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  
•       •       •

2799 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:38 PM (1 year 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 06:21:00 PM

Fart_Machine: Zimmerman's injuries were very minor


according to the testimony of the paid states witness who looked at photographs and never examined GZ.

because every other medical professional in this case, including EMT and police suggested that GZ should go to the ER.

Fart_Machine: Good witnessed a scuffle but wouldn't testify that Martin "pounded his head against the ground"


He said TM was on top of GZ and that TM's arms were out and repeatedly going downward towards GZ's upper trunk.  Make of that what you will.
 
2013-07-15 06:21:36 PM
Subby is trying to see if he can mislead his audience as effectively as NBC,CBS, ABC, etc.
 
2013-07-15 06:22:48 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I'm actually not convinced that Martin's relentless attack (which didn't cause Zimmerman to be hospitalized or even taken to the emergency room) against Zimmerman wasn't justified or perfectly understandable under the circumstances.


Thanks for admitting that you have no clue about the law.  1) The actual outcome of an attack doesn't matter to justify self defense.  It only matters that lethal force was used or immediately be about to be used to justify lethal self defense.  Therefore, the actual severity of Zimmermans wounds is irrelevant.  Once concrete and heads interacted, lethal force was justified. 2) No amount of force on the part of Martin was justified at any point.  You can't physically attack a person for simply following you.

You whole position is based on ignorance of the law.
 
2013-07-15 06:23:05 PM

Brick-House: Subby is trying to see if he can mislead his audience as effectively as NBC,CBS, ABC, etc.


By linking to NewsBusters, submitter ensured that I will automatically assume that any relationship between the headline and actual reality is entirely coincidental.
 
2013-07-15 06:23:38 PM

Dimensio: 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?

Mr. Martin was justified in attacking Mr. Zimmerman only if Mr. Zimmerman's actions created a belief evident to a reasonable person that Mr. Martin was in imminent danger of grievous bodily injury or death.


Trayvon Martin was home alone that night; his dad and future step-mother were out of the house until after 10pm. George Zimmerman made Martin nervous enough that Martin ran away twice, and both times Zimmerman pursued. Zimmerman never once identified himself as the neighborhood watch despite being asked directly why he was following Martin, and he left his car when the police dispatcher advised him not to to pursue Martin on foot, despite no evidence that Martin had done anything wrong. If I was a woman and had had that kind of encounter with a man, I'd have assumed he was a rapist and maced that guy right in the face, at the very least. Why does Trayvon Martin not get to have the same kind of response?

I'm not saying that Zimmerman WANTED to kill Martin. I'm not saying he's guilty of murder 2. I'm saying that Zimmerman's actions directly led to the confrontation with Martin, and that he had numerous opportunities to defuse the situation and chose instead to escalate the situation. What was a non-situation escalated into a violent altercation and ended up with a dead kid. Martin ran away twice. Why is it, in your mind, Martin's fault that this happened?
 
2013-07-15 06:24:07 PM

o5iiawah: because every other medical professional in this case, including EMT and police suggested that GZ should go to the ER.


He needed a couple of band-aids and was sent home.  Where are these serious injuries you speak of?
 
2013-07-15 06:26:19 PM

Elegy: Mike Chewbacca: Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Munchausen's Proxy: One of the early prosecution witnesses. I believe his name was Good

BZZT!  WRONG!  I'm sorry, the correct answer was...

Yeah, not so much

Two witnesses called by the prosecution today described George Zimmerman as being on the losing end of a fight with Trayvon Martin in the moments before Zimmerman shot the Florida teenager   from http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-beaten-prosecution-witnesse s /story?id=19517236#.UeRw621EOSo

Look, I get it.  You want there to be evidence of racism EVERYWHERE and when there is none, you make it up as you go.  I am sure that there are race-based killings on a daily basis somewhere in this country.  This was just not one of them.  By all accounts - not just Zimmerman's, he was a decent, but someone suspicious guy that wanted to be a police officer. He was from a mixed-ethnic family and apparently - according to actual evidence - active in the African American community.

Like I said, it was a tragedy, but there was no racial overtones or animus and all actual evidence indicates that the events happened as GZ said that they did.  It would appear that you have prejudged him before getting all the information.

Actually, it's that we don't think that a grownup who is in a position of authority and responsibility should get away scot-free when a kid ends up dead by his hand. The part where racism comes into this is 1) Zimmerman never would have followed Martin if he hadn't been black; and 2) the cops didn't even really investigate the situation, they just declared Zimmerman was justified in shooting a kid after a few hours of interviewing Zimmerman (and only Zimmerman) and without properly securing the crime scene.

