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.

(The Daily Show)   Jon Oliver of The Daily Show lays Zimmerman blame at the feet of a) a poor job by the prosecution b) the incompetent jury c) everyone's favorite Fark tag   (thedailyshow.com) divider line 211
    More: Florida, John Oliver, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, day schools  
•       •       •

3925 clicks; posted to Video » on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-16 11:06:43 AM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-16 11:25:22 AM  
He covers about everything that I felt about this case and that forsaken State.  Everything I've seen just drives me crazy.  Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared of.  And as a guy that wears a hoodie approximately half the year, apparently I would be a very scary person if it wasn't for my alabaster skin armor.
 
2013-07-16 11:42:22 AM  

Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared


Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.
 
2013-07-16 11:59:21 AM  

nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.


Only the truly cold-blooded earn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?
 
2013-07-16 12:31:14 PM  

factoryconnection: nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.

Only the truly cold-blooded earn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?


*sigh*

I see the Marissa Alexander case is going to be the next Florida outrage du jour based on a false racial narrative and biased media reporting. I saw it being pushed on CNN last night.

Let's try this again, shall we: Marissa Alexander had a restraining order against her SO, a man named Gray. She violated that restraining order when when she voluntarily went over to his house - where she hadn't lived for two months - and let herself in, thinking he wasn't home (technically B&E). He was home. There was a confrontation in the master bedroom. At some point Gray left the bedroom. Alexander walked out of the bedroom, past the open front door, and into the garage where she grabbed her gun and returned to confront Grey in either the living room or the kitchen.

They continued arguing and - according Grey and corroborated by the two children who were in the room at the time - said "I got something for you" and fired a shot at head height into the wall. The bullet deflected off something in the wall and ricocheted into the ceiling. She is lucky it didn't hit one of the kids.

The state charged her with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Alexander tried to plead SYG at her immunity hearing, but it was denied because she GRABBED A GUN AND RETURNED TO THE CONFRONTATION. Gray fled the house and called 911; Alexander never called 911. A SWAT team had to be called before she agreed to put down the weapon and come out of the house.

Alexander was told that SYG did not apply to her case. She was told that committing a felony involving the discharge of a firearm carries a mandatory sentence of 20 years under Florida's 10-20-Life rule whether you are white, black, or brown. She was offered a generous plea deal of 3 years with time served, but she rejected it and demanded a jury trial, where she continued to claim self-defense, despite being told that it would not apply.

Given that she admitted to fleeing the confrontation and returning with a gun at the trial, and given that she admitted to discharging her weapon in the same room with two children, the jury debated less than 17 minutes as to her guilt.

Marissa Alexander has no one to blame but herself for her long sentence. Arguing or implying that she received a 20 year sentence because she is black shows your absolute ignorance of Florida's mandatory sentencing laws.

Do try to learn the facts of the case before you express your outrage. You can even listen to the 911 call.

But you both really need to learn that "muh feelings" and "muh outrage" are not a substitute for a legal argument.

/Bonus Fact: 4 months after this incident while awaiting trial, Marissa Alexander was charged and later convicted for assaulting Gray.
 
2013-07-16 12:36:33 PM  
Bonus fun fact: the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting Marissa Alexander was Angela Corey, the same champion of racial injustice that was the head of the prosecution team on the Zimmerman case.
 
2013-07-16 12:39:16 PM  

Elegy: Bonus Fact: 4 months after this incident while awaiting trial, Marissa Alexander was charged and later convicted for assaulting Gray.


So people in Florida that recklessly take the law into their own hands, endangering children with firearms are dealt with harshly by the legal system?  Gotcha.
 
2013-07-16 12:39:16 PM  

factoryconnection: nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.

Only the truly cold-blooded

whiteearn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?


FTFY
 
2013-07-16 12:43:10 PM  

Shadowknight: He covers about everything that I felt about this case and that forsaken State.  Everything I've seen just drives me crazy.  Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared of.  And as a guy that wears a hoodie approximately half the year, apparently I would be a very scary person if it wasn't for my alabaster skin armor.


The Onion got it right.

Just because Zimmerman was morally responsible for Martin's death doesn't mean he broke the law.  That's what people are having a hard time getting their heads around.
 
2013-07-16 12:48:33 PM  
It doesn't happen often, but TDS seemed to go for the easy outrage on this one,, instead of their usual balancing of facts.
 
2013-07-16 12:50:13 PM  

Elegy: Bonus fun fact: the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting Marissa Alexander was Angela Corey, the same champion of racial injustice that was the head of the prosecution team on the Zimmerman case.

Also note that Ronald Thompson got a 20 year sentence for firing warning shots. He was also prosecuted by Angela Corey. And he is a white army veteran. So yes even white people get convicted of crimes and sentenced to mandatory minimums in flordia. And there are others serving 20 years under that law...

Link

Orville Lee Wollard, a former auxiliary police force member, shot a bullet into the wall to scare away his daughter's abusive boyfriend. Prosecutors offered him probation. But he wanted to be exonerated at trial. Now he's serving 20 years.

Erik Weyant, 22, fired shots in the air to disperse a group of drunk men who accosted him in a parking lot outside a bar and blocked his car. No one was hurt. But he's in for 20 years.

 
2013-07-16 01:03:23 PM  

Elegy: factoryconnection: nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.

Only the truly cold-blooded earn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?

*sigh*

I see the Marissa Alexander case is going to be the next Florida outrage du jour based on a false racial narrative and biased media reporting. I saw it being pushed on CNN last night.

Let's try this again, shall we: Marissa Alexander had a restraining order against her SO, a man named Gray. She violated that restraining order when when she voluntarily went over to his house - where she hadn't lived for two months - and let herself in, thinking he wasn't home (technically B&E). He was home. There was a confrontation in the master bedroom. At some point Gray left the bedroom. Alexander walked out of the bedroom, past the open front door, and into the garage where she grabbed her gun and returned to confront Grey in either the living room or the kitchen.

They continued arguing and - according Grey and corroborated by the two children who were in the room at the time - said "I got something for you" and fired a shot at head height into the wall. The bullet deflected off something in the wall and ricocheted into the ceiling. She is lucky it didn't hit one of the kids.

The state charged her with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Alexander tried to plead SYG at her immunity hearing, but it was denied because she GRABBED A GUN AND RETURNED T ...


..and the 'oh snap' was heard 'round the world
 
2013-07-16 01:06:22 PM  

Tellingthem: But he's in for 20 years.


I'm sorry to say it, but it really does appear that the lesson in the Zimmerman acquittal: kill all witnesses.

Florida, you're off the hook.  It is quite clear how you feel about "warning shots," which to be perfectly honest are illegal pretty much everywhere.
 
2013-07-16 01:08:41 PM  

Crewmannumber6: It doesn't happen often, but TDS seemed to go for the easy outrage on this one,, instead of their usual balancing of facts.


I, for one, can't really blame them in this case. There isn't really any other reaction when you consider that this guy followed and killed an unarmed kid because he looked suspicious, and got away with it because apparently it was legal.
 
2013-07-16 01:09:51 PM  

Elegy: factoryconnection: nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.

Only the truly cold-blooded earn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?

*sigh*

I see the Marissa Alexander case is going to be the next Florida outrage du jour based on a false racial narrative and biased media reporting. I saw it being pushed on CNN last night.

Let's try this again, shall we: Marissa Alexander had a restraining order against her SO, a man named Gray. She violated that restraining order when when she voluntarily went over to his house - where she hadn't lived for two months - and let herself in, thinking he wasn't home (technically B&E). He was home. There was a confrontation in the master bedroom. At some point Gray left the bedroom. Alexander walked out of the bedroom, past the open front door, and into the garage where she grabbed her gun and returned to confront Grey in either the living room or the kitchen.

They continued arguing and - according Grey and corroborated by the two children who were in the room at the time - said "I got something for you" and fired a shot at head height into the wall. The bullet deflected off something in the wall and ricocheted into the ceiling. She is lucky it didn't hit one of the kids.

The state charged her with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Alexander tried to plead SYG at her immunity hearing, but it was denied because she GRABBED A GUN AND RETURNED T ...


There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit. Florida should just throw out their laws and start from scratch, its the only way you will be able to fix the perverted twisted mess of laws that they have on the books right now, both civilly and criminally.
 
2013-07-16 01:15:33 PM  
20 years for shooting a gun in the air??? Can we have the name of her Lawyer just so I know who not to use.

Also, that comment by Zimmermans brother was poorly worded, but he DESTROYED Piers Morgan in that interview. I actually thought that interview was a new low for CNN. flame me all you want lol.
 
2013-07-16 01:18:22 PM  

factoryconnection: Elegy: Bonus Fact: 4 months after this incident while awaiting trial, Marissa Alexander was charged and later convicted for assaulting Gray.

So people in Florida that recklessly take the law into their own hands, endangering children with firearms are dealt with harshly by the legal system?  Gotcha.


Actually - and I didn't make thais clear - the assault charge stemmed from an entirely different event that happened some months later. Her and Gray got into an argument and she punched him in the face, giving him a black eye.

I'm not saying Gray is an angel - far from it, he's got 5 baby's mommas and a rap sheet that includes domestic violence - but in this case he was clearly beat up while she was not.

Alexander initially claimed she had an alibi for incident, and when that didn't pan out, started claiming Gray hit her first.

You can read more here.
 
2013-07-16 01:20:55 PM  

Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit. Florida should just throw out their laws and start from scratch, its the only way you will be able to fix the perverted twisted mess of laws that they have on the books right now, both civilly and criminally.


Fun fact:  That didn't happen.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of, the found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
 
2013-07-16 01:21:37 PM  

Shadowknight: Crewmannumber6: It doesn't happen often, but TDS seemed to go for the easy outrage on this one,, instead of their usual balancing of facts.

I, for one, can't really blame them in this case. There isn't really any other reaction when you consider that this guy followed and killed an unarmed kid because he looked suspicious, and got away with it because apparently it was legal.


You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-16 01:23:46 PM  

Elegy: You can read more here.


How about I promise to not talk about it any more?  I get too emotional with DV stuff.

Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit.


That McD's "hot coffee" story is another one that has been mutilated and re-assembled into a Frankenstein's monster of case law history.  That woman didn't get any "millions," but she did get third-degree burns.
 
2013-07-16 01:24:08 PM  

Shadowknight: Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit. Florida should just throw out their laws and start from scratch, its the only way you will be able to fix the perverted twisted mess of laws that they have on the books right now, both civilly and criminally.

Fun fact:  That didn't happen.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of, the found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.


So over half a million dollars for using 8pt font rather than 10pt font telling you that driving down main street with pot holes and speed bumps with a hot coffee between your legs is a better idea?

Still think florida needs to burn its laws and start from scratch.
 
2013-07-16 01:25:03 PM  

Wise_Guy: You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Self defense is not an acceptable excuse when you feel your life is being threatened.
 
2013-07-16 01:28:11 PM  

Loki009: Still think florida needs to burn its laws and start from scratch.


Skip that and just burn down Florida.
 
2013-07-16 01:28:31 PM  

Wise_Guy: You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Seriously?  A guy is following you in the dark, with no legal authority to do anything, and may or may not be saying racial slurs to you (depending on if you believe what was "heard" on the recording) and you're going to blame the kid for trying to get him to back off?

The voice on that 911 call was obviously out looking for a fight.  He started the confrontation.  If I went out to a bar and started harassing some random guy and wouldn't leave him alone, I shouldn't be surprised if he finally has enough and decks me.  It doesn't mean I can pull a gun and go all Dirty Harry on him.
 
2013-07-16 01:29:51 PM  

Wise_Guy: You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Zimmerman followed Martin, yada yada yada, Zimmerman shoots Martin.
 
2013-07-16 01:32:21 PM  

factoryconnection: Wise_Guy: You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Self defense is not an acceptable excuse when you feel your life is being threatened.


You of course have the right to defend yourself if your life is being threatened.  But he went out provoking a fight.  He was told not to follow him, and he did anyway.  He was told not to confront him, and he did anyway.  

Uncle Jimbo's "It's Coming Right For Us!" defense should not be legally accepted as self defense.  YOU obviously provoked an attack because you felt like a big man with a gun.  If not first or second degree, it should have at least been a manslaughter charge.  You did nothing to deescalate the situation, and in fact did quite the opposite.
 
2013-07-16 01:33:42 PM  

Shadowknight: If I went out to a bar and started harassing some random guy and wouldn't leave him alone, I shouldn't be surprised if he finally has enough and decks me.


Try this: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". I'm sorry but the escalation from a verbal to a physical confrontation is never "necessary" no matter what someone is saying to you.
 
2013-07-16 01:35:06 PM  

factoryconnection: Elegy: You can read more here.

How about I promise to not talk about it any more?  I get too emotional with DV stuff.

Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit.

That McD's "hot coffee" story is another one that has been mutilated and re-assembled into a Frankenstein's monster of case law history.  That woman didn't get any "millions," but she did get third-degree burns.


She got black charred flesh from hot coffee?  I'm not sure that is possible.
 
2013-07-16 01:36:09 PM  

Lucksbane: She got black charred flesh from hot coffee? I'm not sure that is possible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
 
2013-07-16 01:42:01 PM  

itsdan: I'm sorry but the escalation from a verbal to a physical confrontation is never "necessary" no matter what someone is saying to you.


Some states have laws that protect you from prosecution if you are coerced into a fight due to the other person using "fighting words".  No shiat.  If you say something super messed up to me, I can knock your ass out, claim you used "fighting words", and avoid an assault charge.
 
2013-07-16 01:46:29 PM  

itsdan: Try this: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". I'm sorry but the escalation from a verbal to a physical confrontation is never "necessary" no matter what someone is saying to you.


In theory, yes.  I have never hauled off and decked a guy for saying mean things to me.  But I'm also a lower-middle class white guy who grew up a lower middle class white kid in the middle of Michigan.  I never had to put up with police following me and harassing me because I was black in a nice neighborhood, much less had some self appointed neighborhood avenger with no authority doing it.  Zimmerman was obviously looking for a confrontation, and from the 911 recording wouldn't have put it past him to step in his way and refuse to let him pass, or even physically try to impede him.

