FSTDT Forums

Community => Society and History => Topic started by: ironbite on June 24, 2013, 05:01:47 pm

Title: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 24, 2013, 05:01:47 pm
Mods if you want to move this, be my guest.  I'd say putting this here will be best for everyone because...THE TRIAL STARTED TODAY!

Opening statements made by both the state and the defense paint a very interesting picture.  On the one hand, you've got a very professional lawyer attempting to put a man away on a 2nd degree murder charge while on the other hand....you've got knock knock jokes.

Ironbite-buckle in kids...we're in for a fun ride.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Old Viking on June 24, 2013, 06:08:06 pm
I may wait for the musical.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: niam2023 on June 24, 2013, 08:35:55 pm
This'll be the new OJ Simpson Trial.

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 24, 2013, 08:42:30 pm
Knock knock jokes? Seriously? It's gonna be a long trial.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: davedan on June 24, 2013, 11:18:02 pm
To be fair about the knock knock joke - the defence do not have a lot to work with.

Also unlike OJ Simpson - Zimmerman is not lucky enough to have had the police plant evidence on him to try and ensure a conviction.

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on June 24, 2013, 11:24:06 pm
The joke in question:

Quote
"Knock, knock," he said. "'Who's there?' 'George Zimmerman.' 'George Zimmerman, who?' 'All right, good, you are on the jury.'"

 ::)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ThunderWulf on June 24, 2013, 11:36:58 pm
This is definitely going to be an interesting trial.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 25, 2013, 09:34:45 am
No matter what the verdict is, when it's announced I fear the shitstorm will be so massive that it willl turn into real-world violence.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on June 25, 2013, 12:22:49 pm
It should be fun indeed, I really hope they don't let this jerk off the hook.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 25, 2013, 01:36:05 pm
It's been surprisingly quiet and empty outside the Sanford court house. That is ominous, in a way.

Listening yet again to the 911 call recording with a person screaming for help, then sudden silence. Whether it is Martin or Zimmerman screaming is still not establish-able. Honestly, now I hope it was Zimmerman. When you stalk a person in the rainy dark and act and speak aggressively while doing it, and your gun holster top becomes visible to your stalking victim as you and he get closer in a yelling confrontation? Yeah....what choice would an unarmed person have but to go on defense/attack? If it's Zimmerman screaming, good. At least Martin tried his best to disable the gunman stalking him. That is what Zimmerman was to Martin - a clear, continuing threat to his safety.

The defense says why didn't Martin run away, that he had time to do so. You don't turn your back on an armed and aggressive-acting stranger. Oh, but he could have just continued walking home. It was just Martin and his younger cousin back at the apartment. Dad and his GF were not at home. Would you allow a threatening, armed person to follow you home when you have a young family member there by themselves? Probably not, if you are a young male with some size and strength. You would feel responsible for that relative's safety, too.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on June 25, 2013, 02:07:50 pm
If he's acquitted neo race riots.  Seriously it could be Rodney King 2.0 And all the justified rage
a
g
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on June 25, 2013, 06:30:59 pm
I wonder if the judge will allow the prosecutor to present past recordings of phonecalls from Zimmerman. Those could go a long way in helping them prove that he was ill-willed.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: davedan on June 25, 2013, 06:33:37 pm
Sleepy - are you talking about the phone calls to police?  "These fucking punks always get away?"  - because that's what the prosecutor opened with about 8 times. My guess is they are going in.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on June 25, 2013, 06:46:44 pm
I'm talking about calls that occurred before the actual incident. Weeks beforehand.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 25, 2013, 07:13:55 pm
Only if they have those calls in evidence.  I don't know what they've got to play with but I do know the judge disqualified several experts for the recordings.

Ironbite-but if they can use those calls to establish that Zimmerman wanted to go Punisher on someone...hopefully they'll get in.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 26, 2013, 06:23:31 pm
The most important factor in the case is that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. If someone is walking down the street, whether or not you think that they're "up to no good", YOU are the one who started the fight if you run up and start acting aggressively toward them. It's a different case if the person is obviously in the process of committing a crime, such as if you see him rapidly closing on someone who hasn't noticed him. But all evidence indicates that Martin was simply walking home, unarmed.

The attempts to paint Martin as a thug from his past behavior, regardless of their truth, are irrelevant to the case. Zimmerman didn't know Martin's past or predilection toward crime and violence. All he saw was a black kid in a hoodie walking down the street at night. On the other hand, Zimmerman's past behavior IS relevant because there's evidence of him specifically mentioning black youths as potential threats when giving safety spiels as part of his Neighborhood Watch duties. Also, any evidence of past aggression would be relevant as it backs up any indicators that Zimmerman approached Martin and started the confrontation rather than the other way around.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on June 27, 2013, 12:27:59 am
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 27, 2013, 12:51:42 am
Stand Your Ground.

Riot inducing stupid law.

Let's hope the jury won't do it.

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 27, 2013, 01:42:47 am
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

It's still ambiguous. If Martin attacked out of fear (which would be highly justifiable in this case), Zimmerman has much less defense when he kills the person. In this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor and inciting a fight. Who threw the first punch is relevant, but so is WHY the first punch was thrown.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on June 27, 2013, 07:08:53 am
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

Zimmerman wasn't defending himself in his house.

Quote from: Fl. Statutes Title XLVI 782.02
Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

In plain English, in order to use SYG, you have to be preventing a felony in your home.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 27, 2013, 09:55:44 am
....so this is Castle Doctorine?

Ironbite-OH HAPPY DAY!
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Jack Mann on June 27, 2013, 10:50:34 am
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

Zimmerman wasn't defending himself in his house.

Quote from: Fl. Statutes Title XLVI 782.02
Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

In plain English, in order to use SYG, you have to be preventing a felony in your home.

That's the federal Stand Your Ground guidelines, which are basically a subset of the Castle Doctrine.  However, the Florida Stand Your Ground law applies anywhere you have a legal right to be.

EDIT:  In fact, if Martin had killed Zimmerman instead, it would have been defensible under the Stand Your Ground Law. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 27, 2013, 12:01:10 pm
Eric's quote is directly from Florida statutes.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 27, 2013, 01:05:53 pm
If you read the rulings history on cases where stand your ground is used in FL, you will encounter dozens of examples that the law in fact enables use of deadly defensive force, regardless of physical location. It is an awful, abuse-able law. It is highly controversial in this state for that very reason.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133)

There are so many excellent examples in the above linked article, I cannot decide which sample to quote here. Just click the link. The article is jaw dropping. Worth the read, I assure you.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Distind on June 27, 2013, 02:28:09 pm
I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 27, 2013, 02:51:03 pm
Just the Tampa newspaper archive search mentions going through over 200 cases. As badly as this law is applied in some of the cases, who knows? Quite possibly. It is estimated in the article, that by polling several country and district prosecutor's offices, that the law is cited in hundreds of assault, manslaughter, and murder cases each year throughout the state.

I absolutely agree that the fact Zimmerman ignored the Sanford officer's assertion to stop following should be what the jury focus on, but, you will see some cases listed where the SYG citing defendants actively pursued victims, assaulted victims who were incapacitated, and even shot or stabbed victims in the side or back of their bodies, as the victims turned to retreat. Many, many victims were unarmed, and still some of the armed defendants won their freedom. The key to that inanity is that the law "does not require retreat" being interpreted to also not exclude pursuit. SYG is also applicable to a bystander, not under threat of harm themselves, to go over and intervene with an altercation or what they believe to be a felony crime in progress.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Distind on June 27, 2013, 03:07:59 pm
The key to that inanity is that the law "does not require retreat" being interpreted to also not exclude pursuit.
I almost understand their logic, it's as if the law doesn't come into effect until the defendant felt threatened. So pursue, corner, "It's coming right for us!" and blammo, one prison time free corpse. The problem is... well the entire line of thought I ran through to get there.

Quote
SYG is also applicable to a bystander, not under threat of harm themselves, to go over and intervene with an altercation or what they believe to be a felony crime in progress.
This isn't quite as bad, aside from the gun totting psychos it seems to get applied to. Most of the nastiest altercations I ever got into involved poking my nose where it didn't necessarily belong because it looked remarkably one sided. Then again, I was never the armed one. I'd never really considered the implication that someone could simply see something, assume what it was, shoot someone without direct confrontation and be considered legal under this law. That's pretty nuts, but the entire law is about not having to put yourself at extra risk when you feel threatened, so they certainly wouldn't want to add any thing requiring the threatened individual to analyse the situation.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on June 27, 2013, 03:16:05 pm
I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?
That bit of Zimmerman's behaviour has been mentioned often in arguments about the case and usually it is claimed that Zimmerman had no oblication to obey the person on the line since he/she wasn't a cop. Wether that is true or not I have no idea.

Also, I'd like to know if the people supporting Zimmerman would be just as eagerly defending Martin if he had won the fight...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on June 27, 2013, 03:27:10 pm
They'd be asking for his head on a silver platter if Martin had killed Zimmerman in self defense.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Distind on June 27, 2013, 03:47:29 pm
Yeah, if you call the police and they tell you to stop doing something, it's typically a pretty clear indication of what a cop would have told you even if the person saying it isn't one. Things such as 'Do not go chasing after someone with a gun' should fall into basic logic in most cases, and not require much offical training.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 27, 2013, 04:41:07 pm
I'm not big on court TV. Does anyone have a quick and dirty update of what's gone on so far.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 27, 2013, 04:58:50 pm
I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?
That bit of Zimmerman's behaviour has been mentioned often in arguments about the case and usually it is claimed that Zimmerman had no oblication to obey the person on the line since he/she wasn't a cop. Wether that is true or not I have no idea.

Also, I'd like to know if the people supporting Zimmerman would be just as eagerly defending Martin if he had won the fight...

You do not have an obligation to follow the orders of a dispatcher, but their advice is generally sensible. It also doesn't make it automatically okay for Zimmerman to aggressively pursue an individual who was not in the process of committing a crime. Zimmerman's entire reasoning to the dispatcher was "He's walkin' around, lookin' at houses and all suspicious like." In short, exactly what a regular guy looks like when he's walking home at night.

Frankly, I would have done exactly what Martin did at the sight of someone with a pickup following me when I was alone at night: run the fuck away. If I had a concealed carry license, I'd have also been fully in my rights to respond to someone following me by telling him that I was armed and that he should probably fuck off if he didn't want things to end badly. And if Zimmerman responded by drawing his own gun, he could legally get ventilated.

The irony here is that if Martin was in that exact fictional situation, everyone would be crowing for him to be given the chair.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 27, 2013, 05:09:04 pm
Yeah, if you call the police and they tell you to stop doing something, it's typically a pretty clear indication of what a cop would have told you even if the person saying it isn't one. Things such as 'Do not go chasing after someone with a gun' should fall into basic logic in most cases, and not require much offical training.

Zimmerman knew he was speaking to an officer on that phone call. It was a non-emergency routing of a 911 directly to Sanford PD. He called in all the time as a neighborhood barney fife "watchman". It actually sounds like Zimmerman is deliberately ignoring the officer;
"Are you following him?"  
"Yah."
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."  
"Okay." <huffing and puffing as he walked even faster after Martin>
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Jack Mann on June 27, 2013, 10:05:38 pm
Eric's quote is directly from Florida statutes.

Quote
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That's the relevant section.  And I'll agree it's being poorly written, poorly interpreted law, and I hope the court rejects it in this case.  But it doesn't apply solely to someone's home.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on June 28, 2013, 07:25:09 am

Quote
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That's the relevant section.  And I'll agree it's being poorly written, poorly interpreted law, and I hope the court rejects it in this case.  But it doesn't apply solely to someone's home.

The initial aggressor has no right to self defense. All this law says is "if someone is attacking you (or someone else), you can fight back." Also, if the initial aggressor does not use deadly force, you cannot fight back with deadly force.

For example, say I walk up and punch you. I'm the initial aggressor, so you can defend yourself. However, your defense must be in proportion to my initial aggression. You can hit me back, but you cannot pull out a gun and shoot me. If you do pull a gun, you lose all claim of self-defense. If I then turn around, pull a gun, and shoot you, I can claim self-defense, since you are the one who escalated to deadly force.

In a similar situation, if you are walking down a public street and see two men attacking a third man with knives, you can pull a gun and shoot one of the attackers. You are preventing "death or great bodily harm" to another person. As with above, though, if the aggressors are only using their fists, you cannot pull a gun (since fists are not considered deadly force).

Third scenario... You are walking through a woody area of a public park at night. You hear signs of a struggle, and run towards them. You see what reasonably appears to be a man attempting to rape a woman. Rape is a forcible felony, so you can pull a gun and shoot him. This last is a tad bit of a gray area because you are clearly escalating the violence. However, it does fall within the wording of the law. Though you would be better off running up and trying to just fight the man off.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 28, 2013, 07:58:33 am
Hmm...with that last one, Eric, would putting the gun to the offender's head and telling him to stop be reasonable and justifiable under the law?  It gives him the chance to stop and maybe even run (and live), but if he keeps going...you gave him a clear warning with clear indication as to what would happen if he continued.  In that case, I'd think it'd be well within reason to, for lack of a better term, blow his god damned head off if he refuses to stop.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Jack Mann on June 28, 2013, 09:34:11 am
Well, understand, according to Zimmerman, Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk and saying he was going to kill him.  If we believe that version of events (and there are many reasons not to), then he would have been at risk for his life, and legally justified in using lethal force.

I am not saying that version of events is true, of course.  I don't find him remotely credible for a number of reasons.  But that's the story the defense is going with, and why their defense will likely draw on Stand-Your-Ground.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ThunderWulf on June 28, 2013, 02:17:07 pm
Well turns out Zimmerman Sr is an ass as well.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1013052_600141033352382_2081979274_n.png)

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/06/14/2162501/george-zimmermans-father-says-the-true-racists-are-all-african-american/ (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/06/14/2162501/george-zimmermans-father-says-the-true-racists-are-all-african-american/)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 28, 2013, 02:23:26 pm
.............

Ironbite-I need a picture of some dude facepalming made up of facepalms please.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 28, 2013, 03:21:01 pm
Gee, I wonder where little Georgie learned racism from.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on June 28, 2013, 03:29:16 pm
So, they're gonna call a prosecution witness, however, in the "preview" they showed, he says he saw two people fighting on the ground, and the one on top was wearing dark clothes, so there's speculation that the defense is going to use it as proof that Martin was was the aggressor.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: dpareja on June 28, 2013, 03:43:31 pm
.............

Ironbite-I need a picture of some dude facepalming made up of facepalms please.

(http://img.neoseeker.com/mgv/308920/920/28/facepalm_display.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Yaezakura on June 28, 2013, 04:15:55 pm
Eric's quote is directly from Florida statutes.

