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  
•       •       •

2957 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 02:21:44 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."


I say: STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!
 
2013-07-15 02:23:56 PM  
legion_of_doo

I say: STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!

I would say, "STOP BEING A RACIST ASSHOLE THAT THINKS THEY'RE BILLY BADASS!", and ironically, it works for both parties depending on what you believe.
 
2013-07-15 02:26:46 PM  

JuggleGeek: 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.


I consider only what the evidence supports. Do you think aliens could have jumped down from their spaceship and made it happen? Let's work with the facts at hand and not with assumptions and guesses as to what might have happened. I know it is hard but, well, we can try - can't we?
 
2013-07-15 02:27:32 PM  
Team Trayvon sure is mad about justice being served. Isn't that what ya'll been biatching for over the last 16 months?
 
2013-07-15 02:27:55 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.


you are factually incorrect on several points.  Then your opinion is incorrectly informed leading you to draw incorrect conclusions.  No worries, it continues to happen to many people in this thread and out in the public arena.  Hopefully, will avail yourself of the trial transcripts in an effort to correct your errors.
 
2013-07-15 02:28:30 PM  

Abuse Liability: 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.


Who? Who is supposed to criminally profile people? A fatass, failed cop wannabe and 30+ year old karate student or the police? I'll help you all out:


Offender or Criminal profiling is a method of identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of the nature of the offense and the manner in which it was committed. Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime. This information is combined with other relevant details and physical evidence, and then compared with the characteristics of known personality types and mental abnormalities to develop a practical working description of the offender.


Criminal profiling is used when the cops DO NOT have a suspect for a specific crime. They use the nature of the crime and other information to come up with a picture of what the suspect would look like and how they would behave. Like, when they determined that the Unibomber would be a loner or when they thought that the DC Sniper was white. THAT is criminal profiling. George Zimmerman was not "criminal profiling" and he is not a cop, so even if he were he'd be out of his realm of expertise. He saw a black kid and he thought "criminal".

/Get your terms straight.
 
2013-07-15 02:31:42 PM  

Magnus: Hopefully, will avail yourself of the trial transcripts in an effort to correct your errors.


I wish trail transcripts were easy to get.  Maybe they will be in a major trial like this, I dunno.  For most trials, the courts want something like $100 a page to get a copy, which effectively means that unless some lawyer needs them for an appeal and his client has the money to pay, nobody gets to see them.  I think that sucks, as I think they should be public records.
 
2013-07-15 02:32:45 PM  

UnspokenVoice: I consider only what the evidence supports.


If that was true, you wouldn't be claiming that there is proof Martin started the whole thing.
 
2013-07-15 02:32:58 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.


So, what you are saying is there is evidence that Martin did start it, but none that Zimmerman did.  And you have no evidence to contradict this statement.  Got it.  Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-07-15 02:34:15 PM  
JuggleGeek

Evidence that Martin initiated contact? None except the word of Zimmerman...

And Rachel Jeantel's testimony that Martin initiated contact.
 
2013-07-15 02:34:43 PM  

JuggleGeek: Magnus: Hopefully, will avail yourself of the trial transcripts in an effort to correct your errors.

I wish trail transcripts were easy to get.  Maybe they will be in a major trial like this, I dunno.  For most trials, the courts want something like $100 a page to get a copy, which effectively means that unless some lawyer needs them for an appeal and his client has the money to pay, nobody gets to see them.  I think that sucks, as I think they should be public records.


Well, since they are widely available online right now, you should be able to do this rather quickly for no expense.  We'll see you when you are done.  You'll love all the information in there that you are unaware of.
 
2013-07-15 02:36:24 PM  

JuggleGeek: UnspokenVoice: I consider only what the evidence supports.

If that was true, you wouldn't be claiming that there is proof Martin started the whole thing.


HAHAHAHAHA!   The irony is strong.
 
2013-07-15 02:36:41 PM  

Elegy: 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.


That one made me chuckle. I do, however, live under a rock.
 
2013-07-15 02:37:51 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Team Trayvon sure is mad about justice being served. Isn't that what ya'll been biatching for over the last 16 months?


:\

You're going to have to REALLY step up your game if you want to troll a Zimmerman/Martin thread, sonny.
 
2013-07-15 02:38:46 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.


Ok, that's what you believe.  Now, what do you actually know?
 
2013-07-15 02:40:15 PM  

skozlaw: 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.


No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves. You're not entitled to your own facts.
 
2013-07-15 02:40:25 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: 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.


This must be an interesting case for you -- a dispute between two sets of minorities almost wholly absent from Canadian society, fighting over a completely different set of civil laws.
 
2013-07-15 02:41:47 PM  

JuggleGeek: UnspokenVoice: I consider only what the evidence supports.

