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  
•       •       •

2524 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2013 at 9:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest

 
2013-07-11 11:39:49 AM  

BigNumber12: Smashing GZ's head into the concrete was a surefire way of farking with his very consciousness, his ability to think clearly and sense what was happening to him. That's a guaranteed way to induce panic, if someone believes that they're about to be knocked completely unconscious and placed completely at the mercy of the other person.


But but but....hindsight!
 
2013-07-11 11:40:01 AM  

Millennium: PC LOAD LETTER: Deadly response? At no point has anyone proven that TM's response was, in fact, deadly. There's disagreement about the extent of the injuries. "Ground and pound" isn't "braining him on the sidewalk". There's a huge hole here. Maybe if GZ got some actual brain injury, this whole case would sit better with me.

If I were aiming for someone's heart with a gun, but I miss and only hit them in the shoulder, I've still used deadly force. If Martin hit Zimmerman's head on the curb once or twice, but Zimmerman somehow managed to escape a brain injury, then Martin still used deadly force.


Again, what's amusing is that the GUN RIGHTS! people are all rallying around this case, where the main defense is: I am incapable of defending myself against a slightly doughy teenager, and thus I had to use my gun to get him off of me.

\oh, and let's not forget how THC grants superhuman strength
 
2013-07-11 11:40:12 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: Into the blue again

I wasn't gonna go with bad, just self absorbed.

Says the guy insisting I do what he does the way he does it because it's a courtesy.

I decline. Are we done with this?


I tried, I am sorry I have to put you on ignore. Have a nice day!!
 
2013-07-11 11:40:14 AM  

Boojum2k: Boojum2k: WillofJ2: So if it was child abuse, do you have to let a 17 year old beat you to death and not fight back? according to this weaselly guy

Weasely guy is right, and he needs to borrow a chin from Judge Walrus, she has a couple to spare.

I mean by right only that it is an accurate description, not sure he's been right about anything yet.


gotcha, what i was hoping you were saying that, otherwise kids might be going around beating people and waiting for them to do something back and claiming child abuse
 
2013-07-11 11:42:19 AM  

Elegy: I'm not sure why the defense waived the aggravated battery instruction for self-defense. Wouldn't it have been in their interest to argue to the jury that Martin was the one committing a felony when he was beating Zimmerman?


Do you want the jury deciding 1) he was reasonably in fear of bodily harm, or 2) that a) TM's actions rose to the level of aggravated battery AND GZ reasonably feared?
 
2013-07-11 11:42:39 AM  

zeroman987: fredklein: tenpoundsofcheese: Also, if he called Precious instead of the police or a male friend to help him out when he saw this creepy ass cracker, how scared could he have been?

Yeah, because minorities have such good experiences calling the cops. it's not like the cops would hassle him or anything.

I'm hispanic and live in a large city. So when I skulk around your neighborhood and you are watching me, I have the right to leave and then come back and beat you up? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?


Yes, that sounds ridiculous.

Of course, you haven't proven that that is what actually, you know, happened.

My theory is (for the 40th time) is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed by him while on the phone with the cops (oh, excuse me- "the police dispatcher"). Zimmerman hung up, turned around, and started back to his car. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and come back toward him suddenly, thought his hiding place was discovered, and at that point, confronted Zimmerman... in self defense. This theory fits all the known facts.

TM escalated the situation by using force that was unnecessary given the situation,

You don't know the situation, and thus cannot know what level of force was necessary.

and continued to use that force after the threat was neutralized.

As I've said before- you cannot 'neutralize' the threat of a man with a gun, unless you take the gun, or make it so they cannot fire it (ie: knock them out). Trayvon's actions (grabbing at the gun, banging Zimmerman's head) are consistent with this.

Simply knocking them down is not sufficient.

He was a vigilante and finding GZ guilty will encourage vigilante justice.

And finding Zimmerman Not Guilty will mean that any self-appointed 'neighborhood watch' member can gun down [insert race here] people, and simply claim they were in fear of their life. I mean, it's not like the dead guy can dispute it, can they?

If TM had done the right thing and called the cops when he felt threatened, none of this would have happened.

Cops have a history of hassling minorities when called by them. If I were black, I sure as hell wouldn't call them.
 
