Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

10744 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 336 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report