Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NewsBusters)   Zimmerman's lawyer: Hey I thought he was guilty and believed everything the media said before I became his lawyer, then I saw the facts, presented it in court and won. Not my fault Americans are a factless lynch mob   ( newsbusters.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Mark O'Mara, Benjamin Crump, Alan Dershowitz, guilty  
•       •       •

2843 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:38 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



442 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-15 12:21:32 PM  
Yes. A lawyer changed his opinion based off who was paying him.

America was shocked.
 
2013-07-15 12:27:58 PM  
It's also not his fault the prosecutor overreached with the charges.
 
2013-07-15 12:29:44 PM  
From NewsBusters? Really? When have they every bothered with facts before jumping to conclusions?
 
2013-07-15 12:56:28 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-15 12:59:29 PM  
Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.
 
2013-07-15 01:03:50 PM  
Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.
 
2013-07-15 01:08:35 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


I think you still would have been hard to find a jury that would convict no matter what the law said.
 
2013-07-15 01:10:11 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.


You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.
 
2013-07-15 01:15:29 PM  
While NewsBusters has (in my mind and many others, I'm sure) a less-than-stellar reputation, we could always look at the CNN transcript, and glean what we need to know from there: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/12/cnr.13.html

...or glean what we WANT to know from there, anyway.

...and it's CNN... *shrug*
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 01:22:47 PM  

king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.


Well, Martin couldn't have punched Zimmerman in the face if Zimmerman had followed in a car instead of on foot.  Not if the window was up.
 
2013-07-15 01:35:43 PM  
Could have thrown a rock, my point simply is that you can't say anything for certain, because you weren't there, and you don't know the state of mind of either of them
 
2013-07-15 01:35:54 PM  

vpb: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

Well, Martin couldn't have punched Zimmerman in the face if Zimmerman had followed in a car instead of on foot.  Not if the window was up.


Well Zimmerman couldn't have shot Trayvon if he hadn't gone to the store for munchies. The fault is clearly on Martin.
 
2013-07-15 01:39:30 PM  

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x406]


Need more sparkles and wolves in the background with three moons.
 
2013-07-15 01:40:13 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: The problem is the law in the state of Florida. All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman. They made what he did legal.


Even more sadly, is how many people think this case was tried on "Stand your ground".
 
2013-07-15 01:42:13 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


If Zimmerman's parent's wouldn't have farked some 29 or 30 years ago Zimmerman wouldn't be around to kill Martin. I say we charge them with a crime as well since they're partially responsible for this situation.
 
2013-07-15 01:42:58 PM  
Hahahaha - Newsbusters whining about "factless lynch mobs"
 
2013-07-15 01:43:11 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


Yeah... it's because of Florida's stand your ground law that he got off:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-f or -firing-warning-shots/
 
2013-07-15 01:43:14 PM  
Yep, it's almost like a bunch of civilians thought Zimmerman was doing something wrong, so they took the law into their own hands, tracked him down and killed him. Doing something like that would be a terrible injustice.
 
2013-07-15 01:44:54 PM  

CtBORDER: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x406]

Need more sparkles and wolves in the background with three moons.


And a waving flag.
 
2013-07-15 01:45:01 PM  
It still amazes me that people think an overweight 29 year old could "stalk" a young guy who could likely have run much faster than Z could walk

They're both stupid: Z for getting out of the car and carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch regulations, T for not just running back to his house and calling the police. I find it hard to get terribly outraged about two stupid people doing what stupid people do. This kind of thing isn't uncommon

/Don't start pretending I'm a conservative or something, I've earned the ire of both "sides" to this trial
 
2013-07-15 01:45:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: AdolfOliverPanties: The problem is the law in the state of Florida. All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman. They made what he did legal.

Even more sadly, is how many people think this case was tried on "Stand your ground".


For shiat's sake THIS.

SYG had NOTHING to do with this case.  I want to throttle the idiot who tries to blame it on Florida law every time I hear it.  This was a straight up self-defense case.  Period.
 
2013-07-15 01:47:11 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


In every state except maybe Ohio (there's one goofy one out there) what Zimm did was standard self defense.  This had nothing to do w/ SYG, nor has any proof been shown that Zimm is a racist.
 
2013-07-15 01:47:19 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.


The fault in this is obviously 50/50 as Trayvon Martin did go out walking after dark while black. If Trayvon Martin would have just left his black at home that night, he would still be alive today.

It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.
 
2013-07-15 01:48:47 PM  
I was in my workplace lunch room with several middle-aged black ladies when the OJ verdict came in. There was much rejoicing to say the least. It didn't matter that he most likely did the crime - it was only that a black man got off - that was all that mattered and all that will matter here. A black was killed and a "white" guy did it. Automatic guilty.

Pray for America.
 
2013-07-15 01:49:15 PM  

aircraftkiller: I find it hard to get terribly outraged about two stupid people doing what stupid people do.


I totally agree, it just sucks that Z gets to continue to be stupid in public.
 
2013-07-15 01:49:57 PM  

aircraftkiller: It still amazes me that people think an overweight 29 year old could "stalk" a young guy who could likely have run much faster than Z could walk

They're both stupid: Z for getting out of the car and carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch regulations, T for not just running back to his house and calling the police. I find it hard to get terribly outraged about two stupid people doing what stupid people do. This kind of thing isn't uncommon

/Don't start pretending I'm a conservative or something, I've earned the ire of both "sides" to this trial


Darwin, man.
 
2013-07-15 01:50:25 PM  

Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.


Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.
 
2013-07-15 01:51:36 PM  

vonster: Pray for America.


No, I think I'd rather do something than nothing.
 
2013-07-15 01:52:36 PM  

DeathBySmiley: Yes. A lawyer changed his opinion based off who was paying him.


A good lawyer knows to keep his or her opinion out of the equation. It is irrelevant, their job is to represent their client the best they can.
 
2013-07-15 01:52:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: AdolfOliverPanties: The problem is the law in the state of Florida. All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman. They made what he did legal.

Even more sadly, is how many people think this case was tried on "Stand your ground".


Yes and no. Zimmerman's team didn't specifically claim it, no.  But, the judge's instructions to the jury (explaining relevant laws)  did in fact reference explain Stand Your Ground quite directly.
 
2013-07-15 01:54:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.


Reading comprehension fail on your part.
 
2013-07-15 01:54:41 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.


Wrong.  Under the self-defense laws of every state, even those where you have a positive duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have in all likelihood acquitted, given the same facts.

Here is the law in my state (New York):

2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
  under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
  about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
  actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
  complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
  duty to retreat if he or she is:
    (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;


Even if Florida law was identical to that (interestingly, I didn't know NYS had Castle Doctrine), he still would have been covered as he couldn't retreat in complete safety to him and others, because Martin had him pinned to the ground.

This case wasn't what you think it was about.
 
2013-07-15 01:55:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.


The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.
 
2013-07-15 01:55:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's also not his fault the prosecutor overreached with the charges.


...please stop with this. The jury was allowed to consider lesser charges, but acquitted him anyway. In fact, Florida law pretty clearly states that he probably shouldn't have even been tried at all, meaning the prosecutor was "overreaching" by charging him with any crime.  The prosecutor was in zugzwang from Day 1, and he knew it.
 
2013-07-15 01:56:17 PM  

dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

Wrong.  Under the self-defense laws of every state, even those where you have a positive duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have in all likelihood acquitted, given the same facts.

Here is the law in my state (New York):

2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
  under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
  about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
  actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
  complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
  duty to retreat if he or she is:
    (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

Even if Florida law was identical to that (interestingly, I didn't know NYS had Castle Doctrine), he still would have been covered as he couldn't retreat in complete safety to him and others, because Martin had him pinned to the ground.

This case wasn't what you think it was about.


Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?
 
2013-07-15 01:56:34 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder


yes, but now Zimmerman has to live the rest of his life looking over his shoulder for vigilantes who may try to take the law into their own hands.

The hunter has become the hunted.
 
2013-07-15 01:56:49 PM  

hardinparamedic: vonster: Pray for America.

No, I think I'd rather do something than nothing.


How YOU doin'!
 
2013-07-15 01:57:03 PM  
There's not a shred of doubt in my mind...if the facts of the case were exactly the same, except teenage Trayvon was the guy wandering the neighborhood at night with a loaded pistol and GZ was the unarmed dead guy, there would have been an arrest right then and there, TM would have been tried and found guilty and not a single person here would have cared a bit. Including me.
 
2013-07-15 01:57:18 PM  

dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

Wrong.  Under the self-defense laws of every state, even those where you have a positive duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have in all likelihood acquitted, given the same facts.

Here is the law in my state (New York):

2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
  under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
  about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
  actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
  complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
  duty to retreat if he or she is:
    (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

Even if Florida law was identical to that (interestingly, I didn't know NYS had Castle Doctrine), he still would have been covered as he couldn't retreat in complete safety to him and others, because Martin had him pinned to the ground.

This case wasn't what you think it was about.


There's one state in the Midwest that doesn't match the rest of the US (think its Ohio) and the burden of proof is on the defense instead of the prosecution
 
2013-07-15 01:57:35 PM  
The fact that it was Zimmerman who was on the phone with the police not Martin went a long way to corroborate his story. I still think it's his fault but other than being overwhelmingly stupid I don't see that he did anything criminal.

And for god's sake people just because the victim is a different race than the shooter doesn't mean it was racist. All the evidence indicates that Zimmerman followed because Trayvon was wandering around a neighborhood, on foot, at night, in a hoodie not because he was black. I hate to say it but until we can murder each other without immediately jumping to racism we will never live MLK's dream.
 
2013-07-15 01:58:19 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

Wrong.  Under the self-defense laws of every state, even those where you have a positive duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have in all likelihood acquitted, given the same facts.

Here is the law in my state (New York):

2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
  under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
  about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
  actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
  complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
  duty to retreat if he or she is:
    (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

Even if Florida law was identical to that (interestingly, I didn't know NYS had Castle Doctrine), he still would have been covered as he couldn't retreat in complete safety to him and others, because Martin had him pinned to the ground.

This case wasn't what you think it was about.

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?


You think ditty's ever going to say that the guy with the gun was in the wrong?
 
2013-07-15 01:58:46 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


Amazing you're the 11ty billionth person to get it wrong.  If he had invoked stand your ground he'd have had a hearing to avoid trial.  He would have lost that hearing.  He was found not guilty because he used a self defense...defense.  In a civil trial he could face financial penalties regardless if he is found to have been negligent or what have you.  But stand-your-ground does not apply.  But we can all pretend it does right?  maybe it makes you feel more self righteous?
 
2013-07-15 01:58:47 PM  

aircraftkiller: /Don't start pretending I'm a conservative or something, I've earned the ire of both "sides" to this trial


Both sides are bad so vote child killer?

/New spin on old meme.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 02:03:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Even more sadly, is how many people think this case was tried on "Stand your ground".


Yes, everyone who knows that the immunity from prosecution part of the law (776.032) that has gotten the most attention isn't the whole law.  There is a lot more to it than that. (pdf)

Chapter 776.013(3) states:

(3)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.
 
2013-07-15 02:03:29 PM  
I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.
 
2013-07-15 02:04:04 PM  

aircraftkiller: It still amazes me that people think an overweight 29 year old could "stalk" a young guy who could likely have run much faster than Z could walk

They're both stupid: Z for getting out of the car and carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch regulations, T for not just running back to his house and calling the police. I find it hard to get terribly outraged about two stupid people doing what stupid people do. This kind of thing isn't uncommon

/Don't start pretending I'm a conservative or something, I've earned the ire of both "sides" to this trial


ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com

On the left is Zimmerman shortly after the shooting, when he was regularly going to the gym and taking mixed martial arts.  He gained a significant amount of weight before the trial even started, and continued to pack on fat during the trial.  His lawyer claimed that he was gorging out of depression, but a few people theorized he did it to deliberately to project that exact image to the jury.  Too fat to catch the kid, much less win a fight with him.
 
2013-07-15 02:04:09 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: There's not a shred of doubt in my mind...if the facts of the case were exactly the same, except teenage Trayvon was the guy wandering the neighborhood at night with a loaded pistol and GZ was the unarmed dead guy, there would have been an arrest right then and there, TM would have been tried and found guilty and not a single person here would have cared a bit. Including me.


Yeah the law is totally biased in favor of Hispanics.....
 
2013-07-15 02:04:37 PM  

Lawnchair: The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.


The defenses' argument was that Martin was pinned on the ground with Trayvon on top of him, which absolutely nullifies any need for "Stand your ground". You do not need to argue you had no requirement to flee when your argument is that there was no ability to flee.

Perhaps you can explain how you see these two legal strategies "are inextricably linked" in anyone but the general public's minds.
 
2013-07-15 02:05:12 PM  

dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

Wrong.  Under the self-defense laws of every state, even those where you have a positive duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have in all likelihood acquitted, given the same facts.

Here is the law in my state (New York):

2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
  under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
  about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
  actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
  complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
  duty to retreat if he or she is:
    (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

Even if Florida law was identical to that (interestingly, I didn't know NYS had Castle Doctrine), he still would have been covered as he couldn't retreat in complete safety to him and others, because Martin had him pinned to the ground.

This case wasn't what you think it was about.


How'd he have him pinned to the ground while he was in his car?

The ability to retreat without harm was available throughout the entire pre-fight confrontation, therefore, he had a duty to retreat before the fight started. Thus, he can't use deadly force. It's that simple.  No New York jury you could get would not convict Zimmerman for murder.
 
2013-07-15 02:05:42 PM  

aircraftkiller: carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch regulations


He wasn't "on duty" that night, he was returning from a trip to the grocery store.  Does participation in Neighborhood Watch require that you must surrender your CCW license?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 02:05:47 PM  

TDBoedy: Amazing you're the 11ty billionth person to get it wrong.  If he had invoked stand your ground he'd have had a hearing to avoid trial.  He would have lost that hearing.  He was found not guilty because he used a self defense...defense.  In a civil trial he could face financial penalties regardless if he is found to have been negligent or what have you.  But stand-your-ground does not apply.  But we can all pretend it does right?  maybe it makes you feel more self righteous?


Nope.  That's only one part of the law.  Before it was passed you had to use every available means of escape before using deadly force.  Not you can "stand your ground".
 
2013-07-15 02:06:09 PM  
If someone starts a fight with me and I'm winning but end up getting shot in process, I hope my killer goes to jail.
 
2013-07-15 02:07:24 PM  

bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case.


Because it is politically advantageous for a variety of organizations for it to be so.
 