Since the cops didn't investigate well enough, I'm sure glad all of those protests that motivate the additional year of investigation (including an investigation by the FBI), and a team of four prosecutors turned up all of that previously unk ...


I know, it's like when the cops don't investigate right away, some evidence might be lost. Weird.
 
2013-07-15 06:26:23 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.



And another person who has no clue.

Stand your ground was not involved
Zimmerman was not a racist
 
2013-07-15 06:26:55 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Munchausen's Proxy: One of the early prosecution witnesses. I believe his name was Good

BZZT!  WRONG!  I'm sorry, the correct answer was...

Yeah, not so much

Two witnesses called by the prosecution today described George Zimmerman as being on the losing end of a fight with Trayvon Martin in the moments before Zimmerman shot the Florida teenager   from http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-beaten-prosecution-witnesse s /story?id=19517236#.UeRw621EOSo


One of those witnesses saw a part of the fight and the other didn't see any of the fight.  The only two folks who know what happened were Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman.

Look, I get it.

Not from what I've read.

You want there to be evidence of racism EVERYWHERE and when there is none, you make it up as you go.

If you read upthread you'll see a point where I claim exactly the opposite.  Unlike yourself I do not qualify myself as having godlike powers to determine what was in either of these men's hearts nor to know exactly what happened when there were no witnesses to the entire incident other than Zimmerman.

 It would appear that you have prejudged him before getting all the information.

It would appear that you prefer to consider Zimmerman a hero despite all the information.
 
2013-07-15 06:27:09 PM
Really? The media was so unfair to Zimmerman? Guess I'm the only one who remembers the same "lamestream" media sourcing images from Stormfront that weren't even of Trayvon, then trying ever so hard to portray him as a "thug" because he smoked weed (which no high schooler ever does) and had pictures of himself flipping the bird, which you'd be hardpressed to find the same media people calling a white kid a thug for doing.
 
2013-07-15 06:29:16 PM

Click Click D'oh: 2) No amount of force on the part of Martin was justified at any point.  You can't physically attack a person for simply following you.


So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?

Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.
 
2013-07-15 06:29:41 PM
Remember folks, these people who still believe that Zimmerman is guilty of something, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and a unanimous verdict of not guilty by 6 people who were forced to pay attention to the facts.. these people can vote.
 
2013-07-15 06:30:10 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Trayvon Martin was home alone that night; his dad and future step-mother were out of the house until after 10pm. George Zimmerman made Martin nervous enough that Martin ran away twice, and both times Zimmerman pursued. Zimmerman never once identified himself as the neighborhood watch despite being asked directly why he was following Martin, and he left his car when the police dispatcher advised him not to to pursue Martin on foot, despite no evidence that Martin had done anything wrong. If I was a woman and had had that kind of encounter with a man, I'd have assumed he was a rapist and maced that guy right in the face, at the very least. Why does Trayvon Martin not get to have the same kind of response?

I'm not saying that Zimmerman WANTED to kill Martin. I'm not saying he's guilty of murder 2. I'm saying that Zimmerman's actions directly led to the confrontation with Martin, and that he had numerous opportunities to defuse the situation and chose instead to escalate the situation. What was a non-situation escalated into a violent altercation and ended up with a dead kid. Martin ran away twice. Why is it, in your mind, Martin's fault that this happened?


Unless Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman was justified, then Mr. Martin bears responsibility for the consequences of his attack, including his death. By escalating the situation, Mr. Martin is responsible for the consequences of the escalation.

The hypothetical scenario that you describe with a woman using mace is similar to a hypothetical scenario described in a different Fark discussion. As I stated there: the use of mace by the woman against a man who was following her, absent any demonstration of aggressive intent by him, would not be legally justified, and she would be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from that attack. Only until and unless the man following the woman behaved in a manner that established a reasonable fear of an imminent attack (and following is insufficient to establish a fear of an imminent attack) is the use of mace justified.
 
2013-07-15 06:34:55 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?



And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.  There is no evidence what so ever to suggest that Zimmerman used any amount of force against Martin prior to firing the fatal shot.

Welcome to the gun control thread experiment.
 
2013-07-15 06:35:37 PM

Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: Trayvon Martin was home alone that night; his dad and future step-mother were out of the house until after 10pm. George Zimmerman made Martin nervous enough that Martin ran away twice, and both times Zimmerman pursued. Zimmerman never once identified himself as the neighborhood watch despite being asked directly why he was following Martin, and he left his car when the police dispatcher advised him not to to pursue Martin on foot, despite no evidence that Martin had done anything wrong. If I was a woman and had had that kind of encounter with a man, I'd have assumed he was a rapist and maced that guy right in the face, at the very least. Why does Trayvon Martin not get to have the same kind of response?

