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  
•       •       •

2942 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 01:43:17 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Carousel Beast: 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?

Yo ucna provide some proof of your assertions, right?

/You racist farker.

Settle down. You're supposed to be the shining beacon of civility and I'm supposed to be the savage, remember? Nothing will change your mind. I won't waste our time.


No, you're not a savage, but you are a racist asshole. You can prove your assertions, though, right?

/I'm waiting
 
2013-07-15 01:43:34 PM  

MarkEC: 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.


Your statement is not entirely accurate. Instigating a physical confrontation negates any claim of justification when using deadly force unless all attempts to retreat from the confrontation are exhausted or unless an aggressor pursues after a successful retreat. However, as Mr. Zimmerman was physically unable to retreat from the confrontation, then his use of deadly force was legally justified even if he had instigated the attack (though no evidence supports the hypothesis that he did so).

Florida law also does not immunize an individual from criminal charges related to initiation of a physical attack, even if the initiator uses deadly force to end the confrontation and is found to be justified in doing so.
 
2013-07-15 01:43:58 PM  

JuggleGeek: 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.


They interviewed Zimmerman for 5 or 6 hours after the fact. They didn't think he was drunk or on drugs, so they didn't get a warrant to test him. To be honest I'm not really sure that testing for drugs or alcohol is even protocol unless they suspect the shooter is on something. IIRC Zim did tell them he had a prescription for an anti-anxiety pill.
 
2013-07-15 01:45:07 PM  

Shryke: 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?


He criminally profiled him, which you are supposed to do (They had several robberies over the past few months).  We've had that on campus here where I work.  They reported a white male in his twenties, groping a female while asking for directions to the hospital. He had called her over to his black Honda Civic as she was walking on the sidewalk.  When he was reported to the police, both the guy's skin color and car matched the description the victim described and he was arrested.
 
2013-07-15 01:45:35 PM  

CPennypacker: 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.


Corey will get him on the stalking charges then right?
 
2013-07-15 01:45:37 PM  
CPennypacker

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.

In all seriousness, both of our derp aside, could be. It's possible. But Martin wasn't on trial. If he had killed Zimmerman and we had no more evidence than we do now, I'd say he should walk as well.
 
2013-07-15 01:45:59 PM  

dittybopper: Just being followed isn't reasonable grounds for being put in fear of your life.


Sez you.

I'd like to take you to some neighborhoods here in DC after dark.  You tell me whether any fears you have are "reasonable" when *you* start being followed.
 
2013-07-15 01:46:14 PM  

CPennypacker: 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.


Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person.

Additionally, please describe the crime indicated by evidence.
 
2013-07-15 01:48:09 PM  

CPennypacker: 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.


Then you should be able to identify the specific action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.
 
2013-07-15 01:48:30 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person.

Additionally, please describe the crime indicated by evidence.


If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

Good luck with that strategy.
 
2013-07-15 01:48:33 PM  

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.


You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. What you are not entitled to are your own facts. Following someone is not aggressive in and of itself. Assaulting someone is aggressive and criminal - and will potentially get you shot and killed. This isn't very difficult to understand. Wanting it to be different doesn't make it different and your opinion is of no value when it doesn't coincide with the facts.
 
2013-07-15 01:48:41 PM  

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


I doubt you'll understand this, but many of us who think Zimmerman shouldn't have chased down and killed Martin are in favor of self defense.  Martin didn't initiate this.  Zimmerman says "He's running" and "He ran" on the phone call, so we know that at least initially Martin was trying to avoid this conflict.  And we know Zimmerman was chasing him while biatching about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".

So from my point of view, the only reason there was a fight is because Zimmerman wanted one.  He chased down Martin so he wouldn't be "another asshole getting away".  Martin tried, at least initially, to avoid this, and ZImmerman kept pushing.

Martin looks like the one who was defending himself, Zimmerman looks like the one who was initiating it.

I'm not opposed to self defense.  I'm not opposed to guns.  I've lived in Texas all my life, and I believe in self defense and responsible gun use.

Chasing down people you don't know in order to detain them for crimes you imagined in your head is not self defense.
 
2013-07-15 01:48:52 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?


Okay man, one last time.

