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 127
    More: Followup, KABC-TV, WABC-TV, marchers, Manhattan neighborhoods, acquittals, verdicts, riots, violence  
•       •       •

2935 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:14 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-15 09:48:05 AM
7 votes:

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!!!
2013-07-15 09:23:03 AM
7 votes:

dittybopper: I'm very happy that my worst fears about the potential for violence have so far proven to be wrong.


Despite the media's best efforts.
2013-07-15 10:21:32 AM
6 votes:
www.bet.com

What if Trayvon were white?
What if Zimmerman were a black Hispanic?
2013-07-15 09:42:02 AM
6 votes:

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

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

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

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


And if GZ hadn't assumed that a black kid walking down the street was a criminal, and hadn't been itching to play the hero in his own head, nothing would have happened.
2013-07-15 09:50:33 AM
5 votes:
I'll bet Fox News is devastated they didn't get the race riots they wanted.
2013-07-15 09:16:38 AM
5 votes:

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

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


this one.  Trayvon Martin is dead.   Trayvon Martin was legally and innocently walking from a store to his home when he was killed.  But for George Zimmerman's actions on that night Martin would still be alive.  Fact are facts.  The Not Guilty verdict was the correct one based on the very poor job the prosecution did at trial.  But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin
2013-07-15 09:09:56 AM
5 votes:
FTA-   "In what universe does it make any sense, could it be considered legal, to stalk, confront, and murder a completely innocent teenager?" Stark asked a vocal, yet peaceful crowd.

I don't know, Mr. Stark.  What universe did that happen in?
2013-07-15 09:39:32 AM
4 votes:

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

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

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


You need to put your emotions aside and look at the physical evidence.  If TM had not assaulted GZ, TM would be alive.
2013-07-15 09:24:54 AM
4 votes:

Magorn: But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin


You are also delusional if you think Martin had zero responsibility for his own death.
2013-07-15 09:20:29 AM
4 votes:

Magorn: But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin


Well, one of us is delusional....
2013-07-15 01:02:38 PM
3 votes:

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


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

In a legal case, that's about as good as you're ever going to get.
2013-07-15 12:42:05 PM
3 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Remember that you're trying to argue with someone who thinks eyewitness testimony is a  strawman
2013-07-15 11:01:32 AM
3 votes:
Handy tip: Don't suckerpunch a rambo wanna-be with a gun in a gated community. You'll be shot.
2013-07-15 10:30:18 AM
3 votes:
www.theblindcard.com
2013-07-15 10:29:36 AM
3 votes:
This is the absolute best advice you will see on this, and it is from a BLACK man:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXFi0l--NPI
2013-07-15 10:25:49 AM
3 votes:

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


Wut?
Fox News was not the one playing up the race angle from day one.
They were fair and balanced in their news coverage vs. some other networks who, no matter what was happening in the trial, were saying the prosecution did a great job.

You might want to check  if you have Fox Derangement Syndrome....but...but...but....FOX NEWS!
2013-07-15 10:22:52 AM
3 votes:
The real people at fault here are Trayvon's parents. Your kid is suspended from school and your reaction is to let him go out and wander around the neighborhood at night? You didn't care enough to discipline him or make sure he was at school when he was alive but now that he's dead you see a big settlement in your future. Nice.
2013-07-15 09:12:14 AM
3 votes:
I'm very happy that my worst fears about the potential for violence have so far proven to be wrong.
2013-07-15 04:40:58 PM
2 votes:
ununcle

I not following you. A bit slow today I suspect.

The idea is that black people targeting non-black people is so common as to not rate reporting. Dog bites man. When a non-black person does something to a black person, that's unusual, and thus newsworthy. Man bites dog.
2013-07-15 12:39:03 PM
2 votes:

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


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

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

I'm not sure if you are lying, or just genuinely mistaken.  I sincerely hope it's #2.
2013-07-15 12:25:57 PM
2 votes:

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

Zimmerman would face captial murder charges

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

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

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


sigh... this has been covered a bunch.

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

SYG laws do not include warning shots. Even the police cannot legally fire warning shots.
Just ask anyone who's familiar with firearms when is it ok to fire a gaddam warning shot?
I'll give you a hint... It's never farking ok to fire a farking warning shot.
2013-07-15 10:58:05 AM
2 votes:
Called it.  I knew no one would riot.  All Americans have become much too complacent for that (not to mention the inherent racism implied in AA rioting).  We just talk shiat on social media.  If we were ever to face another civil war, I would assume it would start with a facebook page that said "revolution, like if you're for it, leave a comment if you disagree."
2013-07-15 10:35:59 AM
2 votes:

I_C_Weener: Diogenes: Does anyone know if this went through a Grand Jury first?

It did not.


Which speaks volumes.  The grand jury process is *HEAVILY* biased towards the prosecution, and yet the process was sidestepped even though there was a sitting grand jury that could have heard the case.

The case against Zimmerman was so weak that Angela Corey didn't want to risk a no-true-bill result.
2013-07-15 10:33:53 AM
2 votes:

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



Somebody hacked into Dro's account it seems
2013-07-15 10:28:13 AM
2 votes:
Meanwhile in Chicago...

i847.photobucket.com
2013-07-15 10:26:08 AM
2 votes:

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The real people at fault here are Trayvon's parents. Your kid is suspended from school and your reaction is to let him go out and wander around the neighborhood at night? You didn't care enough to discipline him or make sure he was at school when he was alive but now that he's dead you see a big settlement in your future. Nice.


