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  
•       •       •

14189 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
 
2013-07-12 11:52:54 AM  
allmyfavoriterockstarsaredead.files.wordpress.com

Why...you sonofabiatch!
 
2013-07-12 12:30:58 PM  
You stole Doris's joke, subby.
 
2013-07-12 12:50:12 PM  
Meh. People still care about this nonsense?
 
2013-07-12 12:50:37 PM  
Remember that time you made a terrible joke to start your case?  That was awesome!
 
2013-07-12 12:50:42 PM  
Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state
 
2013-07-12 12:53:58 PM  
I'll be damned. She does remble Farley a little.
 
2013-07-12 12:55:09 PM  
i1.ytimg.com

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.
 
2013-07-12 12:55:33 PM  
I think she's more of a John Goodman playing Linda Tripp

www.toptenz.net

/image is hot
 
2013-07-12 12:55:56 PM  
I kinda thought she looks like bloated Ozzy in the mid-80's...
 
2013-07-12 12:59:34 PM  
100$ in a campaign is little.
 
2013-07-12 01:03:24 PM  

Slam Bradley: I think she's more of a John Goodman playing Linda Tripp

[www.toptenz.net image 400x302]

/image is hot


That actually was the first thing that came to mind when first I saw a photo of her Honor.
Goodman definitely gets the role.
 
2013-07-12 01:04:01 PM  
that's why they shopped around until they got her
 
2013-07-12 01:06:41 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.


The King is dead.

bradhodson.files.wordpress.com

Long live the king.
 
2013-07-12 01:07:42 PM  
She has set up a relatively easy appeal should the outcome be anything but favorable for the defense.
 
2013-07-12 01:09:55 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.


Which Harry Potter is this?  I don't remember that version of Voldermort.
 
2013-07-12 01:10:12 PM  

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.
 
2013-07-12 01:10:51 PM  

bluefoxicy: Which Harry Potter is this?  I don't remember that version of Voldermort.


Oh, it was the one where the mary sue killed the lich king.

pixelatedgeek.com
 
2013-07-12 01:12:07 PM  
Just release the douche already
the news has made this a race crime since the get go
and I wanna see floorida go buck ass crazy
 
2013-07-12 01:13:46 PM  

natas6.0: Just release the douche already
the news has made this a race crime since the get go
and I wanna see floorida go buck ass crazy


around 5-6pm tonight things will go crazy whether he is released or not.
 
2013-07-12 01:15:37 PM  
Subby's a thief!
 
2013-07-12 01:17:02 PM  

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.


Her actions are going to guarantee an appeal if he's convicted of anything.  Then we get to do the whole thing over again.  It's almost as though the government wants this to distract us from something.
 
2013-07-12 01:17:23 PM  
Was this linked to the Drudge report or something?  The comments below the article are all DERP 57 STATES.
 
2013-07-12 01:19:01 PM  
At least Farley had a since of humor.

And damn.....based on her official picture, that coont has packed on the pounds in the last decade.....looks like she decorated her chambers in a "Hostess" or "Sara Lee" motif.
 
2013-07-12 01:20:02 PM  
So apparently people think this is a personal thing between the lawyers and judge, rather than looking good on the news, and not having crazies waiting for you outside your office building with a Big Gulp cup full of acid...

The judge has gone out of her way to make sure no one can accuse her of being sympathetic to the defense. But I don't get the "lesser charges" bit. Can't the defense just say "we didn't defend against those charges because we didn't know we had to"? Obviously if they tried to tack on a trespass charge, that would have made a difference to the witness list and cross examination.
 
2013-07-12 01:20:30 PM  
I suppose the defense attorneys, after this case, will have to LIVE IN A VAN...BY THE RIVER!
 
2013-07-12 01:22:05 PM  
the two lawyers representing accused murderer George Zimmerman actually donated money to the prickly jurist's first election campaign, records show.

No, that's called covering your bets.
 
