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.

(CBS News)   This is it folks, your last Zimmerman thread as closing arguments start today and....who am I kidding? We're gonna have these threads everyday until Zimmerman's been dead for six years   (cbsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, jury instructions, forensic pathologists, murderers, right of self-defense  
•       •       •

2522 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2013 at 9:23 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2716 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last
 
2013-07-11 10:19:47 AM  

tripleseven: s2s2s2: tripleseven: Yeah, people have NO RIGHT to be in the streets or anything.

So then we agree, George had a right to get out of his car. Thank you.

I'm never going to convince you, but, lets look at reality:

There is a vast difference between walking down the street, and following another human being.


Which one is illegal?
 
2013-07-11 10:19:49 AM  

NeoCortex42: Manslaughter is on the table now for the jury.


Along with littering of the spent casing
 
2013-07-11 10:19:49 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: But why would you do that if you think some nutter is following you? Maybe they wouldn't see where you live. But if they do and they want to do harm, well...


Oh well. We know that if he had gone home, Zimmerman would not have followed him to the house.
We know Trayvon chose unrelenting assault, instead. SYG doesn't allow for that. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it is the truth.
 
2013-07-11 10:19:51 AM  

Tatsuma: We would like to add 'Wearing White After Labor Day' to the list of charges, Ms. Judge.


The Muthaship: TheDumbBlonde: CHILD ABUSE? WTF?

Prosecution:  We'd like the jury to be instructed on the lesser included offense of The Kitchen Sink, a felony of the 2nd degree.

Judge:  I'll allow it.


God Lord.
 
2013-07-11 10:20:10 AM  

AngryDragon:
No.  He had no idea Zimmerman had a gun.
No.  Following someone is not a reason to assault them.
No.  He was reporting to the police what he was seeing and stopped following when it was suggested.
No.  He also assaulted a person (for racist reasons if you believe his girlfriends testimony) and took things way too far.


Unless you can read dead people's minds, you don't know if Trayvon knew about the gun.

While you are technically correct that "Following someone is not a reason to assault them", you don't know what else happened.

As for 'reporting to the police'- some people here are very anal about the fact the was not speaking to 'the police', but rather a 'police dispatcher'. As for turning around, you only have Zimmerman's word on that.

And, again, unless you have additional evidence, you don't know who assaulted who first. You only know what one person testified they heard.


Some people seem insistent that the facts fit their narrative, rather then making their narrative fit the facts.
imageshack.us
 
2013-07-11 10:20:18 AM  

Raharu: So it your mind what happened?


I can't parse this.  Do you mean "So in your mind what happened"?

If that's the case, I can only go by what the law says, and the law says that even if you are the initial aggressor, if you are in fear of your life or serious injury and you can't escape, you can use deadly force to protect yourself.

But don't trust me, check it out for yourself:   Florida Statute 776.041:  Use of force by agggressor

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant
; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


That's eminently reasonable, too, because the law recognizes that just because you get into a fight it shouldn't be suicide.  If you make a real effort to escape, or, as in this case, if you *CAN'T* escape, even if you started the physical fight, you still have the right to defend yourself.

It's a very narrowly tailored and sensible exception to the general rule of self-defense, and even *IF* you believe the prosecution case that Zimmerman started it (for which they've presented *ZERO* credible evidence), then you have to concede that under the law, based upon the evidence and eyewitness testimony, that Zimmerman did indeed defend himself under the law.
 
2013-07-11 10:20:36 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: KellyX: TM should have stayed in his damn home. FACT

or

TM should have ran home and not confront GZ. FACT

Stayed home? Yes, because that's reasonable. GZ should have stayed home in that case as well.

Ran home? Seriously? If you think you are being chased by a white dude out to get a negro, why the hell would you lead him directly to your home?

Black people's worst nightmare is being killed by white racists*: FACT

*not that GZ was one, but he sure made every effort to make TM think that might be the case.


Every effort? I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it means.  He followed him, which in itself isn't racist.  Creepy... ass-cracker, but not racist.  He could just as likely have given a child-molester vibe.
 
2013-07-11 10:20:53 AM  

jaybeezey: probesport: I don't believe in Zimmerman.

He is a lot like the tooth fairy in that regard.


More like evolution. Certain people just won't look at the evidence.
 
2013-07-11 10:21:19 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: cookiefleck: Judge allows manslaughter

She's desperate to have him found guilty of something.


Guarantees it will get over turned on appeal.  You can't the rules/charges like that. Stupid judge.  Stupid kid.  Stupid man.  Stupid case.
 