2013-07-15 02:07:56 PM  
If Trayvon Martin was this super-thug to Zimmerman's sissy-boy as the Zimmerman defenders portray, then why wasn't Zimmerman pounded flat? In real fights, where the one winning wants to do real harm to the other, the one getting the worst of it will be in no shape whatsoever to fight back as the one getting pounded will be unconscious. If Zimmerman's bullshiat account was true and Trayvon Martin was on top raining down blows, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Trayvon Martin.
 
2013-07-15 02:08:42 PM  

TDBoedy: Amazing you're the 11ty billionth person to get it wrong.  If he had invoked stand your ground he'd have had a hearing to avoid trial.  He would have lost that hearing.  He was found not guilty because he used a self defense...defense.  In a civil trial he could face financial penalties regardless if he is found to have been negligent or what have you.  But stand-your-ground does not apply.  But we can all pretend it does right?  maybe it makes you feel more self righteous?


Florida law shields anyone who is justified in the use of deadly force from civil punishment.  By being found not guilty, George Zimmerman was found to be justified in the use of deadly force. Therefore, he is protected under Florida law.

Sucks, don't it?
 
2013-07-15 02:10:01 PM  

Befuddled: If Trayvon Martin was this super-thug to Zimmerman's sissy-boy as the Zimmerman defenders portray, then why wasn't Zimmerman pounded flat? In real fights, where the one winning wants to do real harm to the other, the one getting the worst of it will be in no shape whatsoever to fight back as the one getting pounded will be unconscious. If Zimmerman's bullshiat account was true and Trayvon Martin was on top raining down blows, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Trayvon Martin.


I think the point is Zimmerman shot because he couldn't escape and before he was beaten senseless. Which, yet again, is textbook self-defense.

/can't believe i'm commenting in one of these stupid threads
 
2013-07-15 02:11:43 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


It's almost as if you didn't even follow the trial.
 
2013-07-15 02:11:48 PM  

vpb: Before it was passed you had to use every available means of escape before using deadly force. Not you can "stand your ground".


Again, the defense did not argue that Martin had no obligation to flee (stand your ground). They argued straight self defense, based on the argument that Martin was being beaten, and had a reasonable fear of grievous harm or loss of life. This defense is in no way impacted by the presence or absence of "stand your ground" laws and is the same in every jurisdiction.
 
2013-07-15 02:11:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case.

Because it is politically advantageous for a variety of organizations for it to be so.


You hit THAT nail on the head!!! Al Sharpton would be a school janitor if it weren't for (at least perceived) racism.
 
2013-07-15 02:12:37 PM  

IlGreven: The ability to retreat without harm was available throughout the entire pre-fight confrontation, therefore, he had a duty to retreat before the fight started. Thus, he can't use deadly force. It's that simple.  No New York jury you could get would not convict Zimmerman for murder.


You don't have a duty to retreat *PRIOR TO THE PHYSICAL ALTERCATION ITSELF*.

Plus, according to George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin essentially sucker-punched him and then knocked him to the ground.

The prosecution provided *ZERO* evidence to dispute that.

Even if he had a duty to retreat, it was only if he could do it in complete safety to himself and others*, something the prosecution would have to prove.

And yes, New York juries do vote for self-defense.  A jury acquitted Bernie Goetz of everything but carrying a gun without a license.


*I'm assuming this means that if you could escape in complete safety to yourself, but it would require that someone else get hurt, say if your only safe escape involved running over innocent bystanders, then you have no duty to retreat
 
2013-07-15 02:13:14 PM  

Flappyhead: CtBORDER: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x406]

Need more sparkles and wolves in the background with three moons.

And a waving flag.


I always miss one.
 
2013-07-15 02:14:20 PM  
I wasn't really sure what to think, until I saw that recent clip of Zimmerman on Hannity saying that he wouldn't have done anything differently, and that what happened was "all part of God's plan".

There's absolutely no remorse from him that this boy was slain. Not a single shred of doubt.

Pretty sure he followed and taunted Trayvon into a fight without telling him he was Neighborhood Watch or armed, and then shot him. He wanted at least one of the 'thugs' he perceived in his neighborhood to 'get the message', and got exactly what he wanted.

Everything he's said and done, whenever I hear him calmly talk about it, seems quite carefully said. (Sort of like what you guys just mentioned about him gaining that much weight before the trial to seem more easily the victim.) Zimmerman HIMSELF seems like a planner to me, not an idiot, and his 'plan' paid off in the form of a dead kid.

Which is exactly what he wanted from the very beginning, as far as I can tell.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 02:16:52 PM  

bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.


There are a lot of people who are angry about racial issues and this gives them the opportunity to express their anger.
 
2013-07-15 02:18:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.


Weird, I remember the jury instructions, and they were specifically informed that "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground"

I can't imagine how anyone could conclude that this case might have something to do with Stand Your Ground.

The relevant statue was actually 776.041

SYG is 776.012.  And it's part of the same chapter on justified use of force.  In fact, when 776.041 says:
"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:..."
the preceding sections include 776.012.

This semantics game is ridiculous.  They weren't able to press charges initially because of SYG.  The Jury was instructed based on the SYG statute.  The statute ACTUALLY CITED in the defense cites SYG *itself*.
 
2013-07-15 02:18:48 PM  
What gets me the most is why Trayvon was over 200 miles from home at his fathers girlfriends house WHILE on suspension from high school.  If he was my son, he would be grounded and in bed by 11:00 PM or I would be calling child services for help dealing with an uncontrollable teen.

What happened was a tragedy.. but his parents let him down and should be hauled into court for their negligence.
 
2013-07-15 02:19:31 PM  
Have fun indoors Mr Zimmerman. You'll soon be paler than your supporters.
 
2013-07-15 02:21:30 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: 

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?


TM threw the first sucker punch, assaulted GZ pinned him down & beat him. He was on offense dumbass.
 
2013-07-15 02:23:24 PM  

Befuddled: If Trayvon Martin was this super-thug to Zimmerman's sissy-boy as the Zimmerman defenders portray, then why wasn't Zimmerman pounded flat? In real fights, where the one winning wants to do real harm to the other, the one getting the worst of it will be in no shape whatsoever to fight back as the one getting pounded will be unconscious. If Zimmerman's bullshiat account was true and Trayvon Martin was on top raining down blows, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Trayvon Martin.


The fight lasted 40 seconds, give or take.

Pretty hard to pound someone so hard that they lose consciousness in that short a time, even if you are significantly stronger or have better skills.  It would have to be a "Mike Tyson in top form against a small malnourished Asian woman" for it to happen that quickly.

It's actually pretty damned hard thing to do:  I have a scar on my forehead from when I got hit straight on with a billy club.  Took 13 stitches to close the wound.  I was on my feet when it happened, and I was on my feet afterwards, and I never lost consciousness*.  It looked nasty, too, because I was bleeding all over my face.

I'm not claiming bad-ass status here, I'm just pointing out that your apparently preconceived notion of how things must have happened isn't necessarily true.  It takes a *LOT* to knock someone out, and the difference between the amount force required to knock them out, and to kill them, is very, very small.

*Things *DID* go black for a second or two, but I stayed on my feet.
 
2013-07-15 02:23:43 PM  

bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.


It's irrelevant. There are more and more guns in America and every year gun control loses ground. This won't change anything and if anything this trial will strengthen the pro-gun side. It really doesn't matter what people in the rest of the world would do because the US isn't the rest of the world and has little to no interest in what other nations think about it's policies. It's like when people try and convince America to convert to metric because everyone else has. The US just couldn't give a rat's ass what other countries do outside of how it directly impacts America.

It's about race not guns because those in favor of gun control lost the fight and lost badly. Guns are here to stay. Race however is still an open wound in America. A wound that in this case was made worse by the media in an attempt to gain ratings.
 
2013-07-15 02:24:31 PM  

bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.


Actually, quite a few people see this as a solid justification for CCW laws, given that not a single one of the neighbors was willing to step in and stop Marin's assault against Zimmerman, even after Zimmerman began screaming for someone to help.

Still baffles me that everyone expects Zimmerman to have iron self-control and perfect foresight, while they simultaneously expect not the least amount of self-control out of Martin, not even enough to stop hitting the man he has pinned to the ground and that's screaming for someone to help him.
 
2013-07-15 02:24:45 PM  

FeFiFoFark: AdmirableSnackbar: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: 

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?

TM threw the first sucker punch, assaulted GZ pinned him down & beat him. He was on offense dumbass.


Consider the opposing perspective: TM catches GZ following him and notices he has a gun on him. Would you, as TM in this situation, perceive that as a threat?
 
2013-07-15 02:25:30 PM  

FeFiFoFark: AdmirableSnackbar: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: 

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?

TM threw the first sucker punch, assaulted GZ pinned him down & beat him. He was on offense dumbass.


If George Zimmerman pulled his gun out first, that's assault.  Curiously, he was *very* specific about not having his gun out as he was walking around looking for the address of his own house or whatever.  Told the investigators that repeatedly, and unprompted.

We'll never actually know what happened that evening.  We know what the official account has to be, but don't confuse that for the truth.
 
2013-07-15 02:25:31 PM  

bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.


is this a serious question

zimmerman would have never left his house if martin had been white, hth
 
2013-07-15 02:25:56 PM  

BeesNuts: Weird, I remember the jury instructions, and they were specifically informed that "If George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground"



The opposite is true as well.
 
2013-07-15 02:26:09 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.

It's irrelevant. There are more and more guns in America and every year gun control loses ground. This won't change anything and if anything this trial will strengthen the pro-gun side. It really doesn't matter what people in the rest of the world would do because the US isn't the rest of the world and has little to no interest in what other nations think about it's policies. It's like when people try and convince America to convert to metric because everyone else has. The US just couldn't give a rat's ass what other countries do outside of how it directly impacts America.

It's about race not guns because those in favor of gun control lost the fight and lost badly. Guns are here to stay. Race however is still an open wound in America. A wound that in this case was made worse by the media in an attempt to gain ratings.


Ironically, gun control is most often aimed squarely at minorities.  In fact, it's the last real vestige of the old Jim Crow laws, but we're beating them back bit by bit.
 
2013-07-15 02:26:29 PM  
"Lynch mob"

Interesting word choice.  Ironic, possibly?
 
2013-07-15 02:27:25 PM  

dittybopper: Befuddled: If Trayvon Martin was this super-thug to Zimmerman's sissy-boy as the Zimmerman defenders portray, then why wasn't Zimmerman pounded flat? In real fights, where the one winning wants to do real harm to the other, the one getting the worst of it will be in no shape whatsoever to fight back as the one getting pounded will be unconscious. If Zimmerman's bullshiat account was true and Trayvon Martin was on top raining down blows, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Trayvon Martin.

The fight lasted 40 seconds, give or take.

Pretty hard to pound someone so hard that they lose consciousness in that short a time, even if you are significantly stronger or have better skills.  It would have to be a "Mike Tyson in top form against a small malnourished Asian woman" for it to happen that quickly.

It's actually pretty damned hard thing to do:  I have a scar on my forehead from when I got hit straight on with a billy club.  Took 13 stitches to close the wound.  I was on my feet when it happened, and I was on my feet afterwards, and I never lost consciousness*.  It looked nasty, too, because I was bleeding all over my face.

I'm not claiming bad-ass status here, I'm just pointing out that your apparently preconceived notion of how things must have happened isn't necessarily true.  It takes a *LOT* to knock someone out, and the difference between the amount force required to knock them out, and to kill them, is very, very small.

*Things *DID* go black for a second or two, but I stayed on my feet.


Lay off the drugs ditty.  Stop fantasizing about being Zimm.
 
2013-07-15 02:29:22 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case.

Because it is politically advantageous for a variety of organizations for it to be so.


Zimmerman wouldn't have followed a white kid around the neighborhood. And the cops wouldn't have dismissed Martin's death so quickly if Martin had been white.

And someone else said that Martin should have called the cops. Know how I know that someone wasn't black? Because black people don't see cops as someone they can turn to in times of crisis, because why should they when cops automatically assume they're up to no good? Also, remember that the cops didn't identify Martin until his family pushed them to; they just assumed a black kid couldn't possibly be from that neighborhood. And again, the cops did a cursory NARCOTICS investigation and decided that Zimmerman had done nothing wrong. I can't imagine why black people don't trust the cops. shiat, even Levar Burton puts his hands outside his car window when he gets pulled over, and that's in libtardo California, and he's famous.
 
2013-07-15 02:31:13 PM  
Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.
Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Where's the justice?
 
2013-07-15 02:32:19 PM  

Elegy: bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.

Actually, quite a few people see this as a solid justification for CCW laws, given that not a single one of the neighbors was willing to step in and stop Marin's assault against Zimmerman, even after Zimmerman began screaming for someone to help.

Still baffles me that everyone expects Zimmerman to have iron self-control and perfect foresight, while they simultaneously expect not the least amount of self-control out of Martin, not even enough to stop hitting the man he has pinned to the ground and that's screaming for someone to help him.


The one with the Gun should REALLY be the one with the control... the fact is if he just had called the police and listened to their instructions, he wouldn't have been in all this. But then he couldn't have been the hero in his own mind and he wouldn't have gotten the chance to shoot a black kid and get away with it.
 
2013-07-15 02:32:41 PM  

king_nacho: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.

I think you still would have been hard to find a jury that would convict no matter what the law said.


The real key is that Zimmerman's lawyers successfully persuaded the jury that the incident began when Martin was on top.  Nothing up to that point was considered relevant.  Somehow the prosecutor was unable to counter that "logic".
 
2013-07-15 02:32:49 PM  
debbie_does_dishes, BeesNuts--

you can discuss hypotheticals all day/night but it won't make a difference.
 
2013-07-15 02:33:04 PM  

BeesNuts: BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.

Weird, I remember the jury instructions, and they were specifically informed that "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground"

I can't imagine how anyone could conclude that this case might have something to do with Stand Your Ground.

The relevant statue was actually 776.041

SYG is 776.012.  And it's part of the same chapter on justified use of force.  In fact, when 776.041 says:
"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:..."
the preceding sections include 776.012.

This semantics game is ridiculous.  They weren't able to press charges initially because of SYG.  The Jury was instructed based on the SYG statute.  The statute ACTUALLY CITED in the defense cites SYG *itself*.


What is commonly referred to a "Stand Your Ground" is actually at 776.013.  776.012 was enacted in 1974 and states what is basically the law of self defense in almost every state.  Don't get too hung up on the language of the jury instructions.  They are standardized and still in flux due to several recent Fla Supreme Court rulings.
 
