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 340
    More: Obvious, international sanctions, George Zimmerman, usages  
•       •       •

10735 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»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report