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)   George Zimmerman's attorneys were once big fans of the Chris Farley-lookalike judge that's been ripping them new ones during the trial   (thesmokinggun.com) divider line 222
    More: Interesting, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, florida, judicial circuit, bank charge, lookalike  
•       •       •

14192 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2013 at 12:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-12 02:31:47 PM  

boarch: so much buttery goodness of this


You know who else has buttery goodness?

i.walmartimages.com

Aunt Jemima, that's who.

The new face makes her look like Fireman Bill:

www.lvtsg.com
 
2013-07-12 02:32:01 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: King Something: fuhfuhfuh: The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?

The investigation and trial only happened in the first place because it was catapulted into the national spotlight, which in turn happened because the Sanford PD tried to sweep the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a (at the time presumed to be) white man under the rug.

/said investigation would eventually reveal that the shooter is not "white," he is "white-Hispanic"

The race issue really is clouding the bigger discussion. The fact that Florida has a SYG law written in such a profoundly retarded manner that it can be left open to a rather larger interpretation of "threat" is the larger issue.


He committed manslaughter, either way.

Should have charged him with that... not sure what he was doing with a gun (didn't he have priors that would have kept him from having one?), but not clear on that part of the case.
 
2013-07-12 02:32:18 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Pumpernickel bread: Crotchrocket Slim: Pumpernickel bread: culebra: Fail in Human Form: culebra: I have to admit, (as a guy with no emotional investment in the outcome of the case), that the whiny ineptitude of Zimmerman's defense team and the judge's impatience with it have provided some comic relief to the whole ugly affair.

WTF trial were you watching?

Hey, yeah, no guy...you're right: Zimmerman's the real victim here.

As a matter of fact, yes he is. I can't believe our modern legal system is railroading a member of a particular ethnicity in order to appease members of another ethnicity. Is this the 1880s?

????

Considering assholes were biatching about there being a trial at all (which is standard procedure when a shooting death occurs) I think you can STFU troll

Wtf are you talking about? Trials are not required for a shooting death, only when the state believes a crime has been commited. Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses

You mean like when an armed adult shoots and kills an unarmed teenager under mysterious circumstances?


Note I'm not necessarily saying Zimmerman fits the legal definition of being guilty for murder, but the fact that he is on trial given the circumstances is pretty damn much the way things should be.
 
2013-07-12 02:32:54 PM  

Griftin Rubes: ok so who died and made you guys King of Sh*t F*ck Island anyways ?


OK now I'm totally changing it up.....

King of Sh*t F*ck Island
 
2013-07-12 02:33:12 PM  

Latinwolf: dittybopper: ZeroPly: crazies waiting for you outside your office building with a Big Gulp cup full of acid...

Lysergic, or sulphuric?

Figures you'd ask, is one more efficient than the other?


That depends on whether you want to give the other person hallucinations or chemical burns.
 
2013-07-12 02:33:14 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: King Something: fuhfuhfuh: The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?

The investigation and trial only happened in the first place because it was catapulted into the national spotlight, which in turn happened because the Sanford PD tried to sweep the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a (at the time presumed to be) white man under the rug.

/said investigation would eventually reveal that the shooter is not "white," he is "white-Hispanic"

The race issue really is clouding the bigger discussion. The fact that Florida has a SYG law written in such a profoundly retarded manner that it can be left open to a rather larger interpretation of "threat" is the larger issue.


SYG is not being used in this case, I'm not sure why it continues to be brought up. I expect it was something falsely identified by the media before the trial began and has since taken root in a lot of people's mind.
 
2013-07-12 02:33:20 PM  
Hope he gets the death penalty.
 
2013-07-12 02:33:35 PM  

bojon: Marine1: When's this thing over?

After the riots, of course.


If there is going to be looting then

put me down for a 72" tv
 
2013-07-12 02:35:18 PM  

bojon: Marine1: When's this thing over?

After the riots, of course.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-12 02:35:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: ChipNASA: [i1.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.

The King is dead.

[bradhodson.files.wordpress.com image 500x770]

Long live the king.


