Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Authorities report widespread not rioting all over the country in the wake of the Zimmerman trial verdict, as many as zero people have been killed or injured in the lack of violence so far   (gma.yahoo.com) divider line 880
    More: Followup, KABC-TV, WABC-TV, marchers, Manhattan neighborhoods, acquittals, verdicts, riots, violence  
•       •       •

2968 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 11:29:48 AM  

Dimensio: What evidence shows that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow Mr. Martin after the police dispatcher informed him that doing so was unnecessary? I am aware of the claim, but I have evidently overlooked the testimony or evidence that supports the claim.


I'm sure a review of the location of the incident in regards to where Zimmerman was and where his car is would show that he continued to proceed.

I mean, he got out of his car and followed...then stopped.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't anywhere close to his truck 5 minutes later.
 
2013-07-15 11:29:59 AM  

skozlaw: Magorn: The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.

How would they have prosecuted successfully when Zimmerman was hiding behind one of the stupidest "right to kill" laws in the nation? The law is what it is:

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.

In Florida, it doesn't matter if your actions are what instigated a fight as long as they weren't violent. All that matters is that Martin was attacking Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him. The stalking and harassment are immaterial and it's not illegal to be a racist prick. And since Zimmerman killed the only other eyewitness to the start of the fight, it was his word against nobody's as to how the physical altercation actually started.

This is a simple case of a bunch of suburban Rambo wannabes throwing a brainless law on the books with no real regard for the potential consequences. Without any other eyewitness to the actual start of the physical fight I fail to see how the prosecution was going to do win this when they're fighting against such a broad law.


It's pretty hard to run from a fight when your assailant is astride you issuing a beatdown.

You have an impressive immunity to facts, I'll give you that, but you're no Magorn.
 
2013-07-15 11:29:59 AM  

justtray: Phil McKraken: Marine1:  Is it dickish? Yeah. Should Zimmerman be acting like the cop in the story I told? No. However, punching someone is not the way to go in that situation, no matter what.

There's evidence that Martin swung first?

There's evidence Martin did ALL the swinging. First, middle, and last.


Oh really? Didn't a witness claim Zimmerman was on top? What happened before that? No one knows except the guy who took a gun, followed Trayvon and shot him. Zimmerman's actions BEFORE the altercation indicate to me that he took the gun because why? He was expecting trouble? Didn't Zimmerman have some martial arts training?

He's just playing Hollywood tough guy.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:06 AM  
I'm sure this won't set a terrible precedent or anything...

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209 34 5

Oopsie ... Way to go, Floriduh.   You've earned it. The ridicule, I mean.

In a way, this is useful. It's a nice test case of what America would be if Republicans had their way everywhere. I won't even hazard a guess as to what Floriduh's next move is. Probably something about abortion. Because they value LIFE.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:06 AM  

Phil McKraken: Dimensio: Phil McKraken: I_C_Weener: Phil McKraken: At what point did Martin waive his right to self defense? When he allegedly started the fight with Zimmerman? Was he not correct in fearing for his life?

So, you agree that neither one should have been charged under Florida law and neither one should have faced potential financial ruin and lost future for themselves and their family due to this case?

I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin very likely believed he was defending his own life. Zimmerman had the gun and took positive, direct steps that led to Martin's death.

Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted creation of a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to Mr. Martin.

The stalking?

Am I supposed to believe that Trayvon Martin spontaneously decided to attack Zimmerman without some reason? If Martin did initiate the aggression (and we only have the killer's word for this) it is likely he felt as though he were threatened. He should have had a gun, killed Zimmerman and live to tell his side of the "Stand Your Ground" story.


Stalking in FL is defined as: A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking,  So it doesn't exactly apply here.

Also if you put any faith in the testimony of Rachel Jeantel we know he wasn't scared of Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:10 AM  

varmitydog: vernonFL:: I would still like to know how and why Florida has juries of only 6 people.

Dammit, do you know how hard it is to find SIX normal people in Florida without one of them turning out to be a complete whack job? Now you want to up it to TWELVE?

No, really this came about because a lot of Florida became polarized in the sixties due to it's fast growth. You would have several completely different groups going in for jury duty who had agendas that were leading to a lot of hung juries. The civil rights blacks or their liberal friends from the north would let all the blacks go. The hippies would let all the drug guys go. The Cubans would let all the Cubans go. The rural population would let the country folks go in crimes against developers. And all it took was one on a jury of twelve to void out the entire trial. So they cut it to six except for capital cases and pushed it through the legislature by claiming it would save the government money.



This shiat is totally untrue and irresponsible.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:11 AM  

Albert911emt: If some idiot were following me through my neighborhood and started harassing me, I would have punched him.


And you'd be guilty of assault for doing that.

We all know that's what happened here...

No, actually, we don't. It's one possibility among many.

it just can't be proven. Zimmerman picked a fight, got punched, and he killed the kid.

Nobody is advancing any theory like that. Nor could they: facts in this case are scant, but there are enough rule out something that simplistic.

One of the cardinal rules of self-defense is that when the threat is neutralized, you stop. Early in this case, when it was commonly believed that Martin was running away when he was shot, I was solidly pro-conviction for this reason: the threat was gone, but Zimmerman pressed. As the facts have come out, I have been forced to rethink my perception of the case (for example, one of the few things we know for sure is that Martin was shot from the front: he was definitely not running away).