2013-07-11 11:42:44 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Treygreen13: PC LOAD LETTER: At no point has anyone proven that TM's response was, in fact, deadly.

[www.claimspages.com image 317x209]
Punched in the face once. Died.

So we should classify fistfights as combat with deadly weapons, correct?


There have been many, many cases where somebody has died during a fist fight or beating.  If somebody pounds your head into the concrete (as the defense has suggested what happened), shooting them would be a legal method of self defense, IMHO.
 
2013-07-11 11:42:46 AM  
"Very thin ice.  Very thin ice."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBb4cjjj1gI">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=tBb4cjjj1gI
 
2013-07-11 11:43:51 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: The rest are the battle of the experts for medical injuries, bullet/gunshot evidence


There is no battle. They all pretty much agree. George had reasonable belief in imminent(hasn't happened yet) great bodily harm. That meets the bar. You can argue with it, but you are surrounded by people that know, for a fact, you are wrong.
 
2013-07-11 11:44:07 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: frepnog: PC LOAD LETTER: Maybe if GZ got some actual brain injury, this whole case would sit better with me.

you don't have to wait until your brains fall out to defend yourself, dude.  i mean seriously.

I never actually said that.


no.  you said  - Maybe if GZ got some actual brain injury, this whole case would sit better with me.

he didn't have to wait until he would be a drooling moron with no capacity for thought to defend himself.

seriously dude.  from the ME report, Zimmerman was clearly hit directly in the face at least 6 times.

have someone knock you down and sit on your chest and punch you in the face 6 times.  see if you feel like defending yourself before brain damage sets in.
 
2013-07-11 11:44:22 AM  

BigNumber12: s2s2s2: fredklein: Zimmerman claims he was in fear of his life, but his wounds were minor

This is immaterial. He reasonably believed grievous bodily harm was IMMINENT. This means it was likely to happen if the assault continued. That is all he needs to justify the use of deadly force.


As Heath Ledger once said, "Never start with the head, the victim gets all fuzzy."

Smashing GZ's head into the concrete was a surefire way of farking with his very consciousness, his ability to think clearly and sense what was happening to him. That's a guaranteed way to induce panic, if someone believes that they're about to be knocked completely unconscious and placed completely at the mercy of the other person.


Not to mention the blood I'm sure he tasted. He probably thought, " Oh, I'm probably Ok, he'll stop pounding me in a second and we'll all have a good laugh over a beer."

/this is for the idiot that think that playing basketball with friends/acquaintances is the same as fighting a stranger in the dark.
 
2013-07-11 11:44:29 AM  
I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap
 
2013-07-11 11:44:33 AM  
whizbangthedirtfarmer

Again, what's amusing is that the GUN RIGHTS! people are all rallying around this case, where the main defense is: I am incapable of defending myself against a slightly doughy teenager, and thus I had to use my gun to get him off of me.

When did the measure of manliness become "I let someone stronger beat the shiat out of me?"
 
2013-07-11 11:45:35 AM  

frepnog: see if you feel like defending yourself before brain damage sets in.


Pretty sure that train sailed for PCLL a while back.
 
2013-07-11 11:45:47 AM  
This judge's derp is strong, but fair.
 
2013-07-11 11:45:53 AM  

fredklein: My theory is (for the 40th time) is that Trayvon hid. Zimmerman passed by him while on the phone with the cops (oh, excuse me- "the police dispatcher"). Zimmerman hung up, turned around, and started back to his car. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and come back toward him suddenly, thought his hiding place was discovered, and at that point, confronted Zimmerman... in self defense. This theory fits all the known facts.


And then, one line later....

fredklein: You don't know the situation, and thus cannot know what level of force was necessary.


The breadth and scope of stupidity revealed by this case has been staggering.
 
2013-07-11 11:45:57 AM  
None of you seem to realize the  unbelievable importance of the one ruling by Judge biatchpants.

Jury can be led to believe following somone is illegal. That alone means an easy conviction, because since George broke the law by leaving his car, everything he did afterwards can be illegal.

This is bad. Chicks are not rational people, this is all they need to convict, regardless of evidence. "Oh, he broke the law by leaving his car? Must be guilty then."
 