Quote
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That's the relevant section.  And I'll agree it's being poorly written, poorly interpreted law, and I hope the court rejects it in this case.  But it doesn't apply solely to someone's home.

Here's what I have issue with, though. Weren't Zimmerman's actions that led up to him supposedly being attacked unlawful? He was essentially stalking someone. Last I checked, stalking isn't legal.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on June 28, 2013, 11:23:03 pm
Stay Classy, Defense Attorney and Family:

(http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/06/28/20/46/pDvW3.Em.56.jpeg)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Cerim Treascair on June 28, 2013, 11:54:08 pm
his wife looks plastic, and his daughter looks like a would-be Paris Hilton.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: MadCatTLX on June 29, 2013, 12:54:04 am
This'll be the new OJ Simpson Trial.

The new OJ was Casey Anthony. I'd say Jodi Arias was the next, but I paid no attention to that other than that some crazy ex-girlfriend  stalked and killed her ex-boyfriend or something.

Also, I've not paid much attention to this so far and haven't read the whole thread, but I do remember seeing on TV earlier today that Nancy Grace or someone was taking Zimmerman's side it seemed, and was trying to make Trayvon out to be a violent thug.. Granted I only watched maybe a minute of it so I might be wrong.

It's been surprisingly quiet and empty outside the Sanford court house. That is ominous, in a way.

I remember seeing video of people getting into brawls over getting the seats open for the Casey Anthony trial. People camped out in front of the courthouse in the hope of getting a seat.

Edit: 1234th post!
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 29, 2013, 01:02:25 am
Like I said before, the "violent thug" thing about Trayvon is emotional manipulation. Whether or not Trayvon was a dangerous thug or straight A student doesn't affect the fact that he wasn't doing anything illegal and all accounts indicate that he was barely even suspicious except to a guy who has been quoted as telling people to specifically watch out for black youths like Trayvon.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on June 29, 2013, 01:06:58 am
I think he had trace amounts of THC which in a black kid makes him a thug. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: MadCatTLX on June 29, 2013, 01:17:21 am
I think he had trace amounts of THC which in a black kid makes him a thug.

Because it's not like several white kids I know came to school stoned off their ass, or on one occasion tripping on shrooms. Mind you, they worst they did while high was being lazy and maybe obnoxious. You know, their normal selves.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on June 29, 2013, 01:36:24 am
Yeah pot usually makes you less agresssive but to fox it makes you violent you know if you are black
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 29, 2013, 11:04:36 am
This'll be the new OJ Simpson Trial.

The new OJ was Casey Anthony. I'd say Jodi Arias was the next, but I paid no attention to that other than that some crazy ex-girlfriend  stalked and killed her ex-boyfriend or something.

Also, I've not paid much attention to this so far and haven't read the whole thread, but I do remember seeing on TV earlier today that Nancy Grace or someone was taking Zimmerman's side it seemed, and was trying to make Trayvon out to be a violent thug.. Granted I only watched maybe a minute of it so I might be wrong.

Can someone confirm this? I knew Nancy Grace was a bitch, but this is absurd levels of it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on June 29, 2013, 11:27:15 am
I thought grace defended Travyon
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: MadCatTLX on June 29, 2013, 11:53:17 am
I thought grace defended Travyon

She might have been. She was having a discussion with someone and from her tone I might have walked into the room right after she said, "so what your saying is... ?" and I only caught the tail end of what she said.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 29, 2013, 01:11:00 pm
She's pro Trayvon. She's a former prosecuting attorney, so is not naïve to the fact that black kids tend to get framed in the worst possible light, even when they are not doing anything wrong. But that gluey Southern accent of her's doesn't help. Nor does her gratingly aggressive tone of voice on just about any topic. I can't watch her for more than a few minutes at a time.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on June 29, 2013, 01:38:28 pm
A lot of people are still mad over the fact she was part of why Casey got off
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 29, 2013, 01:43:11 pm
Wasn't there a woman who committed suicide after being hounded by Grace?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 29, 2013, 01:58:30 pm
A lot of people are still mad over the fact she was part of why Casey got off

Why? Did people feel sorry for Tot Mom, as Grace called Anthony? Her hatred of Casey Anthony is over-the-top and surreal, as bad as Anthony is. Granted, Grace is basically a rabid dog in manner and style in general, and her carping can certainly have the unintended backlash effect of making the prosecution seem like a lynch mob....because Grace can come off like a one woman lynch mob.

Wasn't there a woman who committed suicide after being hounded by Grace?

I'm going to look that up, and it would not surprise me. Someone who already has psychological problems could easily be tipped over the edge by the thought of Grace very publicly crying for their blood on TV, and knowing their reputation is destroyed by that, too. Terrifying, and especially so when Grace gets it wrong, as I am sure she has, in re a person's actual guilt. "Blood Lust For Justice" is not about justice...it is about blood lust.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on June 29, 2013, 02:05:53 pm
It come down to who (That is who the jury believes) started the physical confrontation.  Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin or even asking him what he was doing.  So if the jury believes Martin started the physical fight Zimmerman will get off.

I personally think he is guilty but so far the most the defense is doing a very good job.  They made the prosecution's star witness look foolish and had another admit he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.  I think he is going to be acquitted.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 29, 2013, 03:33:54 pm

Wasn't there a woman who committed suicide after being hounded by Grace?

I'm going to look that up, and it would not surprise me. Someone who already has psychological problems could easily be tipped over the edge by the thought of Grace very publicly crying for their blood on TV, and knowing their reputation is destroyed by that, too. Terrifying, and especially so when Grace gets it wrong, as I am sure she has, in re a person's actual guilt. "Blood Lust For Justice" is not about justice...it is about blood lust.


http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/12/nancy_grace_pushed_melinda_duc.php

It later became the inspiration for an SVU episode.

Zimmerman has a great lawyer, I'll give him that. Hopefully the jury is smarter than I'm giving them credit for.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on June 29, 2013, 03:51:42 pm
It come down to who (That is who the jury believes) started the physical confrontation.  Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin or even asking him what he was doing.  So if the jury believes Martin started the physical fight Zimmerman will get off.

Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 29, 2013, 04:43:46 pm
And seeing as how they're gonna probably try a Stand Your Ground defense, that might go out the window for them as Zimmerman wasn't the one standing his ground.

Ironbite-Martin was.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on June 29, 2013, 05:50:38 pm
We'll. Grace kind of pushed the trial to begin prematurely
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Jack Mann on June 29, 2013, 08:48:50 pm
It come down to who (That is who the jury believes) started the physical confrontation.  Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin or even asking him what he was doing.  So if the jury believes Martin started the physical fight Zimmerman will get off.

Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)

According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force).  Again, I don't believe his story.  I don't find him credible.  But in his version of events, he was legally justified.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on June 29, 2013, 09:16:43 pm
Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)

Florida has a Stand Your Ground law in which a person does not have to be in their home to use lethal force if they feel their life is in danger.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 29, 2013, 09:47:23 pm
Yes we know this.  This has been stated several times by Eric.

Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on June 29, 2013, 10:08:56 pm
Yes we know this.  This has been stated several times by Eric.

Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.

Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 29, 2013, 10:43:51 pm
Yes we know this.  This has been stated several times by Eric.

Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.

Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.

Zimmerman's already on thin ice for a self-defense claim because he essentially stalked an innocent person and acted aggressively toward him, meaning that it's extremely reasonable to suggest that Martin attacked out of fear of his own life. But even if it was twisted into a valid self-defense claim, Zimmerman escalated the fight by using deadly force against an unarmed combatant.

Quote
According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force).  Again, I don't believe his story.  I don't find him credible.  But in his version of events, he was legally justified.

That's a sketchy claim to use regarding deadly force. Some people punch harder than others could ever knock your head into the ground. It depends on the individual, and Zimmerman's injuries are not coincident with someone performing lethal blows on him.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 29, 2013, 11:45:03 pm
When the defense pounds away for weeks on the minutiae, they parse each second of events as barely seen by witnesses. The jury is bombarded by information overload.  It's all one sided and speculative and dependent on the far sides of the envelope of evidence interpretation.

Martin is dead and silenced.

The chances of conviction under the bizarre aspects of FL code - SYG, and the mightily stringent qualifications for second degree murder - means that Zimmerman may very well go free.

So keep that in mind, teens, that you can be stalked and shot for walking home.
(http://i.imgur.com/DK1FmiT.jpg)

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on June 30, 2013, 09:23:20 am
Zimmerman's already on thin ice for a self-defense claim because he essentially stalked an innocent person and acted aggressively toward him, meaning that it's extremely reasonable to suggest that Martin attacked out of fear of his own life. But even if it was twisted into a valid self-defense claim, Zimmerman escalated the fight by using deadly force against an unarmed combatant.

In Florida you can use deadly force against an unarmed person if you feel your life is in danger so long as you where not engaged in a criminal act.  So unless the prosecution can prove to the jury that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin first or he intended to shoot Martin before hand he will be acquitted.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 30, 2013, 09:45:27 am
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on June 30, 2013, 10:36:58 am
According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force). 

Deadly force requires a weapon. Using hands is not considered deadly force. This was an interesting topic of discussion in my Criminal Law class, but it applies in all the states I am familiar with (which includes Florida).

Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.

Because he cannot. (I'll re-address why below.)

In Florida you can use deadly force against an unarmed person if you feel your life is in danger so long as you where not engaged in a criminal act.

No, you can't. Self-defense claims require use of equal force. I am going to repeat what I said two pages ago...


Quote from: Florida statute
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The initial aggressor has no right to self defense. All this law says is "if someone is attacking you (or someone else), you can fight back." Also, if the initial aggressor does not use deadly force, you cannot fight back with deadly force.

For example, say I walk up and punch you. I'm the initial aggressor, so you can defend yourself. However, your defense must be in proportion to my initial aggression. You can hit me back, but you cannot pull out a gun and shoot me. If you do pull a gun, you lose all claim of self-defense. If I then turn around, pull a gun, and shoot you, I can claim self-defense, since you are the one who escalated to deadly force.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Canadian Mojo on June 30, 2013, 11:56:00 am
Does it become deadly force if you are bouncing my head off of a concrete curb?

You know that is what the the defense claim is going to be; Zimmerman was down, on his back, and his attacker was slamming his head off the ground repeatedly. "Shooting the ni Martin was justified because he escalated it beyond being a mere fist fight and into a dangerous assault (with the ground constituting a weapon)."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on June 30, 2013, 12:09:59 pm
Eric, you are correct in that this is the way the law was intended to be applied when it was written as a bill and debated in the legislature originally. However, please refer to case law specifics as to application and interpretation in FL courts. Defendants have prevailed over and over, using deadly force against unarmed victims. When you read the law coding in it's entirety, you can see where the wording leaves open some very unintended interpretations. One judge even offered an exasperated comment, amounting to; "Well, as the confrontation continued, both sides can claim SYG, so both can either walk, or go to prison."

That link to a Tampa news article analyzing these problems is worth a look through;
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/ (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on June 30, 2013, 03:52:50 pm
Does it become deadly force if you are bouncing my head off of a concrete curb?

Not legally. Because there are ways to reasonably fight back without pulling a gun.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 30, 2013, 05:33:40 pm
If bouncing your head off the curb was deadly force in the eyes of the law, any street fight could justifiably end with one of the guys shooting the other.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 30, 2013, 05:53:17 pm
If bouncing your head off the curb was deadly force in the eyes of the law, any street fight could justifiably end with one of the guys shooting the other.

Isn't this the reason gangbangers hate this law?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on June 30, 2013, 06:00:14 pm
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 30, 2013, 06:18:16 pm
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

It depends on exactly what was going on, since actual knowledge is kinda sketchy. What IS fact is that Zimmerman was essentially stalking Martin while the latter was walking home alone in the middle of the night and eventually confronted him face to face. Technically that's not enough to let you legally start swinging without the other guy actually making a move at you, but a lot of cops and judges wouldn't look too poorly on someone in that case; it's pretty legitimate fear.

What IS true is that Zimmerman had no right to murder Martin because his life was not in immediate danger. Someone knocking your head on concrete is a lethal attack much in the same way that kicking someone in the head is lethal.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on June 30, 2013, 06:23:55 pm
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

It depends on exactly what was going on, since actual knowledge is kinda sketchy. What IS fact is that Zimmerman was essentially stalking Martin while the latter was walking home alone in the middle of the night and eventually confronted him face to face. Technically that's not enough to let you legally start swinging without the other guy actually making a move at you, but a lot of cops and judges wouldn't look too poorly on someone in that case; it's pretty legitimate fear.

What IS true is that Zimmerman had no right to murder Martin because his life was not in immediate danger. Someone knocking your head on concrete is a lethal attack much in the same way that kicking someone in the head is lethal.

That analogy doesn't quite work. If you kick certain people in the head you will kill them. And you generally can't tell if someone has an aneurysm in the works until after the fact.

Zimmerman being armed, and Martin having no weapons of any kind, should have made this all a moot point
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 30, 2013, 06:27:06 pm
Quote
That analogy doesn't quite work. If you kick certain people in the head you will kill them. And you generally can't tell if someone has an aneurysm in the works until after the fact.

Zimmerman being armed, and Martin having no weapons of any kind, should have made this all a moot point

That's actually the exact point of my analogy: if slamming someone's head into something was legally considered lethal force, then almost ANY kind of hand to hand combat could be considered the same. Being allowed to legally murder someone for that should mean that you should also be able to shoot them if they start kicking or punching.

Self-defense laws are more strict than "Well, this COULD kill you if they tried hard enough or you were unlucky."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on June 30, 2013, 06:51:20 pm
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Distind on June 30, 2013, 06:53:47 pm
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Canadian Mojo on June 30, 2013, 06:57:13 pm
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?
It's a public area they were in, so I'm going to guess no.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on June 30, 2013, 07:17:59 pm
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?
It's a public area they were in, so I'm going to guess no.

Public, yes, but Martin was alone at night. Even if you have good intentions, following someone who's alone in the middle of the night is EXTREMELY threatening behavior. The altercation occurred specifically because Zimmerman not only followed him, but aggressively approached and began questioning him. You could basically pick a crime off the list when deciding what Martin thought he was about to be subjected to.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on June 30, 2013, 09:01:49 pm
No, you can't. Self-defense claims require use of equal force. I am going to repeat what I said two pages ago...

Not in Florida.  As mellenORL has stated defendants have won over and over when using deadly force against unarmed opponents.  All that is required for you to be able to use deadly force is for you to reasonably fear for your life.  Your interpretation is simply wrong.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on June 30, 2013, 09:02:53 pm
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

He did if Zimmerman started the physical altercation.  That is main issue in the case.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 01, 2013, 06:43:18 am
Not in Florida.  As mellenORL has stated defendants have won over and over when using deadly force against unarmed opponents.  All that is required for you to be able to use deadly force is for you to reasonably fear for your life.  Your interpretation is simply wrong.

