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  
•       •       •

3921 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

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