+1 for the Dark Tower ref. I actually started re reading the series and finally have hit the last book.
 
2013-07-12 02:36:01 PM  

Marine1: not sure what he was doing with a gun (didn't he have priors that would have kept him from having one?)


He had to pass a background check in order to get his CCW permit, so no, he didn't.
 
2013-07-12 02:36:33 PM  

dittybopper: Latinwolf: dittybopper: ZeroPly: crazies waiting for you outside your office building with a Big Gulp cup full of acid...

Lysergic, or sulphuric?

Figures you'd ask, is one more efficient than the other?

That depends on whether you want to give the other person hallucinations or chemical burns.


i say start with the Lysergic, finish with the sulphuric FTW
 
2013-07-12 02:36:52 PM  

dittybopper: Latinwolf: dittybopper: ZeroPly: crazies waiting for you outside your office building with a Big Gulp cup full of acid...

Lysergic, or sulphuric?

Figures you'd ask, is one more efficient than the other?

That depends on whether you want to give the other person hallucinations or chemical burns.


Oh damn, LSD, I forgot what that was.
 
2013-07-12 02:37:09 PM  

CynicalLA: Hope he gets the death penalty.


Not sure about death penalty, but maybe a timeout or huge wedgie for forcing the king shiat of fark island crapola.
 
2013-07-12 02:38:41 PM  

DenisBergkamp: fuhfuhfuh: King Something: fuhfuhfuh: The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?

The investigation and trial only happened in the first place because it was catapulted into the national spotlight, which in turn happened because the Sanford PD tried to sweep the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a (at the time presumed to be) white man under the rug.

/said investigation would eventually reveal that the shooter is not "white," he is "white-Hispanic"

The race issue really is clouding the bigger discussion. The fact that Florida has a SYG law written in such a profoundly retarded manner that it can be left open to a rather larger interpretation of "threat" is the larger issue.

SYG is not being used in this case, I'm not sure why it continues to be brought up. I expect it was something falsely identified by the media before the trial began and has since taken root in a lot of people's mind.


I think some people are fearful that it will be affected by the outcome of this case.
 
2013-07-12 02:39:25 PM  

dittybopper: Marine1: not sure what he was doing with a gun (didn't he have priors that would have kept him from having one?)

He had to pass a background check in order to get his CCW permit, so no, he didn't.


Hm. Well. There ya go.
 
2013-07-12 02:39:28 PM  

phenn: Did I just hear that judge instruct jurors not to nullify?


Yes.  That is pretty standard.
 
2013-07-12 02:40:11 PM  

King Something: corporatepig: What the fark is a "white Hispanic"

That's a good question.

I suppose it would be a Hispanic who can easily be mistaken for "white," like Vanna White from Wheel Of Fortune (she's Puerto Rican). As opposed to "black Hispanic," like Bernie Williams (also Puerto Rican).

Or maybe it's "a Hispanic person of white descent, as opposed to one of black descent."

/I honestly don't know the answer to your question
//am Puerto Rican
///never heard the term "white HIspanic" before, or in any context other than, this trial


So, is Obama a white Black?
 
2013-07-12 02:40:46 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Wtf are you talking about? Trials are not required for a shooting death, only when the state believes a crime has been commited. Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses


When you call having a trial a "lynching" you have lost any semblance of perspective.
 
2013-07-12 02:40:55 PM  

Ajakk: phenn: Did I just hear that judge instruct jurors not to nullify?

Yes.  That is pretty standard.


Not like she can do anything about it if they do...
 
2013-07-12 02:42:48 PM  

Latinwolf: DenisBergkamp: fuhfuhfuh: King Something: fuhfuhfuh: The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?

The investigation and trial only happened in the first place because it was catapulted into the national spotlight, which in turn happened because the Sanford PD tried to sweep the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a (at the time presumed to be) white man under the rug.

/said investigation would eventually reveal that the shooter is not "white," he is "white-Hispanic"

The race issue really is clouding the bigger discussion. The fact that Florida has a SYG law written in such a profoundly retarded manner that it can be left open to a rather larger interpretation of "threat" is the larger issue.