I'm not saying that Zimmerman WANTED to kill Martin. I'm not saying he's guilty of murder 2. I'm saying that Zimmerman's actions directly led to the confrontation with Martin, and that he had numerous opportunities to defuse the situation and chose instead to escalate the situation. What was a non-situation escalated into a violent altercation and ended up with a dead kid. Martin ran away twice. Why is it, in your mind, Martin's fault that this happened?

Unless Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman was justified, then Mr. Martin bears responsibility for the consequences of his attack, including his death. By escalating the situation, Mr. Martin is responsible for the consequences of the escalation.

The hypothetical scenario that you describe with a woman using mace is similar to a hypothetical scenario described in a different Fark discussion. As I stated there: the use of mace by the woman against a man who was following her, absent any demonstration of aggressive intent by him, would not be legally justified, and she would be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from that attack. Only until and unless the man following the woman behaved in a manner that established a reasonable fear of an imminent attack (and following is

insufficient to establish a fear of an imminent attack) is the use of mace justified.

I'm saying that I think Martin feared for his life, just like any sane person would if they were being pursued two times by the same man in an 8-minute period. And please show me where any woman maced an innocent man and went to jail for it.
 
2013-07-15 06:36:16 PM

Click Click D'oh: Philip Francis Queeg: So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?


And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.  There is no evidence what so ever to suggest that Zimmerman used any amount of force against Martin prior to firing the fatal shot.

Welcome to the gun control thread experiment.


And there's no evidence that Martin started the fight.
 
2013-07-15 06:36:31 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Click Click D'oh: 2) No amount of force on the part of Martin was justified at any point.  You can't physically attack a person for simply following you.

So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?


No; had Mr. Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation, Mr. Martin would have been justified in the use of force against Mr. Zimmerman.


Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.

Mr. Zimmerman bears physical injuries consistent with being struck by fists. Mr. Martin's injuries were limited to his knuckles, which Mr. Zimmerman was unlikely to have inflicted (unless an argument is made that Mr. Zimmerman used his face to attack Mr. Martin's fists) and to a single gunshot wound, which was not likely to have been inflicted first, as Mr. Martin was likely unable to engage in any physical attack after receiving it. Therefore, physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Martin initiating a physical attack, and no evidence is better explained by the hypothesis that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
 
2013-07-15 06:36:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Click Click D'oh: 2) No amount of force on the part of Martin was justified at any point.  You can't physically attack a person for simply following you.

So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?

Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.


No just proof of assault w/ a deadly weapon which then legally allowed Zimmerman to respond with deadly force which was reaffirmed w/ a court verdict.
 
2013-07-15 06:40:31 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I'm saying that I think Martin feared for his life, just like any sane person would if they were being pursued two times by the same man in an 8-minute period.


Your speculation does not constitute a legal argument, nor does it establish legal justification for Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman.


And please show me where any woman maced an innocent man and went to jail for it.

Upon what occasion did I claim the occurrence of such an event?
 
2013-07-15 06:40:37 PM

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Click Click D'oh: 2) No amount of force on the part of Martin was justified at any point.  You can't physically attack a person for simply following you.

So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?

No; had Mr. Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation, Mr. Martin would have been justified in the use of force against Mr. Zimmerman.


Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.

Mr. Zimmerman bears physical injuries consistent with being struck by fists. Mr. Martin's injuries were limited to his knuckles, which Mr. Zimmerman was unlikely to have inflicted (unless an argument is made that Mr. Zimmerman used his face to attack Mr. Martin's fists) and to a single gunshot wound, which was not likely to have been inflicted first, as Mr. Martin was likely unable to engage in any physical attack after receiving it. Therefore, physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Martin initiating a physical attack, and no evidence is better explained by the hypothesis that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.


If Zimmerman swung at Martin and missed or shoved him (the girlfriend states she "heard the sound of pushing") there wouldn't be any evidence of that, either.
 
2013-07-15 06:40:58 PM

Mike Chewbacca: And there's no evidence that Martin started the fight.


What, you mean other than the complete lack of physical injuries on Martin other than the bullet wound and injuries consistent with punching another person... and the presence of injuries on Zimmerman consistent with being assaulted?  Other than that evidence you mean?

