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 442
    More: Interesting, Mark O'Mara, Benjamin Crump, Alan Dershowitz, guilty  
•       •       •

2797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:38 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



442 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 442 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report