SYG is not being used in this case, I'm not sure why it continues to be brought up. I expect it was something falsely identified by the media before the trial began and has since taken root in a lot of people's mind.

I think some people are fearful that it will be affected by the outcome of this case.


It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.
 
2013-07-12 02:43:10 PM  

Latinwolf: dittybopper: Latinwolf: dittybopper: ZeroPly: crazies waiting for you outside your office building with a Big Gulp cup full of acid...

Lysergic, or sulphuric?

Figures you'd ask, is one more efficient than the other?

That depends on whether you want to give the other person hallucinations or chemical burns.

Oh damn, LSD, I forgot what that was.


Hah!  You fell for my devious trap.

/All part of my evil plan.
 
2013-07-12 02:43:40 PM  

CynicalLA: Hope he gets the death penalty.


Sadly, this is not an option for 2nd degree murder. The prosecution would have had to charge GZ with 1st degree murder, which would have meant going before a Grand Jury before the trial proper (and a non-zero chance that the Grand Jury would have been the Dikembe Mutombo to the prosecutors' lady throwing freshly-dried laundry into a basket)

On the other hand, if he gets acquitted (or convicted and either immediately pardoned by Governor Rick Scott or eventually getting the conviction overturned on appeal), he'll basically spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder whenever he's not barricaded in his own home under self-imposed house arrest.
 
2013-07-12 02:45:23 PM  

MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.


In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "
 
2013-07-12 02:45:27 PM  

King Something: On the other hand, if he gets acquitted (or convicted and either immediately pardoned by Governor Rick Scott or eventually getting the conviction overturned on appeal), he'll basically spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder whenever he's not barricaded in his own home under self-imposed house arrest.


Relax. He'll join a long line of people who have done less than legal actions as Fox News Consultants.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-12 02:47:08 PM  

dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "


What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.
 
2013-07-12 02:47:51 PM  

MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.


Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.
 
2013-07-12 02:48:27 PM  

The Muthaship: Magorn: BigNumber12: redmid17: Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state

Yep. There's been nothing clever or impressive about it. It's been an "I'm the boss of this room, and I don't like you" tantrum the whole time.

or, basically, a judge doing his job and correctly applying the rules of evidence no matter what Farklawyers think abou it.   I've yet to see him make an evidentiary ruling I didn't correctly predict, except the one allowing in evidence of Martin's MJ use,  I would have ruled that irrelevant or more prejudicial than probabtive, myself, but eveything has has been pretty much straight down the line and according to standard practice.

I see you've been paying close attention.


Reading the trial rather than watching it.   Far more interested in the balls and strikes than I am the game
 
2013-07-12 02:51:25 PM  

Ajakk: phenn: Did I just hear that judge instruct jurors not to nullify?

Yes.  That is pretty standard.


But, they have every right in the world to do so. Oh well. Just sounded strange.
 
2013-07-12 02:51:48 PM  

King Something: CynicalLA: Hope he gets the death penalty.

Sadly, this is not an option for 2nd degree murder. The prosecution would have had to charge GZ with 1st degree murder, which would have meant going before a Grand Jury before the trial proper (and a non-zero chance that the Grand Jury would have been the Dikembe Mutombo to the prosecutors' lady throwing freshly-dried laundry into a basket)

On the other hand, if he gets acquitted (or convicted and either immediately pardoned by Governor Rick Scott or eventually getting the conviction overturned on appeal), he'll basically spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder whenever he's not barricaded in his own home under self-imposed house arrest.


Lord, as much of a stress-eater as he is, he'll be physically unable to leave the house soon.
 
2013-07-12 02:52:19 PM  

Magorn: Far more interested in the balls and strikes than I am the game


I may be mistaken (and I apologize if so) but, I believe I've seen you post that you are a lawyer in the past.

If that's true, have you really not seen some clearly erroneous rulings, poor procedural decisions and lack of decorum on her part?
 
2013-07-12 02:53:05 PM  

dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.


I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.
 