Let's revisit Florida law again.  It's completely and totally irrelevant who started the fight at the less than lethal state.  Once Martin escalated it to lethal force, Zimmerman had the right to respond in kind.  A person who escalates a non-lethal encounter to a lethal encounter goes from being victim to assailant and lethal force may be used against them even if the fight was started by the other party.

Again, your whole argument is based on ignorance of the law.
 
2013-07-15 06:41:29 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Remember folks, these people who still believe that Zimmerman is guilty of something, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and a unanimous verdict of not guilty by 6 people who were forced to pay attention to the facts.. these people can vote.


It's probably too difficult a concept for you to understand that folks can look at the facts of this case, believe Zimmerman probably shouldn't have been convicted of murder one, that the jury made the correct decision under the law and still believe that that the fact Zimmerman's not even getting a slap on the rist evidence of a broader problem with the laws of the state of Florida with regards to lethal confrontations.
 
2013-07-15 06:43:42 PM

Mike Chewbacca: (the girlfriend states she "heard the sound of pushing")


Blueberries taste like purple.
 
2013-07-15 06:44:32 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Click Click D'oh: 2) No amount of force on the part of Martin was justified at any point.  You can't physically attack a person for simply following you.

So if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, Martin was required to take it and not fight back?

No; had Mr. Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation, Mr. Martin would have been justified in the use of force against Mr. Zimmerman.


Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.

Mr. Zimmerman bears physical injuries consistent with being struck by fists. Mr. Martin's injuries were limited to his knuckles, which Mr. Zimmerman was unlikely to have inflicted (unless an argument is made that Mr. Zimmerman used his face to attack Mr. Martin's fists) and to a single gunshot wound, which was not likely to have been inflicted first, as Mr. Martin was likely unable to engage in any physical attack after receiving it. Therefore, physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Martin initiating a physical attack, and no evidence is better explained by the hypothesis that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.

If Zimmerman swung at Martin and missed or shoved him (the girlfriend states she "heard the sound of pushing") there wouldn't be any evidence of that, either.


If evidence indicated that Mr. Zimmerman engaged in such behaviour, then Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime in doing so.
 
2013-07-15 06:44:34 PM

Dimensio: Your speculation does not constitute a legal argument, nor does it establish legal justification for Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman.


And? I'm not arguing in a court of law. I'm arguing that as a human being, it is understandable that Trayvon Martin felt that his only option was to confront Zimmerman. I never said that Zimmerman should be in jail for murder (although manslaughter, probably). I'm just trying to get people to put themselves in Martin's shoes. Why you can't see why a teenager might be scared of a guy chasing him down twice and refusing to identify himself, I don't know.

Dimensio: Upon what occasion did I claim the occurrence of such an event?


You said that any woman macing a guy she thought was going to rape her would be convicted of assault. Show me where that's happened.

Also, we're on an internet forum. No need to pretend to be writing a college paper, mkay? We're just two dudes talking about a dead kid.
 
2013-07-15 06:45:23 PM

Blathering Idjut: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Remember folks, these people who still believe that Zimmerman is guilty of something, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and a unanimous verdict of not guilty by 6 people who were forced to pay attention to the facts.. these people can vote.

It's probably too difficult a concept for you to understand that folks can look at the facts of this case, believe Zimmerman probably shouldn't have been convicted of murder one, that the jury made the correct decision under the law and still believe that that the fact Zimmerman's not even getting a slap on the rist evidence of a broader problem with the laws of the state of Florida with regards to lethal confrontations.


This has nothing to do w/ Florida SYG law, in every state except for Ohio? the prosecution has to disprove Zimmerman self defense claim.  They completely failed to due so and went as far as to hide evidence and wrongfully terminate the sysadmin who blew the whistle on it.
 
2013-07-15 06:45:25 PM

Dimensio: Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.

Mr. Zimmerman bears physical injuries consistent with being struck by fists. Mr. Martin's injuries were limited to his knuckles, which Mr. Zimmerman was unlikely to have inflicted (unless an argument is made that Mr. Zimmerman used his face to attack Mr. Martin's fists) and to a single gunshot wound, which was not likely to have been inflicted first, as Mr. Martin was likely unable to engage in any physical attack after receiving it. Therefore, physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Martin initiating a physical attack, and no evidence is better explained by the hypothesis that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.


So if Zimmerman swung and missed, Martin couldn't defend himself?

How about if he hit Martin, but didn't leave a bruise?

What if he attempted to choke Martin?

But that's all beside the point, there remains no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. Just speculation.
 