Please attend law school in Florida, specialize in criminal law, and work in a prosecutor's office for a year. Then we will discuss whether I know Florida criminal law.

Please also note that juries can and do interpret the law as they wish. The judge reads jury instructions to the jury before deliberations begin. Those instructions lay out in plain language what the statutes mean and how they have been interpreted by courts for decades. If a jury chooses not to follow the legal interpretation of the law and instead reads the law the way they want to, there is nothing the state can do about it after the fact.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 01, 2013, 07:02:25 am
Please attend law school in Florida, specialize in criminal law, and work in a prosecutor's office for a year. Then we will discuss whether I know Florida criminal law.

Please also note that juries can and do interpret the law as they wish. The judge reads jury instructions to the jury before deliberations begin. Those instructions lay out in plain language what the statutes mean and how they have been interpreted by courts for decades. If a jury chooses not to follow the legal interpretation of the law and instead reads the law the way they want to, there is nothing the state can do about it after the fact.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133)

"Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.

The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 01, 2013, 07:08:07 am
Quote
Was he engaged in a lawful activity?

Well, no. Neighborhood watch or not, stalking someone at night and aggressively approaching them and questioning them while they're alone and defenseless is hardly going to win you points with the cop who sees you doing it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 01, 2013, 01:40:06 pm
At the point when Zimmerman left his truck and walked fast, then ran, after Martin (to see where he was going), Martin had a reasonable case for turning and standing his ground.

Martin was attempting to evade harm by walking fast, then running. The perceived threat to his safety, Zimmerman, would not desist. In the immediate aftermath photos taken of Zimmerman, it is seen that Zimmerman's gun holster is visible when he tilts slightly to his left, his short jacket swinging out of the way (the holster on his right side leaves the weapon visible and identifiable just above his waist band). Although the defense keeps harping on how dark it was, there are streetlights through out that condominium complex. Zimmerman was walking quickly, then running, close behind Martin. His jacket would be opening and flowing backwards with air resistance if it was unzipped, or riding up his waist if it was zipped. When you are running with adrenaline pumping from a hostile stranger, it is instinctive to glance back now and then. It is possible Martin saw that gun holster fairly early on.

Upon confrontation, in context of Zimmerman following Martin the entire time, after disobeying the police dispatcher to not follow, it really should not matter as to who threw the first punch. At some point, Martin would have become aware of that pistol. He may have actually felt it brush against his body during the fight.  He is then in a serious fight very likely for his life, and he knows it. He probably was angry for the entire duration of Zimmerman following him. It's happened to me, and I'm a pretty mild mannered older female. You feel outraged and scared at the same time, when some unknown man follows you, clearly looking at you, casing you, even saying things to you. It is intimidating and nerve wrecking and infuriating, all at the same time. All Zimmerman needed to do was identify himself as being on neighborhood watch, and ask Martin what address he lived at or who he was going to see there. Even a pissed off, scared, or snotty teen would answer, "Going to my Dad's place!", probably followed by a few choice epithets. I know I would have, at age 17.

Zimmerman did not state who he was or what he was doing to Martin, though, because he had profiled Martin as a criminal immediately. That is established by the 911 recording. Zimmerman followed Martin convinced he would be stopping a criminal. Confronting a criminal. Not waiting for the police. Perhaps he even envisioned, in his established wanna be cop mind, that he would hold the suspect at gunpoint until back up arrived. Zimmerman had no fear of doing that, because he was armed. In Zimmerman's mind, Martin was guilty on sight, and not worth the least bit of benefit of the doubt, or even of proper police procedure in identifying himself, or of neighborhood watch procedures - which is to stay far from any suspicious person and wait for police to arrive on scene. A plain clothes officer would have ID'ed himself as law enforcement at that point; Zimmerman applied twice to police academies, and can be assumed to have some knowledge of what procedure would be. Most civilians are aware that cops have to ID themselves if in plain clothes while commanding a suspect to halt.

Rachel Jeantel's testimony, though she was by turns jaded, snide, and bored and sad and hostile - really, the unideal witness, on the face of it - was none the less consistent. Unfortunately, most people in a typical jury will find her off-putting enough to be skeptical of her testimony, to one degree or another, upon hearing and seeing it in person. However, in the written court testimony transcript, which clarifies her accent and meaning, regardless of sketchy grammar, her testimony is compelling. When you then review her audio testimony again, you can see she is jaded and snide because she is annoyed by the parsing and repetition and even insulted by the constant demands for clarification. Her ethnic Haitian American Ebonics accent is really not that hard to understand, and she clarifies exactly who she heard when she quoted Martin saying, "Get off! Get off!" by repeating, "Trayvon!", with great emphasis, at the end of her original recorded witness interview just after the killing, the transcript of which was clearly incorrect as to the word, "could've" versus what she said, "could hear'(heard) Trayvon sayin' 'Get off Get off!' Trayvon!" when read along while listening to that recording.

Martin is dead, and this young woman is the only voice left for telling his side of it. The chances of that side of the story being buried under attorney focused doubts, and clueless, naïve jury derp, is what the defense is concentrating on. You could see the defense attorney's irritation when Jeantel sincerely and forcefully said of the transcript error, "Believe me when I tell you it's wrong...sir."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Dakota Bob on July 01, 2013, 05:38:03 pm
Is there anywhere good to keep up to date on this? A lot of conflicting information floating around.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 01, 2013, 05:39:37 pm
Is there anywhere good to keep up to date on this? A lot of conflicting information floating around.

The first link I get when I check my email is this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/george-zimmerman-trial-sanford-police-officer_n_3529289.html?1372695226). It also includes transcripts from Zimmerman's initial interrogation.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 02, 2013, 07:08:52 pm
*kicks topic back to page 1*

Ironbite-still got a loooooooooooong way to go with this folks.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 02, 2013, 08:36:55 pm
The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails."

Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 04, 2013, 09:38:22 am
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.

So Zimmerman can claim self defense?  It seems like before you were saying he can't
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ThunderWulf on July 04, 2013, 11:44:51 am
So apparently this happened (http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291).
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 04, 2013, 11:56:27 am
Gotta love how an easy to use app like Skype is over their heads. Toggle full screen to hide the contact info and desktop clutter. Block incoming calls, anyway, just in case, since they generate a tone alert.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 04, 2013, 12:29:18 pm
So apparently this happened (http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291).
Askold cannot open the link! Interrupted by a meditating guru!
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 04, 2013, 01:58:30 pm
Now that's just sad. You really ought to be more prepared, especially in a trial like this.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 04, 2013, 02:35:30 pm
Ok, now I managed to get the link open.

This shows incompetence from the court and laziness from the witness. In fact, I would have assumed they would have some more reliable way to handle the long-distance testimony or simply have the police drag him to the courthouse to witness in person.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 04, 2013, 08:53:19 pm
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.

So Zimmerman can claim self defense?  It seems like before you were saying he can't

No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 04, 2013, 09:25:44 pm
So apparently this happened (http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291).
Let's hope the defense doesn't follow up their knock-knock joke with a Call Me Maybe joke.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Cerim Treascair on July 04, 2013, 10:21:54 pm
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.

So Zimmerman can claim self defense?  It seems like before you were saying he can't

No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.

A theory:  Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon.  Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 04, 2013, 10:28:28 pm
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.

So Zimmerman can claim self defense?  It seems like before you were saying he can't

No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.

A theory:  Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon.  Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.
It's worse than that. A "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" can be claimed as soon as Martin touched him. Any fight contains a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Therefore, anyone can argue it in any violent confrontation, because yes, there is a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Remember, bodily injury is a vague term. Is bodily injury pissing blood? Coma? Broken bones? Bruised bones? A scrape? While chances are that last one wouldn't work, the rest are all bodily injuries.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 05, 2013, 04:09:27 am
A theory:  Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon.  Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.
It's worse than that. A "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" can be claimed as soon as Martin touched him. Any fight contains a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Therefore, anyone can argue it in any violent confrontation, because yes, there is a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Remember, bodily injury is a vague term. Is bodily injury pissing blood? Coma? Broken bones? Bruised bones? A scrape? While chances are that last one wouldn't work, the rest are all bodily injuries.

Hands, regardless of whose they are, are never considered deadly weapons. And even if they were, Zimmerman would have to have reason to believe that Martin was a skilled martial artist. Since Zimmerman had no idea who Martin was, there is no way he could have had that belief.

PostHuman, the phrase is "serious bodily injury." Legally, that phrase means pretty much "organ failure" or "injury likely to lead to death."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 05, 2013, 04:14:02 am
A theory:  Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon.  Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.
It's worse than that. A "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" can be claimed as soon as Martin touched him. Any fight contains a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Therefore, anyone can argue it in any violent confrontation, because yes, there is a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Remember, bodily injury is a vague term. Is bodily injury pissing blood? Coma? Broken bones? Bruised bones? A scrape? While chances are that last one wouldn't work, the rest are all bodily injuries.

Hands, regardless of whose they are, are never considered deadly weapons.

PostHuman, the phrase is "serious bodily injury." Legally, that phrase means pretty much "organ failure" or "injury likely to lead to death."
Ahh, that, hopefully, is better. I assumed it was the direct quote because, well, quotation marks. Hopefully, this changes things. Having lived in Florida for most of my life (NY now), I've seen dumber. Like the local stations being hijacked for the Casey Anthony trial. They doing that again for this?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 03:21:14 pm
No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.

So you can't beat a person to death with your bare hands? 

Of course you can, and that is why numerous cases in Florida have been judge valid self-defense cases, by juries and judges, when the victim was unarmed.

Here is one where the charges were dismissed by a judge.  In involved the killing of two unarmed men.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_81 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_81)

Here is yet another dismissed by a judge, and the victim was even retreating.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 05, 2013, 07:10:46 pm
No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.

So you can't beat a person to death with your bare hands?

As I have said many times, hands are - legally - NOT a deadly weapon. 

Quote
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_81 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_81)

Read closer. That was a first-degree murder charge that was dismissed. First-degree murder has statutory requirements that do not appear to be met in that story.

Quote
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104)

The "Stand Your Ground" law specifically includes "occupied vehicle" as a location that can be considered.

Quote from: Fla. Stat. 776.013
The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,

If you read the story, the victim did force his way into the vehicle.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 09:05:05 pm
As I have said many times, hands are - legally - NOT a deadly weapon.

Okay, does not mean the person attacking you needs a deadly weapon for you to reasonably fear for your life?   

Quote
Read closer. That was a first-degree murder charge that was dismissed. First-degree murder has statutory requirements that do not appear to be met in that story.

Were does it say that?  All the articles are about cases that have been dismissed on Florida's self defense law.

Quote
The "Stand Your Ground" law specifically includes "occupied vehicle" as a location that can be considered.

Yes, it also has any location a person can be legally.

Quote
If you read the story, the victim did force his way into the vehicle.

Okay, he was also unarmed.

With all the people on the news and radio talking about every aspect of this case you are the first I have heard claiming he can't claim self defense.  I know your background, but in this case you might just be wrong.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 05, 2013, 09:18:15 pm
One odd factoid being brought into evidence is that Zimmerman (not Martin) attended MMA classes three times a week. Maybe he totally sucked at martial arts, but it's way more practical fight training than Martin ever had as a school boy football player.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 05, 2013, 09:39:28 pm
Quote
Okay, does not mean the person attacking you needs a deadly weapon for you to reasonably fear for your life? 

Unless there's an extreme difference in size, strength, and/or capability (along the lines of a small, elderly woman being attacked by a football player), it's extremely difficult to justify that the attacker is capable of murdering you with their bare hands.

Otherwise, I could legally shoot any drunk at Burger King who tries to punch me.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 10:00:30 pm

Unless there's an extreme difference in size, strength, and/or capability (along the lines of a small, elderly woman being attacked by a football player), it's extremely difficult to justify that the attacker is capable of murdering you with their bare hands.

Otherwise, I could legally shoot any drunk at Burger King who tries to punch me.

That is the whole problem with the Florida law.  This plus the fact that Florida unlike most places makes the prosecution prove that the act was not self defense.

All it takes is knocking someone out.  After that it would not be hard to kill someone with your bare hands.  Zimmerman has claimed Martin was on top of him punching him and causing the back of his head to hit the concrete.  I don't think it is a stretch to think someone in that situation would fear for their life.  In Florida that is all you need.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 05, 2013, 10:07:09 pm
Except Zimmerman's wounds aren't consistent with that, and the jury should be paying attention to that.

Zimmerman is a bald-faced liar, and I'm already pissed about the amount of people who are siding with Zimmerman on this issue.

Oh, not here, no one here is siding with Zimmerman.  I'm talking about idiots in comments.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 05, 2013, 10:09:17 pm

Unless there's an extreme difference in size, strength, and/or capability (along the lines of a small, elderly woman being attacked by a football player), it's extremely difficult to justify that the attacker is capable of murdering you with their bare hands.

Otherwise, I could legally shoot any drunk at Burger King who tries to punch me.

That is the whole problem with the Florida law.  This plus the fact that Florida unlike most places makes the prosecution prove that the act was not self defense.

All it takes is knocking someone out.  After that it would not be hard to kill someone with your bare hands.  Zimmerman has claimed Martin was on top of him punching him and causing the back of his head to hit the concrete.  I don't think it is a stretch to think someone in that situation would fear for their life.  In Florida that is all you need.

Current evidence actually indicates that this is NOT what happened at all: the medical examiner stated that it's extremely plausible that his injuries came from a single punch that caused his head to hit the curb.

I'm not exactly willing to trust Zimmerman. He's the antagonist in this situation (everything occurred because he stalked and aggressively approached someone innocent) and has been quoted as fearing black youths like Martin. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of him lying about the ensuing fight to make himself look like the victim, rather than an aggressive wannabe cop who got in over his head.

Edit: Magus literally made my exact post.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 10:14:38 pm
Except Zimmerman's wounds aren't consistent with that, and the jury should be paying attention to that.

Zimmerman is a bald-faced liar, and I'm already pissed about the amount of people who are siding with Zimmerman on this issue.

Oh, not here, no one here is siding with Zimmerman.  I'm talking about idiots in comments.

I think Zimmerman was in the wring as soon as he stepped out of his truck.  He most likely started the fight with Martin.

Unfortunately the Jury is going to see this picture of Zimmerman taken at the scene...

(click to show/hide)

Plus you have an eye witness that says Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him.  You also have the testimony of the detectives, some of which the Judge told the jury to disregard, that they believed Zimmerman's story. 

Unless you can show that Zimmerman injured himself like that I don't find the medical examiners testimony all that convincing.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 10:16:01 pm
Current evidence actually indicates that this is NOT what happened at all: the medical examiner stated that it's extremely plausible that his injuries came from a single punch that caused his head to hit the curb.