2013-07-12 01:22:33 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.


No, no he's not....he's just really hard to see......

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-12 01:25:50 PM  
So, as a Canadian who has little interest in this fiasco... What's this judge doing to these lawyers?  I'm gathering she's being very harsh and critical against them, but is it deserved or is the general consensus that she's hoping to convict a killer?
 
2013-07-12 01:26:32 PM  

redmid17: Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state

making sure the defendant, not the victim, is prosecuted

FTFY
 
2013-07-12 01:27:40 PM  

GaidinCanuck: So, as a Canadian who has little interest in this fiasco... What's this judge doing to these lawyers?  I'm gathering she's being very harsh and critical against them, but is it deserved or is the general consensus that she's hoping to convict a killer?


Well, the defendant did lie about his finances to get a lower bail, and it has been downhill since then.
 
2013-07-12 01:28:21 PM  
FTA-  Nelson, who was admitted to the Florida bar in 1979, earns around $142,000 as a Circuit Court judge (likely far less than what she would make in private practice).


I'll take that bet.
 
2013-07-12 01:28:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: bluefoxicy: Which Harry Potter is this?  I don't remember that version of Voldermort.

Oh, it was the one where the mary sue killed the lich king.

[pixelatedgeek.com image 796x363]


If I'd known that was part of the story, I'd have watched Little House on the Prairie more faithfully.
 
2013-07-12 01:29:11 PM  

Xcott: Was this linked to the Drudge report or something?  The comments below the article are all DERP 57 STATES.


This.
 
2013-07-12 01:29:33 PM  

domine: She has set up a relatively easy appeal should the outcome be anything but favorable for the defense.

 
2013-07-12 01:33:37 PM  

Raging Whore Moans: Xcott: Was this linked to the Drudge report or something?  The comments below the article are all DERP 57 STATES.

This.


Does that count Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and the other three?
 
2013-07-12 01:34:32 PM  
She looks like Jabba the Hut to me.
 
2013-07-12 01:35:22 PM  

Eponymous: At least Farley had a since of humor.

And damn.....based on her official picture, that coont has packed on the pounds in the last decade.....looks like she decorated her chambers in a "Hostess" or "Sara Lee" motif.


LAY OFF HER, SHE'S STARVING!!!
 
2013-07-12 01:35:40 PM  
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.
 
2013-07-12 01:38:55 PM  

GaidinCanuck: So, as a Canadian who has little interest in this fiasco... What's this judge doing to these lawyers?  I'm gathering she's being very harsh and critical against them, but is it deserved or is the general consensus that she's hoping to convict a killer?


That's what I, as a fellow foreigner, was hoping to find out. Of what does "Nelson's wrath" consist?
 
2013-07-12 01:41:51 PM  

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?
 
2013-07-12 01:41:52 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.


Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.
 
2013-07-12 01:44:02 PM  

A Terrible Human: 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.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.


When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.
 
2013-07-12 01:44:07 PM  

Fail in Human Form: WTF trial were you watching?


Spit out the hook before he sets it!
 
2013-07-12 01:44:42 PM  

Hobodeluxe: that's why they shopped around until they got her


I've been assured that she's in the tank for Obama. So no.
 
2013-07-12 01:45:03 PM  

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.


Ok so what happened? Last I remember the prosecution had a dumb witness (whose picture, incidentally, still gets posted frequently by Fark racists to 'prove' black people's inferiority) who didn't exactly work to their advantage. Have the tables been turned, then?
 
2013-07-12 01:46:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-07-12 01:46:19 PM  
My wife and I have been watching a bit of it, and... she just sounds like a dullard.
Can't articulate sentences.
Gets standard phrasing wrong (for example she's an "all intensive porpoises" type)
Stutters and stammers out her point.

What in the blue f*ck? By the time you become a judge, shouldn't you be assured on your feet??
 
2013-07-12 01:46:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-07-12 01:50:02 PM  

Mrbogey: 100$ in a campaign is little.