Do we have any evidence that Martin even posed that much of a threat?  I mean, Zimmerman was released that very night (ironically under the "Stand Your Ground" law that was not used as part of his defense) and he looked fine.  To my knowledge, he never went to the hospital for wounds incurred in this apparently life threatening altercation.  He just walked out.
 
2013-07-16 01:47:26 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Seriously?  A guy is following you in the dark, with no legal authority to do anything, and may or may not be saying racial slurs to you (depending on if you believe what was "heard" on the recording) and you're going to blame the kid for trying to get him to back off?

The voice on that 911 call was obviously out looking for a fight.  He started the confrontation.  If I went out to a bar and started harassing some random guy and wouldn't leave him alone, I shouldn't be surprised if he finally has enough and decks me.  It doesn't mean I can pull a gun and go all Dirty Harry on him.


I completely understand that the whole situation could have been avoided, but that doesn't change my opinion of what actually happened.

If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?

Both guys made some pretty shiatty decisions, IMO, but I have no problem with Zimmerman shooting Martin once Zimmerman was on the ground getting pummelled.  You don't know how far Martin would have gone and you can't wait until you are knocked unconscious or worse.
 
2013-07-16 01:50:19 PM  

itsdan: Lucksbane: She got black charred flesh from hot coffee? I'm not sure that is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants


Im not sure why you think this is helping your argument.

From the linked article it was even referenced as "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"
 
2013-07-16 01:51:26 PM  
The best part of last nights show was when everything broke.
 
2013-07-16 01:51:57 PM  

Farce-Side: itsdan: I'm sorry but the escalation from a verbal to a physical confrontation is never "necessary" no matter what someone is saying to you.

Some states have laws that protect you from prosecution if you are coerced into a fight due to the other person using "fighting words".  No shiat.  If you say something super messed up to me, I can knock your ass out, claim you used "fighting words", and avoid an assault charge.


I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

So I guess it's not just the Uncle Jimbo defense, but also the "I'm not touching you, na na boo boo!" defense.  I cite my parents' decision as precedence, however, when that didn't work when my brother was eight years old. and I thumped him in the head in the backseat of the station wagon.
 
2013-07-16 01:56:30 PM  

Tellingthem: Elegy: Bonus fun fact: the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting Marissa Alexander was Angela Corey, the same champion of racial injustice that was the head of the prosecution team on the Zimmerman case.
Also note that Ronald Thompson got a 20 year sentence for firing warning shots. He was also prosecuted by Angela Corey. And he is a white army veteran. So yes even white people get convicted of crimes and sentenced to mandatory minimums in flordia. And there are others serving 20 years under that law...

Link

Orville Lee Wollard, a former auxiliary police force member, shot a bullet into the wall to scare away his daughter's abusive boyfriend. Prosecutors offered him probation. But he wanted to be exonerated at trial. Now he's serving 20 years.

Erik Weyant, 22, fired shots in the air to disperse a group of drunk men who accosted him in a parking lot outside a bar and blocked his car. No one was hurt. But he's in for 20 years.


I agree with both of you that this doesn't have anything to do with race even though the trolls are out saying otherwise.  That said, I do think 20 years is too stiff a penalty for warning shots where no one is injured.  Keep in mind I'm only talking about warning shots.  If other crimes are committed along with the warning shots, then 20 years might make sense, depending on those other crimes.
 
2013-07-16 01:56:30 PM  

Elegy: I see the Marissa Alexander case is going to be the next Florida outrage du jour based on a false racial narrative and biased media reporting. I saw it being pushed on CNN last night.


To make your post shorter, you just have to point out that "warning shots" are illegal, as they are shots being fired without a specific target in mind that is posing a threat to you. That's what REALLY farked her. People have used the "Stand Your Ground" laws to justify chasing people down a couple of blocks, but the warning shots are uncontrolled shots in city limits.
 
2013-07-16 01:58:59 PM  

Wise_Guy: If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?


Again, do we have any evidence of this happening?  I honestly don't know, but I had never heard of him going to the hospital or having any medical issues after the fact.  And the video the night of the shooting shows him strolling out of the police station under his own power and seemingly fine.  If police procedure in Florida is anything like it was in Virginia when I was an officer, when taken into custody, any sign of injury immediately means a trip to the hospital or at the very least calling out the medics to make sure they're ok before taking them to lockup.  

I heard the lawyer arguing that he was getting pummeled to death, but haven't actually seen any evidence to support that.  Near as I have heard, he had a bloody, possibly broken nose, and two black eyes that come with that.  No skull fracture, bruising to the  back of the head, or anything else.  In my experience as both a police officer and a medic, that usually means someone got punched in the face for being a dick, but the rest of the story is made up nonsense.
 
2013-07-16 01:59:27 PM  

Shadowknight: and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him


I never commented during the case, but what bothers me about TDS and so many comments is the euphemisms for "attacked Zimmerman". If people really feel he was justified then say it, trying to come up with little phrases that avoid what actually happened makes it seem like you don't think Martin's actions were reasonable.
 
2013-07-16 02:00:45 PM  

Shadowknight: Again, do we have any evidence of this happening? I honestly don't know, but I had never heard of him going to the hospital or having any medical issues after the fact.


Didn't a neighbor feel Martin's attack on Zimmerman required calling 911 for emergency police intervention?
 
2013-07-16 02:01:07 PM  

Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.


He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.
 
2013-07-16 02:01:27 PM  

Shadowknight: everything that I felt


I bet you and I felt a lot of the same things about this case. I went ahead and learned something. Amazing what knowledge does for feelings.
 
2013-07-16 02:02:23 PM  

Lucksbane: She got black charred flesh from hot coffee?  I'm not sure that is possible.



A third degree burn is a third degree burn, regardless of the source. The pictures are on this page, I'm not posting them directly because they're nasty, but there's a pic about 1/4 of the way down.

http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842 / mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1">http:/ /www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/ mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1

It was found that McDonald's was keeping the coffee above what would be considered a safe level specifically because by keeping it hotter, they could make a pot last longer. At first I thought it was a bullshiat lawsuit as well, but when you read the actual facts, the coffee was FAR too hot to be safe, it was so hot that it was softening the styrofoam cup.

Sure, it's called the "poster child for frivolous lawsuits", that doesn't actually make it true. The media blew this story up in the wrong ways, and the woman got serious burns. I'm serious, check out the pics and think about it.
 
2013-07-16 02:03:18 PM  

Lucksbane: factoryconnection: Elegy: You can read more here.

How about I promise to not talk about it any more?  I get too emotional with DV stuff.

Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit.

That McD's "hot coffee" story is another one that has been mutilated and re-assembled into a Frankenstein's monster of case law history.  That woman didn't get any "millions," but she did get third-degree burns.

She got black charred flesh from hot coffee?  I'm not sure that is possible.


They only way there would be any discoloration would be from staining. I dont know about coffee (I dont drink it myself) , but I have used tea to dye fabric. I am sure that coffee could (at least temporarily) cause similar discoloration on the skin
 
2013-07-16 02:05:09 PM  
If I were to change the law I'd put in a provision barring the use of self defense as a legal defense in situations where the accused initiated the contact or escalated the situation that later required them to defend themselves.

I'd also be happy to ban concealed (or open) carry of firearms for non-law enforcement personnel.  If you want to have a gun in your house for protection, fine, but you can't take it out on the street with you.  There would have to be some provisions for hunting and transporting guns, perhaps unloaded and in a lockbox, for target practice, but there would be ways to work those details out.

Of course, that would likely require a constitutional amendment because of the way the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd and the right to concealed carry.
 
2013-07-16 02:06:31 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?

Again, do we have any evidence of this happening?  I honestly don't know, but I had never heard of him going to the hospital or having any medical issues after the fact.  And the video the night of the shooting shows him strolling out of the police station under his own power and seemingly fine.  If police procedure in Florida is anything like it was in Virginia when I was an officer, when taken into custody, any sign of injury immediately means a trip to the hospital or at the very least calling out the medics to make sure they're ok before taking them to lockup.  

I heard the lawyer arguing that he was getting pummeled to death, but haven't actually seen any evidence to support that.  Near as I have heard, he had a bloody, possibly broken nose, and two black eyes that come with that.  No skull fracture, bruising to the  back of the head, or anything else.  In my experience as both a police officer and a medic, that usually means someone got punched in the face for being a dick, but the rest of the story is made up nonsense.


i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-16 02:07:53 PM  

Mikey1969: Lucksbane: She got black charred flesh from hot coffee?  I'm not sure that is possible.


A third degree burn is a third degree burn, regardless of the source. The pictures are on this page, I'm not posting them directly because they're nasty, but there's a pic about 1/4 of the way down.

http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842 / mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1">http:/ /www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/ mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1

It was found that McDonald's was keeping the coffee above what would be considered a safe level specifically because by keeping it hotter, they could make a pot last longer. At first I thought it was a bullshiat lawsuit as well, but when you read the actual facts, the coffee was FAR too hot to be safe, it was so hot that it was softening the styrofoam cup.

Sure, it's called the "poster child for frivolous lawsuits", that doesn't actually make it true. The media blew this story up in the wrong ways, and the woman got serious burns. I'm serious, check out the pics and think about it.


It's also worth noting that the woman originally only wanted McDonalds to cover her medical bills, which I think were around $10,000.  She only sued after McDonalds refused.
 
2013-07-16 02:10:46 PM  

Wise_Guy: He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.


So Zimmerman following him and harassing him against 911 dispatch's advice and with no legal authority simply because he was armed has no culpability in any of this?  Zimmerman did the same, he confronted Martin because he had a gun and thought there was a suspicious black kid that was up no good and he was going to take care of business because he had a gun and Martin was just some punk.

Yes, both sides were stupid in their preconceived notions and made the wrong choice in action.  But only one of them came with a gun instead of Skittles.  Only one of them went out of his way to cause the confrontation, while the other one was walking back to his friend's house after a trip to the convenience store to buy a drink.  And only one of them ended up dead from said confrontation.

There should be some consequence to all this.  Unfortunately, according to Florida law, Zimmerman was completely fine in his harassment.  So long as he actually killed the kid, I suppose.  If he had missed, he'd be servicing time right now.
 
2013-07-16 02:11:28 PM  
Just as I figured, Coffee does work as a Dye just like Tea.
http://www.ineedcoffee.com/03/dye/

So here we have a state where an old women goes driving down a poorly maintained road with a hot coffee between her legs, ends up spilling it on herself. Claims the stains are "horrific injuries" to try to scam a companies insurance company out of millions and then ends up getting over half a million dollars because McDonalds used 8pt font warning not to pour hot coffee on yourself rather than 10pt font.

What kind of messed up legal system is that?

This is why we cant take anything serious out of Florida.

I wonder why the woman didnt sue the town as well for the potholes. Probably figured they didnt have the insurance for an easy payout and would actually fight the claim.

The sad state of the legal system is the real miscarriage of justice here I tell you!
 
2013-07-16 02:12:28 PM  

s2s2s2: Shadowknight: everything that I felt

I bet you and I felt a lot of the same things about this case. I went ahead and learned something. Amazing what knowledge does for feelings.


What I learned was that as long as you scream "It's coming right for us!" it doesn't matter what kind of a dick you were to provoke the attack.  You are still legal to blow away some kid.
 
2013-07-16 02:12:29 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If I were to change the law I'd put in a provision barring the use of self defense as a legal defense in situations where the accused initiated the contact or escalated the situation that later required them to defend themselves.


So just to be clear, Zimmerman would have been obligated to allow Martin to continue hitting him until what? Until Martin grew bored and left?
 
2013-07-16 02:14:31 PM  

Wise_Guy: It's also worth noting that the woman originally only wanted McDonalds to cover her medical bills, which I think were around $10,000.  She only sued after McDonalds refused.


And that's not that much to ask.... Jeez. It's 5 minutes of profit for a company like that.

Like I said though, when it happened, I thought she was just full of shiat myself...
 
2013-07-16 02:14:32 PM  

Wise_Guy: Mikey1969: Lucksbane: She got black charred flesh from hot coffee?  I'm not sure that is possible.


A third degree burn is a third degree burn, regardless of the source. The pictures are on this page, I'm not posting them directly because they're nasty, but there's a pic about 1/4 of the way down.

http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842 / mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1">http:/ /www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/ mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1

It was found that McDonald's was keeping the coffee above what would be considered a safe level specifically because by keeping it hotter, they could make a pot last longer. At first I thought it was a bullshiat lawsuit as well, but when you read the actual facts, the coffee was FAR too hot to be safe, it was so hot that it was softening the styrofoam cup.

Sure, it's called the "poster child for frivolous lawsuits", that doesn't actually make it true. The media blew this story up in the wrong ways, and the woman got serious burns. I'm serious, check out the pics and think about it.

It's also worth noting that the woman originally only wanted McDonalds to cover her medical bills, which I think were around $10,000.  She only sued after McDonalds refused.


If I recall correctly her grandson was the "Doctor" who she racked up the legal bills with too. The only way this could have been any more obiously an insurance scam would be if she also got rear ended at the same time and then went for disability due to whiplash.
 
2013-07-16 02:14:37 PM  

Mikey1969: Sure, it's called the "poster child for frivolous lawsuits", that doesn't actually make it true. The media blew this story up in the wrong ways, and the woman got serious burns. I'm serious, check out the pics and think about it.


Hell, most of her awarded money probably went to paying for her hospital bills and skin grafts.  She shouldn't have put it in between her legs, but serving boiling liquid in a flimsy Styrofoam cup probably should have been addressed before it turned a woman's legs to hamburger.
 
2013-07-16 02:15:37 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?

Again, do we have any evidence of this happening?  I honestly don't know, but I had never heard of him going to the hospital or having any medical issues after the fact.  And the video the night of the shooting shows him strolling out of the police station under his own power and seemingly fine.  If police procedure in Florida is anything like it was in Virginia when I was an officer, when taken into custody, any sign of injury immediately means a trip to the hospital or at the very least calling out the medics to make sure they're ok before taking them to lockup.  

