.
 
2013-07-09 02:02:48 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: Well, the fact that he was told by the 911 dispatcher not to get out of his car and follow Martin, and yet he did that very thing and took his gun with him seems pretty damning.


You got that from either Al Sharpton or Nancy Grace, correct? Amirite or amirite? MSNBC? NBC? Benjamin Crump? Who? Since when does "we don't need you to do that" become "don't do that"? Since when does a non-sworn police dispatcher's opinion become "an order"? you know when? It's when an orchestration of a false fact pattern is put forth as "reality" and "the facts." The prosecution's "facts," in this case, are being debunked and impeached at every turn, by the defense. Please recognize that reality. The only way a guilty verdict is returned is if the jury nullifies the facts at the jury's pleasure (and yes, juries certainly CAN do that)  Let's continue to watch, shall we?
 
2013-07-09 02:04:23 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Perlin Noise: What about an armed, profiling, overzealous neighborhood watch guy?

I see a stranger come out of my neighbor's back yard, I'm going to "profile" them too, no matter what their color. What exactly is "overzealous" about trying to maintain observation of a suspect?


He contacted the police... after that, pursuing the suspect is to invite conflict. I would argue, being armed as well is to welcome it. He wanted to be a hero ...well, good job, you killed an unarmed 17 year old after some sort of struggle. What a hero.

Like I said, no saints here.
 
2013-07-09 02:05:19 PM  

HAMMERTOE: You know this may be true, but not in the way you're intending. Paula Deen apparently deserves to lose her livelihood over something stupid she said decades ago, but here you are, glossing over Martin's admitted racist comments, aggressive actions, and antisocial behavior.

Sounds to me like your expectations of Martin are significantly lower than the prevalent expectations of the dim past of an old white woman. How much property has he had seized again?


Nobody owes Paula Deen a tv show, and no matter how threatened you feel by the mere cultural presentation of a black child, that doesn't justify the devaluation you place on his life.
 
2013-07-09 02:06:42 PM  
Something I have missed: What gave Martin the right to attack Zimmerman just because he was being followed? Have I missed this? Did the "creepy white cracker" accost TM somehow? Most people being followed would have left the area or called for help. TM did have a phone; he could have asked his friend to put their intellectual conversation on hold and called the police.
 
2013-07-09 02:09:52 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I see a stranger come out of my neighbor's back yard, I'm going to "profile" them too, no matter what their color. What exactly is "overzealous" about trying to maintain observation of a suspect?


The armed thug roving the streets after dark looking for trouble had no right to label anyone else "a suspect."
 
2013-07-09 02:23:44 PM  
I find it amusing that people are all like "but the police dispatcher said not to follow him."

People follow the instructions of police dispatchers?

Of course, the downside to not following the opinion of a dispatcher is an expensive show trial...so maybe we should listen to them after all.
 
2013-07-09 02:38:33 PM  
The quip about Trayvon being like his son is one of the dumbest thing Obama could've said especially at a time when no one really knew what actually transpired.

I don't think Obama is racist but he probably wouldn't have made the comment if Trayvon was white. I really don't understand the underlying motivation behind that statement anyway.

What exactly was he trying to imply by saying if he had a son he would be like Trayvon? hundreds of young black males get gunned down every year how come he never equate those to his hypothetical son?
 
2013-07-09 02:43:12 PM  

Infernalist: If you want an example, watch any number of videos where an armed guard or police officer literally has to wait someone pulls out a gun to shoot him/her before responding with deadly force.


http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-forc e/ continuum.htm

Generally, officers are trained to respond with 1-2 levels of force higher than that being currently offered by the other party. If they've already drawn when you go to draw, you've lost.
 
2013-07-09 02:43:29 PM  

hasty ambush: calm like a bomb: hasty ambush:
And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?

Like the prosecution you are making the accusation , burden of proof is on you.  I would remind you that the lead prosecution witness has already admitted to lying.

Your insinuation was that the dead kid was the instigator.  I asked you how you knew that.  You couldn't answer it, I guess.

And how do you know Zimmerman is the instigator?  Did he assault Martin?  Zimmerman is the accused, burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the accusers.  Prosecution has already failed on the reasonable doubt level with an admitted liar as their lead witness.


I don't, but then I didn't throw up a couple of pictures and then insinuate that they provided all we needed to know about what happened.  I don't know what happened that day.  Neither do you.  The difference is that I'm not pretending otherwise.
 
2013-07-09 02:44:17 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: The quip about Trayvon being like his son is one of the dumbest thing Obama could've said especially at a time when no one really knew what actually transpired.

I don't think Obama is racist but he probably wouldn't have made the comment if Trayvon was white. I really don't understand the underlying motivation behind that statement anyway.

What exactly was he trying to imply by saying if he had a son he would be like Trayvon? hundreds of young black males get gunned down every year how come he never equate those to his hypothetical son?


It was just good PR with a certain sort of liberal. Dudes a politician, you know.
 
2013-07-09 02:45:26 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: The quip about Trayvon being like his son is one of the dumbest thing Obama could've said especially at a time when no one really knew what actually transpired.

I don't think Obama is racist but he probably wouldn't have made the comment if Trayvon was white. I really don't understand the underlying motivation behind that statement anyway.

What exactly was he trying to imply by saying if he had a son he would be like Trayvon? hundreds of young black males get gunned down every year how come he never equate those to his hypothetical son?


