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  
•       •       •

14182 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2013 at 12:49 PM (40 weeks 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 03:11:47 PM

randomjsa: Yes, I'd quit being a fan too if the judge is about as impartial as a judge in China, and obviously has every intention of helping the prosecution get a conviction for something, anything.

Anyone who didn't think this would happen was kidding themselves and anyone who didn't think it would happen after Obama stuck his nose in it is REALLY kidding themselves.


 www.troll.me
 
2013-07-12 03:13:46 PM

Carth: 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.


My reading comprehension is clearly at an all time high today. That being said the point remains that a brandished flash light itself isn't an unlawful act nor a green lit for a physical response on its own.
 
2013-07-12 03:14:28 PM

DenisBergkamp: Ignoring that he isn't the one on trial he wouldn't have the same rights as the current narrative holds.


In other words, the law favors whoever kills the other person first.

Just like that recent case where the guy in Texas shot an escort that wouldn't have sex with him.  He payed for escorting and expected sexing, so he (successfully) argued in his defense that the woman was a thief for keeping the money.  Arguably, she could have done the same thing:  give the dude back his bleeping money and then shoot him dead, and make the exact same defense.
 
2013-07-12 03:16:25 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.


I've been hit with a 4 cell Maglite, but thanks for squarimg me away.
 
2013-07-12 03:17:18 PM

torr5962: culebra:

Dude, please dont tell us you're Puertorican.


Well I have been known to do the Humpty Hump.
 
2013-07-12 03:18:58 PM

DenisBergkamp: Carth: 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.

My reading comprehension is clearly at an all time high today. That being said the point remains that a brandished flash light itself isn't an unlawful act nor a green lit for a physical response on its own.


Again, I encourage you to follow people around with a club in your hand, gun on your hip, or both.
 
2013-07-12 03:23:47 PM

MFAWG: DenisBergkamp: Carth: 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.

My reading comprehension is clearly at an all time high today. That being said the point remains that a brandished flash light itself isn't an unlawful act nor a green lit for a physical response on its own.

Again, I encourage you to follow people around with a club in your hand, gun on your hip, or both.


Okay? That's still irrelevant to how the law is written. I'd imagine any number of scenarios would occur if I chose to follow people around at night with a club in hand (no CCW in Canada).

Until one of those acts is deemed illegal it doesn't allow a person to escalate with force.
 
2013-07-12 03:29:10 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.


Or move away from the cesspool of Fla.
 
2013-07-12 03:30:22 PM

MFAWG: 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.

I've been hit with a 4 cell Maglite, but thanks for squarimg me away.


This is George Zimmerman's flashlight:

s3.amazonaws.com

It's hardly a 4 cell Mag-Lite.  Looks like a 2 AA pen light, not something I'd normally consider to be a significant 'weapon' when wielded by anybody.  Could it be used as one, in extremis?  Certainly, but it's not some sort of club, nor would it be inherently threatening to any rational person.
 
2013-07-12 03:31:48 PM

duffblue: 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?


To get away with it. Kinda like (the only decent scene in an otherwise crappy movie) "Sleeping With The Enemy" where she calls the cops and says "I just shot an intruder" before blowing her husband away.

Not saying that was necessarily GZ's reasoning, I'm just saying it'd be a nice set-up. "Oooh thuggish kid is lurking around" then "I had to kill thug kid."
 
2013-07-12 03:33:31 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.


Yep he has the same rights EXCEPT he attacked GZ so he immediately looses that protection and GZ retains it. Like him or not, Think what he did was farked up or not by rule of law he is clear. What a jury who probably feeds on McDonalds while siphoning down the latest honey boo boo episode does is another question.
 
2013-07-12 03:38:47 PM

Netrngr: 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.

Yep he has the same rights EXCEPT he attacked GZ so he immediately looses that protection and GZ retains it. Like him or not, Think what he did was farked up or not by rule of law he is clear. What a jury who probably feeds on McDonalds while siphoning down the latest honey boo boo episode does is another question.


Maybe. Only GZ knows that. He could have just ran his mouth.
 
2013-07-12 03:39:40 PM

Netrngr: 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.

Or move away from the cesspool of Fla.


And spend every second of the rest of his life either barricaded in his home (wherever that home may be) or looking over his shoulder worried that someone might take offense to the fact that he effectively got away with murder and is both willing and able to dispense the justice that Zimmerman deserves.

Your hypothesis/prediction and mine are not mutually exclusive.


dittybopper: MFAWG: 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.

I've been hit with a 4 cell Maglite, but thanks for squarimg me away.