I heard the lawyer arguing that he was getting pummeled to death, but haven't actually seen any evidence to support that.  Near as I have heard, he had a bloody, possibly broken nose, and two black eyes that come with that.  No skull fracture, bruising to the  back of the head, or anything else.  In my experience as both a police officer and a medic, that usually means someone got punched in the face for being a dick, but the rest of the story is made up nonsense.

[i.imgur.com image 660x371]

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

[i.imgur.com image 400x268]


Yeah, scalp wounds bleed like crazy, and I get bloody noses from picking up my daughter sometimes and us having a mild collision.
 
2013-07-16 02:16:19 PM  

itsdan: TuteTibiImperes: If I were to change the law I'd put in a provision barring the use of self defense as a legal defense in situations where the accused initiated the contact or escalated the situation that later required them to defend themselves.

So just to be clear, Zimmerman would have been obligated to allow Martin to continue hitting him until what? Until Martin grew bored and left?


No, he could have fought back, but he would have been able to have been convicted of assault, or, in this case since he shot him, manslaughter, since Zimmerman initiated the situation by getting out of the truck and starting to follow Martin.  Zimmerman would have been able to avoid the whole thing by just calling it in to the police and then driving home without ever getting out of the truck or trying to track where Martin was going.
 
2013-07-16 02:16:40 PM  

Loki009: So here we have a state where an old women goes driving down a poorly maintained road with a hot coffee between her legs, ends up spilling it on herself. Claims the stains are "horrific injuries" to try to scam a companies insurance company out of millions and then ends up getting over half a million dollars because McDonalds used 8pt font warning not to pour hot coffee on yourself rather than 10pt font.


About 1/4 of the way down the page.

http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842 / mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1
 
2013-07-16 02:17:45 PM  

Shadowknight: So Zimmerman following him and harassing him against 911 dispatch's advice and with no legal authority simply because he was armed has no culpability in any of this? Zimmerman did the same, he confronted Martin because he had a gun and thought there was a suspicious black kid that was up no good and he was going to take care of business because he had a gun and Martin was just some punk.


Obviously hypotheticals are dangerous but, let's say Zimmerman wasn't armed as the Neighborhood Watch asks him not to be. Still gets into the confrontation, Martin still attacks him in the manner eyewitnesses reported. Zimmerman, unarmed, picks up a rock and swings it at Martin. Brain swelling in Martin's head leads to some permanent disability.

Would you still feel Zimmerman should go to jail for causing Martin's impairment? What I'm trying to work out is, do people feel Zimmerman was automatically guilty because he came to the confrontation prepared to defend himself with a firearm, or do they genuinely think he was obligated to let Martin beat on him without defending himself because he "started it" by saying something mean or racist or whatever to Martin.
 
2013-07-16 02:18:00 PM  
Better photo on the coffee burn lady, almost at the bottom of the page...

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=38497&start=45
 
2013-07-16 02:20:29 PM  

Mikey1969: Loki009: So here we have a state where an old women goes driving down a poorly maintained road with a hot coffee between her legs, ends up spilling it on herself. Claims the stains are "horrific injuries" to try to scam a companies insurance company out of millions and then ends up getting over half a million dollars because McDonalds used 8pt font warning not to pour hot coffee on yourself rather than 10pt font.

About 1/4 of the way down the page.

http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842 / mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1


After clicking on a link from http://burstingwithlife.wordpress.com/  (NSFW if you were wondering) in the  Pregnant women could be given Viagra to 'boost baby growth', make births much more difficult  thread earlier, I am NOT going to any link that starts with Scarymommy.
 
2013-07-16 02:21:11 PM  
Blame? My, what a loaded word. You blame someone or something when something goes wrong. You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.
 
2013-07-16 02:22:11 PM  

itsdan: Shadowknight: So Zimmerman following him and harassing him against 911 dispatch's advice and with no legal authority simply because he was armed has no culpability in any of this? Zimmerman did the same, he confronted Martin because he had a gun and thought there was a suspicious black kid that was up no good and he was going to take care of business because he had a gun and Martin was just some punk.

Obviously hypotheticals are dangerous but, let's say Zimmerman wasn't armed as the Neighborhood Watch asks him not to be. Still gets into the confrontation, Martin still attacks him in the manner eyewitnesses reported. Zimmerman, unarmed, picks up a rock and swings it at Martin. Brain swelling in Martin's head leads to some permanent disability.

Would you still feel Zimmerman should go to jail for causing Martin's impairment? What I'm trying to work out is, do people feel Zimmerman was automatically guilty because he came to the confrontation prepared to defend himself with a firearm, or do they genuinely think he was obligated to let Martin beat on him without defending himself because he "started it" by saying something mean or racist or whatever to Martin.


The method of assault shouldn't matter.  It was certainly worse because Zimmerman had a gun, but he never had to track Martin in the first place.  A phone call to the police describing what he saw as suspicious and where he last saw Martin is all it would have taken.

Hypothetically, let's say that Zimmerman had called it in, never left his truck, and as he was driving home Martin came out of nowhere and pulled Zimmerman out of his truck.  In that case I believe Zimmerman would have been morally justified in defending himself with any means necessary as he didn't escalate the situation.
 
2013-07-16 02:22:31 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.

So Zimmerman following him and harassing him against 911 dispatch's advice and with no legal authority simply because he was armed has no culpability in any of this?  Zimmerman did the same, he confronted Martin because he had a gun and thought there was a suspicious black kid that was up no good and he was going to take care of business because he had a gun and Martin was just some punk.

Yes, both sides were stupid in their preconceived notions and made the wrong choice in action.  But only one of them came with a gun instead of Skittles.  Only one of them went out of his way to cause the confrontation, while the other one was walking back to his friend's house after a trip to the convenience store to buy a drink.  And only one of them ended up dead from said confrontation.

There should be some consequence to all this.  Unfortunately, according to Florida law, Zimmerman was completely fine in his harassment.  So long as he actually killed the kid, I suppose.  If he had missed, he'd be servicing time right now.


From what I read of the 911 transcript, Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck.  He didn't know where Martin had gone at this point.  On his way back to his truck is when Martin confronted Zimmerman and they began fighting.  A witness saw ZImmerman on the bottom with Martin on top of him "pummelling" him.  The witness went inside to call police.
 
2013-07-16 02:22:35 PM  
For those that claim that Trayvon Martin was guilty of trespassing, guess again: Under FL law, you must have either a sign, clear physical barrier, or a verbal warning to have the offender be guilty of trespassing. Martin was guilty of nothing when GZ decided he was suspicious. TM made his own choices, but GZ deciding he was shifty and suspicious just for taking shortcuts in the direction that he had actual business going in is not supported by any actual law. If you have an unenclosed lawn and you don't have signs and you are not there to give a warning and you are not committing another crime, you are not guilty of trespass:


810.09Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.-

(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1.As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2.If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,

commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.

(b)As used in this section, the term "unenclosed curtilage" means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.


(2)(a)Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b)If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person, or if the offender willfully opens any door, fence, or gate or does any act that exposes animals, crops, or other property to waste, destruction, or freedom; unlawfully dumps litter on property; or trespasses on property other than a structure or conveyance, the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(c)If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, he or she is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing the violation. If a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph does not result in criminal or civil liability for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.
(d)The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed is a construction site that is:
1.Greater than 1 acre in area and is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."; or
2.One acre or less in area and is identified as such with a sign that appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, and reads in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." The sign shall be placed at the location on the property where the permits for construction are located. For construction sites of 1 acre or less as provided in this subparagraph, it shall not be necessary to give notice by posting as defined in s. 810.011(5).

(e)The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is commercial horticulture property and the property is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR HORTICULTURE PRODUCTS, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."
(f)The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is an agricultural site for testing or research purposes that is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL SITE FOR TESTING OR RESEARCH PURPOSES, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."
(g)The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is a domestic violence center certified under s. 39.905 which is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED RESTRICTED SITE AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."
(h)Any person who in taking or attempting to take any animal described in s. 379.101(19) or (20), or in killing, attempting to kill, or endangering any animal described in s. 585.01(13) knowingly propels or causes to be propelled any potentially lethal projectile over or across private land without authorization commits trespass, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "potentially lethal projectile" includes any projectile launched from any firearm, bow, crossbow, or similar tensile device. This section does not apply to any governmental agent or employee acting within the scope of his or her official duties.
(i)The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is an agricultural chemicals manufacturing facility that is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING FACILITY, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."

(3)As used in this section, the term "authorized person" or "person authorized" means any owner, his or her agent, or a community association authorized as an agent for the owner, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner, his or her agent, or a community association authorized as an agent for the owner, to communicate an order to leave the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare.
History.-s. 35, ch. 74-383; s. 22, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 76-46; s. 2, ch. 80-389; s. 34, ch. 88-381; s. 186, ch. 91-224; s. 2, ch. 94-263; s. 2, ch. 94-307; s. 48, ch. 96-388; s. 1818, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 97-201; s. 5, ch. 2000-369; s. 2, ch. 2001-182; s. 47, ch. 2001-279; s. 36, ch. 2002-46; s. 14, ch. 2006-289; s. 1, ch. 2006-295; s. 2, ch. 2007-123; s. 205, ch. 2008-247.
 
2013-07-16 02:23:55 PM  

Shadowknight: Hell, most of her awarded money probably went to paying for her hospital bills and skin grafts.  She shouldn't have put it in between her legs, but serving boiling liquid in a flimsy Styrofoam cup probably should have been addressed before it turned a woman's legs to hamburger.


Yup.... So farked up that it played out that way.
 
2013-07-16 02:24:21 PM  

Mikey1969: i.imgur.com image 660x371]

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

[i.imgur.com image 400x268]


Superficial scalp wounds bleed like crazy.  I have no doubt there was a scuffle between the two.  But I have treated much worse looking wounds from bar fights between two drunken friends.  There is no obvious bruising, or swelling, and no report of any cranial fractures, concussions, or even a trip to the hospital.  

Again, not so much dismissing Martin's poor coping skills and attacking Zimmerman, but I'm also not discounting Zimmerman's harassment making him lose his head or the exaggerations Zimmerman's defense made regarding his injuries from the fight.
 
2013-07-16 02:24:30 PM  

Wise_Guy: I completely understand that the whole situation could have been avoided, but that doesn't change my opinion of what actually happened.

If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?

Both guys made some pretty shiatty decisions, IMO, but I have no problem with Zimmerman shooting Martin once Zimmerman was on the ground getting pummelled.  You don't know how far Martin would have gone and you can't wait until you are knocked unconscious or worse.


I'm from Oklahoma, another gun-loving state where we now have open carry. My problem with everyone packing is that when someone brings a gun into the situation, it automatically escalates. It's one thing to risk getting your ass beat; it's completely different when there's the added gun element.

The only reason I can see Zimmerman fearing for his life was the chance that Martin would grab the gun and shoot first. Martin may not have even known the gun was there, but Zimmerman did, which raised the stakes in his mind.

So the lesson from this is that you can provoke a fight, then - when you suddenly discover you're not the big tough man you thought you were - you can pull out your gun and shoot.

And it's a loaded statement to say that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even if he threw the first punch, by the standards applied in the case, HE WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE. Zimmerman put Martin in a situation where Martin was concerned for his own safety. Just because he didn't have a gun doesn't mean he couldn't act for his own protection. I'm more of a lover than a fighter, but if I've got some stranger following me around at night, first by car, then pursuing me on foot, I'm probably going to get nervous and try to figure out wtf is going on and try to get them to STOP following me.
 
2013-07-16 02:24:47 PM  

Shadowknight: Uncle Jimbo's "It's Coming Right For Us!" defense should not be legally accepted as self defense.  YOU obviously provoked an attack because you felt like a big man with a gun.  If not first or second degree, it should have at least been a manslaughter charge.


Well, there's the problem.  That's what you think the law should be, not what the law actually is.

The prosecution never had a real case.  It sucks, it doesn't mean Zimmerman isn't responsible for Martin's death, but it is what it is.  Sometimes life is shiatty and the bad guys don't get punished.
 
2013-07-16 02:24:51 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The method of assault shouldn't matter. It was certainly worse because Zimmerman had a gun, but he never had to track Martin in the first place. A phone call to the police describing what he saw as suspicious and where he last saw Martin is all it would have taken.


But as is so often pointed out about Martin, nothing Zimmerman was doing was illegal. Ill-advised, foolish, sure, but so far no ones indicated he did anything which to me suggests he should have been physically attacked. I do not see why this escalated to a physical altercation, but it doesn't appear Zimmerman is the one who did so.
 
2013-07-16 02:26:11 PM  

Loki009: If I recall correctly her grandson was the "Doctor" who she racked up the legal bills with too. The only way this could have been any more obiously an insurance scam would be if she also got rear ended at the same time and then went for disability due to whiplash.


So, other words, you haven't looked at any of the pictures of the actual injuries? Your grandson trying to "scam" the system doesn't go so far as to do actual skin grafts just to provide a cover story.

/Well, unless he's dumb like you
 
2013-07-16 02:27:03 PM  

itsdan: Would you still feel Zimmerman should go to jail for causing Martin's impairment?


Yes.  Because Neighborhood Watches are suppose to WATCH.  Not confront.  They are supposed to call the cops.  He did, and decided that he still wanted to be a big man.  

If he had just done what he was supposed to do, call the police and go home, none of this would have happened.
 
2013-07-16 02:28:19 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: For those that claim that Trayvon Martin was guilty of trespassing, guess again:


Who farking cares?  Isn't going to make him less dead.
 
2013-07-16 02:28:23 PM  

itsdan: TuteTibiImperes: The method of assault shouldn't matter. It was certainly worse because Zimmerman had a gun, but he never had to track Martin in the first place. A phone call to the police describing what he saw as suspicious and where he last saw Martin is all it would have taken.

But as is so often pointed out about Martin, nothing Zimmerman was doing was illegal. Ill-advised, foolish, sure, but so far no ones indicated he did anything which to me suggests he should have been physically attacked. I do not see why this escalated to a physical altercation, but it doesn't appear Zimmerman is the one who did so.