I don't get it either. Sounds like it might be something Jay Carney pulled out of his ass.
 
2013-07-09 02:46:04 PM  
WhiskeySticksI still don't get how a grown-ass man can't handle beating up and/or immobilize a teenager.  This dude must be a major pussy.
farm9.static.flickr.com
super_grass You have no concept of logic and no common sense, do you?  You don't agree with my watertight logic? You must be a Tea Party racist
However, Invader Zim's a Democratic Activist
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-reali st /2012/may/15/george-zimmerman-black-democrat/

infernalistYeah, most Yoopers are rednecks. Me, I believe in personal responsibility.  Crazy notion, I know. Zimmerman's going to have a grand old time.

Naw, I'll bet you a dozen pasties he walks-he might as well have Jimmy Stewart representing him...
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2013-07-09 02:47:03 PM  

Perlin Noise: jaybeezey: Full on redneck cracker-ass cracker types would disagree.

Even in the middle of the night, high on the marijuana?


Full on redneck cracker-ass crackers don't smoke weed. They get shiatty on cheap beer and whiskey. They are an angry lot and would consider him a "messican" by looks. He probably wouldn't have time to explain his ethnic background before getting hit with a beer bottle.
 
2013-07-09 02:49:49 PM  

jaybeezey: Full on redneck cracker-ass crackers don't smoke weed.

Full on redneck cracker-ass crackers don't smoke weed. They get shiatty on cheap beer and whiskey. They are an angry lot and would consider him a "messican" by looks. He probably wouldn't have time to explain his ethnic background before getting hit with a beer bottle.

thumbs.newschoolers.com
 
2013-07-09 02:51:05 PM  

MyRandomName: Perlin Noise: MyRandomName: Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.

You mean like batman?

Yep ...Zimmerman is just like Batman... what an awesome guy. Good for him. Where is the commissioner when you need him?!

Oh wait, Batman does not use guns ...so.... the Punisher maybe?

Another fact you get wrong, awesome. Early batman did use guns.


Fear the Reaper

images.comiccollectorlive.com
 
2013-07-09 02:55:03 PM  
 SuperNinjaToad I really don't understand the underlying motivation behind that statement anyway.  What exactly was he trying to imply by saying if he had a son he would be like Trayvon? hundreds of young black males get gunned down every year how come he never equate those to his hypothetical son?

Because then he's be forced to comment on unconscious Honor Students in his old District on LiveLeak beaten to death with building site lumber by a pack of neighborhood jackals he never dealt with
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb1_1254077314
 
2013-07-09 03:05:49 PM  

udhq: Nobody owes Paula Deen a tv show, and no matter how threatened you feel by the mere cultural presentation of a black child, that doesn't justify the devaluation you place on his life.


Coming out of the backyard of a darkened house at night does not equal "cultural presentation."

...Unless you're inferring that black culture is more prone to crime. I am not.
 
2013-07-09 03:07:56 PM  

udhq: The armed thug roving the streets after dark looking for trouble had no right to label anyone else "a suspect."


Citation, please.
 
2013-07-09 03:09:48 PM  

udhq: The armed thug roving the streets after dark looking for trouble had no right to label anyone else "a suspect."


Wow. A "thug" whose first action is to call the police. Incredible!
 
2013-07-09 03:10:17 PM  

Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: MyRandomName: Infernalist: Lem Motlow: Infernalist: Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: Lem Motlow: I don't see how you go from being followed to pounding on someone.

You're right, it's almost like there was some sort of instigation from the other party. See how that makes sense now?

Sure, but can you prove that? Or even imply it from the evidence?

Far as I'm aware theres still a huge gap in the timeline between Zimmerman getting off the phone and Zimmerman getting his face beat in. shiatloads of reasonable doubt in that gap.


/not guilty is not a synonym for innocent.

There's the fact that the forensics lab found no evidence of a fight under TM's fingernails.  No skin, no blood.  And considering that Zimmerman's defense is that Martin attacked him, that's pretty amazing, don't you think?

You don't get skin and blood under your fingernails when you are winning a fight.  You get them under your fingernails when you are LOSING a fight.  Confirmation that Martin was in control of the fight the entire time.

There were no abrasions on TM's hands at all.  Front or back.  Now, unless he was fighting Zimmerman with gloves on, that's a bit impossible, don't you think?

Of course, it doesn't matter if TM bit off Zimmerman's nose and ate it.  Zimmerman provoked the conflict from the start and owns responsibility for anything that came of it.

That's called manslaughter.

Except for the abrasians on his knuckles in the medical examiners report... there were no abrasions!

Once again, it wouldn't matter if TM started physically eating Zimmerman like BBQ.  Zimmerman owned the conflict from the moment he got out of his truck to pursue TM.

Again florida laws says differently. When you get a single fact of the case right, I may respind again. There is no precondition for self defense predicated on who started what in florida law. None.

That's funny since the whole basis behind "Stand Your Ground" is there are preconditions for using a weapon in self defense.

You're adorable.


Work took place. Not sure if someone has already corrected you, but you are wrong again. Defense is not arguing stand your ground, it doesn't apply. They are arguing self defense. How about you stop posting and catch up on actual facts..
 
2013-07-09 03:10:58 PM  
One thing's absolutely certain - if ever I'm on trial for my life in a capital case, I'm going straight to the experienced attorneys of FARK LLC for all my legal advice.
 
2013-07-09 03:11:50 PM  

HAMMERTOE: udhq: The armed thug roving the streets after dark looking for trouble had no right to label anyone else "a suspect."

