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  
•       •       •

2931 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:14 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 12:28:31 PM

bulldg4life: TheSup3rN0va: Did you see the testimony from his trainer, who said Zim would be lucky to be able to fight his way out of a wet paper sack?

Being a bad fighter or lacking fighting prowess doesn't indicate temperament, does it?


So you're saying an incomplete argument doesn't hold any water?

Now go back and read what you said, and compare that to sourced articles (or, since you're a lazy farker, read what  justtray posted up there^), and you'll realize that it's a lot like saying "That guy got arrested for reckless driving once, clearly he's out street racing every weekend and running over children"
 
2013-07-15 12:28:32 PM

Bontesla: Abuse Liability: 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?

I just admitted the forensics were screwed up. I hardly think that was out of malice, but rather simple incompetence.  That's also not something you can go back and fix, so I don't see why they felt they had to charge Zimmerman in the first place.

I don't think the investigation was maliciously tanked. I have no evidence of that.

I think it certainly hurt the investigation (which was my point). It could have helped or hurt Zimmerman. That's why I attributed the outcome of the case partially to the inadequate investigation.

I'm not wrong in this.


Yep, and I never said you were wrong.  You are in fact, correct.  The investigation was lousy, but my argument was that the lead detective was thorough (with what little he had).  I believe there wasn't enough evidence to bring this to trial in the first place.
 
2013-07-15 12:29:20 PM

ShadowKamui: Aarontology: I'll bet Fox News is devastated they didn't get the race riots they wanted.

Sharpton is giving them more than enough fodder


Yes, and he needs to STFU
 
2013-07-15 12:30:22 PM

someonelse: Rueened: someonelse: 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.

Please proceed.

For the record, you are claiming that the below pics are "more like about 5 aging hippies and a scruffy dog than the 'million' they were claiming." Even if the "million" estimates were way high and exaggerated, you are still laughably, demonstrably wrong. Although, I suppose we could ask people to look at the pictures and answer the question: Do these look more like "millions" or "5 aging hippies and a scruffy dog." You know, to be scientific about it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x319]

[i.huffpost.com image 570x563]

[img.dailymail.co.uk image 468x253]

[i.huffpost.com image 570x887]


Nice Photoshop.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/religion-society/scientologi st s-photoshop-pictures-portland-event-show-huge-turnout
 
2013-07-15 12:31:41 PM

Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.


You lost. Go home.
 
2013-07-15 12:33:34 PM

bulldg4life: TheSup3rN0va: Did you see the testimony from his trainer, who said Zim would be lucky to be able to fight his way out of a wet paper sack?

Being a bad fighter or lacking fighting prowess doesn't indicate temperament, does it?


Thank god for that or we would have never had the tough man competitions
 
2013-07-15 12:33:48 PM

TheSup3rN0va: "That guy got arrested for reckless driving once, clearly he's out street racing every weekend and running over children"


I wouldn't be all that surprised if he was accused of street racing if he had a past arrest for reckless driving.

The original line of posts that started this was judging Martin on his comments and extrapolating what his interaction would have been (indicating it wouldn't have been polite).
 
2013-07-15 12:34:14 PM

redmid17: Bontesla: redmid17: 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.

The investigation was so inadequate that the 2nd investigation including federal authorities and a new prosecutor found nothing new? Where they more or less lied in the affidavit of probable cause? Where the defense was denied information during the discovery phase by the state attorney's office?

The original investigation was inadequate. We're talking about the preservation of forensic evidence, toxicology of the suspect, and so on. The second review was merely a reexamination of the previously collected evidence and a few additional interviews. The first investigation was problematic.

What would the toxicology report have shown that would have changed the outcome of the trial? Even if Martin was under the influence of drugs that affected the jury, Zim already walked.

Preserving the evidence would and should have been done in a better manner, but the lack of good forensic evidence hurt Zimmerman more than it helped him.


Toxicology reports should have been conducted as part of the investigation. Why would additional information be bad? This is a standard package.

I agree that the lack of evidence was certainly helpful to Zimmerman. I'd hope that outcome of the case wouldn't have changed based on proper evidence collecting but we'll never know.

That was my point.
 
2013-07-15 12:36:35 PM
Did anyone see Nancy Grace say "farking coon" on live tv.  Why is this biatch still on the air?
 
2013-07-15 12:37:15 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.


Since a shooting was involved, there will always be some gun nut Farker white knighting it.
 