By the current law, I agree with the verdict.  I'm just saying that the law should be changed so that foolish, ill-advised, or negligent actions that lead you to be in a position where there is a physical altercation also place liability on you for the results of that altercation even if such results are due to defending yourself.  Basically, if you have the opportunity to walk away instead of doing something that could potentially put yourself or another at risk due to potentially escalating a situation, you would be bound under law to walk away.
 
2013-07-16 02:29:31 PM  

Shadowknight: itsdan: Would you still feel Zimmerman should go to jail for causing Martin's impairment?

Yes.  Because Neighborhood Watches are suppose to WATCH.  Not confront.  They are supposed to call the cops.  He did, and decided that he still wanted to be a big man.  

If he had just done what he was supposed to do, call the police and go home, none of this would have happened.


According to Zimmerman, he was going home when Martin confronted him.

He could be lying, but the other witness is dead.
 
2013-07-16 02:30:13 PM  

Solkar: Wise_Guy: I completely understand that the whole situation could have been avoided, but that doesn't change my opinion of what actually happened.

If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?

Both guys made some pretty shiatty decisions, IMO, but I have no problem with Zimmerman shooting Martin once Zimmerman was on the ground getting pummelled.  You don't know how far Martin would have gone and you can't wait until you are knocked unconscious or worse.

I'm from Oklahoma, another gun-loving state where we now have open carry. My problem with everyone packing is that when someone brings a gun into the situation, it automatically escalates. It's one thing to risk getting your ass beat; it's completely different when there's the added gun element.

The only reason I can see Zimmerman fearing for his life was the chance that Martin would grab the gun and shoot first. Martin may not have even known the gun was there, but Zimmerman did, which raised the stakes in his mind.

So the lesson from this is that you can provoke a fight, then - when you suddenly discover you're not the big tough man you thought you were - you can pull out your gun and shoot.

And it's a loaded statement to say that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even if he threw the first punch, by the standards applied in the case, HE WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE. Zimmerman put Martin in a situation where Martin was concerned for his own safety. Just because he didn't have a gun doesn't mean he couldn't act for his own protection. I'm more of a lover than a fighter, but if I've got some stranger following me around at night, first by car, then pursuing me on foot, I'm probably going to get nervous and try to figure out wtf is going on and try to get them to STOP following me.


Martin wasn't acting in self defense.  He wasn't being assaulted, he was being followed.  Zimmerman had lost sight of him and he could have kept going.  Also AFAIK, there's no law against following someone.  If there is, the reasonable response isn't to attack them.
 
2013-07-16 02:30:50 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: For those that claim that Trayvon Martin was guilty of trespassing, guess again: Under FL law, you must have either a sign, clear physical barrier, or a verbal warning to have the offender be guilty of trespassing. Martin was guilty of nothing when GZ decided he was suspicious. TM made his own choices, but GZ deciding he was shifty and suspicious just for taking shortcuts in the direction that he had actual business going in is not supported by any actual law. If you have an unenclosed lawn and you don't have signs and you are not there to give a warning and you are not committing another crime, you are not guilty of trespass:


The traditional legal principle is that you can use deadly force to protect life, but not property. So even if he WAS trespassing, that in and of itself is not a legal justification for killing.
 
2013-07-16 02:31:24 PM  

Mikey1969: Loki009: If I recall correctly her grandson was the "Doctor" who she racked up the legal bills with too. The only way this could have been any more obiously an insurance scam would be if she also got rear ended at the same time and then went for disability due to whiplash.

So, other words, you haven't looked at any of the pictures of the actual injuries? Your grandson trying to "scam" the system doesn't go so far as to do actual skin grafts just to provide a cover story.

/Well, unless he's dumb like you


You have "doctors" injecting caulk from homedepot into women's butts. Do you think that for a piece of $600k they wouldnt do a skin graft?
 
2013-07-16 02:32:14 PM  

Shadowknight: Again, not so much dismissing Martin's poor coping skills and attacking Zimmerman, but I'm also not discounting Zimmerman's harassment making him lose his head or the exaggerations Zimmerman's defense made regarding his injuries from the fight.


That's kind of what I was getting at. Nothing there makes me think "fearing for my life" as much as "Whoops, shouldn't have pissed this kid off, that's going to hurt for a day or two".
 
2013-07-16 02:32:30 PM  

Shadowknight: Yes. Because Neighborhood Watches are suppose to WATCH. Not confront. They are supposed to call the cops. He did, and decided that he still wanted to be a big man.


Neighborhood watches are pseudo-organizations comprised of private-citizen volunteers. It's not like police where there are codes of behavior for handling certain situations. Again I don't see how anything he did justified someone turning it physical.

People keep saying "if you feel unsafe" and no, it's if a jury decides that a reasonable person would feel unsafe. A reasonable person being beaten would fear grievous bodily harm, especially when it's focused on their head.
 
2013-07-16 02:32:32 PM  

Shadowknight: itsdan: Would you still feel Zimmerman should go to jail for causing Martin's impairment?

Yes.  Because Neighborhood Watches are suppose to WATCH.  Not confront.  They are supposed to call the cops.  He did, and decided that he still wanted to be a big man.  

If he had just done what he was supposed to do, call the police and go home, none of this would have happened.


That's what he was doing, when Martin confronted him.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page.
 
2013-07-16 02:33:08 PM  

Elegy: factoryconnection: nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.

Only the truly cold-blooded earn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?

*sigh*

I see the Marissa Alexander case is going to be the next Florida outrage du jour based on a false racial narrative and biased media reporting. I saw it being pushed on CNN last night.

Let's try this again, shall we: Marissa Alexander had a restraining order against her SO, a man named Gray. She violated that restraining order when when she voluntarily went over to his house - where she hadn't lived for two months - and let herself in, thinking he wasn't home (technically B&E). He was home. There was a confrontation in the master bedroom. At some point Gray left the bedroom. Alexander walked out of the bedroom, past the open front door, and into the garage where she grabbed her gun and returned to confront Grey in either the living room or the kitchen.

They continued arguing and - according Grey and corroborated by the two children who were in the room at the time - said "I got something for you" and fired a shot at head height into the wall. The bullet deflected off something in the wall and ricocheted into the ceiling. She is lucky it didn't hit one of the kids.

The state charged her with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Alexander tried to plead SYG at her immunity hearing, but it was denied because she GRABBED A GUN AND RETURNED T ...


You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.
 
2013-07-16 02:34:06 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: By the current law, I agree with the verdict. I'm just saying that the law should be changed so that foolish, ill-advised, or negligent actions that lead you to be in a position where there is a physical altercation also place liability on you for the results of that altercation even if such results are due to defending yourself. Basically, if you have the opportunity to walk away instead of doing something that could potentially put yourself or another at risk due to potentially escalating a situation, you would be bound under law to walk away.


Didn't they both have that opportunity to walk away at different points that night?

Seems like the first time someone truly didn't have the option to walk away was once Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, no?
 
2013-07-16 02:34:50 PM  
Here's a site that has a map of the complex and where things took place:  http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/07/the-logistics-of-trayv o n-martin-and-george-zimmermans-encounter/

Maybe this will help.
 
2013-07-16 02:34:59 PM  

Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.


Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!
 
2013-07-16 02:35:32 PM  

Lsherm: According to Zimmerman, he was going home when Martin confronted him.

He could be lying, but the other witness is dead.


Yeah, well, considering he already disregarded 911 and common sense and went to confront him, I have reason to doubt he was just walking away.
 
2013-07-16 02:36:43 PM  

Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving  and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit. Florida should just throw out their laws and start from scratch, its the only way you will be able to fix the perverted twisted mess of laws that they have on the books right now, both civilly and criminally.


Stop lying about this case, or get informed, whichever it is. From the already-linked Wikipedia page:

They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16]
 
2013-07-16 02:36:45 PM  

Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.


This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.
 
2013-07-16 02:36:47 PM  

Wise_Guy: Martin wasn't acting in self defense.  He wasn't being assaulted, he was being followed.  Zimmerman had lost sight of him an

d he could have kept going.  Also AFAIK, there's no law against following someone.  If there is, the reasonable response isn't to attack them.

You've got some guy you don't know chasing you the dark. You don't know why or what he's going to do to you. As I understand the Florida law, you just have to fear for your life. It would have been reasonable for Martin to fear for his life in that situation. Just because Zimmerman may have temporarily broken off the pursuit doesn't change that.
 
2013-07-16 02:37:03 PM  

itsdan: TuteTibiImperes: By the current law, I agree with the verdict. I'm just saying that the law should be changed so that foolish, ill-advised, or negligent actions that lead you to be in a position where there is a physical altercation also place liability on you for the results of that altercation even if such results are due to defending yourself. Basically, if you have the opportunity to walk away instead of doing something that could potentially put yourself or another at risk due to potentially escalating a situation, you would be bound under law to walk away.

Didn't they both have that opportunity to walk away at different points that night?

Seems like the first time someone truly didn't have the option to walk away was once Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, no?


I'm not saying that Trayvon was innocent.  In a perfect world he would have lived and both of them could have been convicted of assault.
 
2013-07-16 02:38:20 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: Crewmannumber6: It doesn't happen often, but TDS seemed to go for the easy outrage on this one,, instead of their usual balancing of facts.

I, for one, can't really blame them in this case. There isn't really any other reaction when you consider that this guy followed and killed an unarmed kid because he looked suspicious, and got away with it because apparently it was legal.

You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.


He was just standing his ground.
 
2013-07-16 02:39:55 PM  

Mikey1969: Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving  and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit. Florida should just throw out their laws and start from scratch, its the only way you will be able to fix the perverted twisted mess of laws that they have on the books right now, both civilly and criminally.

Stop lying about this case, or get informed, whichever it is. From the already-linked Wikipedia page:

They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16]


ALSO FROM THE WIKIPEDIA THREAD ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"
 
2013-07-16 02:40:20 PM  

Wise_Guy: That's what he was doing, when Martin confronted him.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page.


No he wasn't.  He was told to leave him alone.  What he did was got out of the vehicle and played cops and robbers.  You are defending that, and I'm not.
 
2013-07-16 02:41:47 PM  

Mikey1969: Lucksbane: 

Sure, it's called the "poster child for frivolous lawsuits", that doesn't actually make it true. The media blew this story up in the wrong ways, and the woman got serious burns. I'm serious, check out the pics and think about it.


I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.
 
2013-07-16 02:41:55 PM  

Wise_Guy: Here's a site that has a map of the complex and where things took place:  http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/07/the-logistics-of-tray v o n-martin-and-george-zimmermans-encounter/

Maybe this will help.


Ah, this is making sense now.
 
2013-07-16 02:43:14 PM  

Shadowknight: No he wasn't. He was told to leave him alone. What he did was got out of the vehicle and played cops and robbers. You are defending that, and I'm not.


Cops don't wait until they've been attacked to pull their gun in dangerous situations.
 
2013-07-16 02:43:40 PM  

Elegy: en't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?


He was racist that night, I'd wager.  If I was walking though that neighborhood with a hoodie, I doubt I'd have been suspected of anything.
 
2013-07-16 02:43:45 PM  

Loki009: ALSO FROM THE WIKIPEDIA THREAD ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"


Yeah, since ABC said it, it must be true.

It's the media that spread all of the misonformation about the case int he FIRST place. You think it was bluebirds whispering in people's ears?
 
2013-07-16 02:44:56 PM  

Solkar: Wise_Guy: Martin wasn't acting in self defense.  He wasn't being assaulted, he was being followed.  Zimmerman had lost sight of him and he could have kept going.  Also AFAIK, there's no law against following someone.  If there is, the reasonable response isn't to attack them.

You've got some guy you don't know chasing you the dark. You don't know why or what he's going to do to you. As I understand the Florida law, you just have to fear for your life. It would have been reasonable for Martin to fear for his life in that situation. Just because Zimmerman may have temporarily broken off the pursuit doesn't change that.


Seriously--listen to the 911 call or read the transcript.  Zimmerman was following the guy, talking to 911.  He says he lost Martin.  911 tells him not to follow--he says 'OK'.  911 asks him where he will meet the officers, he tells them where his truck is.

On the way back to his truck is where Martin confronts and attacks him.  All Martin had to do was keep walking.  Even if Martin just confronted him and asks why he's being followed, this doesn't happen.  Martin could have called or waited for the police himself if felt he was in danger.  Instead he attacks Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-16 02:45:49 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: That's what he was doing, when Martin confronted him.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page.

No he wasn't.  He was told to leave him alone.  What he did was got out of the vehicle and played cops and robbers.  You are defending that, and I'm not.


He was on his way back to the truck, where he told 911 he would be.  Martin confronted and attacked him.
 
2013-07-16 02:46:04 PM  

BEER_ME_in_CT: Mikey1969: Lucksbane: 

Sure, it's called the "poster child for frivolous lawsuits", that doesn't actually make it true. The media blew this story up in the wrong ways, and the woman got serious burns. I'm serious, check out the pics and think about it.

I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.


Thank you. This is what I am getting at.

If a COURT and JURY in Florida can find that McDonalds is responsible for 80% of spilling coffee on  your lap as you drive down the road because they used  8 point fontrather than  10 Point Fontthen there is something seriously wrong with your rule of laws and you should just scrap them and start over!
 
2013-07-16 02:46:26 PM  

itsdan: Cops don't wait until they've been attacked to pull their gun in dangerous situations.


They are also trained, and legally allowed to do that.  Oh, and required to actually go into these situations.  Zimmerman just wanted to be a superhero.
 
2013-07-16 02:47:04 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: Here's a site that has a map of the complex and where things took place:  http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/07/the-logistics-of-tray v o n-martin-and-george-zimmermans-encounter/

Maybe this will help.

Ah, this is making sense now.


Attack the source when you don't have anything else.

If you find fault at what they're saying, debate it.  Otherwise I'll assume you have nothing.
 
2013-07-16 02:47:12 PM  
And Oliver was doing so well until yesterday. Pity.
 
2013-07-16 02:47:42 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.


According to the one survivor of the incident.

According to the one survivor of the incident.

This *entire* case is based on what the guy, *with the gun*, *who lived to tell the tale*, says.

He has no motivation to lie? He certainly doesn't have to worry about conflicting stories, now does he?

Worked out well for him.