2013-07-15 02:33:08 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: vpb: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

Well, Martin couldn't have punched Zimmerman in the face if Zimmerman had followed in a car instead of on foot.  Not if the window was up.

Well Zimmerman couldn't have shot Trayvon if he hadn't gone to the store for munchies. The fault is clearly on Martin.


Let's all be honest here, if Wm. Wrigley Jr Co hadn't produced Skittles, this could all have been avoided. Clearly, the concept of candy is at fault.
 
2013-07-15 02:34:38 PM  

Elegy: bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.

Actually, quite a few people see this as a solid justification for CCW laws, given that not a single one of the neighbors was willing to step in and stop Marin's assault against Zimmerman, even after Zimmerman began screaming for someone to help.

Still baffles me that everyone expects Zimmerman to have iron self-control and perfect foresight, while they simultaneously expect not the least amount of self-control out of Martin, not even enough to stop hitting the man he has pinned to the ground and that's screaming for someone to help him.


We don't expect minors to make good decisions. That's why they can't vote, drink, or buy smokes. Zimmerman was the adult, and the "responsible" authority figure. It was his most basic job to keep his neighborhood safe, and yet because of him a kid from his neighborhood died.
 
2013-07-15 02:34:52 PM  

BeesNuts: FeFiFoFark: AdmirableSnackbar: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: 

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?

TM threw the first sucker punch, assaulted GZ pinned him down & beat him. He was on offense dumbass.

If George Zimmerman pulled his gun out first, that's assault.  Curiously, he was *very* specific about not having his gun out as he was walking around looking for the address of his own house or whatever.  Told the investigators that repeatedly, and unprompted.

We'll never actually know what happened that evening.  We know what the official account has to be, but don't confuse that for the truth.


Because having a CCW means you keep it concealed otherwise bye bye license and hello brandishing charges
 
2013-07-15 02:36:39 PM  

IlGreven: TDBoedy: Amazing you're the 11ty billionth person to get it wrong.  If he had invoked stand your ground he'd have had a hearing to avoid trial.  He would have lost that hearing.  He was found not guilty because he used a self defense...defense.  In a civil trial he could face financial penalties regardless if he is found to have been negligent or what have you.  But stand-your-ground does not apply.  But we can all pretend it does right?  maybe it makes you feel more self righteous?

Florida law shields anyone who is justified in the use of deadly force from civil punishment.  By being found not guilty, George Zimmerman was found to be justified in the use of deadly force. Therefore, he is protected under Florida law.

Sucks, don't it?


Not completely true.
Zimmerman was found not guilty by reason of self-defense, which means the family can still go after him in a civil case for wrongful death.
The stand your ground law provides immunity from both criminal and civil consequences - but Zimmerman didn't claim that - so he's still open for being sued.
 
2013-07-15 02:37:20 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


He was also a neighbor of a series of people whose homes had been burglarized recently. As head of the neighborhood watch program, it was his responsibility to try to help the cops do a better job of reducing crime in his neighborhood.

Until you live across the street from murderers and a house full of 30 or so illegals who pay $100 a month for mattress rental, you have no idea how quickly a neighborhood can go bad.

What Zimmerman did was wrong. What Martin did was wrong. The police should have stepped up patrols in that neighborhood after the first burglary. But that would mean the citizens paying more taxes. They'd just rather have a few dead Negros instead. Cheaper for them.
 
2013-07-15 02:40:31 PM  

Karac: IlGreven: TDBoedy: Amazing you're the 11ty billionth person to get it wrong.  If he had invoked stand your ground he'd have had a hearing to avoid trial.  He would have lost that hearing.  He was found not guilty because he used a self defense...defense.  In a civil trial he could face financial penalties regardless if he is found to have been negligent or what have you.  But stand-your-ground does not apply.  But we can all pretend it does right?  maybe it makes you feel more self righteous?

Florida law shields anyone who is justified in the use of deadly force from civil punishment.  By being found not guilty, George Zimmerman was found to be justified in the use of deadly force. Therefore, he is protected under Florida law.

Sucks, don't it?

Not completely true.
Zimmerman was found not guilty by reason of self-defense, which means the family can still go after him in a civil case for wrongful death.
The stand your ground law provides immunity from both criminal and civil consequences - but Zimmerman didn't claim that - so he's still open for being sued.


Just because he didn't claim it doesn't mean he didn't waive it.  Since he won on a standard self-defense claim, it becomes trivial to get a SYG waiver.
 
2013-07-15 02:42:04 PM  
as someone upthread already said, two stupid people acting stupid. One is dead, but I'll bet Darwin catches-up with GZ very soon.
 
2013-07-15 02:44:02 PM  
haha stupid anti Zimmerman people who had their mind made up before they got all the facts. I, the smart one, also had my mind made up before I got all the facts but my side one therefore I am smarter than you and I do a celebration dance while you watch and cry about it.
 
2013-07-15 02:44:47 PM  

dittybopper: Plus, according to George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin essentially sucker-punched him


Once again...the word of the shooter is taken at face value.

I have to wonder how many people would be so inclined to accept the killer's version of events if the killer had been Trayvon Martin.  Very few, I'd wager.
 
2013-07-15 02:45:31 PM  

falcon176: haha stupid anti Zimmerman people who had their mind made up before they got all the facts. I, the smart one, also had my mind made up before I got all the facts but my side one therefore I am smarter than you and I do a celebration dance while you watch and cry about it.


also I intentionally use one instead of won to give you a glimmer of hope that I may not be infallible but this is not the case
 
2013-07-15 02:45:34 PM  

falcon176: haha stupid anti Zimmerman people who had their mind made up before they got all the facts. I, the smart one, also had my mind made up before I got all the facts but my side one therefore I am smarter than you and I do a celebration dance while you watch and cry about it.


Did you got to Harvard or Yale?
 
2013-07-15 02:45:36 PM  
Good lord - the stupidity/ignorance in this thread makes me long for a good old fashioned gun thread that argues the same thing over and over and over again.

/won't be coming to any of these threads in the future
//have fun with this crap, everyone.
 
2013-07-15 02:46:28 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: falcon176: haha stupid anti Zimmerman people who had their mind made up before they got all the facts. I, the smart one, also had my mind made up before I got all the facts but my side one therefore I am smarter than you and I do a celebration dance while you watch and cry about it.

Did you got to Harvard or Yale?


nice try lib
 
2013-07-15 02:46:28 PM  
It's clear that George Zimmerman created the circumstances that led to Trayvon Martin's death. And while it's likely that George Zimmerman is an overzealous, possibly racist, individual who should not own a gun, those are all assessments that are not sufficient to bring a murder conviction. The prosecution had a bad case and they presented it even worse. The jury was asked to consider whether Zimmerman broke "the law" and the fact that it's a bad law is really irrelevant.

In addition, the way this case was devoured in the 24-hour news cycle was despicable, with a liberal media that was clownishly over-invested in Zimmerman's guilt, and the ghoulish conservative media's constant smirk at what they characterized as just another black thug who had what was coming to him.

In the end, though...none of this makes Trayvon any less dead, his many any less devastated, or Zimmerman any less of a killer. He just simply wasn't guilty of what he was charged with.
 
2013-07-15 02:49:23 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: bikkurikun: I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.

Actually, quite a few people see this as a solid justification for CCW laws, given that not a single one of the neighbors was willing to step in and stop Marin's assault against Zimmerman, even after Zimmerman began screaming for someone to help.

Still baffles me that everyone expects Zimmerman to have iron self-control and perfect foresight, while they simultaneously expect not the least amount of self-control out of Martin, not even enough to stop hitting the man he has pinned to the ground and that's screaming for someone to help him.

We don't expect minors to make good decisions. That's why they can't vote, drink, or buy smokes. Zimmerman was the adult, and the "responsible" authority figure. It was his most basic job to keep his neighborhood safe, and yet because of him a kid from his neighborhood died.


And that's assuming Martin wasn't intentionally provoked in the first place.

Essentially, that's my family's theory. The testimony had a witness or two mentioning the pair exchanging unheard words (though I may be misremembering), so the way we see it Zimmerman seems like he planned this out: "If I can taunt this kid into throwing ONE punch, enough to show the police on my face that he fought, then I can pull out my concealed weapon and shoot him."

So he did.
 
2013-07-15 02:49:39 PM  
I think they should dig him up and shoot him again.

/lib
 
2013-07-15 02:50:52 PM  

falcon176: TheShavingofOccam123: falcon176: haha stupid anti Zimmerman people who had their mind made up before they got all the facts. I, the smart one, also had my mind made up before I got all the facts but my side one therefore I am smarter than you and I do a celebration dance while you watch and cry about it.

Did you got to Harvard or Yale?

nice try lib


Oh. Obviously Rutgers.
 
2013-07-15 02:52:43 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.
Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Where's the justice?


If I could smack the SMART button a dozen times, I would.
 
2013-07-15 02:54:50 PM  
How long before we can sensibly reflect on this and discuss the real lessons that should have been learned here?

1) If you're in the neighborhood watch, that's all you're supposed to do: WATCH. Do not pursue, do not confront, you're not a cop and it's not your job. You can take photos of suspicious characters, write down their license plates if they're driving, but don't go any further than that and absolutely don't get out of your car to follow anyone. It's a real good way to get jumped, especially since it's late and you're tailing people, which makes YOU look pretty suspicious yourself.

2) If you're cutting through a neighborhood late at night, even your own neighborhood, there's a good chance the neighborhood watch will notice you. If they're stupid and ignore Rule 1, they might even follow you. Go straight home, call the cops if you feel really uncomfortable, but don't be an idiot and try to take them on yourself. That person could be armed, and no matter what your 17-yr-old hormones are telling you, you're not indestructable.

Further questions for consideration: If Zimmerman had been unarmed and Martin just beat the crap out of him, how many charges would Martin be facing right now? What if he had jumped an actual plainclothes deputy instead of a wanna-be cop? Given that there were witnesses, how does any outcome of this fight go in Martin's favor?
 
2013-07-15 02:56:57 PM  

debbie_does_dishes: FeFiFoFark: AdmirableSnackbar: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: 

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?

TM threw the first sucker punch, assaulted GZ pinned him down & beat him. He was on offense dumbass.

Consider the opposing perspective: TM catches GZ following him and notices he has a gun on him. Would you, as TM in this situation, perceive that as a threat?


Rachel Jaentel said nothing about a gun. And if it were Martin on top of Zimmerman screaming for his life, he still didn't mention a gun. While possible, very implausible if you use common sense. It seems clear TM came back to confront Zimmerman. The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following because of wind noise and his labored breathing. When he told Z that he didn't need to follow Martin, he said ok and in seconds, the windo noise stopped and his breathing returned to normal. The dispatcher asked Z for his address and Z started to give it, but stopped because he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want him to overhear it. So for two minutes at least, Martin was nowhere in sight and Z never went after him.

This is not my interpretation - this is what you can hear on the tapes. You keep wishing for a scenario that attacks Zimmerman, but these are the facts.
 
2013-07-15 02:57:00 PM  
LOL, he basically states that the media unfairly portrayed Zimmerman by showing him at the weight he was when he shot Martin, and then went on to make sure Zimmerman lost a shiat-ton of weight before the trial so that he could manipulate the jurors into thinking that Martin was less threatening.

Sounds like he's FINE with manipulation when he's the one doing it.
 
2013-07-15 02:57:37 PM  

EdgeRunner: Further questions for consideration: If Zimmerman had been unarmed and Martin just beat the crap out of him, how many charges would Martin be facing right now? What if he had jumped an actual plainclothes deputy instead of a wanna-be cop? Given that there were witnesses, how does any outcome of this fight go in Martin's favor?


A lot of charges. He'd be in jail until the end of time. And, HM, GEE, Zimmerman's story has some very strange holes in it. HMM.
 
2013-07-15 02:58:19 PM  

BeesNuts: Lay off the drugs ditty.  Stop fantasizing about being Zimm.


What?   Seriously.  My incident happened in 1989, and as I expressly pointed out, I'm no bad-ass.

I was pointing out how hard it is to actually knock someone out, even with a weapon, because apparently Befuddled thought that it was easy to do.  Life ain't like the movies, you know.

/Spent the rest of that night at Tripler Army Medical Center.
//Forehead was stitched up by an oral surgeon.
///Typical Army.
 
2013-07-15 03:00:21 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.
Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Where's the justice?


If these were actual facts then there would have been no problem convicting fatso of murder.

Do you always rely on MSNBC and CNN for all your "facts"?
 
2013-07-15 03:00:52 PM  

EdgeRunner: 2) If you're cutting through a neighborhood late at night, even your own neighborhood, there's a good chance the neighborhood watch will notice you. If they're stupid and ignore Rule 1, they might even follow you. Go straight home, call the cops if you feel really uncomfortable, but don't be an idiot and try to take them on yourself. That person could be armed, and no matter what your 17-yr-old hormones are telling you, you're not indestructable.

Further questions for consideration: If Zimmerman had been unarmed and Martin just beat the crap out of him, how many charges would Martin be facing right now? What if he had jumped an actual plainclothes deputy instead of a wanna-be cop? Given that there were witnesses, how does any outcome of this fight go in Martin's favor?


1) Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch.  For all he knew, Zimmerman was going to rob him.
2) Zimmerman wasn't a cop.  As shocking a statement as this is for fark - a cop would have behaved more responsibly and would have been less likely to end up killing someone for suspicion of walking while black.
 
2013-07-15 03:01:26 PM  

Kittypie070: Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.
Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Where's the justice?

If I could smack the SMART button a dozen times, I would.


That's how I see it, but the problem is that there is no evidence of what actually triggered the physical altercation. Disobeying a dispatcher's orders is not a crime in this case, and no one knows how the fight began aside from Zimmerman and Martin. Alas, only one of those people lived to tell the story, and that's pretty much all the jury had to work with. You're not allowed to fill in the gaps with your imagination or prejudices as a juror, and that is a fundamental principle of our judicial system. Let us not forget that in the United States, we prefer to set a guilty person free than to incarcerate an innocent person out of an overabundance of caution. I am pretty sure every juror thinks Zimmerman is a piece of shiat and that the outcome of this trial does not bring justice to Martin's family, but they followed strict instructions and considered only the admissible evidence. So it goes.
 