This is George Zimmerman's flashlight:

[s3.amazonaws.com image 550x362]

It's hardly a 4 cell Mag-Lite.  Looks like a 2 AA pen light, not something I'd normally consider to be a significant 'weapon' when wielded by anybody.  Could it be used as one, in extremis?  Certainly, but it's not some sort of club, nor would it be inherently threatening to any rational person.


In a poorly-lit alley at night, that small flashlight could reasonably be mistaken for the barrel of a pistol.
 
2013-07-12 03:42:41 PM

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.


Give it a rest, Chip.
 
2013-07-12 03:46:28 PM

dittybopper: (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;


Following someone and even confronting them do not fit either of those. No force was used prior to TM attacking. Even if he was frightened according to the info released he went home then went back out. He removed the threat from himself then reengaged with marks him as the aggressor from that point on.
 
2013-07-12 03:51:40 PM

MFAWG: 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.

I've been hit with a 4 cell Maglite, but thanks for squarimg me away.


You were assaulted then and could have defended yourself with deadly force TM was assaulted thus had no bassis
 
2013-07-12 03:51:56 PM

QueenMamaBee: duffblue: 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?

To get away with it. Kinda like (the only decent scene in an otherwise crappy movie) "Sleeping With The Enemy" where she calls the cops and says "I just shot an intruder" before blowing her husband away.

Not saying that was necessarily GZ's reasoning, I'm just saying it'd be a nice set-up. "Oooh thuggish kid is lurking around" then "I had to kill thug kid."


A TM Twoofer... how cute...
 
2013-07-12 03:56:58 PM

QueenMamaBee: Netrngr: 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.

Yep he has the same rights EXCEPT he attacked GZ so he immediately looses that protection and GZ retains it. Like him or not, Think what he did was farked up or not by rule of law he is clear. What a jury who probably feeds on McDonalds while siphoning down the latest honey boo boo episode does is another question.

Maybe. Only GZ knows that. He could have just ran his mouth.



I will concede to that
 
2013-07-12 03:59:23 PM

randomjsa: Yes, I'd quit being a fan too if the judge is about as impartial as a judge in China, and obviously has every intention of helping the prosecution get a conviction for something, anything.

Anyone who didn't think this would happen was kidding themselves and anyone who didn't think it would happen after Obama stuck his nose in it is REALLY kidding themselves.


Agreed. She already violated Zimmernandez's rights by not allowing the defense the extra week to prepare, as the prosecution had not shared their findings/witnesses so the defense could build their case. I'm not entirely sure Obummer is at fault, but the alternative is that  Eric Holder is allowed to run around all loose-cannon style:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/10/newly-released-documents-detail -t he-department-of-justices-role-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/

Also, the judge may have set a really farked up precedent by not allowing anything from Martin's phone, citing some bullshiat about even though it was his phone "Uh...uh...anyone could've used it!" How many of you farkers freely hand out your phones? Evidence of such a nature has already been used in thousands of cases, which means that those cases may now have a legal precedent for appeal. The evidence on that phone as well as Martin's school records are critical to the defense, as they show a pattern of violent behavior from Martin with no provocation (particularly his suspension for beating up the bus driver and arguably him fooling around with the 9mm as well).
 
2013-07-12 04:06:53 PM

King Something: In a poorly-lit alley at night, that small flashlight could reasonably be mistaken for the barrel of a pistol.


Except, you know, for the light coming out the end of it.

Unless it's a *REALLLLLLLYYYYYYY LOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGGGG* muzzle flash.  Without any sound.
 
2013-07-12 04:09:31 PM

Netrngr: MFAWG: 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.

I've been hit with a 4 cell Maglite, but thanks for squarimg me away.

You were assaulted then and could have defended yourself with deadly force TM was assaulted thus had no bassis


The MP had more than made his point,so I took a pass on being Joe Badass.
 
2013-07-12 04:12:38 PM
Subby is Al Sharpton's illegitimate son. Makes his living off burning down white neighborhoods.
 
2013-07-12 04:13:26 PM

Netrngr: dittybopper: (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;

Following someone and even confronting them do not fit either of those. No force was used prior to TM attacking. Even if he was frightened according to the info released he went home then went back out. He removed the threat from himself then reengaged with marks him as the aggressor from that point on.


I suspect that if you follow someone around with an indeterminate object in your hand at night, somebody is going to familiarize you with what's called 'menacing' in many jurisdictions.
 
2013-07-12 04:30:14 PM
Zimmermdouche and Martin were both standing their ground

 Zimmerdouche   decided to shoot and kill someone

fark him the murderer
 
2013-07-12 04:36:04 PM

Griftin Rubes: Zimmermdouche and Martin were both standing their ground

 Zimmerdouche   decided to shoot and kill someone

fark him the murderer


Better to be judged by six than carried by six.  At least Zimmerman chose to stay alive that night.
 