Dude thats like 50 packs of skittles
 
2013-07-12 01:50:16 PM  

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.


Commas and parentheses serve the same function in setting a clause apart here, and are therefore redundant.

/It's Pedant Friday at my work.
//Which is from home, and there isn't any, since I'm off for the summer.
 
2013-07-12 01:52:15 PM  
I wonder how long it will take America to work this particular bit of impacted beef through it's colon.
 
2013-07-12 01:53:04 PM  

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


Lysergic, or sulphuric?
 
2013-07-12 01:54:34 PM  
And the creationists were big fans of Judge John E. Jones III...before he destroyed their case in Kitzmiller v. Dover.  Now he's the libbiest lib that ever libbed...never mind he was appointed by Dubya and was friends with Tom Ridge.
 
2013-07-12 01:58:05 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.


Were you born retarded, or did you suffer a traumatic brain injury that caused your IQ to drop to somewhere around 45?
 
2013-07-12 01:59:57 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.


It's astounding to hear this complaint from both wings of the political spectrum. 

There has probably never been a better time to be caught with a bag of reefer.
 
2013-07-12 02:00:34 PM  

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.


Pretty much.  The older you get the harsher the penalties are for learning basic lessons.  Keeping your hands to yourself was a lesson he apparently skipped and he paid a pretty harsh, but justified, penalty for that lesson.
 
2013-07-12 02:01:32 PM  

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?
 
2013-07-12 02:03:48 PM  
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?
 
2013-07-12 02:04:06 PM  

IlGreven: And the creationists were big fans of Judge John E. Jones III...before he destroyed their case in Kitzmiller v. Dover.  Now he's the libbiest lib that ever libbed...never mind he was appointed by Dubya and was friends with Tom Ridge.


And was confirmed by the Senate in a 100-0 vote which was not filibustered.
 
2013-07-12 02:04:38 PM  

sure haven't: My wife and I have been watching a bit of it, and... she just sounds like a dullard.


Then why in God's name did you marry her? Is she that hot?
 
2013-07-12 02:06:41 PM  

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?


Wait until the media gets wind of this!
 
2013-07-12 02:08:35 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: A Terrible Human: 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.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.

When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.


This is never going to be a thing.  Stop it.
 
2013-07-12 02:08:57 PM  

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"
 
2013-07-12 02:09:33 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.


This is the most stunning application of fresh horse manure that actually means nothing I have seen in years.

Thank God he was able to blame Obama for the whole mess before he finished, otherwise I would have assumed it was Meow Said The Dog.
 
2013-07-12 02:10:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-07-12 02:10:44 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: She looks like Jabba the Hut to me.


That's because hate clouds everything you see.
 
2013-07-12 02:13:56 PM  

dittybopper: Lysergic


Citric, just to sting the eyes a little.
 
2013-07-12 02:14:47 PM  

Lsherm: SovietCanuckistan: A Terrible Human: 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.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.

When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.

This is never going to be a thing.  Stop it.


No joke.  You can disembowel yourself forcing a meme that hard.
 
2013-07-12 02:15:07 PM  
Jabba the Hut?
 
2013-07-12 02:15:53 PM  

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
 
2013-07-12 02:16:40 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"


What the fark is a "white Hispanic" - Is it different from a regular Hispanic
 
2013-07-12 02:16:41 PM  

AFKobel: dittybopper: Lysergic

Citric, just to sting the eyes a little.


Nah, the real pros go with formic for that "ruined picnic" sensation.
 
2013-07-12 02:17:22 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.


The judge is a woman.
 
2013-07-12 02:17:31 PM  

Lsherm: SovietCanuckistan: A Terrible Human: 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.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.

When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.

This is never going to be a thing.  Stop it.


Yes please.
 
2013-07-12 02:18:18 PM  
TruBluTroll: That's because hate clouds everything you see.

0/10....change your username.  You are an utter failure.
 
