Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   Zimmerman's lawyer: Hey I thought he was guilty and believed everything the media said before I became his lawyer, then I saw the facts, presented it in court and won. Not my fault Americans are a factless lynch mob   (newsbusters.org) divider line 66
    More: Interesting, Mark O'Mara, Benjamin Crump, Alan Dershowitz, guilty  
•       •       •

2823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-07-15 12:59:29 PM  
9 votes:
Sadly, Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges.  The problem is the law in the state of Florida.  All those assholes who pushed for the stand your ground law to be enacted are have blood on their hands along with Zimmerman.  They made what he did legal.

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

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

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

He is responsible for Martin's death, but not guilty of a crime.
2013-07-15 02:31:13 PM  
7 votes:
Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

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

Where's the justice?
2013-07-15 02:04:04 PM  
6 votes:

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

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

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


ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com

On the left is Zimmerman shortly after the shooting, when he was regularly going to the gym and taking mixed martial arts.  He gained a significant amount of weight before the trial even started, and continued to pack on fat during the trial.  His lawyer claimed that he was gorging out of depression, but a few people theorized he did it to deliberately to project that exact image to the jury.  Too fat to catch the kid, much less win a fight with him.
2013-07-15 01:43:14 PM  
5 votes:
Yep, it's almost like a bunch of civilians thought Zimmerman was doing something wrong, so they took the law into their own hands, tracked him down and killed him. Doing something like that would be a terrible injustice.
2013-07-15 02:14:20 PM  
4 votes:
I wasn't really sure what to think, until I saw that recent clip of Zimmerman on Hannity saying that he wouldn't have done anything differently, and that what happened was "all part of God's plan".

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

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

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

Which is exactly what he wanted from the very beginning, as far as I can tell.
2013-07-15 01:45:58 PM  
4 votes:

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

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


For shiat's sake THIS.

SYG had NOTHING to do with this case.  I want to throttle the idiot who tries to blame it on Florida law every time I hear it.  This was a straight up self-defense case.  Period.
2013-07-15 01:03:50 PM  
4 votes:
Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.
2013-07-15 04:12:39 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:45:01 PM  
3 votes:
It still amazes me that people think an overweight 29 year old could "stalk" a young guy who could likely have run much faster than Z could walk

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

/Don't start pretending I'm a conservative or something, I've earned the ire of both "sides" to this trial
2013-07-15 01:40:13 PM  
3 votes:

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


Even more sadly, is how many people think this case was tried on "Stand your ground".
2013-07-15 01:10:11 PM  
3 votes:

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


You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.
2013-07-15 12:27:58 PM  
3 votes:
It's also not his fault the prosecutor overreached with the charges.
2013-07-15 12:21:32 PM  
3 votes:
Yes. A lawyer changed his opinion based off who was paying him.

America was shocked.
2013-07-15 05:36:07 PM  
2 votes:

Elegy: So you are OK with talking about Zimmerman's past, but not about Martin's? You want to avoid the fact that Martin's text messages revealed he was interested in fighting, that he had been in several fights, and that his younger brother asked Martin to teach him to fight.


Martin wasn't on trial.  You folks have conflated victims here.
2013-07-15 05:28:50 PM  
2 votes:

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.


You realize the only outside witness to the fight testified he never saw Martin ramming Zimmerman's head into the concrete right?
2013-07-15 05:04:46 PM  
2 votes:

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

Speculation is not evidence.

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

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

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

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


No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.
2013-07-15 03:01:26 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

Where's the justice?

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


That's how I see it, but the problem is that there is no evidence of what actually triggered the physical altercation. Disobeying a dispatcher's orders is not a crime in this case, and no one knows how the fight began aside from Zimmerman and Martin. Alas, only one of those people lived to tell the story, and that's pretty much all the jury had to work with. You're not allowed to fill in the gaps with your imagination or prejudices as a juror, and that is a fundamental principle of our judicial system. Let us not forget that in the United States, we prefer to set a guilty person free than to incarcerate an innocent person out of an overabundance of caution. I am pretty sure every juror thinks Zimmerman is a piece of shiat and that the outcome of this trial does not bring justice to Martin's family, but they followed strict instructions and considered only the admissible evidence. So it goes.
2013-07-15 03:00:52 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


1) Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch.  For all he knew, Zimmerman was going to rob him.
2) Zimmerman wasn't a cop.  As shocking a statement as this is for fark - a cop would have behaved more responsibly and would have been less likely to end up killing someone for suspicion of walking while black.
2013-07-15 02:29:22 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


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

And someone else said that Martin should have called the cops. Know how I know that someone wasn't black? Because black people don't see cops as someone they can turn to in times of crisis, because why should they when cops automatically assume they're up to no good? Also, remember that the cops didn't identify Martin until his family pushed them to; they just assumed a black kid couldn't possibly be from that neighborhood. And again, the cops did a cursory NARCOTICS investigation and decided that Zimmerman had done nothing wrong. I can't imagine why black people don't trust the cops. shiat, even Levar Burton puts his hands outside his car window when he gets pulled over, and that's in libtardo California, and he's famous.
2013-07-15 02:03:29 PM  
2 votes:
I am still kind of puzzled why everybody in the US sees the race factor as so important in this case. Martin isn't dead because he is black, he is dead because civilians/morons are allowed to carry guns. In any other civilized country Zimmerman would have stayed in his car because he wouldn't have had a gun.
2013-07-15 01:57:03 PM  
2 votes:
There's not a shred of doubt in my mind...if the facts of the case were exactly the same, except teenage Trayvon was the guy wandering the neighborhood at night with a loaded pistol and GZ was the unarmed dead guy, there would have been an arrest right then and there, TM would have been tried and found guilty and not a single person here would have cared a bit. Including me.
2013-07-15 01:52:41 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Yes and no. Zimmerman's team didn't specifically claim it, no.  But, the judge's instructions to the jury (explaining relevant laws)  did in fact reference explain Stand Your Ground quite directly.
2013-07-15 01:47:11 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


In every state except maybe Ohio (there's one goofy one out there) what Zimm did was standard self defense.  This had nothing to do w/ SYG, nor has any proof been shown that Zimm is a racist.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 01:22:47 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Well, Martin couldn't have punched Zimmerman in the face if Zimmerman had followed in a car instead of on foot.  Not if the window was up.
2013-07-16 09:33:13 PM  
1 votes:
@RanDomino: I would at least expect that there'd be, you know, actual proof of racism before crying racism

And the more I find out about Zimmerman the more absurd the idea he is racist becomes.

1. helped a homeless guy. who was black
2. took a chick to prom. who was black
3. mentored children. who were black

In other words, did exactly the opposite of what a racist would do in all three cases
2013-07-16 10:00:44 AM  
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: 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???


I find this particular argument the most disturbing and nonsensical.

Basically, Zimmerman is a murderer, because he shot someone who had knocked him to the ground, broken his nose, and was bashing his head into the pavement.

But Martin is completely justified in trying to beat a man to death because he may have seen a gun on him? Or worse, Martin was completely justified in assaulting a man because, effectively, he was looking at him funny?

There is a bizarre disconnect whereby the ONE person who's life is demonstrably jeopardized is assumed to be a racist murderer,  but the person who used racial epithets, had a history of violence, threw the first punch and tried to beat a man to death or into the hospital is an innocent victim.

Look, This whole thing was the stupid result of two men suffering from excess machismo, and a bloated sense of their own manhood. Zimmerman is very far from blameless here, but this bizarre logic that Martin has the moral highground and was justified in beating a man for "hassling" him is just nonsense.
2013-07-15 11:38:33 PM  
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: phygz: Fart_Machine: LemSkroob: On Thursday, July 11, 2013, police discovered the rotting body of 17-year-old Darryl Green, a black child from the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago. Green's body was found behind a boarded-up house in the 6500-block of South Damen, face down on basement stairs. The body was so badly decomposed that originally, local news reports suggested that he had died of blunt force trauma. On Friday, an autopsy showed he had been shot to death. Relatives reported that Green had refused to join a gang at school.

So, where are the protests, the marches in the streets, and CNN/MSNBC coverage? Where are Al Sharpton and Nancy Grace???

They acquitted the gang members who shot him?

said race baiters should be screaming for justice, no?

Again if they acquitted the person or persons who shot him you might have a point...


you might have a point if the screams for Trayvon justice from the race baiters didn't occur until after the verdict
2013-07-15 11:37:15 PM  
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: They acquitted the gang members who shot him?