2013-07-15 03:04:07 PM  

saintstryfe: The one with the Gun should REALLY be the one with the control... the fact is if he just had called the police and listened to their instructions, he wouldn't have been in all this. But then he couldn't have been the hero in his own mind and he wouldn't have gotten the chance to shoot a black kid and get away with it.


I would argue that Zimmerman showed a reasonable amount of restraint in using his weapon. According the Lauer 911 call Zimmerman was screaming for help for at least 30-40 seconds while getting pummeled, and we know Lauer called 911 some time after the confrontation started. That is, at a minimum, 30-40 seconds longer than the law obligates him to take a beating, because the self-defense laws in Florida (and most states, for that matter) don't actually require you to take any punishment before you can claim self-defense.

Zimmerman also fired a single shot, the minimum needed to stop the threat to himself - he didn't pump Martin's body full of lead and empty the clip into him, he didn't fire wildly into the air. He shot once, stopped the threat to himself, and put away the gun.

Saying Zimmerman "should have been in control" doesn't excuse the fact that Martin showed not one iota of control when he continued to hit Zimmerman.

Mike Chewbacca: We don't expect minors to make good decisions. That's why they can't vote, drink, or buy smokes. Zimmerman was the adult, and the "responsible" authority figure. It was his most basic job to keep his neighborhood safe, and yet because of him a kid from his neighborhood died.


What 17 year old doesn't know that beating a man while he's helpless, on the ground, and screaming for help is wrong? What 17 year old doesn't know that he should stop when an adult (John Good) yells at him to stop and that he's going to call the police? Again, you are attempting to lay all of the responsibility on Zimmerman, while absolving Martin of any part in the altercation. Just because a 17 year old is technically a minor gives him the right to mercilessly beat you, and completely abrogates your own right to defend yourself? The defense of "he was just a stupid kid" goes only so far, and Martin's actions pushed past the boundary of stupidity and into willful malice and actively attempting to seriously injure another person.

Regardless of what happened during the initial confrontation while Zimmerman was on the phone with the non-emergency dispatcher, regardless of what happened to initiate the confrontation, Martin is directly responsible for his behavior immediately prior to the shooting, and it is that behavior which was the direct cause of his death. Not "walking while black," not "being profiled" - continuing to assault a man who was helpless, on the ground and screaming for help.

People love to forget that Martin refused to stop hitting Zimmerman when Zimmerman obviously didn't want any part of the fight, and people love to forget that Martin-the-minor ignored an adult that directly told him to stop, and directly told him that the police were being called on him.

Martin was directly responsible for his own death, and he never would have been shot had he stopped beating on Zimmerman at any point prior to being shot.

People love to forget that last part, so let me say it again: Martin never would have been shot if he'd shown one once of self control and quit beating on Zimmerman when either Zimmerman started yelling for help, or when John Good told him to stop.
 
2013-07-15 03:05:03 PM  

Elegy: Martin never would have been shot if he'd shown one once of self control and quit beating on Zimmerman when either Zimmerman started yelling for help, or when John Good told him to stop.


Martin would not have been shot if Zimmerman had shown one ounce of self control and not initiated the confrontation.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 03:09:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: vpb: Before it was passed you had to use every available means of escape before using deadly force. Not you can "stand your ground".

Again, the defense did not argue that Martin had no obligation to flee (stand your ground). They argued straight self defense, based on the argument that Martin was being beaten, and had a reasonable fear of grievous harm or loss of life. This defense is in no way impacted by the presence or absence of "stand your ground" laws and is the same in every jurisdiction.


They didn't show that Zimmerman had no avenue of escape because they didn't have to because of the changes made to the FL code by the stand your ground law, so yes they did use the SYG law and no it isn't the same in every jurisdiction.

The judges instructions to the jury specifically cites the stand your ground law, and even includes the phrase "stand your ground"

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it wasnecessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to preventthe commission of a forcible felony.

I don't know if you are an NRA troll or uninformed, but you are wrong.
 
2013-07-15 03:09:14 PM  

BlastYoBoots: so the way we see it Zimmerman seems like he planned this out: "If I can taunt this kid into throwing ONE punch, enough to show the police on my face that he fought, then I can pull out my concealed weapon and shoot him."


Then why did this criminal mastermind Zimmerman wait at least 30-40 seconds -the length of the screaming on the Lauer tape - before he used his weapon?

Why did he scream for so long for someone, anyone, to help him?

Why didn't he just plug the Martin right away and be done with it, if he wanted to kill a black kid so badly?

Why did he risk someone intervening in the fight and stopping his carefully crafted plan to kill an innocent child by screaming for help for so long?

Your theory is stupid. I will forego commenting on the collective intelligence of your family, but know that I want to.
 
2013-07-15 03:10:31 PM  

dittybopper: Befuddled: If Trayvon Martin was this super-thug to Zimmerman's sissy-boy as the Zimmerman defenders portray, then why wasn't Zimmerman pounded flat? In real fights, where the one winning wants to do real harm to the other, the one getting the worst of it will be in no shape whatsoever to fight back as the one getting pounded will be unconscious. If Zimmerman's bullshiat account was true and Trayvon Martin was on top raining down blows, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Trayvon Martin.

The fight lasted 40 seconds, give or take.

Pretty hard to pound someone so hard that they lose consciousness in that short a time, even if you are significantly stronger or have better skills.  It would have to be a "Mike Tyson in top form against a small malnourished Asian woman" for it to happen that quickly.

It's actually pretty damned hard thing to do:  I have a scar on my forehead from when I got hit straight on with a billy club.  Took 13 stitches to close the wound.  I was on my feet when it happened, and I was on my feet afterwards, and I never lost consciousness*.  It looked nasty, too, because I was bleeding all over my face.

I'm not claiming bad-ass status here, I'm just pointing out that your apparently preconceived notion of how things must have happened isn't necessarily true.  It takes a *LOT* to knock someone out, and the difference between the amount force required to knock them out, and to kill them, is very, very small.

*Things *DID* go black for a second or two, but I stayed on my feet.


If you think fights last more than 40 secs, you haven't been in many.
 
2013-07-15 03:13:56 PM  

qorkfiend: not initiated the confrontation


Pick your reply:

1. Initiating the confrontation was not the predominant factor leading to Martin's death - continuing to beat a helpless man who was screaming for someone to intervene was the predominant factor leading to his death.
2. Proof of your claim, please. I would also suggest that if you withheld such crucial evidence from the prosecution team, there are some people that would like to have a word with you.
3. The prosecution's own witness Rachel Jeantel said that she heard Martin speak to Zimmerman first.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 03:15:07 PM  

dittybopper: Ironically, gun control is most often aimed squarely at minorities.  In fact, it's the last real vestige of the old Jim Crow laws, but we're beating them back bit by bit.


Uh, no.  Trying to conflate gun nuttery with civil rights is too bizarre to take seriously.
 
2013-07-15 03:15:13 PM  

dittybopper: Plus, according to George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin essentially sucker-punched him and then knocked him to the ground.


dittybopper: The fight lasted 40 seconds, give or take.


Wow!  With all this information it's a wonder you weren't called as a witness in this trial.  Maybe it's a psychic thing?

Or are you one of those simpletons  given to believing every narrative you hear a defense team throw down during the course of a trial in order to generate reasonable doubt?

Hint: it's more of a "what if" than a "these are the facts."
 
2013-07-15 03:16:06 PM  
when this took place in 2012 it occured to me, how does a gated community not have surveillance cameras???
 
2013-07-15 03:18:43 PM  
Zimmerman: I'm gonna be a hero and catch me a street hood up to no good.

Martin: I'm gonna be a hero and teach this perv/weirdo not to target me or any other kids ever again.

One hero was out-gunned.
 
2013-07-15 03:20:39 PM  

king_nacho: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.

I think you still would have been hard to find a jury that would convict no matter what the law said.


Thats is one of the many MANY reasons we have a florida tag.
 
2013-07-15 03:22:33 PM  

Elegy: BlastYoBoots: so the way we see it Zimmerman seems like he planned this out: "If I can taunt this kid into throwing ONE punch, enough to show the police on my face that he fought, then I can pull out my concealed weapon and shoot him."

Then why did this criminal mastermind Zimmerman wait at least 30-40 seconds -the length of the screaming on the Lauer tape - before he used his weapon?

Why did he scream for so long for someone, anyone, to help him?

Why didn't he just plug the Martin right away and be done with it, if he wanted to kill a black kid so badly?

Why did he risk someone intervening in the fight and stopping his carefully crafted plan to kill an innocent child by screaming for help for so long?

Your theory is stupid. I will forego commenting on the collective intelligence of your family, but know that I want to.


Well, because he wanted to get away with it? Screaming for help within earshot of a 911 operator clearly helped his case. And it certainly wouldn't have gotten Martin to stop if he was provoked into the fight by a few well-placed taunts and pejoratives, as this theory goes; it'd be exactly the sort of ego-feeding you would want if some blowhard taunted you hard enough for you to strike the first blow.

Here's a cry that would have been more effective at getting Martin off him, if that was what he wanted: "Stop, I have a gun, I'll shoot!"

In fact, if he'd really gotten Martin to go down on top of him, then screaming long enough for a witness to show up would have actually *helped* his case. All the witness would have seen is Martin on top of him, Zimmerman in a vulnerable position, and the "tragic" weapon discharge. He'd have been cleared twice as fast.

With all the vagueness in this case, there's at least one consensus my family has: Zimmerman was no "idiot".

But I do agree, this is a total csb, and we're rattling an opinion out of our asses based on subjective personality judgment. I don't pretend to know what really happened.
 
2013-07-15 03:23:45 PM  

EdgeRunner: 1) If you're in the neighborhood watch, that's all you're supposed to do: WATCH. Do not pursue, do not confront, you're not a cop and it's not your job. You can take photos of suspicious characters, write down their license plates if they're driving, but don't go any further than that and absolutely don't get out of your car to follow anyone. It's a real good way to get jumped, especially since it's late and you're tailing people, which makes YOU look pretty suspicious yourself.


Isn't that what Zimmerman was trying to do, watch?  Martin went between buildings where Zimmerman could no longer see him.  According to him, and there is no evidence or testimony that disputes that, he was merely trying to keep visual contact with Martin so that he could guide the police.

Whether or not it was a wise decision given what we know now is debatable, but based on what Zimmerman knew at that moment in time, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable that he might get out of his vehicle to see where Martin ran to.
 
2013-07-15 03:24:32 PM  

Blathering Idjut: Or are you one of those simpletons  given to believing every narrative you hear a defense team throw down during the course of a trial in order to generate reasonable doubt?

Hint: it's more of a "what if" than a "these are the facts.


Or, maybe he watched the trial and watched the testimony of the prosecution's own witnesses and the presentation of the physical and forensic evidence?

You certainly live up to your fark handle.

gittlebass: when this took place in 2012 it occured to me, how does a gated community not have surveillance cameras???


"Gated community" is something of misnomer that has been bandied about in the media quite a bit. It leads you to think of an upper class golf course community, doesn't it? The neighborhood was actually a lower-middle class, multiracial community of split-level town homes. Tract housing, basically, and tract housing so cheap that the exterior of the town homes didn't vary.

This is the back of the town homes, but I'm sure you get the idea:
i.imgur.com

IIRC some of the surveillance cameras inside the community were inoperable at the time of the event. The one camera that was entered into evidence was near the clubhouse, and showed nothing more than Zimmerman driving past. It evidently didn't have IR capabilities, so the footage was barely recognizable at that.
 
2013-07-15 03:26:57 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:


Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.
Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Where's the justice?


Where is the evidence that Zimmerman confronted the unarmed Martin?  All the evidence seems to point to him following Martin, and when Martin recognized this he decided to confront Zimmerman.  He also followed Zimmerman back to his car which means he then became the aggressor and cannot claim self defense.

Had Martin just continued to walk home and eat his skittles and watch TV he'd be alive.  But he decided to fight someone who he didn't know was armed because he liked to fight and prove he was a badass, which there is ample evidence of as well.

Both men acted stupid that night, but to try to put all the blame on Zimmerman is stupid, and the jury agreed.
 
2013-07-15 03:29:52 PM  

Karac: 1) Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch.  For all he knew, Zimmerman was going to rob him.


For all he knew, Zimmerman was a cop.
 
2013-07-15 03:30:43 PM  

Elegy: What 17 year old doesn't know that beating a man while he's helpless,


Elegy: continuing to beat a helpless man who was screaming


Considering the fact that Zimmerman was armed and shot Trayvon Martin to death, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on your use of the word "helpless." I would consider neither of the people involved in this altercation to be helpless. I would consider one to be a minor walking around his own neighborhood at a reasonable time of evening, and the other to be a person in a position of authority and responsibility. It was not Trayvon Martin's job to avoid George Zimmerman. It was George Zimmerman's job to keep his neighborhood safe. I will not blame a teenager for making a bad decision (choosing to confront Zimmerman instead of running home). I will blame an adult authority figure for making several bad decisions in a row that directly led to the death of a teenager.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 03:35:45 PM  

Cataholic: What is commonly referred to a "Stand Your Ground" is actually at 776.013.  776.012 was enacted in 1974 and states what is basically the law of self defense in almost every state.  Don't get too hung up on the language of the jury instructions.  They are standardized and still in flux due to several recent Fla Supreme Court rulings.


Nope.  The stand your ground law modified several sections of law including 776.12 and and created several new sections including 776.13.

SYG amended 716.12 to include the line:
(2)Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
"Standing your ground" was not permitted before the SYG law.  It would never have been in a judges instructions before the SYG law, it would have been grounds for a mistrial.

Here's the 2004 version if you want to look. (which I doubt)
 
2013-07-15 03:37:22 PM  
Too bad there wasn't anyone watching the whole thing, out a window or something. An eye witness could really shed some light on things. Combine an eye witness testimony and what we know of the crime scene, and you could create a pretty clear picture of what happened. Somebody good at claymation could even do an animation.
 
2013-07-15 03:38:51 PM  

dittybopper: Karac: 1) Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch.  For all he knew, Zimmerman was going to rob him.

For all he knew, Zimmerman was a cop.


Did Zimmerman identify himself as a cop? If not, then Martin had no reason at all to believe he was a cop.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 03:41:00 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.
Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Where's the justice?


The justice is in not being judged on facts that are not relevant to the case like the first four, pure speculation (#5) and perfectly legal (#6 unless you can prove #5)
 
2013-07-15 03:41:31 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

This was a racist, wannabe cop vigilante with a short temper, a shiatty brain that makes horrible decisions and a chip on his shoulder.

