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  
•       •       •

2952 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 | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 01:12:11 PM  
CPennypacker

You mean besides the body, the 911 call, and the discharged weapon?

Your inference being that it's illegal to call the police and illegal to defend yourself. Neither are true. Derp.
 
2013-07-15 01:13:50 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CPennypacker

You mean besides the body, the 911 call, and the discharged weapon?

Your inference being that it's illegal to call the police and illegal to defend yourself. Neither are true. Derp.


No, my implication was that they were evidence. Your inference is entirely the product of your own malformed brain. Derp?
 
2013-07-15 01:14:09 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: 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?


Not if you believe his girlfriend that testified that TM was not afraid of the cracker following him.
 
2013-07-15 01:14:14 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?


Reasonable possible? No.

Why would a reasonable man, who has evaded his pursuer, return and directly accost a known armed man while personally unarmed?

What would be gained? To evade them again? He already accomplished that!
 
2013-07-15 01:14:39 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?

Defenders of Zimmerman quote his story all the time and believe it.

Why wouldn't everyone do the same for Martin? You say he does have a right to defend himself, as Zimmerman says he was doing, but then you conclude that no one would believe Martin. Why the double standard?
 
2013-07-15 01:14:54 PM  

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

According to Florida law, it does.


No it requires a reasonable belief, granted its whatever the whack-jobs in Florida consider reasonable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground
 
2013-07-15 01:14:57 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 the first verbal contact, thus he instigated this event that led him to assault Zimmerman?


Instigated the event? Why are you following me? Fighting words right there.
 
2013-07-15 01:15:29 PM  
CPennypacker

No, my implication was that they were evidence.

Of a crime. Derp. Keep up with what you say. Herp.
 
2013-07-15 01:15:56 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: 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?


I personally don't think TM was aware of the gun until moments before the shot. If he was, and his motive was to protect himself, don't you think he would have tried to pin GZ's hands instead of pummeling his face? Especially once he knew 911 was being called?
 
2013-07-15 01:16:15 PM  
What a BS Headline, its reported 6 Whites were beaten so far, 3 critically and one has been killed. Keep trolling TrayFanBois
 
2013-07-15 01:17:31 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CPennypacker

No, my implication was that they were evidence.

Of a crime. Derp. Keep up with what you say. Herp.


And from that you inferred that I was trying to convey that calling 911 was a crime. Strong work. A+.
 
2013-07-15 01:17:43 PM  

CPennypacker: 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?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/runners-who-died -i n-philadelphia-marathon-are-identified-but-cause-of-death-is-not-certa in/2011/11/21/gIQAdcWhiN_blog.html

This scenario also results in a body, a 911 call, and a discharged firearm. What crime occurred?
 
2013-07-15 01:17:56 PM  

Funkyourdaughter: 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 shockinUh


Somebody hacked into Dro's account it seems


I am 100% in agreement with your statement.

/I'll miss you most of all, straw man scare crow.
 
2013-07-15 01:18:24 PM  

This text is now purple: Reasonable possible? No.

Why would a reasonable man, who has evaded his pursuer, return and directly accost a known armed man while personally unarmed?

What would be gained? To evade them again? He already accomplished that!


Sorry, I should have clarified - learned he was armed during the confrontation.  Say Martin confronts Zimmerman, who is following him.  Something happens, a fight ensues, and Martin learns that Zimmerman has a firearm on his person.  So now it registers to him that an armed guy who isn't a cop has been following him.  As I say, it's irrelevant speculation, but that seems like a reasonable possibility.
 
2013-07-15 01:18:50 PM  
Misconduc

What a BS Headline, its reported 6 Whites were beaten so far, 3 critically and one has been killed. Keep trolling TrayFanBois

That shiat was happening before the verdict, though, ever since this gained attention. The "JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON!1!" beatings started a year ago. Those are idiots being racist idiots, not riots.
 
2013-07-15 01:20:11 PM  

Phil McKraken: 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?

Defenders of Zimmerman quote his story all the time and believe it.

Why wouldn't everyone do the same for Martin? You say he does have a right to defend himself, as Zimmerman says he was doing, but then you conclude that no one would believe Martin. Why the double standard?


Beating a man until he's broken, bleeding and crying for help like a little girl is NOT defending yourself.  That is beating the snot out of someone.  And if that someone happens to have a gun, he might use it because he believes that is the only way to stop said beating.
 