2013-07-11 10:21:22 AM  

ChaosStar: Anyone else working on a thread badge?
I'd hate to do it only to have someone else make a better one than my under-developed image manipulation skills can produce.
/though I have a great concept for one


Thread badges are the lamest farking thing fark has ever come up with.
 
2013-07-11 10:21:22 AM  
'The State would request that 'Saying WAZZUP after 2004 be added to the list of Charges' as a Felony class Douchebaggery
 
2013-07-11 10:21:28 AM  
zeroman987:


Actually most "GZ cheerleaders" don't say he did nothing wrong.

Have you been paying attention?
Perhaps you're reading another site or something.
 
2013-07-11 10:21:31 AM  
Zims went into a confrontation with the ability to kill a person. Why wouldn`t that foreknowledge weigh heavily on his conscious, before the confrontation?

//Manslaughter
 
2013-07-11 10:21:57 AM  
Since when is it illegal to make stupid decisions? If it was, I would be serving multiple life prison terms. Yes, GZ got out of his car. Yes, him walking in the direction where he last seen TM escalated the situation. Both of which were MORONIC things to do, but NOT illegal. The question is, did he fear for his life while being beat?
 
2013-07-11 10:22:15 AM  

tripleseven: I'm never going to convince you, but, lets look at reality:


Reality is WHY you will never convince me.
 
2013-07-11 10:22:22 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Here's my problem: didn't Trayvon have a right to defend himself against a man who was following him with a gun?

A guy who was following him for no other reason than a false assumption that Trayvon was a criminal?

Zimmerman escalated the situation. He left his car to pursue on foot.

All Trayvon was trying to do was get some snacks and go to his Dads place.


Again, no. Following someone is not illegal. Following someone while CCW is not illegal. Calling Trayvon a n- thug is not illegal. None of these things could be considered for a need of self defense. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin with a drawn gun and shouting he was going kill Martin, then yes. Otherwise, no.
 
2013-07-11 10:22:23 AM  

the_rev: Did Zimmerman jaywalk at any point during the incident? Maybe they can give him 15 years for that. Wait... I guess he was guilty of littering. Maybe they will convict him of that.


Yes because black men are trash....ohhh wait you meant the expended shell right? Yeah that's right.
 
2013-07-11 10:22:33 AM  

calm like a bomb: Is this where I leave my daily "subtract one fat, insecure loser with a gun from the situation and nobody dies" post?


You could leave a "subtract one pathetic violent head-smashing junkie thug from the situation and nobody dies" post.
 
2013-07-11 10:22:35 AM  
'The State would like to enter into evidence that while regular people drive 'Like This' the defendant drives 'Like That' and add vehicular manslaughter to the list off charges'
 
2013-07-11 10:22:56 AM  
The state would further request having eyes too close together be added as a lesser charge.
 
2013-07-11 10:23:02 AM  

fredklein: AngryDragon:
No.  He had no idea Zimmerman had a gun.
No.  Following someone is not a reason to assault them.
No.  He was reporting to the police what he was seeing and stopped following when it was suggested.
No.  He also assaulted a person (for racist reasons if you believe his girlfriends testimony) and took things way too far.


Unless you can read dead people's minds, you don't know if Trayvon knew about the gun.

While you are technically correct that "Following someone is not a reason to assault them", you don't know what else happened.

As for 'reporting to the police'- some people here are very anal about the fact the was not speaking to 'the police', but rather a 'police dispatcher'. As for turning around, you only have Zimmerman's word on that.

And, again, unless you have additional evidence, you don't know who assaulted who first. You only know what one person testified they heard.


Some people seem insistent that the facts fit their narrative, rather then making their narrative fit the facts.
[imageshack.us image 800x302]


There is no narrative.  You admit yourself that no one really knows what happened before Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman beating his head in to the sidewalk and getting shot as a result.  That last part is undisputed.  If no one knows what else happened, you know what that's called, right?

Reasonable doubt.  Not guilty.
 
2013-07-11 10:23:17 AM  

lantawa: Regarding totallt inappropriateFederally directed activism and  DOJ intervention in this case:

t seems like we're really starting to get into Banana Boat politics, a farcical apeing of the true rules of law, a blighted law-breaking political landscape of lockstep dogmatic and nonsensical grubbing for more and more money grabs and controls of municipalities and public domains. Pathetic, pathetic dull and stupid creatures of pure, unadulterated mindless narrative.are hard at work. So Sad.

On another note, Zimmerman is absolutely innocent of ANY wrongdoing, and the jury WILL vote for his innocence.  I'll take up to $20.00 bets with anyone that wants to take that bet. (Of course, this pretty much can't be done, since this IS Fark, afterall, but you get my drift). You Obama partisans remember to pop and snap to attention and OBEY those orders that come from the current Death Star Emperor.once this trial is over.  OBEY, I say.  It's what YOU voted for, FFS..


