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  
•       •       •

3915 clicks; posted to Video » on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:36 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report