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.

(ACLU)   Dear Eric Holder; Your attempts at a federal case against George Zimmerman violates the double-jeopardy clause in the constitution and we will defend him if necessary. Sincerely - The ACLU   (aclu.org) divider line 549
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15981 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2013 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-21 06:32:25 PM

Alleyoop: But we have to keep retrying him...



until we get the verdict we want!


Amboolance chaser.
 
2013-07-21 06:33:48 PM

youncasqua: OgreMagi: Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up). That is not a stand your ground situation. That pure self defense.

Unless Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away--which is probably what really happened.

In that case, Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor. Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Zimmerman's injuries were inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a man with a gun.


Have you considered a career as a state prosecutor? I am certain that you could establish an impressive conviction rate by building cases based upon what "could have" happened, and stating baseless hypothetical scenarios as what "probably" occurred.
 
2013-07-21 06:34:48 PM

dittybopper: coyo: dittybopper: youncasqua: Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

If he did, he probably wouldn't have doubled back to confront him.

We can't know what Martin knew. Zimmerman could have threatened him our even brandished the weapon.

And your evidence for this is, what?

I could be a hot 21 year old nymphomaniac with huge breasts and no gag reflex for all you know.



Yea, but huge breasts aren't so attractive on a guy...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-21 06:35:58 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Mock26: I the criminal court finds me not guilty of arson then that has everything to do with you being out of a home, because I am not guilty of setting your house on fire!

Not at all. Their may not be enough evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to prove you set the house aflame, but their may be sufficient cause/evidence to claim you took part in its destruction (by being there with another who could have been the one to set fire to the house, or by securing blueprints of the house that we claim were used in the plan to set fire). Lots of ways the civil case can be brought even with failure of the criminal.

One (the criminal) seeks to determine guilt or non-guilt for purposes of meting punishment. The other (civil) is designed to seek redress for loss. You are more than welcome to say, "But a criminal court found me innocent" as your defense for the latter, but the two are entirely separate "charges" (as noted above) despite stemming from the same event, just like the murder/gun thing above.

To go with the gun thing: maybe you didn't fire the gun. Maybe you handed your gun to your friend, who shot the victim. In that case, yeah, you could be found innocent of firing the weapon but still culpable for the murder. Or perhaps you are found innocent of the murder (not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt) but the family still sues you for loss because your actions resulted in his death (there is a preponderance of evidence to show you gave the gun to the guy who did kill the victim).


I fully understand the difference.  I just think that it is wrong.  Regardless of the technical differences you are still trying a person twice for the same crime.  The "technical differences" are nothing more than a convenient excuse to justify double jeopardy.

And back to the arson example.  If I am not guilty of setting your house on fire (from the criminal case) then you should have absolutely no grounds to file a civil suit, because the courts have already found me not guilty.  If I was there but did not set the fire then charge me as an accessory.  If the court determines I am innocent then that should trump everything else and render me immune to civil charges.

Even your gun example is, in my opinion, severely flawed.  If I was not the triggerman but merely provided the gun and if the court finds me not guilty as an accessory then there should be no civil suit.  Couch it in as many terms as you want, but if a criminal court finds me not guilty and the family then takes me to civil court I am still being tried twice for the same crime.  The rulings of the criminal courts can only be fair and just if they override civil charges.  In other words, if the criminal court finds me innocent/not guilty then I should be immune from a civil case.  I am, legally speaking, innocent.  That should trump everything.  If I am found guilty I see no problem with the family seeking monetary compensation in addition to whatever sentence the government imposes, but again, if i am innocent of all criminal charges then that should be the end of it.

And, once again, call it anything you want, quote any technical difference you want, when you boil it all down you are trying someone twice for the same crime.
 
2013-07-21 06:36:22 PM

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one came up today:

4) Zimmerman also said on Hannity that Trayvon didn't run away from him but skipped, and that Trayvon wasn't afraid. Which means either his statement on the 911 tape was false, or his statement on Hannity was false.

You're just not very bright. Zimmerman has always said that Trayvon was running. When he did the interview with Hannity, he used the word "skipping" as a way of attempting to show that Trayvon wasn't running away at full speed, but was being more casual about it. Not finding the right word or way of getting your point across is a hell of a long ways away from lying.

You stay gold though, Pony Boy.