Shaprton, Grace, and the rest of the media didn't care about the zimmerman case until the verdict came in?
2013-07-15 09:25:29 PM  
1 votes:
I'm just going to go ahead and assume that those still in the Trayvon camp are as dumb as Rachel Jeantel because so for they proved to be.
2013-07-15 09:24:52 PM  
1 votes:

RanDomino: Missing the forest for the trees. The point isn't about this particular case. The point is that an aggressive wannabe-cop stalked an innocent young man for no other reason than racism


t2.gstatic.com
baaaa
baaaaaaaaa
baaaaaaaaaaaaaa
That one that you keep calling racist, (the "creepy-ass cracker") spent some of his spare time  standing up for a black homeless man before this incident.
From the transcript of the call, here's GZ's response to police when asked if he was white, black or Hispanic:
GZ: "He looks black."
Are you white?  Would Trayvon have called you a "cracker"?  Can you even take a step back and objectively understand how farked that is?  Why is that ok?  Because of slavery?  Because you choose to (obtusely) believe that only white people are capable of being racist?
You want to fight racism?  That's a noble cause.  It slaps you in the face and you still willfully ignore it and choose to look somewhere else.  You're only perpetuating it and even making it worse.  In the inner-cities of America racism is thriving.  Why don't you condemn it?  Racism holds us all back no matter where it's coming from.
Baaaa
Now if you'll excuse me,
Baaaaa
I have to go.
Baaaa
I'm have to make some signs to protest an event where Paula Deen will be appearing.
Baa-a-a-a
2013-07-15 06:06:40 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-15 05:51:09 PM  
1 votes:

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

Speculation is not evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.

And there is neither physical evidence nor witness testimony that supports a claim that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.


Evidence supports a claim of an attack by Mr. Martin on Mr. Zimmerman. No evidence supports a claim of an attack by Mr. Zimmerman upon Mr. Martin until after Mr. Zimmerman was himself under attack. As such, concluding that Mr. Martin initiated the attack is reasonable, until and unless further evidence indicates otherwise.
2013-07-15 05:30:10 PM  
1 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net

Anyone get BINGO yet?
2013-07-15 05:20:20 PM  
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: We don't know who threw the first punch.


There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates that GZ punched TM at any point.
2013-07-15 04:52:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:26:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:50:30 PM  
1 votes:
Let me see if I can follow Farklogic here...
If a white guy is following you through your neighborhood, that's a valid reason to use force, up to lethal force in self defense.
If a black guy is sitting on your chest, smashing your head into concrete, you're a racist pussy if you use lethal force.

Is that right?
2013-07-15 03:26:57 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Where's the justice?


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

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

Both men acted stupid that night, but to try to put all the blame on Zimmerman is stupid, and the jury agreed.
2013-07-15 03:18:43 PM  
1 votes:
Zimmerman: I'm gonna be a hero and catch me a street hood up to no good.

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

One hero was out-gunned.
2013-07-15 03:04:07 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

People love to forget that last part, so let me say it again: Martin never would have been shot if he'd shown one once of self control and quit beating on Zimmerman when either Zimmerman started yelling for help, or when John Good told him to stop.
2013-07-15 02:57:00 PM  
1 votes:
LOL, he basically states that the media unfairly portrayed Zimmerman by showing him at the weight he was when he shot Martin, and then went on to make sure Zimmerman lost a shiat-ton of weight before the trial so that he could manipulate the jurors into thinking that Martin was less threatening.

Sounds like he's FINE with manipulation when he's the one doing it.
2013-07-15 02:40:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Sucks, don't it?

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


Just because he didn't claim it doesn't mean he didn't waive it.  Since he won on a standard self-defense claim, it becomes trivial to get a SYG waiver.
2013-07-15 02:33:04 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant statue was actually 776.041

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

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


What is commonly referred to a "Stand Your Ground" is actually at 776.013.  776.012 was enacted in 1974 and states what is basically the law of self defense in almost every state.  Don't get too hung up on the language of the jury instructions.  They are standardized and still in flux due to several recent Fla Supreme Court rulings.
2013-07-15 02:26:09 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Ironically, gun control is most often aimed squarely at minorities.  In fact, it's the last real vestige of the old Jim Crow laws, but we're beating them back bit by bit.
2013-07-15 02:25:31 PM  
1 votes:

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


is this a serious question

zimmerman would have never left his house if martin had been white, hth
2013-07-15 02:24:45 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Consider the opposing perspective: TM catches GZ following him and notices he has a gun on him. Would you, as TM in this situation, perceive that as a threat?
2013-07-15 02:24:31 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Still baffles me that everyone expects Zimmerman to have iron self-control and perfect foresight, while they simultaneously expect not the least amount of self-control out of Martin, not even enough to stop hitting the man he has pinned to the ground and that's screaming for someone to help him.
2013-07-15 02:19:31 PM  
1 votes:
Have fun indoors Mr Zimmerman. You'll soon be paler than your supporters.
2013-07-15 02:11:48 PM  
1 votes:

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


Again, the defense did not argue that Martin had no obligation to flee (stand your ground). They argued straight self defense, based on the argument that Martin was being beaten, and had a reasonable fear of grievous harm or loss of life. This defense is in no way impacted by the presence or absence of "stand your ground" laws and is the same in every jurisdiction.
2013-07-15 02:07:56 PM  
1 votes:
If Trayvon Martin was this super-thug to Zimmerman's sissy-boy as the Zimmerman defenders portray, then why wasn't Zimmerman pounded flat? In real fights, where the one winning wants to do real harm to the other, the one getting the worst of it will be in no shape whatsoever to fight back as the one getting pounded will be unconscious. If Zimmerman's bullshiat account was true and Trayvon Martin was on top raining down blows, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Trayvon Martin.
2013-07-15 02:07:24 PM  
1 votes:

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


Because it is politically advantageous for a variety of organizations for it to be so.
2013-07-15 02:06:09 PM  
1 votes:
If someone starts a fight with me and I'm winning but end up getting shot in process, I hope my killer goes to jail.
2013-07-15 02:04:37 PM  
1 votes:

Lawnchair: The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.


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

Perhaps you can explain how you see these two legal strategies "are inextricably linked" in anyone but the general public's minds.
2013-07-15 01:58:46 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Amazing you're the 11ty billionth person to get it wrong.  If he had invoked stand your ground he'd have had a hearing to avoid trial.  He would have lost that hearing.  He was found not guilty because he used a self defense...defense.  In a civil trial he could face financial penalties regardless if he is found to have been negligent or what have you.  But stand-your-ground does not apply.  But we can all pretend it does right?  maybe it makes you feel more self righteous?
2013-07-15 01:56:17 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Did Treyvon Martin have the right to defended himself from an armed assailant?
2013-07-15 01:55:02 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


The two nominally separate strategies are inextricably linked.
2013-07-15 01:52:36 PM  
1 votes:

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


A good lawyer knows to keep his or her opinion out of the equation. It is irrelevant, their job is to represent their client the best they can.
2013-07-15 01:51:36 PM  
1 votes:

vonster: Pray for America.


No, I think I'd rather do something than nothing.
2013-07-15 01:49:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


I totally agree, it just sucks that Z gets to continue to be stupid in public.
2013-07-15 01:47:19 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

It's kind of ironic that the safest place for Zimmerman now would be a state that doesn't allow concealed carry for any and all idiots that want it and doesn't have a "He's comin' right for us" "Stand yer ground" law.
2013-07-15 01:42:58 PM  
1 votes:
Hahahaha - Newsbusters whining about "factless lynch mobs"
2013-07-15 01:42:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


If Zimmerman's parent's wouldn't have farked some 29 or 30 years ago Zimmerman wouldn't be around to kill Martin. I say we charge them with a crime as well since they're partially responsible for this situation.
2013-07-15 01:35:43 PM  
1 votes:
Could have thrown a rock, my point simply is that you can't say anything for certain, because you weren't there, and you don't know the state of mind of either of them
2013-07-15 01:15:29 PM  
1 votes:
While NewsBusters has (in my mind and many others, I'm sure) a less-than-stellar reputation, we could always look at the CNN transcript, and glean what we need to know from there: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/12/cnr.13.html

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

...and it's CNN... *shrug*
2013-07-15 12:56:28 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-07-15 12:29:44 PM  
1 votes:
From NewsBusters? Really? When have they every bothered with facts before jumping to conclusions?
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report