You've met them, then? I haven't. Really wanted to. But didn't get the chance. It must've been really nice to sit down with them, talk to them about the issue and get some insight into what they were thinking. And I'm glad you did that, because I certainly would never have been able to make a statement like the one you made without having some actual first hand evidence of what was going on before jumping to rash f*cking decisions toward something about which I know f*ck all.

You sir, are clown shoes.
2013-07-15 10:24:01 AM
2 votes:

I_C_Weener: [www.bet.com image 628x353]

What if Trayvon were white?
What if Zimmerman were a black Hispanic?


If Martin were Hispanic and Zimmerman black the case would never have gone to trial because there wouldn't have been mass protests and the President would talk about how the victim would look like his son if he had one.
2013-07-15 09:26:12 AM
2 votes:
Best quote I've heard so far about this case:   Two idiots tried to out-idiot each other. One was successful.
2013-07-16 01:29:15 AM
1 votes:

JuggleGeek: kotton: If Zimmerman is at fault for the shooting of Trayvon for getting out of his truck and following Trayvon, Then Trayvon must be doubly at fault for his own death for going back into the area of situation after making it to a safe spot / eluding his follower: Zimmerman.

You make it sound like he was inside his house.  The nutty girl said he was "by his fathers house", but that could easily mean a block away.

You are also fine with Zimmerman escalating the amount of force, but say that Martin doesn't have the same right.


She stated that Trayvon had made it to the steps of his fathers girl friends house. Now I'm not clear if the home was other wise occupied for entry, but the result is still the same; Zimmerman WAS NO LONGER A CREDIBLE THREAT!

Zimmerman only escalated the force once his life was in danger - after 40 seconds of a MMA beat down.  Having a creepy cracker follow you around, and perhaps get into a shoving match with said creepy cracker does not give Trayvon the right to escalate the fight to a clearly one sided MMA style beat down.  Trayvon had his right to shove Zimmerman away and throw a few punches but that was all the right of force Trayvon was allowed by the letter of the law.  Trayvon clearly over escalated the amount of force required/allowed, as noted by the lack of defensive injuries -- and the noted lack of gun at play at that point in the fight.  Zimmerman was never at any point in the fight a credible threat in which the force that Trayvon escalated the fight too.

I'll say it again. Zimmerman was never at any point in the fight a credible threat in which the force that Trayvon escalated the fight too.

With the end result of Zimmerman shooting Trayvon, lets look at a couple of force scenarios:
Had Trayvon not thrown a punch with Zimmerman standing.. Zimmerman would been found guilty.
Had Trayvon not thrown a punch while over Zimmerman laying down.. Zimmerman would been found guilty.
Had Trayvon only thrown a punch or two with Zimmerman standing.. Zimmerman would been found guilty.
Had Trayvon only thrown a punch or two while over Zimmerman laying down.. Zimmerman would been found guilty.
Had Trayvon been giving a beat down with Zimmerman standing.. Zimmerman most likely would have been found guilty.

But instead, Trayvon was giving a beat down while over Zimmerman giving Zimmerman zero chance to defend himself or escape...   that is why he was found not guilty for the level of force he responded with.
2013-07-15 09:26:52 PM
1 votes:

JuggleGeek: redmid17: *Legally speaking* it doesn't matter who started the fight. There is that better.

And that's still not true.  Legally speaking, if Zimmerman started the fight, then he's guilty of assault.  You just don't care.


"Starting a fight" is not a real thing when it comes to laws. There are things like physical and verbal assault. What exactly did Zimmerman do which was illegal prior to being physically assaulted by Martin?
2013-07-15 05:12:54 PM
1 votes:

Deucednuisance: Dimensio: Until and unless a "follower" engages in aggressive behaviour, physical violence against the follower is not legally justified.

I am a twenty-something woman, who stayed out a little late and missed the last Metro.  I decide to walk to the nearest bus stop on my route, a few blocks and a few turns away.  You exit the club a few moments after me.  I notice you take the same turn I do, and take another to be sure, and sure enough you take that same turn.  I am a petite thing, in heels and can't walk as fast as I'd like, and you are an adult male and rapidly closing.  I start to hurry, you increase your speed.  I take another turn.  So do you.  The street is empty, except for us. Suddenly you are directly behind me and say "Hey, Lady..."

May I legally mace you?

Is my fear of you unreasonable?

Even if it turns out you were hustling to catch up with me to hand me something I had dropped in the club and had no aggression or ill-intent, how was I to know that in the totality of the situation?


No you cannot legally mace him. Congratulations you just committed either assault or aggravated assault, depending on how mean the DA is.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/viol en t-crime/washington-dc-assault-battery-laws
2013-07-15 05:08:17 PM
1 votes:

DROxINxTHExWIND: Who, in your mind, fits the description of being a black man railroaded by a systematic politically-motivated attack in an attempt to frame him for a crime he did not commit?