How could he not have found the right word when Hannity asked him directly? Did he not hear Hannity ask:

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

By contrast, on the 911 tape--when Zimmerman wanted to paint Trayvon as a suspicious character, Zimmerman said:

Zimmerman: He ran.

At least one of those statements is necessarily false. Now, you claim his purpose was to convey Trayvon wasn't running fast. But the full exchange dealt with the question of whether or not Trayvon was afraid--another material issue in the homicide investigation.

get it through your head:

Zimmerman wants to paint Trayvon as suspicious: "He ran."
Zimmerman trying to exculpate himself, knowing Trayvon's fear hurts him legally: "So he wasn't actually running?" "No sir."
 
2013-07-21 06:37:21 PM

hardinparamedic: Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.

You've got to be shiatting me.


Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.

Both sides have exhibited quite a bit of racism in the media circus surrounding this trial. For outright racist conservatives, it is the blanket assumption that Martin was a thug and "got what he deserves."

For outright racist liberals, it was immediately injecting race as a factor into this case when there was no reason to do so, running with the narrative that Zimmerman was a racist when all of the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion, and basing claims of Zimmerman's racism on nothing more than the fact that Zimmerman's skin was lighter than Martin's. The evidence, in fact, points to zero racism in Zimmerman's part, and quite a bit of racism on Martin's part, but Zimmerman MUST be the racist because "light skinned privilege."

The assumption that Martin was a thug who deserved what he got, based on nothing more than the color of Martin's skin, is racist.

The assumption that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, based on nothing more than the color of Zimmerman's skin, is racist.

Just because you disagree with the conservative brand of racism doesn't mean they haven't gotten the substantive facts of this case correct.

And just because conservative media has gotten the substantive facts of this case correct doesn't somehow legitimate their racism.
 
2013-07-21 06:39:23 PM

Elegy: Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.


Uh.

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.


stuartreviewsstuff.files.wordpress.com

What the hell is that, man?
 
2013-07-21 06:39:24 PM

youncasqua: How could he not have found the right word when Hannity asked him directly? Did he not hear Hannity ask:

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.


Post the rest of the exchange, you disingenuous hack.
 
2013-07-21 06:39:39 PM

Doom MD: They're not outraged. Read the comments section, they're applauding the guy for defending himself.


Then why the hell is that link and article flying around conservative websites and social media, framed around "why aren't liberals (insert stupid point here)?" JAQ'ing off complete with false equivalencies to George Zimmerman? Liberals can google too, you know, and guess what pops right up on a search for Scott's name  and the article's title.
 
2013-07-21 06:42:10 PM
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think he was running then?

ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running but he was more --

HANNITY: You said he was running?

ZIMMERMAN: He was like skipping, going away quickly. He wasn't running out of fear.

HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.

HANNITY: He wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. HANNITY: That's what you said to the dispatch that you thought he was running. At that point, we could hear the unbuckling of the seat belt and then dispatch asks you at that point, and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on, and the dispatcher asked you are you following him and you said yes. Explain that.

ZIMMERMAN: I meant that I was going in the same direction as him to keep an eye on him so I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him.

HANNITY: This moment where someone suggested you were out of breath on that tape, you were not running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
 
2013-07-21 06:45:34 PM

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: How could he not have found the right word when Hannity asked him directly? Did he not hear Hannity ask:

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Post the rest of the exchange, you disingenuous hack.


I linked to it, you clod. And I described the context fairly and accurately.

1) Zimmerman wants to paint Trayvon as suspicious: "He ran."
2) Zimmerman trying to exculpate himself, realizing Trayvon's fear of him hurts him legally: "So he wasn't actually running?" "No sir."
 
2013-07-21 06:48:23 PM

hardinparamedic: Elegy: Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.

Uh.

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.



What the hell is that, man?


Again:

Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other about the facts of this case; knowing the facts of the case makes you more right about the facts if this case.

I'm not talking about general assumptions of racism, I'm talking about the specific reporting on this case.
 
2013-07-21 06:50:00 PM

Popcorn Johnny: HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think he was running then?

ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running but he was more --

HANNITY: You said he was running?

ZIMMERMAN: He was like skipping, going away quickly. He wasn't running out of fear.

HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.

HANNITY: He wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. HANNITY: That's what you said to the dispatch that you thought he was running. At that point, we could hear the unbuckling of the seat belt and then dispatch asks you at that point, and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on, and the dispatcher asked you are you following him and you said yes. Explain that.