2013-07-11 11:45:59 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: whizbangthedirtfarmer

Again, what's amusing is that the GUN RIGHTS! people are all rallying around this case, where the main defense is: I am incapable of defending myself against a slightly doughy teenager, and thus I had to use my gun to get him off of me.

When did the measure of manliness become "I let someone stronger beat the shiat out of me?"


For me, the measure of manliness would be not confronting/following someone in the first place.
 
2013-07-11 11:46:02 AM  

I_C_Weener: Headso: Frank N Stein: Can anyone explain why this woman is a judge? She's absolutely terrible and should probably be disbarred

Under normal circumstances people like the fact that she is tough on crime.

Until they see that "tough on crime" sometimes mean railroading people.  So, in that sense, cameras in the courtroom and high profile cases can help.  But usually high profile cases are so far from the norm that people get a misconstrued sense of how cases really work.


Most of the people who believe he is being railroaded will be back to wanting to be tough on crime the day this trail is over. I don't think they see a connection, they believe she is railroading him specifically not that this is the same type of shiat that happens to defendants all day everyday and mostly for nonviolent crimes.
 
2013-07-11 11:46:30 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: s2s2s2: confirmed by multiple testimonies

This is a gross overstatement. There's some overlapping corroboration. There's not a lot of direct evidence in this case. The two biggest sources of evidence were Jeantel and Zimmerman's prior statements. Both have serious issues. The rest are the battle of the experts for medical injuries, bullet/gunshot evidence, and the eyewitnesses viewing a fight, at a distance, in the rain, in poor light. Some of it overlaps and can be pushed up in the likely list. The rest is up for grabs.


So we should convict because we're not sure what's going on?
 
2013-07-11 11:46:38 AM  

I_C_Weener: Elegy: I'm not sure why the defense waived the aggravated battery instruction for self-defense. Wouldn't it have been in their interest to argue to the jury that Martin was the one committing a felony when he was beating Zimmerman?

Do you want the jury deciding 1) he was reasonably in fear of bodily harm, or 2) that a) TM's actions rose to the level of aggravated battery AND GZ reasonably feared?


Ah, I see.
 
2013-07-11 11:46:40 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap


Jury will be instructed to look at additional charges. Manslaughter, child abuse, jaywalking, wrong colored shoes, impersonating an astronaut, illegal parking, dirty sock drawer and a few more I can't remember.
 
2013-07-11 11:46:56 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: whizbangthedirtfarmer

Again, what's amusing is that the GUN RIGHTS! people are all rallying around this case, where the main defense is: I am incapable of defending myself against a slightly doughy teenager, and thus I had to use my gun to get him off of me.

When did the measure of manliness become "I let someone stronger beat the shiat out of me?"


A large part of the J4T crowd are in favor of the "right to beat down people who look at you funny" rule of street law. You know, thugs.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:07 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.


And most of them would do a 180 if the case involved a black man following a white teenager around.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:30 AM  

fredklein: Millennium: fredklein: Others would have you believe that Trayvon, who was running away, suddenly did a psychological 180 and turned to attack. This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Happens all the time in pursuit cases: you realize that you can't shake your pursuer, so you turn and fight.

Makes No sense, if you beleive that Zimmerman was returnign to his car at the time. Why "turn and fight" a retreating opponent?


Why indeed, but now you're talking about a different situation entirely: one that renders this entire line of reasoning moot, because it means that either Zimmerman broke off his pursuit (a clear de-escalation) or never pursued him in the first place.

Others would have you believe that Zimmerman, who was chasing Trayvon this whole time, suddenly became completely passive when meeting Trayvon. This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Not all pursuers are looking for a melee: in fact, most aren't.

And the BEST way to avoid a melee is... to not pursue to begin with!


Irrelevant. Pursuit runs the risk of a fight, it's true, but that doesn't mean it was the goal of the pursuer.

It makes the details he puts forth questionable, at best.

It makes them questionable, but that doesn't absolve us from being scrupulous in how we go about questioning them.

Even if Zimmerman is lying about some details of this, it's still in his interest to tell as much of the truth as possible.