2013-07-15 06:45:37 PM

Blathering Idjut: ... the fact Zimmerman's not even getting a slap on the rist evidence of a broader problem with the laws of the state of Florida with regards to lethal confrontations.


How would you change the law to hold Zimmerman responsible?
 
2013-07-15 06:47:38 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Your speculation does not constitute a legal argument, nor does it establish legal justification for Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman.

And? I'm not arguing in a court of law. I'm arguing that as a human being, it is understandable that Trayvon Martin felt that his only option was to confront Zimmerman. I never said that Zimmerman should be in jail for murder (although manslaughter, probably). I'm just trying to get people to put themselves in Martin's shoes. Why you can't see why a teenager might be scared of a guy chasing him down twice and refusing to identify himself, I don't know.


Fear of an individual in evident pursuit is understandable. Use of force against the individual, when the individual has not created a reasonable belief of imminent grievous bodily injury or death, is not.


Dimensio: Upon what occasion did I claim the occurrence of such an event?

You said that any woman macing a guy she thought was going to rape her would be convicted of assault. Show me where that's happened.

Also, we're on an internet forum. No need to pretend to be writing a college paper, mkay? We're just two dudes talking about a dead kid.


I stated specifically that such a woman would "be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from that attack." I made no assertion regarding a conviction of assault.
 
2013-07-15 06:47:52 PM

Click Click D'oh: Let's revisit Florida law again. It's completely and totally irrelevant who started the fight at the less than lethal state.


Is it really? So if I was in Florida I could start a fistfight with someone and let myself lose so badly that I could get away with killing someone? Not that I'm saying Zimmerman let himself lose. I just don't understand the logic of that legal standing.

Also, again, I'm not arguing that Zimmerman should be up on murder charges. The police failed to properly investigate and it is impossible for them to get all the evidence that they failed to get the first time. They also failed to secure the scene (Zimmerman's wife moved his truck after the shooting). Yes, Zimmerman should walk. Does that mean he's innocent? No. Does that mean we have nothing to learn from this? No.
 
2013-07-15 06:51:15 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.

Mr. Zimmerman bears physical injuries consistent with being struck by fists. Mr. Martin's injuries were limited to his knuckles, which Mr. Zimmerman was unlikely to have inflicted (unless an argument is made that Mr. Zimmerman used his face to attack Mr. Martin's fists) and to a single gunshot wound, which was not likely to have been inflicted first, as Mr. Martin was likely unable to engage in any physical attack after receiving it. Therefore, physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Martin initiating a physical attack, and no evidence is better explained by the hypothesis that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.

So if Zimmerman swung and missed, Martin couldn't defend himself?

How about if he hit Martin, but didn't leave a bruise?

What if he attempted to choke Martin?

But that's all beside the point, there remains no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. Just speculation.


The physical evidence supporting the hypothesis that Mr. Martin initiated the physical confrontation, by way of the injuries inflicted upon Mr. Zimmerman combined with the lack of injury to Mr. Martin, is greater than the physical evidence that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, of which there is none.
 
2013-07-15 06:53:33 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Click Click D'oh: Let's revisit Florida law again. It's completely and totally irrelevant who started the fight at the less than lethal state.

Is it really? So if I was in Florida I could start a fistfight with someone and let myself lose so badly that I could get away with killing someone? Not that I'm saying Zimmerman let himself lose. I just don't understand the logic of that legal standing.

Also, again, I'm not arguing that Zimmerman should be up on murder charges. The police failed to properly investigate and it is impossible for them to get all the evidence that they failed to get the first time. They also failed to secure the scene (Zimmerman's wife moved his truck after the shooting). Yes, Zimmerman should walk. Does that mean he's innocent? No. Does that mean we have nothing to learn from this? No.


If your fight met all of these conditions:


776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
 
2013-07-15 06:53:56 PM

dittybopper: 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.


We've heard numbers ranging from 8 to 40 seconds.  But we'll take the longest one cause that's what the fight expert said.  But let's take that at face value.  As that same expert said, 40 seconds in a fight is a lifetime.  Watch a guy "ground and pound" someone in UFC sometime.  Like the story goes.

I don't doubt there was a fight, or that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

I just happen to think he was an idiot, starting with the call to non emergency, all the way through shooting the kid.  I think every decision, start to finish, was bad.  Not necessarily criminal.  But very stupid.

I wasn't disparaging your story, just commenting that you're like that uncle who hears a war story from a returning vet and launches into his harrowing tale of sailing with the national guard when you talk about this case.
 