ZIMMERMAN: I meant that I was going in the same direction as him to keep an eye on him so I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him.

HANNITY: This moment where someone suggested you were out of breath on that tape, you were not running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.


Doncha think the information that he's skipping merrily away, evincing no fear of Zimmerman whatever, is something a dutiful citizen would report about the so-called "suspicious character" he's encountered?
 
2013-07-21 06:55:37 PM

that bosnian sniper: Doom MD: Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.


I get more grumpycatgood.jpg out of the article that the scum got shot in that case, too.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in our current system.

From my point of view, I'm glad the guy shot the punk charging him.  That's how it should be.
 
2013-07-21 06:57:50 PM

The Numbers: youncasqua: 5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.

You know, I'm actually starting to get the impression you genuinely believe this to be true and aren't just one of Fark's more committed (and successful) trolls.


How many does it take?

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon--covers Zimmerman's motive for following Trayvon.

2) I asked to have an officer meet me at the clubhouse--covers inference he intended to follow Trayvon.

3) I've never heard of SYG--covers possibility he knew exactly what story to cook up to justify lethal force.

4) He ran/He wasn't running--material in the first instance, because "the wicked flee when no man pursueth." Material in the second instance because it covers inference Trayvon feared Zimmerman.

How many materially false statements does a man have to make in a homicide investigation before you conclude he's lying?

You can make up excuses for any given one of these. But the conjunction of so many objectively provable false statements cannot plausibly be attributed to faulty perception and memory.
 
2013-07-21 07:04:30 PM

youncasqua: Doncha think the information that he's skipping merrily away, evincing no fear of Zimmerman whatever, is something a dutiful citizen would report about the so-called "suspicious character" he's encountered?


What I think is that when people retell a story, they often change the words used to describe what occurred. Like I said before, Zim's story didn't change, the occasional word did. Write one of your long winded posts and then lets see if you can recite it word for word a few weeks later.
 
2013-07-21 07:06:34 PM
Another one:

Zimmerman wants to paint Trayvon as suspicious: "He looks like he's in his late teens."
Zimmerman trying to exculpate himself, now that he knows he's a child killer: "I'm sorry, I didn't know how old he was."

Now, it is fair to say there's no necessary contradiction in these two statements. You can simultaneously believe a fact without knowing it.

It is also fair to say this is consistent with Zimmerman's overall pattern of saying whatever he needs to say to portray what he wants in any given moment.
 
2013-07-21 07:07:37 PM

youncasqua: The Numbers: youncasqua: 5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.

You know, I'm actually starting to get the impression you genuinely believe this to be true and aren't just one of Fark's more committed (and successful) trolls.

How many does it take?

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon--covers Zimmerman's motive for following Trayvon.

2) I asked to have an officer meet me at the clubhouse--covers inference he intended to follow Trayvon.

3) I've never heard of SYG--covers possibility he knew exactly what story to cook up to justify lethal force.

4) He ran/He wasn't running--material in the first instance, because "the wicked flee when no man pursueth." Material in the second instance because it covers inference Trayvon feared Zimmerman.

How many materially false statements does a man have to make in a homicide investigation before you conclude he's lying?

You can make up excuses for any given one of these. But the conjunction of so many objectively provable false statements cannot plausibly be attributed to faulty perception and memory.


Seeing as your entire argument is a joke, I'm finding it incredibly difficult to discern why people are not 1) laughing and 2) treating you as the joke you are.

10/10
 
2013-07-21 07:11:35 PM

Popcorn Johnny: What I think is that when people retell a story, they often change the words used to describe what occurred. Like I said before, Zim's story didn't change, the occasional word did. Write one of your long winded posts and then lets see if you can recite it word for word a few weeks later.


He was asked directly, using the exact word he used before. He didn't "forget" the word "ran." He specifically denied the previous statement--twice. With motives to explain why he lied too.

Anyway, that's one of four you've come up with an excuse for. What about:

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon
2) i asked to have officer meet me at the clubhouse
3) i've never heard of SYG.

I eagerly await your excuses for Zimmerman's numerous materially false statements. They'll be entertaining reading if nothing more.
 
2013-07-21 07:12:38 PM

youncasqua: Another one:


Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?
 
2013-07-21 07:17:51 PM

youncasqua: How many materially false statements does a man have to make in a homicide investigation before you conclude he's lying?