Wow. A "thug" whose first action is to call the police. Incredible!


Thugs do generally stick together, yeah
 
2013-07-09 03:16:35 PM  

Nytfall: MyRandomName: Perlin Noise: MyRandomName: Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.

You mean like batman?

Yep ...Zimmerman is just like Batman... what an awesome guy. Good for him. Where is the commissioner when you need him?!

Oh wait, Batman does not use guns ...so.... the Punisher maybe?

Another fact you get wrong, awesome. Early batman did use guns.

Fear the Reaper

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 255x375]


So did old Batman.
images.wikia.com
 
2013-07-09 03:17:44 PM  

FlyingJ: nekom It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.
/me too, and millions of others.

So you're luckier than the Calif guy serving a Life Sentence even tho it's legal there because, well, just because?...
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/18/dilberts-scott-adams-obamas-medica l- mari


Yeah, our "war on drugs" is ridiculous.  No arguments here.
 
2013-07-09 03:20:04 PM  

Ned Stark: Thugs do generally stick together, yeah


Zimmerman wasn't trespassing.
The police weren't trespassing.
Martin was trespassing.

You've clearly demonstrated your lack of critical thinking skills and respect for the laws of society by your argument.

Next.
 
2013-07-09 03:21:18 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Pot didn't make him attack Zimmerman, but it may have slowed him down enough to give Zimmerman a chance to live through it.


True colours revealed at last, eh?

permanentplastichelmet.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-09 03:24:11 PM  

udhq: jaybeezey: How about they haven't been taught that they are inferior since the day they were born?

You're going with that? Who's saying that? Parents? Teachers? Pastors? Every other person they see? Please elaborate.

Well, about a dozen people in this thread, for starters.  But usually, it's a more of a subtle, implied phenomenon.

African Americans are significantly more likely than white people to be borne into poverty, or to go to prison at some point in their lives.  When people deny the existence of institutional racism, it is implied that the cause for these disparities is innate: blacks go to prison more often not because they are targeted by drug laws and sentencing disparities, but because they are by nature less civilized, more anti-social than white people; they are poorer not because of generations of property seizure and systemic economic inequality, but because they are more lazy than white people.


A subtle implied phenomenon? The only people telling young black people that they aren't worth shiat is other young black people.

Is there still racism in America? You betcha. Are cracker rednecks in the sticks holding anyone back? No. Is "institutional racism" an issue? Yes. Generational reliance on gov't handouts is the death of self esteem. Until young poor people of all races understand that education and working harder/smarter than the next guy is the key to escape we will continue to see kids killing kids in a downward spiral of violence that we see in places like Chicago, Detroit, Flint, St. Louis, Oakland....
 
2013-07-09 03:28:00 PM  

HAMMERTOE: udhq: When people deny the existence of institutional racism, it is implied that the cause for these disparities is innate: blacks go to prison more often not because they are targeted by drug laws and sentencing disparities, but because they are by nature less civilized, more anti-social than white people; they are poorer not because of generations of property seizure and systemic economic inequality, but because they are more lazy than white people.

You know this may be true, but not in the way you're intending. Paula Deen apparently deserves to lose her livelihood over something stupid she said decades ago, but here you are, glossing over Martin's admitted racist comments, aggressive actions, and antisocial behavior.

Sounds to me like your expectations of Martin are significantly lower than the prevalent expectations of the dim past of an old white woman. How much property has he had seized again?


Nah. Paula Deen deserves her shiatstorm because she wanted her employees to work as literal slaves at her private parties and attempted to employ them as such. I heard (no evidence I could find) that she would actually pay them in drinks from time to time or else they'd lose their actual jobs in her empire. I give her a personal pass on the N word. She was from a different time, it happens. Personally, I don't think the lady is purposefully malicious or hateful, just ignorant, like she's been trapped in a bubble for decades and is very slowly learning how the world currently functions. The less ignorant people taking up blocks on my TV the better, IMHO.
 
2013-07-09 03:28:04 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Ned Stark: Thugs do generally stick together, yeah

Zimmerman wasn't trespassing.
The police weren't trespassing.
Martin was trespassing.

You've clearly demonstrated your lack of critical thinking skills and respect for the laws of society by your argument.

Next.


1 I said nothing about anyone trespassing.
2 My disrespect for the laws of society is old news.
3 it was a quip, not an argument.
 
2013-07-09 03:32:12 PM  

This text is now purple: Nytfall: MyRandomName: Perlin Noise: MyRandomName: Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.

You mean like batman?

Yep ...Zimmerman is just like Batman... what an awesome guy. Good for him. Where is the commissioner when you need him?!

Oh wait, Batman does not use guns ...so.... the Punisher maybe?

Another fact you get wrong, awesome. Early batman did use guns.

Fear the Reaper

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 255x375]

So did old Batman.
[images.wikia.com image 850x478]


lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-07-09 03:32:14 PM  

GregInIndy: One thing's absolutely certain - if ever I'm on trial for my life in a capital case, I'm going straight to the experienced attorneys of FARK LLC for all my legal advice.


You won't regret it!
 
2013-07-09 03:40:46 PM  

Ned Stark: 1 I said nothing about anyone trespassing.
2 My disrespect for the laws of society is old news.
3 it was a quip, not an argument.


1) You quoted a passage incorrectly labeling Zimmerman as the "thug" and then directly called the police "thugs" as well.