In fact, the facts we know point to the opposite being more likely. We do not know if Zimmerman posed a legitimate threat, but if he did, then it was actually Martin who neutralized and then pressed. In doing so, he invalidated any claim he'd have had to self-defense, just as Zimmerman did in the earlier version of the story.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:15 AM  
Phil McKraken

It makes no sense to me. What's the gun for if you don't intend trouble?

In most states, it's legal to be armed, and suggests no ill-will.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:51 AM  

markfara: Is this like when we were in Iraq and there were huge anti-war marches/rallies taking place that the media simply didn't cover? Just wondering. . . .


No, it isn't.

//Actually I was in London when the so-called 'anti-war' protests were happening. The left greatly exaggerated the size and importance of the protests. It was more like about 5 aging hippies and a scruffy dog than the 'million' they were claiming.
 
2013-07-15 11:31:14 AM  

redmid17: QueenMamaBee: Abuse Liability: QueenMamaBee: If Trayvon had not struck George in the face with his fist and then decided to mount George like a Lipizzaner horse and proceed to bash George's head into the concrete, this wouldn't have happened.


So much blame to go around...and yet, the jury found George not guilty.  Hmmmm.  I wonder why they found him not guilty by reason of self-defenese and what that actually means.  I should go look that up.  Maybe there is something about defending oneself from imminent bodily harm in there.  I think I'll do that.

Can't believe we are still trying this case.  Ugh.

I believe George would be more of a Clydesdale.

Amusing, but not nearly as much as Nancy Grace mention that George never missed an opportunity to hit 'Taco Bell'.  But we know the racists are only on one side of this argument.
/snert

Nancy Grace is an idiot and that's a stupid joke. Have you EVER seen a Mexican at Taco Bell? That's about as much "real" Mexican food as McDonald's has "real" beef.

She used to be semi-decent years ago.... has she gone off of her crazy pills? She's just.... evil.

I have see Hispanics at Taco Bell but that is really neither here nor there.


Really? I haven't been there in ages but I've never seen a Hispanic there. They're almost always at one of the local Mexican restaurants though. My Mexican cousins refuse to eat at Taco Bell. I do too, after a bout of food poisoning. Bleah.
 
2013-07-15 11:31:28 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Millennium: Too many levels of indirection. Who chose to fight? That's the key question -the only thing that truly matters- and we have no way to answer it.

That's not even the question. You can start a fight, then simply murder the other person if you're "afraid".

Basically if you get in to a fight in Florida, shoot first.

Instigating a physical altercation eliminates justification for use of deadly force during the altercation.

Not in Florida.


According to Florida statutes regarding the justified use of force:

776.041Use 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.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

An instigator of a physical confrontation cannot claim justification for use of deadly force unless the instigator attempts but is unable to disengage from the confrontation and is also unable to end the confrontation with lesser force or the instigator has withdrawn from the confrontation but is pursued by the assailant.
 
2013-07-15 11:31:45 AM  
According to this 'http://main.aol.com/2013/07/14/_n_3562115.html?1373890181&icid=maing- grid7%7Cmaing10%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D343946 ', people are protesting all over the nation, so much that the DOJ is going to get involved and consider charging him with Federal charges.

Yet, on the news last night, I don't recall any mention of mass riots, blocks burning down, the national guard being called out and assorted predominate black leaders screaming racism.

Apparently, the 'massive protest' was in the form of e-mails, tweets and phone calls. Strongly worded letters will arrive three days from now.

It's not like LA is burning down -- again.
 
2013-07-15 11:31:47 AM  

urbangirl: Perhaps you can tell me by number which of my statement is factually incorrect:

1) Police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car.
2) Zimmerman gets out of his car anyway.
3) Zimmerman getting out of his car escalated the situation.
4) Martin had not been violent with Zimmerman before Zimmerman got out of his car.


#1, which makes #2 invalid. You even misunderstand the misunderstanding of #1 -- the alleged command to stop was after Zimmerman had already left his vehicle. Your version isn't even an allegation.

#3 is false, unless you subscribe to a theory in which martin was a subhuman mental incompetent incapable of controlling his every emotional whim. It's possible you actually believe this.

#4 is trivially true, but is a strawman. No one has ever alleged otherwise, and this point has never been at issue. It also derives from your misunderstanding of #1, which was false.
 
2013-07-15 11:32:08 AM  

skozlaw: Zimmerman is clearly a complete and racist prick


OK, this says *VOLUMES* about how you feel.  It's not about the law, or about the actual circumstances.

To you, the narrative set forth that Zimmerman was a, to use your own words, a "complete and racist prick", despite a complete lack of evidence that he's a racist, and despite evidence to the contrary, shows that you are more concerned with "social justice" than actual justice.

And that's just sad, because we can't have a rational discussion.  You've made up your mind, and no amount of evidence can sway you.

At the very, very beginning of this in the "farkin' coons" thread,  I was skeptical of either side:

Sounds to me like he says "f*cking punks".

/Haven't formed an opinion yet
//The "facts" being presented are still to variable, this thread being a perfect example.
///Guy does seem like a major Mall Ninja though.