2013-07-15 01:20:23 PM  

This text is now purple: CPennypacker: 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?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/runners-who-died -i n-philadelphia-marathon-are-identified-but-cause-of-death-is-not-certa in/2011/11/21/gIQAdcWhiN_blog.html

This scenario also results in a body, a 911 call, and a discharged firearm. What crime occurred?


I don't know, does the killer in this case indicate his intention to pursue the unarmed victim with his pistol, and then proceed to do so after being instructed not to? Cuz then it might be a relevant analogy.
 
2013-07-15 01:21:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Keeve: and sitting on top of Zimmerman, punching him and slamming his head into the pavement according to witnesses AND forensic evidence

Look, just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman doesn't make his account correct.


Which is precisely why we need the kind of nationwide, around-the-clock surveillance that the NSA has been implementing. That Freedom-hating communist, Leonard Snowden (yeah, look it up), is trying to undermine our Freedom by stirring up this "privacy" mess, but I tell you what, it's that kind of institutionalized racism that stands in the way of the very technologies that would keep young men like Trayvon Martin safe and alive today.

Young black man is shot dead by neighborhood watchman. Was there provocation? Oh, no witnesses? Well let's go to the tape. Aha, we see GZ get out of his vehicle and menace young Mr. Martin. He continues to menace until Mr. Martin reacts physically, at which point GZ discharges his weapon, killing Mr. Martin.

Or maybe it was a love-tryst gone wrong. Maybe Martin was selling his sexual services on a CraigsList ad, calling himself "Baby Brown". Zimmerman, openly racists and homophobic had a secret and insatiable yearning for young black men so he hires Martin for some "Baby Brown." After their man-love is finished, Martin asks for the previously agreed-upon payment. GZ either doesn't have Baby Brown's money, or perhaps he thinks he'll just kill him and call it a "criming", since there are so many crimings perpetruated by the American Negros in Fort Lando, Florida.

So there you are with your fingers entwined in that kinky, kinky afro while he kneels and gives suckle to your manhood, and your head is filled with conflicting thoughts of taking Baby Brown home forever, to have and to hold from this day forward 'till death do you part. And then you remember your own stern father's advice: when in the locker room, never to look at a man below the chin, for he may think you're a homa-sexual and then engage you in un-lubricated anal sex, which father always assured you was extremely uncomfortable. But now Mr. Snowden has intervened and you think it's a help because you no longer fear your dead father's wrath and unlubricated sodomizings, but in fact, now Baby Brown's dead and will never know love, paid or otherwise, and his momma cries, for if there's one thing that she don't need it's another hungry mouth to feed in the ghetto.

So while you're laughing it up at Vladimir Putin and Beowulf Snowden (yeah, look it up), are off to the dacha to drink wodka and have unlawful coitus with HOT*HOT*HOT*Belarus*Teens and enjoy smoked fish, you and I are left without anyone to witness the crime, and men like George Zimmerman go free. Free to walk these hot streets at night with nobody ever really knowing, did he kill Baby Brown in fear? In Rage? In Post-coital Regret? Always looking over his shoulder, with love in his heart and a belly full of fear.
 
2013-07-15 01:21:27 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: 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.


What would you like him to say, then? Something else? Would that make you feel better? This is a seriously idiotic line of thinking.
 
2013-07-15 01:22:08 PM  

dittybopper: 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*?


Zimmerman wasn't on trial for being racist. He was on trial for profiling and killing a black kid. He can be friendly with 100 bed-ridden old black women, he can call the cops on 100 white kids, he can eat chitterlings while he watches an episode of "Good Times". NONE of it changes the fact that he profiled Trayvon Martin as a criminal because of the color of his skin. You Zimmermaniacs need to have a meeting to make sure you're all on the same page. Some of you swear by GOD that Zimmerman did not base his assumption that Trayvon was a criminal on the fact that he was black. Meanwhile, the other half of you are giving us Sanford crime statistics and demographics to illustrate why it was logical for Zimmerman to profile Martin as a criminal. Can we get one justification for the murder of an unarmed kid, please?
 