My disrespect for certain laws does not extend to the people whose lives are dedicated to enforcing the laws. MLK said  that those laws that are unjust must be disobeyed, but he specifically stressed that aggression and violence were not the route to success. Trayvon Martin has only served to reinforce that lesson.
 
2013-07-09 03:52:01 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Ned Stark: 1 I said nothing about anyone trespassing.
2 My disrespect for the laws of society is old news.
3 it was a quip, not an argument.

1) You quoted a passage incorrectly labeling Zimmerman as the "thug" and then directly called the police "thugs" as well.

My disrespect for certain laws does not extend to the people whose lives are dedicated to enforcing the laws. MLK said  that those laws that are unjust must be disobeyed, but he specifically stressed that aggression and violence were not the route to success. Trayvon Martin has only served to reinforce that lesson.


'The' thug? Thuggery is not zero sum. The LARP cop chasing teenagers around with his gun at night can be thuggish without dethugging anyone else.
 
2013-07-09 03:54:11 PM  

Two16: This text is now purple: Nytfall: MyRandomName: Perlin Noise: MyRandomName: Same applies to Zimmerman, no? Following a suspicious person and reporting it to police is not illegal.

You mean like batman?

Yep ...Zimmerman is just like Batman... what an awesome guy. Good for him. Where is the commissioner when you need him?!

Oh wait, Batman does not use guns ...so.... the Punisher maybe?

Another fact you get wrong, awesome. Early batman did use guns.

Fear the Reaper

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 255x375]

So did old Batman.
[images.wikia.com image 850x478]

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 850x1330]


He used the sniper rifle to down Two-Face's helicopter.
 
2013-07-09 03:58:08 PM  
GregInIndy: One thing's absolutely certain - if ever I'm on trial for my life in a capital case, I'm going straight to the experienced attorneys of FARK LLC for all my legal advice.

lantawa You won't regret it!
i2.ytimg.com
"Your Honor, white guys are like this, while black guys are like this"
 
2013-07-09 04:06:09 PM  

lewismarktwo: Tumunga: nekom: It's funny because Obama smoked marijuana too.

/me too, and millions of others.

Not me.

You should try it before you eat your reward cookie.


I don't like ookie-cookies.
 
2013-07-09 04:22:22 PM  

GregInIndy: One thing's absolutely certain - if ever I'm on trial for my life in a capital case, I'm going straight to the experienced attorneys of FARK LLC for all my legal advice.




Just pray you are not on trial for killing a non-white person. 50% of Fark will think you are guilty just on that basis alone (if for no other reason other than the myth of white guilt/privilege) another large percentage will want to convict simply because you are a gun owner and a few others think it would be good to convict you just to prevent a riot and appease the non-whites.
 
2013-07-09 04:25:48 PM  

hasty ambush: Just pray you are not on trial for killing a non-white person. 50% of Fark will think you are guilty just on that basis alone (if for no other reason other than the myth of white guilt/privilege) another large percentage will want to convict simply because you are a gun owner and a few others think it would be good to convict you just to prevent a riot and appease the non-whites.


Or because you committed manslaughter.

This is really not much more complicated than two men get in a fight and one kills the other one.
 
2013-07-09 04:33:35 PM  

lantawa: Johnny_Whistle: Well, the fact that he was told by the 911 dispatcher not to get out of his car and follow Martin, and yet he did that very thing and took his gun with him seems pretty damning.

You got that from either Al Sharpton or Nancy Grace, correct? Amirite or amirite? MSNBC? NBC? Benjamin Crump? Who? Since when does "we don't need you to do that" become "don't do that"?
 Since when does a non-sworn police dispatcher's opinion become "an order"? you know when? It's when an orchestration of a false fact pattern is put forth as "reality" and "the facts." The prosecution's "facts," in this case, are being debunked and impeached at every turn, by the defense. Please recognize that reality. The only way a guilty verdict is returned is if the jury nullifies the facts at the jury's pleasure (and yes, juries certainly CAN do that)  Let's continue to watch, shall we?


You're assuming quite a bit about me, and just plain making up the rest to suit your phony argument.  I don't watch any of those shows (or news outlets), and I never said he was given an order, but thanks for putting quotes around it like I did.

You're being either deliberately obtuse, or genuinely so.
 
2013-07-09 04:35:17 PM  

Perlin Noise: hasty ambush: Just pray you are not on trial for killing a non-white person. 50% of Fark will think you are guilty just on that basis alone (if for no other reason other than the myth of white guilt/privilege) another large percentage will want to convict simply because you are a gun owner and a few others think it would be good to convict you just to prevent a riot and appease the non-whites.

Or because you committed manslaughter.

This is really not much more complicated than two men get in a fight and one kills the other one.


Except he is being charged with second degree murder quite a step up from man-slaughter
 
2013-07-09 04:39:59 PM  

hasty ambush: Except he is being charged with second degree murder quite a step up from man-slaughter


I agree ...I think that is going too far.
 
2013-07-09 04:41:13 PM  

calm like a bomb: hasty ambush: calm like a bomb: hasty ambush:
And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?

Like the prosecution you are making the accusation , burden of proof is on you.  I would remind you that the lead prosecution witness has already admitted to lying.

Your insinuation was that the dead kid was the instigator.  I asked you how you knew that.  You couldn't answer it, I guess.