I mean, OJ was probably railroaded for the hotel break-in in Vegas, but he also probably got away with murder. Chris Dorner? But he seemed to have a lot of white supporters here, and that was primarily a cop-cop thing. Mumia Abu-Jamal? There was no controversy that he shot Faulkner, and his case is primarily about his "sovereign citizen"-like delusions. So what case comes to mind, specifically, for you?


Fair question. Most of the cases are not high profile. And its not just people who were "wrongly convicted". Its also about people who are punished more severely for commiting crimes than white defendents


The two problems for extending that argument to this case:

1. Had Trayvon been white 17 year-old, Trevor Martin, under otherwise identical circumstances, George Zimmerman would have been treated as a "brown" Hispanic, similar to all the other 'white hispanics' in the illegal immigration threads.
2. Your argument loses its emotional appeal when it's fundamentally a call to lynch an innocent man. Like the Duke Lacrosse Rape case, the Trayvon Martin case was not the bellwether you were looking for -- and your case looks all the worse for trying to make it something it's not. In a perfect world, hispanics should be sympathetic to your plight -- they find themselves in similar legal positions, too. But you've now alienated that demographic, for no benefit to yours, and for decrease sympathy from whites. It's lose-lose-lose.

And realize how this comes off -- you profess anger at how black people get a bum deal, how you're disproportionately adjudged on the basis of your race. You then end up touting the false prosecution of an innocent man (of a different race), purely on racial grounds -- driven by a black media presence, black attorneys, black politicians, and a black prosecutor.

You lose the moral high ground, and appear to be no different than your enemies, when given similar opportunities. You're not pure, just powerless. And you gave this up in return for nothing at all.
2013-07-15 05:07:46 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: No. I don't think he's telling the truth though. I don't think he necessarily set out to kill Martin, but I think his behavior resulted in his death and he should have gotten manslaughter based on what we imagine.


FTFY
2013-07-15 05:02:53 PM
1 votes:

ununcle: tenpoundsofcheese: Facetious_Speciest: ununcle

I not following you. A bit slow today I suspect.

The idea is that black people targeting non-black people is so common as to not rate reporting. Dog bites man. When a non-black person does something to a black person, that's unusual, and thus newsworthy. Man bites dog.

see how much this story is on the nightly news and MSNBC all the time.

Crickets from the j4t mob. I'm sure the media coverage will be international though.


I am waiting for Biden to comment that the young girl could have been his daughter.
2013-07-15 04:59:31 PM
1 votes:

Deucednuisance: redmid17: Following someone does not give you justification to physically attack someone. That's not disputable. You cannot attack someone for following you.

This line of argument, whether from you, or dittybopper or Dimensio troubles me.

It's as if you guys think a person can compartmentalize every aspect of a situation, analyse them separately and come to a reasonable conclusion about each of them in the few seconds that a situation is occurring, and yet you refuse to take in the totality of situation.

"Merely following" doesn't happen. Location, age, sex, situation, familiarity with the area and its residents, time of day, lighting, personal history and no doubt more all play into a person's perception of an event as it's occurring.  One person's reasonable is not another one's.

You goddam well can attack someone for following you if your fear of that person is reasonable, that's the letter of the law.  It doesn't care what put you in that state of fear, only whether or not its reasonable.

I wish you guys would let this particular bit of sophistry go.

I repeat my invitation to drop dittybopper off in some nice neighborhoods in DC after dark.  Let him tell us how unreasonable his fears are when someone starts "merely following" him.


The legal precedent does not support your position. There has to be some element to justify the fear. Maybe if it's a mitigating circumstance like I've got you cornered in a dark alley or something, but under normal circumstances you are guilt of battery or worse.
2013-07-15 04:58:45 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: the money is in the banana stand: CPennypacker: I think he started a fist fight and finished a gunfight when he lost the fistfight.

Basically, you can legally murder anyone you want in Florida now. Start a fight with them, then let them get the upper hand and shoot them. Self defense!

On what grounds do you THINK he started a fist fight? What solid evidence is there to even show that? Further, assuming that was the case, he did not arbitrarily lose a fight and shoot him. He was being pummeled, he was screaming for help, he was unable to defend himself, and TM continued to pummel him. There is an enormous difference between a scuffle or grapple and some punches, and straddling someone making their head bounce off the concrete.

You cannot and should not convict someone based on what you THINK may have happened. It is very dangerous with people like you who take thought and emotion and place it above rationality and fact.

I THINK he started the fight based on how the scenario started and who was involved. Just like you THINK Zimmerman is telling the truth about what happened.


Considering we THINK and do not KNOW, there should not be a conviction. You cannot speculate and call it fact. I am not calling any of what GZ said infallible and fact. Based on the evidence, we have pieces that we KNOW. Pieces, when examined, lead to the high improbability that most of what you described did not or could not have happened. What it does do is cast a lot of doubt on what the prosecution has said transpired. They have to make the case to convict someone. Before you and others jump-to-conclusions and foam at the mouth, it is best to only argue what you know. It is the media's fault for not presenting this case in an unbiased manner. My first reaction even was that GZ was lying and arbitrarily shot TM when he did not have to. Clearly, that did not happen the way it was portrayed.