I love how you people vacillate between Zimmerman being "a bumbling racist who picked a fight and couldn't even land a single punch, and wound up getting lucky in saving his own life" , and "a criminal mastermind who saw an opportunity to murder a black kid as a side trip on his way to getting groceries, allowing himself to get beaten severely, so he'd have a good story to tell".  It's rather entertaining.
 
2013-07-21 07:19:41 PM

youncasqua: I eagerly await your excuses for Zimmerman's numerous materially false statements. They'll be entertaining reading if nothing more.


I'll be sitting here waiting for you to tell me how Zimmerman saying he had never heard of SYG proves that he wasn't acting in self defense. Being that you think he's lying about everything, it sure is a lucky break that his story matches the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, wouldn't you say?
 
2013-07-21 07:19:49 PM

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one:

Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?


He speculated it, and he stated that it probably happened. Is that not sufficient?
 
2013-07-21 07:21:44 PM

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one:

Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?


Let me recount it again.

1) presumption of Trayvon's criminality
2) "punks," "assholes"
3) frustration about assholes "getting away."
4) reckless, aggressive choices to follow Trayvon against protocol.
5) numerous materially false statements ruling out plausibility of faulty perception or memory,
6) proving deception to any person with a lick of common sense
7) giving rise to strong inference of awareness of wrongdoing
8) and an equally strong inference therefrom of underlying guilt.

Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.
 
2013-07-21 07:24:22 PM

youncasqua: Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.


Which is why the lead investigator said he believed Zim's account of the events.
 
2013-07-21 07:26:04 PM

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: What I think is that when people retell a story, they often change the words used to describe what occurred. Like I said before, Zim's story didn't change, the occasional word did. Write one of your long winded posts and then lets see if you can recite it word for word a few weeks later.

He was asked directly, using the exact word he used before. He didn't "forget" the word "ran." He specifically denied the previous statement--twice. With motives to explain why he lied too.

Anyway, that's one of four you've come up with an excuse for. What about:

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon
2) i asked to have officer meet me at the clubhouse
3) i've never heard of SYG.

I eagerly await your excuses for Zimmerman's numerous materially false statements. They'll be entertaining reading if nothing more.


I don't know about 1 being a "lie". If I tell someone to keep an eye on a person and report back to me I mean to follow them.

It isn't surprising Zimmerman would interpret the 911 operator telling him to keep her advised on Martin's movements as follow him until she said they didn't need him to do that.
 
2013-07-21 07:38:43 PM

hardinparamedic: Elegy: Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.

Uh.

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.

[stuartreviewsstuff.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]

What the hell is that, man?


weed

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-21 07:42:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.

Which is why the lead investigator said he believed Zim's account of the events.


The police were in on it.

[It'sAConspiracy.jpg]
 
2013-07-21 07:51:42 PM
Hey, youncasqua, question for you. Soon after this became national news, Trayvon's parents and attorney said he was suspended from school for attendance when in fact it was drug related. What does that blatant lie mean?
 
2013-07-21 08:14:26 PM
Wow. FarkLibtard-assplode in 3...2...
 
2013-07-21 08:14:26 PM
I would be a life time member of the ACLU if they defended all of our rights.
 
2013-07-21 08:19:29 PM
Jeep2011:

Hopefully, the ACLU position will cause the crazies heads to explode and we will be done with crazy.

Shiat. Beat me to it in one.
 
2013-07-21 08:24:10 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.


No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.  His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat, coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way, are the root cause of this incident, which you and others like you have been desperately trying to explain away ever since, in my view because you want Zimmerman to have been justified in his initial profiling.  The distortion of my remarks into a race specific generalization I did not make is a) a lie on your part, and b) very revealing.
 
2013-07-21 08:29:24 PM

Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.


You have not one shred of evidence that Martin being black had anything to do with Zimmerman finding him suspicious. You know what making assumptions based on race makes you?

Ding! We have a winner!!!

Nice name calling by the way.
 
2013-07-21 08:34:20 PM

Autistic Hiker: Popcorn Johnny: Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.

No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.  His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat, coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way, are the root cause of this incident, which you and others like you have been desperately trying to explain away ever since, in my view because you want Zimmerman to have been justified in his initial profiling.  The distortion of my remarks into a race specific generalization I did not make is a) a lie on your part, and b) very revealing.