Zimmerman profiled Martin as a suspicious person because Martin was a black teenager, in an area where black teenagers had previously committed a b&e and at least one of the suspects was at large; Martin was sauntering through the rain allegedly looking into houses. So while I don't agree that Martin was profiled JUST because he was black, with no other mitigating circumstances. I'll spot you that point. Let's say Z called the cops on Martin simply because he dared to be dark. That has  nothingto do with why an "unarmed child" was shot that night. You have to make a HUGE leap  of logic to go from Z telling the cops "you should come check this guy out, he's acting suspicious" to Z shooting Martin with no provocation. The undisputable facts of the case are this: Zimmerman followed Martin. An altercation took place. Witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman sustained injuries consistent with having been in a fight. Someone was screaming for help. Zimmerman shot the "unarmed child" who was, based on eyewitness testimony, on top and punching him. You see all of these words? These are things that happened between your alleged profiling and the "murder of an unarmed child". You seem to desperately want to be validated in your belief that Zimmerman shot Martin just because he was black. You want us to, at the very least, allow for that possibility, despite the mountain of evidence that refutes such a position. You won't, however, and I know because I've asked you directly at least twice, even consider there is any chance whatsoever that Martin decided to attack this "Creepy ass cracka" (his words, mind you), even though there is, while not definitive proof, certainly a good amount to believe that's what happened.
 
2013-07-15 01:49:07 PM  

Deucednuisance: dittybopper: Just being followed isn't reasonable grounds for being put in fear of your life.

Sez you.

I'd like to take you to some neighborhoods here in DC after dark.  You tell me whether any fears you have are "reasonable" when *you* start being followed.


Whether or not it's a reason to be afraid is irrelevant. You don't have a right to assault someone following you.
 
2013-07-15 01:49:40 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Then you should be able to identify the specific action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.


I guess we could ask Martin if he hadn't been shot to death
 
2013-07-15 01:50:03 PM  

UnspokenVoice: 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?


Don't you remember the thousands of whites, marching arm-in-arm in solidarity, chanting "we are Cervini" after Roderick Scott shot and killed the unarmed 17 year old white child in "self defense" while Scott had not a mark on his body? You don't remember the petitions, the millions of tweets supporting #justiceforCervini," the sit-ins and sing-ins? You don't remember the outbreak of angry whites attacking blacks screaming "Justice for Cervini" as they mercilessly assaulted innocent people for no other reason than racial outrage?

You must live under a rock, because it was big, I'm telling you.
 
2013-07-15 01:50:41 PM  

CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?


No; an aggressive display of the firearm, such as through brandishing, is sufficient to justify use of deadly force against the armed individual in such a hypothetical scenario.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person. Please also describe the crime that you believe to be indicated by evidence.
 
2013-07-15 01:50:58 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person.

Additionally, please describe the crime indicated by evidence.

If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend y ...


When did Martin indicate he knew about Zimmerman's gun, given that he was on the phone with his friend up until the start of the fight (allegedly)?
 
2013-07-15 01:51:44 PM  

Lem Motlow: 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?



Stop with this bullshiat. Again, Zimmerman's crime was not racism, it was racial profiling. His overall feelings about black people are not relevent to what happened that night. I generally like birds, but at the beginning of the Spring this orangish and black bird (not an Oriole) started shiatting on my car ever single day. It started to is me off, especially after I washed my car. I vowed to kill that bird, but once I bought the power washer that I was going to use, it suddely stopped shiatting on my car (I suspect the egg that it was protecting had hatched). IfI had killed the bird and I was arrested for animal cruelty, the fact that I watch NatGeo Wild and the Discovery Channel almost daily is not relevent to my actions of that day. No one it trying to convoct Zimmerman of racism. We believe that his fear of minorities, not hatred, caused him to profile an innocent kid as a criminal. His assumptions led to that kids death. There is no way around it.
 
2013-07-15 01:52:07 PM  

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

I doubt you'll understand this, but many of us who think Zimmerman shouldn't have chased down and killed Martin are in favor of self defense.  Martin didn't initiate this.  Zimmerman says "He's running" and "He ran" on the phone call, so we know that at least initially Martin was trying to avoid this conflict.  And we know Zimmerman was chasing him while biatching about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".

So from my point of view, the only reason there was a fight is because Zimmerman wanted one.  He chased down Martin so he wouldn't be "another asshole getting away".  Martin tried, at least initially, to avoid this, and ZImmerman kept pushing.

Martin looks like the one who was defending himself, Zimmerman looks like the one who was initiating it.

I'm not opposed to self defense.  I'm not opposed to guns.  I've lived in Texas all my life, and I believe in self defense and responsible gun use.

Chasing down people you don't know in order to detain them for crimes you imagined in your head is not self defense.


Please describe the legal precedent that establishes "following" as legal justification for use of force. Please also demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin at the time that Mr. Martin initiated a physical attack.
 
2013-07-15 01:52:59 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

No; an aggressive display of the firearm, such as through brandishing, is sufficient to justify use of deadly force against the armed individual in such a hypothetical scenario.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person. Please also describe the crime that you believe to be indicated by evidence.