If that was true, you wouldn't be claiming that there is proof Martin started the whole thing.


That is what the evidence supports. Testimony is evidence.
 
2013-07-15 02:45:28 PM  

skozlaw: You're going to have to REALLY step up your game if you want to troll a Zimmerman/Martin thread, sonny.


Little PJ is just upset that the riots and race war he was so desperately hoping for never happened. He actually had a bottle of lotion and a box of Kleenex ready to go. Now he has to go back to StormFront to get is daily fix.
 
2013-07-15 02:45:51 PM  

The Muthaship: Angela Corey filed directly.


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


I'm curious about both. Is Fla that farked up ?
 
2013-07-15 02:50:46 PM  

CPennypacker: 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.


At this point, you have to be trolling.  There is no other explanation for this level of cognitive dissonance.  You clearly indicate that you understand that Zimmerman fired his weapon while being beaten by Martin and yet you persist in this illogical thinking that Zimmerman could not have possibly reasonably believed he was firing in self-defense.

*blinkblink*
 
2013-07-15 02:50:50 PM  

Netrngr: The Muthaship: Angela Corey filed directly.

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

I'm curious about both. Is Fla that farked up ?


1) Corey probably correctly figured that the grand jury would not indict. There was one ready to go, but she dismissed it and filed an extremely dodgy affidavit of probable cause instead.
2) IIRC, since it wasn't a capital murder (murder 1) case, only 6 jurors were required.
 
2013-07-15 02:52:05 PM  

Magnus: So, what you are saying is there is evidence that Martin did start it, but none that Zimmerman did.  And you have no evidence to contradict this statement.  Got it.  Thanks for clearing that up.


The only "evidence" that Martin started it is the word of a known liar who just shot and killed someone and has a very strong incentive to say whatever it takes to stay out of prison.

Facetious_Speciest: And Rachel Jeantel's testimony that Martin initiated contact.


As best I can tell, she said "Why are you following me".  That's not the same as initiating contact.  ALso, in another thread you are spouting nonsense, biatching because I'm posting in the thread, and claiming to have me on ignore.  Here, you are quoting me, which proves you are a liar.
 
2013-07-15 02:53:34 PM  

NightOwl2255: skozlaw: You're going to have to REALLY step up your game if you want to troll a Zimmerman/Martin thread, sonny.

Little PJ is just upset that the riots and race war he was so desperately hoping for never happened. He actually had a bottle of lotion and a box of Kleenex ready to go. Now he has to go back to StormFront to get is daily fix.


That's kinda like a double deflection there...
 
2013-07-15 02:57:37 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: God Is My Co-Pirate: And if GZ hadn't assumed that a black kid walking down the street was a criminal, and hadn't been itching to play the hero in his own head, nothing would have happened.

If Trayvon hadn't been casing houses while high on weed, nothing would have happened.
If Trayvon hadn't made it safely to his home and then doubled back to confront Zim, nothing would have happened.
If Trayvon hadn't launched a violent assault, nothing would have happened.
If Trayvon had stopped his violent assault when told to by John Goode, nothing would have happened.
If Trayvon was subject to a little discipline in his life and had been grounded, nothing would have happened.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee this is fun!!!


I chuckled
 
2013-07-15 02:58:54 PM  

JuggleGeek: Magnus: So, what you are saying is there is evidence that Martin did start it, but none that Zimmerman did.  And you have no evidence to contradict this statement.  Got it.  Thanks for clearing that up.

The only "evidence" that Martin started it is the word of a known liar who just shot and killed someone and has a very strong incentive to say whatever it takes to stay out of prison.


Actually it doesn't matter who started the fight. It's who escalated the fight and prevented someone from escaping.
 
2013-07-15 02:59:52 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Abuse Liability: 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.

Who? Who is supposed to criminally profile people? A fatass, failed cop wannabe and 30+ year old karate student or the police? I'll help you all out:


Offender or Criminal profiling is a method of identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of the nature of the offense and the manner in which it was committed. Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime. This information is combined with other relevant details and physical evidence, and then compared with the characteristics of known personality types and mental abnormalities to develop a practical working description of the offender.


Criminal profiling is used when the cops DO NOT have a suspect for a specific crime. They use the nature of the crime and other information to come up with a picture of what the suspect would look like and how they would behave. Like, when they determined that the Unibomber would be a loner or when they thought that the DC Sniper was white. THAT is crimina ...


 there had been prior criminal acts committed by black youths fitting trayvons description. iat that point he fit a profile of a known entity.

if you look like a reported suspected there is no racial profiling involved. no matter what color is involved.

fitting a description has nothing to do with race.
 