2013-07-12 02:55:17 PM  

phenn: Ajakk: phenn: Did I just hear that judge instruct jurors not to nullify?

Yes.  That is pretty standard.

But, they have every right in the world to do so. Oh well. Just sounded strange.


So, nullification means that a jury can acquit or convict based upon how stupid they think the law being broken is?

Sounds kind of "power-to-the-people" to me.  I like it.
 
2013-07-12 02:57:04 PM  

Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.


Here is FL Stand Your Ground Law: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

If Martin was attacked he could stand his ground. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attack him and some that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-12 02:57:59 PM  

Graffito: I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.


The question is moot.  Trayvon Martin isn't on trial, so whether he had a right to stand his ground or not is irrelevant to the proceedings.  In fact, there could be circumstances where *BOTH* had a right to stand their ground*.   But just because Trayvon Martin may have had that right doesn't mean that George Zimmerman didn't.

*I know that sounds paradoxical, but I can imagine circumstances, especially at night, where sudden unintentional contact could lead to violence with essentially no one legally at fault.
 
2013-07-12 02:58:39 PM  

Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.


Exactly. In America, Trayvon Martin has the same protection under the law as his societal betters, regardless of race.
 
2013-07-12 02:59:17 PM  

MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.


Ignoring that he isn't the one on trial he wouldn't have the same rights as the current narrative holds. Granted no one except GZ knows what escalated the situation through illegal actions to a gun shot and judging by the evidence and the testimonies given so far no one except GZ will ever be sure in what happened.

If, as GZ claims, TM did initiate a physical confrontation which is an illegal act it would nullify his self defence claim. Following TM, getting out of his vehicle or even verbally confronting TM isn't an illegal act and does not nullify GZ ability to claim self defence. TM saying angry crap to his friend over the phone, potentially doubling back or even allegedly hiding in the bushes isn't illegal (well, maybe trespassing but that's getting mighty pedantic).

Again, whether that is the actual truth of the matter or just GZs interpretation of events is something no one has yet been able to prove either way. Depending on your personal views of the case and law this is either fortunate or unfortunate as it leaves reasonable doubt on GZ legal right to defend himself and would likely result in an acquittal.

However IANAL but from the overwhelming amount of crap, both fact and fiction, being broadcast over this case that has been my take on it. Granted not a lawyer and no real investment in the case or outcome I've likely missed something.
 
2013-07-12 03:01:34 PM  

Carth: Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.

Here is FL Stand Your Ground Law: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

If Martin was attacked he could stand his ground. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attack him and some that Martin attacked Zimmerman.


He followed him up a dark walkway with an object in his hand that police routinely use as a weapon.

That's a threatening situation.
 
2013-07-12 03:03:25 PM  

MFAWG: Carth: Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.

Here is FL Stand Your Ground Law: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

If Martin was attacked he could stand his ground. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attack him and some that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

He followed him up a dark walkway with an object in his hand that police routinely use as a weapon.

That's a threatening situation.


Even if you find it "threatening " it isn't an attack, which is what the law requires for SYG to be invoked. You can follow people, even with a weapon, without them being allowed to punch you.
 
2013-07-12 03:05:05 PM  

Carth: MFAWG: Carth: Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.

Here is FL Stand Your Ground Law: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

If Martin was attacked he could stand his ground. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attack him and some that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

He followed him up a dark walkway with an object in his hand that police routinely use as a weapon.

That's a threatening situation.

Even if you find it "threatening " it isn't an attack, which is what the law requires for SYG to be invoked. You can follow people, even with a weapon, without them being allowed to punch you.


I encourage you to test that theory in real life.
 
2013-07-12 03:05:12 PM  
culebra:

Dude, please dont tell us you're Puertorican.
 
2013-07-12 03:05:18 PM  

highendmighty: So, nullification means that a jury can acquit or convict based upon how stupid they think the law being broken is?

Sounds kind of "power-to-the-people" to me. I like it.


Close.

You don't hear about it too much. 3-strikes cases, putting a pothead away for a decade, stuff like that. I've never heard of it in a murder trial. I'm just very surprised a judge would direct that. I've never sat through a murder trial, though.
 