2013-07-15 12:37:43 PM

Barbecue Bob: Magorn: Elegy: Magorn: soupafi: I_C_Weener: What if Trayvon were white?
What if Zimmerman were a black Hispanic?

Zimmerman would face captial murder charges

In FL,  this black woman got twenty years for shooting a <i> Ceiling</i> WHILE she was being attacked by her husband

Why do I have you farkied as a lawyer? That can't be right, a lawyer would be better acquainted with legal facts before opening his or her mouth.

There are additional facts in that case, but the point I was making, a correct one, was that the woman fired a gun into an inanimate object, and still got a 20 year minimum sentence.  That's insane to me, especially in a state that seems to be ENCOURAGING people to resort to violence by passing a SYG law.   I understand subtlety is a difficult concept for you but....

sigh... this has been covered a bunch.

The girl discharged a firearm in a populated dwelling with no intended target. Dumb biatch.

SYG laws do not include warning shots. Even the police cannot legally fire warning shots.
Just ask anyone who's familiar with firearms when is it ok to fire a gaddam warning shot?
I'll give you a hint... It's never farking ok to fire a farking warning shot.


Unless you are the Vice President's wife.
 
2013-07-15 12:38:05 PM

Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.


Actually yes there were witness that saw somebody getting the crap beat out of them screaming for help.  Considering all the other evidence that person could only have been Zimmerman.

This was a normal self-defense case and the state completely failed to prove that Zimm physically started the fight, brandished his weapon or even used fighting words.
 
2013-07-15 12:39:00 PM

Abuse Liability: Bontesla: AngryDragon: 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.

I think the legal outcome was consistent with the law based on what was presented. The jurors did their job.

With that said - anyone who thinks that the investigation was thorough probably has a poor understanding of how that process works.

There's some evidence that cannot be collected during a secondary investigation and was not preserved or collected during the first.

It really doesn't matter how many subsequent investigations were conducted if the first was inadequate .

That's already been agreed upon.  But the initial reason this was brought to light was because Melissa Harris Perry believed Sanford "swept this investigation under the rug", which was untrue.  Many defense lawyers (including Zimmerman's) found the investigation to be quite thorough, barring the forensic screw up (which I repeat, is not the lead investigators fault, but rather the technician that failed to bag the hands).  All the correct tests were ordered (DNA, firearm prints, forensics on the sweatshirt, etc...), but some of that evidence was beyond salvaging or incorrectly collected (like dusting for prints on the scene before bagging everything and protecting the evidence).  Once again, the officer responsible for leading the investigation can't monitor every single person to make sure they're doing their job correctly.


I never suggested that there was a nefarious reason - merely that the investigation was poorly conducted. We could split hairs and talk about which party is at fault but that's not really the point, is it?
 
2013-07-15 12:39:03 PM

bulldg4life: Zimmerman stated that he was struck from behind with no previous interaction and was taken to the ground.


No he didn't.   Link to the actual statement George Zimmerman gave to the police.

He says Martin appeared out of nowhere and asked if he had a problem, Zimmerman said no, and Martin said "You do now", *THEN* started hitting him.

I'm not sure if you are lying, or just genuinely mistaken.  I sincerely hope it's #2.
 
2013-07-15 12:39:43 PM

Carth: Are you allowed to carry guns in Target? I know some stores post "no gun" signs but I never checked if you're allowed to CCW in Target.


Depends on the state. I know in GA those sighs mean nothing to CCW owners, but the owner of the store can always ask you to leave and have you arrested for trespassing if you refuse.
 
2013-07-15 12:39:59 PM

Cletus C.: Facetious_Speciest: Cletus C.

Oh no. Just cut and paste where you think her testimony indicated Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Sure. Which transcript are you using?

She testified that Martin said "why are you following me?" In her deposition, she said Zimmerman responded "what are you talking about." In her courtroom testimony she said Zimmerman responded "what are you doing around here?"

Either way, she said Martin said "why are you following me?" This, according to you is Martin initiating a confrontation. Others may see it as a guy wanting to know why some creep is following him around.


So, what you are saying is that Martin did indeed initiation the first verbal contact, thus he instigated this event that led him to assault Zimmerman?
 
2013-07-15 12:40:36 PM

dittybopper: To you


And, as usual, you quickly abandon any pretense of intellectual integrity and resort to telling other people what they think and believe so you can force the argument you want to have instead of the one you chose to join.

Goodbye. We can try again next thread, I suppose.
 