2013-07-15 03:02:03 PM  

CPennypacker: 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.


Please explain how Mr. Zimmerman's drawing and discharging of his firearm during the physical altercation constitutes legal justification for use of force before the physical altercation. I believe that your suggestion implies a lack of understanding of basic causality, as you are suggesting that a use of force was initially justified by an action that occurred after the force was used.
 
2013-07-15 03:04:01 PM  

Magnus: CPennypacker: 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.

At this point, you have to be trolling.  There is no other explanation for this level of cognitive dissonance.  You clearly indicate that you understand that Zimmerman fired his weapon while being beaten by Martin and yet you persist in this illogical thinking that Zimmerman could not have possibly reasonably believed he was firing in self-defense.

*blinkblink*


He is actually arguing that Mr. Zimmerman's use of his firearm during Mr. Martin's attack established legal justification for Mr. Martin's initial attack upon Mr. Zimmerman. If his claim is accurate, and the use of a firearm after an initiation of an attack constitutes justification for the attack, then my understanding of causality and of temporal mechanics is evidently in error.
 
2013-07-15 03:04:24 PM  

CPennypacker: 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?


How do we know he did? We don't, so presumption of innocence for the accused kicks in: advantage, Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-15 03:04:38 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.


Only one of the two people in the fight KNEW that the police were on their way.

It makes no sense that George called 911, and then knowing that the police were on their way, and that they knew his name, that he would then instigate a fight and take the first swing.

All he had to do was to do what he did every other time that he called 911:  keep track of the person and wait until the police showed up.
 
2013-07-15 03:05:40 PM  

skozlaw: 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.


Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.
 
2013-07-15 03:05:49 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."


On behalf of the black people who were convicted on shoddy evidence, but whose plight was never a consideration until Zimmerman got arrested, I say, "lick balls".
 
2013-07-15 03:06:09 PM  

This text is now purple: GavinTheAlmighty: 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.

This must be an interesting case for you -- a dispute between two sets of minorities almost wholly absent from Canadian society, fighting over a completely different set of civil laws.


in Canadian:

imagine you got off your dog sled to follow the polar bear (or dark furred Kodiak in this case) down the sled path, near your neighborhood igloos.

you lose sight of the bear, and it jumps on you.

are you justified in whacking it on the nose with your hockey stick eh?
 
2013-07-15 03:08:20 PM  

Magnus: 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.

So, what you are saying is there is evidence that Martin did start it, but none that Zimmerman did.  And you have no evidence to contradict this statement.  Got it.  Thanks for clearing that up.


I am confused. Previously he expressed a belief that Mr. Martin was acting in self-defense. If he now admits that no evidence indicates that Mr. Zimmerman performed any action that legally justified a use of force by Mr. Martin, then he is admitting that his belief has no basis in established reality.
 
2013-07-15 03:09:02 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND

On behalf of the black people who were convicted on shoddy evidence, but whose plight was never a consideration until Zimmerman got arrested, I say, "lick balls".

I'm sure the unjustly imprisoned would appreciate your dismissal of injustice.
 
2013-07-15 03:12:13 PM  

UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.


Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.


Why would I do that?
 
2013-07-15 03:14:42 PM  

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

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

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

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

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

You are correct. If Florida law required citizens who are subjected to a violent attack to endure the assault without engaging in action that may injure or kill their attacker, Mr. Martin may still be alive today. Hopefully, federal legislation will be proposed to correct the matter and protect the rights of violent attackers.


Your reading comprehension is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-07-15 03:14:47 PM  

skozlaw: UnspokenVoice: No, if one hits the other he has broken the law and freed the other person up to defend themselves.

Hence my point about it being absurd that the law allows a person who incites another to violence to get off completely scot free as if he did nothing wrong.

Dimensio: Please describe the specific action of Mr. Zimmerman that legally justified the use of force against him by Mr. Martin.

Why would I do that?


You claimed that Mr. Zimmerman is responsible for "instigating the attack". I expected that you would be able to cite data demonstrating such instigation.
 
2013-07-15 03:17:45 PM  

Dimensio: You claimed that Mr. Zimmerman is responsible for "instigating the attack". I expected that you would be able to cite data demonstrating such instigation.


You've clearly demonstrated your willful ignorance on that issue enough in this thread, I think. I don't feel compelled to rebuild that platform for you. Go find another sucker.

/ that's a nice way of saying "You're intentionally being stupid so now I don't care what you have to say" in case you were curious
 
2013-07-15 03:21:54 PM  

theflatline: there had been prior criminal acts committed by black youths fitting trayvons description. iat that point he fit a profile of a known entity.

if you look like a reported suspected there is no racial profiling involved. no matter what color is involved.

fitting a description has nothing to do with race.