Gun owners have a responsibility to be the cooler head, to go away from conflict and confrontation when they are carrying.  They are the ones with the responsibility to ONLY use the weapon in self-defense, and to NOT go looking for situations where they may be forced to defend themselves with it.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but according to the farked up Florida law, he did nothing illegal.

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.


IVe never agreed with you on anything before, but this post makes alot of sense.

Laws that allow fat shiatbag wannabe cowboys to walk around with loaded guns looking for trouble, and let them off scot-free when they kill someone after finding trouble, are the problem here.
 
2013-07-15 03:41:32 PM  

king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.


EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?
 
2013-07-15 03:42:43 PM  

Lawnchair: BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.

The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.


No. No they are NOT. Jesus, will you people who didn't follow the trial cool it with your legal GEDs? The defense was self-defense. SYG has to do with an obligation to retreat. He had no way to do that. That was NOT the defense and they are not linked. Not in this case.
 
2013-07-15 03:43:23 PM  

aircraftkiller: It still amazes me that people think an overweight 29 year old could "stalk" a young guy who could likely have run much faster than Z could walk

They're both stupid: Z for getting out of the car and carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch regulations, T for not just running back to his house and calling the police. I find it hard to get terribly outraged about two stupid people doing what stupid people do. This kind of thing isn't uncommon

/Don't start pretending I'm a conservative or something, I've earned the ire of both "sides" to this trial


Oh really?  Why should Martin have to run away?  He was being stalked by a strange man in his own neighborhood, he had a right to self-defense.

Trayvon Martin  stood his ground, and for that he was killed and his murderer walks the streets.
 
2013-07-15 03:44:49 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Considering the fact that Zimmerman was armed and shot Trayvon Martin to death, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on your use of the word "helpless." I would consider neither of the people involved in this altercation to be helpless. I would consider one to be a minor walking around his own neighborhood at a reasonable time of evening, and the other to be a person in a position of authority and responsibility.


"Physically helpless until he resorted to his last possible defense." Better? Because there is little doubt that Zimmerman couldn't break free from the attack physically.

Mike Chewbacca: It was not Trayvon Martin's job to avoid George Zimmerman. It was George Zimmerman's job to keep his neighborhood safe. I will not blame a teenager for making a bad decision (choosing to confront Zimmerman instead of running home). I will blame an adult authority figure for making several bad decisions in a row that directly led to the death of a teenager.


You keep dodging my question. I'm not asking your opinion of the confrontation, or who started it. I'm asking you about the END of the fight, when the shot was fired.

I am specifically asking you to enunciate how Martin's continued to beating of Zimmerman is justifiable in your own mind, after: a) Zimmerman obviously didn't want to fight and started screaming for help; and b) at least one other adult told Martin to stop and that he was calling the police because of Martin's continuing behavior.

I would also like you to tell me why Zimmerman's "bad" - but provably legal - decisions obligate him to take a beating and prevent from acting in self-defense from a beating that had the potential for serious injury to himself, most especially when that beating shows no sign of stopping and none of the neighbors made any motion whatsoever to physically intervene.
 
2013-07-15 03:45:06 PM  

Karac: EdgeRunner: 2) If you're cutting through a neighborhood late at night, even your own neighborhood, there's a good chance the neighborhood watch will notice you. If they're stupid and ignore Rule 1, they might even follow you. Go straight home, call the cops if you feel really uncomfortable, but don't be an idiot and try to take them on yourself. That person could be armed, and no matter what your 17-yr-old hormones are telling you, you're not indestructable.

Further questions for consideration: If Zimmerman had been unarmed and Martin just beat the crap out of him, how many charges would Martin be facing right now? What if he had jumped an actual plainclothes deputy instead of a wanna-be cop? Given that there were witnesses, how does any outcome of this fight go in Martin's favor?

1) Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch.  For all he knew, Zimmerman was going to rob him.
2) Zimmerman wasn't a cop.  As shocking a statement as this is for fark - a cop would have behaved more responsibly and would have been less likely to end up killing someone for suspicion of walking while black.


You get the point and still miss it by miles. Martin didn't know who Zimmerman was, so he could have been anything: cop, burglar, serial killer, you name it. None of those are good people to engage in a fight unless you're forced to, which Martin wasn't. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed, but Martin also shouldn't have walked back. Both had the option to avoid this mess and neither made the smart choice.

As for how Zimmerman behaved, all that's been established is he followed Martin while talking on his phone, which isn't observably different to what an off duty cop might do. There's no proof that he provoked Martin, but even assuming he did, Martin didn't need to be there to be provoked. He could have been home but apparently chose to confront Zimmerman instead, which was damned stupid. Instead of looking to point fingers at the "real villain", I think it's far more practical to look at what both individuals did wrong and try to avoid any repeat idiocy.

Myself, I was once tailed by an unmarked police car all the way to my driveway. I was coming home in the wee hours of the morning, there had been a rash of burglaries that week, and my car vaguely matched the description of one seen near the most recent break in. If I'd jumped the guy when he got out of his car to ask a few questions (and keep in mind, he never kicked on the blue lights so I didn't know what his deal was at first), my life would either be really f*cked right now or just plain finished. In the same circumstance, I've little confidence that Zimmerman or Martin would have survived what turned out to be a harmless encounter.
 
2013-07-15 03:45:20 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.


but you ignore the kid ambushing him? seems to me that is the cause of this case.
 
2013-07-15 03:46:38 PM  

Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?


Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.
 
2013-07-15 03:48:16 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: his own neighborhood


it wasn't his neighborhood
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 03:49:06 PM  
One ironic thing is that CCTV cameras would have eliminated all doubt and easily convicted Zimmerman if the he attacked Martin the way the Martin supporters say, despite the stand your ground law (which was pivotal to the Zimmerman defense despite the desperate spin of the gun nuts).

But it looks to me that the Martin supporters are the same people who think surveillance cameras are the evil big brother coming to eat you up.
 
2013-07-15 03:49:21 PM  

EdgeRunner: Karac: EdgeRunner: 2) If you're cutting through a neighborhood late at night, even your own neighborhood, there's a good chance the neighborhood watch will notice you. If they're stupid and ignore Rule 1, they might even follow you. Go straight home, call the cops if you feel really uncomfortable, but don't be an idiot and try to take them on yourself. That person could be armed, and no matter what your 17-yr-old hormones are telling you, you're not indestructable.

Further questions for consideration: If Zimmerman had been unarmed and Martin just beat the crap out of him, how many charges would Martin be facing right now? What if he had jumped an actual plainclothes deputy instead of a wanna-be cop? Given that there were witnesses, how does any outcome of this fight go in Martin's favor?

1) Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch.  For all he knew, Zimmerman was going to rob him.
2) Zimmerman wasn't a cop.  As shocking a statement as this is for fark - a cop would have behaved more responsibly and would have been less likely to end up killing someone for suspicion of walking while black.

You get the point and still miss it by miles. Martin didn't know who Zimmerman was, so he could have been anything: cop, burglar, serial killer, you name it. None of those are good people to engage in a fight unless you're forced to, which Martin wasn't. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed, but Martin also shouldn't have walked back. Both had the option to avoid this mess and neither made the smart choice.

As for how Zimmerman behaved, all that's been established is he followed Martin while talking on his phone, which isn't observably different to what an off duty cop might do. There's no proof that he provoked Martin, but even assuming he did, Martin didn't need to be there to be provoked. He could have been home but apparently chose to confront Zimmerman instead, which was damned stupid. Instead of looking to point fingers at the "real villain", ...


So Martin was supposed to consider the possibility that Zimmerman was a cop and act on that assumption, But Zimmerman can't have been expected to have considered that Martin was just walking abck fro the convenience store rather than a dangerous criminal who needed immediate apprehension.
 
2013-07-15 03:50:30 PM  
Let me see if I can follow Farklogic here...
If a white guy is following you through your neighborhood, that's a valid reason to use force, up to lethal force in self defense.
If a black guy is sitting on your chest, smashing your head into concrete, you're a racist pussy if you use lethal force.

Is that right?
 
2013-07-15 03:51:43 PM  
"Ladies of the jury, I ask you look at exhibit 12a, a photograph of my client George Zimmerman's penis. Look at how small it is and you tell me, is this the size of a penis that could win in a fair fight? I mean seriously, we can barely even call my client a man his penis is so small. You've heard testimony from my client's wife, how he never satisfies her in bed. Of course my client needed to carry a gun! "Knock Knock" - and please, do not hold this against my client if this joke offends you - "who's there?" you ask... "it's Treyvon Martin with his big black penis". That is what my client was truly afraid of, aren't we all?"

- Mark O'Mara
 
2013-07-15 03:52:59 PM  

Elegy: You keep dodging my question


I KEEP dodging your question? You've responded to me twice now, including this comment that I'm quoting. Hyperbole, much?

Elegy: I am specifically asking you to enunciate how Martin's continued to beating of Zimmerman is justifiable in your own mind, after: a) Zimmerman obviously didn't want to fight and started screaming for help; and b) at least one other adult told Martin to stop and that he was calling the police because of Martin's continuing behavior.


It isn't justifiable. I also don't see Zimmerman's actions as justifiable. However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in a broken nose and the other's in the death of a minor.

EdgeRunner: As for how Zimmerman behaved, all that's been established is he followed Martin while talking on his phone, which isn't observably different to what an off duty cop might do


But Zimmerman wasn't an off duty cop. And if he HAD been a cop, all he would have had to do is flash his badge and say, "What are you doing around, young man?":But since he wasn't a cop, he couldn't do that, and so Martin assumed the worst (that some guy was up to no good and was a threat to his safety, and it turns out that was exactly the case). Zimmerman could have shouted from his car, "Hey, I'm the neighborhood watch! What's going on here?" But he didn't do that because he just KNEW Trayvon Martin was in the process of committing a crime.
 
2013-07-15 03:54:54 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: Mike Chewbacca: his own neighborhood

it wasn't his neighborhood


It was his dad's fiance's neighborhood. He had every right to be there. You know that, you're just splitting hairs.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 03:58:27 PM  

phenn: Lawnchair: BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.

The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.

No. No they are NOT. Jesus, will you people who didn't follow the trial cool it with your legal GEDs? The defense was self-defense. SYG has to do with an obligation to retreat. He had no way to do that. That was NOT the defense and they are not linked. Not in this case.


SYG was used it's not a matter of opinion, it's a verifiable fact.  Zimmerman didn't have his back to the wall, he was in the open and he followed Martin.  Those would have been important factors if not for SYG. (pdf warning)

It doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise, SYG was used in Zimmermans defense.  It's not a gray area or a matter of opinion it's a verifyable fact.

Claiming it wasn't is dishonest.  I imagine the people claiming otherwise are gun nuts trying to protect the SYG law.
 
2013-07-15 04:00:45 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.


So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?
 
2013-07-15 04:02:37 PM  

dittybopper: EdgeRunner: 1) If you're in the neighborhood watch, that's all you're supposed to do: WATCH. Do not pursue, do not confront, you're not a cop and it's not your job. You can take photos of suspicious characters, write down their license plates if they're driving, but don't go any further than that and absolutely don't get out of your car to follow anyone. It's a real good way to get jumped, especially since it's late and you're tailing people, which makes YOU look pretty suspicious yourself.

Isn't that what Zimmerman was trying to do, watch?  Martin went between buildings where Zimmerman could no longer see him.  According to him, and there is no evidence or testimony that disputes that, he was merely trying to keep visual contact with Martin so that he could guide the police.

Whether or not it was a wise decision given what we know now is debatable, but based on what Zimmerman knew at that moment in time, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable that he might get out of his vehicle to see where Martin ran to.


It's stupid for two obvious reasons:

1) Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious, but didn't witness him committing any actual crimes. There was no need to keep the police informed of his whereabouts because he hadn't done anything worthy of investigation.

2) If Martin really was up to no good, he might have had backup. Gun or no gun, Zimmerman would have had no chance against two or more assailants, especially if they were armed as well.

Face it, his actions were both pointless and dangerous, and though it's very likely Martin escalated the situation, there would have been no situation at all if Zimmerman hadn't created one.
 
2013-07-15 04:03:09 PM  
To The Escape Zeppelin!
All the evidence indicates that Zimmerman followed because Trayvon was wandering around a neighborhood, on foot, at night, in a hoodie not because he was black.

Riiiiight.


TheShavingofOccam123
illegals

Nope, no racism at all.
 
2013-07-15 04:04:52 PM  

king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.


So Martin would have run down his car and punched his face through the windshield?
 
2013-07-15 04:05:30 PM  

vpb: phenn: Lawnchair: BojanglesPaladin: Befuddled: It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.

Again, there was NO STAND YOUR GROUND defense in play here.

Keep repeating that to yourself and anyone else you meet until the urge to show everyone your ignorance passes.

The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.

No. No they are NOT. Jesus, will you people who didn't follow the trial cool it with your legal GEDs? The defense was self-defense. SYG has to do with an obligation to retreat. He had no way to do that. That was NOT the defense and they are not linked. Not in this case.

SYG was used it's not a matter of opinion, it's a verifiable fact.  Zimmerman didn't have his back to the wall, he was in the open and he followed Martin.  Those would have been important factors if not for SYG. (pdf warning)

It doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise, SYG was used in Zimmermans defense.  It's not a gray area or a matter of opinion it's a verifyable fact.

Claiming it wasn't is dishonest.  I imagine the people claiming otherwise are gun nuts trying to protect the SYG law.


Zimmerman never explicitly invoked it and used standard self defense claim.  Considering how poorly the judge handled the whole case, them messing up at the end and including a reference to SYG was just par for the course
 
2013-07-15 04:07:39 PM  

Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?


If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). George Zimmerman was supposed to be someone who was responsible enough to do the exact opposite of what he did. He was entrusted by his community to help keep them safe. Not only did he fail to keep his neighborhood safe, he actively made it less safe.
 
2013-07-15 04:12:39 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.


This is untrue, and your narrative falls apart here.

Based on trial testimony and evidence, TM and GZ had a verbal confrontation while GZ was seated in his vehicle.  TM then left the area, out of GZ's field of view.

GZ parked his vehicle, got out, and stood on the sidewalk while making a call to 911.  GZ told the 911 operator he didn't know where TM had gone.

TM made a call to Raquel Jeantel, who testified, "He had already told me he was by his father's house."  In other words, TM told RJ he was then near his father's fiance's house, where TM had been staying.  That house is some 300 feet from where GZ says he was standing while on the phone to 911, and where TM's body was found.