In fact, I was inclined to believe, based upon my last slashy, that Zimmerman was in the wrong, but I maintained skepticism.

After time and time again being told one thing by the Martin supporters, only to have it shown to be false (that "farkin' coons" thing being probably the first one that made me suspicious) or at best *SERIOUSLY* distorted, and after there were no serious inconsistencies from the Zimmerman side, it was pretty farkin' obvious that it was a case of self-defense, and that Martin was probably the aggressor, as Zimmerman said.

There is no "greater truth" here, just the objective truth, and the narrative constructed that Trayvon Martin was perfectly innocent and had zero culpability in his own death was destroyed utterly by the facts.

That you don't recognize that says that your opinion was molded early, perhaps even before the incident every happened, based upon your biases and political leanings.  But while we all have those, we *MUST* be honest enough to admit when they interfere with the rational weighing of evidence.

BTW, the closing arguments in this trial were a microcosm of that:  The defense laid out a heavily evidence based closing argument, and the prosecution's rebuttal was all emotion and zero evidence.

Anyway, this of course doesn't mean that we can't be friends.
 
2013-07-15 11:32:30 AM  

urbangirl: The Muthaship: urbangirl: What precise part of my comment is factually incorrect?

All of it.

But, you aren't alone.

Perhaps you can tell me by number which of my statement is factually incorrect:

1) Police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car.
2) Zimmerman gets out of his car anyway.
3) Zimmerman getting out of his car escalated the situation.
4) Martin had not been violent with Zimmerman before Zimmerman got out of his car.


1) is wrong.  They never told him to stay in his car.
2) is wrong.  see #1
3) is an opinion, but there is no basis in fact to back up your opinion.
4) ok.  so you are right here.  But, I'm not sure what your point is except that you possibly believe that Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle is justification for Martin to attack Zimmerman.

You obviously didn't watch the trial or read the transcript because even the State of Florida would tell you that 1-3 is totally incorrect.
 
2013-07-15 11:32:43 AM  

justtray: Phil McKraken: Marine1:  Is it dickish? Yeah. Should Zimmerman be acting like the cop in the story I told? No. However, punching someone is not the way to go in that situation, no matter what.

There's evidence that Martin swung first?

There's evidence Martin did ALL the swinging. First, middle, and last.


No there isn't. There's evidence Martin is the only one who connected. Considering Zimmerman's fighting skills that's no surprise.
 
2013-07-15 11:32:46 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: r1niceboy: It all boiled down to intent, and whether Zimmerman acted appropriately before the confrontation. He didn't,

How did he not act appropriately before the confrontation?
He did the same thing he did all the other times he called 911.  He observed, reported and kept track of where the person was so when the police showed up he could tell them where the person was.


He was told not to follow them. He followed them.
 
2013-07-15 11:32:59 AM  
Cletus C.

Jeantel's version stops short of the actual confrontation...

Jeantel's version is that Martin confronted Zimmerman, actually. This corroborated Zimmerman's account, and no one has suggested otherwise.

At least not in court or to the police. A lot of Farkers have their own theories without support.
 
2013-07-15 11:34:12 AM  

Phil McKraken: The stalking?

Am I supposed to believe that Trayvon Martin spontaneously decided to attack Zimmerman without some reason? If Martin did initiate the aggression (and we only have the killer's word for this) it is likely he felt as though he were threatened. He should have had a gun, killed Zimmerman and live to tell his side of the "Stand Your Ground" story.


stalking is a legal term, and did not occur here. He 'followed,' at best, and barely that given the context of the non emergency call Zimmerman placed.

Are you supposed to believe Martin decided to attack Zimmerman? Yes, you are, because that is almost certainly what occurred. You should have large doubts about the testimony of Jeantel, and whether or not she omitted key parts of her constant communication with Trayvon right up until the start of the incident.

If Trayvon felt threatened, why did he, by all accounts, confront Zimmerman? Why didn't he get off the phone with Jeantel and call the police? Why didn't he just go home when he had clear, ample opportunity? Most likely because he wanted a fight.

If he had had a gun and killed Zimmerman, he would be spending the rest of his adult life in prison for murder, because it would not have been a justified use of deadly force. He had absolutely no injuries on him and the witness put him on top of Zimmerman, beating him, which means he had a means of escape even until the end.
 
2013-07-15 11:34:37 AM  

Rueened: It was more like about 5 aging hippies and a scruffy dog than the 'million' they were claiming.


Demonstrably untrue, and everything you say from here on out should be distrusted.
 
2013-07-15 11:34:43 AM  
 Litterbox: Magorn: The Muthaship: FTA-   "In what universe does it make any sense, could it be considered legal, to stalk, confront, and murder a completely innocent teenager?" Stark asked a vocal, yet peaceful crowd.

I don't know, Mr. Stark.  What universe did that happen in?

this one.  Trayvon Martin is dead.   Trayvon Martin was legally and innocently walking from a store to his home when he was killed.  But for George Zimmerman's actions on that night Martin would still be alive.  Fact are facts.  The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.  But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin

You need to put your emotions aside and look at the physical evidence.  If TM had not assaulted GZ, TM would be alive.

And if GZ hadn't assumed that a black kid walking down the street was a criminal, and hadn't been itching to play the hero in his own head, nothing would have happened.