But the devil's in the details. One or two minor details could change the whole situation.


This is true, but it's up to the prosecution to prove which of these details are not true. They haven't done so.

That means you've got to either assume he's telling the truth on every point, or prove the points where he's not. You're doing neither.

I don't have to do either.


Yes, you do. You're the prosecution; that's your job.

You in particular don't, of course, since you are not personally part of the prosecution team (as far as I know). But if we're going to seriously discuss the merits of this case, arguing for the prosecution's side binds you to their same standards. If we're not going to seriously discuss the merits of this case, please let me know.

The logical thing to do is to be suspicious of everything he says, until it's backed up by outside evidence.

That's not how trials work.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:41 AM  
whizbangthedirtfarmer

For me, the measure of manliness would be not confronting/following someone in the first place.

So both participants failed. Zimmerman followed, Martin confronted. Both seem to be derps hopped up on idiocy, IMO.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:42 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRBBBBBBB B BLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEE

/Basically what you missed here.
//If you want the trial, try here.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:48 AM  
So he thinks Zimmerman should be charged with assault, because he might have(no evidence), but that Justifiable homicide by means of self defense should be disallowed, because his bodily harm was no indication of imminent grievous bodily harm, while agreeing that no bodily harm need be committed to support a reasonable fear.

Brilliant.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:58 AM  

I_C_Weener: Headso: Frank N Stein: Can anyone explain why this woman is a judge? She's absolutely terrible and should probably be disbarred

Under normal circumstances people like the fact that she is tough on crime.

Until they see that "tough on crime" sometimes mean railroading people.  So, in that sense, cameras in the courtroom and high profile cases can help.  But usually high profile cases are so far from the norm that people get a misconstrued sense of how cases really work.


In this case, the #JusticeForTrayvon crowd thinks railroads are awesome. Trains are cool, n shiat.

I_C_Weener: Elegy: I'm not sure why the defense waived the aggravated battery instruction for self-defense. Wouldn't it have been in their interest to argue to the jury that Martin was the one committing a felony when he was beating Zimmerman?

Do you want the jury deciding 1) he was reasonably in fear of bodily harm, or 2) that a) TM's actions rose to the level of aggravated battery AND GZ reasonably feared?


If I'm GZ, I want the former.
 
2013-07-11 11:48:00 AM  

Headso: I_C_Weener: Headso: Frank N Stein: Can anyone explain why this woman is a judge? She's absolutely terrible and should probably be disbarred

Under normal circumstances people like the fact that she is tough on crime.

Until they see that "tough on crime" sometimes mean railroading people.  So, in that sense, cameras in the courtroom and high profile cases can help.  But usually high profile cases are so far from the norm that people get a misconstrued sense of how cases really work.

Most of the people who believe he is being railroaded will be back to wanting to be tough on crime the day this trail is over. I don't think they see a connection, they believe she is railroading him specifically not that this is the same type of shiat that happens to defendants all day everyday and mostly for nonviolent crimes.


Probably true.  Good thing most people arrested and charged are guilty.  Imagine if this was the normal court room behavior AND the police just picked up random people (or worse people who are deemed politically problematic like in China)?
 
2013-07-11 11:48:28 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap


Prosecution opened the door for lesser charges. Judge allowing it. Major hanging point being Third Degree Murder via Child Abuse statutes.

Arguing specific jury instructions now, which are very important. Judge denied a key defense argument and told them they can appeal if it was a mistake.
 
2013-07-11 11:49:17 AM  

Into the blue again: Mid_mo_mad_man: I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap

Jury will be instructed to look at additional charges. Manslaughter, child abuse, jaywalking, wrong colored shoes, impersonating an astronaut, illegal parking, dirty sock drawer and a few more I can't remember.


My two faves were the ones farkers posted:

1-Wearing white after Labor Day
2-Ironically wearing sunglasses at night
 
2013-07-11 11:50:39 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Again, what's amusing is that the GUN RIGHTS! people are all rallying around this case, where the main defense is: I am incapable of defending myself against a slightly doughy teenager, and thus I had to use my gun to get him off of me.

\oh, and let's not forget how THC grants superhuman strength


We get it; George Zimmerman is a big fat poopyhead. That doesn't have any bearing on the case.
 