This indicates that TM went back towards GZ. TM did not go inside his father's fiance's house and avoid GZ.  GZ did not approach TM at TM's father's fiance's house.  TM sought and found GZ.

Fact: Zimmerman was losing said confrontation so he pulled a gun on an unarmed man and shot him dead

Fact: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken.  Testimony and evidence indicates that the back of GZ's head impacted the sidewalk.  Testimony and evidence indicates that TM was on top of GM.  Forensic expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio testified that the evidence from Martin's autopsy is "consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting." 

Where's the justice?

The justice is that GZ shot TM, who was standing over him and evidently damaging GZ.  GZ felt afraid for his safety and fired one shot, which ended the attack he was enduring.

It is mystifying to see so many people willfully distorting the facts as they were presented at the trial, in order to push a narrative that does not match the evidence and testimony presented by both sides.   A lot of people are determined that their personal version of what happened is more correct than the one revealed at the trial, and if the facts don't support their version then the facts must be ignored.
 
2013-07-15 04:13:31 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). George Zimmerman was supposed to be someone who was responsib ...


Being a dumb teenager is not a valid excuse for assault w/ a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder.  The only thing being 17 vs 18 provided Martin is an excuse to not be sent to the death chamber had Zimmerman died
 
2013-07-15 04:16:12 PM  
Actually, even if you take away the media's coverage of the story, the facts are that:

1.) Trayvon Martin was unarmed and was not demonstrably committing a crime.
2.) Zimmerman was armed, was instructed by the 9/11 responder NOT to engage Martin, did anyway, and during the altercation he shot the kid dead.

There.  That is what we indisputably know happened.  You could argue the whole thing could have been avoided had Zimmerman not been a racist dickhead, but if you want to take emotions and subjectivity out of it, all Zimmerman had to do to prevent the whole thing was follow the responder's instructions.

So, based on facts alone, I don't know how anyone cannot conclude that though technically not guilty of a crime, Zimmerman definitely committed manslaughter.
 
2013-07-15 04:16:15 PM  

El Pachuco: Fact: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken.


You do realize that it does not take a very hard punch to break a nose.  Noses are easily broken.
 
2013-07-15 04:16:44 PM  

El Pachuco: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken. Testimony and evidence indicates that the back of GZ's head impacted the sidewalk. Testimony and evidence indicates that TM was on top of GM. Forensic expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio testified that the evidence from Martin's autopsy is "consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting."


And? Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Some guy is following you around. You lose him, but he finds you again. You run, and hide in order to get the drop on him in case he follows. And he DOES follow you so you do what you think needs to be done, because you've done nothing wrong and you're scared, and there's no reason for some guy to be following you. In the ensuing kerfuffle, you discover the guy had a gun. Holy shiat, HE REALLY WAS TRYING TO ROB OR KILL YOU!!!! Now you're truly scared for your life, and you do your best to completely subdue your opponent, because he's got a gun and you're certain he's going to try to kill you. And then he kills you.
 
2013-07-15 04:16:45 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.


FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.
 
2013-07-15 04:16:57 PM  

king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.


Zimmerman was told not to confront him and he did.  Zimmerman also had a history of aggression and of profiling.

Ultimately, Zimmerman got what he wanted:  He got to kill someone without consequence.
 
2013-07-15 04:19:13 PM  

DoctorWorm21045: Trayvon Martin  stood his ground, and for that he was killed and his murderer walks the streets.


No. Instead of entering his father's fiance's house, where he said he was while on the phone to Raquel Jeantel, TM went back to where GZ was standing and re-engaged with GZ.  Evidence indicates that he hit GZ and stood over him while GZ was on his back.  GZ shot him once to end the attack he was enduring.

TM did not stand his ground.  He went back and approached GZ.  If he had not gone back, there would not have been a fight.
 
2013-07-15 04:19:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, it's almost like a bunch of civilians thought Zimmerman was doing something wrong, so they took the law into their own hands, tracked him down and killed him. Doing something like that would be a terrible injustice.


You mean like that guy who killed Dr. George Tiller after Bill O'Reilly said "Somebody needs to take this guy out"?
 
2013-07-15 04:20:50 PM  

Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.

FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.


If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.
 
2013-07-15 04:21:50 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

Wrong.  Under the self-defense laws of every state, even those where you have a positive duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have in all likelihood acquitted, given the same facts.

Here is the law in my state (New York):

2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
  under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
  about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
  actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
  complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
  duty to retreat if he or she is:
    (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

Even if Florida law was identical to that (interestingly, I didn't know NYS had Castle Doctrine), he still would have been covered as he couldn't retreat in complete safety to him and others, because Martin had him pinned to the ground.

This case wasn't what you think it was about.

Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?


Yes; under the hypothetical scenario that an armed assailant attacked Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin would have been justified in defending himself.
 
2013-07-15 04:22:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.

FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.

If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.


For all we know GZ was threatening him with a gun the whole time.
 
2013-07-15 04:22:57 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: There's not a shred of doubt in my mind...if the facts of the case were exactly the same, except teenage Trayvon was the guy wandering the neighborhood at night with a loaded pistol and GZ was the unarmed dead guy, there would have been an arrest right then and there, TM would have been tried and found guilty and not a single person here would have cared a bit. Including me.


You are correct; Mr. Martin would have been guilty of unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm as he could not have been issued a permit at age seventeen.
 
2013-07-15 04:25:05 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.

FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.

If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.


Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.
 
2013-07-15 04:26:43 PM  
Elegy: Blathering Idjut: Or are you one of those simpletons  given to believing every narrative you hear a defense team throw down during the course of a trial in order to generate reasonable doubt?

Hint: it's more of a "what if" than a "these are the facts.

Or, maybe he watched the trial and watched the testimony of the prosecution's own witnesses and the presentation of the physical and forensic evidence?


Nobody witnessed the confrontation.  One of the witnesses saw what might have been Martin on top of Zimmerman based on clothing.  Everything past that - including the "ambushed" meme you guys repeat like little right-wing robots is based on Zimmerman's statements and his defense narrative.

The ironic thing is that probably the biggest goof the prosecution made was introducing that narrative as evidence since the defense couldn't do so. It kept Zimmerman from having to testify and left the prosecution unable to get a chance to blow holes in his story.

So, yeah- you guys that think you know everything that happened haven't got a clue.
 
2013-07-15 04:26:46 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken. Testimony and evidence indicates that the back of GZ's head impacted the sidewalk. Testimony and evidence indicates that TM was on top of GM. Forensic expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio testified that the evidence from Martin's autopsy is "consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting."

And? Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Some guy is following you around. You lose him, but he finds you again. You run, and hide in order to get the drop on him in case he follows. And he DOES follow you so you do what you think needs to be done, because you've done nothing wrong and you're scared, and there's no reason for some guy to be following you. In the ensuing kerfuffle, you discover the guy had a gun. Holy shiat, HE REALLY WAS TRYING TO ROB OR KILL YOU!!!! Now you're truly scared for your life, and you do your best to completely subdue your opponent, because he's got a gun and you're certain he's going to try to kill you. And then he kills you.


Your version is incorrect, based on the testimony and evidence at the trial.

The trial narrative:

1. GZ in his vehicle sees TM, and follows TM while still in his vehicle.
2. TM confronts GZ, still in his vehicle.  TM asks GZ why he is following him, circles the vehicle, and walks away.
3. GZ parks the vehicle, stands on sidewalk, calls 911 and tells the operator he has lost sight of TM and does not know which way he went.  (It is night, and raining - poor visibility).
4. TM calls Raquel Jeantel and tells her he's now at his father's fiance's house, some 300 feet from GZ.
5. TM goes back to where GZ is standing.
6. Fight occurs, and TM's body is found in the area where GZ was standing.

Your statement,  You lose him, but he finds you again. is the opposite of what actually happened.
 
2013-07-15 04:30:02 PM  

ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). George Zimmerman was supposed to be someone who was responsib ...

Being a dumb teenager is not a valid excuse for assault w/ a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder.  The only thing being 17 vs 18 provided Martin is an excuse to not be sent to the death chamber had Zimmerman died


His injuries were some cuts and scratches. It isn't like Martin was a deadly ninja who beat this guy half to death.
 
2013-07-15 04:30:50 PM  

Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.

FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.

If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.

Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.


Ya, about that, we don't know because the person who could have told us is dead.
 
2013-07-15 04:30:55 PM  

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken. Testimony and evidence indicates that the back of GZ's head impacted the sidewalk. Testimony and evidence indicates that TM was on top of GM. Forensic expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio testified that the evidence from Martin's autopsy is "consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting."

And? Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Some guy is following you around. You lose him, but he finds you again. You run, and hide in order to get the drop on him in case he follows. And he DOES follow you so you do what you think needs to be done, because you've done nothing wrong and you're scared, and there's no reason for some guy to be following you. In the ensuing kerfuffle, you discover the guy had a gun. Holy shiat, HE REALLY WAS TRYING TO ROB OR KILL YOU!!!! Now you're truly scared for your life, and you do your best to completely subdue your opponent, because he's got a gun and you're certain he's going to try to kill you. And then he kills you.

Your version is incorrect, based on the testimony and evidence at the trial.

The trial narrative:

1. GZ in his vehicle sees TM, and follows TM while still in his vehicle.
2. TM confronts GZ, still in his vehicle.  TM asks GZ why he is following him, circles the vehicle, and walks away.
3. GZ parks the vehicle, stands on sidewalk, calls 911 and tells the operator he has lost sight of TM and does not know which way he went.  (It is night, and raining - poor visibility).
4. TM calls Raquel Jeantel and tells her he's now at his father's fiance's house, some 300 feet from GZ.
5. TM goes back to where GZ is standing.
6. Fight occurs, and TM's body is found in the area where GZ was standing.

Your statement,  You lose him, but he finds you again. is the opposite of what actually happened.


The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.
 
2013-07-15 04:35:32 PM  
Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). George Zimmerman was supposed to be someone who was responsib ...


Being a dumb teenager is not a valid excuse for assault w/ a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder. The only thing being 17 vs 18 provided Martin is an excuse to not be sent to the death chamber had Zimmerman died 

This. Chewy.. you are so quick to blame Zimmerman for doing a LEGAL (but not popular) action of following him and dismiss  Trayvons attcking him as a "dumb teenager" move... that you are truly blinded and Ihope that you are never on a jury, Because the LAW states one thing and your "Emotional Law" states something else... which one is right?? Well the jury let us know.. didn't they.
Hopefully this will remind young kids (Black, white etc..) that when confronted by an adult about someting don't have your Weeners to ATTACK them because that person might shoot you. And if you were to only respond with words you will still be alive today to talk about it. Even if that person is a Crazy Cracker as he told him girlfriend.. By the way does that show that Trayvon had racist thoughts before he attacked Zimmerman? sure sounds like it? I mean if Aimmerman had told someone on the phone that there is some crazy _ _ _ _ _ _ over there and I am gonig to Blank Blank Blank. Zommerman would be brought up on charges? right?
 
2013-07-15 04:36:19 PM  
Mike Chewbacca:  Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.

A supposition that ignores the entire history of juvenile violence.
 
2013-07-15 04:36:31 PM  

Pincy: Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.

FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.

If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.

Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

Ya, about that, we don't know because the person who could have told us is dead.


You claimed that "Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened". You therefore implied knowledge of Mr. Zimmerman's actions. Why do you now claim ignorance of Mr. Zimmerman's actions?
 
2013-07-15 04:37:15 PM  

El Pachuco: Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.

This is untrue, and your narrative falls apart here.

Based on trial testimony and evidence, TM and GZ had a verbal confrontation while GZ was seated in his vehicle.  TM then left the area, out of GZ's field of view.

GZ parked his vehicle, got out, and stood on the sidewalk while making a call to 911.  GZ told the 911 operator he didn't know where TM had gone.


What, the reception was bad inside the car?
 
2013-07-15 04:37:54 PM  

Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). George Zimmerman was supposed to ...


The second Martin started bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete it was assault w/ a deadly weapon if not out right attempted murder.
 
2013-07-15 04:37:59 PM  

Dimensio: Pincy: Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: However, one person's unjustifiable actions resulted in only a broken nose because Zimmerman stopped the attack in the only way that he could and the other's in the death of a minor.

FTFY. That's what I'm trying to get why you believe Zimmerman's actions were unjustifiable.

You apparently believe that having bad judgement obligates you to take an unrelenting physical beating that has the potential to cause serious injury.

That's all I wanted to know.

If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.

Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

Ya, about that, we don't know because the person who could have told us is dead.

You claimed that "Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened". You therefore implied knowledge of Mr. Zimmerman's actions. Why do you now claim ignorance of Mr. Zimmerman's actions?


I incorrectly attributed Mike Chewbacca's statement to you. I apologize for my error.
 
2013-07-15 04:38:18 PM  
Mike Chewbacca:

If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same?

Well duh.  Because he's black.  Haven't you been paying attention?
 
2013-07-15 04:39:53 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.


Because Martin escalated the situation to the use of deadly force FIRST, which is what justifies Zimmerman's use of deadly force.

Zimmerman didn't fire the shot after Martin after Martin looked at him funny.

Zimmerman didn't fire the shot after he and Martin exchanged a few nasty words.

Zimmerman didn't fire at Martin after Martin hit him once.

Zimmerman fired after Martin was on top of him, beating him senseless, and Martin refused to STOP hitting him - despite Zimmerman screaming for help, despite a witness telling Martin to stop. An assailant that refuses to stop beating you is attacking you with deadly force, period. This is why the law allows you to respond with deadly force - to make the attack stop and prevent further injury or death to yourself.

If Martin had simply STOPPED hitting Zimmerman, at any point up until the shot, this would (at most) be an assault case.

You keep blaming Zimmerman, but at the point Zimmerman was being threatened with serious injury or death events were well out of his control. Martin made a definitive choice not when he didn't stop hitting Zimmerman and continued to escalate the level of violence in the fight, despite ample opportunity to not do so.

He chose.... poorly.
 
2013-07-15 04:40:27 PM  

Flappyhead: CtBORDER: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x406]

Need more sparkles and wolves in the background with three moons.

And a waving flag.


And an auto-play MIDI of "God Bless, America".
 
2013-07-15 04:40:42 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.


It's backed up by GZ's 911 call tapes, testimony from the 911 operator and testimony from Raquel Jeantel from her phone conversation with TM.

If you have a different version of steps 1-3 please tell us what happened, and what evidence or testimony you have to support it.
 
2013-07-15 04:41:03 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca:  Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.

A supposition that ignores the entire history of juvenile violence.