2013-07-15 06:54:07 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Click Click D'oh: Let's revisit Florida law again. It's completely and totally irrelevant who started the fight at the less than lethal state.

Is it really? So if I was in Florida I could start a fistfight with someone and let myself lose so badly that I could get away with killing someone? Not that I'm saying Zimmerman let himself lose. I just don't understand the logic of that legal standing.


If you initiated a physical altercation when in Florida, you would be justified in using deadly force only if you experienced a fear that would be evident to a reasonable person that you were in imminent risk of grievous bodily injury or death and you either were unable to safely retreat or you had retreated but your assailant pursued you. Even were you found justified for using deadly force, your initiation of the attack would itself be legally actionable.

In Kentucky -- which I believe has a better constructed law regarding the use of deadly force -- an aggressor forfeits any claim of self-defense by initiating an attack.
 
2013-07-15 06:55:03 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Is it really? So if I was in Florida I could start a fistfight with someone and let myself lose so badly that I could get away with killing someone?


It's not going to go so well for you when it comes out that your plan for starting the fight was to kill a person.  You can't use a self defense claim then.  But hey, anyone familiar with the law would know that.


Mike Chewbacca: Not that I'm saying Zimmerman let himself lose. I just don't understand the logic of that legal standing.


It would help if you read the applicable law in this case:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
 
2013-07-15 06:56:49 PM

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Again there is no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That is pure speculation on the part of the Zimmerman supporters.

Mr. Zimmerman bears physical injuries consistent with being struck by fists. Mr. Martin's injuries were limited to his knuckles, which Mr. Zimmerman was unlikely to have inflicted (unless an argument is made that Mr. Zimmerman used his face to attack Mr. Martin's fists) and to a single gunshot wound, which was not likely to have been inflicted first, as Mr. Martin was likely unable to engage in any physical attack after receiving it. Therefore, physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Martin initiating a physical attack, and no evidence is better explained by the hypothesis that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.

So if Zimmerman swung and missed, Martin couldn't defend himself?

How about if he hit Martin, but didn't leave a bruise?

What if he attempted to choke Martin?

But that's all beside the point, there remains no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. Just speculation.

The physical evidence supporting the hypothesis speculation that Mr. Martin initiated the physical confrontation, by way of the injuries inflicted upon Mr. Zimmerman combined with the lack of injury to Mr. Martin, is greater than the physical evidence that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, of which there is none.


None is not greater than none. Who has the greater injury is not in any way indicative of who started the physical confrontation.
 
2013-07-15 06:57:04 PM
isn't it interesting how the idiots that regularly argue for progressive/liberal politics on fark are the same ones arguing against zimmerman now?
 
2013-07-15 07:00:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: But that's all beside the point, there remains no evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. Just speculation.


speculation is more than good enough for The Internet
 
2013-07-15 07:01:24 PM

Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Your speculation does not constitute a legal argument, nor does it establish legal justification for Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman.

And? I'm not arguing in a court of law. I'm arguing that as a human being, it is understandable that Trayvon Martin felt that his only option was to confront Zimmerman. I never said that Zimmerman should be in jail for murder (although manslaughter, probably). I'm just trying to get people to put themselves in Martin's shoes. Why you can't see why a teenager might be scared of a guy chasing him down twice and refusing to identify himself, I don't know.

Fear of an individual in evident pursuit is understandable. Use of force against the individual, when the individual has not created a reasonable belief of imminent grievous bodily injury or death, is not.


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I would have behaved any differently if I was in Trayvon's shoes, especially since I have the lung capacity of a chihuahua thanks to a lifetime of asthma and allergies. I don't know if Martin NEEDED to fight Zimmerman (and I'm not willing to say he hit first, because the girlfriend hear sounds of pushing, which could have been started by anyone), but I probably would have had to since I'm slow as shiat and I can't run far.

Dimensio: Upon what occasion did I claim the occurrence of such an event?

You said that any woman macing a guy she thought was going to rape her would be convicted of assault. Show me where that's happened.

Also, we're on an internet forum. No need to pretend to be writing a college paper, mkay? We're just two dudes talking about a dead kid.

I stated specifically that such a woman would "be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from that attack." I made no assertion regarding a conviction of assault.


And now you're splitting hairs.

Again, my argument has been to get people to understand why Martin may have done what he did. You all are so readily letting Zimmerman off the hook because Martin didn't behave perfectly in this situation, and you're failing to understand why that might be. You're assigning blame to the child when it was the adult who was the responsible party in this situation.