2013-07-12 03:06:23 PM  

DenisBergkamp: If, as GZ claims, TM did initiate a physical confrontation which is an illegal act it would nullify his self defence claim.


Not necessarily.  From the Florida statutes on self-defense:

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.


If, as eyewitness and forensic testimony seems to confirm,  Zimmerman was indeed pinned by Martin and couldn't escape, even if he started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself if he was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

This is about the 5 millionth time I've posted that on Fark.  I don't know why anyone who's been in a Martin/Zimmerman thread previously can't know this by now.
 
2013-07-12 03:07:00 PM  
MFAWG

I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant on this or not as I've seen your name in a lot of the trial threads but there has been no evidence given that the weapon was brandished. The current narrative is that the weapon was holstered until the confrontation had escalated to the point where Martin was on top of Zimmerman assaulting him.

Simple possession of the weapon isn't an illegal act or considered being attacked that would green light Martin to starting a physical altercation. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm sure the prosecution would have appreciated your testimony a few days back otherwise it is speculation which doesn't exactly remove reasonable doubt on GZ's claim.
 
2013-07-12 03:07:06 PM  

dittybopper: DenisBergkamp: If, as GZ claims, TM did initiate a physical confrontation which is an illegal act it would nullify his self defence claim.

Not necessarily.  From the Florida statutes on self-defense:

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.

If, as eyewitness and forensic testimony seems to confirm,  Zimmerman was indeed pinned by Martin and couldn't escape, even if he started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself if he was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

This is about the 5 millionth time I've posted that on Fark.  I don't know why anyone who's been in a Martin/Zimmerman thread previously can't know this by now.


Hold on:  I think I misread what you posted.
 
2013-07-12 03:08:15 PM  

DenisBergkamp: MFAWG

I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant on this or not as I've seen your name in a lot of the trial threads but there has been no evidence given that the weapon was brandished. The current narrative is that the weapon was holstered until the confrontation had escalated to the point where Martin was on top of Zimmerman assaulting him.

Simple possession of the weapon isn't an illegal act or considered being attacked that would green light Martin to starting a physical altercation. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm sure the prosecution would have appreciated your testimony a few days back otherwise it is speculation which doesn't exactly remove reasonable doubt on GZ's claim.


He means the flashlight. Notice how he didn't say "gun" as that was out of sight in a holster at the time.
 
2013-07-12 03:09:14 PM  

Tarl3k: Pumpernickel bread: Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses

Of course it isn't possible that this guy killed a teenager for doing nothing other than being black and wearing a hoodie...it MUST be the railroading of an innocent man...


Why would he bother calling 911 if he just wanted to kill a black kid?
 
2013-07-12 03:09:25 PM  
if you by "ripping them a new one" you mean the prosecution fell apart days ago, yes, you are correct

They obviously are doing it fluriduh election style-- can't get one thing, allow another. Can't get that, allow another.

2 things that will happen regardless:   riots and federal "civil rights" charges
 
2013-07-12 03:09:47 PM  

dittybopper: DenisBergkamp: If, as GZ claims, TM did initiate a physical confrontation which is an illegal act it would nullify his self defence claim.

Not necessarily.  From the Florida statutes on self-defense:

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.

If, as eyewitness and forensic testimony seems to confirm,  Zimmerman was indeed pinned by Martin and couldn't escape, even if he started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself if he was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

This is about the 5 millionth time I've posted that on Fark.  I don't know why anyone who's been in a Martin/Zimmerman thread previously can't know this by now.


My mistake, my mind wasn't even wandering down the path about validation for GZ use of forces it was mostly focused on what would constitute TM gaining the same rights. I've seen that before, was simply focused on something else.

Thanks for posting though.
 
2013-07-12 03:11:42 PM  

Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.


TM was in the middle of commiting an assault and had been smashing someone's head against concrete when he was shot. That is not lawful activity. Moreover, there is no proof TM was ever attacked. Therefore TM doesn't get to stand his ground. NEXT!
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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