You could also ignore Zimmerman's employment history of being canned for being too aggressive.
 
2013-07-15 04:41:18 PM  

Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: If Travyon Martin believed his life was in danger (and it was!), why wouldn't he have engaged in an unrelenting physical attack? Why is okay for Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself, but it's not okay for Martin to do the same? Martin never would have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't made him feel threatened.

Because Martin escalated the situation to the use of deadly force FIRST, which is what justifies Zimmerman's use of deadly force.

Zimmerman didn't fire the shot after Martin after Martin looked at him funny.

Zimmerman didn't fire the shot after he and Martin exchanged a few nasty words.

Zimmerman didn't fire at Martin after Martin hit him once.

Zimmerman fired after Martin was on top of him, beating him senseless, and Martin refused to STOP hitting him - despite Zimmerman screaming for help, despite a witness telling Martin to stop. An assailant that refuses to stop beating you is attacking you with deadly force, period. This is why the law allows you to respond with deadly force - to make the attack stop and prevent further injury or death to yourself.

If Martin had simply STOPPED hitting Zimmerman, at any point up until the shot, this would (at most) be an assault case.

You keep blaming Zimmerman, but at the point Zimmerman was being threatened with serious injury or death events were well out of his control. Martin made a definitive choice not when he didn't stop hitting Zimmerman and continued to escalate the level of violence in the fight, despite ample opportunity to not do so.

He chose.... poorly.


Some individuals speculate that Mr. Zimmerman displayed his firearm to Mr. Martin and that Mr. Martin's continued assault was an attempt to stop Mr. Zimmerman from shooting him. They then claim that their baseless speculation is proof that Mr. Martin's actions were justified self-defense.
 
2013-07-15 04:44:07 PM  

ShadowKamui: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). George Zimmerman was supposed to ...

The second Martin started bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete it was assault w/ a deadly weapon if not out right attempted murder.


Bashing is a few scratches to the back of the head.
 
2013-07-15 04:44:51 PM  

jigoro: What, the reception was bad inside the car?


It was night time and raining.  Evidently GZ was trying to see where TM had gone but told the 911 operator he couldn't see where TM went.  Presumably he got out of the vehicle because a wet windshield is difficult to see through at night, compared to standing outside the vehicle.
 
2013-07-15 04:46:05 PM  

Dimensio: Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.


That's a BS technicality.  There is room for reasonable speculation.  Zimmerman's ex filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.  He was also arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, though the charges were later dropped.  He was also pursuing a degree in criminal justice and had phoned in to 911 numerous times when no crime was being committed, targeting blacks in his calls.  He fits the profile of an overzealous vigilante asshole with a racial grudge, so this argument that unless you know every single solitary fact you are dead wrong, is simply not correct.

In short, considering his background, it is very likely that it was Zimmerman the one that turned the confrontation violent.  Not certain, but very likely.
 
2013-07-15 04:47:12 PM  

Elegy: If Martin had simply STOPPED hitting Zimmerman, at any point up until the shot, this would (at most) be an assault case.


If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, which Zimmerman says Martin knew because his jacket rode up, why the fark would he stop???? if you feel your life is in danger, why would you stop beating someone??? Again, some creepy guy is following you for several minutes. You lose him and he finds you. You ask why he's following you and he says he's not (and he doesn't identify himself as neighborhood watch), but when you run away he follows you. You're a dumb kid and you're really scared, so you do a dumb thing and attack him. (There's no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. That's just what Zimmerman says, and since Martin is dead, there's no one to say otherwise.) During the fight, you see the other dude has a gun. Now you're REALLY scared, and fear that if you stop before the guy is unconscious, he'll kill you. And then he kills you. The fact that Martin ended up dead is proof that Martin really should have been scared for his life.
 
2013-07-15 04:48:06 PM  

Zerochance: Dimensio: Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

That's a BS technicality.  There is room for reasonable speculation.  Zimmerman's ex filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.  He was also arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, though the charges were later dropped.  He was also pursuing a degree in criminal justice and had phoned in to 911 numerous times when no crime was being committed, targeting blacks in his calls.  He fits the profile of an overzealous vigilante asshole with a racial grudge, so this argument that unless you know every single solitary fact you are dead wrong, is simply not correct.

In short, considering his background, it is very likely that it was Zimmerman the one that turned the confrontation violent.  Not certain, but very likely.


He was also fired from his security guard job for being too aggressive.
 
2013-07-15 04:49:58 PM  

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.

It's backed up by GZ's 911 call tapes, testimony from the 911 operator and testimony from Raquel Jeantel from her phone conversation with TM.

If you have a different version of steps 1-3 please tell us what happened, and what evidence or testimony you have to support it.


It's your 1-3. Your 4 is that Martin called his girlfriend after 1-3 happened. Is that not the case? Also, nobody has established that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimerman says that's what happened, and the girlfriend said she heard Martin say "Why are you following me?" and then the phone line went dead. There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.
 
2013-07-15 04:51:31 PM  

Zerochance: Dimensio: Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

That's a BS technicality.  There is room for reasonable speculation.  Zimmerman's ex filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.  He was also arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, though the charges were later dropped.  He was also pursuing a degree in criminal justice and had phoned in to 911 numerous times when no crime was being committed, targeting blacks in his calls.  He fits the profile of an overzealous vigilante asshole with a racial grudge, so this argument that unless you know every single solitary fact you are dead wrong, is simply not correct.

In short, considering his background, it is very likely that it was Zimmerman the one that turned the confrontation violent.  Not certain, but very likely.


Speculation is not evidence.
 
2013-07-15 04:52:24 PM  

Zerochance: Dimensio: Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

That's a BS technicality.  There is room for reasonable speculation.  Zimmerman's ex filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.  He was also arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, though the charges were later dropped.  He was also pursuing a degree in criminal justice and had phoned in to 911 numerous times when no crime was being committed, targeting blacks in his calls.  He fits the profile of an overzealous vigilante asshole with a racial grudge, so this argument that unless you know every single solitary fact you are dead wrong, is simply not correct.

In short, considering his background, it is very likely that it was Zimmerman the one that turned the confrontation violent.  Not certain, but very likely.


This whole post stinks of someone who didn't actually watch the trial and relied instead on instead on the talking heads to inform his opinion.
 
2013-07-15 04:52:57 PM  
Mike Chewbacca:  There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

Entirely, completely, 100%, wholly irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter who started it.  It matters who escalated it to lethal force.  The only evidence that speaks to this says that Martin did so.  Ergo, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.  Not guilty *gavel* trial over.
 
2013-07-15 04:54:45 PM  
Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-15 04:55:21 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Elegy: If Martin had simply STOPPED hitting Zimmerman, at any point up until the shot, this would (at most) be an assault case.

If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, which Zimmerman says Martin knew because his jacket rode up, why the fark would he stop???? if you feel your life is in danger, why would you stop beating someone??? Again, some creepy guy is following you for several minutes. You lose him and he finds you. You ask why he's following you and he says he's not (and he doesn't identify himself as neighborhood watch), but when you run away he follows you. You're a dumb kid and you're really scared, so you do a dumb thing and attack him. (There's no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. That's just what Zimmerman says, and since Martin is dead, there's no one to say otherwise.) During the fight, you see the other dude has a gun. Now you're REALLY scared, and fear that if you stop before the guy is unconscious, he'll kill you. And then he kills you. The fact that Martin ended up dead is proof that Martin really should have been scared for his life.


Initiating a physical confrontation, and then observing the victim to be in possession of a firearm, does not establish legal justification for use of deadly force by the aggressor. Under Florida law, by initiating an attack, the aggressor has no legal right to use of deadly force unless either escape is not possible or escape is attempted but the victim of the attack pursues.

That Mr. Martin is deceased is proof only that Mr. Zimmerman used deadly force against him. Mr. Martin's death is not demonstration that his attack upon Mr. Zimmerman was legally justified; by your reasoning, all criminal attackers who are killed by their intended victims were legally justified in attacking their victims.

/And by the reasoning of others, no one can be justified in killing an attacker, because the attacker was never convicted of the crime they were allegedly committing at the time of their death.
 
2013-07-15 04:56:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.


You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.
 
2013-07-15 04:57:12 PM  

Elegy: Zerochance: Dimensio: Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

That's a BS technicality.  There is room for reasonable speculation.  Zimmerman's ex filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.  He was also arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, though the charges were later dropped.  He was also pursuing a degree in criminal justice and had phoned in to 911 numerous times when no crime was being committed, targeting blacks in his calls.  He fits the profile of an overzealous vigilante asshole with a racial grudge, so this argument that unless you know every single solitary fact you are dead wrong, is simply not correct.

In short, considering his background, it is very likely that it was Zimmerman the one that turned the confrontation violent.  Not certain, but very likely.

This whole post thread stinks of someone who didn't actually watch the trial and relied instead on instead on the talking heads to inform his opinion.


FTFY
 
2013-07-15 04:57:42 PM  
i1290.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-15 04:59:16 PM  

Elegy: Zerochance: Dimensio: Please describe the specific actions undertaken by Mr. Zimmerman that established a legal justification for the use of force by Mr. Martin.

That's a BS technicality.  There is room for reasonable speculation.  Zimmerman's ex filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.  He was also arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, though the charges were later dropped.  He was also pursuing a degree in criminal justice and had phoned in to 911 numerous times when no crime was being committed, targeting blacks in his calls.  He fits the profile of an overzealous vigilante asshole with a racial grudge, so this argument that unless you know every single solitary fact you are dead wrong, is simply not correct.

In short, considering his background, it is very likely that it was Zimmerman the one that turned the confrontation violent.  Not certain, but very likely.

This whole post stinks of someone who didn't actually watch the trial and relied instead on instead on the talking heads to inform his opinion.


What part of what I posted is wrong?  Zimmerman did have a restraining order against him filed by his ex for domestic violence.  He was arrested for assaulting an officer.  He had a history of calling in to 911 to report perceived threats.  It's certainly a more factually-based opinion than the ITG brigade stopping itself short from saying Trayvon deserved to die merely for being a punk-ass kid.
 
2013-07-15 05:00:57 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.


It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?
 
2013-07-15 05:01:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?


Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.
 
2013-07-15 05:03:03 PM  

Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). Georg ...


A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.
 
2013-07-15 05:03:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca:  There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

Entirely, completely, 100%, wholly irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter who started it.  It matters who escalated it to lethal force.  The only evidence that speaks to this says that Martin did so.  Ergo, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.  Not guilty *gavel* trial over.


It doesn't matter who started it? So I can just go pick a fight with someone and let them kick my ass enough and then shoot them, and that's totally okay? And I love that Martin's "lethal force" resulted in a broken nose and some cuts to the back of a bald guy's head.
 
2013-07-15 05:04:31 PM  

Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.


Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.
 
2013-07-15 05:04:46 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.


No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.
 
2013-07-15 05:05:19 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.

It's backed up by GZ's 911 call tapes, testimony from the 911 operator and testimony from Raquel Jeantel from her phone conversation with TM.

If you have a different version of steps 1-3 please tell us what happened, and what evidence or testimony you have to support it.

It's your 1-3. Your 4 is that Martin called his girlfriend after 1-3 happened. Is that not the case? Also, nobody has established that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimerman says that's what happened, and the girlfriend said she heard Martin say "Why are you following me?" and then the phone line went dead. There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.


"My" 1-3 is from the trial.  What point are you trying to make here?  If 1-3 did not happen that way, what do you think did happen?  Seriously, put up or shut up.

Testimony from various witnesses, and evidence support the theory that TM struck GZ in the face, that GZ's head hit the sidewalk, and that GZ shot TM while GZ was on the ground and TM was standing over him.

What's your theory? If TM didn't hit GZ, how did GZ get his injuries?

GZ was for some reason lying on his back on the rain-covered sidewalk by himself, TM walked over and GZ spontaneously shot him, and then TM punched GZ before collapsing?

Or are you thinking GZ broke his own nose and smacked his own head on the pavement immediately after shooting TM?  While inexplicably lying on his back while TM stood over him?

Or did assailants unknown appear, punch GZ, and disappear, and then GZ shot TM?  Was TM standing over GZ trying to help him?
 
2013-07-15 05:06:17 PM  

jigoro: El Pachuco: Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.

This is untrue, and your narrative falls apart here.

Based on trial testimony and evidence, TM and GZ had a verbal confrontation while GZ was seated in his vehicle.  TM then left the area, out of GZ's field of view.

GZ parked his vehicle, got out, and stood on the sidewalk while making a call to 911.  GZ told the 911 operator he didn't know where TM had gone.

What, the reception was bad inside the car?

based on

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken. Testimony and evidence indicates that the back of GZ's head impacted the sidewalk. Testimony and evidence indicates that TM was on top of GM. Forensic expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio testified that the evidence from Martin's autopsy is "consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting."

And? Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Some guy is following you around. You lose him, but he finds you again. You run, and hide in order to get the drop on him in case he follows. And he DOES follow you so you do what you think needs to be done, because you've done nothing wrong and you're scared, and there's no reason for some guy to be following you. In the ensuing kerfuffle, you discover the guy had a gun. Holy shiat, HE REALLY WAS TRYING TO ROB OR KILL YOU!!!! Now you're truly scared for your life, and you do your best to completely subdue your opponent, because he's got a gun and you're certain he's going to try to kill you. And then he kills you.

Your version is incorrect, based on the testimony and evidence at the trial.

The trial narrative:

1. GZ in his vehicle sees TM, and follows TM while still in his vehicle.
2. TM confronts GZ, still in his vehicle.  TM asks GZ why he is following him, circles the vehicle, and walks away.
3. GZ parks the vehicle, stands on sidewalk, calls 911 and tells the operator he has lost sight of TM and does not know which way he went.  (It is night, and raining - poor visibility).
4. TM calls Raquel Jeantel and tells her he's now at his father's fiance's house, some 300 feet from GZ.
5. TM goes back to where GZ is standing.
6. Fight occurs, and TM's body is found in the area where GZ was standing.

Your statement,  You lose him, but he finds you again. is the opposite of what actually happened.


GZ was following him on foot and not in the car, if you listen to the 911 call you can hear GZ clearly running after TM, unless he gets winded driving his car
 
2013-07-15 05:06:53 PM  
The GZ hate is strong, but misplaced.

GZ has zero history of racism.  Is he a racist in his heart?  No one knows (expect some farkers).  The evidence is to the contrary.