You do understand why this line of reasoning doesn't work don't you? If TM hadn't gone to the 7-11 this never would have happened. If GZ had been bowling instead this never would have happened. If TM had been born in Nebraska this never would have happened. Who's fault is it exactly? Are you going to charge GZ's father with manslaughter because if GZ had never been conceived this never would have happened? Where in the world do you think it starts? Well one point that can be made is that it starts with the first illegal action. Who did that? We don't know, GZ said it was TM. There's no evidence that GZ started it, so good luck proving him wrong.
 
2013-07-15 11:35:10 AM  

doubled99: This just in: This case does not in any way effect you nor is it any statement at all on "society"


What're the odds double99 is a white male?
 
2013-07-15 11:35:12 AM  

QueenMamaBee: redmid17: QueenMamaBee: Abuse Liability: QueenMamaBee: If Trayvon had not struck George in the face with his fist and then decided to mount George like a Lipizzaner horse and proceed to bash George's head into the concrete, this wouldn't have happened.


So much blame to go around...and yet, the jury found George not guilty.  Hmmmm.  I wonder why they found him not guilty by reason of self-defenese and what that actually means.  I should go look that up.  Maybe there is something about defending oneself from imminent bodily harm in there.  I think I'll do that.

Can't believe we are still trying this case.  Ugh.

I believe George would be more of a Clydesdale.

Amusing, but not nearly as much as Nancy Grace mention that George never missed an opportunity to hit 'Taco Bell'.  But we know the racists are only on one side of this argument.
/snert

Nancy Grace is an idiot and that's a stupid joke. Have you EVER seen a Mexican at Taco Bell? That's about as much "real" Mexican food as McDonald's has "real" beef.

She used to be semi-decent years ago.... has she gone off of her crazy pills? She's just.... evil.

I have see Hispanics at Taco Bell but that is really neither here nor there.

Really? I haven't been there in ages but I've never seen a Hispanic there. They're almost always at one of the local Mexican restaurants though. My Mexican cousins refuse to eat at Taco Bell. I do too, after a bout of food poisoning. Bleah.


I've seen them eating Taco Bell at the Thompson Center in Chicago, and given the range of food there it's not like it's necessary. I've seen them there in Indy too, but neither has been a frequent occurrence.
 
2013-07-15 11:35:40 AM  
r1niceboy

He was told not to follow them. He followed them.

In other news, Zimmerman once called tech support and didn't have his boot discs handy, even though the guy told him to.

Also, one time at Wal-Mart, a sales associate said, "buy this, you won't be disappointed." Zimmerman didn't.

What's with his lack of respect for authority?
 
2013-07-15 11:35:41 AM  

Phil McKraken: I_C_Weener: Phil McKraken: At what point did Martin waive his right to self defense? When he allegedly started the fight with Zimmerman? Was he not correct in fearing for his life?

So, you agree that neither one should have been charged under Florida law and neither one should have faced potential financial ruin and lost future for themselves and their family due to this case?

I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin very likely believed he was defending his own life. Zimmerman had the gun and took positive, direct steps that led to Martin's death.

If Martin had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman instead of allegedly starting a fist fight. Had he done so, he could justify the killing the same way Zimmerman did.

The law is retarded.


Irrational fear does not give one the legal ability to murder people on the street
 
2013-07-15 11:35:58 AM  

QueenMamaBee: Magnus: God Is My Co-Pirate: Litterbox: Magorn: The Muthaship: FTA-   "In what universe does it make any sense, could it be considered legal, to stalk, confront, and murder a completely innocent teenager?" Stark asked a vocal, yet peaceful crowd.

I don't know, Mr. Stark.  What universe did that happen in?

this one.  Trayvon Martin is dead.   Trayvon Martin was legally and innocently walking from a store to his home when he was killed.  But for George Zimmerman's actions on that night Martin would still be alive.  Fact are facts.  The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.  But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin

You need to put your emotions aside and look at the physical evidence.  If TM had not assaulted GZ, TM would be alive.

And if GZ hadn't assumed that a black kid walking down the street was a criminal, and hadn't been itching to play the hero in his own head, nothing would have happened.
 

If Trayvon had not gone to the store and walked back home, this wouldn't have happened.

If Trayvon had stayed at home after his initial  interaction with George, this wouldn't have happened.

If Trayvon had not returned to find George after initially losing contact with George, this wouldn't have happened.

If Trayvon had not struck George in the face with his fist and then decided to mount George like a Lipizzaner horse and proceed to bash George's head into the concrete, this wouldn't have happened.


So much blame to go around...and yet, the jury found George not guilty.  Hmmmm.  I wonder why they found him not guilty by reason of self-defenese and what that actually means.  I should go look that up.  Maybe there is something about defending oneself from imminent bodily harm in there.  I think I'll do that.

Can't believe we are still trying this case.  Ugh.

I believe George would be more of a Clydesdale.


Well, Lipizzaners change colors much like George has in this case.  He's gone from white to brown.  I think Clydesdales stay same color.
 
2013-07-15 11:35:59 AM  
Well MSM needs to try harder to find a clear cut example of white on black violence to boost their ratings, someone whiter than Zimmerman.

Either that or a kidnapped blond white girl, that should get them through the end of summer.
 