I'm not exactly willing to trust Zimmerman. He's the antagonist in this situation (everything occurred because he stalked and aggressively approached someone innocent) and has been quoted as fearing black youths like Martin. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of him lying about the ensuing fight to make himself look like the victim, rather than an aggressive wannabe cop who got in over his head.

Edit: Magus literally made my exact post.

You forget about the eye witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and hitting him. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 05, 2013, 10:20:25 pm
OH NO!  A BOY FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST AN UNKNOWN ASSAILANT WHO WAS STALKING HIM FROM A 7-11 TO HIS HOUSE WITH ONLY HIS LITTLE BROTHER THERE!  WHO'S ONLY CRIME WAS BEING BLACK, WEARING A HOODIE, AND GETTING SOME SNACKS!  WELL LET'S LET ZIMMERMAN OFF BECAUSE CLEARLY HE'S IN RIGHT RIGHT HERE!

Ironbite-you sound exactly like that.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 10:29:54 pm
OH NO!  A BOY FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST AN UNKNOWN ASSAILANT WHO WAS STALKING HIM FROM A 7-11 TO HIS HOUSE WITH ONLY HIS LITTLE BROTHER THERE!  WHO'S ONLY CRIME WAS BEING BLACK, WEARING A HOODIE, AND GETTING SOME SNACKS!  WELL LET'S LET ZIMMERMAN OFF BECAUSE CLEARLY HE'S IN RIGHT RIGHT HERE!

Ironbite-you sound exactly like that.

Or it could have happened just a Zimmerman has said.  Have you stopped to think of that one a second?  Innocent until proven guilty.  So far with the evidence presented I would not find him guilty.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 05, 2013, 10:30:57 pm
Same evidence, I'm fully convinced of his guilt.

Ironbite-what reason could you have that Martin was up to no good anyways?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 10:38:16 pm
Same evidence, I'm fully convinced of his guilt.

Ironbite-what reason could you have that Martin was up to no good anyways?

There had been break-in in that community in the recent past. 

Thing is Zimmerman was not breaking any laws approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing.  So it comes down to who started the fight.  The single eye witness did not see the start of the fight.  The young women on the phone with Martin on the type has not way of knowing who started the fight.  So you are left with Zimmerman's story.  Yes, he may have started it.  I think he probably did, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 05, 2013, 10:43:50 pm
That picture of his injuries IS consistent with a single blow to the face.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 05, 2013, 10:50:02 pm
That picture of his injuries IS consistent with a single blow to the face.

Could be, or it could be a couple shots.  Martin being on top of Zimmerman that throwing punches does not mean Zimmerman was not trying to defend himself and all of Martin's blows where landing.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 05, 2013, 11:20:57 pm
Same evidence, I'm fully convinced of his guilt.

Ironbite-what reason could you have that Martin was up to no good anyways?

There had been break-in in that community in the recent past. 

Thing is Zimmerman was not breaking any laws approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing.  So it comes down to who started the fight.  The single eye witness did not see the start of the fight.  The young women on the phone with Martin on the type has not way of knowing who started the fight.  So you are left with Zimmerman's story.  Yes, he may have started it.  I think he probably did, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's important to remember that most condo and townhouse complexes are middle class + income level, and almost always mixed race and ethnicity in large towns and cities in Florida. There is nothing out of the ordinary for a complex  here full of middle aged, middle income home owners to also have quite a few kids and teens walking around. Hispanic kids, black kids, white kids. They all live in these communities. Zimmerman had no more reason in fact to follow Martin than any other teen living there, regardless of the recent burglaries, which are also done by white and Hispanic criminals.

Sanford is especially diverse, and 25% of the population is under 18.
http://www.florida-demographics.com/sanford-demographics (http://www.florida-demographics.com/sanford-demographics)

Also, on a "lighter" note....wanna-be's are no longer tolerated in central FL. :o
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gun-hoa-threaten-resident-20130705,0,3300958.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gun-hoa-threaten-resident-20130705,0,3300958.story)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 12:12:39 am
Zimmerman had no more reason in fact to follow Martin than any other teen living there, regardless of the recent burglaries, which are also done by white and Hispanic criminals.

I believe in the police call Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspicious, and did not identify him as black.  Regardless of his reasoning following Martin was not illegal. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 06, 2013, 12:17:40 am
Zimmerman had no more reason in fact to follow Martin than any other teen living there, regardless of the recent burglaries, which are also done by white and Hispanic criminals.

I believe in the police call Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspicious, and did not identify him as black.  Regardless of his reasoning following Martin was not illegal.
I'm not sure of that. I was pretty sure it was illegal to follow someone without their consent without being a law enforcement officer.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 06, 2013, 12:43:21 am
Oh no a bloody nose totally indicative of someone trying to kill him instead of punching him once.

That picture entirely supports the medical examiner's testimony.  Unless you have evidence of more attacks as can be seen in that picture, then the medical examiner is currently the most reliable testimony, since the evidence actually supports it.

Sorry, nickerson, but I think you're stretching a little too hard to try to play Devil's Advocate.

Furthermore, I would like to point out one thing: There is one incident of Stand Your Ground that actually should've applied.  A black woman was being attacked by a bunch of men.  She shot her gun a few times as a warning shot.  She didn't even kill anybody.  She was convicted for 20 years.  So if Zimmerman gets acquitted, then I'm giving up all hope for Florida.

Additionally: Unlike in Phoenix Wright, Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  In fact, it's the least reliable form of evidence that can be presented in court.  It was dark.  It's hard to see who is who in that situation.  And, guess what?  MEMORY IS FALLIBLE.  Especially during intense situations. And it's also easily tainted by suggestion.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 06, 2013, 08:07:04 am
Like homosexuality, Magnus is in the wrong here.  The lady in question fired a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband who had broken a CPO.

Ironbite-another instance of the Liberal agenda getting "facts" wrong
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 11:04:51 am
Oh no a bloody nose totally indicative of someone trying to kill him instead of punching him once.

That picture entirely supports the medical examiner's testimony.  Unless you have evidence of more attacks as can be seen in that picture, then the medical examiner is currently the most reliable testimony, since the evidence actually supports it.

Sorry, nickerson, but I think you're stretching a little too hard to try to play Devil's Advocate.

Furthermore, I would like to point out one thing: There is one incident of Stand Your Ground that actually should've applied.  A black woman was being attacked by a bunch of men.  She shot her gun a few times as a warning shot.  She didn't even kill anybody.  She was convicted for 20 years.  So if Zimmerman gets acquitted, then I'm giving up all hope for Florida.

Additionally: Unlike in Phoenix Wright, Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  In fact, it's the least reliable form of evidence that can be presented in court.  It was dark.  It's hard to see who is who in that situation.  And, guess what?  MEMORY IS FALLIBLE.  Especially during intense situations. And it's also easily tainted by suggestion.

The cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head, the detective testifying Zimmerman's back was wet from being on the grass both support the eye witness testimony. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 06, 2013, 11:06:19 am
Oh no a bloody nose totally indicative of someone trying to kill him instead of punching him once.

That picture entirely supports the medical examiner's testimony.  Unless you have evidence of more attacks as can be seen in that picture, then the medical examiner is currently the most reliable testimony, since the evidence actually supports it.

Sorry, nickerson, but I think you're stretching a little too hard to try to play Devil's Advocate.

Furthermore, I would like to point out one thing: There is one incident of Stand Your Ground that actually should've applied.  A black woman was being attacked by a bunch of men.  She shot her gun a few times as a warning shot.  She didn't even kill anybody.  She was convicted for 20 years.  So if Zimmerman gets acquitted, then I'm giving up all hope for Florida.

Additionally: Unlike in Phoenix Wright, Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  In fact, it's the least reliable form of evidence that can be presented in court.  It was dark.  It's hard to see who is who in that situation.  And, guess what?  MEMORY IS FALLIBLE.  Especially during intense situations. And it's also easily tainted by suggestion.

The cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head, the detective testifying Zimmerman's back was wet from being on the grass both support the eye witness testimony.


....what? That proves that Zimmerman was on his back and his head hit the curb. Meaning exactly what we said.

You're not even playing Devil's Advocate here. Now you're just ignoring people to avoid admitting that you might be wrong.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 11:13:45 am
You're not even playing Devil's Advocate here. Now you're just ignoring people to avoid admitting that you might be wrong.

It also supports what the witness saw.  His testimony may not be a reliable as the medical examiner but it is going to depend on what the jury puts more stock in.

I'm not sure of that. I was pretty sure it was illegal to follow someone without their consent without being a law enforcement officer.

Under which law?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 06, 2013, 12:38:26 pm
Stalking.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 04:10:09 pm
Stalking.

From Florida Statute:

"(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

For it to be stalking it has to be repeat.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 06, 2013, 06:59:59 pm
You're not even playing Devil's Advocate here. Now you're just ignoring people to avoid admitting that you might be wrong.

It also supports what the witness saw.  His testimony may not be a reliable as the medical examiner but it is going to depend on what the jury puts more stock in.

It only supports what the witness claimed to have seen in the most barest sense. The actual testimony of the medical examiner indicates that either Zimmerman was lying or Martin wasn't even bitch slapping him.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 06, 2013, 07:33:14 pm
Stalking.

From Florida Statute:

"(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

For it to be stalking it has to be repeat.

I'm not seeing the word repeat there nickerson.

Ironbite-are you Zimmerman's lawyer or something?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 07:37:26 pm
Stalking.

From Florida Statute:

"(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

For it to be stalking it has to be repeat.

I'm not seeing the word repeat there nickerson.

Ironbite-are you Zimmerman's lawyer or something?

A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

No, I'm not his lawyer.  I think a lot of people are going to wonder how he could be acquitted if he is.  Which is a good possibility since the prosecutions case is not that strong and the defense has not even started theirs. 

The problem is not going to be the court, or the jury but the laws in Florida. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 07:42:15 pm
It only supports what the witness claimed to have seen in the most barest sense. The actual testimony of the medical examiner indicates that either Zimmerman was lying or Martin wasn't even bitch slapping him.

Just because Martin was throwing punches does not mean they were connecting.  You would expect someone with some training knowing how to protect themselves.  In fact had Martin been landing clean blows Zimmerman most likely would have been to dazed to reach for his gun.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 06, 2013, 07:42:43 pm
I'm...not sure how I didn't see that word.  Like at all.  Just completely glazed over it.

Ironbite-still.....Zimmerman might still go down if his lawyer spends the whole time telling knock-knock jokes.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 06, 2013, 07:56:23 pm
It only supports what the witness claimed to have seen in the most barest sense. The actual testimony of the medical examiner indicates that either Zimmerman was lying or Martin wasn't even bitch slapping him.

Just because Martin was throwing punches does not mean they were connecting.  You would expect someone with some training knowing how to protect themselves.  In fact had Martin been landing clean blows Zimmerman most likely would have been to dazed to reach for his gun.

You're still acting under the belief that Martin was repeatedly punching Zimmerman. You're taking a notoriously unreliable eyewitness statement as fact.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 09:23:25 pm
I'm...not sure how I didn't see that word.  Like at all.  Just completely glazed over it.

Ironbite-still.....Zimmerman might still go down if his lawyer spends the whole time telling knock-knock jokes.

No problem.

I have been watching that trial, when I have time.  So far the defense has been doing a very good job.  Knock - knock jokes not withstanding.

You're still acting under the belief that Martin was repeatedly punching Zimmerman. You're taking a notoriously unreliable eyewitness statement as fact.

I have little doubt that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and trying to punch him.  As I said the medical examiners testimony does not disprove this.  Zimmerman getting punched once flush does not mean Martin only threw a single punch.  Before the end the defense is going to frame this as I did, if they don't call their own expert.

The eyewitnesses story has not changed since he gave his statement to the police right after the shooting happened.  So I will put more stock in someone that was there than a medical examiner working off pictures.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 06, 2013, 10:16:32 pm
As has already been stated, witness testimonies are highly unreliable.  Just because the testimony hasn't changed doesn't mean that it's any more reliable.  Once someone becomes convinced of something, it's easy to keep them convinced of something.

So, a professional who has seen these kinds of wounds before has less clout than a random witness who has no evidence to actually corroborate his story.  That seems entirely messed up to me.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 06, 2013, 11:15:24 pm
As has already been stated, witness testimonies are highly unreliable.  Just because the testimony hasn't changed doesn't mean that it's any more reliable.  Once someone becomes convinced of something, it's easy to keep them convinced of something.

So, a professional who has seen these kinds of wounds before has less clout than a random witness who has no evidence to actually corroborate his story.  That seems entirely messed up to me.

Watch some MMA.  I've seen guys get hit one good time and look much worse than Zimmerman.  I've also seen guys take punches to the face for the better part of 25 minutes and not even look like they were in a fight.

...and to mention it again just because Martin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing punches does not mean he was connecting. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 07, 2013, 12:48:26 am
And to mention it yet again, witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.  Not to mention, witnesses can lie, even when under oath.

I mean the media has lied about Trayvon being a "thug" and a "wannabe gangster", despite full evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 07, 2013, 12:55:23 am
As has already been stated, witness testimonies are highly unreliable.  Just because the testimony hasn't changed doesn't mean that it's any more reliable.  Once someone becomes convinced of something, it's easy to keep them convinced of something.

So, a professional who has seen these kinds of wounds before has less clout than a random witness who has no evidence to actually corroborate his story.  That seems entirely messed up to me.

Watch some MMA.  I've seen guys get hit one good time and look much worse than Zimmerman.  I've also seen guys take punches to the face for the better part of 25 minutes and not even look like they were in a fight.

...and to mention it again just because Martin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing punches does not mean he was connecting.

MMA is NOT a good example of the variables in a fight. Zimmerman has a detailed, brightly lit photo showing his facial injuries. He seriously looks like he took exactly one punch to the bridge of the nose, with barely any marks on the rest of his face that can conclusively be called the results of injury or bad complexion.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 07, 2013, 01:42:50 pm
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/zimmerman-lawyer-urges-trayvons-mom-admit-he

Zimmerman's lawyer tried to make Martin's mother say that her son caused his own death... He tried to weasel her into saying that her son's death was his own fault...

I do not like that lawyer.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 07, 2013, 01:47:44 pm
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/zimmerman-lawyer-urges-trayvons-mom-admit-he

Zimmerman's lawyer tried to make Martin's mother say that her son caused his own death... He tried to weasel her into saying that her son's death was his own fault...

I do not like that lawyer.

That lawyer can go to hell and should be sued for emotional anguish.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 07, 2013, 02:40:39 pm
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/zimmerman-lawyer-urges-trayvons-mom-admit-he

Zimmerman's lawyer tried to make Martin's mother say that her son caused his own death... He tried to weasel her into saying that her son's death was his own fault...

I do not like that lawyer.

That lawyer can go to hell and should be sued for emotional anguish.