Because I don't believe he was defending himself. I believe he was being defended against.
 
2013-07-15 01:53:34 PM  
My line of thinking - The person on drugs is always the bad guy.

I have taken 1 tylenol, 1 Zyrtec, and 1 Vallium (before my vasectomy) in my 33 years. Anyone who needs more that than (excluding antibiotics or nyquill) is a bad person. All of you are bad! BAD BAD BAAAAADDD!

/true story
 
2013-07-15 01:54:00 PM  
I'm just glad I live in a country where we aren't supposed to jail people when the State cannot prove a crime.
Sure, in Cuba or Russia or Venezuela, Zimmerman would be in jail.  But here, we tend to like the State to try to prove a crime before they jail people.

For those about to say, but black people go to jail too much with little evidence, I say to you, "Then lets fix that not jail someone else as revenge."
 
2013-07-15 01:54:03 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Then you should be able to identify the specific action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.

I guess we could ask Martin if he hadn't been shot to death


As the assertion that Mr. Martin was engaged in legal self-defense against Mr. Zimmerman was issued by you, and not by the late Mr. Martin, you should be able to demonstrate the validity of your claim.
 
2013-07-15 01:54:08 PM  

JuggleGeek: 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.


Luckily for GZ, juries don't convict on "for all you knows", "what ifs", and "could haves".
GZ's claim is that he feared for his life when he pulled the trigger. The jury decided that, under the same circumstance, a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or grievous injury. End of story.
 
2013-07-15 01:55:14 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Then you should be able to identify the specific action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.

I guess we could ask Martin if he hadn't been shot to death

As the assertion that Mr. Martin was engaged in legal self-defense against Mr. Zimmerman was issued by you, and not by the late Mr. Martin, you should be able to demonstrate the validity of your claim.


I'm sure he would be making the same claim if he hadn't been SHOT TO DEATH smartass
 
2013-07-15 01:56:44 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

No; an aggressive display of the firearm, such as through brandishing, is sufficient to justify use of deadly force against the armed individual in such a hypothetical scenario.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person. Please also describe the crime that you believe to be indicated by evidence.

Because I don't believe he was defending himself. I believe he was being defended against.


Then you should be able to identify the specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.
 
2013-07-15 01:57:52 PM  

Dimensio: our statement is not entirely accurate. Instigating a physical confrontation negates any claim of justification when using deadly force unless all attempts to retreat from the confrontation are exhausted


With someone sitting on your chest and pummeling you, what attempt to retreat would you consider possible? And when would you consider them exhausted?
 
2013-07-15 01:58:07 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person.

Additionally, please describe the crime indicated by evidence.

If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be ab ...


So you're sayinjg that he killed TM because he's afraid of black people, not because he hates black people?
 
2013-07-15 01:58:59 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Then you should be able to identify the specific action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that constituted legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.

I guess we could ask Martin if he hadn't been shot to death

As the assertion that Mr. Martin was engaged in legal self-defense against Mr. Zimmerman was issued by you, and not by the late Mr. Martin, you should be able to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

I'm sure he would be making the same claim if he hadn't been SHOT TO DEATH smartass


Such a hypothetical scenario does not constitute an explanation of the specific action undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established legal justification for use of force against him by Mr. Martin.
 
2013-07-15 01:59:02 PM  

skozlaw: 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.


It's not imagination.  I'm arguing based upon facts proven in a court of law.

You're arguing emotion.
 
2013-07-15 01:59:15 PM  

skozlaw: I'm not disagreeing. My point is that I have a fundamental problem with any law that says you can instigate a fight and then kill the other person as long as you use what effectively comes down to the playground taunt of "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"


You didn't learn much on the playground. Even if the kid is teasing you - you still can't hit them.
 
2013-07-15 01:59:50 PM  

Dimensio: Please describe the legal precedent that establishes "following" as legal justification for use of force. Please also demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin at the time that Mr. Martin initiated a physical attack.


Zimmmeran tells us on the phone that he's following, he refuses to agree to a location to meet the cops and tells them to call when they get there, and he gets into a physical confrontation that wasn't next to his car.  If you want to pretend he wasn't following, then you are too deluded to even discuss it.

Evidence that Martin initiated contact?  None except the word of Zimmerman, who has a large reason to say that Martin started it.
 
2013-07-15 01:59:57 PM  

MarkEC: Dimensio: our statement is not entirely accurate. Instigating a physical confrontation negates any claim of justification when using deadly force unless all attempts to retreat from the confrontation are exhausted

With someone sitting on your chest and pummeling you, what attempt to retreat would you consider possible? And when would you consider them exhausted?