2013-07-12 02:19:19 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.


I see you've been paying close attention.
 
2013-07-12 02:20:03 PM  
I think declaring them "big fans" is probably not accurate.

I am a criminal defense attorney who has contributed to the campaigns of judges who I don't much care for, simply because the other candidate was absolutely unqualified.

A prefect example, in my county in Tennessee we have five General Sessions Court judges who float between the criminal and civil dockets.  Each Sessions Judge will hear criminal cases for four weeks and then hear civil cases for one week.  As such, they spend 80% of their time handling criminal matters, which also includes the issuance of warrants after making a determination that probable cause exists.

Not long ago a special election was held following the death of one of the sitting judges.  Eleven candidates ran for the single open seat.  Of the eleven candidates only two, one was a former part-time municipal judge, one a former prosecutor, had any real criminal law experience.  One of the candidates handled only two criminal cases in his entire career, and the other had handled only a handful of criminal cases in his career.  The remaining seven candidates had never handled a criminal case in their entire careers.

So only the only qualified candidate for the open position, was the former municipal judge (who effectively withdrew from the race due to health reasons) and the former prosecutor (who also had a couple of years of civil experience).

Several of the candidates who had little or no criminal experience came to one of  the criminal defense attorney's  meetings to try to win the organization's support.  After making a statement the criminal defense attorneys started asking questions about their qualifications.  Some of the questions that were asked of the candidates included:  (1) define probable cause, (2) what level of proof must be presented to a judge before they are able to issue a search warrant, (3) what is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, (4) what standard of proof must be met to sustain a petition to violate probation, etc.....

NONE of the candidates with little or no criminal experience could answer any of those questions, clearly making them unqualified to run for judge who was going to be spending 80% of their time handling criminal cases, but nothing in Tennessee's judicial election laws required them to possess any specific knowledge in those areas.

As you can guess, nearly 100% of the criminal defense bar and the district attorneys supported the former prosecutor. Not because we loved that candidate or even thought that she was a great candidate.  That candidate received the support because she was the only qualified candidate who was running for the position.

Sadly, the most qualified candidate didn't win, and the citizens of our county are suffering while the candidate that was elected attempts to learn criminal law.

So a political contribution doesn't always equal "big fans".
 
2013-07-12 02:20:42 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"


Zimmerman's ethnicity has not much to do with it.

It was just another dead black kid.
 
2013-07-12 02:21:31 PM  

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?



so much buttery goodness of this
 
2013-07-12 02:21:48 PM  
Fat guy in a little cell...
Fat guy in a little cell...
 
2013-07-12 02:22:42 PM  

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
 
2013-07-12 02:23:04 PM  

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
 
2013-07-12 02:24:29 PM  

Carth: natas6.0: Just release the douche already
the news has made this a race crime since the get go
and I wanna see floorida go buck ass crazy

around 5-6pm tonight things will go crazy whether he is released or not.


The politically correct thing to do would be to convict him and then have it overturned on appeal.
 
2013-07-12 02:24:47 PM  

sure haven't: My wife and I have been watching a bit of it, and... she just sounds like a dullard.
Can't articulate sentences.
Gets standard phrasing wrong (for example she's an "all intensive porpoises" type)
Stutters and stammers out her point.

What in the blue f*ck? By the time you become a judge, shouldn't you be assured on your feet??


Like these?
i.canvasugc.com
 
2013-07-12 02:25:15 PM  

Rapmaster2000: the two lawyers representing accused murderer George Zimmerman actually donated money to the prickly jurist's first election campaign, records show.

No, that's called covering your bets.


Ding! Ding! Ding!  WInner Winner Chicken Dinner.
 
2013-07-12 02:25:24 PM  

corporatepig: What the fark is a "white Hispanic" - Is it different from a regular Hispanic


Mestizo.
 
2013-07-12 02:25:37 PM  
When's this thing over?
 