2013-07-15 01:22:30 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: Sorry, I should have clarified - learned he was armed during the confrontation. Say Martin confronts Zimmerman, who is following him. Something happens, a fight ensues, and Martin learns that Zimmerman has a firearm on his person. So now it registers to him that an armed guy who isn't a cop has been following him. As I say, it's irrelevant speculation, but that seems like a reasonable possibility.


The general scenario, perhaps.

"So now it registers to him that an armed guy who isn't a cop has been following him." <-- this bit, I doubt. For one, I doubt he really had time to ponder through the secondary ramifications, outside of he saw a gun and decided to go for it. For two, he would also have to consider that an armed man was pursuing with his gun still holstered.

Consider that your every encounter with the police is a pursuit by an armed man with an initially-holstered weapon. Do you have grounds under that scenario to immediately attack the officer as a result?
 
2013-07-15 01:22:33 PM  
CPennypacker

And from that you inferred that I was trying to convey that calling 911 was a crime. Strong work. A+.

Please count slowly to potato.

Dimensio asked you What evidence indicates that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime, and what crime does the evidence imply? You responded with You mean besides the body, the 911 call, and the discharged weapon?

How does calling 911 imply you committed a crime? What was said in a 911 call to imply Zimmerman had committed a crime?

Difficulty: self-defence is not a crime. Stop derping.
 
2013-07-15 01:22:38 PM  

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?


At no point was he legally able to defend himself as Zimmerman hadn't attacked him. Following someone for a short time is neither aggressive, an attack, or justification for assault. In NO court of law would that be an acceptable reason to assault someone.

You just want this white guy to be guilty for some reason... Why is that? You're completely, and obviously willingly as it has been explained many times, ignoring the facts in hopes of being right. I say this as a mixed race person (I'm half black): George Zimmerman made the correct choice, Martin made the wrong choice. The verdict was appropriate. I have said this since just about day one (after learning about the head trauma - I needed that to be certain) and I am still correct. There was no justification on Martin's part - none. He broke the law and his dangerous activity got him killed.

Now, Zimmerman was an idiot - he got out of the car and followed him. He didn't have to do that. However, his idiocy is neither illegal nor an excuse that justified Martin's attack.

Those are the facts. There are no other interpretations. There are no other ways to string it together to come up with a different answer. That is reality and those are the laws. 1+1=2 and no matter how much you may not like it (which is strange, really - why do you not like it?) you can't change the result.

I've asked a couple of questions, feel free to answer them. I'm seriously interested in why you are unhappy with this or think that this should have ended differently.
 
2013-07-15 01:24:39 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND

Can we get one justification for the murder of an unarmed kid, please?

No. Would you like a justification for self-defence, instead?
 
2013-07-15 01:25:05 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CPennypacker

And from that you inferred that I was trying to convey that calling 911 was a crime. Strong work. A+.

Please count slowly to potato.

Dimensio asked you What evidence indicates that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime, and what crime does the evidence imply? You responded with You mean besides the body, the 911 call, and the discharged weapon?

How does calling 911 imply you committed a crime? What was said in a 911 call to imply Zimmerman had committed a crime?

Difficulty: self-defence is not a crime. Stop derping.


Brilliant retort. You can't read so I should count to potato. I am bested.
 
2013-07-15 01:25:59 PM  

Phil McKraken: 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?

Defenders of Zimmerman quote his story all the time and believe it.

Why wouldn't everyone do the same for Martin? You say he does have a right to defend himself, as Zimmerman says he was doing, but then you conclude that no one would believe Martin. Why the double standard?


Self defense does not include sitting on someone's chest and pummeling them. If as so many claim that GZ started it, once TM broke DZ's nose and knocked him to the ground, he was successful in his self defense. When he got on his chest and started the beating, he became the aggressor and loses the right to claim self defense. The entire "Who started the fight matters" is a moot point under FLA. self defense law.
 
2013-07-15 01:27:46 PM  
CPennypacker

Brilliant retort. You can't read so I should count to potato. I am bested.

The irony is thick.
 
2013-07-15 01:28:22 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-15 01:28:34 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: I've been avoiding these threads on purpose, and now that it's over my general feeling is:

[www.poojadang.com image 289x331]

The laws were bad, the lawyers were bad, both people involved were not good people. The evidence was not enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do I believe Zimmerman should have gotten some jail time for stalking and confronting someone? Yup.
Would I have felt the same way if Martin had "stood his ground" against Zimmerman and shot him instead... Maybe, but it didn't happen that way.
Would both have been legal under Florida law? Quite likely.