I'm surprised the prosecution didn't object to that. It pretty clearly fits the definition of badgering the witness (legal argument posed as a question). Even if you could argue otherwise, it ALSO fits the definition of a leading question. Both are objectionable courtroom antics.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 07, 2013, 03:52:03 pm
Maybe the prosecution is hoping if the defense is an asshole that she looks better . 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 07, 2013, 04:38:52 pm
And to mention it yet again, witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.  Not to mention, witnesses can lie, even when under oath.

I mean the media has lied about Trayvon being a "thug" and a "wannabe gangster", despite full evidence to the contrary.

Eye witness testimony can be unreliable and they can lie.  That does not mean this witness did.  It is all going to come down what the jury puts more stock in. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 07, 2013, 04:47:37 pm
And to mention it yet again, witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.  Not to mention, witnesses can lie, even when under oath.

I mean the media has lied about Trayvon being a "thug" and a "wannabe gangster", despite full evidence to the contrary.

Eye witness testimony can be unreliable and they can lie.  That does not mean this witness did.  It is all going to come down what the jury puts more stock in. 

So where's the evidence supporting the eye witness testimony that doesn't lend more support to the medical examiner's testimony?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 07, 2013, 05:51:51 pm
Maybe the prosecution is hoping if the defense is an asshole that she looks better .
That is a good point. If you shut down an asshole early, he looks like a minor asshole. If you let him keep going, he exposes him for the Todd Akin he is.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 07, 2013, 06:23:30 pm
Maybe the prosecution is hoping if the defense is an asshole that she looks better .
That is a good point. If you shut down an asshole early, he looks like a minor asshole. If you let him keep going, he exposes him for the Todd Akin he is.

Yeah, this. As much as the jurors try to approach this logically, they're going to sympathize with the Martin family and Trayvon's friend who was treated like complete scum when she testified. That's an advantage for the prosecution.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: MadCatTLX on July 07, 2013, 07:38:17 pm
Let him dig himself a hole. I want to see how far down the stupid hole goes. That said, after this is over someone needs to give him at least one good punch for being a jackass.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 07, 2013, 07:40:36 pm
So where's the evidence supporting the eye witness testimony that doesn't lend more support to the medical examiner's testimony?

You are still thinking that medical examiner's testimony refutes in someway what the eyewitness says.  It doesn't.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 07, 2013, 07:52:43 pm
You are still thinking that the eye witness testimony refutes in some way what the medical examiner said.  It doesn't.

Ironbite-HOW DOES IT NOT REFUTE IT!?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 07, 2013, 09:34:32 pm
You are still thinking that the eye witness testimony refutes in some way what the medical examiner said.  It doesn't.

Ironbite-HOW DOES IT NOT REFUTE IT!?

I don't think the eye witness testimony refutes the medical examiner at all.  It is quite possible that Martin hit Zimmerman causing Zimmerman to fall back.  Martin than gets on top of Zimmerman and tries to hit him some more, only Zimmerman is now has his hands up defending.

Just because Martin was on top throwing punches does not mean they were connecting.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 07, 2013, 09:58:49 pm
So where's the evidence supporting the eyewitness's testimony?

If Zimmerman had his arms up there would've been bruising on them from blocking the punches, but nothing of that sort.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 07, 2013, 11:16:38 pm
John Good is the witness whose testimony is being discussed here. He said it was so dark, he could not tell the ethnicity of either person, just that they both looked and sounded male. He yelled at them to "cut it out" or some such, and Good says the man on top yelled, "Call the police!" to him.

Afterward, he was informed by police that Martin was 6 feet tall, Zimmerman 5 feet 8 inches. Four inch difference, which is a lot if both are standing near each other...but nope, Good saw the straddling man throwing punches at the supine man. How the heck can you be sure which man is the taller?

Also, since Good established it was so dark that he could not tell skin color differences, how could he be sure about jacket/hoodie color? Clothing color is the number one thing that eye witnesses get wrong nearly 90% of the time in good lighting. People focus on the startling actions, not the clothes; stress fucks up recall ability. Police academies drill on initial clothing ID recollection more than any other factor in trying to train cadets to become reliable eye witnesses.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 07, 2013, 11:24:35 pm
The prosecution will focus on that also wasn't zimmerman taller.  certainly weighs more and often that is the more deciding factor
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 07, 2013, 11:41:58 pm
The prosecution will focus on that also wasn't zimmerman taller.  certainly weighs more and often that is the more deciding factor

Trayvon Martin was a tall, gangly 17 yr old. Both his parents are above average height, too. Martin weighed only 150 pounds, Zimmerman at that time weighed 195. Yeah. And Zimmerman was taking MMA classes three times a week. Martin was a former junior high football player.

I honestly think the only reason Martin landed one good punch was the darkness, and because Zimmerman was already focused on going for his gun. Then, it was mostly all grabbing and chaos as they both struggled to get control of the weapon. That's why no defensive injuries noted on either man's arms, and just two minor knuckle scratches (from punching) only on one of Martin's hands.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 08, 2013, 12:52:33 am
All of the currently provided evidence actually paints a pretty clear picture of what happened in the fight: Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose, causing him to fall and hit his head on the curb. Martin gets on top of him to try and gain control of the guy who was just stalking him, shouting at a nearby witness to call the police. Zimmerman pulls his gun and shoots Martin.

It's extremely simple. The eyewitness is almost definitely incorrect in almost every detail except "Someone was on top of another someone during a fight, then a guy got shot. Maybe the guy on top." The medical examiner testimony does NOT prove the eyewitness right. In fact, it proves that Martin couldn't have been whaling punches on the guy.

Even if he was, it doesn't change the fact that you don't murder someone for punching you.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 08, 2013, 12:33:07 pm
Yup, and as far as who was yelling and screaming? It has to be both of them. Neither man knew the other, both men were initially suspicious of the other, and both men were desperate and terrified of the other as they struggled for that gun.

Like I said way back in the beginning of either this thread or the other Zimmerman thread...why the fuck can't people just nod at each other, just talk, just say hi, just acknowledge each other first before jumping to scary/angry conclusions? Making neutral to friendly eye contact with a stranger - even an actual criminal - can neutralize potential danger, and nearly all of the time, result in zero violence.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 08, 2013, 12:42:46 pm
Yup, and as far as who was yelling and screaming? It has to be both of them. Neither man knew the other, both men were initially suspicious of the other, and both men were desperate and terrified of the other as they struggled for that gun.

Like I said way back in the beginning of either this thread or the other Zimmerman thread...why the fuck can't people just nod at each other, just talk, just say hi, just acknowledge each other first before jumping to scary/angry conclusions? Making neutral to friendly eye contact with a stranger - even an actual criminal - can neutralize potential danger, and nearly all of the time, result in zero violence.
Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 08, 2013, 01:06:56 pm
Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

Yeah, someone who feels the need to conceal carry a pistol to go grocery shopping has issues. Sanford at large has a a fairly big crime problem, yes, but in Zimmerman's neighborhood and that Walmart he was headed to, it's not risky, any more than my own neighborhood, or the nearby Walmart. If Zimmerman was my neighbor, I bet he would conceal carry, and wear a Kevlar vest....because lots of black people and Hispanic people live nearby, and lots of black people and ethnic Mexican * people shop at my Walmart....oooooo! Scary!  ::)

BTW, most of my immediate neighbors are elderly, white, and frail. They aren't afraid to shop there.  None carry a gun. Maybe pepper spray or a stun gun, if that.

*http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 08, 2013, 01:17:57 pm
Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

Yeah, someone who feels the need to conceal carry a pistol to go grocery shopping has issues. Sanford at large has a a fairly big crime problem, yes, but in Zimmerman's neighborhood and that Walmart he was headed to, it's not risky, any more than my own neighborhood, or the nearby Walmart. If Zimmerman was my neighbor, I bet he would conceal carry, and wear a Kevlar vest....because lots of black people and Hispanic people live nearby, and lots of black people and ethnic Mexican * people shop at my Walmart....oooooo! Scary!  ::)

BTW, most of my immediate neighbors are elderly, white, and frail. They aren't afraid to shop there.  None carry a gun. Maybe pepper spray or a stun gun, if that.

*http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html)

"But Zimmerman can't be racist because he's Hispanic!"
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 08, 2013, 01:21:27 pm
Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

Yeah, someone who feels the need to conceal carry a pistol to go grocery shopping has issues. Sanford at large has a a fairly big crime problem, yes, but in Zimmerman's neighborhood and that Walmart he was headed to, it's not risky, any more than my own neighborhood, or the nearby Walmart. If Zimmerman was my neighbor, I bet he would conceal carry, and wear a Kevlar vest....because lots of black people and Hispanic people live nearby, and lots of black people and ethnic Mexican * people shop at my Walmart....oooooo! Scary!  ::)

BTW, most of my immediate neighbors are elderly, white, and frail. They aren't afraid to shop there.  None carry a gun. Maybe pepper spray or a stun gun, if that.

*http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html)
Yeah, you don't need a handgun for daily life in Central Florida. Hell, when I lived in Lake County, I was five minutes away from a chapter of the Kingsmen biker gang, and I never felt worried.

"But Zimmerman can't be racist because he's Hispanic!"
What's funny is, that really should shut down most of his defenders. I was pretty sure the racists hated Hispanics as much as they did every other minority, and am amazed they aren't seeing it as two thugs, instead of just switching the innocent to a thug and the thug to an innocent like they are currently doing.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on July 09, 2013, 03:12:50 pm
So now the defense is going to move on to pointing out how Martin had pot in his system at the time of death.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 09, 2013, 03:21:08 pm
So now the defense is going to move on to pointing out how Martin had pot in his system at the time of death.

Which, of course, doesn't actually matter.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 09, 2013, 03:30:26 pm
So now the defense is going to move on to pointing out how Martin had pot in his system at the time of death.

Which, of course, doesn't actually matter.
In fact, if the jury has a brain it will hurt the defense.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: QueenofHearts on July 09, 2013, 06:15:55 pm
IDK, marijuana has strong tendancies to make you beat up wannabe cops...

Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Itachirumon on July 09, 2013, 06:34:48 pm
IDK, marijuana has strong tendancies to make you beat up wannabe cops...

Oh, wait, no it doesn't.

I was gonna make a snarky joke about "says the one who has Harley Quinn smoking as a DP" then my eyes stopped being stupid and noticed that that was a gun. Which ruins my joke.

....Bum-bum-tish.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 09, 2013, 07:04:51 pm
Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 09, 2013, 07:42:56 pm
Not that it makes all that much difference, being that weed is only violence-inducing if you consider tearing open a bag of Cheetos to be "violence", but was Martin even stoned during the confrontation, or was this merely residual THC from earlier use?

Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.

I think you know why.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: QueenofHearts on July 09, 2013, 08:07:36 pm
Not that it makes all that much difference, being that weed is only violence-inducing if you consider tearing open a bag of Cheetos to be "violence", but was Martin even stoned during the confrontation, or was this merely residual THC from earlier use?

Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.

I think you know why.

If I recall, and this is from last year, it was residual. Like a week or so prior to the confrontation.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 09, 2013, 08:15:48 pm
Not that it makes all that much difference, being that weed is only violence-inducing if you consider tearing open a bag of Cheetos to be "violence", but was Martin even stoned during the confrontation, or was this merely residual THC from earlier use?

Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.

I think you know why.

Yep.  Which is why I'm not "one".

I'm "Square Root of Nineteen"
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 09, 2013, 08:20:21 pm
Nice to meet you, 4.3588989435406735522369819838596.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 09, 2013, 08:23:00 pm
They're obviously grasping at straws for their defense.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sigmaleph on July 09, 2013, 08:41:05 pm
Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.

I think you know why.

Yep.  Which is why I'm not "one".

I'm "Square Root of Nineteen"

How very irrational.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 09, 2013, 08:52:52 pm
They're obviously grasping at straws for their defense.

Which the jury is kinda sorta buying.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 10, 2013, 12:47:14 am
They're obviously grasping at straws for their defense.

Which the jury is kinda sorta buying.

It's all they have. If people could actually pay attention, this would be an open-shut case. Having to rely on the fact that the deceased had residual traces of marijuana in his system when he was stalked and murdered as your way of "proving" that he was actually the aggressor doesn't indicate a good case.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 10, 2013, 12:55:39 am
Sady it's in Florida so the average juror knows about ppot only from Reefer Madness
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 10, 2013, 12:58:55 am
Sady it's in Florida so the average juror knows about ppot only from Reefer Madness

I don't think you've ever been to Florida.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 10, 2013, 09:33:08 am
Sady it's in Florida so the average juror knows about ppot only from Reefer Madness

Which Florida have you been to?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 10, 2013, 10:26:15 am
I was referring to the elderly
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on July 10, 2013, 10:51:44 am
Since kefka mentioned it, I love Reefer Madness, such a funny movie, but yet again all of those 1930s/40s exploitation films are hilarious. The best one hands down has to be Manic (1934) which is just WTF did I just watch??
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 10, 2013, 11:05:23 am
We have elderly potheads in FL too. Hippies from the sixties, all grown old, who either never quit, or started up again out of boredom when they retired.

And FL is still about the biggest port of entry, so to say, for smuggled drugs of every type. And custom grown indoor and outdoor/forest grown weed is a huge black market industry here.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 10, 2013, 02:38:35 pm
This is the same state where Casey Anthony can get a "not guilty". My faith in the jury isn't too high.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 10, 2013, 02:42:09 pm
I was referring to the elderly

Again, I don't think you've ever been to Florida.

Hell, our former next door neighbor was a senior citizen who almost definitely made her money through drug dealing. "Former" because she died recently.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 10, 2013, 02:45:15 pm
I was referring to the elderly

Again, I don't think you've ever been to Florida.

Hell, our former next door neighbor was a senior citizen who almost definitely made her money through drug dealing. "Former" because she died recently.
Yeah, Florida has some ass-backwards people, but otherwise, it's more weird than anything. Over a decade of living there made that quite obvious.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 10, 2013, 05:11:17 pm
This is the same state where Casey Anthony can get a "not guilty". My faith in the jury isn't too high.

Yeah that wasn't so cut and dried as this case is. 

Ironbite-course Nancy Grace didn't help when she crucified her and turned the public opinion in her favor.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 10, 2013, 07:01:43 pm
Normally, the only people I really wanna see get in trouble with the law are bad politicians and corporate dick wads. Nancy Grace on trial for a serious felony - utterly caught red handed - would be something I'd pay good money to see.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 10, 2013, 07:02:42 pm
Normally, the only people I really wanna see get in trouble with the law are bad politicians and corporate dick wads. Nancy Grace on trial for a serious felony - utterly caught red handed - would be something I'd pay good money to see.

Imagine her trying to defend herself on the stand.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 10, 2013, 07:03:53 pm
LMAO ;D
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 13, 2013, 07:00:16 pm
We're in Day 2 of deliberations.  And I found out today that the jury is half women.  And most of those are moms.