2013-07-12 02:26:07 PM  

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...
 
2013-07-12 02:26:38 PM  

Marine1: When's this thing over?


Whenever the judge decides to moonlight at the nearest opera house.
 
2013-07-12 02:28:20 PM  
I still don't know what the judge did that was so unfair.
 
2013-07-12 02:28:51 PM  

Marine1: When's this thing over?


I'm thinking by Monday.
 
2013-07-12 02:29:09 PM  

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?
 
2013-07-12 02:29:28 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.


This whole "I am King Sh*t" meme you keep forcing is painfully lame.  You sound like a jackass and everyone is starting to hate you.
 
2013-07-12 02:29:30 PM  

King Something: Marine1: When's this thing over?

Whenever the judge decides to moonlight at the nearest opera house.


Hah.
 
2013-07-12 02:29:38 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"


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.
 
2013-07-12 02:29:47 PM  
Did I just hear that judge instruct jurors not to nullify?
 
2013-07-12 02:30:31 PM  

bdub77: Lsherm: SovietCanuckistan: A Terrible Human: 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.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.

When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.

This is never going to be a thing.  Stop it.

Yes please.


ok so who died and  made you guys King of Sh*t F*ck Island  anyways ?
 
2013-07-12 02:30:44 PM  

Marine1: When's this thing over?


Soon most likely. Closing arguments have been made and jury instructions have been handed or are being handed out (not at my laptop, can't see). Either way expect a verdict to be given either today or after the weekend. If GZ is convicted I'd expect it to go on a lot longer though simply due to appeals.
 
2013-07-12 02:30:57 PM  

Marine1: When's this thing over?


After the riots, of course.
 
2013-07-12 02:31:12 PM  

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?
 
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!
 
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?
 
2013-07-12 07:33:31 PM  

Carth: 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.


Unless TM realized Zimmerman had a gun (which Zimmerman claims he did, thus farking himself). At that point TM would have no choice but to beat him unconscious so the gun couldn't be used against him by Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-12 07:35:21 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


Actually it was one of those "tactical flash lights" which are designed specifically to double as a weapon. They are more painful than deadly, but they are very painful and can do significant actual damage if used right.
 
2013-07-12 07:42:14 PM  

arentol: Actually it was one of those "tactical flash lights" which are designed specifically to double as a weapon. They are more painful than deadly, but they are very painful and can do significant actual damage if used right.


Penlight.

upload.wikimedia.org

Tactical Light with Combat Cap

www.bomanufacture.com

Huge farking difference.
 
2013-07-12 07:48:22 PM  

hardinparamedic: arentol: Actually it was one of those "tactical flash lights" which are designed specifically to double as a weapon. They are more painful than deadly, but they are very painful and can do significant actual damage if used right.

Penlight.



Tactical Light with Combat Cap



Huge farking difference.


My girlfriend has that top one in her nightstand drawer
 
2013-07-12 08:31:36 PM  
Ohhh and the black one is more menacing then?? Hardinparamidic is a racist.
 
2013-07-12 08:45:47 PM  

Jake Steed: Ohhh and the black one is more menacing then?? Hardinparamidic is a racist.


one was designed as, and is sold and marketed as a weapon, or at least as something that does double duty as a weapon. the other one is not.
think that might have something to do with his point.
 
2013-07-12 08:57:48 PM  

The Muthaship: 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?


Magorn seems to have wandered off. Perhaps back to his Holiday Inn Express.

I have him Farkied as a big fan of Affirmative Action, so maybe he's just hoping for some Affirmative Justice in this case. Disregard the facts, and just run things by feelings and skin color.
 
2013-07-12 08:58:48 PM  

arentol: Carth: 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.

Unless TM realized Zimmerman had a gun (which Zimmerman claims he did, thus farking himself). At that point TM would have no choice but to beat him unconscious so the gun couldn't be used against him by Zimmerman.


And as soon as Martin reached for his gun Zimmerman had a reason to fear for his life and shoot him.
 