It's a new era of gun law, and there's going to be discourse and debate over the where the line should be drawn. I'm not blowing my wad at the first battle, it'll be a long war.

But that race stuff. If one of them had been white, you bet it would have been a different case, with different outcomes, and a riot of some kind more likely. That's an elephant that sat right in the middle of the courtroom. That's a battle that's ramping up right now, and we're going to hear a lot more about it over the next few years.


Or we're mostly over the race thing.  I would think that would be nice.  Some people don't want to be over it.
 
2013-07-15 01:29:28 PM  

Cletus C.: 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 the first verbal contact, thus he instigated this event that led him to assault Zimmerman?

Instigated the event? Why are you following me? Fighting words right there.


You are a violent person, then.
 
2013-07-15 01:29:35 PM  

UnspokenVoice: 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.


There is proof that the two of them fought, no doubt.  But proof that Martin started the fight?  Not so much.  Nobody saw the beginning of the fight except Zimmerman and Martin, and the only one of them who can still talk has a very strong incentive to say that the other guy started it.

Do you really consider it impossible that the man with the gun who chased him down and was biatching about how "these assholes always get away" couldn't have grabbed him to keep him from getting away, and that's how the fight started?

redmid17: 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.


The coroner did toxicology on Martin.  Normally, with a dead body and a smoking gun, they would check the shooter to see if he was drunk or stoned.  In this case, they just sent him home.
 
2013-07-15 01:29:40 PM  

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

According to Florida law, it does.


Please cite the specific Florida statute defining "irrational fear" to be legal justification for the use of deadly force.
 
2013-07-15 01:29:52 PM  

Latinwolf: 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.


Proof?
 
2013-07-15 01:30:04 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: dittybopper: 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*?

Zimmerman wasn't on trial for being racist. He was on trial for profiling and killing a black kid. He can be friendly with 100 bed-ridden old black women, he can call the cops on 100 white kids, he can eat chitterlings while he watches an episode of "Good Times". NONE of it changes the fact that he profiled Trayvon Martin as a criminal because of the color of his skin. You Zimmermaniacs need to have a meeting to make sure you're all on the same page. Some of you swear by GOD that Zimmerman did not base his assumption that Trayvon was a criminal on the fact that he was black. Meanwhile, the other half of you are giving us Sanford crime statistics and demographics to illustrate why it was logical for Zimmerman to profile Martin as a criminal. Can we get one justification for the murder of an unarmed kid, please?


So, noticing how someone's appearance is simiilar to other people's appearance that were previously linked to crime in his neighborhood makes him a racist?
 
2013-07-15 01:30:06 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CPennypacker

Brilliant retort. You can't read so I should count to potato. I am bested.

The irony is thick.


There's somthing thick in this thread, but it isn't irony. You can imply from that what you will.
 
2013-07-15 01:30:49 PM  
 The furvor over riots drummed up by fox and AJ canbe  summed up as such.
Before verdict: "OMG there's gunna be race war riots in the streets."
after verdict: "HEY!! where are the race riots we were promised!!"
these weird farkers want a conflict. I can only hoe this BS drives people to become more politically active.
 
2013-07-15 01:32:17 PM  
CPennypacker

Notice how you can't answer a simple question from two different people? Ever wonder why that might be? That maybe you should potato before you derp?
 
2013-07-15 01:32:34 PM  

CPennypacker: 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?


Yes. Which of those findings, if any, constitute evidence of a crime and of what crime are they evidence?
 
2013-07-15 01:32:56 PM  

dittybopper: *REALLY*?


Yea, "REALLY". I'm not going to sit here the rest of the afternoon listening to you tell me what I believe. If you want to argue with your own fevered imagination that's fine, but I don't need to waste my own time if that's the route you're going to take.
 
2013-07-15 01:36:03 PM  
Dimensio

Yes. Which of those findings, if any, constitute evidence of a crime and of what crime are they evidence?

He won't answer. He's been asked multiple times. He'd rather play at insulting people than support his own words.
 
2013-07-15 01:37:09 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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?

Yes. Which of those findings, if any, constitute evidence of a crime and of what crime are they evidence?