2013-07-15 12:40:48 PM

bulldg4life: TheSup3rN0va: "That guy got arrested for reckless driving once, clearly he's out street racing every weekend and running over children"

I wouldn't be all that surprised if he was accused of street racing if he had a past arrest for reckless driving.

The original line of posts that started this was judging Martin on his comments and extrapolating what his interaction would have been (indicating it wouldn't have been polite).


Then you're an idiot and you get to go where the idiots go. Don't worry, you'll have loads of people to talk to
 
2013-07-15 12:41:49 PM

Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.


The eyewitness was John Good.  He looked nothing like a strawman.  But, more to the point, you don't know what a strawman is.  Because, Martin assaulting Zimmerman was seen by an eyewitness and was backed up by physical evidence.
 
2013-07-15 12:42:05 PM

ShadowKamui: Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.

Actually yes there were witness that saw somebody getting the crap beat out of them screaming for help.  Considering all the other evidence that person could only have been Zimmerman.

This was a normal self-defense case and the state completely failed to prove that Zimm physically started the fight, brandished his weapon or even used fighting words.


Remember that you're trying to argue with someone who thinks eyewitness testimony is a  strawman
 
2013-07-15 12:42:06 PM

Magorn: Elegy: Magorn: soupafi: I_C_Weener: What if Trayvon were white?
What if Zimmerman were a black Hispanic?

Zimmerman would face captial murder charges

In FL,  this black woman got twenty years for shooting a <i> Ceiling</i> WHILE she was being attacked by her husband

Why do I have you farkied as a lawyer? That can't be right, a lawyer would be better acquainted with legal facts before opening his or her mouth.

There are additional facts in that case, but the point I was making, a correct one, was that the woman fired a gun into an inanimate object, and still got a 20 year minimum sentence.  That's insane to me, especially in a state that seems to be ENCOURAGING people to resort to violence by passing a SYG law.   I understand subtlety is a difficult concept for you but....


What's insane to me is that you seem to think that any person who is so enraged they leave a confrontation, get a gun, and fire it in a recklessly negligent manner in anger is something that should not be punished. Because Marissa Alexander didn't fire her gun while she was being attacked, as you claimed, she left the situation and bypassed several opportunities to de-escelate the situation, got a gun, returned to the confrontation, and proceeded to fire a gun in a house with children in it.

Fun fact: the bullet did ricochet and it is only pure luck it didn't strike one of the kids.

Marissa Alexander was told self-defense would not apply to her case by prosecutors. She was told that Florida's 10-20-Life mandatory sentencing laws for felonies committed with a firearm meant she would get serious jail time if she was convicted. She was also offered a very generous plea deal of 3 yrs and time served.

Despite all of that, she chose to roll the dice on a jury trial.

Marissa Alexander has no one to blame but herself for the situation she finds herself in.

Again, it's bizarre to me that you don't even acquaint youself with the basic facts of criminal trial you claim are unjust.
 
2013-07-15 12:42:19 PM

Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.


There's equal evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime. The legal question was which party had the right to self defense?
 
2013-07-15 12:42:27 PM
There are a lot of folks in this thread who are stating with conviction who started the fight between them, and that needs to stop, because we simply don't know.  The only person who saw it was the person who has a very heavily vested interest in saying it was the dead kid.  Do you understand why there's something wrong with taking his version as undisputed fact?
 
2013-07-15 12:43:08 PM

Magnus: Cletus C.: Facetious_Speciest: Cletus C.

Oh no. Just cut and paste where you think her testimony indicated Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Sure. Which transcript are you using?

She testified that Martin said "why are you following me?" In her deposition, she said Zimmerman responded "what are you talking about." In her courtroom testimony she said Zimmerman responded "what are you doing around here?"

Either way, she said Martin said "why are you following me?" This, according to you is Martin initiating a confrontation. Others may see it as a guy wanting to know why some creep is following him around.

So, what you are saying is that Martin did indeed initiation initiate the first verbal contact, thus he instigated this event that led him to assault Zimmerman?


FTFM.
 
2013-07-15 12:44:24 PM

Bontesla: Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.

There's equal evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime. The legal question was which party had the right to self defense?


What evidence indicates that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime, and what crime does the evidence imply?
 
2013-07-15 12:45:18 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: There are a lot of folks in this thread who are stating with conviction who started the fight between them, and that needs to stop, because we simply don't know.  The only person who saw it was the person who has a very heavily vested interest in saying it was the dead kid.  Do you understand why there's something wrong with taking his version as undisputed fact?