You sound like you really care. Tell us more.
 
2013-07-11 10:23:20 AM  

the_rev: Did Zimmerman jaywalk at any point during the incident? Maybe they can give him 15 years for that. Wait... I guess he was guilty of littering. Maybe they will convict him of that.


"Your Honor, we also believe the defendant parked his vehicle in front of a fire hydrant on the night of the incident, so we would seek to have a citation written against him for that egregious offense as well."

What a joke.
 
2013-07-11 10:23:22 AM  
can someone watching expand on "child abuse"? What is the precedent/argument for that?
 
2013-07-11 10:23:40 AM  

RaiderFanMikeP: AeAe: Zimmerman should be found guilty on the manslaughter charge.

how many years?   i would go with 5 years


5 seems fair.  But that could be reduced to 2.5 for good behavior.   I think 5 to 10.
 
2013-07-11 10:24:13 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: Hobodeluxe

all those are facts.

When was it established as a fact that Zimmerman confronted Martin? Because no one in the trial has suggested that...rather the opposite.


no one other than Zimmerman and Trayvon's friend on the phone were a witness to the initiation of the confrontation.
the phone logs confirm she was on the phone with him at the time.
so what you have is a he said ,she said.
the fact that Zimmerman didn't want to meet up with the cops at his truck
that he lied about not knowing an address and had to go through the alley to find one (every townhouse has an address on the front. even Zimmerman's house)
he ignored the request not to follow.

Now if the confrontation had happened at Zimmerman's truck and Z had been on the phone instead of Trayvon then his story might hold water.
but it didn't happen that way.
To believe George you have to ignore all that and believe that George had changed his mind and decided to let this one get away.
and that Trayvon decide to stop trying to avoid this guy,lay in wait and ambush him.
 
2013-07-11 10:24:16 AM  

lantawa: Regarding totallt inappropriateFederally directed activism and  DOJ intervention in this case:

t seems like we're really starting to get into Banana Boat politics, a farcical apeing of the true rules of law, a blighted law-breaking political landscape of lockstep dogmatic and nonsensical grubbing for more and more money grabs and controls of municipalities and public domains. Pathetic, pathetic dull and stupid creatures of pure, unadulterated mindless narrative.are hard at work. So Sad.

On another note, Zimmerman is absolutely innocent of ANY wrongdoing, and the jury WILL vote for his innocence.  I'll take up to $20.00 bets with anyone that wants to take that bet. (Of course, this pretty much can't be done, since this IS Fark, afterall, but you get my drift). You Obama partisans remember to pop and snap to attention and OBEY those orders that come from the current Death Star Emperor.once this trial is over.  OBEY, I say.  It's what YOU voted for, FFS..


This is the kind of authentic frontier gibberish that keeps me coming back for more.
 
2013-07-11 10:24:37 AM  

Frank N Stein: Thread badges are the lamest farking thing fark has ever come up with.


I disagree, sometimes its a nice reference to a decent thread

Like real doll sex
 
2013-07-11 10:24:43 AM  

Carth: tripleseven: s2s2s2: tripleseven: Yeah, people have NO RIGHT to be in the streets or anything.

So then we agree, George had a right to get out of his car. Thank you.

I'm never going to convince you, but, lets look at reality:

There is a vast difference between walking down the street, and following another human being.

Which one is illegal?


It would depend on context concerning the legality of following someone, but if you are stating that being followed at night by a stranger in a car, and on foot doesn't pose a threat or a basic human emotional response of fear or danger, then you are totally lying to yourself.
 
2013-07-11 10:24:52 AM  

parasol: KellyX: Sorry, if someone was on top of me beating my head against the sidewalk and I was carrying, they'd be shoot too...

certainly, me too - and if i was a member of crime watch i'd have followed their guidelines - oh wait! I AM and I DO.  Do note, I've never argued GZ wasn't within his right to defend himself but, as many have posted in here? He made some stupid choices (as did TM) leading up to his need to shoot.


I def don't disagree on that... but I don't think the State has proven shiat imo.
 
2013-07-11 10:24:55 AM  

parasol: I have a question and would, if possible, like an answer from someone who knows and with a minimum of snark...

If someone (i know, i know GZ will never be found guilty of anything because blah, blah) is found guilty of homicide/manslaughter (i know, I know, GZ never committed either because blah,blah) are they ever allowed to legally have a CCW permit again?