I am aware of none, though having never experienced such an event I may lack certain perspective.
 
2013-07-15 02:00:10 PM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

No; an aggressive display of the firearm, such as through brandishing, is sufficient to justify use of deadly force against the armed individual in such a hypothetical scenario.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person. Please also describe the crime that you believe to be indicated by evidence.

Because I don't believe he was defending himself. I believe he was being defended against.

Then you should be able to identify the specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.


I will as soon as you identify the specific actions of Mr Martin that legally justified the use of force by Mr Zimmerman as it is as of yet unclear who begain the physical altercation
 
2013-07-15 02:01:11 PM  

urbangirl: The Muthaship: urbangirl: 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.

Ignorantly sarcastic is my favorite kind of sarcastic.

Please, please enlighten me.  What precise part of my comment is factually incorrect?


I'll play - I'll just do the first bit though.

One there was no warning - just a statement that he didn't need to do that. Second a phone operator is not a police officer, they're a phone operator.
 
2013-07-15 02:01:20 PM  

JuggleGeek: Dimensio: Please describe the legal precedent that establishes "following" as legal justification for use of force. Please also demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin at the time that Mr. Martin initiated a physical attack.

Zimmmeran tells us on the phone that he's following, he refuses to agree to a location to meet the cops and tells them to call when they get there, and he gets into a physical confrontation that wasn't next to his car.  If you want to pretend he wasn't following, then you are too deluded to even discuss it.

Evidence that Martin initiated contact?  None except the word of Zimmerman, who has a large reason to say that Martin started it.


You accidentally neglected to include in your speculative reply the legal precedent establishing "following" as creating a legal justification for use of force. I am certain that you will correct this error, now that you are aware of it.
 
2013-07-15 02:02:27 PM  

JuggleGeek: Dimensio: Please describe the legal precedent that establishes "following" as legal justification for use of force. Please also demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin at the time that Mr. Martin initiated a physical attack.

Zimmmeran tells us on the phone that he's following, he refuses to agree to a location to meet the cops and tells them to call when they get there, and he gets into a physical confrontation that wasn't next to his car.  If you want to pretend he wasn't following, then you are too deluded to even discuss it.

Evidence that Martin initiated contact?  None except the word of Zimmerman, who has a large reason to say that Martin started it.


Or to put it another way, "Evidence this happened different than Zimmerman said?  None."
 
2013-07-15 02:03:28 PM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

No; an aggressive display of the firearm, such as through brandishing, is sufficient to justify use of deadly force against the armed individual in such a hypothetical scenario.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person. Please also describe the crime that you believe to be indicated by evidence.

Because I don't believe he was defending himself. I believe he was being defended against.

Then you should be able to identify the specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force by Mr. Martin. Please do so.

I will as soon as you identify the specific actions of Mr Martin that legally justified the use of force by Mr Zimmerman as it is as of yet unclear who begain the physical altercation


Mr. Martin physically prevented escape by Mr. Zimmerman while using physical force against him, as confirmed by an eyewitness to the altercation. Even had Mr. Zimmerman initiated the altercation -- and no evidence supports such a claim -- he would have been justified in using deadly force to end the attack upon him due to his inability to retreat.

Now that I have explained the justification for Mr. Zimmerman's use of force, please describe the specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that established legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin.
 
2013-07-15 02:03:49 PM  

MarkEC: Luckily for GZ, juries don't convict on "for all you knows", "what ifs", and "could haves".
GZ's claim is that he feared for his life when he pulled the trigger. The jury decided that, under the same circumstance, a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or grievous injury. End of story.


I'm not arguing with the verdict.  I'm disappointed, as I'd hoped for a manslaughter conviction or similar, but I'm not particularly surprised, and the jury heard all the testimony.  I didn't spend the past several weeks glued to 24 hour a day trial coverage, so I'll trust their decision.

However, their belief that there wasn't enough evidence to convict doesn't mean "Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong, and this is exactly how people should act.  They should strap on guns and start crap with anyone they think is suspicious".

And it doesn't meant that Martin didn't feel that he was the one defending himself when some asshole chased him down at night.
 
2013-07-15 02:08:33 PM  

I_C_Weener: I'm just glad I live in a country where we aren't supposed to jail people when the State cannot prove a crime.
Sure, in Cuba or Russia or Venezuela, Zimmerman would be in jail.  But here, we tend to like the State to try to prove a crime before they jail people.

For those about to say, but black people go to jail too much with little evidence, I say to you, "Then lets fix that not jail someone else as revenge."