Per this article, GZ lead the protest against the son of the local police chief accused in beating a homeless black man.  Ironically, some of those he was protesting later investigated his case.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/letter-allegedly-written-gunman-g e orge-zimmermans-/nMKFD/

GZ apparently was very active in his mostly black church congregation and went into business with his African American business partner.

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.
 
2013-07-15 05:08:21 PM  

Munchausen's Proxy: The GZ hate is strong, but misplaced.

GZ has zero history of racism.  Is he a racist in his heart?  No one knows (expect some farkers).  The evidence is to the contrary.

Per this article, GZ lead the protest against the son of the local police chief accused in beating a homeless black man.  Ironically, some of those he was protesting later investigated his case.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/letter-allegedly-written-gunman-g e orge-zimmermans-/nMKFD/

GZ apparently was very active in his mostly black church congregation and went into business with his African American business partner.

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.


Have you seen Zimmerman's MySpace?

I'm guessing you haven't.
 
2013-07-15 05:08:36 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca:  There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

Entirely, completely, 100%, wholly irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter who started it.  It matters who escalated it to lethal force.  The only evidence that speaks to this says that Martin did so.  Ergo, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.  Not guilty *gavel* trial over.

It doesn't matter who started it? So I can just go pick a fight with someone and let them kick my ass enough and then shoot them, and that's totally okay? And I love that Martin's "lethal force" resulted in a broken nose and some cuts to the back of a bald guy's head.


Under Florida law, an aggressor to a confrontation may only argue that the use of deadly force was justified if an attempt to retreat occurred but was unsuccessful, or if retreat was demonstrably not possible.
 
2013-07-15 05:08:47 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.


As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.
 
2013-07-15 05:09:54 PM  

Zerochance: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.


Unless Mr. Zimmerman's behaviour created a reasonable fear of imminent grievous injury or death, Mr. Martin's physical attack was not justified, and Mr. Zimmerman's use of force was justified as a response to the attack.
 
2013-07-15 05:11:02 PM  

Zerochance: No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.


Trial testimony has TM approaching GZ's vehicle and asking why GZ was following him.  That's TM initiating the confrontation.

Trial testimony and evidence then has TM at his father's fiance's house, and then going back 300 feet to where GZ was standing.  Again, TM initiates contact - GZ did not pursue TM, TM went back to GZ.
 
2013-07-15 05:11:09 PM  
I never thought GZ was racist, in fact, wasn't much of the race stuff first brought up because it went 44 days before he was arrested? i thought the racism was in the fact that it took that long to arrest someone for killing a black kid and that if the child was white there'd be an outrage if someone wasnt arrested that day. Then the prosecution/media took it and changed it into "he killed him cause he was black"
 
2013-07-15 05:11:56 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.


Physical evidence and witness testimony support the claim that Mr. Martin physically struck Mr. Zimmerman.

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.
 
2013-07-15 05:12:04 PM  

Dimensio: You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.


Nobody witnessed the attack.  A neighbor saw somebody on top of somebody else and by clothing it appeared to be Martin.

What's galling about this whole debate is the pure, confident certainty with which Zimmerman apologists argue what happened that night.  Coupled with the absurdly ridiculous approach of pretending the whole incident magically began when these two guys grappled without considering anything that led to that point and you guys are arguing, at best, a fantasy narrative wholly influenced by a guy trying to beat a murder charge and his lawyers.

None of us personally knew either guy.  We can't speak with any authority to whether Martin was a "thug" or Zimmerman was a "racist."  On the other hand any attempt to lionize either man is insane.  I would argue this is especially in the case of Zimmerman who made some bad choices that wound up costing somebody else his life.  He's certainly not any kind of hero.
 
2013-07-15 05:13:29 PM  

Bartman66: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). Georg ...

A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.


Well that would be from what we know about his injuries and even Good testified that he didn't see Martin banging Zimmerman's head against the concrete.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:41 PM  

Munchausen's Proxy: The GZ hate is strong, but misplaced.

GZ has zero history of racism.  Is he a racist in his heart?  No one knows (expect some farkers).  The evidence is to the contrary.

Per this article, GZ lead the protest against the son of the local police chief accused in beating a homeless black man.  Ironically, some of those he was protesting later investigated his case.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/letter-allegedly-written-gunman-g e orge-zimmermans-/nMKFD/

GZ apparently was very active in his mostly black church congregation and went into business with his African American business partner.

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.


Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911 to report "suspicious activity", mainly by black males - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-h i story-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

There's no farking way all of those calls were justified.  I would argue that his involvement with the black community was obviously very public (probably sagely for someone pursuing a career in criminal justice) but in his private life, he felt rather differently.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:47 PM  

Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

Nobody witnessed the attack.  A neighbor saw somebody on top of somebody else and by clothing it appeared to be Martin.

What's galling about this whole debate is the pure, confident certainty with which Zimmerman apologists argue what happened that night.  Coupled with the absurdly ridiculous approach of pretending the whole incident magically began when these two guys grappled without considering anything that led to that point and you guys are arguing, at best, a fantasy narrative wholly influenced by a guy trying to beat a murder charge and his lawyers.

None of us personally knew either guy.  We can't speak with any authority to whether Martin was a "thug" or Zimmerman was a "racist."  On the other hand any attempt to lionize either man is insane.  I would argue this is especially in the case of Zimmerman who made some bad choices that wound up costing somebody else his life.  He's certainly not any kind of hero.


I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal. I assert only that no evidence implicates Mr. Zimmerman in any criminal act prior to his physical altercation with Mr. Martin, and that no evidence indicates that Mr. Martin's physical attack against Mr. Zimmerman was justified. I have requested, from numerous individuals who claim that Mr. Martin's attack was self-defense, a description of the behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of force against him, but thus far I have received only admitted speculation in response.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:52 PM  
Zerochance:
What part of what I posted is wrong?  Zimmerman did have a restraining order against him filed by his ex for domestic violence. So did  he against that same girlfriend, no arrest He was arrested for assaulting an officer. Intervened on behalf of a friend who was being harassed by an undercover cop, no charges filed He had a history of calling in to 911 to report perceived threats that's what NW people do.  It's certainly a more factually-based opinion than the ITG brigade stopping itself short from saying Trayvon deserved to die merely for being a punk-ass kid. Nobody has ever said that.

Seriously it's really easy to tell when someone knows only what the race-baiters have told them to think.

the next part of the song will no doubt include 'HE WAS ORDERED BY THE POLICE NOT TO FOLLOW" "GZ WAS A RACIST STALKER" and, my personal favorite "TM WAS AFRAID AND ONLY DEFENDING HIMSELF"
 
2013-07-15 05:15:07 PM  

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.

It's backed up by GZ's 911 call tapes, testimony from the 911 operator and testimony from Raquel Jeantel from her phone conversation with TM.

If you have a different version of steps 1-3 please tell us what happened, and what evidence or testimony you have to support it.

It's your 1-3. Your 4 is that Martin called his girlfriend after 1-3 happened. Is that not the case? Also, nobody has established that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimerman says that's what happened, and the girlfriend said she heard Martin say "Why are you following me?" and then the phone line went dead. There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

"My" 1-3 is from the trial.  What point are you trying to make here?  If 1-3 did not happen that way, what do you think did happen?  Seriously, put up or shut up.

Testimony from various witnesses, and evidence support the theory that TM struck GZ in the face, that GZ's head hit the sidewalk, and that GZ shot TM while GZ was on the ground and TM was standing over him.

What's your theory? If TM didn't hit GZ, how did GZ get his injuries?

GZ was for some reason lying on his back on the rain-covered sidewalk by himself, TM walked over and GZ spontaneously shot him, and then TM punched GZ before collapsing?

Or are you thinking GZ broke his own nose and smacked his own head on the pavement immediately after shooting TM?  While inexplicably lying on his back while TM stood over him?

Or did assailants unknown appear, punch GZ, and disappear, and then GZ shot TM?  Was TM standing over GZ trying to help him?


We don't know who threw the first punch. If it was Zimmerman, then Zimmerman should be in jail. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman should probably still be in jail because he's the one who escalated the situation by chasing after Martin on foot. The girlfriend has also stated that Martin told her that he'd lost Zimmerman, but then Zimmerman found him again. Zimmerman also never identified himself as neighborhood watch, but instead rolled up his windows when Martin circled his truck on foot before running away. And please note that Martin's father wasn't home at the time of the shooting, so it's not like Martin running home would have helped him in any way.

It's amazing how many people can so easily put themselves into George Zimmerman's shoes but find it so hard to understand why a 17-year-old kid might be so scared as to resort to violence.
 
2013-07-15 05:15:33 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.

Physical evidence and witness testimony support the claim that Mr. Martin physically struck Mr. Zimmerman.

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.


And there is neither physical evidence nor witness testimony that supports a claim that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.
 
2013-07-15 05:18:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.

Physical evidence and witness testimony support the claim that Mr. Martin physically struck Mr. Zimmerman.

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.

And there is neither physical evidence nor witness testimony that supports a claim that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.


Exactly. A fight happened. It seems that at the time of the shooting, Martin was on top of Zimmerman. That does not indicate who threw the first punch.
 
2013-07-15 05:18:45 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: We don't know who threw the first punch. If it was Zimmerman, then Zimmerman should be in jail. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman should probably still be in jail because he's the one who escalated the situation by chasing after Martin on foot. The girlfriend has also stated that Martin told her that he'd lost Zimmerman, but then Zimmerman found him again. Zimmerman also never identified himself as neighborhood watch, but instead rolled up his windows when Martin circled his truck on foot before running away. And please note that Martin's father wasn't home at the time of the shooting, so it's not like Martin running home would have helped him in any way.

It's amazing how many people can so easily put themselves into George Zimmerman's shoes but find it so hard to understand why a 17-year-old kid might be so scared as to resort to violence.


This amazes me, too.  I've gotten a few folks here to at least admit that Martin could have been scared of the potential rapist, weirdo stranger who was following him in an SUV and then on foot and staring at him.
 
2013-07-15 05:19:28 PM  

Dimensio: I have requested, from numerous individuals who claim that Mr. Martin's attack was self-defense, a description of the behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of force against him, but thus far I have received only admitted speculation in response.


And, as we have said, considering that there were no eyewitnesses to the actual fight, and Trayvon was unarmed and now dead, Zimmerman's assertion that he acted in self-defense is also speculation.
 
2013-07-15 05:19:31 PM  

Dimensio: Some individuals speculate that Mr. Zimmerman displayed his firearm to Mr. Martin and that Mr. Martin's continued assault was an attempt to stop Mr. Zimmerman from shooting him. They then claim that their baseless speculation is proof that Mr. Martin's actions were justified self-defense.


Damn. You called it. Are you a wizard?

Mike Chewbacca: A "what if scenario" only partially supported by the evidence spun out the fantasy in your head


You just spent time spinning a fantasy about what happened that night - a story of what you think might have happened, if you will - in an attempt to justify Martin's continued assault of Zimmerman after Zimmerman started screaming for help and after a witness told Martin to stop and that he (the witness) was calling the police.

The problem with this is that you said Martin's unrelenting physical attack against Zimmerman wasn't justifiable.

Do you see the problem here? Are you intellectually dishonest, or is it that you are so simple minded that you cannot maintain simple consistency in your arguments from one moment to the next?
I get that you're angry that a teen is dead, but you're turning cartwheels with your emotional outrage trying to avoid the simple fact that if Martin had stopped, rather continue to escalate the violence he was using against Zimmerman, Zimmerman would not have been forced to shoot him in order to get him to stop.
 
2013-07-15 05:19:49 PM  

Dimensio: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

Nobody witnessed the attack.  A neighbor saw somebody on top of somebody else and by clothing it appeared to be Martin.

What's galling about this whole debate is the pure, confident certainty with which Zimmerman apologists argue what happened that night.  Coupled with the absurdly ridiculous approach of pretending the whole incident magically began when these two guys grappled without considering anything that led to that point and you guys are arguing, at best, a fantasy narrative wholly influenced by a guy trying to beat a murder charge and his lawyers.

None of us personally knew either guy.  We can't speak with any authority to whether Martin was a "thug" or Zimmerman was a "racist."  On the other hand any attempt to lionize either man is insane.  I would argue this is especially in the case of Zimmerman who made some bad choices that wound up costing somebody else his life.  He's certainly not any kind of hero.

I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal. I assert only that no evidence implicates Mr. Zimmerman in any criminal act prior to his physical altercation with Mr. Martin, and that no evidence indicates that Mr. Martin's physical attack against Mr. Zimmerman was justified. I have requested, from numerous individuals who claim that Mr. Martin's attack was self-defense, a description of the behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of force against him, but thus far I have received only admitted speculation in response.


So you are going with "he immersed himself in the African American community for show"  The delusion is so incredibly strong in you it must hurt just to walk upright.
 
2013-07-15 05:20:20 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: We don't know who threw the first punch.


There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates that GZ punched TM at any point.
 
2013-07-15 05:20:58 PM  
Zerochance:

There's no farking way all of those calls were justified.  I would argue that his involvement with the black community was obviously very public (probably sagely for someone pursuing a career in criminal justice) but in his private life, he felt rather differently.

My bad, my previous comment was meant for you
 
2013-07-15 05:21:16 PM  

gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.


Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.
 
2013-07-15 05:23:09 PM  

Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal


Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?
 
2013-07-15 05:23:26 PM  

Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.


I'm not even talking about the justification for the shooting.  I'm saying that his boo-boos were not too ouchie.  Compare Zimmerman's boo-boos to an MMA fight and the time it takes for an MMA fighter to have someone kiss it make it feel better.
 
2013-07-15 05:24:09 PM  
Zerochance:

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.

Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911 to report "suspicious activity", mainly by black males - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-h i story-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

There's no farking way all of those calls were justified.  I would argue that his involvement with the black community was obviously very public (probably sagely for someone pursuing a career in criminal justice) but in his private life, he felt rather differently.


46 calls over 6 years, 6 of those mention black males.

fry the bastard, right?
 
2013-07-15 05:24:56 PM  

Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.


And if Martin, NOT YOU, felt that Zimmerman was putting his life in danger what was he justified in doing?
 
2013-07-15 05:25:29 PM  

Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?


Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?
 
2013-07-15 05:26:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.

And if Martin, NOT YOU, felt that Zimmerman was putting his life in danger what was he justified in doing?


This is what people like us just don't get.  Zimmerman had a right to self-defense and to stand his ground if he felt his life was in danger, regardless of how badly he was injured.  Martin had none of those rights.
 
<
2013-07-15 05:27:12 PM