And how do you know Zimmerman is the instigator?  Did he assault Martin?  Zimmerman is the accused, burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the accusers.  Prosecution has already failed on the reasonable doubt level with an admitted liar as their lead witness.

I don't, but then I didn't throw up a couple of pictures and then insinuate that they provided all we needed to know about what happened.  I don't know what happened that day.  Neither do you.  The difference is that I'm not pretending otherwise.


It is enough for me that the prosecutions' lead witness admits to lying to establish reasonable doubt.  Martin's character/past actions  to include attacking  a bus driver, the illegal substances, illegal possession of a firearm etc, etc, all lend credibility to Zimmerman's side of the story.
 
2013-07-09 05:03:20 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: lantawa: Johnny_Whistle: Well, the fact that he was told by the 911 dispatcher not to get out of his car and follow Martin, and yet he did that very thing and took his gun with him seems pretty damning.

You got that from either Al Sharpton or Nancy Grace, correct? Amirite or amirite? MSNBC? NBC? Benjamin Crump? Who? Since when does "we don't need you to do that" become "don't do that"?
 Since when does a non-sworn police dispatcher's opinion become "an order"? you know when? It's when an orchestration of a false fact pattern is put forth as "reality" and "the facts." The prosecution's "facts," in this case, are being debunked and impeached at every turn, by the defense. Please recognize that reality. The only way a guilty verdict is returned is if the jury nullifies the facts at the jury's pleasure (and yes, juries certainly CAN do that)  Let's continue to watch, shall we?

You're assuming quite a bit about me, and just plain making up the rest to suit your phony argument.  I don't watch any of those shows (or news outlets), and I never said he was given an order, but thanks for putting quotes around it like I did.

You're being either deliberately obtuse, or genuinely so.


My arguments are not phony (though they my sometimes be mixed up with sarcasm, hyperbole, and dynamite monkey materials).  The arguments that I have outlined and filled in are well thought out and cohesive, and are accurate reflections of what this trial's fact patterns are showing.  You are completely ignoring, as best I can tell (and please do tell me if I am incorrect in what I perceive about your stance), the obvious and irrefutable facts that:

1.) A law-abiding neighborhood watch volunteer thought to observe and report the whereabouts of a drug-affected young man who was trespassing onto private property, trespassing by straying away from the semi-public walkway of the subdivision that they were both in, and walking onto private lawns, while stoned, where he could case private homes.

2.)  In an attempt to keep the suspiciously acting young man in view, Zimmerman left his vehicle to further report to law enforcement officers and to attempt to keep a visual on the oddly behaving young man. (Yes, Martin WAS behaving both oddly and suspiciously.  In a strange semi-public small neighborhood, in the dark, in the rain, trespassing, buzzed on reefer, that's how the recently deceased Trayvon Martin was accurately described by George Zimmerman)

3.)  Per the PROSECUTION'S WITNESS, Martin decided not to take the opportunity to go home, but sought out a confrontation with Zimmerman.

And here we are.....
 
2013-07-09 05:27:11 PM  

thoughtless: lantawa:

Nice try..........BUT....

[i466.photobucket.com image 293x172]

No one deserved to die. No one "won" in this whole dog and pony show.
(Except maybe the extended Martin family and attorneys, who have already recieved a one million dollar + settlement in this case----can anyone give me a "MONEY GRAB"?)

So I take it you can give me your scout's honor that you would not sue the ever-loving piss out of the group that the man who killed you child was affiliated with and acting on their behalf. Scratch that, I know your post was an overzealous attempt to paint GZ in a favorable light by attempting to de-humanize anyone who might oppose GZ's version of events.

/Because they must've forgot they had a son for 17 farking years when they were awarded 1 measly farking million


Your response has been noted.

Please allow me to retort.

So, you pretty much agree that this is a money grab.  Given the facts of this case that is currently ongoing, you still actually think that compensation is owed to the Martin family?  Well, I think not.  I think that, at this point, it is obvious that many, many millions of dollars of actual and punitive damages need to be awarded to George Zimmerman and his family for the fraudulent reporting and race-baiting that some major national news outlets are guilty of perpetrating. The State Attorney who brought this case probably needs to be sued both professionally and personally for withholding material facts when filing this case for prosecution, and then summarily disbarred and fired from her cushy high-paying, high-benefits job.

There is NO dominant position that the prosecution's victim's family holds in this case.  There is NO societally  or culturally dominant position that the orchestrators of the huge, bald-faced lies and deceit in this case hold; those liars and deceivers being the activist asshats who overrode a correct do-not-prosecute decision by the initial law enforcement investigators.

One million dollars.  F*ck that.  No way that the Martin family should have received SQUAT, let alone a million bucks, for the asshattery that their delinquent son perpetrated that resulted in his own death.  F*ck that sh*t.
 
2013-07-09 05:29:56 PM  

Ant: SlothB77: This alone provides enough reasonable doubt that the jury has no choice but to find zimmerman not guilty.

Why? Are we imposing the death penalty on pot smokers now?


It makes him less credible. It also reinforces zimmerman felt threatened.
 
2013-07-09 05:45:03 PM  

SlothB77: It makes him less credible. It also reinforces zimmerman felt threatened.


You know, I had kind of suspected that ZImmerman was going to get a Casey Anthony-type procedural acquittal, but after the last 2 days I don't know.  The defense seems to have shifted to "Yes, George stalked and murdered a child, here's  why that child deserved it."

I don't think you win ANY points by trying to smear a dead kid.
 