2013-07-12 04:36:48 PM

Netrngr: No force was used prior to TM attacking.


IF you believe Zimmerman.

I do not. I think he likely grabbed Martin to prevent him from "escaping". Why? :

"farking punks. Those assholes, they always get away."

/Manslaughter
 
HBK
2013-07-12 04:50:03 PM
They probably donated to all of the plausible candidates.

Where judges are elected, law firms and lawyers typically donate to everyone running that has a chance to win. It's pretty common.

Also common: defense attorneys donating money to the elected district attorney campaigns.

/have attended several such fundraisers
 
2013-07-12 05:18:00 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-07-12 05:30:27 PM

dittybopper: "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 if Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be?  That's what happened.  Zimmerman admits on the 911 call that he's chasing the kid down.  He says "He's running" and "he ran".  He talks about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".  And he keeps pushing it until there is a physical confrontation.

Then everyone screams about how Martin had no right to defend himself, but Zimmerman has a right to shoot Martin in self defense.  It makes no sense at all.
 
2013-07-12 05:48:16 PM

JuggleGeek: dittybopper: "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 if Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be?  That's what happened.  Zimmerman admits on the 911 call that he's chasing the kid down.  He says "He's running" and "he ran".  He talks about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".  And he keeps pushing it until there is a physical confrontation.

Then everyone screams about how Martin had no right to defend himself, but Zimmerman has a right to shoot Martin in self defense.  It makes no sense at all.


Maybe if you live in bizzaro land that is what happened. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "ok" and started walking back to his car. If Martin were running home he had 4 minutes to go 100 yards. It is more likely he doubled backed and fronted zimmerman "why are yo following me!" then someone threw a punch.
 
2013-07-12 05:48:21 PM

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"


How was it "swept under the rug?"  The police department did a thorough and complete investigation and determined it to be a case of self-defense.  It wasn't for a month or so that anybody got ahold of the story, started screaming about race, and then the entire thing was taken away from the Police Department and county prosecutor's office, and hijacked into a political move.

Take that, plus Trayvon's own mother saying she would have just been happy with an arrest in the case, his dad acknowledging that it wasn't his son screaming in the phone call, the actress from Precious getting up on the stand and lying, and the total lack of a case presented by the Prosecution, and you have a clear cut case of a trial that never should have happened and an arrest that never should have been made.
 
2013-07-12 05:56:42 PM

Carth: Maybe if you live in bizzaro land that is what happened. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "ok" and started walking back to his car.


Bullshiat.  If he had started walking back to his car, he wouldn't have shot Martin in someones back yard a few minutes later.  Also, he didn't tell the dispatcher that he would meet the cops at his car, or at the mailboxes, or at the office, or at his house, or at the entrance to the complex, or at the corner of Avenue A and 3rd Street.  He told them "Have them call me when they arrive".  That's because he didn't know where he was going to be, because he was still chasing down Martin.

HideAndGoFarkYourself: How was it "swept under the rug?" The police department did a thorough and complete investigation and determined it to be a case of self-defense.


Did they do toxicology reports on the shooter that night?

No, they didn't.  That's one example of them just deciding they were not going to do a full investigation.

It's sad that people think you should be able to go start a fight and shoot the other guy when you lose.  It's even sadder to see you people complain that there shouldn't have even been an arrest or a trial or an investigation.
 
2013-07-12 05:58:20 PM

Carth: JuggleGeek: dittybopper: "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 if Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be?  That's what happened.  Zimmerman admits on the 911 call that he's chasing the kid down.  He says "He's running" and "he ran".  He talks about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".  And he keeps pushing it until there is a physical confrontation.

Then everyone screams about how Martin had no right to defend himself, but Zimmerman has a right to shoot Martin in self defense.  It makes no sense at all.

Maybe if you live in bizzaro land that is what happened. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "ok" and started walking back to his car. If Martin were running home he had 4 minutes to go 100 yards. It is more likely he doubled backed and fronted zimmerman "why are yo following me!" then someone threw a punch.


One more time: Martin has no duty to retreat from a threat.
 
2013-07-12 06:05:48 PM
One more time: Martin has no duty to retreat from a threat.

And Zimmerman was absolutely a threat. There's no other logical conclusion once he follows up the footpath with a weapon in his hand.
 
2013-07-12 06:09:02 PM

MFAWG: Carth: JuggleGeek: dittybopper: "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 if Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be?  That's what happened.  Zimmerman admits on the 911 call that he's chasing the kid down.  He says "He's running" and "he ran".  He talks about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".  And he keeps pushing it until there is a physical confrontation.