2013-07-15 11:36:06 AM  

Bontesla: joness0154: AngryDragon: Meanwhile in Chicago...

[i847.photobucket.com image 401x317]

That's the thing that really drives me crazy.  We have children and teenagers (mostly black) getting shot and dying on the streets of Chicago on a nightly basis, yet one unfortunate event in Florida gets everyone's panties in a bunch?

What gives?

The issue wasn't the murder as much as it was the inadequate investigation and the lack of charges brought. We know who killed Martin and nothing much was done.


Two different law enforcement agencies, one local and one federal, found no cause to bring charges.  The State Prosecutor even bypassed a grand jury specifically to get the charges filed.  Ostensibly because she KNEW a grand jury would never send it to trial.

Turns out they were right all along.  This case should never have gone to a trial and the circus surrounding it is a complete travesty.
 
2013-07-15 11:36:17 AM  

Underwater Bystander: Does anyone else think the internet has killed our ability to riot?


Not at all. Just look at the Arab Spring: it's easy to argue that the riots were justified in this case -I'd agree, in fact- but they were riots nonetheless. What it has done, I think, is raise the bar.

In this day and age, the chances of being called to account for what you did while rioting have gone up exponentially. People are starting to realize this, and are less inclined to riot unless are sure they could be proud of what they did. That's not an easy goal to reach for rioting behavior, and so the incidence of riots goes down as a result. But it's a moderating behavior, not a complete inhibitor.
 
2013-07-15 11:36:18 AM  
I am not a lawyer nor do I have any sort of legal training
I did not witness the crime nor was I present at the trial where all the evidence was presented
What I know about the case I learned from teevee and interweb when I had a minute or two to spare
So I have very strong views about this case and am adamant about my feelings on the outcome
Therefore, any of you who disagrees with me are not only wrong, you are complete dimwits and a stain upon humanity.

well that felt good to get off my chest
 
2013-07-15 11:36:20 AM  

Phil McKraken: dittybopper:
If Martin had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman instead of allegedly starting a fist fight. Had he done so, he could justify the killing the same way Zimmerman did.

Not really, not unless Zimmerman started hitting him.  Just being followed isn't reasonable grounds for being put in fear of your life.

It's as easy as shooting Zimmerman and then claiming self defense - even if it's a lie. No one disputes that Zimmerman was following Martin, a provocative act that Zimmerman should have recognized as such and let the police do their jobs.


If I follow you, you feel justified in using physical force against me?  Interesting.  I hope no one follows you, for your sake, as you'll either wind up dead or in jail.
 
2013-07-15 11:36:36 AM  

dr_blasto: DROxINxTHExWIND: From comments in previous threads, I know a lot of Farkers are disappointed that there was no rioting. I think the unrest that came after the Rodney King verdict was in part because of the shock that the officers would walk. Nothing about the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was shocking.

The riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict were due to years and years of abuse of poorer and mostly minority citizens by the system and its enforcers, corrupt and abusive cops that percieved their job as fighting a war against those very people they were charged with protecting. That verdict was just the spark. The unrest was already at a boil just under the surface.


And let us not forget that in this incident cops were caught on video tape beating Rodney King so it just wasn't a matter of his word against theirs.
 
2013-07-15 11:37:29 AM  

cwheelie: I am not a lawyer nor do I have any sort of legal training
I did not witness the crime nor was I present at the trial where all the evidence was presented
What I know about the case I learned from teevee and interweb when I had a minute or two to spare
So I have very strong views about this case and am adamant about my feelings on the outcome
Therefore, any of you who disagrees with me are not only wrong, you are complete dimwits and a stain upon humanity.

well that felt good to get off my chest


Exactly!
 
2013-07-15 11:38:10 AM  

urbangirl: omeganuepsilon: urbangirl: FTFY

Conveniently ignoring the truth of the situation is not fixing anything.

Violence perpetrated by a No Limit Youth is what led to his demise.  A violent path that he was on that even his friends warned him away from(the texts that were not admitted to the court talking about fighting).  Even Rachel told him to run, and she's barely self aware.

You're absolutely right.  I mean it's not as if Zimmerman ignored the warnings of actual real live police officers and instead got out of his car and created a dangerous situation where one didn't actually exist.  And it's not as if he did this before Martin ever had the opportunity to act violently.

It's not as if that's what happened.


I'm glad you understand that it did not happen. I guess you finally got off your lazy ass and paid attention to the facts both the State and defense agreed on at the trial.
 
2013-07-15 11:38:11 AM  

dittybopper: Phil McKraken: I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin very likely believed he was defending his own life. Zimmerman had the gun and took positive, direct steps that led to Martin's death.

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

If Martin had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman instead of allegedly starting a fist fight. Had he done so, he could justify the killing the same way Zimmerman did.

Not really, not unless Zimmerman started hitting him.  Just being followed isn't reasonable grounds for being put in fear of your life.

The law is retarded.

Actually it's eminently sensible.