2013-07-12 08:59:24 PM  

arentol: 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.


The trial has nothing to do with SYG.
 
2013-07-12 09:41:53 PM  

Carth: arentol: Carth: 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.

Unless TM realized Zimmerman had a gun (which Zimmerman claims he did, thus farking himself). At that point TM would have no choice but to beat him unconscious so the gun couldn't be used against him by Zimmerman.

And as soon as Martin reached for his gun Zimmerman had a reason to fear for his life and shoot him.


You're still asking me to believe that a 6 minute, constantly escalating ( escalated entirely by Mr. Zimmerman) comes down to the final 10 seconds.

Bullshiat. I don't think those 6 ladies aregoing to buy it either. I'm betting at least one of them has had some creepazoid follow them down a dark street.
 
2013-07-12 10:21:53 PM  
With todays technology,why has there not been a voice spectrum test as too who was screaming and who was talking on the 911 tapes? It is a simple test and I can not understand why it has not been used.
/preplanned result
//no ammo to stand your ground?
///Thanks NWO Obama
 
2013-07-12 10:52:13 PM  

bluefoxicy: Raging Whore Moans: Xcott: Was this linked to the Drudge report or something?  The comments below the article are all DERP 57 STATES.

This.

Does that count Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and the other three?


The other 3 are Guamsylvania, Puertotucky, and West Dakota.

When you elect a guy who -aside from Affirmative Action- doesn't even have a grade school education; you have to expect some ribbing.  But don't worry, they never let him off the teleprompter now.
 
2013-07-13 12:19:27 AM  

MFAWG: hardinparamedic: arentol: Actually it was one of those "tactical flash lights" which are designed specifically to double as a weapon. They are more painful than deadly, but they are very painful and can do significant actual damage if used right.

Penlight.

Tactical Light with Combat Cap

Huge farking difference.

My girlfriend has that top one in her nightstand drawer


You sound impotent.
 
2013-07-13 12:43:28 AM  

jfivealive: Mrbogey: 100$ in a campaign is little.

Dude thats like 50 packs of skittles


I lol'd.
 
2013-07-13 10:54:25 AM  

Thrag: 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.


There are a lot of people who want to "take back" the word lynching so that white people can use it without being incredibly racist.

/protip: If nobody's being dragged through the streets and hung, it's not a lynching.
 
2013-07-13 11:00:01 AM  

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.


This is the cinch point for me. They can't both be defending themselves, and striking someone who is stalking you at night is self-defense (I really don't care what anyone has to say about that, if you've been followed at night you already know I am right.). Trayvon Martin, if ever he did actually attack Zimmerman, would have been doing so in self defense. I don't recall any evidence presented that showed Martin with signs of having been involved in a fight. If he was smacking Zimmerman's head off the ground as was (once?) claimed, he would have Zimmerman's hair, blood, and saliva on his body.
 
2013-07-13 11:03:26 AM  
Trayvon had every right to defend himself from a stranger who stalked him all the way through the neighborhood with a gun. The only way to think he didn't is to believe the sole word of a known liar whose ass is on the line. You have to ignore the entire event leading up to this singular moment in time and how it came to this. You have to believe that when Trayvon with his phone earbuds still in his ears and while still on the line talking to the girl he was also plotting an ambush and hiding in the bushes. You have to believe that in those 4 minutes George couldn't get back to his truck which was only 5 seconds away from when he got out and was told not to follow. That's not reasonable. What is reasonable is that he initiated the confrontation. and when asked why he was following Trayvon instead of telling Trayvon who he was and why he was there he made a sudden provocative move to reach for his pocket. In that instant Trayvon had to believe that his life was in danger and is therefore granted the self defense use of force authorization.
 