What do you propose, specifically?
 
2013-07-15 12:45:25 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: There are a lot of folks in this thread who are stating with conviction who started the fight between them, and that needs to stop, because we simply don't know.  The only person who saw it was the person who has a very heavily vested interest in saying it was the dead kid.  Do you understand why there's something wrong with taking his version as undisputed fact?


The same thing, presumably, that's wrong with making absolutely no room for the possibility that it  isthe truth?
 
2013-07-15 12:46:47 PM

TheSup3rN0va: GavinTheAlmighty: There are a lot of folks in this thread who are stating with conviction who started the fight between them, and that needs to stop, because we simply don't know.  The only person who saw it was the person who has a very heavily vested interest in saying it was the dead kid.  Do you understand why there's something wrong with taking his version as undisputed fact?

The same thing, presumably, that's wrong with making absolutely no room for the possibility that it  isthe truth?


Not to mention that Gavin seems to be ignoring the physical evidence.
 
2013-07-15 12:48:29 PM

Elegy: a lawyer would be better acquainted with legal facts before opening his or her mouth.


You don't really know that many lawyers, do you?
 
2013-07-15 12:49:08 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: Do you understand why there's something wrong with taking his version as undisputed fact?


Do you understand why there's nothing wrong with giving it some credence based on evidence and other testimony corroborating it?

You state yourself no one knows, so you may want to take your own advice when implying it is unbelievable.

It's distinctly possible he's telling the whole truth, it's also possible he fabricated some parts.

Very few, if any are calling his story pure fact.  It is, however, evidence.  You may want to educate yourself on what that word means if you wish to have any respect here in these threads.
 
2013-07-15 12:50:06 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: cwolf20: I wonder what prosecutor round 1 has to say since he refused to prosecute since there wasn't enough evidence resulting in whining which spawned a different prosecution.


"Thank goodness there were 5 white women on that jury"?


A jury that's 16% black over-represents the black population of the US.

\To say nothing of one that's 100% female.
 
2013-07-15 12:50:41 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and blame the assholes who were breaking into houses for this whole mess. They created the atmosphere of suspicion that led to the confrontation.
 
2013-07-15 12:51:08 PM
I've never been called a racist by so many people as I was on the day I Weenersed on this case.  It had to have been a year ago.  What I said was something to the effect of, "I don't think what Mr. Zimmerman did was illegal."  Evidently I must be a White Hispanic Supremacist or something.
 
2013-07-15 12:54:50 PM

Bontesla: Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.

There's equal evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime. The legal question was which party had the right to self defense?


Everyone has a right to self defense. When you neutralize your opponent, you lose that as a defense and cross the line into felony battery and give your opponent the right to use lethal force to stop you. TM was seen by an eye witness on top of GZ pummeling him. If the eye witness would have been able to stop the incidence at that point instead of running into his house to call 911, how can you doubt that TM would have been charged? Do you really think he would have had a plausible self defense claim against a battery charge?
 
2013-07-15 12:54:51 PM

bulldg4life: TheSup3rN0va: Citation needed

justtray: Please cite this violent past. I'll wait.

He was arrested and charged with resisting a police officer with violence. He agreed to enter an alcohol education program and the charges waived.

I guess we could even ignore the "run of the mill" domestic violence issues.

Do you feel that both of those are completely explainable and give no indication of his temperament?


You don't get arrested and charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor and have it dropped to a simple diversion program if the charges hold any merit. They didn't identify themselves to Zimmerman and he said they assaulted him first. It's the same squad that had an officer shot and killed by OPD because the officer drew his gun and fired without identifying himself.

The judge looked at the dual restraining orders taken out by Zimmerman and his fiancee and said that they were "run of the mill" and were pretty much baseless. Said so in the bond hearing.
 
2013-07-15 12:56:03 PM

Dimensio: What do you propose, specifically?


I'd just like to see people qualify it with opinions, that's all.  People are bandying about "facts" on both sides that are speculation or that are heavily arguable.

Elegy: Not to mention that Gavin seems to be ignoring the physical evidence.


If I take a swing at you and miss, or shove you backwards, what physical evidence is there?  Did Zimmerman take a swing at Martin and miss, or shove him before Martin retaliated?  I guess we'll never know.  There is some physical evidence, but not enough to paint a complete, concrete, unarguable fact - that's all I'm saying.  There are very, very reasonable possibilities that cannot be known at this point.