2013-07-11 11:50:45 AM  

Latinwolf: 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.

And most of them would do a 180 if the case involved a black man following a white teenager around.


Your prejudice is showing.  Try not to project unto others, as other are more than capable of thinking for themselves.
 
2013-07-11 11:51:03 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: Into the blue again: Mid_mo_mad_man: I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap

Jury will be instructed to look at additional charges. Manslaughter, child abuse, jaywalking, wrong colored shoes, impersonating an astronaut, illegal parking, dirty sock drawer and a few more I can't remember.

My two faves were the ones farkers posted:

1-Wearing white after Labor Day
2-Ironically wearing sunglasses at night


Ha!
 
2013-07-11 11:51:15 AM  

Treygreen13: Mid_mo_mad_man: I've been out of the loop today. Can I get a recap

Prosecution opened the door for lesser charges. Judge allowing it. Major hanging point being Third Degree Murder via Child Abuse statutes.

Arguing specific jury instructions now, which are very important. Judge denied a key defense argument and told them they can appeal if it was a mistake.


Lots of the judge saying 'I'm right because I always do it that way and I get lots of convictions.'
 
2013-07-11 11:51:46 AM  
I stand corrected. The defense is not using the Stand Your Ground Law as a defense, just self defense. Apparently the defense considered using this as a defense but decided against it.

/It's still a stupid law and Florida is the armpit of America.
//Although I do like the beaches.
///Oh, and Disney world.
 
2013-07-11 11:51:59 AM  

Government Fromage: Headso: Frank N Stein: Can anyone explain why this woman is a judge? She's absolutely terrible and should probably be disbarred

Under normal circumstances people like the fact that she is tough on crime.

I wonder how many people she's put away unfairly. Watching this trial really makes you think.


Indeed. At the very least this trial can give hope to past cases she's tried.
 
2013-07-11 11:52:10 AM  

Headso: I_C_Weener: Headso: Frank N Stein: Can anyone explain why this woman is a judge? She's absolutely terrible and should probably be disbarred

Under normal circumstances people like the fact that she is tough on crime.

Until they see that "tough on crime" sometimes mean railroading people.  So, in that sense, cameras in the courtroom and high profile cases can help.  But usually high profile cases are so far from the norm that people get a misconstrued sense of how cases really work.

Most of the people who believe he is being railroaded will be back to wanting to be tough on crime the day this trail is over. I don't think they see a connection, they believe she is railroading him specifically not that this is the same type of shiat that happens to defendants all day everyday and mostly for nonviolent crimes.


Pretty much. Judge's have almost absolute authority within their courtroom - they are the personification of the law after all - and as long as she's not caught taking money under the table from litigants, and she's citing reasons for her rulings and not speaking gibberish, she can't really be charged with misconduct. Reversal on appeal is just a finding that she weighed the facts incorrectly, not that she did anything unethical.

Debra Nelson started her career as a prosecutor, and has a reputation as a prosecutor's judge. She's a "hanging judge," but that's not outside the bounds of the authority.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth about her rulings really makes me laugh. It's almost impossible to impeach a judge for their rulings - it's kind of like arguing with the tide.
 
2013-07-11 11:52:45 AM  

I_C_Weener: Headso: I_C_Weener: Headso: Frank N Stein: Can anyone explain why this woman is a judge? She's absolutely terrible and should probably be disbarred

Under normal circumstances people like the fact that she is tough on crime.

Until they see that "tough on crime" sometimes mean railroading people.  So, in that sense, cameras in the courtroom and high profile cases can help.  But usually high profile cases are so far from the norm that people get a misconstrued sense of how cases really work.

Most of the people who believe he is being railroaded will be back to wanting to be tough on crime the day this trail is over. I don't think they see a connection, they believe she is railroading him specifically not that this is the same type of shiat that happens to defendants all day everyday and mostly for nonviolent crimes.

Probably true.  Good thing most people arrested and charged are guilty.


Thanks to Judges like this we can safely say that is true.
 
2013-07-11 11:52:46 AM  

Thunderpipes: None of you seem to realize the  unbelievable importance of the one ruling by Judge biatchpants.