\I personally enjoy the statement I heard earlier this week about Zimmerman
\\"Zimmerman will know what it's like to be Black for the rest of his life - people watching him carefully, avoiding him in public, strangers that are hostile to him. Good."
\\\angry_cat.jpg
 
2013-07-16 02:48:57 PM  

BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.


No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.
 
2013-07-16 02:49:37 PM  

Wise_Guy: If you find fault at what they're saying, debate it.  Otherwise I'll assume you have nothing.


When the source is known to be a racist and outright untruthful one, yes.  I also don't trust The Onion to be factual, but at least they are entertaining.
 
2013-07-16 02:51:03 PM  
Ok, I need to get back to work,

Can I get my troll rating early so that I don't get to miss my score?

Thanks

\P.S Liebeck took place in California in a stopped car in a parking lot.
\\Is getting tired of Zimmerman threads
\\\This made it bearable for me
 
2013-07-16 02:52:03 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: If you find fault at what they're saying, debate it.  Otherwise I'll assume you have nothing.

When the source is known to be a racist and outright untruthful one, yes.  I also don't trust The Onion to be factual, but at least they are entertaining.


So you have nothing.  Got it.
 
2013-07-16 02:52:47 PM  

Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.


CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you
 
2013-07-16 02:54:28 PM  

Tellingthem: Elegy: Bonus fun fact: the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting Marissa Alexander was Angela Corey, the same champion of racial injustice that was the head of the prosecution team on the Zimmerman case.
Also note that Ronald Thompson got a 20 year sentence for firing warning shots. He was also prosecuted by Angela Corey. And he is a white army veteran. So yes even white people get convicted of crimes and sentenced to mandatory minimums in flordia. And there are others serving 20 years under that law...

Link

Orville Lee Wollard, a former auxiliary police force member, shot a bullet into the wall to scare away his daughter's abusive boyfriend. Prosecutors offered him probation. But he wanted to be exonerated at trial. Now he's serving 20 years.

Erik Weyant, 22, fired shots in the air to disperse a group of drunk men who accosted him in a parking lot outside a bar and blocked his car. No one was hurt. But he's in for 20 years.


fine.

but how, then, can you actually kill someone and it's okay?
 
2013-07-16 02:54:33 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.   He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.


Is this one of those "facts" in the "evidence" that everyone is so excited to tell me about to explain this verdict?
 
2013-07-16 02:55:21 PM  

Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.


Please cite which particular laws you feel are unjust and crazy in Florida.

The self-defense statute that Zimmerman was acquitted on? Yeah, the majority (if not all) of the states in the nation have pretty much the exact same statute on the books: if you feel like you are under threat of immanent bodily harm or death, you are allowed to shoot your attacker. Zimmerman wasn't acquitted by some crazy statute unique to Florida. He was acquitted on simple self-defense, by the same laws that virtually every other state has, the same way that Roderick Scott, a black man, was judged not guilty for killing an unarmed 17 year old white teen in self-defense in New York.

Please tell me what you would change about the self defense statutes.

The statute that makes it a felony to negligently discharge a firearm without an obvious target? Yup, most, if not all, of the states in the nation also have the exact same law on the books. Would you really want to make this less than a felony? There is a story in the queue that will shortly go green about a patient in a hospital being hit by a stray round. You can ask Marquel Peters or Aaliyah Boyer how dangers stray rounds are. Oh wait, you can't. They're dead.

So would you change this law, or is it a good thing it is a felony to recklessly discharge a firearm.

The 10-20-Life mandatory sentencing laws? I agree, let's get rid of them. That is what judges are for, and part of what we pay them for: their knowledge and discretion in matching a sentence to a crime. I think mandatory sentencing laws are pointless and do nothing but harm when people who are otherwise not a risk are sentenced to barbarically long punishments.

The point here is that Florida isn't crazy house that people seem to think it is. If anything, people misunderstand Florida's draconian mandatory sentencing, which is the real problem in the state and I would personally love to see overturned.

So please, tell me - what laws in the two cases cited - Marissa Alexander and George Zimmerman - need to change besides the mandatory sentencing laws. I am all ears.

How would you make Florida a better place?
 
2013-07-16 02:58:24 PM  

Shadowknight: Elegy: en't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

He was racist that night, I'd wager.  If I was walking though that neighborhood with a hoodie, I doubt I'd have been suspected of anything.


I see. Because you feel it in your heart he was a racist, then he must have been a racist that night, despite all of the evidence we have as to his character and his past.

We can discard all of that evidence, because you feel deep inside that Zimmerman must have been a racist.

There's a word for that.

It's "stupid."
 
2013-07-16 03:00:19 PM  

Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!


See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.
 
2013-07-16 03:01:50 PM  

CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you


If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?
 
2013-07-16 03:02:44 PM  

Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.


Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.
 
2013-07-16 03:04:54 PM  

Mikey1969: Loki009: ALSO FROM THE WIKIPEDIA THREAD ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"

Yeah, since ABC said it, it must be true.

It's the media that spread all of the misonformation about the case int he FIRST place. You think it was bluebirds whispering in people's ears?


Dude he's trolling you and you're biting on everything he puts out there. He's not even that good, go play outside or something.
 
2013-07-16 03:06:03 PM  

Elegy: Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!

See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.


I would say either the one where the elderly are able to drive, or make one where you have to use the cars cup holders while driving.

\Liebeck was the passenger
\\The car was stopped
\\\The car had no cup holders
 
2013-07-16 03:08:50 PM  

Elegy: Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!

See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.


Not sure why you are trying so hard. These people are the exact same as the wacko right wingers who think every muslim is a terrorist, they're just on the other side of the fence. They get this idea, or "feeling", usually based on little or no evidence, and refuse to accept reality. Zimmerman did not break any laws, and to even say he was "morally wrong" is false, the way I see it. Zimmerman didn't force Martin to turn around, confront him, and punch him in the face.
 
2013-07-16 03:10:54 PM  

HairBolus: Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.

Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.


No, based on only the facts presented at trial he would have been found not guilty of murder in just about every state. But let's not let little things like "facts" and "evidence" alter our opinions.
 
2013-07-16 03:11:06 PM  

HairBolus: Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.

Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.


Explain.
Roderick Scott, a 40-something year old black man, killed an unarmed white teen by shooting him

Scott saw the kids messing with his car, grabbed his gun, and went outside to confront them.

The kid charged Scott, but never touched him. Let me say that again - the 17 year old teen never even touched Scott.

Bonus difficulty: Scott was acquitted in New York, which presumably is the model for sane gun laws in your mind.

Explain, please.
 
2013-07-16 03:15:28 PM  

Mattyb710: Elegy: Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!

See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.

Not sure why you are trying so hard. These people are the exact same as the wacko right wingers who think every muslim is a terrorist, they're just on the other side of the fence. They get this idea, or "feeling", usually based on little or no evidence, and refuse to accept reality. Zimmerman did not break any laws, and to even say he was "morally wrong" is false, the way I see it. Zimmerman didn't force Martin to turn around, confront him, and punch him in the face.


I know. It's all based on "muh feels that guns are bad" and not logic, but I enjoy trying.

I swear that half of America wants to turn us into the UK, where its your duty to curl up into a ball and take it when someone violently attacks you.
 
2013-07-16 03:27:28 PM  

Wise_Guy: So you have nothing.  Got it.


I've found debating fiction to be little more than mental masturbation.  It's all subjective.   Facts are not.  You, by any objective measure, are not dealing in facts.
 
2013-07-16 03:40:27 PM  

Lsherm: Shadowknight: He covers about everything that I felt about this case and that forsaken State.  Everything I've seen just drives me crazy.  Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared of.  And as a guy that wears a hoodie approximately half the year, apparently I would be a very scary person if it wasn't for my alabaster skin armor.

The Onion got it right.

Just because Zimmerman was morally responsible for Martin's death doesn't mean he broke the law.  That's what people are having a hard time getting their heads around.


The sad part is that SCOTUS just made it harder to change the law.
 
2013-07-16 03:48:43 PM  
This has been an interesting thread, at least, insofar as one gets to watchSK ignore the honest, obvious answers to his questions and implications, and continue on with what he believed before, thoughts unchanged.
 
2013-07-16 03:52:03 PM  
Yeah, the Daily Show was a little bandwagonny on this one.  I bet they don't even own up to it in a later episode.
 
2013-07-16 03:53:16 PM  
Geez, a thug jumps a guy who is walking behind him and the guy defends himself in the struggle and shoots the thug.

Self defense. End of story. Proven in court.

Anyone who disagrees is just a racist. Quit crying.

Nothing to do with Florida or the jury, which got it right.  You could have that trial anywhere else and it would have the same outcome unless you packed the jury with racists.

Liberals just throwing a temper tantrum like the children they are when they don't get their way.
 
2013-07-16 03:58:05 PM  

MilesTeg: Geez, a thug jumps a guy who is walking behind him and the guy defends himself in the struggle and shoots the thug.

Self defense. End of story. Proven in court.

Anyone who disagrees is just a racist. Quit crying.

Nothing to do with Florida or the jury, which got it right.  You could have that trial anywhere else and it would have the same outcome unless you packed the jury with racists.

Liberals just throwing a temper tantrum like the children they are when they don't get their way.


Another informed espouser of facts enters the fray.  With all the facts in evidence for this case you have to stretch pretty far to come off as racist when defending GZ's actions.  Bravo for pulling it off so effortlessly.
 
2013-07-16 04:03:45 PM  
As long as we're being outraged over racially motivated violence, why isn't this getting more attention?

http://westside.fox19.com/news/news/153671-north-college-hill-boredo m- beating-victim-dies
 
2013-07-16 04:06:29 PM  

Elegy: Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.

This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.


Let me ask you.. Is it possible for a person who is not racist, perform a racist act?

Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

I think if Martin were asian or white, Zimmerman would not have had the same reaction.
 
2013-07-16 04:22:13 PM  

AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this instigated by people in the neighborhood being victimized by young black men who were up to no good? Maybe if people were having trouble with asian or white kids, and this kid were asian or white, his reaction may have been similar.
 
2013-07-16 04:26:33 PM  

Shadowknight: If he had just done what he was supposed to do, call the police and go home, none of this would have happened.

 Unproductive. "If 1 hadn't occurred, 2 wouldn't have occurred" doesn't blame 1 for 2, it's just stating the events in order.
 
2013-07-16 04:28:09 PM  

Crewmannumber6: AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this instigated by people in the neighborhood being victimized by young black men who were up to no good? Maybe if people were having trouble with asian or white kids, and this kid were asian or white, his reaction may have been similar.


That may be, but did Zimmerman come to some conclusion based on Martin's race?  And if he did, is that not a racist act?  He assumed Martin was up to no good because he was a young black male.
 
2013-07-16 04:31:38 PM  

AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin. I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.



People have an unfortunate habit of using "racist" when what they actually mean is "prejudiced" or "bigoted".
There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman was racist or bigoted. He was clearly prejudiced by Martin's appearance, however.
 
2013-07-16 04:33:47 PM  

AeAe: That may be, but did Zimmerman come to some conclusion based on Martin's race? And if he did, is that not a racist act? He assumed Martin was up to no good because he was a young black male.


The police felt that based on Zimmerman's description of the person and their behavior that it was worth sending police officers to investigate.
 
2013-07-16 04:34:03 PM  

AeAe: Elegy: Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.

This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.

Let me ask you.. Is it possible for a person who is not racist, perform a racist act?

Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

I think if Martin were asian or white, Zimmerman would not have had the same reaction.


Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.
 
2013-07-16 04:35:36 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin. I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.


People have an unfortunate habit of using "racist" when what they actually mean is "prejudiced" or "bigoted".
There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman was racist or bigoted. He was clearly prejudiced by Martin's appearance, however.


Fair point.  I stand corrected.
 
2013-07-16 04:38:00 PM  

Mattyb710: Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.


That's a mis-characterization on my part. As with my previous response, maybe "prejudiced" or "biased" would be a better term.

But my point stands.
 
2013-07-16 04:43:22 PM  

AeAe: And if he did, is that not a racist act?


No. Its prejudiced, not racist.

--Racist: Ethnic group X is better than ethnic group Y.
--Prejudiced: Someone is a member of ethnic/social group X, and therefore possesses trait Z which is common to members of ethnic/social group Z.
--Bigoted: I hate ethnic group X.

It is possible to be prejudiced against your own ethnic/social group, and prejudice is not always a negative (though usually is to justify bigotry when used against those that are different). Saying "All Frenchmen are good in bed" is probably not going to be viewed in a negative light by the French, while claiming they all smell will. Both are forms of prejudice.
 
2013-07-16 04:44:01 PM  

AeAe: Mattyb710: Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.

That's a mis-characterization on my part. As with my previous response, maybe "prejudiced" or "biased" would be a better term.

But my point stands.


If it was a white guy, or asian guy it is far more likely than not that Zimmerman would have behaved the same way. Please tell me which part of your point still stands?
 
2013-07-16 04:44:08 PM  
Bah, should have refreshed.
 
2013-07-16 04:57:32 PM  

Mattyb710: AeAe: Mattyb710: Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.

That's a mis-characterization on my part. As with my previous response, maybe "prejudiced" or "biased" would be a better term.

But my point stands.

If it was a white guy, or asian guy it is far more likely than not that Zimmerman would have behaved the same way. Please tell me which part of your point still stands?


I'm speculating as you are.  My point is that I believeZimmerman assumed that Martin was up to no good because he was a young black man and there have been recent break ins.
 
2013-07-16 04:58:14 PM  

AeAe: Elegy: Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.

This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.

Let me ask you.. Is it possible for a person who is not racist, perform a racist act?

Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

I think if Martin were asian or white, Zimmerman would not have had the same reaction.


Two things point to the fact that Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling Martin that night. First: during the non-emergency call with Noffke (the dispatcher), Noffke asks Zimmerman what race Martin was. Zimmerman didn't volunteer the information. Zimmerman says in response "he looks black." It's not until almost a minute later when Martin walks closer to Zimmerman - you know because Zimmerman says "he's walking towards me, he's got his hand in his waistband" - that Zimmerman confirms "he's a black male." Check the transcript - Zimmerman wasn't sure of Martin's race until AFTER he called 911. Because, you know, dark, raining, hoodie.