2013-07-09 05:50:33 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Pot didn't make him attack Zimmerman, but it may have slowed him down enough to give Zimmerman a chance to live through it.


not to mention if not for the pot he wouldnt have had the munchies and wouldnt have bought the skittles in the first place, clearly its all pots fault
 
2013-07-09 05:55:54 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eohnhCj6Hw">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=8eohnhCj6Hw
 
2013-07-09 05:57:24 PM  
udhq: SlothB77: It makes him less credible. It also reinforces zimmerman felt threatened.

You know, I had kind of suspected that ZImmerman was going to get a Casey Anthony-type procedural this guy is obviously innocentacquittal, but after the last 2 days I don't know.  The defense seems to have shifted to "Yes, George stalked and murdered observed and reported on a child suspiciously-acting delinquent young man, here's  why that child deserved it what the idiot delinquent did that predominately caused his own Darwinian demise."

F all of TFY

I don't think you win ANY points by trying to smear a dead kid.

True.  No points whatsoever.  However, pointing out multiple unlawful activities that were perpetrated by the  delinquent young man on the night in question can only serve to add to Zimmerman's defense.
 
2013-07-09 06:02:22 PM  
calm like a bomb: Perlin Noise: I actually don't even understand how anything is relevant past the point where Zimmerman went on foot tracking him down. Dude, you created the situation when it was easily avoided. Zimmerman was the aggressor. I might have attempted to beat his ass as well if he were following me barking orders in the middle of the night.

Guilty or not, nothing changes the fact that if you subtract a fat, loser asshole looking to feel like a tough guy from the situation, nobody dies.



Shape-ist!
 
2013-07-09 06:11:49 PM  

lantawa: True. No points whatsoever. However, pointing out multiple unlawful activities that were perpetrated by the delinquent young man on the night in question can only serve to add to Zimmerman's defense.


You know, whether you intend to or not, you are racializing this when you try to turn in into a referendum on whether or not the black kid was a bad enough kid to deserve to be murdered.
 
2013-07-09 06:13:26 PM  

hasty ambush: calm like a bomb: hasty ambush: calm like a bomb: hasty ambush:
And we know Zimmerman didn't start it and whip out his gun when he got his ass kicked because?

Like the prosecution you are making the accusation , burden of proof is on you.  I would remind you that the lead prosecution witness has already admitted to lying.

Your insinuation was that the dead kid was the instigator.  I asked you how you knew that.  You couldn't answer it, I guess.

And how do you know Zimmerman is the instigator?  Did he assault Martin?  Zimmerman is the accused, burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the accusers.  Prosecution has already failed on the reasonable doubt level with an admitted liar as their lead witness.

I don't, but then I didn't throw up a couple of pictures and then insinuate that they provided all we needed to know about what happened.  I don't know what happened that day.  Neither do you.  The difference is that I'm not pretending otherwise.

It is enough for me that the prosecutions' lead witness admits to lying to establish reasonable doubt.  Martin's character/past actions  to include attacking  a bus driver, the illegal substances, illegal possession of a firearm etc, etc, all lend credibility to Zimmerman's side of the story.


Credibility?  Maybe.  Fact?  No.  The only two people who know what really happened are a dead guy and a guy who has every reason to lie his ass off if what he is saying isn't true.  The only thing any of us can say for sure about the whole situation is if one fat loser with a gun was subtracted from the situation, nobody dies that night.
 
2013-07-09 06:20:14 PM  

lantawa: True.  No points whatsoever.  However, pointing out multiple unlawful activities that were perpetrated by the  delinquent young man on the night in question can only serve to add to Zimmerman's defense.


BTW, what unlawful activities are you referring to?  That he cut through a neighbor's yard?

Because no one in the actual trial has argued he was on drugs.  The defense may be trying to imply as much, but the only thing anyone's actually said is that he had marijuana "in his system."  That's about as relevant as Zimmerman's widely reported issues with alcohol, and the insinuations that he may have been intoxicated at the time of the murder.

Which also begs the question, why was the murder victim given a post-mortem drug test, but not the suspect who has a documented history of mixing alcohol and criminal violence?
 
2013-07-09 06:31:20 PM  

lantawa: multiple unlawful activities that were perpetrated by the delinquent young ma

n

Cutting through yards might be considered trespassing, which, as you know, only the most hardened and dangerous of criminals engage in. You can't be too careful with these people. Also, smoking the pot and fighting in teens only leads to a lifetime of violent crime. It's great that a proud strong American like Zimmerman defended the neighborhood from such a proven violent and degenerate thug like Martin. CLEARLY if Zimmerman sustained injuries, he was the victim here and in no way provoked the situation, because violence can never be provoked, only started. This evil villain deserved to die like the dog he was, and Zimmerman should be given a medal, not a jail sentence. If only we can have such brave and proactive people protecting all of us, we would all be safer.
 
2013-07-09 07:06:10 PM  

udhq: lantawa: True. No points whatsoever. However, pointing out multiple unlawful activities that were perpetrated by the delinquent young man on the night in question can only serve to add to Zimmerman's defense.

You know, whether you intend to or not, you are racializing this when you try to turn in into a referendum on whether or not the black kid was a bad enough kid to deserve to be murdered.


No.  By using the false terms "black kid" and  "murdered," you are turning this into an obvious political fiasco of enormous proportions, whether you intend to or not.  Well, not you personally, but the idiots who spun this false narrative in the first place. Martin, a young black man, WAS NOT MURDERED. Get that basic fact through your head and you'll "get it."