Let's get back on topic also, the topic is emotional and violent responses based on perception. While you have not taken part in a violent riot, your response of passing judgement is problematic. You should be asking questions, not offering answers (speculating). If you have more questions than answers, that is a reasonable doubt. Are you to tell me that this case is so cut-and-dry that it is obvious the inverse of what GZ has said is true?
2013-07-15 04:28:56 PM
1 votes:
http://t.imgbox.com
2013-07-15 04:27:34 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Why not, if you're afraid they are going to use it against you?

A fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death must be reasonable to justify use of deadly force. Absent aggressive behaviour by the firearm carrier, observing a firearm being carried does not establish a reasonable fear.

Alright, you can stop pasting the same jackass question to me because we clearly disagree. Because if someone is starting shiat with me and i see them packing I am going to react in a way that assumes they might use their weapon. Because welcome to America, that's what happens here. People shoot each other.

Then you will likely be arrested or shot. Good luck with that. It helps to know the law.

That's fine, that's a problem, and I'd rather be arrested than shot, and its infuriatingly disingenous that you assert otherwise for yourself.

You're only going to be arrested if you're still alive. That was my point. I don't know what I am asserting that's pissing you off. I'm just telling you how the law interprets what you're talking about.

I dunno, I guess it depends on what your assumption of reasonable fear is.


If there is no intent and the weapon's lack of concealment is accidental, then there is no reasonable assumption of fear *from the weapon*. If the guy with the gun is kicking the shiat out of you (ala Martin) then you would have a case.
2013-07-15 04:12:02 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: DROxINxTHExWIND: But, none of you are racist. Its me.

Now you're beginning to understand.


Best thing I ever did was putting that guy on ignore.  Stupidest thing I ever did was not going into my settings and making sure that I can't see his posts when others quote him.
2013-07-15 03:49:59 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


It's almost like you don't know what half the words you typed mean.
2013-07-15 03:49:02 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: redmid17: CPennypacker: UnspokenVoice: 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?

Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

His self-defense claim was not predicated on who started the altercation. Quit farking that chicken.

Then lets stop assuming Martin started the altercation because that's a bloody pile of feathers at this point


Okay so now we have someone beating up someone and preventing their escape. Self-defense. Glad we could work this out.
2013-07-15 03:46:54 PM
1 votes:
CPennypacker

Again, the only source we have that Martin initiated the altercation in the first place is the person that was facing a murder charge if his claim of self defense didn't hold up.

If you dismiss his story, we're left with nothing to suggest who initiated the altercation, only Martin beating on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shooting Martin (neither of which are in serious doubt). In such a scenario, how could one justify imprisoning Zimmerman for murder?
2013-07-15 03:39:09 PM
1 votes:

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?


Please show where he incited the other to violence. Following someone isn't grounds for violence.
2013-07-15 03:09:02 PM
1 votes:
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 02:13:51 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:44 PM
1 votes:
CPennypacker

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

Count to potato, again, then stop herping.

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

Good job.
2013-07-15 01:36:03 PM
1 votes:
Dimensio

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

He won't answer. He's been asked multiple times. He'd rather play at insulting people than support his own words.
2013-07-15 01:28:22 PM
1 votes:
i586.photobucket.com
2013-07-15 01:08:27 PM
1 votes:

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

[i847.photobucket.com image 401x317]

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

What gives?

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

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

Was Martin's hands bagged?

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

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

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

I'm not wrong in this.

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

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

Whi ...


The prosecution and the AD however are not allowed to hide evidence and fire whistle-blowers who call them out on it.  Both should be disbarred if not outright sent to prison
2013-07-15 12:59:24 PM
1 votes:

skozlaw: dittybopper: To you

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

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


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

*REALLY*?
2013-07-15 12:51:08 PM
1 votes:
I've never been called a racist by so many people as I was on the day I Weenersed on this case.  It had to have been a year ago.  What I said was something to the effect of, "I don't think what Mr. Zimmerman did was illegal."  Evidently I must be a White Hispanic Supremacist or something.
2013-07-15 12:50:41 PM
1 votes:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and blame the assholes who were breaking into houses for this whole mess. They created the atmosphere of suspicion that led to the confrontation.
2013-07-15 12:49:08 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

Very few, if any are calling his story pure fact.  It is, however, evidence.  You may want to educate yourself on what that word means if you wish to have any respect here in these threads.
2013-07-15 12:48:29 PM
1 votes:

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


You don't really know that many lawyers, do you?
2013-07-15 12:44:24 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


What evidence indicates that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime, and what crime does the evidence imply?
2013-07-15 12:42:06 PM
1 votes:

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

Zimmerman would face captial murder charges

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Again, it's bizarre to me that you don't even acquaint youself with the basic facts of criminal trial you claim are unjust.
2013-07-15 12:41:49 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


The eyewitness was John Good.  He looked nothing like a strawman.  But, more to the point, you don't know what a strawman is.  Because, Martin assaulting Zimmerman was seen by an eyewitness and was backed up by physical evidence.
2013-07-15 12:38:05 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

This was a normal self-defense case and the state completely failed to prove that Zimm physically started the fight, brandished his weapon or even used fighting words.
2013-07-15 12:31:41 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


You lost. Go home.
2013-07-15 12:27:34 PM
1 votes:

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

Zimmerman would face captial murder charges

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


You know that article is total farking bullshiat right?  Do some research before you believe everything on the interwebs
2013-07-15 12:19:42 PM
1 votes:

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

There's evidence that Martin swung first?