The second thing is this: Zimmerman's community had undergone a rash of burglaries and one home invasion, all of them committed by young black males. One of the teenagers that committed the home invasion was still at large at the time of Martin's shooting. Is it racist, or racially profiling, to suspect that a black teenager wandering around in the rain looking at houses might just possibly be connected to the black teenagers that had been robbing his neighborhood? Is it now racist to report to the authorities that there is a suspicious person wandering around your neighborhood just because he's black?

But look, I get it, I really do. People think Zimmerman was a racist that killed an innocent black baby, and they refused to be swayed by any amount of evidence. You could see a picture of him weeping on Martin Luther King's grave and you would still think Zimmerman is still a racist.

All because Zimmerman had lighter skin that Martin. Because of the color of his skin, no amount of evidence to the contrary is sufficient to prove that Zimmerman isn't a racist. We all know people with light skin are always racist towards those with darker skin, and that's just the way the world works, and you have a hard time trying to prove a negative.

That's why everyone calls Zimmerman a racist despite zero evidence that he was in fact a racist, but they turn cartwheels to excuse Martin for calling Zimmerman a racial slur from the get go. "Oh that's ok," they say, "it was just Martin's culture to call white people crackers, but that Zimmerman, he was a racist that racially profiled an innocent black child."

Quite frankly, that attitude disgusts me, and I find it utterly repugnant. So congratulations on that, I suppose.
 
2013-07-16 04:58:27 PM  

Loki009: So over half a million dollars for using 8pt font rather than 10pt font telling you that driving down main street with pot holes and speed bumps with a hot coffee between your legs is a better idea?


McDonalds served the coffee at 190 degrees, which was shown in court to be literally impossible to drink.  They were warned over and over again that they were serving their coffee too hot, but they continued to do it anyway.  McDonalds was wrong to do what they did, and the lawsuit was valid and the jury's decision was correct.

You need to pick a better example if you want to convince anyone of anything.
 
2013-07-16 05:29:33 PM  

Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you

If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?


When McDonalds starts selling guns, we can talk. Otherwise, stick with the subject at hand.

\yea, sure - make it a f*ing gun thread
 
2013-07-16 05:37:13 PM  

CheapEngineer: Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you

If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?

When McDonalds starts selling guns, we can talk. Otherwise, stick with the subject at hand.

\yea, sure - make it a f*ing gun thread


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
 
2013-07-16 05:49:13 PM  
The kiddo got what he deserved...
Blah, blah, blah everything else.
He had Zimmerman in full mount...wailing away and slamming his head into the concrete.
REGARDLESS of how the incident ended up there...
Once it was there, once the kid was on his way to killing him...or at least, farking him up very badly...
I say shoot the farker.
He did.
And was found innocent.
That's about that.
I understand the kid's family is upset...but hey, no one told him to attack the guy...mouth him, flip him off, run away...
But full mount and beat the guy bloody?
I just don't feel sorry for the kiddo.
 
2013-07-16 05:54:11 PM  
By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?
 
2013-07-16 05:59:54 PM  

Rawhead Rex: The kiddo got what he deserved...
Blah, blah, blah everything else.
He had Zimmerman in full mount...wailing away and slamming his head into the concrete.
REGARDLESS of how the incident ended up there...
Once it was there, once the kid was on his way to killing him...or at least, farking him up very badly...
I say shoot the farker.
He did.
And was found innocent.
That's about that.
I understand the kid's family is upset...but hey, no one told him to attack the guy...mouth him, flip him off, run away...
But full mount and beat the guy bloody?
I just don't feel sorry for the kiddo.


Karma says you'll get what YOU deserve.
 
2013-07-16 06:02:33 PM  

Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?


Well that's not really how that whole thing works, but whatever you say.
 
2013-07-16 06:09:27 PM  

Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?


If Zimmerman had attacked Trayvon first, or pulled his gun on him, then yes, he would have been justified.  Just being followed by someone doesn't give you the right to shoot them however.
 
2013-07-16 06:12:14 PM  

Elegy: Bonus fun fact: the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting Marissa Alexander was Angela Corey, the same champion of racial injustice that was the head of the prosecution team on the Zimmerman case.


That IS a bonus fun fact ... one willfully ignored by both savages AND their enablers.
 
2013-07-16 06:36:12 PM  

Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?


Hard to claim self defense when you're on top of someone beating them senseless.

And no, Florida law does not allow you to shoot someone for following you down the street, even if they are a "creepy ass-cracker."

Why do people have such a problem with this concept?
 
2013-07-16 06:36:56 PM  

Loki009: Shadowknight: Loki009: There is no way you are going to convince me that the laws in Florida aren't broken when you can spill a McDonalds hot coffee in your lap while driving and win close to a $10 million dollar law suit. Florida should just throw out their laws and start from scratch, its the only way you will be able to fix the perverted twisted mess of laws that they have on the books right now, both civilly and criminally.

Fun fact:  That didn't happen.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of, the found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

So over half a million dollars for using 8pt font rather than 10pt font telling you that driving down main street with pot holes and speed bumps with a hot coffee between your legs is a better idea?

Still think florida needs to burn its laws and start from scratch.


I hate when people talk about this case. The issue was that the coffee was TOO hot resulting in 3rd degree burns on close to 20% of the woman's body. Coffe lasts longer the hotter you store it and McDonald's was try to save money by keeping the coffee at an unsafe temperature.
 
2013-07-16 06:38:50 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?

If Zimmerman had attacked Trayvon first, or pulled his gun on him, then yes, he would have been justified.  Just being followed by someone doesn't give you the right to shoot them however.


Well I'm glad we have mr Zimmerman's word on what happend that night.
 
2013-07-16 06:45:54 PM  

Elegy: Why do people have such a problem with this concept?


Because they're sick and farking tired of white people killing young black men. It's happened probably two or maybe even three times in the past year.

pay no attention to the thousands of blacks killed by other blacks, that's irrelevant.
 
2013-07-16 06:50:42 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.


Okay, so Martin attacked Zimmerman.  Wasn't that his right?  Why does the "Stand You Ground Law" only protect Zimmerman?  Doesn't Martin have that right too?
 
2013-07-16 06:51:25 PM  

HairBolus: Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.

Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.


Really? In which state is it illegal to kill someone who is actively, currently in the process of attempting to shatter your skull against concrete?
 
2013-07-16 07:13:28 PM  
D) The facts of the case

The facts being that the prosecution had no case which is why they did a poor job.

The jury listened to the facts, and came to the only conclusion you can come to if you listen to the facts.

I'm sorry that we didn't convict somebody in spite of the facts just to satisfy your political and emotional needs this go around but occasionally the justice system does work.
 
2013-07-16 07:25:28 PM  

Elegy: factoryconnection: nmrsnr: Shadowknight: Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared

Yes, but you must actually shoot them, if you just discharge your weapon, you go to jail for 20 years. It's only fair.

Only the truly cold-blooded earn the protection of their rights.  Also: domestic violence has been proven conclusively to be primarily a product of women's over-active imaginations and excessive lip, so there's no way that woman could have actually needed to scare this so-called "abusive ex" away.  I mean, what's the worst he could do if he wasn't armed?  There's no reason for her to ever fear for her life when confronted by an unarmed man.

Right, Florida?

*sigh*

I see the Marissa Alexander case is going to be the next Florida outrage du jour based on a false racial narrative and biased media reporting. I saw it being pushed on CNN last night.


Paraphrased from the video:
This didn't happen due to some gross miscarriage of justice. This happened because Florida's self-defense laws did exactly what they were designed to do.

P.S.: If you're insistent on people focusing on the facts of the case, don't go bringing up other ones.
 
2013-07-16 07:34:16 PM  

Tommy Moo: Really? In which state is it illegal to kill someone who is actively, currently in the process of attempting to shatter your skull against concrete?


Why do so many people believe Zimmerman's pack of lies? His injuries were minor. If his account was true, he would not have been able to shoot Martin.

To me, the lesson from this is if there is any kind of potentially hostile situation in Florida, you better be able and be the first to escalate the confrontation to a lethal confrontation.
 
2013-07-16 08:07:20 PM  

Shadowknight: s2s2s2: Shadowknight: everything that I felt

I bet you and I felt a lot of the same things about this case. I went ahead and learned something. Amazing what knowledge does for feelings.

What I learned was that as long as you scream "It's coming right for us!" it doesn't matter what kind of a dick you were to provoke the attack.  You are still legal to blow away some kid.


Wouldn't it have been easier to type, "We'll I didn't learn shiat!"?
 
2013-07-16 08:19:39 PM  

kevinfra: Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.

Okay, so Martin attacked Zimmerman.  Wasn't that his right?  Why does the "Stand You Ground Law" only protect Zimmerman?  Doesn't Martin have that right too?


Welcome to the conversation!

A: No. SYG says "no duty to retreat." Not "go ahead and attack."
 
2013-07-16 08:23:08 PM  

s2s2s2: kevinfra: Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.

Okay, so Martin attacked Zimmerman.  Wasn't that his right?  Why does the "Stand You Ground Law" only protect Zimmerman?  Doesn't Martin have that right too?

Welcome to the conversation!

A: No. SYG says "no duty to retreat." Not "go ahead and attack."


Are you idiots stuck in some kind of troll loop?
 
2013-07-16 08:41:36 PM  
20 years for breaking a restraining order, going out side, getting a gun you just happen to have and firing it into a wall with your kids in the room on the other side?

Sounds reasonable.
 
2013-07-16 08:43:07 PM  

Shadowknight: factoryconnection: Wise_Guy: You left out the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Self defense is not an acceptable excuse when you feel your life is being threatened.

You of course have the right to defend yourself if your life is being threatened.  But he went out provoking a fight.  He was told not to follow him, and he did anyway.  He was told not to confront him, and he did anyway.  

Uncle Jimbo's "It's Coming Right For Us!" defense should not be legally accepted as self defense.  YOU obviously provoked an attack because you felt like a big man with a gun.  If not first or second degree, it should have at least been a manslaughter charge.  You did nothing to deescalate the situation, and in fact did quite the opposite.




I know right. If you have an encounter with a stranger, and that person has an issue with that, and suddenly threatens your life and limb, you should except your beating or death. WTF is wrong with people?

Want to tell me where you live and if you have a gun? It's for a friend.
 
2013-07-16 08:45:12 PM  

Daraymann: 20 years for breaking a restraining order, going out side, getting a gun you just happen to have and firing it into a wall with your kids in the room on the other side?

Sounds reasonable.


Sounds like attempted murder, fark the crazy biatch.
 
2013-07-16 08:53:20 PM  
I'm not sure why anyone wants to change self defense laws.  Aren't these the same laws that protect battered women (and some men) if they kill their abusive spouses.
 
2013-07-16 09:33:32 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I'm not sure why anyone wants to change self defense laws.  Aren't these the same laws that protect battered women (and some men) if they kill their abusive spouses.


Just ask  Marissa Alexander
 
2013-07-16 09:49:01 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I'm not sure why anyone wants to change self defense laws.  Aren't these the same laws that protect battered women (and some men) if they kill their abusive spouses.




Exactly.

Thought crime.
 
2013-07-16 10:11:39 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: I know right. If you have an encounter with a stranger, and that person has an issue with that, and suddenly threatens your life and limb, you should except your beating or death. WTF is wrong with people?

Want to tell me where you live and if you have a gun? It's for a friend.


Having a simple interaction, such as just meeting him on the street or in line at the ATM, is not really a good reason for a random attack.  Following the guy in a truck, getting out of a car and coming after them, however, should be viewed differently.
 
2013-07-16 10:27:58 PM  

Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?


Considering Martin was under 18, he couldn't have legally possessed a firearm in the first place (or 21, since the gun in question was a concealed handgun). But disregarding that, at what point would Martin be in reasonable fear that Zimmerman was going to cause imminent death or bodily injury to him? Having someone follow you around doesn't rise to that level, at least to me. If Zimmerman had gotten Martin to the ground and was hitting him, then yeah, I agree with you, not guilty would be the right call.

Publikwerks: Waldo Pepper: I'm not sure why anyone wants to change self defense laws.  Aren't these the same laws that protect battered women (and some men) if they kill their abusive spouses.

Just ask  Marissa Alexander


Yeah, the woman who violated her own restraining order by going over to the house that she no longer lived in, starting an argument with babydaddy, leaving the room to go get a gun from the garage, reenterring the house and then firing the gun with her two kids in the house, I'm sure she's the poster child you want for showing the law is bad. The law did work in this scenario  Lillian Fahrer, who stabbed and killed her husband during a fight, her husband had a known history of abuse.
 
2013-07-16 10:33:49 PM  
This must have been linked to some conservative site(s) judging by the latest comments.
 
2013-07-16 10:51:11 PM  
He's no John Stewart, that's for sure.
 
2013-07-16 11:10:35 PM  

randomjsa: D) The facts of the case

The facts being that the prosecution had no case which is why they did a poor job.

The jury listened to the facts, and came to the only conclusion you can come to if you listen to the facts.

I'm sorry that we didn't convict somebody in spite of the facts just to satisfy your political and emotional needs this go around but occasionally the justice system does work.


You are the God-King in your own little deluded world, aren't you?
 
2013-07-16 11:23:27 PM  

Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you

If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?

When McDonalds starts selling guns, we can talk. Otherwise, stick with the subject at hand.

\yea, sure - make it a f*ing gun thread

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshole
 
2013-07-17 12:09:48 AM  

Elegy: Do try to learn the facts of the case before you express your outrage


You don't understand.  We KNOW the facts.  Comedy Central told us everything we need to know.

What are you, some sort of racist?
 
2013-07-17 12:10:55 AM  

Shadowknight: StoPPeRmobile: I know right. If you have an encounter with a stranger, and that person has an issue with that, and suddenly threatens your life and limb, you should except your beating or death. WTF is wrong with people?

Want to tell me where you live and if you have a gun? It's for a friend.

Having a simple interaction, such as just meeting him on the street or in line at the ATM, is not really a good reason for a random attack.  Following the guy in a truck, getting out of a car and coming after them, however, should be viewed differently.




"Coming after them?" Are you being intentionally vague?