His inability to correctly identify a true threat?  What about the makeshift slim jim hidden around where the altercation took place.  I mean, it was kinda shot-in-the-dark lucky, but it lends credence to the statement that he appeared as though he was "on drugs" and "looking around rapidly".  I don't trust any kid in a hoodie after sunset in any neighborhood.  Sometimes they're looking to rob people, and other times they just want to "roll" a house.  I remember being seventeen and its pretty rare that they'll be doing anything productive after dark.  I don't give a shiat enough about my neighbors to call the police, but I know a shady teenager when I see one (hint: all of them wandering around after dark, especially in groups).
 
2013-07-21 08:41:18 PM

Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.


Zimmerman's racism is all in your mind.  Have you ever bothered looking at all the good work Zimmerman has done in his life that was for the benefit of black people?

Autistic Hiker: His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat,


Actually, it turns out that Trayvon was indeed a thief, and a violent thug based on the information we've received from his school, and his friend's testimony.

Autistic Hiker: coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way


Wannabe cops don't call the police, or look to see where a criminal went so they can tell the police.
 
2013-07-21 08:42:24 PM
Let me get this straight,

Martin hopped up on Skittles and Watermelon drank, confronted Zimmerman who was following him, got into a scuffle and got killed. Black people demanded justice, so Zimmerman goes to Trial. The star witness lied countless times in the meanwhile the Media painted Martin a baby boy while Zimmerman was the KKK member who was White. Mean while the Jury found him not guilty (with the state having nearly NO case at all, use nothing but WHAT IF scenarios - what if Zimmerman Stayed in his car? Not to mention nobody asked "Why didnt Martin run home instead? or be respectful in the confrontation?. Fact is Martin is dead, so now Rev Al and jesse want JUSTICE! for martin, disregarding the Jury, they want him convicted anyway. In the mean time looting and riots are breaking out in revenge.

I guess its acceptable behavior, take a tragedy and go loot some stores while your at it. maybe its just me but I see a different picture painted here, and its totally racist but maybe because I simply hate everyone.
 
2013-07-21 08:44:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.

You have not one shred of evidence that Martin being black had anything to do with Zimmerman finding him suspicious. You know what making assumptions based on race makes you?

Ding! We have a winner!!!

Nice name calling by the way.


Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.
 
2013-07-21 08:55:24 PM

OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.


They are.  It's a major focus of news reporting, community policing, and political activism in every major urban area in the United States.  The problem is that here, a nonblack wannabe cop pursued a black kid for no good reason, the black kid ends up dead, there's no accountability until a massive public outcry, half the country takes the wannabe cop's side and tries to paint the kid as somehow deserving it, and there's nothing in the law from preventing it happening again.   Those optics are not good for people whose recent ancestors were subject to lynchings.  I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that's what this is about.
 
2013-07-21 08:58:39 PM

Autistic Hiker: pursued


You use that word but obviously have no idea what it means.
 
2013-07-21 09:07:26 PM

Abuse Liability: His inability to correctly identify a true threat?  What about the makeshift slim jim hidden around where the altercation took place.  I mean, it was kinda shot-in-the-dark lucky, but it lends credence to the statement that he appeared as though he was "on drugs" and "looking around rapidly".  I don't trust any kid in a hoodie after sunset in any neighborhood.  Sometimes they're looking to rob people, and other times they just want to "roll" a house.  I remember being seventeen and its pretty rare that they'll be doing anything productive after dark.  I don't give a shiat enough about my neighbors to call the police, but I know a shady teenager when I see one (hint: all of them wandering around after dark, especially in groups).


Why, you seem to be proving several of my points at once.  Please proceed, governor.
 
2013-07-21 09:14:44 PM

Skyrmion: cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.

Yes, it would be allowed under the "separate sovereign" exemption to double jeopardy. However, this exemption is controversial, and has historically been regarded as unjust by civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Many people would like to see the issue brought up again in the Supreme Court.


If this was called double jeopardy, then would federal and state prosecutors have to flip a coin on who got to try the case? Let's say someone shoots an eagle within city limits. The city or state will want to convict for the illegal weapons discharge and whatever else, while the feds uniquely will want to charge for the killing of a federally protected bird. How do we convict the person for everything they did if only one of these jurisdictions can try him?
 
2013-07-21 09:18:56 PM
Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.


hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.
 
2013-07-21 09:21:46 PM

Autistic Hiker: my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.


Yes it does, case closed.
 
2013-07-21 09:24:03 PM

Autistic Hiker: Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.