Then everyone screams about how Martin had no right to defend himself, but Zimmerman has a right to shoot Martin in self defense.  It makes no sense at all.

Maybe if you live in bizzaro land that is what happened. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "ok" and started walking back to his car. If Martin were running home he had 4 minutes to go 100 yards. It is more likely he doubled backed and fronted zimmerman "why are yo following me!" then someone threw a punch.

One more time: Martin has no duty to retreat from a threat.


No one said he did. I said if he were going home he could have made it. He had ever right to ask ZImmerman why he was following him. What he didn't have a right to do was hit zimmerman or continue beating him when he was on the ground.
 
2013-07-12 06:10:07 PM

JuggleGeek: Carth: Maybe if you live in bizzaro land that is what happened. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "ok" and started walking back to his car.

Bullshiat. If he had started walking back to his car, he wouldn't have shot Martin in someones back yard a few minutes later. Also, he didn't tell the dispatcher that he would meet the cops at his car, or at the mailboxes, or at the office, or at his house, or at the entrance to the complex, or at the corner of Avenue A and 3rd Street. He told them "Have them call me when they arrive". That's because he didn't know where he was going to be, because he was still chasing down Martin.


That is some pretty good speculation. You could work for the prosecution with thinking like that. So what if there is no evidence to back up what you think might have happened.
 
2013-07-12 06:23:15 PM

MFAWG: One more time: Martin has no duty to retreat from a threat.

And Zimmerman was absolutely a threat. There's no other logical conclusion once he follows up the footpath with a weapon in his hand.


A small penlight? Sure.
 
2013-07-12 06:25:38 PM

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.


THat is so damn stupid it almost made me click the funny button.
 
2013-07-12 06:32:43 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...


From the EVIDENCE presented? YES. Yes he was railroaded.
 
2013-07-12 06:54:44 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.


Intentional disbelief.

I saw a facebook posting railing on how Zimmerman is getting away ith it because he's white.
 
2013-07-12 06:59:40 PM

MFAWG: 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'.


Actually only people who don't know much about self-defense laws thought that... So basically people who Carry knew it wasn't going to fall under SYG and the rest of the population who know jack-all about firearms just assumed that what the ignorant media told them was the case, SYG.
 
2013-07-12 07:00:06 PM

Mrbogey: 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.

Intentional disbelief.

I saw a facebook posting railing on how Zimmerman is getting away ith it because he's white.


Read number 2. Slowly, and aloud if need be.
 
2013-07-12 07:02:26 PM

Carth: That is some pretty good speculation. You could work for the prosecution with thinking like that. So what if there is no evidence to back up what you think might have happened.


Location of the body is evidence.  If he had gone back to his car, he wouldn't have shot Martin where he did.  That alone isn't enough to convict, no doubt.  But it is enough to show that the "As soon as the dispatcher asked, he headed straight back to his car" lie is a lie.
 
2013-07-12 07:04:33 PM
JuggleGeek and MFAWG really do not have very good comprehension of reality. It's really amusing.
 
2013-07-12 07:07:29 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.


The key point here is that George Zimmerman can't avail himself of the above defense if he WAS engaged in an unlawful act.
 
2013-07-12 07:16:32 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.


The only reason there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin is because Martin was murdered by Zimmerman. And the only reason there is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is because Zimmerman says that is what happened. There is literally no other evidence*, and Zimmerman's evidence is suspect because if he says he attacked first then he would get nailed for 1st degree murder and possibly get the death penalty.

*People claim the 2-3 minutes (not 4, check the timeline again) during which Martin could have gotten home is evidence he attacked. However, it is actually stronger evidence that he was trying to hide and/or not lead the freaky bastard that was following him, and intending him harm, to his house where his family would be in danger too.
 
2013-07-12 07:19:09 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.


Yes, but it is assault, which is unlawful, which negates your right to claim SYG.
 
2013-07-12 07:20:45 PM

Carth: So what if there is no evidence to back up what you think might have happened.


That's farking hilarious coming from you.
 
2013-07-12 07:24:46 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.


Irrelevant because if GZ attacked first while armed with a gun then he was committing a felony. Section 1 would then apply and section 2 automatically becomes irrelevant.
 
2013-07-12 07:28:41 PM

Netrngr: dittybopper: (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;

Following someone and even confronting them do not fit either of those. No force was used prior to TM attacking. Even if he was frightened according to the info released he went home then went back out. He removed the threat from himself then reengaged with marks him as the aggressor from that point on.


Wow. You were there and saw the whole thing from start to finish? Why didn't you come forward and get GZ off the hook if you love him so much?
 
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 »






Report