That's what I'm on about. A line has to be drawn somewhere and where ever that line is drawn someone will push it.

So if you are doing anything but, "coming after them," then you would allow someone to protect themselves or are we back to accepting your beating and or loss of life or limb?
 
2013-07-17 12:25:03 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: randomjsa: D) The facts of the case

The facts being that the prosecution had no case which is why they did a poor job.

The jury listened to the facts, and came to the only conclusion you can come to if you listen to the facts.

I'm sorry that we didn't convict somebody in spite of the facts just to satisfy your political and emotional needs this go around but occasionally the justice system does work.

You are the God-King in your own little deluded world, aren't you?


He may be insensitive with his assessment, but he's not wrong.  Oliver made the same argument in the clip:  Zimmerman was found not guilty because the system worked as designed.  Realistically, the prosecution didn't have enough evidence even for manslaughter.  While everyone knows it's wrong, no one could prove Zimmerman broke any laws, either because he didn't or there was no evidence to support that he did.  What is pissing people off is that dichotomy - that Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death without breaking any laws.

The jury wasn't allowed to vote guilty/not guilty based on what they thought was just.  They were required to vote based on the law as written.  The prosecution never had a case.  The only living witness was the defendant.  The physical evidence was neutral at best, and favored the defense at worst.

So the emotional argument is fair, primarily because everyone who is arguing Zimmerman should have been found guilty can't explain WHY using any existing laws.  They just "know" he should have been found guilty.  That's not good enough.
 
2013-07-17 12:40:14 AM  

Elegy: Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?

Hard to claim self defense when you're on top of someone beating them senseless.

And no, Florida law does not allow you to shoot someone for following you down the street, even if they are a "creepy ass-cracker."

Why do people have such a problem with this concept?


Actually no its not hard to claim self defense after being stalked by someone. Especily if there are no eye witnesses. Dead men don't testify.

As for the jury and the verdict I have to say i think they did thier job. Was justice served? No. But they did follow the law.
 
2013-07-17 12:41:54 AM  
Lsherm
You said it better than I could.
 
2013-07-17 12:44:38 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: "Coming after them?" Are you being intentionally vague?


Kind of have to be vague.  As had been pointed out, he killed the only other witness.  Did he chase him?  Step in his way?  No idea.   He killed the only other witness.

StoPPeRmobile: So if you are doing anything but, "coming after them," then you would allow someone to protect themselves or are we back to accepting your beating and or loss of life or limb?


If Martin was feeling threatened, why doesn't the same self defense laws that protected Zimmerman not cover him?  Some asshole was following him in the dark, with no authority to do so, and who knows what he said or did before hand (see again: he killed the only other witness), and he attacked that threat.  

Yes, Zimmerman probably should not be punished with a murder conviction.  He didn't set out to murder a kid, nor was it a crime of passion.  I am sure that in his little world, he thought he was going to die.  Maybe he would have.  In that, what he did was self defense.  But you cannot excuse the fact that he provoked this confrontation, and if not for his actions this attack would not have happened.  It's not like Martin mugged him, and Zimmerman defended himself from this attack.  He pursued an innocent kid for the crime of walking home from a convenience store.

In any sane State, this would have warranted a manslaughter charge.  He started the fight that required lethal force to save himself from.  He had multiple opportunities to back away from this confrontation, and had an official tell him to back away from it.  Instead...
 
2013-07-17 12:50:29 AM  
Seems like the Mafia should be using STYG all the time. Easiest way to off someone yet.
 
2013-07-17 01:02:04 AM  
Wow.
I only watched the summations, and I know more about this case than the "muh feels" mob in here.
IMHO, the prosecutors trolled.
The prosecutors seemed to have been ordered from on high (no, not THAT high, just state level) what charges to bring against GZ, and they knew they could not prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. So they gave the media and all the "muh feels" crowd what it wanted. It certainly seemed to me that they prosecuted this case like the "muh feels" crowd wanted it: A grown white man killed a black child for no good reason.  Watch the prosecution's summation: a whole lotta feels, little actual evidence.
 
2013-07-17 01:26:17 AM  

Shadowknight: He started the fight that required lethal force to save himself from.


Nope nope nope nope, and NO.

That's where you are injecting what you believed to have happened instead of what could have happened.  Zimmerman was found not guilty because there wasn't any proof that he started the fight.  Martin could have started the fight.  There was no evidence either way.

As a former cop, you have an alarming inability to understand why the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.  It wasn't because Zimmerman wasn't responsible for the situation, but because there was no evidence that under the law Zimmerman broke any laws.  Martin could have started the fight.  Zimmerman could have started the fight.  At some point Zimmerman felt his life was threatened so he shot Martin, or so he claims.  There is no evidence otherwise.  None.  There is vague evidence to support Zimmerman's story, but barely.

Either way, you are playing out the night as you wish to see it.  The jury had to weigh evidence that suggested there wasn't any way to tell.  So that's why he was acquitted.  What your gut feeling is telling you isn't a legal standard.  Ever.  And it's for good reason.
 
2013-07-17 01:32:32 AM  

gfid: Elegy: Do try to learn the facts of the case before you express your outrage

You don't understand.  We KNOW the facts.  Comedy Central told us everything we need to know.

What are you, some sort of racist?


10/10 would laugh again
 
2013-07-17 01:39:39 AM  

Lsherm: Shadowknight: He started the fight that required lethal force to save himself from.

Nope nope nope nope, and NO.

That's where you are injecting what you believed to have happened instead of what could have happened.  Zimmerman was found not guilty because there wasn't any proof that he started the fight.  Martin could have started the fight.  There was no evidence either way.

As a former cop, you have an alarming inability to understand why the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.  It wasn't because Zimmerman wasn't responsible for the situation, but because there was no evidence that under the law Zimmerman broke any laws.  Martin could have started the fight.  Zimmerman could have started the fight.  At some point Zimmerman felt his life was threatened so he shot Martin, or so he claims.  There is no evidence otherwise.  None.  There is vague evidence to support Zimmerman's story, but barely.

Either way, you are playing out the night as you wish to see it.  The jury had to weigh evidence that suggested there wasn't any way to tell.  So that's why he was acquitted.  What your gut feeling is telling you isn't a legal standard.  Ever.  And it's for good reason.


I think you missed, like, everything in my posts.  I agree with you, the jury did right by justice.  They had no reason to find him guilty, of even manslaughter as it exists in Florida.  And there's the problem.  He caused the fight and ultimately the death of a young kid, but he did nothing illegal while doing it.  

What happened in between is really pointless navel gazing.  We'll never know what really happened, as he killed the only other witness.  What we do know is that he went looking for a fight, against common sense and official request, and when he got in over his head he shot a kid.  Had he not done that first part, Martin would be alive and at best would have been questioned by police (though likely, he would have just went back to his friend's house and ate some Skittles).  Zimmerman should have been held responsible for that.

Unfortunately, the laws don't allow for that in some way.  The folks on the jury did what they had to do.  Legal justice was done, moral justice was not.
 
2013-07-17 01:44:20 AM  

whither_apophis: Seems like the Mafia should be using STYG all the time. Easiest way to off someone yet.


So all you have to do is get punched in the nose, thrown to the ground, have your head banged repeatedly into the concrete and punched repeatedly "MMA-style" while screaming for help (that doesn't come), have the person literally sitting on top of you, have them go for your (legal) concealed gun when it slips out into view while saying "You're gonna die tonight Motherfarker!" , and only then are you allowed to discharge a single round into your assailant.

Great plan.

/Zimmerman WAS a farking dumbass (assuming that his initial report to police was not true.  If it was true, he did nothing wrong).  He was NOT guilty in criminal court of murdering Trayvon Martin outside of self-defense since there was reasonable doubt that his actions were self-defense and this is NOT an legal writ for white people to go around shooting black people in the streets without fear of retribution.
//Also, the prosecution was a bunch of idiots and the defense was FANTASTIC.
 
2013-07-17 02:22:39 AM  

Lsherm: LeoffDaGrate: randomjsa: D) The facts of the case

The facts being that the prosecution had no case which is why they did a poor job.

The jury listened to the facts, and came to the only conclusion you can come to if you listen to the facts.

I'm sorry that we didn't convict somebody in spite of the facts just to satisfy your political and emotional needs this go around but occasionally the justice system does work.

You are the God-King in your own little deluded world, aren't you?

He may be insensitive with his assessment, but he's not wrong.  Oliver made the same argument in the clip:  Zimmerman was found not guilty because the system worked as designed.  Realistically, the prosecution didn't have enough evidence even for manslaughter.  While everyone knows it's wrong, no one could prove Zimmerman broke any laws, either because he didn't or there was no evidence to support that he did.  What is pissing people off is that dichotomy - that Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death without breaking any laws.

The jury wasn't allowed to vote guilty/not guilty based on what they thought was just.  They were required to vote based on the law as written.  The prosecution never had a case.  The only living witness was the defendant.  The physical evidence was neutral at best, and favored the defense at worst.

So the emotional argument is fair, primarily because everyone who is arguing Zimmerman should have been found guilty can't explain WHY using any existing laws.  They just "know" he should have been found guilty.  That's not good enough.


What gets me is that people throw up this mental block where they can't acknowledge something.

Zimmerman may have done something stupid but what Martin did was far stupider. People just want to block out the fact that Martin jumped him and started throwing punches.

People were so hung up on the idea that Zimmerman just ran up and shot him in cold blood. First he was some racist white guy, oh wait, he's 'white hispanic'... but still a racist! Just listen to this... doctored 911 tape from NBC. He wasn't attacked/hit, that's a lie... oh wait, he had injuries consistent with being attacked and having his head slammed against the ground. It was like people just can't let go of their initial impression that somebody ran in guns blazing just because they wanted to shoot a black kid.

That's not what happened.

What happened was Zimmerman was a pretentious idiot and Martin was an overly aggressive gang banger wannabe. I think I'm being followed is not a free pass to turn around and start pummeling somebody. Call the cops. Call your house and tell your family to be watching for you or to start walking your direction. Don't run your big mouth to your girlfriend then get yourself shot doing something monumentally stupid.
 
2013-07-17 03:27:45 AM  

Shadowknight: Lsherm: Shadowknight: He started the fight that required lethal force to save himself from.

Nope nope nope nope, and NO.

That's where you are injecting what you believed to have happened instead of what could have happened.  Zimmerman was found not guilty because there wasn't any proof that he started the fight.  Martin could have started the fight.  There was no evidence either way.

As a former cop, you have an alarming inability to understand why the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.  It wasn't because Zimmerman wasn't responsible for the situation, but because there was no evidence that under the law Zimmerman broke any laws.  Martin could have started the fight.  Zimmerman could have started the fight.  At some point Zimmerman felt his life was threatened so he shot Martin, or so he claims.  There is no evidence otherwise.  None.  There is vague evidence to support Zimmerman's story, but barely.

Either way, you are playing out the night as you wish to see it.  The jury had to weigh evidence that suggested there wasn't any way to tell.  So that's why he was acquitted.  What your gut feeling is telling you isn't a legal standard.  Ever.  And it's for good reason.

I think you missed, like, everything in my posts.  I agree with you, the jury did right by justice.  They had no reason to find him guilty, of even manslaughter as it exists in Florida.  And there's the problem.  He caused the fight and ultimately the death of a young kid, but he did nothing illegal while doing it.  

What happened in between is really pointless navel gazing.  We'll never know what really happened, as he killed the only other witness.  What we do know is that he went looking for a fight, against common sense and official request, and when he got in over his head he shot a kid.  Had he not done that first part, Martin would be alive and at best would have been questioned by police (though likely, he would have just went back to his friend's house and ate some Skittles).  Zimmerman shou ...


What you keep missing is the possibility that Martin initiated a fight because he felt threatened by Zimmerman.  You keep glossing over that possibility because you correctly acknowledge Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin in the first place.
 
2013-07-17 03:38:00 AM  

meyerkev: whither_apophis: Seems like the Mafia should be using STYG all the time. Easiest way to off someone yet.

So all you have to do is get punched in the nose, thrown to the ground, have your head banged repeatedly into the concrete and punched repeatedly "MMA-style" while screaming for help (that doesn't come), have the person literally sitting on top of you, have them go for your (legal) concealed gun when it slips out into view while saying "You're gonna die tonight Motherfarker!" , and only then are you allowed to discharge a single round into your assailant.

Great plan.

/Zimmerman WAS a farking dumbass (assuming that his initial report to police was not true.  If it was true, he did nothing wrong).  He was NOT guilty in criminal court of murdering Trayvon Martin outside of self-defense since there was reasonable doubt that his actions were self-defense and this is NOT an legal writ for white people to go around shooting black people in the streets without fear of retribution.
//Also, the prosecution was a bunch of idiots and the defense was FANTASTIC.


perhaps you responding to someone else's post?

/shoot your mark, plant a pistol in his hand, say you were quicker.
//great plan also.
///never going to Florida ever.
 
2013-07-17 03:40:09 AM  

Lsherm: Shadowknight: Lsherm: Shadowknight: He started the fight that required lethal force to save himself from.

Nope nope nope nope, and NO.

That's where you are injecting what you believed to have happened instead of what could have happened.  Zimmerman was found not guilty because there wasn't any proof that he started the fight.  Martin could have started the fight.  There was no evidence either way.

As a former cop, you have an alarming inability to understand why the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.  It wasn't because Zimmerman wasn't responsible for the situation, but because there was no evidence that under the law Zimmerman broke any laws.  Martin could have started the fight.  Zimmerman could have started the fight.  At some point Zimmerman felt his life was threatened so he shot Martin, or so he claims.  There is no evidence otherwise.  None.  There is vague evidence to support Zimmerman's story, but barely.

Either way, you are playing out the night as you wish to see it.  The jury had to weigh evidence that suggested there wasn't any way to tell.  So that's why he was acquitted.  What your gut feeling is telling you isn't a legal standard.  Ever.  And it's for good reason.

I think you missed, like, everything in my posts.  I agree with you, the jury did right by justice.  They had no reason to find him guilty, of even manslaughter as it exists in Florida.  And there's the problem.  He caused the fight and ultimately the death of a young kid, but he did nothing illegal while doing it.  