1. Teenagers are stupid and they make stupid decisions.
2. He was home alone; his dad didn't get home from his date until after 10pm.
3. He'd already run away from Zimmerman twice.
4. He'd already asked Zimmerman why he was following him, and the answer was "Why are you here?" and/or "I'm not following you," the latter of which is a lie.
5. Zimmerman stated that Martin saw his gun, so all of Martin's fears would have been justified the moment he saw it.
6. Martin was told by the dispatcher that he did not need to follow Martin.
7. Zimmerman never informed Martin that he was the neighborhood watch coordinator.
8. Zimmerman could have chosen to NOT pursue Martin, which would have prevented the entire altercation. In fact, it was his JOB as the neighborhood watch ("watch", no "do")to make sure the situation did not escalate. His own actions escalated the situation, and a kid ended up dead.
9. If Zimmerman had been an actual cop, he'd have had training in how to deal with this kind of situation, and Trayvon Martin would not be dead. And that is exactly why the dispatcher told him not to pursue.
7. Zimmerman
 
2013-07-15 07:02:08 PM

the_dude_abides: isn't it interesting how the idiots that regularly argue for progressive/liberal politics on fark are the same ones arguing against zimmerman now?


...No?
 
2013-07-15 07:03:34 PM

the_dude_abides: isn't it interesting how the idiots that regularly argue for progressive/liberal politics on fark are the same ones arguing against zimmerman now?


Newsflash: Sometimes people don't hold with the party line and have independent thoughts. Romero has more at 11.
 
2013-07-15 07:04:29 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Your speculation does not constitute a legal argument, nor does it establish legal justification for Mr. Martin's attack upon Mr. Zimmerman.

And? I'm not arguing in a court of law. I'm arguing that as a human being, it is understandable that Trayvon Martin felt that his only option was to confront Zimmerman. I never said that Zimmerman should be in jail for murder (although manslaughter, probably). I'm just trying to get people to put themselves in Martin's shoes. Why you can't see why a teenager might be scared of a guy chasing him down twice and refusing to identify himself, I don't know.

Fear of an individual in evident pursuit is understandable. Use of force against the individual, when the individual has not created a reasonable belief of imminent grievous bodily injury or death, is not.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I would have behaved any differently if I was in Trayvon's shoes, especially since I have the lung capacity of a chihuahua thanks to a lifetime of asthma and allergies. I don't know if Martin NEEDED to fight Zimmerman (and I'm not willing to say he hit first, because the girlfriend hear sounds of pushing, which could have been started by anyone), but I probably would have had to since I'm slow as shiat and I can't run far.

Dimensio: Upon what occasion did I claim the occurrence of such an event?

You said that any woman macing a guy she thought was going to rape her would be convicted of assault. Show me where that's happened.

Also, we're on an internet forum. No need to pretend to be writing a college paper, mkay? We're just two dudes talking about a dead kid.

I stated specifically that such a woman would "be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from that attack." I made no assertion regarding a conviction of assault.

And now you're splitting hairs.

Again, my argument has been to get people to understand why Martin may have done what he did. You all are so readily letting Zimmerman off the h ...


I understand and respect your position, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions. I would comment further, but I have already delayed my evening exercise routine by more than an hour.

/I need to lose twenty more pounds.
//OR I'LL NEVER BE PRETTY!
 
2013-07-15 07:05:00 PM

Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca: Is it really? So if I was in Florida I could start a fistfight with someone and let myself lose so badly that I could get away with killing someone?

It's not going to go so well for you when it comes out that your plan for starting the fight was to kill a person.  You can't use a self defense claim then.  But hey, anyone familiar with the law would know that.


Hey, it's your assertion. You're the one who said that it doesn't matter who started the fight in its non-lethal state. I'm not saying that Zimmerman went into it wanting to kill Martin. I'm just saying that Martin's reaction was understandable given the circumstances.
 
2013-07-15 07:09:01 PM

ShadowKamui:

This has nothing to do w/ Florida SYG law, in every state except for Ohio? the prosecution has to disprove Zimmerman self defense claim.  They completely failed to due so and went as far as to hide evidence and wrongfully terminate the sysadmin who blew the whistle on it.

This specific instance aside- in Florida Guy One starts a fight with Guy Two.  Guy One produces a gun and shoots Guy Two.  There are no witnesses.  Guy One claims self-defense and the state has to somehow face the impossible task of proving an unprovable that lethal force was somehow avoidable.

This doesn't strike you as twisted?  Florida has literally made jaywalking a worse crime than murder.  Intentional or not.

Click Click D'oh: How would you change the law to hold Zimmerman responsible?