TheSup3rN0va: The same thing, presumably, that's wrong with making absolutely no room for the possibility that it isthe truth?


It is totally, totally possible that it's the truth, and I completely acknowledge that.  My problem is that I have a hard time taking him at his word when he has a very heavily vested interest in his version being the truth.
 
2013-07-15 12:56:51 PM

QueenMamaBee: The only people allowed to carry in the office are the police officers when they come in for their randoms, other than than that.... gotta leave your crap in the car.


Why the police exception? They are demonstrably less able with their firearms than CCW holders.
 
2013-07-15 12:59:24 PM

skozlaw: dittybopper: To you

And, as usual, you quickly abandon any pretense of intellectual integrity and resort to telling other people what they think and believe so you can force the argument you want to have instead of the one you chose to join.

Goodbye. We can try again next thread, I suppose.


Yes, I point out how I was initially skeptical of both Martin and Zimmerman, with actual evidence from that time period, and that all the evidence supporting the narrative that George Zimmerman was a racist subsequently collapsed into a heap of scrap, all of it effectively debunked before there was even a trial, while pointing out that you still cling to that particular narrative, and I'm the one who abandoned any pretense of intellectual integrity?

*REALLY*?
 
2013-07-15 01:02:38 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Zimmerman's account of the incident is not and should not be viewed as "fact".


Zimmerman's account is consistent with the known 3rd-party evidence, and is bolstered by his relief when informed of a fictional surveillance video of the incident.

In a legal case, that's about as good as you're ever going to get.
 
2013-07-15 01:02:57 PM

MarkEC: Everyone has a right to self defense. When you neutralize your opponent, you lose that as a defense and cross the line into felony battery and give your opponent the right to use lethal force to stop you. TM was seen by an eye witness on top of GZ pummeling him. If the eye witness would have been able to stop the incidence at that point instead of running into his house to call 911, how can you doubt that TM would have been charged? Do you really think he would have had a plausible self defense claim against a battery charge?


This is obviously baseless and irrelevant speculation at this point, but do you suppose it's reasonably possible that Martin was aware that Zimmerman was armed and justifiably believed that his life was in danger because he was being followed by an armed man, thus beating up on Zimmerman?
 
2013-07-15 01:03:08 PM

Carth: TheSup3rN0va: bulldg4life: TheSup3rN0va: Citation needed

justtray: Please cite this violent past. I'll wait.

He was arrested and charged with resisting a police officer with violence. He agreed to enter an alcohol education program and the charges waived.

I guess we could even ignore the "run of the mill" domestic violence issues.

Do you feel that both of those are completely explainable and give no indication of his temperament?

Did you see the testimony from his trainer, who said Zim would be lucky to be able to fight his way out of a wet paper sack?

Speaking of the trainer did he ever send out emails about zimmerman's training program people couild sign up for on his website?


Doubtful since it would probably discourage people from signing up with his program.
 
2013-07-15 01:05:37 PM

Abuse Liability: Bontesla: Abuse Liability: 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?

I just admitted the forensics were screwed up. I hardly think that was out of malice, but rather simple incompetence.  That's also not something you can go back and fix, so I don't see why they felt they had to charge Zimmerman in the first place.

I don't think the investigation was maliciously tanked. I have no evidence of that.

I think it certainly hurt the investigation (which was my point). It could have helped or hurt Zimmerman. That's why I attributed the outcome of the case partially to the inadequate investigation.

I'm not wrong in this.

Yep, and I never said you were wrong.  You are in fact, correct.  The investigation was lousy, but my argument was that the lead detective was thorough (with what little he had).  I believe there wasn't enough evidence to bring this to trial in the first place.


There was evidence of a homicide (teenager died as the result of a GSW). We absolutely know who pulled the trigger. The question is what should Zimmerman have been charged with?

While Zimmerman has the right to raise an affirmative defense - it's rather silly to avoid pressing charges because your the suspect may have been justified.

The Prosecution isn't tasked with determining guilt. The judge and jury are.
 
2013-07-15 01:07:01 PM
GavinTheAlmighty

This is obviously baseless and irrelevant speculation at this point, but do you suppose it's reasonably possible that Martin was aware that Zimmerman was armed and justifiably believed that his life was in danger because he was being followed by an armed man, thus beating up on Zimmerman?