QFT

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. "
 
2013-07-15 02:09:15 PM  

CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

Good luck with that strategy.


Not so far as that, but you should have to wait until they brandish it.
 
2013-07-15 02:10:58 PM  
Dimensio:
Mr. Martin physically prevented escape by Mr. Zimmerman while using physical force against him, as confirmed by an eyewitness to the altercation. Even had Mr. Zimmerman initiated the altercation -- and no evidence supports such a claim -- he would have been justified in using deadly force to end the attack upon him due to his inability to retreat.

Now that I have explained the justification for Mr. Zimmerman's use of force, please describe the specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that established legal justification for use of force by Mr. Martin.


Martin would have attempted to prevent Zimmerman's escape to attempt to prevent him from discharging his firearm. No evidence supports the claim that Zimmerman initiated the altercation because the only evidence to that is Zimmerman's testimony. He shot and killed the other potential evidence of who started the fight.

Zimmerman had a gun. He fired it while he was being pummeled. Clearly despite the pummeling he still had the capacity to use the gun against Martin. There is your justification for use of force. Perhaps you think Martin should have let Zimmerman up so that he could have a better shot. I would assume a certain level of desperation in someone who is unarmed defending themself against someone who is armed.
 
2013-07-15 02:11:51 PM  

Millennium: CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

Good luck with that strategy.

Not so far as that, but you should have to wait until they brandish it.


How do we know he didn't brandish it?
 
2013-07-15 02:12:05 PM  

Millennium: CPennypacker: If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at you to be able to defend yourself from it?

Good luck with that strategy.

Not so far as that, but you should have to wait until they brandish it.


You're right, you dont.  You farking run and scream and wake up the entire state of FL, not pick a fight with the guy.
 
2013-07-15 02:12:14 PM  

UnspokenVoice: You didn't learn much on the playground. Even if the kid is teasing you - you still can't hit them.


No, both participants get a timeout, the one that did the taunting doesn't suddenly get the right to kill the person he was harassing.

Both of these belligerents had a share of the blame in the outcome, Zimmerman for instigating the attack and Martin for unreasonably escalating it. It's just too bad Florida lawmakers haven't quite elevated themselves to the nuance and balance of the playground.
 
2013-07-15 02:13:27 PM  

skozlaw: Both of these belligerents had a share of the blame in the outcome, Zimmerman for instigating the attack and Martin for* unreasonably escalating it. It's just too bad Florida lawmakers haven't quite elevated themselves to the nuance and balance of the playground.


*allegedly

Since only two people actually know how that part went down and Zimmerman killed one of them so we have no choice but to accept his version...
 
2013-07-15 02:13:51 PM  

Dimensio: MarkEC: Dimensio: our statement is not entirely accurate. Instigating a physical confrontation negates any claim of justification when using deadly force unless all attempts to retreat from the confrontation are exhausted

With someone sitting on your chest and pummeling you, what attempt to retreat would you consider possible? And when would you consider them exhausted?

I am aware of none, though having never experienced such an event I may lack certain perspective.


When I was 18 I had a guy sitting on me like that threatening me because I "looked" at his girlfriend. I was luckily able to diffuse the situation with words before it went any further. The only "out" I saw if he had started swinging was to flip him over a 3 foot drop to my left which very well could have caused him a broken neck. I wasn't a fighter, but I had very strong legs from biking about 10 miles per day back then and had experience in judo. Short of that, I could have been seriously injured.
 
2013-07-15 02:14:34 PM  

ginkor: Some law enforcement types were speculating on the absence of riots, and suggested that individuals and small groups would instead go on random assassination and "wildings" sprees.  In that most of the media refuses to mention even blatant racist hate crimes as such, only alternative media will publish such news.

Here are some sources if you track that sort of thing:

Thug Report

Tracking Homicides In Chicago


A bunch of black yoots were arrested over July 4th Holiday for assaulting random whites in downtown. Admittedly, I don't live in a rainbow-nation city (Cincinnati) but stoopid and guaranteed to get whatever westsiders who dont own a gun out to dicks or Walmart to git one.
 
2013-07-15 02:15:51 PM  

Lem Motlow: redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

Please explain why you believe that an individual who has not demonstrably violated any law prior to an attack should be denied a claim of self-defense after using deadly force to end an unprovoked physical attack on his person.

Additionally, please describe the crime indicated by evidence.

If someone is following you with a gun, do you think you should have to wait until they fire it at yo ...


That's actually not what I said at all. I asked when Martin would have seen the gun because the witness for him, Jeantel, never said he indicated that Zimmerman had 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 »






Report