Just curious what the law is (I know, I know, GZ will never not have a legal permit because, blah, blah)

Tx


I think it's the laudenburg thingie that states if you are involved in a domestic violence issue you are not allowed to carry a weapon but that is related to military and it's not always applied because I've never seen them not issue a soldier a weapon for field exercises even, despite that rule. This may have changed since I've exited stage left, and of course may not apply to civilians.

It would make sense but hey now don't let that stop us.
 
2013-07-11 10:25:11 AM  

Joe Blowme: NeoCortex42: Manslaughter is on the table now for the jury.

Along with littering of the spent casing


Better check if his town has a swearing ordinance. They could always get him for saying 'assholes'.
 
2013-07-11 10:25:14 AM  
lantawa:
Regarding totallt inappropriateFederally directed activism and  DOJ intervention in this case:
t seems like we're really starting to get into Banana Boat politics, a farcical apeing of the true rules of law, a blighted law-breaking political landscape of lockstep dogmatic and nonsensical grubbing for more and more money grabs and controls of municipalities and public domains. Pathetic, pathetic dull and stupid creatures of pure, unadulterated mindless narrative.are hard at work. So Sad.



well? if IS florida
 
2013-07-11 10:25:20 AM  

Tatsuma: They are trying to get him under 'Child Abuse'??


What a farking asshole.


Seriously!?

They're grasping at straws now. Obviously they're hoping the jury will have the mind set to think "Well, GZ didn't technically do anything illegal, but let's punish him anyway."
 
2013-07-11 10:25:23 AM  

Nabb1: s2s2s2: Hobodeluxe: and trayvon had the right to defend himself from a perceived threat

What threat?

A creepy ass cracker was following him, so he felt so threatened, he called a friend instead of the police and decided not to continue on to his father's apartment.


he was still on the path to his Father's apt. and he thought he had lost Zimmerman. The phone call was ongoing. he had been talking to her all evening
 
2013-07-11 10:25:29 AM  

fredklein: Unless you can read dead people's minds, you don't know if Trayvon knew about the gun.


So you admit that a lot is unknown, then you post a graphic that perfectly explains your argument as a bunch of scribbles to support your unsupported theories.

You are precious.
 
2013-07-11 10:25:38 AM  

Nabb1: Darth_Lukecash: Here's my problem: didn't Trayvon have a right to defend himself against a man who was following him with a gun?

A guy who was following him for no other reason than a false assumption that Trayvon was a criminal?

For the millionth time, this does not matter under the law.  The evidence established Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating him when he got shot.  Following someone for a few minutes because you believe them to be a criminal, even if you are wrong, is not against the law.  Period.

Zimmerman escalated the situation. He left his car to pursue on foot.

Martin escalated the situation even more when he was punching Zimmerman in the face.

All Trayvon was trying to do was get some snacks and go to his Dads place.

And if he had kept on going and gone inside, that's exactly what would have happened.


Was Martin not standing his ground? Why should Trayvon not receive the same protection under Florida Law? He perceived, correctly, that he was in danger.

All he knew was a man was following him. Perhaps to rape him? To mug him? To give him a copy of Dianetics? All justified beatings in my book.

So why was Trayvon not allowed to stand his ground?
 
2013-07-11 10:25:39 AM  

Hobodeluxe: And lets remember when this initiated Trayvon was on the phone.


And that the person he was on the phone with says that it was Trayvon who initiated the confrontation.
 
2013-07-11 10:25:46 AM  
I hadn't watched any of Nancy Grace on this (or any of her really for years).  But damn, my tolerance for that woman is down to about 2 minutes.  She was farking nuts last night with the friend of Zimmerman. "Cut his mike!  Cut his mike before he says something different than me!!!"

I would have very politely said, "Thank you for the opportunity to come on your show but this interview is over."

Then off camera I'd have flipped her off.
 
2013-07-11 10:26:30 AM  

tripleseven: Darth_Lukecash: Here's my problem: didn't Trayvon have a right to defend himself against a man who was following him with a gun?

A guy who was following him for no other reason than a false assumption that Trayvon was a criminal?

Zimmerman escalated the situation. He left his car to pursue on foot.

All Trayvon was trying to do was get some snacks and go to his Dads place.

Just let it go.

You'll never convince the Zimmerman cheerleaders.

In their minds, getting followed down a dark street by a stranger in a car is no cause for alarm.  Neither is it cause for alarm if he gets out of the car and follows you.

You should just let them follow you, I mean, they aren't breaking any laws or anything.

This is their actual reasoning.  even though one admitted he would have confronted the guy as well, if he thought he could "take" him.


You still make me chuckle.  Good on you.
 