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

No there isn't. There's evidence Martin is the only one who connected. Considering Zimmerman's fighting skills that's no surprise.

It really makes no practical difference.

If Zimmerman took a swing and missed, Trayvon was still not justified in continuing the assault on the ground while Zimmerman was calling for help, desperately.

What you described is literally the best possible light for Trayvon that could have reasonably occurred. However, it's not supported by any facts or evidence.

And you dutifully mouth unsubstantiated "facts" from the Zimmerman version.

Such as?

There you go. No definitive proof Martin was "continuing the assault" and certainly no definitive evidence it was Zimmerman's voice calling for help.


Actually, it's pretty definitive. The witness Good testified to it, the defense trouted out about 6-8 people who testified it was absolutely Zimmerman when having heard the call the first time alone, and that even Trayvon's own father at the very least implied it was not his son to police officers, who testified to it. The Martin family that said it was Trayvon had absolutely no credibility and did not follow any legal procedure when identifying it as him.

It's not proof, but if you watched the case, it was definitive, in my opinion.
2013-07-15 12:12:15 PM
1 votes:
I'm glad Zimmerman was found not guilty.  And since most of Fark, who was at the scene of the killing every bit as much as I was, can say Zimmerman stalked Martin, I can say Martin was a no good thug that attacked Zimmerman and got his thug ass killed for it.  Good.  Another piece of shiat low life criminal off the streets,

Won't somebody think of the Skittles?

keepcalmandtrayvon.com
2013-07-15 12:11:07 PM
1 votes:

DROxINxTHExWIND: justtray: Check your facts if you're going to make the basis of your beliefs on them.

Mr. Zimmerman said that as he walked back to his vehicle,  Mr. Martin appeared and said, "You got a problem?" Mr. Zimmerman told him he didn't.
"Well you do now," the teenager replied, according to Mr. Zimmerman's account. Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin punched him in the face as he fumbled for his mobile phone to call 9/11. Mr. Zimmerman said he fell backward and Mr. Martin got on top of him and slammed his head on the concrete sidewalk.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/21/zimmermans-version-of-events-mad e- public/


I think I found your problem. You and a lot of others here. Zimmerman's account of the incident is not and should not be viewed as "fact".


It's a fact that he said that, that he's on the recorded call saying it. You seem mad.

It is a fact that you selectively editted my post to remove the portion where I was proving Zimmerman did not say he was hit from behind with no speaking beforehand.

What a shocker that you're a totally dishonest person.
2013-07-15 12:05:33 PM
1 votes:
I agree with the jury.

Only because of the facts I've read. Not the opinions of emotional derp spreaders.
2013-07-15 11:48:49 AM
1 votes:
The Muthaship

At least we got a whole new racial classification out of the deal.

Not really. Zimmerman's still a mestizo. Most Americans don't know what that is, or think "Hispanic" means mestizo, or just aren't aware that much of Latin America is a gradient of mixtures. "White Hispanic" is a thing, but doesn't describe Zimmerman; he's literally as white as Obama.
2013-07-15 11:44:20 AM
1 votes:
No really this came about because a lot of Florida became polarized in the sixties due to it's fast growth. You would have several completely different groups going in for jury duty who had agendas that were leading to a lot of hung juries. The civil rights blacks or their liberal friends from the north would let all the blacks go. The hippies would let all the drug guys go. The Cubans would let all the Cubans go. The rural population would let the country folks go in crimes against developers. And all it took was one on a jury of twelve to void out the entire trial. So they cut it to six except for capital cases and pushed it through the legislature by claiming it would save the government money.


DROxINxTHExWIND : This shiat is totally untrue and irresponsible.

So sorry but this is historical fact. Just because you want to re-invent history and wish it away to fit your preconceived notions of reality doesn't alter what happened.
2013-07-15 11:43:02 AM
1 votes:

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

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

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

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

The law is retarded.

Actually it's eminently sensible.

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


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

Why are you so willfully ignorant?
2013-07-15 11:39:31 AM
1 votes:

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

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

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

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


Even an instigator can claim self-defense if the other person goes deadly, or presses the attack after the instigator withdraws. I still deny that it is reasonable to call Zimmerman an instigator based solely on what we know, but even if we assume that he was, it would seem that self-defense still applies.
2013-07-15 11:32:08 AM
1 votes:

skozlaw: Zimmerman is clearly a complete and racist prick


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, this of course doesn't mean that we can't be friends.
2013-07-15 11:31:47 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

#4 is trivially true, but is a strawman. No one has ever alleged otherwise, and this point has never been at issue. It also derives from your misunderstanding of #1, which was false.
2013-07-15 11:30:15 AM
1 votes:
Phil McKraken

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

In most states, it's legal to be armed, and suggests no ill-will.
2013-07-15 11:28:26 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

The stalking?

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


If Zimmerman had stalked Martin, Florida would have filed those charges. Stalking was mentioned at no point by the prosecution nor in any of the case paperwork. The investigators even said Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal by following Martin.
2013-07-15 11:21:35 AM
1 votes:

99sportster: This text is now purple: Some Bass Playing Guy: Even though GZ was acquitted of all criminal charges, he's hardly innocent. He pulled the trigger and he killed someone.