Ironbite-so imagine what these ladies are going through here.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 13, 2013, 07:07:37 pm
We're in Day 2 of deliberations.  And I found out today that the jury is half women.

The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 13, 2013, 07:13:08 pm
We're in Day 2 of deliberations.  And I found out today that the jury is half women.

The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
That cannot be legal. I don't like Zimmerman, but I have a feeling that six mother do not a balanced jury make.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 13, 2013, 07:53:05 pm
....I'm sorry there's only 6 people on this jury?

Ironbite-DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 13, 2013, 08:07:44 pm
We're in Day 2 of deliberations.  And I found out today that the jury is half women.

The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
That cannot be legal. I don't like Zimmerman, but I have a feeling that six mother do not a balanced jury make.

Are you sure they're all mothers? And they interviewed people extensively to put together an unbiased jury. I'm pretty sure I trust them more than most others.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 13, 2013, 08:36:05 pm
We're in Day 2 of deliberations.  And I found out today that the jury is half women.

The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
That cannot be legal. I don't like Zimmerman, but I have a feeling that six mother do not a balanced jury make.

It's valid. If the defense had a problem, they could have avoided having an all-female jury.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Morgenleoht on July 13, 2013, 10:04:36 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/13/jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty/

Faith in humanity decreasing...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Cerim Treascair on July 13, 2013, 10:06:21 pm
... I'm gonna need more booze.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: QueenofHearts on July 13, 2013, 10:07:42 pm
what

The

FUCK!!!!
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Crystal-King on July 13, 2013, 10:08:05 pm
Are you fucking kidding me? Guy stalks up to a kid, screams in his face after 9-1-1 operators tell him to stay right the fuck where he is, gets his ass beat and then shoots him, and he gets off scott free?

Are you fucking kidding me?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 13, 2013, 10:09:05 pm
.......wow.

Ironbite-just...wow.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Morgenleoht on July 13, 2013, 10:09:45 pm
ironbite, can you go supernova? Kinda over this planet...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 13, 2013, 10:12:27 pm
And the system has failed. What the fuck, world?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 13, 2013, 10:12:56 pm
I thought they were still in deliberations??

What in goddess's name?

I quit the planet. Take me to Gallifrey, however timelocked it may be.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Radiation on July 13, 2013, 10:19:12 pm
Just got back from visiting mom in the hospital (she's back in again) and go to cook something and then read about this verdict.

I'm...at a lost.

And now, how much you want to bet that we may have a riot a la LA?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 13, 2013, 10:19:37 pm
Not-guilty verdict confirmed:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-acquittal/?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/13/zimmerman-jury.html

Not really surprised. Disappointed, though. I was hoping for at least manslaughter charges.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: gomer21xx on July 13, 2013, 10:23:07 pm
At this point, all I have in me is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZohusSS72NQ

Now, when Holly and I record Thespian Talk tomorrow... that'll be a different story.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 13, 2013, 10:27:13 pm
Just got back from visiting mom in the hospital (she's back in again) and go to cook something and then read about this verdict.

I'm...at a lost.

And now, how much you want to bet that we may have a riot a la LA?
Coincidentally:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/2990e57eadfe07211073c45efd308d84/tumblr_mpw0kmQhq51qc5eano1_500.png)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 13, 2013, 10:27:51 pm
Welp, better get ready for Rodney King riots part 2 (or in the case of the above post, George Zimmermans). It pretty much hangs on what Zimmerman doesn't get away with.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Zygarde on July 13, 2013, 10:30:45 pm
While I would like to say I'm surprised I'm really not I kinda saw this coming a while ago but I do expect the shit to hit the fan over this.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: JohnE on July 13, 2013, 10:38:10 pm
Poetic justice would be if someone followed Zimmerman in a car for a while one night, then got out and approached him in an aggressive manner, shouting vague threats like, "You've got a problem now!" And then when Zimmerman feels justifiably threatened and tries to fight, shoot him.

P.S. I'm not encouraging or endorsing anyone actually doing this.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 13, 2013, 10:43:18 pm
Not surprising given the laws in Florida.  The prosecution really had no way to prove beyond a doubt that it was not self defense. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 13, 2013, 10:53:12 pm
Fuck it I'm moving to Canada
Just this country is worthless.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 13, 2013, 10:56:50 pm
Meanwhile, a black woman fires harmless warning shots to scare off her abusive ex-partner and gets 20 years of jail. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/)

BRB, walking off the planet

Poetic justice would be if someone followed Zimmerman in a car for a while one night, then got out and approached him in an aggressive manner, shouting vague threats like, "You've got a problem now!" And then when Zimmerman feels justifiably threatened and tries to fight, shoot him.

This sounds like something Hell Girl should do.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 13, 2013, 11:08:44 pm
From the prosecutor's closing arguments:

Quote
That child had every right to be where he was. That child had every right to do what he was doing, walking home. That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him, first in his car and then on foot. And did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man?

Amen.

Zimmerman's actions were irresponsible at best, and a teenage boy died because of it.

Quote
Fuck it I'm moving to Canada
Just this country is worthless.

Eh. There's a decent chance he would have ended up with a manslaughter charge up here, but I doubt he'd do more than a few years in prison. Still not justice, even if it's an improvement over the actual outcome.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 13, 2013, 11:09:54 pm
See that's also what bothers me, he didn't even get manslaughter. Someone who accidentally runs over someone in a car and kills them would get manslaughter. This was no accident.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: JohnE on July 13, 2013, 11:10:31 pm
The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 13, 2013, 11:13:00 pm
See that's also what bothers me, he didn't even get manslaughter. Someone who accidentally runs over someone in a car and kills them would get manslaughter. This was no accident.

Exactly. Even if you take race out of the equation (not that I'm saying we should), you'd still have an adult who behaved irresponsibly by trying to play Neighbourhood Watch Superhero, resulting in a death.

The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.

 ??? Seriously?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: JohnE on July 13, 2013, 11:16:07 pm
The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.

 ??? Seriously?
Yup, he said if Zimmerman had been black, the public and the police would have given him more slack.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: cheese007 on July 13, 2013, 11:16:38 pm
I feel sorry for any black person looking at their FB feed at the moment. Or the comments on any news site/forum.


The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.

 ??? Seriously?
Yup, he said if Zimmerman had been black, the public and the police would have given him more slack.

If Zimmerman was black, he would be in prison for 20 years at least.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 13, 2013, 11:17:51 pm
Was the case so notorious that they couldn't find an American lawyer to represent him, and had to recruit someone from Opposite Land?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Clochette on July 13, 2013, 11:34:51 pm
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/florida.gif)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 13, 2013, 11:38:54 pm
See that's also what bothers me, he didn't even get manslaughter. Someone who accidentally runs over someone in a car and kills them would get manslaughter. This was no accident.

Exactly. Even if you take race out of the equation (not that I'm saying we should), you'd still have an adult who behaved irresponsibly by trying to play Neighbourhood Watch Superhero, resulting in a death.


Yup. And now I worry for more cases like this. Goddamn.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on July 13, 2013, 11:40:06 pm
Shit. Is anyone else afraid Florida is going to burn?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: syaoranvee on July 13, 2013, 11:41:16 pm
Not surprising given the laws in Florida.  The prosecution really had no way to prove beyond a doubt that it was not self defense. 


Yeah, I pretty much thought the same thing. There was enough on the wall for a not guilty verdict as they couldn't prove anything after botching shit.  Great, it's going to be another month like after the Casey Anthony trial verdict where random people are going to act like they know without a doubt one way or another what happened and because I work in customer service I get to hear all about tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on July 13, 2013, 11:42:20 pm
I called it sadly, that being said, thank you Florida for continuing to be an embarrassment. And people wonder why I have little faith in not only this country, but for humanity as a whole.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 13, 2013, 11:52:34 pm
Spain take florida back
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Stormwarden on July 14, 2013, 12:01:56 am
But...but...Florida gave us Iced Earth...well, on a serious note, I didn't follow the case much because I expected something like this would happen. After all, between Rodney King, and Amadou Diallou (sp?), I had a feeling this would happen.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Itachirumon on July 14, 2013, 12:04:37 am
Shit. Is anyone else afraid Florida is going to burn?

Get out the innocents and plantlife, then I could give less of a shit. Honestly, I hope it does. This makes me a bad person but I hope some semblance of real justice comes out of this, in whatever form it decides to take. I honestly don't have words for how upset and furious this makes me.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Silhouette on July 14, 2013, 12:06:57 am
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/florida.gif)
Spain take florida back

Confiscate Disney World. They don't deserve to keep the "happiest place on earth".
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on July 14, 2013, 12:30:35 am
One of Zimmerman's lawyers compared Martin's death with "kids who die of cancer all the time."  Because, you know, kids who die of cancer die from completely preventable deaths perpetrated by fellow human beings oh wait.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 14, 2013, 12:56:09 am
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/780302743cc6a3440abd14d52c306fb8/tumblr_mpwr2dfu0j1qb57v9o1_500.png)

LOL Yeah...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 12:58:23 am
One of Zimmerman's lawyers compared Martin's death with "kids who die of cancer all the time."  Because, you know, kids who die of cancer die from completely preventable deaths perpetrated by fellow human beings oh wait.

Was this the same guy who said that being black would have helped Zimmerman and opened the trial with a knock-knock joke?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 14, 2013, 01:25:37 am
Here's a nice comment from pro-Zimmerman people.

Quote
I'd love to wake up tomorrow and hear that absolutely nothing happened. I'd also be ok waking up to the news that Detroit, DC, LA, Chicago, etc have burned to the ground and the streets are littered with the bodies of rioters.

Others were merely saying that the police should use "whatever means necessary" to protect themselves and supress the riots, but this guy doesn't even care to act like killing protesters would be a bad thing.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 14, 2013, 01:25:54 am
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)

Fun for the whole family!

I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 01:32:10 am
I must have done a good job in picking blogs to follow, 'cause I've only been seeing disgust with the verdict on my dash.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: niam2023 on July 14, 2013, 01:40:59 am
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.

George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 02:05:56 am
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.

George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.

You mean like Casey Anthony, who simply ran off to Ohio?

Also, I actually had a sane discussion about the case with my best friend (she's pro-Zimmerman). She said she looked over all the details, but I simply picked apart every one of her points and mentioned some stuff she said that was outright wrong (like saying that Martin was high when he was killed). I had all of the witness statements and Zimmerman's 911 call open to back me up.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 14, 2013, 02:24:34 am
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.

George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
NO! Vigilantism is bad and what he deserves is a sentence of jail time not some angry mob lynching him.

If this really sparks riots or even worse vigilantism it will make the situation worse for everyone. It will help the racists who claim that blacks are violent and unruly. It will validate the people who support vigilantism in the way Zimmerman was doing it.

And worst of all it will mean more blood on the streets. Riots from cases like this will spread and people forget the original purpose as they use this excuse to riot and steal and maybe even attack everyone they see as a threat.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 14, 2013, 02:27:25 am
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.

George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
NO! Vigilantism is bad and what he deserves is a sentence of jail time not some angry mob lynching him.

If this really sparks riots or even worse vigilantism it will make the situation worse for everyone. It will help the racists who claim that blacks are violent and unruly. It will validate the people who support vigilantism in the way Zimmerman was doing it.

And worst of all it will mean more blood on the streets. Riots from cases like this will spread and people forget the original purpose as they use this excuse to riot and steal and maybe even attack everyone they see as a threat.
We really do NOT want another Rodney King riots. Everyone suffers.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 14, 2013, 02:49:22 am
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)

Fun for the whole family!

I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.

I've had one argument with a few people who know a friend's brother (including his uncle or something, I don't know). Let's play:

You're racist against white people: Nope.
Derails with hypotheticals: Nope (surprisingly).
Not everything is so simple: Sort of. I got a couple accusations of ignoring evidence.
He was acting in self-defense: Yup. The main crux of their argument, in fact. Complete with ignoring me pointing out the actual events as best we understand them.
The media chose to portray Trayvon as a child: Nope, but I bet it would have gone that way had I not walked away when I realized that they weren't addressing my points and were going in circles instead.
The justice system works: Yup. With those exact words, in fact.
They were both at fault: Hinted, but not outright.
The Jury decided: Yup.
Zimmerman followed his instincts: Yup.
You're overreacting: Surprisingly, no.
Zimmerman was Hispanic, so he can't be white: Yes and no. No references to him being Hispanic, but a claim that he allegedly mentored black kids... at something. All they said was that he "mentored black kids." At what? I have no idea.
Trayvon could have killed him: Yup.
Assorted racial slur free space: Surprisingly, no.
You didn't even know him: Yup. In fact, the last thing someone posted was responding to me saying "how can you not see this" with "because I wasn't there."
Think about how Zimmerman must be feeling: Nope.
Brings up literally anything about Trayvon's character: Surprisingly, no.
Blames Trayvon's appearance: Is there any truth to the claim that he fit the description of the person who burglarized a few house in that neighborhood? If so, I at least understand using this argument, despite it being a stupid argument.
Stop making everything about race: Yup.
Disregards 911 dispatch call: Mostly. They acknowledged the call's existence, but claimed that they didn't tell him not to pursue. They only told him "it wasn't necessary."
Why do you only care about this one case: Yup.
Misconstrued MLK quote: Nope.
You're just as bad for what you're saying about Zimmerman: Sort of. One guy, ignoring all of my other points, got pissy over me pointing out that Zimmerman had no reason to be carrying a gun that night.
The trial wasn't about whether or not he killed him: Nope.
You just like acting mad: Surprisingly, no.
Don't be mad at Zimmerman, be mad at [blank]: Surprisingly, no.

Also, do I get bonus points for the point of "The case is closed, deal with it!"?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 14, 2013, 02:57:26 am
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.

George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
NO! Vigilantism is bad and what he deserves is a sentence of jail time not some angry mob lynching him.

If this really sparks riots or even worse vigilantism it will make the situation worse for everyone. It will help the racists who claim that blacks are violent and unruly. It will validate the people who support vigilantism in the way Zimmerman was doing it.

And worst of all it will mean more blood on the streets. Riots from cases like this will spread and people forget the original purpose as they use this excuse to riot and steal and maybe even attack everyone they see as a threat.

I don't want riots. I really really don't.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 14, 2013, 03:00:24 am
Funny.

This has taught me that expecting the worst can still leave you disappointed when it actually happens.

There is no preparing for this kinda shit it seems.

Well, nice to know that when a black woman fires a gun into the air to scare someone, it earns her 20 years in prison, but outright killing a black teenager armed with skittles and a can of iced tea doesn't just let you go scot free, but you get hailed as a hero by a whole bunch of sheeple.

Of course, the prosecution might've actually had a case if the police had actually done their job and investigated the crime scene instead of drug testing Trayvon, patching Zimmerman's wounds, and sending him home.