Please just stop with the ridiculous dogmatic approach and look at what the trial evidence is uncovering.
 
2013-07-09 07:09:17 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: lantawa: multiple unlawful activities that were perpetrated by the delinquent young man

Cutting through yards might be considered trespassing, which, as you know, only the most hardened and dangerous of criminals engage in. You can't be too careful with these people. Also, smoking the pot and fighting in teens only leads to a lifetime of violent crime. It's great that a proud strong American like Zimmerman defended the neighborhood from such a proven violent and degenerate thug like Martin. CLEARLY if Zimmerman sustained injuries, he was the victim here and in no way provoked the situation, because violence can never be provoked, only started. This evil villain deserved to die like the dog he was, and Zimmerman should be given a medal, not a jail sentence. If only we can have such brave and proactive people protecting all of us, we would all be safer.


It's good to know that, hidden under all the snark and sarcasm, you at least have a glimmer of understanding of what went down that night.
 
2013-07-09 07:31:58 PM  

lantawa: Please just stop with the ridiculous dogmatic approach and look at what the trial evidence is uncovering.


I have paid very close attention to the trial, and as I said, I initially assumed Zimmerman would be acquitted, but after the last 2 days, I don't see that happening.  The defense all but conceded the "stalking" aspect of the crime, the language of the 911 call is pretty damning, and the character assassination against the victim seems to have REALLY pissed off the judge.

Also, keep in mind that it's all been about Trayvon's character thus far, just wait until they start talking about Zimmerman's character, the one thing that everyone seems to agree about in this whole case is the the guy is a genuine scumbag: his history with alcohol and violence, his criminal record, the restraining order for domestic violence, etc.  This is a guy who is accused of raping his own cousin, after all.  One of his OWN family members described him in a deposition as a "confrontational bully."

And the defense has ZERO standing to object to any of this being admitted as evidence, having already opened that door by going after Trayvon's character.
 
2013-07-09 07:54:03 PM  

udhq: lantawa: Please just stop with the ridiculous dogmatic approach and look at what the trial evidence is uncovering.

I have paid very close attention to the trial, and as I said, I initially assumed Zimmerman would be acquitted, but after the last 2 days, I don't see that happening.  The defense all but conceded the "stalking" aspect of the crime, the language of the 911 call is pretty damning, and the character assassination against the victim seems to have REALLY pissed off the judge.

Also, keep in mind that it's all been about Trayvon's character thus far, just wait until they start talking about Zimmerman's character, the one thing that everyone seems to agree about in this whole case is the the guy is a genuine scumbag: his history with alcohol and violence, his criminal record, the restraining order for domestic violence, etc.  This is a guy who is accused of raping his own cousin, after all.  One of his OWN family members described him in a deposition as a "confrontational bully."

And the defense has ZERO standing to object to any of this being admitted as evidence, having already opened that door by going after Trayvon's character.


The prosecution already rested their case. They can't enter any more evidence.
 
2013-07-09 07:56:08 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: The quip about Trayvon being like his son is one of the dumbest thing Obama could've said especially at a time when no one really knew what actually transpired.

I don't think Obama is racist but he probably wouldn't have made the comment if Trayvon was white. I really don't understand the underlying motivation behind that statement anyway.

What exactly was he trying to imply by saying if he had a son he would be like Trayvon? hundreds of young black males get gunned down every year how come he never equate those to his hypothetical son?


Florida has 29 Electoral Votes, and getting more every few years.
 
2013-07-09 08:03:22 PM  

udhq: lantawa: Please just stop with the ridiculous dogmatic approach and look at what the trial evidence is uncovering.

I have paid very close attention to the trial, and as I said, I initially assumed Zimmerman would be acquitted, but after the last 2 days, I don't see that happening.  The defense all but conceded the "stalking" aspect of the crime, the language of the 911 call is pretty damning, and the character assassination against the victim seems to have REALLY pissed off the judge.


I also have been paying very close attention, and I still do see an acquittal in the final jury decisions. the defense conceded ABSOLUTELY NO ASPECT of the "stalking", as you say, the language of the 911 call is NOT damning, and the judge seems totally dispassionate and professional, as she has throughout the proceedings.

Also, keep in mind that it's all been about Trayvon's character thus far, just wait until they start talking about Zimmerman's character, the one thing that everyone seems to agree about in this whole case is the the guy is a genuine scumbag: his history with alcohol and violence, his criminal record, the restraining order for domestic violence, etc.  This is a guy who is accused of raping his own cousin, after all.  One of his OWN family members described him in a deposition as a "confrontational bully."

They HAVE talked about Zimmerman's character during the trail, at length, and it has been noted over and over that he has excellent character and excellent community involvements and is a productive citizen in general.  Your gross slander and defamation of his character is in lockstep with the terrifically unethical slander and defamation that has been brought against Mr. Zimmerman  prior to the trial and now throughout it, by lying, conniving money-grubbing "activists" who are looking for nothing more than political gain and monetary spoils.

And the defense has ZERO standing to object to any of this being admitted as evidence, having already opened that door by going after Trayvon's character.

Good luck with that line of reasoning.  We'll see, won't we. You know something?  You're not one tenth as as smart as you think you are.....
 
2013-07-09 08:04:23 PM  

Pinhedd: udhq: lantawa: Please just stop with the ridiculous dogmatic approach and look at what the trial evidence is uncovering.