No.  Make any other argument you want but the "stand your ground" law is of the most stupid pieces of legislation ever written.  It Re-writes nealy 1500 years of eminently workable law on the rights of self-defense at Common Law and replaces them with something designed solely to appeal to the macho fantasies of NRA contributors.  And that is NOT hyperbole but simple fact.  The "Stand Your Ground" law was not introduced by a judical committee after input by judges and cops and prosecutors.  Instead it was written, out of whole cloth, by an NRA lobbyist, who gave it to a pet Fl Legislator to introduce in exchange for getting an award (and a big check) from the NRA.   Its sole purpose was to give the NRA a "win" they could trumpet in thier newsletters to boost fundraising.  Fl Cops and prosecutors nearly unanimously opposed it, and the Law's use since its passage shows that several people have gotten away with murder because of it.
 
2013-07-15 11:38:24 AM  

Cletus C.: Dimensio: Latinwolf: God Is My Co-Pirate: Litterbox: Magorn: The Muthaship: FTA-   "In what universe does it make any sense, could it be considered legal, to stalk, confront, and murder a completely innocent teenager?" Stark asked a vocal, yet peaceful crowd.

I don't know, Mr. Stark.  What universe did that happen in?

this one.  Trayvon Martin is dead.   Trayvon Martin was legally and innocently walking from a store to his home when he was killed.  But for George Zimmerman's actions on that night Martin would still be alive.  Fact are facts.  The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.  But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin

You need to put your emotions aside and look at the physical evidence.  If TM had not assaulted GZ, TM would be alive.

And if GZ hadn't assumed that a black kid walking down the street was a criminal, and hadn't been itching to play the hero in his own head, nothing would have happened.

And if it had been a black man following a white person, you'd have people saying he had a right to confront that person in regards to why he was being following, not to let it slide.

When being followed in public, "confronting" the follower is not necessarily unjustified, regardless of race. Physically striking the follower is not justified, regardless of race.

Had Mr. Martin "confronted" Mr. Zimmerman only verbally, Mr. Zimmerman would not have been justified in the use of deadly force.

Maybe he did confront him only verbally. Maybe Zimmerman pulled his gun and said the punk wasn't going to get away with it again, whatever it was he was going to get away with. Maybe Martin thought he was about to die and tried to stop the crazy man. You don't know. I don't know, either. Just a dead unarmed teen and the guy who followed him in the dark and shot him.


Perhaps, had you contacted the prosecution with this baseless speculation, they could have used it at trial to secure an unappealable verdict against Mr. Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-15 11:38:46 AM  

Phil McKraken: Marine1: Phil McKraken: Marine1:  Is it dickish? Yeah. Should Zimmerman be acting like the cop in the story I told? No. However, punching someone is not the way to go in that situation, no matter what.

There's evidence that Martin swung first?

I was referring more to the post suggesting that a punch would be a good idea than Martin's conduct. I've yet to find any good timeline of what happened that night. Honestly, I couldn't have voted guilty on that jury even if I had wanted to.

Uh...two people go into a room; the one with a gun following the first. The unarmed person is dead and the armed person claims self defense.

It makes no sense to me. What's the gun for if you don't intend trouble?


People carry for all sorts of reasons. The guy who spoke at my high school graduation was this school board member who bordered on hippie and wanted the school district to pay for the college expenses of any teachers who were Hispanic (he was Hispanic himself). He carried at his day job (not completely sure what it was) and one time forgot to take off the gun before attending a school board meeting on district property. Needless to say, he resigned. However, I don't see a guy with two daughters (one of which I was friends with) and who recommended that I run through fields with horses at my high school graduation as the kind to start trouble, regardless of what happened to be strapped to his ankle.

What happened that night is beyond the knowledge of pretty much everyone there. THAT is why I can't say George Zimmerman straight out murdered Trayvon Martin. Was he acting in a bizarre manner? Yes. Was he psychologically fit to carry that weapon? Arguably (but not certainly) not. But the man had blood running from his head, indicating that he had, at least for a bit, been on the ass-end of an ass beating. With the charges being murder and manslaughter (not stalking) and dubious accounts as to just what happened before he pulled the trigger, I couldn't vote guilty. It's how our justice system works, even though he obviously did some untoward things that night.
 
2013-07-15 11:38:59 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: Jeantel's version is that Martin confronted Zimmerman, actually. This corroborated Zimmerman's account, and no one has suggested otherwise.


Her version indicates that Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him, correct?

Then the phone drops as there was a start to the struggle. I'm pretty sure that is the end of what she describes.

So...
Option A: Martin says something to Zimmerman. Zimmerman asks something at the same time. Martin strikes Zimmerman
Option B: Martin says something to Zimmerman. Zimmerman asks something at the same time. Zimmerman makes a move to grab Martin by the arm, Martin responds.

One of those two things happens.

Now, Zimmerman stated that he was struck from behind with no previous interaction and was taken to the ground. Jeantel's version seems to contradict that. And, I believe there was another witness that reported seeing two man standing and grappling. That would, similarly, indicate an issue with Zimmerman's story.

I don't see how you can possibly determine whether A or B is right.
 
2013-07-15 11:39:31 AM  

Dimensio: According to Florida statutes regarding the justified use of force:

776.041Use 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.

History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

An instigator of a physical confrontation cannot claim justification for use of deadly force unless the instigator attempts but is unable to disengage from the confrontation and is also unable to end the confrontation with lesser force or the instigator has withdrawn from the confrontation but is pursued by the assailant.