Also, why the fuck didn't the defense have to prove it was self defense?  Almost every other state I know of requires you to prove it's self defense, but in this case it was somehow assumed.  That's stupid.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: niam2023 on July 14, 2013, 03:02:48 am
Its obvious that no conventional justice is gonna happen here. That is why I have concluded that the only way he's ever gonna pay for his actions is through laser guided karma.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 14, 2013, 03:19:43 am
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/florida.gif)
Spain take florida back

Confiscate Disney World. They don't deserve to keep the "happiest place on earth".

Force Spain to pay a refund for it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: cheese007 on July 14, 2013, 03:27:16 am
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)

Fun for the whole family!

I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.

I could get fucking blackout in 30 seconds from just one of the multitude of Reddit threads on the matter.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 03:34:29 am
Also, why the fuck didn't the defense have to prove it was self defense?  Almost every other state I know of requires you to prove it's self defense, but in this case it was somehow assumed.  That's stupid.

Because it went to a jury. The jury doesn't understand law or the court procedure. They get told two conflicting stories and are told to pick which one they like best.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 03:37:12 am
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)

Fun for the whole family!

I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.

I could get fucking blackout in 30 seconds from just one of the multitude of Reddit threads on the matter.

The RR thread hits most of them on its first page.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 04:58:52 am
One of Zimmerman's relatives has posted an IAmA thread on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i9k6e/iama_close_relative_of_george_zimmerman_i_was/
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: cheese007 on July 14, 2013, 05:09:26 am
Yeah, that's not gonna help at all...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 05:16:58 am
One of Zimmerman's relatives has posted an IAmA thread on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i9k6e/iama_close_relative_of_george_zimmerman_i_was/

"Edit: God damn it guys, stop pming and asking about whether George would rather get into a fight with 100 duck sized horses or a horse sized duck. I do not fucking know. Let's keep this about Rampart."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: cheese007 on July 14, 2013, 05:30:15 am
I just hope the shockingly large group of Reddit racists don't latch on to that thread.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 05:49:52 am
I just hope the shockingly large group of Reddit racists don't latch on to that thread.

Stop hoping.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Itachirumon on July 14, 2013, 06:19:22 am
I got through about 30 comments before I was overwhelmed by the urge to murder this "close relative" through the computer screen, along with all the people there. I don't want to hear this shithead gloat, or any of the right-wingers who are going to be so very thrilled that he got away with it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 14, 2013, 07:44:06 am
Well.... fuck. Just, fuck. Here's hoping he and Casey Anthony get a head on collision, killing each other.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 07:59:13 am
One of Zimmerman's relatives has posted an IAmA thread on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i9k6e/iama_close_relative_of_george_zimmerman_i_was/

"Edit: God damn it guys, stop pming and asking about whether George would rather get into a fight with 100 duck sized horses or a horse sized duck. I do not fucking know. Let's keep this about Rampart."

Yeah, as much as I think this random relative is a douche bag, I couldn't help but laugh at that.

The "I put on my grand wizard hat and robes." comment went a bit too far, though.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 14, 2013, 08:49:55 am
I really hope the jurors remain anonymous, because they were in a lose/lose situation here. As much as I don't like the verdict, I don't think the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so the jurors did the right thing.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on July 14, 2013, 09:05:37 am
I must have done a good job in picking blogs to follow, 'cause I've only been seeing disgust with the verdict on my dash.
Me too, even though most of the stuff is fandom shit so...I'm trying my best to keep quiet about on tumblr and Facebook(I had a few relatives actually defending Zimmerman) because I don't want to deal with the shit.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 14, 2013, 09:38:03 am
I really hope the jurors remain anonymous, because they were in a lose/lose situation here. As much as I don't like the verdict, I don't think the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so the jurors did the right thing.
On one hand, one part of me agrees. On the other hand, the vengeful dick part of me disagrees. I've been in vengeful dick mode for hours, though, so I mainly agree due to being rather low on anger.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 09:40:15 am
I really hope the jurors remain anonymous, because they were in a lose/lose situation here. As much as I don't like the verdict, I don't think the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so the jurors did the right thing.

The prosecution definitely didn't have enough evidence to warrant a guilty verdict on the murder charge, but a manslaughter conviction would have been completely justified.

That being said, I'm not familiar enough with Florida law regarding manslaughter to determine whether or not such a conviction would have been legal.

Edit: Under Florida law, would proving that Zimmerman acted recklessly suffice for a manslaughter charge? Or would proving that he wasn't acting in self-defence still be an issue?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 14, 2013, 09:50:24 am
I think manslaughter would certainly be justified, but I'm not sure of every argument the prosecution made and whether they presented enough evidence and explanations for the jury to reach a guilty verdict there. I know at one point, the jury asked lawyers for clarification on the definition of manslaughter, which shows there was some debate over that charge. But I'm not familiar with that law.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 14, 2013, 11:08:18 am
When the state special prosecutor's office filed for second degree murder, it was a politically motivated, public opinion assuaging move. It quelled a huge out cry in Sanford and across the state. With only Zimmerman as a full witness, and little physical evidence, second degree would have only been met if people on the jury had actually kept in mind all of Zimmerman's odd actions, and self-contradictory statements in his incident interviews by the detectives. Zimmerman even had Trayvon saying crap about as believable as lines from a 1960's Dick Tracy comic book.

Second degree under FL law is very strenuous and frankly reads as just a hair's breadth below first degree, premeditated murder. I actually suspect the decision to pursue second degree was a ploy to help assure Zimmerman was acquitted, in that, the jury is more likely to also dismiss the manslaughter option after failing to agree on all the stringent points of second degree.

Mark O'Mara is on my all-time Biggest Dickweeds list for his post trial spews about what if Zimmerman was black, and Trayvon died-kids-die-of-cancer-too. I will fucking slap his dentures* out of his face and crush them under foot if I ever meet him in person.


*I know the signs; got a full set myself.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 14, 2013, 11:14:22 am
Funny.

This has taught me that expecting the worst can still leave you disappointed when it actually happens.

There is no preparing for this kinda shit it seems.

Well, nice to know that when a black woman fires a gun into the air to scare someone, it earns her 20 years in prison, but outright killing a black teenager armed with skittles and a can of iced tea doesn't just let you go scot free, but you get hailed as a hero by a whole bunch of sheeple.

Of course, the prosecution might've actually had a case if the police had actually done their job and investigated the crime scene instead of drug testing Trayvon, patching Zimmerman's wounds, and sending him home.

Also, why the fuck didn't the defense have to prove it was self defense?  Almost every other state I know of requires you to prove it's self defense, but in this case it was somehow assumed.  That's stupid.

That's Florida.  The state has a very low bar for self defense claims.  Also I believe Martin was tested for drugs as part of the autopsy, which is probably pretty standard.

I doubt the police doing anything different would have given then any evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story beyond a doubt.  Hence is the nature of the laws.  The women who got 20 years had a different set of circumstances including witnesses to testify against her. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: rageaholic on July 14, 2013, 11:43:53 am
One of Zimmerman's lawyers compared Martin's death with "kids who die of cancer all the time."  Because, you know, kids who die of cancer die from completely preventable deaths perpetrated by fellow human beings oh wait.

AHH!! THE STUPID!!

That's such a typical fundie argument. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 14, 2013, 03:47:50 pm
When the state special prosecutor's office filed for second degree murder, it was a politically motivated, public opinion assuaging move.

Actually, knowing the prosecutor, I think it was as much motivated by zeal and a pretty solid history of murder convictions.

The special prosecutor is the State Attorney where I went to law school. (She still tries DP cases.) The Assistant State Attorney who gave the opening and was involved in the trial is an Adjunct Professor at my law school, and is a member of the homicide team in the local State Attorney's Office. Duval County has a lot of homicides, so the team gets a lot of practice. Put all of that together and I think they honestly believed they had a good chance of winning.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 03:55:14 pm
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 14, 2013, 03:59:20 pm
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.

Thing is the defense did a good job of raising doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin.  Remember Zimmerman said he was looking for a street sign.  With that in doubt so to was the manslaughter conviction.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 14, 2013, 04:02:40 pm
I must have done a good job in picking blogs to follow, 'cause I've only been seeing disgust with the verdict on my dash.
Me too, even though most of the stuff is fandom shit so...I'm trying my best to keep quiet about on tumblr and Facebook(I had a few relatives actually defending Zimmerman) because I don't want to deal with the shit.

I had a couple people go 'this was never about race'. But they are usually quiet anyways unless something controversial pops up in the first place so I ignored it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 04:17:35 pm
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.

Thing is the defense did a good job of raising doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin.  Remember Zimmerman said he was looking for a street sign.  With that in doubt so to was the manslaughter conviction.

Looking for a street sign in his own neighbourhood, eh? Where he served as neighbourhood watch...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 14, 2013, 04:28:48 pm
I just read some fuckwit say that the whole thing was a "show trial" and the only reason why George Zimmerman was charged was because he was white and Trayvon Martin was black.

What parallel universe is this motherfucker living in?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 04:35:48 pm
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.

Thing is the defense did a good job of raising doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin.  Remember Zimmerman said he was looking for a street sign.  With that in doubt so to was the manslaughter conviction.

What? No they didn't. The call he made to Sanford police completely indicates that he was following Martin. Allow me to provide a direct quote:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 14, 2013, 04:35:48 pm
Looking for a street sign in his own neighbourhood, eh? Where he served as neighbourhood watch...

Some times being a dumbass is a defense.  While it was reported Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch there was no evidence to that fact, nor evidence that Zimmerman patrolled the housing complex.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 14, 2013, 04:38:21 pm
What? No they didn't. The call he made to Sanford police completely indicates that he was following Martin. Allow me to provide a direct quote:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.

What was the next part to that call?  The dispatched told him he did not need to do that and Zimmerman responded okay.  He than indicated he was looking for the street name and to have the officer call him when he arrived in the area.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 14, 2013, 04:42:20 pm
Looking for a street sign in his own neighbourhood, eh? Where he served as neighbourhood watch...

Some times being a dumbass is a defense.  While it was reported Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch there was no evidence to that fact, nor evidence that Zimmerman patrolled the housing complex.

Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch coordinator according to Wendy Dorival, who was the program's organizer for the Sanford PD.

Seriously, are you actually reading anything? It's like you don't even bother Googling this case.

Quote
What was the next part to that call?  The dispatched told him he did not need to do that and Zimmerman responded okay.  He than indicated he was looking for the street name and to have the officer call him when he arrived in the area.

Red herring. You claimed that there was no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin. I provided a direct quote from Zimmerman himself that states that he was. You were wrong, plain and simple.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 14, 2013, 05:00:15 pm
Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch coordinator according to Wendy Dorival, who was the program's organizer for the Sanford PD.

Seriously, are you actually reading anything? It's like you don't even bother Googling this case.

Zimmerman was setting up a neighborhood watch and Dorival considered him the organized yet it was nothing official nor mart of the HOA.  There was no evidence to support the notion that Zimmerman was patrolling.

Red herring. You claimed that there was no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin. I provided a direct quote from Zimmerman himself that states that he was. You were wrong, plain and simple.

Zimmerman started to follow Martin but there is little evidence to show that he continued to do so after he was told to stop.

...and regardless of us arguing about it the jury did not find enough evidence to convict of murder or manslaughter.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 05:50:37 pm
I just noticed that Zimmerman kind of looks like a weird cross between my brother and my old boss, at least from certain angles. Especially in this picture:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d5879599d35d81caa720e3117271bcb5/tumblr_mpy4ddGQF41qcvd2oo1_400.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: MadCatTLX on July 14, 2013, 07:15:22 pm
That picture brings up an unrelated question I've had for a while. Say I shoot someone in defense of myself, my family, and my property. This is a reasonably likely scenario as we recently had someone steal a trailer of ours and we bought a shotgun because of that. The police generally take the gun a evidence. Once it's proven that it was indeed self defense, do I get my stuff back?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 14, 2013, 07:18:35 pm
Yes. In fact, that picture came from an article about Zimmerman leaving the courtroom with the gun.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 14, 2013, 10:28:49 pm
Yep. Zimmerman has the gun he killed a kid with.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 14, 2013, 11:33:37 pm
Great hope he doesn't do it again
Also this  http://www.politicususa.com/2012/07/18/george-zimmerman-african-americans-apologize.html
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: niam2023 on July 15, 2013, 12:01:08 am
He couldn't leave it alone. He just couldn't stop from being a dick to the African American community one last time. First he claimed he shot Trayvon because God wanted him to or something, and now he wants them to apologize to him.

There's being an aggrandizing, self indulgent douche, and then there's being a suicidally stupid moron. He just signed his own death warrant; thanks Zimmerman. I look forward to the details, and I do hope its gruesome.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on July 15, 2013, 12:04:15 am
He couldn't leave it alone. He just couldn't stop from being a dick to the African American community one last time. First he claimed he shot Trayvon because God wanted him to or something, and now he wants them to apologize to him.

There's being an aggrandizing, self indulgent douche, and then there's being a suicidally stupid moron. He just signed his own death warrant; thanks Zimmerman. I look forward to the details, and I do hope its gruesome.

That article was written a year ago.  Not saying it makes it okay, but this isn't something he did after being found not guilty.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Lt. Fred on July 15, 2013, 12:09:40 am
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 15, 2013, 12:22:16 am
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.
Well, there's two answers.

Logic/Law: Yes. Because he too would be defending himself.
Reality: No. He's black and lives in the south.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 15, 2013, 12:39:41 am
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.

Not for what Zimmerman did. While Zimmerman acted as the initial aggressor and intimidated Martin into believing that he was a street tough looking for a victim (don't follow people when they're alone at night, you twat), Martin was the one to throw the first blow. It wasn't a very smart move, though he was definitely legitimately scared for his life, but Martin was the one who started it.

If Martin wanted justification for killing Zimmerman instead, Zimmerman would have had to have escalated the fight to the point where a firearm would be deemed necessary. This could be as little as exposing his own gun as a means to intimidate Martin, or as much as actually drawing and firing on him.

Had I been Martin, I likely would have been carrying some kind of weapon on me if I was alone at night. If I caught Zimmerman following me, I would have been shouting at him to keep his distance and informing him that I was armed and willing to protect myself.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 15, 2013, 12:49:25 am
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.

Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.

At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Lt. Fred on July 15, 2013, 01:07:39 am
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.

Not for what Zimmerman did. While Zimmerman acted as the initial aggressor and intimidated Martin into believing that he was a street tough looking for a victim (don't follow people when they're alone at night, you twat), Martin was the one to throw the first blow. It wasn't a very smart move, though he was definitely legitimately scared for his life,

Self-defence then.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 15, 2013, 01:31:16 am
Self-defence then.