Jury can be led to believe following somone is illegal. That alone means an easy conviction, because since George broke the law by leaving his car, everything he did afterwards can be illegal.

This is bad. Chicks are not rational people, this is all they need to convict, regardless of evidence. "Oh, he broke the law by leaving his car? Must be guilty then."


And with that, you just lost all rights to have an opinion on this case.
 
2013-07-11 11:53:03 AM  

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

No, but the weapon was concealed.

And no one can ever see the bulge the gun makes in clothing, right? There's absolutely no way they the gun could be seen when the wearer adjusts his clothing.

It can happen, but there's no reason to believe that it did happen.


Yes, there is. If it happened, then it completely explains why Trayvon attacked Zimmermen (assumign he did, of course)- he knew the crazy guy chasing him was armed, and attacked him in self defense.

And, of course, we know for a fact that Zimmerman didn't pull the gun before he said he did, Right?

The witness says ge drew it before shooting Martin, so if he did pull the gun sooner than that, then he must have put it back:


Um, or he was lying.

But people with a history of lying and who are facing murder charges- they always tell the truth, right?

You're pounding the table, arguing not on facts or legalities but on speculation.

An extrapolation based on the facts is not merely 'speculation'.
 
2013-07-11 11:53:06 AM  

Carn: 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.


Are you looking forward to securing your new sneakers in the next few days?
 
2013-07-11 11:53:44 AM  

heili skrimsli: What are the odds Zimmerman in prison lives long enough to appeal?


None whatsoever. Unless he is in solitary 24/7, he will be shivved to death.

Southern100: Her mannerisms, if not some of her statements, in court appear (at least to me) to be highly unprofessional in regards to the defense team; I would HOPE that if this case has to be appealed, that the appeals court would use some of the *video* evidence of any potential misconduct, and not just the transcripts.


Oh absolutely.
 
2013-07-11 11:53:44 AM  

Elegy: and not speaking gibberish


She has a problem then, particularly in the exchange over whether following was illegal. That was clearly spiteful against the defense and not in any way formed of a legal opinion or even rational thought.
 
2013-07-11 11:54:03 AM  
No double D's for the defense
 
2013-07-11 11:54:38 AM  

walkerhound: ChipNASA: "Your"    mutherfarkers!....not You ARE=You're

/can't believe I have to be the grammar nazi.

My wife and I don't correct other peoples grammar,
because, frankly, we're better than you people.
I also don't own a TeeVee and I use a non-ironic rotary phone
Pretty much King Sh*T of F*ck Island over here.

/amidoinitrite?


Farking GOLF CLAP!!!!!!
/keep it up.
 
2013-07-11 11:54:39 AM  

Boojum2k: Facetious_Speciest: whizbangthedirtfarmer

Again, what's amusing is that the GUN RIGHTS! people are all rallying around this case, where the main defense is: I am incapable of defending myself against a slightly doughy teenager, and thus I had to use my gun to get him off of me.

When did the measure of manliness become "I let someone stronger beat the shiat out of me?"

A large part of the J4T crowd are in favor of the "right to beat down people who look at you funny" rule of street law. You know, thugs.


i123.photobucket.com

He looked at me crossways, your honor.
 
2013-07-11 11:54:46 AM  

Elegy: The wailing and gnashing of teeth about her rulings really makes me laugh.


The people doing the wailing and gnashing makes it extra funny considering their other political views.
 
2013-07-11 11:56:00 AM  

Southern100: Thunderpipes: None of you seem to realize the  unbelievable importance of the one ruling by Judge biatchpants.

Jury can be led to believe following somone is illegal. That alone means an easy conviction, because since George broke the law by leaving his car, everything he did afterwards can be illegal.

This is bad. Chicks are not rational people, this is all they need to convict, regardless of evidence. "Oh, he broke the law by leaving his car? Must be guilty then."

And with that, you just lost all rights to have an opinion on this case.


You know I am right, and you avoid the point. If they are allowed to believe following was illegal, nothing else matters. They will feel all wah wah about a poor innocent baby (because the defense was not allowed to show evidence he was a thug) and they can convict based upon following someone being an illegal act.
 
Displayed 50 of 2716 comments


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest


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