I'm not sure.  This is broader than the SYG laws which should not be a part of any civilized book of law in any state.

I believe the burden of proof should be on the state, especially in capitol crimes.  But it should neither be an impossible hurdle to the point it's a loophole towards killing someone carelessly and getting away with it.

The only thing I'm certain of is that every time we legislate from a point of fear rather than reason we get these sort of inadvertent and in this case tragic results.
 
2013-07-15 07:12:13 PM

Mike Chewbacca: 1. Teenagers are stupid and they make stupid decisions.



And sometimes stupid gets you killed.  Legally.

The take away from this incident shouldn't be that Zimmerman made a bad choice, it should be that attacking random people on the street can get you killed.  Instead of having faux outrage, parents should be sitting down with their little thugs and explaining to them that they may think they are tough.  They may think they are the shiat.  They may think it's okay to beat up on people who they think are Creepy-ass crackers or who disrespected them... but in the real world, there's always going to be someone that is just that much faster, that much stronger or has a gun.  And that person is going to kill you.

You want to honor Trayvons memory?  Use him as a tool to teach people that your decisions have consequences and some of them are fatal.  If you are willing to fight with people on the street, be ready to get killed by people on the street.

Mike Chewbacca: 5. Zimmerman stated that Martin saw his gun, so all of Martin's fears would have been justified the moment he saw it.


Too bad he didn't think about that before attacking Zimmerman.  He might still be alive if he did.
 
2013-07-15 07:16:30 PM

Mike Chewbacca:  I'm not saying that Zimmerman went into it wanting to kill Martin.


Then you have no argument to make at all and must concede that Zimmerman was justified to use lethal force against Martin, even if Zimmerman started the fight, because Martin escalated it to lethal force and Zimmerman was left no option to retreat and was clearly indicating a desire to not fight by yelling for help.

Again, your whole argument is based on ignorance of the law.


Mike Chewbacca: I'm just saying that Martin's reaction was understandable given the circumstances.


You think it's understandable that he attacked a person for simply following him?  You do have a lawyer on retainer right? ... because, if you follow your own advice you are going to need one sooner or later.

Blathering Idjut: This is broader than the SYG laws which should not be a part of any civilized book of law in any state.


Holy hell.  SYG was not part of this case.  How hard is it to... No.  Nevermind.  Welcome to the gun control thread experiment.


.
 
2013-07-15 07:17:35 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I'm saying that I think Martin feared for his life, just like any sane person would if they were being pursued two times by the same man in an 8-minute period. And please show me where any woman maced an innocent man and went to jail for it.


So if you were afraid for your life because of a "creepy ass cracker", you'd leave the area, and return just 4 minutes later to the exact area where you last saw him?  That's what TM did, and it doesn't sound like the decision of a scared person, that is someone who is anything but scared.

Blathering Idjut: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Remember folks, these people who still believe that Zimmerman is guilty of something, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and a unanimous verdict of not guilty by 6 people who were forced to pay attention to the facts.. these people can vote.

It's probably too difficult a concept for you to understand that folks can look at the facts of this case, believe Zimmerman probably shouldn't have been convicted of murder one, that the jury made the correct decision under the law and still believe that that the fact Zimmerman's not even getting a slap on the rist evidence of a broader problem with the laws of the state of Florida with regards to lethal confrontations.


Yeah, maybe I don't understand.. I don't understand how you could think there's a problem when someone defends themself with lethal force when in reasonable fear for their life, unless you are the type of person who routinely makes people fear for their lives.  Explain that one to me.  Who should these laws frighten aside from those who conduct themselves like animals?
 
2013-07-15 07:18:06 PM

Click Click D'oh: The take away from this incident shouldn't be that Zimmerman made a bad choice, it should be that attacking random people on the street can get you killed.


Random people don't follow you in the middle of the night in their vehicles.
 
2013-07-15 07:23:14 PM

redmid17: Newsflash: Sometimes people don't hold with the party line and have independent thoughts. Romero has more at 11.


lol the anti-zimmerman narrative was signed, sealed and delivered by the left-leaning news outlets and the dolts on fark are parroting that retarded narrative.

newsflash for you and the progressive brain trust -- the verdict was not a referendum on killing black kids, nor was it the zeitgeist of black/white relations in this country. it was the ONLY logical conclusion to a weak case the state put on against george zimmerman, nothing more.
 
2013-07-15 07:23:16 PM

vpb: 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)


I have read it. It's the version which was in effect when I took the Florida Bar Exam.
 
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