I have paid very close attention to the trial, and as I said, I initially assumed Zimmerman would be acquitted, but after the last 2 days, I don't see that happening.  The defense all but conceded the "stalking" aspect of the crime, the language of the 911 call is pretty damning, and the character assassination against the victim seems to have REALLY pissed off the judge.

Also, keep in mind that it's all been about Trayvon's character thus far, just wait until they start talking about Zimmerman's character, the one thing that everyone seems to agree about in this whole case is the the guy is a genuine scumbag: his history with alcohol and violence, his criminal record, the restraining order for domestic violence, etc.  This is a guy who is accused of raping his own cousin, after all.  One of his OWN family members described him in a deposition as a "confrontational bully."

And the defense has ZERO standing to object to any of this being admitted as evidence, having already opened that door by going after Trayvon's character.

The prosecution already rested their case. They can't enter any more evidence.


They'll do their best in closing arguments, I'm sure.  It's really all they've got...
 
2013-07-09 08:25:27 PM  
Just imagine this scenario....

White 17 year old redneck with a mullet named Cletus is followed because he looks suspicious by a 29 year old half-black man named Sixty Cent. Cletus is heard on the phone saying some "creepy n**gger" is following me. He violently attacks the black guy, trying to kill him, but is killed with a single gunshot to the chest. Gun was legal. All evidence points to the half-black man as being perfectly justified. Half-black guy is on record defending poor white people who are victims of police cover up. DA finds no reason to press charges.

President Bush hears this, says Cletus could have been his son. Orders 2nd degree murder charges on Sixty Cent by way of political pressure. Cletus' family is put on the stand, all stereotypical rednecks, and they changed their story as needed. All evidence, even by the prosecution, shows that Sixty Cent did the right thing.

Every single person defending Tray would be defending the half-black man in that case. Wonder why?
 
2013-07-09 09:22:29 PM  

Pinhedd: udhq: lantawa: Please just stop with the ridiculous dogmatic approach and look at what the trial evidence is uncovering.

I have paid very close attention to the trial, and as I said, I initially assumed Zimmerman would be acquitted, but after the last 2 days, I don't see that happening.  The defense all but conceded the "stalking" aspect of the crime, the language of the 911 call is pretty damning, and the character assassination against the victim seems to have REALLY pissed off the judge.

Also, keep in mind that it's all been about Trayvon's character thus far, just wait until they start talking about Zimmerman's character, the one thing that everyone seems to agree about in this whole case is the the guy is a genuine scumbag: his history with alcohol and violence, his criminal record, the restraining order for domestic violence, etc.  This is a guy who is accused of raping his own cousin, after all.  One of his OWN family members described him in a deposition as a "confrontational bully."

And the defense has ZERO standing to object to any of this being admitted as evidence, having already opened that door by going after Trayvon's character.

The prosecution already rested their case. They can't enter any more evidence.


The prosecution will have the opportunity to put on rebuttal witnesses.
 
2013-07-10 12:15:39 AM  
Did someone say that the police ordered GZ not to stalk TM yet? This thread wouldn't be complete without it.
 
HBK
2013-07-10 12:17:50 AM  

Infernalist: Perlin Noise: Infernalist: At best, he was a moron, aggressively going after some kid on some vague suspicion that may or may not have been racially motivated.

Pro-tip:  YOU CAN'T INSTIGATE A CONFLICT IF YOU'RE CARRYING A GUN.

yep ...manslaughter ...he should be punished for his horrible judgement. 2nd degree is taking too far.

Probably hoping that Zimmerman will be smart for the first time in his life and plea down to manslaughter.


Why should he plea to a crime that the evidence shows he didn't commit?
 
2013-07-10 12:49:51 AM  

topcon: If that judge had a son, he'd look like John Goodman dressed up as Linda Tripp.

 


sweet jesus!!!!! THAT is a dead ringer! anyone have eye bleach? anyone?.
 
2013-07-10 12:58:02 AM  

dittybopper: hasty ambush: ikanreed: If there's one group of people who need their character defamed, it's people who were shot to death at an extremely young age.


Looks to me that he did an extremely good job of defaming his own character others are just making sure we and the jury know what that character was:

[i.cdn.turner.com image 150x171]

[i.cdn.turner.com image 465x348]

This.  He was a complete idiot for having his booger hook on the bang switch, especially on a gun with a closed slide like that.  Despite the removed magazine, there could still be a round in the chamber.


ok.. "booger hook on the bang switch" just cost me some beer.. that, my friend,was funny!
 
2013-07-10 02:38:46 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Zimmerman isn't the victim of an overzealous prosecutor.  The prosecutor knows he isn't guilty and is just going through the motions because he was told to.  At least, that's what I ASSume.  An ahole can become a prosecutor and even be a damn fine one, but not a complete moron.


That's what's really disturbing about this trial.  It's not that the defense has proved Zimmerman innocent.  They don't have to do that.  They just need reasonable doubt.  The prosecution OTOH has completely failed to show anything even halfway convincing that Zimmerman is guilty and yet they're still going full tilt on trying to convict him.

It's one thing for a defense team to go all out for a client who is obviously guilty.  That's their job, but this is a prosecution team employed with tax dollars allegedly trying to seek justice going all out on a guy they cannot even provide a shred of evidence to convict someone to satisfy Al Jolson Sharpton.
 
Displayed 336 of 336 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report