Are the members of a capital firing squad "innocent"?

Of murder?  Yes they are.  As is George Zimmerman.


Just curious, but are you also of the opinion that abortion is murder?  I was just curious as you seem to have everything worked out, and apparently the world is incredibly black and white.
2013-07-15 11:20:23 AM
1 votes:

Azlefty: Face it Trayvon was shot and killed because Zimmerman was a puss and could not fight


The lesson should be learned is that jumping a guy you think you can take might unexpectedly go poorly should he be in possession of a hand-cannon.

Even Bruce Lee said he would run from a gun.
2013-07-15 11:19:04 AM
1 votes:

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.


The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance can be cured.
2013-07-15 11:18:41 AM
1 votes:

QueenMamaBee: Joe Blowme: All bluster... when was last time Beyonce or any of the J4T tards came out like this for the 40 -50 kids shot every week in Chicago? AW-ing at its finest. If Zimmerman was black, this would not have been a story

So unless someone is outraged all the time, they can't be outraged any of the time?

By the way, I'm not sure where this "40-50 kids shot each day" is coming from... but the average I've seen is about 1 a day (32 a month). Yes, this greatly pisses me off too. If thugs are killing thugs, regardless of their ethnicity, I don't really give a flying fark. You choose the gang life, then you choose the consequences. If you're out shooting randomly and hitting kids, then yes, I'm pissed. I find it hard to believe a competent police force couldn't cut down on those shootings. If the current force isn't doing it, then fark them and start all over.


There were 70+ people shot in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend and 21 were shot this weekend in Chicago alone. Vast majority of those shootings involved a young black male shooting another young black male, but some of those involve a small child getting shot. A 5 year old was shot on July 4th in an attempted gang shooting. 40-50 is far too many AFAIK but one a day is not even close for Chicago.

*young being 25 and under
2013-07-15 11:18:03 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-15 11:14:14 AM
1 votes:

urbangirl: omeganuepsilon: urbangirl: FTFY

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

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

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

It's not as if that's what happened.


Have you evidence that Mr. 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"? I have read reports that Mr. Zimmerman continued to pursue Mr. Martin following a dispatcher's advice that doing so was not necessary, but I am unaware of evidence showing that such continued pursuit actually did occur and -- to my knowledge -- the prosecution even acknowledged an inability to show such behaviour by Mr. Zimmerman.

I readily acknowledge that I may lack confirming information of which you are aware.
2013-07-15 11:14:07 AM
1 votes:

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

All of it.

But, you aren't alone.

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

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


You don't know any of the facts do you?  He was already out of the car by the time the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that".  Immediately after the dispatcher said this, Zimmerman said "OK"

/Know how we know you don't know shiat about this case?
//I like using the word 'know'
2013-07-15 11:13:32 AM
1 votes:

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


Based on the fact that the media has ignored the case in Brunswick, Georgia where last March two teens shot 13 month old baby, Antonio Santiago, in the face during a robbery, the case in New Jersey where two brothers murdered 12 year old Autumn Pasquale and stuffed her body in a trash receptacle just to steal her BMX bike, and the case in Indiana where three men murdered 24 year old Jacqueline Gardner last May just to steal her $85 in tip money, I'd have to say that the case of a white Trayvon Martin being murdered by a black George Zimmerman would have never been sensationalised by the national media and therefore the case would be widely unknown to the American public.
/Sorry if you're not making a serious statement, I see this argument a lot and it just irks me. //A victim is a victim regardless of their race and the race of their murderer. It's sad that only a few cases get such widespread attention.
2013-07-15 11:08:39 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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


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

Can't believe we are still trying this case.  Ugh.
2013-07-15 11:04:57 AM
1 votes:
Of course there were no riots or anything. I'm glad America is finally unified about something, supporting the jury's verdict 100%. In a way, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman have brought us all together again.

Thanks, guys!
2013-07-15 11:04:39 AM
1 votes:
I've been avoiding these threads on purpose, and now that it's over my general feeling is:

www.poojadang.com

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

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

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

But that race stuff. If one of them had been white, you bet it would have been a different case, with different outcomes, and a riot of some kind more likely. That's an elephant that sat right in the middle of the courtroom. That's a battle that's ramping up right now, and we're going to hear a lot more about it over the next few years.
2013-07-15 11:00:37 AM
1 votes:

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


All of it.

But, you aren't alone.
2013-07-15 10:59:33 AM
1 votes:

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


And you'd have been in the wrong, both legally and morally.
2013-07-15 10:56:45 AM
1 votes:

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


Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?  

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

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

The law is retarded.

Actually it's eminently sensible.
2013-07-15 10:53:44 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-15 10:50:28 AM
1 votes:

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


Well, the benefit is that the NAACP and other race based organizations will make millions in fundraising off the verdict.
2013-07-15 10:49:46 AM
1 votes:

Azlefty: Sadly Zimmerman is the  poster child for those who actually use the  gun as a peener replacement.


*TWEEEEET*

Markley's Law violation.  Fifteen yard penalty, and loss of argument.
2013-07-15 10:48:23 AM
1 votes:

Azlefty: Sadly Zimmerman is the  poster child for those who actually use the  gun as a peener replacement.