2013-07-11 10:26:58 AM  

tripleseven: Carth: tripleseven: s2s2s2: tripleseven: Yeah, people have NO RIGHT to be in the streets or anything.

So then we agree, George had a right to get out of his car. Thank you.

I'm never going to convince you, but, lets look at reality:

There is a vast difference between walking down the street, and following another human being.

Which one is illegal?

It would depend on context concerning the legality of following someone, but if you are stating that being followed at night by a stranger in a car, and on foot doesn't pose a threat or a basic human emotional response of fear or danger, then you are totally lying to yourself.


I've been followed at night walking home. it is terrifying. You know what i did? I ran (not walked) home locked the door and called the police reporting a suspicious person.

You know what I didn't do? Confront them since following someone isn't illegal and nothing good would come out of it.
 
2013-07-11 10:27:21 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Trayvon thought Zimmerman meant him harm. He was right.


Actually, we don't know if he was right. Zimmerman escalated things by following him, but there are degrees of escalation, and Zimmerman is not the one who escalated even further by initiating physical force. There is no reason to believe he'd have shot Martin if that had not happened.

Trayvon should be okay with someone following him for no reason?

Strawman. Of course he shouldn't have been OK with it. But that does not excuse striking first.

Some people believe that it's better to throw the first punch in a fight than to get beaten up themselves.

According to the law, they are wrong.

Zimmerman left the car after he was told not to. He may have been heading back to his car, but he was out if it. He escalated it.

He did indeed escalate it, and he should not have done that. He was reckless. But there are lines he did not cross. Escalation is not a simple binary: it's not merely "deadly force" versus "no force." He didn't even escalate to the use of force.

Trayvon shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman, and died because of it. But to say Zimmerman is innocent is rediculous. He purposely injected himself into a dangerous situation.

And all of what you say is correct, but it is not what he's being charged with. If he is to be punished, then it should be for something he actually did. The prosecution failed to do that.

Probably because he had that happy warm gun toting superiority that comes with the second amendment.

We get it. You're scared.
 
2013-07-11 10:27:21 AM  
Wow, Don West is NOT pleased.
 
2013-07-11 10:27:31 AM  
"Just when this case couldn't get any more bizarre."

GO WEST!
 
2013-07-11 10:27:38 AM  
Hobodeluxe

no one other than Zimmerman and Trayvon's friend on the phone were a witness to the initiation of the confrontation.
the phone logs confirm she was on the phone with him at the time.
so what you have is a he said ,she said.


Both he and she agree that Martin confronted Zimmerman. There's no conflict between their accounts on that point. Without any other suggestion from any other quarter, why imagine otherwise?
 
2013-07-11 10:27:51 AM  

tripleseven: It would depend on context concerning the legality of following someone, but if you are stating that being followed at night by a stranger in a car, and on foot doesn't pose a threat or a basic human emotional response of fear or danger, then you are totally lying to yourself.


Still not illegal.
 
2013-07-11 10:27:56 AM  
'The State contends that the defendant cannot 'boogie', 'bust a move', 'groove', 'shake what the Good L-rd gave him', nor 'get his freak on' and ask that 'Being a White While Pretending To Be Hispanic' to the list of charges.'
 
2013-07-11 10:27:58 AM  

Abuse Liability: PC LOAD LETTER: KellyX: TM should have stayed in his damn home. FACT

or

TM should have ran home and not confront GZ. FACT

Stayed home? Yes, because that's reasonable. GZ should have stayed home in that case as well.

Ran home? Seriously? If you think you are being chased by a white dude out to get a negro, why the hell would you lead him directly to your home?

Black people's worst nightmare is being killed by white racists*: FACT

*not that GZ was one, but he sure made every effort to make TM think that might be the case.

Every effort? I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it means.  He followed him, which in itself isn't racist.  Creepy... ass-cracker, but not racist.  He could just as likely have given a child-molester vibe.


You really need to talk to more black people.
 
2013-07-11 10:28:03 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Here's my problem: didn't Trayvon have a right to defend himself against a man who was following him with a gun?

A guy who was following him for no other reason than a false assumption that Trayvon was a criminal?

Zimmerman escalated the situation. He left his car to pursue on foot.

All Trayvon was trying to do was get some snacks and go to his Dads place.


You defend yourself against an assault. Zimmerman didn't assault him. The smart thing to do would have been to keep skittle-bopping on to dad's house, and then call the cops if he thinks it is prudent.
 
2013-07-11 10:28:05 AM  

Mjeck: Zims went into a confrontation with the ability to kill a person

that might intentionally or incidentally kill him. Then used it for exactly that reason, legally.
 
Displayed 50 of 2716 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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