What happened in between is really pointless navel gazing.  We'll never know what really happened, as he killed the only other witness.  What we do know is that he went looking for a fight, against common sense and official request, and when he got in over his head he shot a kid.  Had he not done that first part, Martin would be alive and at best would have been questioned by police (though likely, he would have just went back to his friend's house and ate some Skittles).  Zimmerman shou ...

What you keep missing is the possibility that Martin initiated a fight because he felt threatened by Zimmerman.  You keep glossing over that possibility because you correctly acknowledge Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin in the first place.


Martin stood his ground. He should have been packing something heavier than skittles.
 
2013-07-17 03:45:49 AM  
I still don't think the prosecution did a poor job.  It's just that they were up against a rock and a hard place.  The rock being that their case was impossible to prove, and the hard place being that if they didn't prosecute, there would be riots.  And I mean real riots, not these little protests the LAPD and Racist White Guy want to pass off as riots to justify the riot police and their hatred.

/Alan Dershowitz has called for the special prosecutor's disbarment.
//I would sooner disbar Alan Dershowitz for making that call.
 
2013-07-17 03:49:04 AM  

Mikey1969: Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: If someone attacks you and is on top of you beating the crap out of you, slamming your head into the ground, at what point do you defend yourself?

Again, do we have any evidence of this happening?  I honestly don't know, but I had never heard of him going to the hospital or having any medical issues after the fact.  And the video the night of the shooting shows him strolling out of the police station under his own power and seemingly fine.  If police procedure in Florida is anything like it was in Virginia when I was an officer, when taken into custody, any sign of injury immediately means a trip to the hospital or at the very least calling out the medics to make sure they're ok before taking them to lockup.  

I heard the lawyer arguing that he was getting pummeled to death, but haven't actually seen any evidence to support that.  Near as I have heard, he had a bloody, possibly broken nose, and two black eyes that come with that.  No skull fracture, bruising to the  back of the head, or anything else.  In my experience as both a police officer and a medic, that usually means someone got punched in the face for being a dick, but the rest of the story is made up nonsense.

[i.imgur.com image 660x371]

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

[i.imgur.com image 400x268]

Yeah, scalp wounds bleed like crazy, and I get bloody noses from picking up my daughter sometimes and us having a mild collision.


In pretty much any state where the duty to retreat is there for all but deadly force, if this is the only true evidence of deadly force, George Zimmerman would have spent the rest of his life in prison.
 
2013-07-17 04:26:57 AM  

CheapEngineer: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshole


You can't seem to understand how McDonalds screwed up in that case, and I'm the asshole? The woman needed skin grafts for farks sake.
 
2013-07-17 04:33:01 AM  
Yes guy with the worst fake british accent I've ever heard, if someone is beating your ass with concrete, you can shoot them. Pretty much in any state.
 
2013-07-17 07:55:16 AM  

IlGreven: I still don't think the prosecution did a poor job.  It's just that they were up against a rock and a hard place.  The rock being that their case was impossible to prove, and the hard place being that if they didn't prosecute, there would be riots.  And I mean real riots, not these little protests the LAPD and Racist White Guy want to pass off as riots to justify the riot police and their hatred.

/Alan Dershowitz has called for the special prosecutor's disbarment.
//I would sooner disbar Alan Dershowitz for making that call.




I remember the days when the use of violence (or the threat of violence) for politiical coercion was, itself, a punishable crime.

The authorities invented their own hard place by letting outside provocateurs lead the media around by the nose. They should have used their position to explain the situation and leave the matter to be resolved in civil court.
At least there the Martin family would be allowed to submit feelings as evidence to win a judgement against Zimmerman. As it is they took it to a court with a higher standard and lost, giving Zimmerman the option of future immuty.

They farked up the process.
Farking up the process tends to get lawyers disbarred.
 
2013-07-17 09:08:54 AM  

Shadowknight: coming after them, however, should be viewed differently.


How did you view it? Did the ghost of Trayvon give you a walkthrough?
 
2013-07-17 09:11:01 AM  

randomjsa: Lsherm: LeoffDaGrate: randomjsa: D) The facts of the case

The facts being that the prosecution had no case which is why they did a poor job.

The jury listened to the facts, and came to the only conclusion you can come to if you listen to the facts.

I'm sorry that we didn't convict somebody in spite of the facts just to satisfy your political and emotional needs this go around but occasionally the justice system does work.

You are the God-King in your own little deluded world, aren't you?

He may be insensitive with his assessment, but he's not wrong.  Oliver made the same argument in the clip:  Zimmerman was found not guilty because the system worked as designed.  Realistically, the prosecution didn't have enough evidence even for manslaughter.  While everyone knows it's wrong, no one could prove Zimmerman broke any laws, either because he didn't or there was no evidence to support that he did.  What is pissing people off is that dichotomy - that Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death without breaking any laws.

The jury wasn't allowed to vote guilty/not guilty based on what they thought was just.  They were required to vote based on the law as written.  The prosecution never had a case.  The only living witness was the defendant.  The physical evidence was neutral at best, and favored the defense at worst.

So the emotional argument is fair, primarily because everyone who is arguing Zimmerman should have been found guilty can't explain WHY using any existing laws.  They just "know" he should have been found guilty.  That's not good enough.

What gets me is that people throw up this mental block where they can't acknowledge something.

Zimmerman may have done something stupid but what Martin did was far stupider. People just want to block out the fact that Martin jumped him and started throwing punches.

People were so hung up on the idea that Zimmerman just ran up and shot him in cold blood. First he was some racist white guy, oh wait, he's 'white hispanic ...


What you keep missing is that most everyone has you favorited as "miserable partisan scum-sucking bastard" and automatically discount anything that you post.

For good reason.

\that's not racist, that's "profiling"
\\sometimes it's accurate, and when it isn't we'll never know
 
2013-07-17 09:15:51 AM  

Lsherm: What is pissing people off is that dichotomy - that Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death without breaking any laws.


It was Martin's breaking of the law that got him killed. What is making people mad is that their brains refusing to accept that fact leaves them pairing emotion with bad logic. They are literally driving themselves crazy. Melissa Harris-Perry has gone full retard with this, saying that she was relieved that she found out her fetus is female, because she doesn't want to give birth to a "target".

Well Melissa, don't start no shiat, won't be no shiat.
 
2013-07-17 09:16:24 AM  

jakomo002: Rawhead Rex: The kiddo got what he deserved...
Blah, blah, blah everything else.
He had Zimmerman in full mount...wailing away and slamming his head into the concrete.
REGARDLESS of how the incident ended up there...
Once it was there, once the kid was on his way to killing him...or at least, farking him up very badly...
I say shoot the farker.
He did.
And was found innocent.
That's about that.
I understand the kid's family is upset...but hey, no one told him to attack the guy...mouth him, flip him off, run away...
But full mount and beat the guy bloody?
I just don't feel sorry for the kiddo.

Karma says you'll get what YOU deserve.


I AM!
I'm closing on a beautiful new home tomorrow!
Very richly rewarded for my efforts, thank you...
 
2013-07-17 09:19:55 AM  

way south: I remember the days when the use of violence (or the threat of violence) for politiical coercion was, itself, a punishable crime.

The authorities invented their own hard place by letting outside provocateurs lead the media around by the nose. They should have used their position to explain the situation and leave the matter to be resolved in civil court.
At least there the Martin family would be allowed to submit feelings as evidence to win a judgement against Zimmerman. As it is they took it to a court with a higher standard and lost, giving Zimmerman the option of future immuty.

They farked up the process.
Farking up the process tends to get lawyers disbarred.


All things considered, this one was a closer call than, say the OJ case... THAT was one where the prosecution and the cops screwed the pooch. People biatch about the "Dream Team", but the fact of the matter is that the cops let people parade through the crime scene like it was an attraction at Disneyland, and the defense team took advantage of it. At least in this case, it was more a question of where 'Stand Your Ground' ends, and provocation begins.

IMO, Zimmerman should have been held accountable for his actions, and at least have been found guilty of manslaughter, but either way, the prosecution didn't fark the pooch as badly as they did with OJ.

/And I didn't pay attention enough to figure out how that Casey Anthony biatch got off...
 
2013-07-17 09:27:47 AM  

Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshole

You can't seem to understand how McDonalds screwed up in that case, and I'm the asshole? The woman needed skin grafts for farks sake.


I understand that McDonalds, for whatever dumbass reason, served their coffee at lava temperature.

But as I understand coffee, and the normal uses therein, it's not designed to be worn in place of pants. It comes in a cup, and once you buy it it's incumbent upon you to 1) know it's warm and 2) treat it accordingly by *not* trying to drive a car with a cup of fresh, possibly hot coffee *between your frigging thighs*. If you don't have a cupholder, you can buy 'em for 99c at Wal-Mart that clip on the door and hold a cup, *out of your frigging lap*.

If you want coffee that's safe to pour into your lap, you may have a market for that but I'm gonna assume most people wanna drink it. Yes, 1300 degrees is too hot for internal consumption of beverages, so there is merit to chapping McDonald's ass over the temperature of coffee. However, blaming skin grafts on misuse of the product is the issue I have with the entire affair.

"Not to be worn as pants" printed on the menu and the cup covers 75% of the problem, "turn down the frigging heater" takes care of the other 25%.

Comparing coffee sold by McDonalds to Gun Sales was frigging stupid, intentionally inflammatory, and the reason @sshole fits.

\I mean I like my bullets pre-heated in the microwave, and yet sometimes they go off prematurely
\\I'm gonna sue the bullet manufacturer, that's dangerous
\\\see how well that works?
 
2013-07-17 09:37:58 AM  

Mikey1969: the prosecution didn't fark the pooch as badly


It's not that they didn't fark the pooch, it's that they couldn't even decide which pooch to fark.
They inadvertently gave a great defense closing when they should have had a consistent narrative by that point. When the Prosecution can't even decide which set of circumstances best fit their "what if" case....they knew it was a lost cause.
 
2013-07-17 09:48:38 AM  

Mikey1969: way south: I remember the days when the use of violence (or the threat of violence) for politiical coercion was, itself, a punishable crime.

The authorities invented their own hard place by letting outside provocateurs lead the media around by the nose. They should have used their position to explain the situation and leave the matter to be resolved in civil court.
At least there the Martin family would be allowed to submit feelings as evidence to win a judgement against Zimmerman. As it is they took it to a court with a higher standard and lost, giving Zimmerman the option of future immuty.

They farked up the process.
Farking up the process tends to get lawyers disbarred.

All things considered, this one was a closer call than, say the OJ case... THAT was one where the prosecution and the cops screwed the pooch. People biatch about the "Dream Team", but the fact of the matter is that the cops let people parade through the crime scene like it was an attraction at Disneyland, and the defense team took advantage of it. At least in this case, it was more a question of where 'Stand Your Ground' ends, and provocation begins.

IMO, Zimmerman should have been held accountable for his actions, and at least have been found guilty of manslaughter, but either way, the prosecution didn't fark the pooch as badly as they did with OJ.

/And I didn't pay attention enough to figure out how that Casey Anthony biatch got off...


If I recall, She got off based on feelings and overcharging.
For whatever reason the Jury though the sentences offered were excessive. They didn't have a lesser option so they simply let her go.

With Zimmerman I think the manslaughter charge didn't quite fit.  Murder 2 was absurd and 3 was right out.
The jury spent the better part of two days trying to jam a square peg into a round hole when the prosecution offered up a triangle peg of negligence.
Negligent how?  He intentionally pulled the trigger for what he claimed (and the Jury agreed) were justified reasons.
They couldn't find something to send him to jail for, so the jury shed their tears and let him go.

They might have succeeded if they offered manslaughter and time served to Zimmerman himself last year as a plea. But the demand that someone go to jail for this tempted the prosecution to go big. They ended up going home.

They screwed up and people said so from the start.
Maybe they should pay the price for it.
 
2013-07-17 10:17:04 AM  
It was especially interesting how even TDS, which usually does at least SOME research instead of just parroting headlines from other networks, failed to realize that Martin disappeared from Zimmerman's view for over 4 minutes.  Which was ample time to get to his home only a few hundred feet away, but instead chose to return from his position out of Zimmerman's view, to confront Zimmerman.   Martin didn't come back to where he last saw Zimmerman to give him hugs, people, he came to teach the cracka a lesson.  Martin's behavior alone is what got him killed.

Shame on TDS for joining in on the smear campaign against an innocent man.
 
2013-07-17 11:20:01 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: he came to teach the cracka a lesson


Yet another "fact".  With all these facts to get out in the open I'm surprised the trial was so short!
 
2013-07-17 12:09:55 PM  

GnomePaladin: BraveNewCheneyWorld: he came to teach the cracka a lesson

Yet another "fact".  With all these facts to get out in the open I'm surprised the trial was so short!


Ah, so your side can pretend they're able to read GZ's mind and intent without even any circumstantial evidence, but I'm not allowed to do the same with TM with circumstantial evidence?  Is that how it works?
 
2013-07-17 01:15:49 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ah, so your side can pretend they're able to read GZ's mind and intent without even any circumstantial evidence, but I'm not allowed to do the same with TM with circumstantial evidence?  Is that how it works?


Find something in this thread or others that would indicate I'm on a "side" and you may have a point.

Sorry that you outed yourself along with others in this thread and that I pointed it out, but it's all there in black and white (heh) for everyone to see.
 
2013-07-17 02:35:44 PM  

GnomePaladin: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ah, so your side can pretend they're able to read GZ's mind and intent without even any circumstantial evidence, but I'm not allowed to do the same with TM with circumstantial evidence?  Is that how it works?

Find something in this thread or others that would indicate I'm on a "side" and you may have a point.

Sorry that you outed yourself along with others in this thread and that I pointed it out, but it's all there in black and white (heh) for everyone to see.


Yeah, I'm sorry I outed myself as someone who cares more about facts than keeping "white guilt" at bay.   Sorry you see facts as racist.
 
2013-07-17 11:43:08 PM  
Meanwhile, as the argument continues...
 Where's the media coverage on all the black-on-black violence?

"On a cold and gray Chicago mornin'
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries..."
 
Displayed 211 of 211 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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