All of that MMA training, working out and all of his ITG  bravado and yet he still lets the  teenager biatch slap him to the ground where all he can do is scream like a little girl with her panties in a bunch until he shoots  the  kid.

Face it Trayvon was shot and killed because Zimmerman was a puss and could not fight


Pretty much. It is terrible that physically weaker people can use a gun when being over powered by an attacker. They should just take their beating then hit the gym.
2013-07-15 10:47:05 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-15 10:46:46 AM
1 votes:

Some Bass Playing Guy: 99sportster: ikanreed: The Muthaship: Magorn: But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin

Well, one of us is delusional....

There's a difference between not-guilty and innocent.

Really?  "Innocent until proven guilty".  He was not proven guilty, therefore, he IS innocent.

Come back when you understand the difference between a not guilty verdict and being innocent.


If the jury had the option of choosing completely innocent like MOM wanted they might have picked it. As it stands the picked the only option they could to say Zimmerman wasn't criminally liable for shooting Martin.
2013-07-15 10:45:37 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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



Because when you are attacked by some guy that wants to bash your skull into the sidewalk, you need to accept it....
2013-07-15 10:44:05 AM
1 votes:

LarryDan43: God Is My Co-Pirate: dittybopper: I'm very happy that my worst fears about the potential for violence have so far proven to be wrong.

Despite the media's best efforts.

They prayed as hard as they could for the riots to happen.


Funny that's the impression I got from most of the Fark Zimmerman supporters.  I suspect so they could justify their "all black people are evil" mentality.
2013-07-15 10:41:12 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Funny how people who normally say "innocent until proven guilty" are quick to keep labeling Trayvon Martin as a criminal who deserved to die when there's never been any proof he was up to no good that night.
2013-07-15 10:39:32 AM
1 votes:

skozlaw: 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.


Actually, given the identical circumstances, Zimmerman would have likely been acquitted in nearly every other state.  Even in states where you have a duty to retreat, it's only required if you can do it in complete safety.  When George Zimmerman used deadly force (and it appears to be the *ONLY* time he used any significant force at all), he couldn't escape.  He was pinned to the ground by Trayvon Martin.
2013-07-15 10:38:14 AM
1 votes:
Black folks know whats up... Trayvon was asking for it when he attacked.  Not a lot to be outraged about "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong."
2013-07-15 10:37:42 AM
1 votes:

Witty_Retort: I_C_Weener: [www.bet.com image 628x353]

What if Trayvon were white?
What if Zimmerman were a black Hispanic?

5-15 years for manslaughter


What if Zimmerman were an Asian woman with a milk allergy?
2013-07-15 10:37:28 AM
1 votes:

INeedAName: And I'm sure Trayvon would prefer to be dead than convicted of what... maybe starting a fight? Or maybe defending himself?


Probably, but as things currently stand, he doesn't mind. That's an important thing to remember: we cannot help him, and he cannot hurt us. Sending someone we can't be sure is guilty to prison helps no one.
2013-07-15 10:37:14 AM
1 votes:

mafiageek1980: dittybopper: I'm very happy that my worst fears about the potential for violence have so far proven to be wrong.

THIS

and call me gulible, but I think the PSAs about potential riots AND the fact that the parents themselves were asking the public to be peaceful MIGHT have helped prevent some of the rioting.


No no no, that was all racist insults.

The black anchor on CNN said so.

/morans

There is precedent for riots to happen, and threats made which were taken seriously.  Hell, it's theorized the whole trial happened to help prevent riots in the first place, that this whole charade was put on to help alleviate the tension.
2013-07-15 10:35:24 AM
1 votes:
Following?  Well that's a beating!
2013-07-15 10:34:30 AM
1 votes:
I_C_Weener:

What if Trayvon were white?
What if Zimmerman were a black Hispanic?


What if Zimmerman were white?
2013-07-15 10:34:13 AM
1 votes:
One thing that bugged me throughout the trial

Why are there no recent pictures of Trayvon?

The media always seemed to use the picture of him as a 12 year old but he was 17 at the time of the shooting.  Did they not take any photographs of him for 5 years?
2013-07-15 10:33:21 AM
1 votes:
Wait, so in a universe where Martin is "white" (Jewish/Hispanic) and Zimmerman is black, Zimmerman would already be in jail?  This would mean that there is a black man with a job that is living with his wife, is volunteering in his community, is willing to call the police, legally acquired a handgun and shops at Target.  Yep.  That's crazy talk.
2013-07-15 10:31:47 AM
1 votes:

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

Zimmerman would face captial murder charges

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


oh good, another person who doesn't understand that case.
2013-07-15 10:31:35 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: I'm very happy that my worst fears about the potential for violence have so far proven to be wrong.


THIS

and call me gulible, but I think the PSAs about potential riots AND the fact that the parents themselves were asking the public to be peaceful MIGHT have helped prevent some of the rioting.
2013-07-15 10:30:25 AM
1 votes:

The Muthaship: Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't tell Drudge. He's still pretending riots happened.

They seem to have been very scattered and minor incidents.  And that is a good thing.


Geesh, you think it is good that there are scattered riots?