The body and the discharged weapon are evidence that Zimmerman Shot Martin. The 911 call is evidence that Zimmerman intended to pursue Martin. The phone call where Martin calls him creepy indicates his uneasiness with the man pursuing him. Zimmerman writes a check his ass can't cash when Martin decides to defend himself from the "Creepy" cracker following him with a gun and has no choice but to shoot him. I do not agree that he should be able to claim self defense.
 
2013-07-15 01:37:24 PM  

CPennypacker: This text is now purple: CPennypacker: 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?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/runners-who-died -i n-philadelphia-marathon-are-identified-but-cause-of-death-is-not-certa in/2011/11/21/gIQAdcWhiN_blog.html

This scenario also results in a body, a 911 call, and a discharged firearm. What crime occurred?

I don't know, does the killer in this case indicate his intention to pursue the unarmed victim with his pistol, and then proceed to do so after being instructed not to? Cuz then it might be a relevant analogy.


Such a hypothetical scenario, substantially different than the established account of Mr. Zimmerman on the night of Mr. Martin's death, may influence investigation and subsequent prosecution.
 
2013-07-15 01:38:57 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Yes. Which of those findings, if any, constitute evidence of a crime and of what crime are they evidence?

He won't answer. He's been asked multiple times. He'd rather play at insulting people than support his own words.


Why should I anser you already know what I meant, right? 911 calls are illegal?

Tell me to herp and count to potato again because its really bolstering your well thought out arguments.
 
2013-07-15 01:39:23 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: NONE of it changes the fact that he profiled Trayvon Martin as a criminal because of the color of his skin.


Makes no sense, nor does it match his prior behavior. You feel he would have done so had Trayvon been a 80 year old black woman? Or in a wheelchair?

If you are going to make this claim, which the FBI rejected last year, what do you have to support it? Second, were GM black, would you still make this claim?
 
2013-07-15 01:39:30 PM  

I_C_Weener:


i.imgur.com

/you're knockin' 'me dead today
 
2013-07-15 01:40:19 PM  

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.


Which of those things is illegal?
 
2013-07-15 01:40:44 PM  
CPennypacker

Tell me to herp and count to potato again because its really bolstering your well thought out arguments.

Count to potato, again, then stop herping.

Your response to "what evidence of a crime?" was essentially "none, I just don't like the ancient concept of self-defence."

Good job.
 
2013-07-15 01:41:57 PM  

MarkEC: Self defense does not include sitting on someone's chest and pummeling them. If as so many claim that GZ started it, once TM broke DZ's nose and knocked him to the ground, he was successful in his self defense. When he got on his chest and started the beating, he became the aggressor and loses the right to claim self defense. The entire "Who started the fight matters" is a moot point under FLA. self defense law.


For all you know, Martin decided "He's had enough", and it was when he *stopped* wailing away that Zimmerman was able to grab his gun and shoot.

Street fights don't have a nice clean end.  There isn't a judge or referee.  First blood doesn't end it.  10 seconds on the ground doesn't end it.  You don't "tap out" like some idiot was claiming the other day.
 
2013-07-15 01:42:41 PM  

TheSup3rN0va: What would you like him to say, then? Something else? Would that make you feel better? This is a seriously idiotic line of thinking.


Oh settle down.  He can say what he wants to say and it's possible it's the truth, but he's not exactly an impartial observer, so that's why I have trouble taking him at his word.  If you're happy to simply take him at his word, then more power to you.

This text is now purple: Consider that your every encounter with the police is a pursuit by an armed man with an initially-holstered weapon. Do you have grounds under that scenario to immediately attack the officer as a result?


No, but admittedly I'm talking from the Canadian context.  People generally don't carry firearms openly up here, and I don't approach the police with any sort of mistrust as my interactions with them have always been positive.  I would certainly feel more threatened if I was being followed by an individual whom I knew to be/learned was armed.
 
2013-07-15 01:43:13 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CPennypacker

Tell me to herp and count to potato again because its really bolstering your well thought out arguments.

Count to potato, again, then stop herping.

Your response to "what evidence of a crime?" was essentially "none, I just don't like the ancient concept of self-defence."

Good job.


I believe in the concept of self defense. I believe that's what Treyvon Martin was doing when he was fighting the guy who was stalking him with a gun.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report