Even an instigator can claim self-defense if the other person goes deadly, or presses the attack after the instigator withdraws. I still deny that it is reasonable to call Zimmerman an instigator based solely on what we know, but even if we assume that he was, it would seem that self-defense still applies.
 
2013-07-15 11:40:37 AM  

Abuse Liability: Bontesla: joness0154: AngryDragon: Meanwhile in Chicago...

[i847.photobucket.com image 401x317]

That's the thing that really drives me crazy.  We have children and teenagers (mostly black) getting shot and dying on the streets of Chicago on a nightly basis, yet one unfortunate event in Florida gets everyone's panties in a bunch?

What gives?

The issue wasn't the murder as much as it was the inadequate investigation and the lack of charges brought. We know who killed Martin and nothing much was done.

Do you still really believe the investigation was inadequate?  Even after they reopened the case and found no new evidence.  I mean, I'll grant you some of the forensics was botched, but that's hardly the primary investigators fault.  For the most part, it really helped Martin's case.  They couldn't find DNA or fingerprints of his anywhere.  Almost as if he wasn't even there that night.


Was Martin's hands bagged?
 
2013-07-15 11:40:45 AM  

Magorn: dittybopper: Phil McKraken: I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin very likely believed he was defending his own life. Zimmerman had the gun and took positive, direct steps that led to Martin's death.

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

If Martin had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman instead of allegedly starting a fist fight. Had he done so, he could justify the killing the same way Zimmerman did.

Not really, not unless Zimmerman started hitting him.  Just being followed isn't reasonable grounds for being put in fear of your life.

The law is retarded.

Actually it's eminently sensible.

No.  Make any other argument you want but the "stand your ground" law is of the most stupid pieces of legislation ever written.  It Re-writes nealy 1500 years of eminently workable law on the rights of self-defense at Common Law and replaces them with something designed solely to appeal to the macho fantasies of NRA contributors.  And that is NOT hyperbole but simple fact.  The "Stand Your Ground" law was not introduced by a judical committee after input by judges and cops and prosecutors.  Instead it was written, out of whole cloth, by an NRA lobbyist, who gave it to a pet Fl Legislator to introduce in exchange for getting an award (and a big check) from the NRA.   Its sole purpose was to give the NRA a "win" they could trumpet in thier newsletters to boost fundraising.  Fl Cops and prosecutors nearly unanimously opposed it, and the Law's use since its passage shows that several people have gotten away with murder because of it.


I would say the implementation of the law has left quite a bit to be desired but the actual idea behind it is pretty outstanding.
 
2013-07-15 11:40:57 AM  

Magnus: QueenMamaBee: Magnus: God Is My Co-Pirate: Litterbox: Magorn: The Muthaship: FTA-   "In what universe does it make any sense, could it be considered legal, to stalk, confront, and murder a completely innocent teenager?" Stark asked a vocal, yet peaceful crowd.

I don't know, Mr. Stark.  What universe did that happen in?

this one.  Trayvon Martin is dead.   Trayvon Martin was legally and innocently walking from a store to his home when he was killed.  But for George Zimmerman's actions on that night Martin would still be alive.  Fact are facts.  The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.  But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin

You need to put your emotions aside and look at the physical evidence.  If TM had not assaulted GZ, TM would be alive.

And if GZ hadn't assumed that a black kid walking down the street was a criminal, and hadn't been itching to play the hero in his own head, nothing would have happened.
 

If Trayvon had not gone to the store and walked back home, this wouldn't have happened.

If Trayvon had stayed at home after his initial  interaction with George, this wouldn't have happened.

If Trayvon had not returned to find George after initially losing contact with George, this wouldn't have happened.

If Trayvon had not struck George in the face with his fist and then decided to mount George like a Lipizzaner horse and proceed to bash George's head into the concrete, this wouldn't have happened.


So much blame to go around...and yet, the jury found George not guilty.  Hmmmm.  I wonder why they found him not guilty by reason of self-defenese and what that actually means.  I should go look that up.  Maybe there is something about defending oneself from imminent bodily harm in there.  I think I'll do that.

Can't believe we are still trying this case.  Ugh.

I believe George would be more of a Clydesdale.

Well, Lipizzaners change colors much ...


True. But they go from brown or black to white. George has done the opposite.
 
2013-07-15 11:41:54 AM  

ph0rk: Some Bass Playing Guy: The best course of action is to get away from the person following you, while calling 911 to report it.

I thought the pro-gun lobby would have us believe that the cops are only there to clean up the mess afterwards, and you must defend your person and your property if you wish to keep both intact.


No, the pro gun lobby would have us believe that having a gun comes in handy when you're being viciously assaulted.
 
2013-07-15 11:42:04 AM  

Phil McKraken: justtray: Phil McKraken: Marine1:  Is it dickish? Yeah. Should Zimmerman be acting like the cop in the story I told? No. However, punching someone is not the way to go in that situation, no matter what.

There's evidence that Martin swung first?

There's evidence Martin did ALL the swinging. First, middle, and last.

Oh really? Didn't a witness claim Zimmerman was on top? What happened before that? No one knows except the guy who took a gun, followed Trayvon and shot him. Zimmerman's actions BEFORE the altercation indicate to me that he took the gun because why? He was expecting trouble? Didn't Zimmerman have some martial arts training?