You making racist assumptions without reading the facts about the case makes you racist. You're the same kind of racist as Sharpton & Jesse Jackson.

And "profiling" might be a problem if he were a cop & if he profiled based on skin color, but he isn't & he didn't.
 
2013-07-21 09:26:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.


The US being a different jurisdiction than Florida is the reason double jeopardy would not apply under the current rule, which ACLU opposes.  If jeopardy attaches the first time and the same jurisdiction wants to charge you again, the charges can't be based on the same alleged acts as underlay the first set of charges, even if the state has a different theory of criminal liability the second time around.  Some people are charged with crimes the commission of which arguably occurred in multiple jurisdictions.  If State A fails to convict, State B or the feds can then try.

The directors of national ACLU met and voted on how the organization should respond to the Zimmerman verdict: stand on principle opposing the weakened double jeopardy rule, but at the same time call for an end to racial profiling, suggesting the organization believes racial profiling and the killing of Martin are connected.
 
2013-07-21 09:33:25 PM

Autistic Hiker: OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.

They are.  It's a major focus of news reporting, community policing, and political activism in every major urban area in the United States.  The problem is that here, a nonblack mixed race wannabe cop neighborhood watch member pursued a black kid for no good reason acting suspicious, the black kid ends up dead, there's no accountability until case, but a massive public outcry, half the country takes the wannabe cop's side and tries to paint the kid as somehow deserving it him as a racist thug, and there's nothing in the law from preventing it happening again.   Those optics are not good for people whose recent ancestors were subject to lynchings.  I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that's what this is about.


Fixed that to match actual facts.
 
2013-07-21 09:41:02 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.

Zimmerman's racism is all in your mind.  Have you ever bothered looking at all the good work Zimmerman has done in his life that was for the benefit of black people?


let me be clear, I don't think Zimmerman was a cross-burning racist with a capital R. I think he engaged in incompetent profiling that boiled down to "young black man with a hoodie".  The group of people who have done that at some point in their lives includes the Rev. Jesse Jackson.  Jackson, however, didn't start a chain of events that led to someone's death.

Autistic Hiker: His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat,

Actually, it turns out that Trayvon was indeed a thief, and a violent thug based on the information we've received from his school, and his friend's testimony.


all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.  it is simply not credible that Martin was taking skittles and tea to a break-in. The point is that Zimmerman jumped to a set of conclusions regarding Martin's intent and demeanor that he had no right to make -- and again, I find it hugely revealing the number of people who are working overtime to do so for him, after the fact.

 Autistic Hiker: coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way

Wannabe cops don't call the police, or look to see where a criminal went so they can tell the police.


That's just semantics, but OK, we can call Zimmerman a wannabe mall cop if you prefer that term.
 
2013-07-21 09:41:10 PM

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one:

Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?

Let me recount it again.

1) presumption of Trayvon's criminality
2) "punks," "assholes"
3) frustration about assholes "getting away."
4) reckless, aggressive choices to follow Trayvon against protocol.
5) numerous materially false statements ruling out plausibility of faulty perception or memory,
6) proving deception to any person with a lick of common sense
7) giving rise to strong inference of awareness of wrongdoing
8) and an equally strong inference therefrom of underlying guilt.

Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.


It may be possible for *us* to conclude that Zimmerman lied.  However, while your points are all arguable, they were all effectively irrelevant from the jury's standpoint, as Zimmerman decided not to take the stand on his own behalf.  Which prevented the prosecution from asking him questions about *any* of these points.  If I recall correctly juror B37 or whatever her name was conceded that some of Zimmerman's statements that he gave during the course of his interviews with detectives may have been exaggerations.  But they weren't, so she said, serious enough exaggerations to call into question the basics of Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

I can't help but concur with B37's analysis, at least as I understand Florida law.  The prosecution just didn't have enough evidence to overcome Zimmerman's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and given the facts of the case I don't know how the prosecution could have gotten around John Good's testimony that he saw someone dressed in dark or black clothing on top of and straddling (and appearing to punch repeatedly) someone dressed in red or white--who called for help--in the seconds before Zimmerman shot Martin.
 
2013-07-21 09:45:14 PM

Autistic Hiker: Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.


Can't place a burglar's tool on Martin by any stretch of the imagination, but if he had one, it would sure explain why Zimmerman reported Martin reaching into his waist just after the two first saw each other.
 
Displayed 50 of 549 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report