George Zimmerman is not a police officer. And for farks sake, descriptions are not as vague as "black guy" for a reason. You're going to need more than "black teenagers did bad shiat once" to justify the profiling that led to murder.
 
2013-07-15 03:23:03 PM  

MarkEC: 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?


The question is then, at what point is an attacker deemed "neutralized"?  As we see Zimmerman was anything but, since he killed Martin,  So if you accept a version of events that gave mMartin a right of self-defense, there is no tesitmony that ZImmerman was legally neutralized in a way that would have allowed Martin to retreat in "perfect safety".  Given that he had a gun,  Zimmerman would have to be unconscious for that, or, if he had been  unarmed, be incapacitated  and unable to continue the brawl or chase martin, say if his legl was broken.  A few head bashes into the sidewalk does not, "incapacitated" make
 
2013-07-15 03:24:04 PM  

skozlaw: Dimensio: You claimed that Mr. Zimmerman is responsible for "instigating the attack". I expected that you would be able to cite data demonstrating such instigation.

You've clearly demonstrated your willful ignorance on that issue enough in this thread, I think. I don't feel compelled to rebuild that platform for you. Go find another sucker.

/ that's a nice way of saying "You're intentionally being stupid so now I don't care what you have to say" in case you were curious


Attempting to justify a refusal to substantiate your unsupported claim is intellectually dishonest, and is not logically equivalent to a validation of your assertion. It is behaviour common amongst creationists and birthers.
 
2013-07-15 03:26:24 PM  
Given all the facts as supported by both prosecution and defense, there is really no room to charge Zimmerman with anything.

I only see 2 options:
1. You can prove murder by establishing that the whole thing was pre-meditated by GZ to put himself in a position to make a self-defense kill. Brilliantly calling 911 and making sure witnesses were all in place while painstakingly awaiting the exact moment to execute his brilliant well thought out plan.
2. After TM beats the crap out of him, he says "I'm finished beating the crap out of you now" gets off of him and backs away slowly, at which point GZ shoots out of anger for just having his head beat against the ground.
 
2013-07-15 03:30:33 PM  

redmid17: Whether or not it's a reason to be afraid is irrelevant. You don't have a right to assault someone following you.


Not "a reason", a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury".

Then, responding's not assault, it's "self-defense".

And maybe if people would stop confusing "assault" and "battery" we could get somewhere: "Battery" = unwarranted touching.  There need not be physical contact for an "assault" to occur.

You could look it up!
 
2013-07-15 03:30:45 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: DROxINxTHExWIND

On behalf of the black people who were convicted on shoddy evidence, but whose plight was never a consideration until Zimmerman got arrested, I say, "lick balls".

I'm sure the unjustly imprisoned would appreciate your dismissal of injustice.


You really have issues with reading comprehension or you really are willing to reach as far as neccesary to make your point. The statement is directed at those wo only now are finding fault with the justice system. That has nothing at all to do with your commet.
 
2013-07-15 03:32:44 PM  

Amos Quito: According to Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice,


Swell link, there, Sport.
 
2013-07-15 03:34:05 PM  

Magorn: The question is then, at what point is an attacker deemed "neutralized"? As we see Zimmerman was anything but, since he killed Martin, So if you accept a version of events that gave mMartin a right of self-defense, there is no tesitmony that ZImmerman was legally neutralized in a way that would have allowed Martin to retreat in "perfect safety". Given that he had a gun, Zimmerman would have to be unconscious for that, or, if he had been unarmed, be incapacitated and unable to continue the brawl or chase martin, say if his legl was broken. A few head bashes into the sidewalk does not, "incapacitated" make


So in your scenario, TM feared for his life because GZ had a gun, but yet continued pummeling him in the face instead of preventing him from pulling that gun. Is that really what you want us to believe? There is absolutely no inference anywhere in the evidence that TM knew GZ had a gun, so using that in your justification for TM's aggression is ridiculous.
 
2013-07-15 03:35:23 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND

You really have issues with reading comprehension...

Not really.

The statement is directed at those wo only now are finding fault with the justice system.

Which you, of course, have no idea of.

In fairness, if there is some long-running beef between you and I_C_Weener on the conduct and merits of the American justice system, I am completely wrong. I must have missed it. Mea culpa.
 
2013-07-15 03:36:08 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: You're going to need more than "black teenagers did bad shiat once" to justify the profiling that led to murder.


Like behaving oddly(corroborated by 7-11 footage of shambling and swaying, further evidenced by the very slow pace he had to have taken according to timelines) and looking into windows?

Murder?  Lol, you're still trying to ride that train too?

If you would only get off your cross, we could use the lumber for something constructive.
 
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


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report