He's just playing Hollywood tough guy.


A witness claimed Zimmerman was on top, AFTER THE SHOOTING. Which he was, because he didn't think he had killed Trayvon and was trying to hold him down. The only witness to the incident clearly described Trayvon on top. I believe he was also the one who described MMA style attack in progress, and additionally told them to stop before he called the cops, at which point the shooting occurred.

Zimmerman probably always has his gun on him. I'm not a gun person, but if I was such a coward, I would carry it with me all the time, especially when on patrol and could possibly run into people who commit assault unjustified.
 
2013-07-15 11:42:08 AM  

Bontesla: Abuse Liability: Bontesla: joness0154: AngryDragon: Meanwhile in Chicago...

[i847.photobucket.com image 401x317]

That's the thing that really drives me crazy.  We have children and teenagers (mostly black) getting shot and dying on the streets of Chicago on a nightly basis, yet one unfortunate event in Florida gets everyone's panties in a bunch?

What gives?

The issue wasn't the murder as much as it was the inadequate investigation and the lack of charges brought. We know who killed Martin and nothing much was done.

Do you still really believe the investigation was inadequate?  Even after they reopened the case and found no new evidence.  I mean, I'll grant you some of the forensics was botched, but that's hardly the primary investigators fault.  For the most part, it really helped Martin's case.  They couldn't find DNA or fingerprints of his anywhere.  Almost as if he wasn't even there that night.

Was Martin's hands bagged?


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/medical-examiner-says-trayvon-marti n- suffered-after-being-shot-by-george-zimmerman/-/1637132/20851274/-/156 rxi6z/-/index.html
 
2013-07-15 11:42:22 AM  
bulldg4life

Her version indicates that Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him, correct?

Yep yep.

Then the phone drops as there was a start to the struggle. I'm pretty sure that is the end of what she describes.

So...
Option A: Martin says something to Zimmerman. Zimmerman asks something at the same time. Martin strikes Zimmerman
Option B: Martin says something to Zimmerman. Zimmerman asks something at the same time. Zimmerman makes a move to grab Martin by the arm, Martin responds.

One of those two things happens.


Close enough for discussion.

Now, Zimmerman stated that he was struck from behind with no previous interaction and was taken to the ground.

No. Watch the trial, or his re-enactment with police, or his television interview, or anything else he said.
 
2013-07-15 11:42:32 AM  

Phil McKraken: Dimensio: Phil McKraken: I_C_Weener: Phil McKraken: At what point did Martin waive his right to self defense? When he allegedly started the fight with Zimmerman? Was he not correct in fearing for his life?

So, you agree that neither one should have been charged under Florida law and neither one should have faced potential financial ruin and lost future for themselves and their family due to this case?

I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin very likely believed he was defending his own life. Zimmerman had the gun and took positive, direct steps that led to Martin's death.

Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted creation of a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to Mr. Martin.

The stalking?

Am I supposed to believe that Trayvon Martin spontaneously decided to attack Zimmerman without some reason? If Martin did initiate the aggression (and we only have the killer's word for this) it is likely he felt as though he were threatened. He should have had a gun, killed Zimmerman and live to tell his side of the "Stand Your Ground" story.


Merely following an individual in public does not create legal justification for the use of force. You must therefore be aware of some other action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that would create such legal justification. Please describe that action, and explain how you have determined Mr. Zimmerman to have engaged in it.
 
2013-07-15 11:43:02 AM  

Magorn: dittybopper: Phil McKraken: I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin very likely believed he was defending his own life. Zimmerman had the gun and took positive, direct steps that led to Martin's death.

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

If Martin had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman instead of allegedly starting a fist fight. Had he done so, he could justify the killing the same way Zimmerman did.

Not really, not unless Zimmerman started hitting him.  Just being followed isn't reasonable grounds for being put in fear of your life.

The law is retarded.

Actually it's eminently sensible.

No.  Make any other argument you want but the "stand your ground" law is of the most stupid pieces of legislation ever written.  It Re-writes nealy 1500 years of eminently workable law on the rights of self-defense at Common Law and replaces them with something designed solely to appeal to the macho fantasies of NRA contributors.  And that is NOT hyperbole but simple fact.  The "Stand Your Ground" law was not introduced by a judical committee after input by judges and cops and prosecutors.  Instead it was written, out of whole cloth, by an NRA lobbyist, who gave it to a pet Fl Legislator to introduce in exchange for getting an award (and a big check) from the NRA.   Its sole purpose was to give the NRA a "win" they could trumpet in thier newsletters to boost fundraising.  Fl Cops and prosecutors nearly unanimously opposed it, and the Law's use since its passage shows that several people have gotten away with murder because of it.


You realize that the law you're railing against was never part of this trial, right?

Why are you so willfully ignorant?
 
2013-07-15 11:43:06 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: I am aware of no evidence suggesting that Mr. Martin was "casing houses" on the night of his death.

Sure there is, Zim's phone call to report Trayvon's suspicious behavior. Or are you going with the ridiculous talking point that Zim called the police soley because he saw a black guy in hie neighborhood?


To some people, just being black is suspicious behavior.
 
2013-07-15 11:43:29 AM  
At least we got a whole new racial classification out of the deal.
 
Displayed 50 of 880 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report