2013-07-13 02:25:14 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Trayvon had every right to defend himself from a stranger who stalked him all the way through the neighborhood with a gun. The only way to think he didn't is to believe the sole word of a known liar whose ass is on the line. You have to ignore the entire event leading up to this singular moment in time and how it came to this. You have to believe that when Trayvon with his phone earbuds still in his ears and while still on the line talking to the girl he was also plotting an ambush and hiding in the bushes. You have to believe that in those 4 minutes George couldn't get back to his truck which was only 5 seconds away from when he got out and was told not to follow. That's not reasonable. What is reasonable is that he initiated the confrontation. and when asked why he was following Trayvon instead of telling Trayvon who he was and why he was there he made a sudden provocative move to reach for his pocket. In that instant Trayvon had to believe that his life was in danger and is therefore granted the self defense use of force authorization.


i1162.photobucket.com
 
HBK
2013-07-13 02:38:13 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Trayvon had every right to defend himself from a stranger who stalked him all the way through the neighborhood with a gun. The only way to think he didn't is to believe the sole word of a known liar whose ass is on the line. You have to ignore the entire event leading up to this singular moment in time and how it came to this. You have to believe that when Trayvon with his phone earbuds still in his ears and while still on the line talking to the girl he was also plotting an ambush and hiding in the bushes. You have to believe that in those 4 minutes George couldn't get back to his truck which was only 5 seconds away from when he got out and was told not to follow. That's not reasonable. What is reasonable is that he initiated the confrontation. and when asked why he was following Trayvon instead of telling Trayvon who he was and why he was there he made a sudden provocative move to reach for his pocket. In that instant Trayvon had to believe that his life was in danger and is therefore granted the self defense use of force authorization.


You couldn't be more wrong:

1) Trayvon was carrying tea and skittles
2) Unicorns love to "taste the rainbow"
3) Trayvon saw Zimmerman and they began talking to each other like civilized neighbors.
4) Bounding uncontrollably for the skittles, the unicorn knocked trayvon onto zimmerman.
5) While the unicorn was nudging trayvon (who was on top of zimmerman) for his delicious skittles, zimmerman's head hit the pavement several times.
6) Thinking that both his own and Trayvon's lives were at risk due to the unicorn who was now rabidly going after the skittles, Zimmerman fired his pistol at the unicorn.
7) That shot instead hit Trayvon in the heart, killing him.
8) Zimmerman, distraught from accidentally killing Trayvon, and knowing that nobody would believe the unicorn story made up the entire self defense claim.

There's as much evidence to support my story as yours.
 
2013-07-13 03:00:41 PM  

Griftin Rubes: bdub77: Lsherm: SovietCanuckistan: A Terrible Human: 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.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.

When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.

This is never going to be a thing.  Stop it.

Yes please.

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


Your mother.
 
2013-07-13 10:57:41 PM  

MFAWG: Bullshiat. I don't think those 6 ladies aregoing to buy it either. I'm betting at least one of them has had some creepazoid follow them down a dark street.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
2013-07-14 12:30:44 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Hobodeluxe: Trayvon had every right to defend himself from a stranger who stalked him all the way through the neighborhood with a gun. The only way to think he didn't is to believe the sole word of a known liar whose ass is on the line. You have to ignore the entire event leading up to this singular moment in time and how it came to this. You have to believe that when Trayvon with his phone earbuds still in his ears and while still on the line talking to the girl he was also plotting an ambush and hiding in the bushes. You have to believe that in those 4 minutes George couldn't get back to his truck which was only 5 seconds away from when he got out and was told not to follow. That's not reasonable. What is reasonable is that he initiated the confrontation. and when asked why he was following Trayvon instead of telling Trayvon who he was and why he was there he made a sudden provocative move to reach for his pocket. In that instant Trayvon had to believe that his life was in danger and is therefore granted the self defense use of force authorization.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 340x480]


That's not how it works, either of you. Self defense is immediate danger, like getting your head pounded against the pavement.  It's not imagining you'll be killed by a black kid carrying Skittles.
 
Displayed 222 of 222 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report