Depends entirely on when he (theoretically) learned Zimmerman was armed. If he knew he was armed and returned to confront him anyway, he's an idiot. If he returned to confront Zimmerman and then learned he was armed, it would depend on how he learned the guy was armed. If Zimmerman pulled his weapon and Martin was close enough to clock him, I would understand. If Zimmerman didn't threaten him with the weapon, though, Martin was still completely in the wrong; you don't go attacking people just because they have a weapon. We've all encountered people with firearms in daily life, and we don't go beating on them.
 
2013-07-15 01:08:27 PM

Bontesla: Abuse Liability: Bontesla: Abuse Liability: 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?

I just admitted the forensics were screwed up. I hardly think that was out of malice, but rather simple incompetence.  That's also not something you can go back and fix, so I don't see why they felt they had to charge Zimmerman in the first place.

I don't think the investigation was maliciously tanked. I have no evidence of that.

I think it certainly hurt the investigation (which was my point). It could have helped or hurt Zimmerman. That's why I attributed the outcome of the case partially to the inadequate investigation.

I'm not wrong in this.

Yep, and I never said you were wrong.  You are in fact, correct.  The investigation was lousy, but my argument was that the lead detective was thorough (with what little he had).  I believe there wasn't enough evidence to bring this to trial in the first place.

There was evidence of a homicide (teenager died as the result of a GSW). We absolutely know who pulled the trigger. The question is what should Zimmerman have been charged with?

Whi ...


The prosecution and the AD however are not allowed to hide evidence and fire whistle-blowers who call them out on it.  Both should be disbarred if not outright sent to prison
 
2013-07-15 01:08:52 PM

ShadowKamui: Irrational fear does not give one the legal ability to murder people on the street


According to Florida law, it does.
 
2013-07-15 01:08:55 PM

Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.


http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-blockbuster-tra ns cript-eyewitness-good-black-guy-in-black-hoodie-on-top-punching-down-m ixed-martial-arts-style/

I didn't say it was from Zimmerman. Frankly, even Jeantel indicates Martin initiated the encounter, and she's his best witness!
 
2013-07-15 01:09:56 PM

Dimensio: Bontesla: Latinwolf: This text is now purple: Latinwolf: Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.

That's an interesting strawman, but most of the Zimmerman supporters here take the position that he was innocent of the charges, as opposed to merely acquitted (which is a factual, if not legal, distinction).

In the same trial, however, there was both forensic and eyewitness testimony that Martin did commit a crime.

And there's the strawman the Zimmerman supporters keep using.

There's equal evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime. The legal question was which party had the right to self defense?

What evidence indicates that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime, and what crime does the evidence imply?


You mean besides the body, the 911 call, and the discharged weapon?
 
2013-07-15 01:10:07 PM

Latinwolf: 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

Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.


Umm... There is plenty of proof. It is on the back of Zimmerman's head, his nose, and his swollen eyes.

The thing people seem to not understand is that if someone is following you, so long as that is all they're doing and it is for a short time, there is nothing illegal about it and you don't get to attack them. Martin broke the law. There is physical evidence that shows this. Proof.
 
2013-07-15 01:10:46 PM

This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: Zimmerman's account of the incident is not and should not be viewed as "fact".

Zimmerman's account is consistent with the known 3rd-party evidence, and is bolstered by his relief when informed of a fictional surveillance video of the incident.

In a legal case, that's about as good as you're ever going to get.


When the detective says there is video and Zimmerman says "Thank God!" that pretty much clinched it for me that he was telling the truth.
 
2013-07-15 01:11:58 PM

Bontesla: Abuse Liability: Bontesla: Abuse Liability: 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?

I just admitted the forensics were screwed up. I hardly think that was out of malice, but rather simple incompetence.  That's also not something you can go back and fix, so I don't see why they felt they had to charge Zimmerman in the first place.

I don't think the investigation was maliciously tanked. I have no evidence of that.

I think it certainly hurt the investigation (which was my point). It could have helped or hurt Zimmerman. That's why I attributed the outcome of the case partially to the inadequate investigation.

I'm not wrong in this.

Yep, and I never said you were wrong.  You are in fact, correct.  The investigation was lousy, but my argument was that the lead detective was thorough (with what little he had).  I believe there wasn't enough evidence to bring this to trial in the first place.

There was evidence of a homicide (teenager died as the result of a GSW). We absolutely know who pulled the trigger. The question is what should Zimmerman have been charged with?

Whi ...


Actually under the police did the right thing. If the person is claiming SYG or self-defense and there is no evidence on hand to disprove it, they aren't supposed to arrest them.
 
Displayed 50 of 880 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report