No, a good thing is NO riots because people are civil.

You have a low bar for what you consider good.
2013-07-15 10:30:24 AM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: So the media is surprised that brown people didn't act like savages?


Pretty much, yeah.  It's almost as if the media is part of the problem here.
2013-07-15 10:29:35 AM
1 votes:

AngryDragon: Meanwhile in Chicago...


Why doesn't Obama address THIS?
2013-07-15 10:29:23 AM
1 votes:
2013-07-15 10:29:03 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


As delusional as you are if you think Trayvon was a sweet innocent kid who did no wrong.

Yes Zimmerman should have kept his busybody ass in the car so no one had to die but Trayvon escalated the situation to violence that gave Zimmerman the legal right to respond with lethal force.

You have bought the media idea that the prosecution bungled the job however the fact is they were trying to make Chicken Salad out of chicken shiat.

Trayvon Martin was killed, but he was not murdered.
2013-07-15 10:26:30 AM
1 votes:
From comments in previous threads, I know a lot of Farkers are disappointed that there was no rioting. I think the unrest that came after the Rodney King verdict was in part because of the shock that the officers would walk. Nothing about the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was shocking.
2013-07-15 10:25:02 AM
1 votes:

soupafi: If Martin went home, locked his door and called 911 this wouldn't of happened


but I thought Florida said the correct response to being threatened was not to retreat but to "stand your ground"? Or is that only for Middle-aged white guys?
2013-07-15 10:22:30 AM
1 votes:

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


Zimmerman would face captial murder charges
2013-07-15 10:22:21 AM
1 votes:
I had hoped that the news of Zimmerman's acquittal would have been the last thread we'd see on this, but some people just can't get the racism out of their heads and onto the internet fast enough.

Can't you racists just let it go? The kid's dead. You lost. It's over. Go home.
2013-07-15 10:21:24 AM
1 votes:

God Is My Co-Pirate: dittybopper: I'm very happy that my worst fears about the potential for violence have so far proven to be wrong.

Despite the media's best efforts.


Indeed, this.  I don't think I've ever seen such a concerted effort to stir up hate and incite violence by just about every major media outlet out there.  A very sad state of affairs.
2013-07-15 10:21:16 AM
1 votes:
because  merica agrees with the verdict and the race pimps and hustlers like sharpton and jackson are no longer welcome
2013-07-15 10:20:48 AM
1 votes:
If Martin went home, locked his door and called 911 this wouldn't of happened
2013-07-15 10:19:04 AM
1 votes:
THIS IS NOT AN OUTRAGE!
2013-07-15 10:10:39 AM
1 votes:

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

Probably about as devastated as MSNBC is at the verdict.


And I hasten to add that I'm happy both are disappointed.
2013-07-15 10:10:03 AM
1 votes:

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


Probably about as devastated as MSNBC is at the verdict.
2013-07-15 10:01:12 AM
1 votes:
C'mon people.  Let's see some of the old ultra-violence!  It's good television!  C'mon!  Guys?  Ok.  Maybe..throw a punch?  No?  Ok well let's start small.  Here.  Throw this trash can.  Maybe...can you just sneer at a cop maybe?  No?  Sigh.
2013-07-15 09:44:38 AM
1 votes:

The Muthaship: Diogenes: Was OJ "innocent" too?  You know the difference.

I think you can say he was legally innocent in this case.  I know the finding is not guilty.  But, this is a self defense case.  There's no doubt he killed Martin.  That was undisputed.  The jury found him not guilty because he acted in self defense.

The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense   Essentially, they said he is innocent  Not Guilty  of any crime because The prosecution could not prove  what he did was Not justified.  Said another way, no crime was proven to have been committed.


FTFY.  That is all that happened in that courtroom, and As I said I think the Jury was 100% correct in their conclusions based solely on the case presented.   I don;t for one second believe Zimmerman's account of what happened that night, but as the only other direct witness to the whole thing is dead, we're left with a lack of evidence.   What we do know is tht at best Zimmerman was obscenely reckless on that night.  Here was a man who in the words of his own defense was an incompetent wimp when it came to fighting or self defense, who nonetheless went out of his way to initate a sequence of events that lead to a physical confrontation.   He also happened to be carrying a gun.  Given his inabilityto physically defend himself, that course of action made it nearly inevitable the he'd have to use that gun based on those actions.
2013-07-15 09:35:50 AM
1 votes:
I was watching a livestream of the Oakland rally last night via a protester livestream, when people started throwing things at the cops. The cops reasponded by firing rubber bullets into the crowd, at which point mass pandemonium ensued.

It was highly entertaining.
2013-07-15 09:32:02 AM
1 votes:

Diogenes: Was OJ "innocent" too?  You know the difference.


I think you can say he was legally innocent in this case.  I know the finding is not guilty.  But, this is a self defense case.  There's no doubt he killed Martin.  That was undisputed.  The jury found him not guilty because he acted in self defense.  Essentially, they said he is innocent of any crime because what he did was justified.  Said another way, no crime was committed.
2013-07-15 09:23:47 AM
1 votes:

Magorn: But you are delusional if you think Zimmerman is in any way innocent of the murder of Martin


100% innocent in the lawful killing of the Skittles kid.
 
Displayed 127 of 127 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report