You can't murder someone purely for following you. Even if you fear for your life, the person must actually be threatening the life of yourself or someone else. Martin couldn't shoot Zimmerman just for following him. He COULD shoot him if Zimmerman brandished or used a weapon, or if the size and/or strength disparity between them was so immense (which it wasn't) that Martin could have never defended himself without a gun.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: DiscoBerry on July 15, 2013, 09:51:18 am
And the WTF begins:  Lester Chambers attacked on stage after dedicating song to Trayvon Martin

Quote
Almost immediately Dinalynn Andrews Potter leapt on to the stage – "like an acrobat", according to Chambers' wife. "She had a crazed look in her eye," a witness told the Times. "I saw the devil there." She shoved the singer before anyone else could react; Chambers, 73, was eventually taken to hospital, receiving treatment for "bruised rib muscle and nerve damage". Andrews Potter, 43, was arrested and charged with suspicion of battery, while Chambers "will be up and running soon", according to his son.

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 15, 2013, 10:10:12 am
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.

Not for what Zimmerman did. While Zimmerman acted as the initial aggressor and intimidated Martin into believing that he was a street tough looking for a victim (don't follow people when they're alone at night, you twat), Martin was the one to throw the first blow. It wasn't a very smart move, though he was definitely legitimately scared for his life, but Martin was the one who started it.

If Martin wanted justification for killing Zimmerman instead, Zimmerman would have had to have escalated the fight to the point where a firearm would be deemed necessary. This could be as little as exposing his own gun as a means to intimidate Martin, or as much as actually drawing and firing on him.

Had I been Martin, I likely would have been carrying some kind of weapon on me if I was alone at night. If I caught Zimmerman following me, I would have been shouting at him to keep his distance and informing him that I was armed and willing to protect myself.

So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 15, 2013, 11:01:36 am

So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.

When does Stand your ground start to apply? Some reports claim that Zimmerman showed his gun and clearly intimidated and baited Martin to fight. If a stranger follows a teenager around, shows that he is armed and dares the teen to grab his gun I don't see how that does not qualify as a threat. In fact if punching a person counts as a lethal threat then doesn't an ACTUAL GUN count as a lethal threat?


And I am a bit suprised but the racists aren't the most infuriating pro-Zimmerman group I've seen. I mean the people who blame the black kid no matter what happened and are glad that there is one black person less are always horrible cunts, but the pro-gun people defending Zimmerman are worse in a way.

I mean, people who at least claim not to be racists are defending this as a good example of self defense. They are defending a person who stalked a teen and (according to most evidence) started the confrontation, the person who was specifically looking for trouble and an opportunity to attack Martin.

Seriously, Ironbite was joking/sarcastic with his comment but I have really read comments that throwing that punch justified killing Martin.

In fact:

Quote
Made a Facebook post saying "innocent! Start throwing punches in a concealed carry state and expect to get shot." to which I got replies along the line of "oh, you mean racist white guys get to kill innocent black guys just for the hell of it."

but I'm the racist evidently. Sadly it looks like it, because I have not a single black friend left on facebook. Which hurts, because one of my best friends was one of them.

Can't seem to find the one identical to Ironbite's post though.

And I'm not sure if I want to dig further to find it...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on July 15, 2013, 11:24:57 am

So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.

When does Stand your ground start to apply? Some reports claim that Zimmerman showed his gun and clearly intimidated and baited Martin to fight. If a stranger follows a teenager around, shows that he is armed and dares the teen to grab his gun I don't see how that does not qualify as a threat. In fact if punching a person counts as a lethal threat then doesn't an ACTUAL GUN count as a lethal threat?


And I am a bit suprised but the racists aren't the most infuriating pro-Zimmerman group I've seen. I mean the people who blame the black kid no matter what happened and are glad that there is one black person less are always horrible cunts, but the pro-gun people defending Zimmerman are worse in a way.

I mean, people who at least claim not to be racists are defending this as a good example of self defense. They are defending a person who stalked a teen and (according to most evidence) started the confrontation, the person who was specifically looking for trouble and an opportunity to attack Martin.

Seriously, Ironbite was joking/sarcastic with his comment but I have really read comments that throwing that punch justified killing Martin.

In fact:

Quote
Made a Facebook post saying "innocent! Start throwing punches in a concealed carry state and expect to get shot." to which I got replies along the line of "oh, you mean racist white guys get to kill innocent black guys just for the hell of it."

but I'm the racist evidently. Sadly it looks like it, because I have not a single black friend left on facebook. Which hurts, because one of my best friends was one of them.

Can't seem to find the one identical to Ironbite's post though.

And I'm not sure if I want to dig further to find it...

Ok, my head fucking hurts now from the train of thought in that comment. Really, so people can't defend themselves now when a wannabe cop pulls a gun on you?? Also, I don't feel sorry for that asshole getting defriended. I personally would like to ask that person what he would do in the situation, I bet when push comes to shove he would do the same thing Martin did.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 15, 2013, 11:29:35 am
Every time somebody brings up the fact that Martin threw the first punch, I always respond that way.  We know what happened.  Zimmerman followed this kid.  The phone conversation he had with his best friend supports this.  Zimmerman then approached him.  Zimmerman's story supports this.  Then....a punch was thrown.  That is what's in dispute.  Who threw it.  And who was on top.

Ironbite-this case is just.....ug.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 15, 2013, 12:37:45 pm
WHY can't people just acknowledge/nod and say hello first? It alleviates tension, and emphasizes that you are a real person - versus an anonymous, dehumanized or profiled target - in the eyes of either a criminal or of a wary, overly protective wanna be. This also gives you the chance to familiarize yourself with that person's facial features, voice, clothing description details, etc. if needed later to report to the police. It is much easier to recall these details accurately when you note them while you are calm and relaxed.

In the townhouse complex where I live, there are lots of frail old folks, and young couples with little kids and babies. I am very fond of my neighbors, and feel very protective of them. So, about 6 months ago I was walking my two dogs, on the way back in through the main complex entrance. I see a short, middle aged black man on a BMX bicycle, just sitting there at the corner looking around. I say "Hi", he says, "Hi" back to me, and at this time an old white man in a car is turning this corner slowly and staring at the guy. I stay put,  as the black guy (who actually does look very shady/sketchy, but not dangerous) and I are just talking, and soon both of us were smiling and relaxed after finding out we both used to live in Atlanta, so we are reminiscing about what we each loved about that city. This dude is definitely shady, yeah, but he's also a human being, and he responds to me as another human being. Risk resolved. Tension defused. He's not an ice cold, ruthless sadistic gangster. He's not a sociopath. This is not a news hype moment, not a Hollywood meme scenario. He's just a loser. My dogs never got tense around him, either.

But then the old man, who had been driving 5 miles per hour and probably looking at us in his rear view mirror, quickly backs up his car and stops, staring at the guy. The guy was startled by this and pedaled away out of the neighborhood. The old man rolled down his window and smiled saying, "I have my gun in my lap. He better not ever come back".

After the old man said that was the only time I felt scared. I would much rather chat up a criminal than deal with a riled up 75 year old who has a gun in their lap, you know? Yes, the guy was sketchy, and probably a burglar or a burglary ring's scout casing this affluent subdivision.  All the old man needed to do was call 911 to report a suspicious person. As to his concern for my safety, which I thanked him for, all he had to do was park his car by us, roll down his window, and join the conversation. That would have tipped over the sketchy guy's comfort level, and he'd most likely have excused himself and cruised on out of there. No gun was needed, even if the sketchy guy was armed (as he probably was).

I was hoping to take my leave of the guy, and call in a suspicious person report to the police and give his description. The guy may very well have continued on riding around casing the neighborhood, which has only two entry streets. The cops could have found him and questioned him or picked him up on out standing warrants. This could have led to busting a burglary ring, or at least discouraging this guy from coming back to the neighborhood for a while.

As it turned out, thanks to the well-meaning but stupid/scary old man, this dude escaped. OPD has a burglary stake out unit and they placed unmarked surveillance cars around the neighborhood for the next ten days, waiting to catch any burglary or home invasion perpetrators. There have been several break ins and two home invasions in this neighborhood in the past two years. Would have been nice to actually let the police have a chance to catch these guys.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on July 15, 2013, 12:53:03 pm
Because certain people like to think themselves to be "Badasses" that's why.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 15, 2013, 01:47:26 pm
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.

Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.

At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.

He probably didn't have a phone on him. I can't recall what all he had on him at the time, tho, so I might be wrong. But this also comes into account: fear. You're afraid of the big dude following you. You think maybe pulling out a phone would 'spook' the guy following you and make him attack you sooner. So you don't.

Admittedly, I've always imagined secretly dialing 911 in my pocket but my phone doesn't allow that because touchscreen.

In other news, people have staged a mass sit-in in NYC and other places.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: QueenofHearts on July 15, 2013, 01:49:20 pm
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.

Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.

At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.

He probably didn't have a phone on him. I can't recall what all he had on him at the time, tho, so I might be wrong. But this also comes into account: fear. You're afraid of the big dude following you. You think maybe pulling out a phone would 'spook' the guy following you and make him attack you sooner. So you don't.

Admittedly, I've always imagined secretly dialing 911 in my pocket but my phone doesn't allow that because touchscreen.

In other news, people have staged a mass sit-in in NYC and other places.

He had a cell phone. He was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time (the one who didn't look so good when questioned). Also, she alleges that Trayvon's phone was slapped out of his hand by Zimmerman after Trayvon asked Zimmerman who he was.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 15, 2013, 01:53:18 pm
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.

Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.

At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.

He probably didn't have a phone on him. I can't recall what all he had on him at the time, tho, so I might be wrong. But this also comes into account: fear. You're afraid of the big dude following you. You think maybe pulling out a phone would 'spook' the guy following you and make him attack you sooner. So you don't.

Admittedly, I've always imagined secretly dialing 911 in my pocket but my phone doesn't allow that because touchscreen.

In other news, people have staged a mass sit-in in NYC and other places.

He had a cell phone. He was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time (the one who didn't look so good when questioned). Also, she alleges that Trayvon's phone was slapped out of his hand by Zimmerman after Trayvon asked Zimmerman who he was.

Ah. Thanks. Yeah. That would be a problem if your phone isn't at hand to call someone else. I wonder if anyone's blamed her for not doing something on her end.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Distind on July 15, 2013, 01:57:53 pm
So I've got to ask, has there been any real violence as a result of this? I'm seeing a bunch of conservative old guys I know react as if the nation is understorm over this, from what I see... like three big protests and a number of smaller ones.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 15, 2013, 02:03:33 pm
So I've got to ask, has there been any real violence as a result of this? I'm seeing a bunch of conservative old guys I know react as if the nation is understorm over this, from what I see... like three big protests and a number of smaller ones.

If there has it hasn't made the news. Every bit of info I get about protests mentions no arrests and no violence.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 15, 2013, 02:14:30 pm
Only real thing I've heard is a couple of shop windows got busted in Oakland.

Ironbite-so....yeah.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 15, 2013, 03:50:29 pm

So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.

When does Stand your ground start to apply? Some reports claim that Zimmerman showed his gun and clearly intimidated and baited Martin to fight. If a stranger follows a teenager around, shows that he is armed and dares the teen to grab his gun I don't see how that does not qualify as a threat. In fact if punching a person counts as a lethal threat then doesn't an ACTUAL GUN count as a lethal threat?

There's no good reports on exactly what occurred during the initial face-to-face confrontation before the fight. All we have are the witness statements, and as far as I can tell none of them came from anyone who actually watched the whole thing from beginning to end. The most that we know for a fact is that the two of them got into a verbal argument and then a fight started. Martin was most likely the one to throw the first punch.

However, Martin couldn't have gotten Stand Your Ground simply from being intimidated by a guy that he thought was a criminal looking for an opportunity. Unless Zimmerman actually engaged in threatening behavior, Martin couldn't have done anything but ran, told him to leave (possibly on pain of death if he was armed), or called for help. Like I said, that "threatening behavior" could have been as little as showing that he had a gun.

Technically Martin was in the wrong for throwing the first punch, but generally police will be lenient in cases like this if they think that the person was legitimately scared. You're not SUPPOSED to kick the guy in the balls just for following you, but police typically won't bother to pursue any charges against you for that unless they've personally got it in for you. They understand intimidation just as well as civilians.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on July 15, 2013, 03:57:17 pm
Only real thing I've heard is a couple of shop windows got busted in Oakland.

Ironbite-so....yeah.

There was violence there.

...the cops shot the crowd with beanbag pellets.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: MadCatTLX on July 15, 2013, 04:21:51 pm
Was the busted window from actual protesters or was it a couple jackasses taking the opportunity to bust some windows for shits and giggles and having a good chance of getting away with it? Generally windows don't get busted until a protest turns in to a full on riot.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Nightangel8212 on July 15, 2013, 05:02:23 pm
I think Martin Bashir has some excellent points here...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/15/watch-martin-bashir-sum-up-the-trayvon-martin-travesty-in-under-4-minutes/
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 15, 2013, 07:35:00 pm
So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.

Yes, a the law does not cover a person who has committed, or in the process of committing an illegal act.  So whom ever started the confrontation would not be covered by the law.  If the state could have proved Zimmerman grabbed Martin or even threatened him Zimmerman would be behind bars.  The unfortunate thing is that Martin was not around to testify.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 15, 2013, 07:54:03 pm
Yes, a the law does not cover a person who has committed, or in the process of committing an illegal act.  So whom ever started the confrontation would not be covered by the law.  If the state could have proved Zimmerman grabbed Martin or even threatened him Zimmerman would be behind bars.  The unfortunate thing is that Martin was not around to testify.

Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: QueenofHearts on July 15, 2013, 08:13:13 pm
Yes, a the law does not cover a person who has committed, or in the process of committing an illegal act.  So whom ever started the confrontation would not be covered by the law.  If the state could have proved Zimmerman grabbed Martin or even threatened him Zimmerman would be behind bars.  The unfortunate thing is that Martin was not around to testify.

Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.

It's because the portion of the law that you're talking about wasn't explained to the jury. The defense successfully filed a motion to supress those portions of Florida law (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html) that wouldn't benefit Zimmerman.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 15, 2013, 08:50:30 pm
Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.

Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers that have been on NPR, local public radio, commercial radio, and the networks are wrong.

...or perhaps you are?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on July 15, 2013, 08:51:04 pm
I've heard bits of an interview with one of the jurors, and since I keep hearing about how there was a string in of burglaries committed by black people in Zimmerman's neighborhood at the time of the shooting, I'm curious as to whether or not the burglaries actually ceased after the shooting happened, considering that was Zimmerman's entire basis of following Martin in the first place.

Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 15, 2013, 08:56:52 pm
Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.

Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers that have been on NPR, local public radio, commercial radio, and the networks are wrong.

...or perhaps you are?

Now that's an "appeal to authority/popularity" fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Eric has consistently provided evidence supporting what he says.  All you've done is... repeat yourself and then say that "Hey all of these people disagree with you so therefore you must be wrong"

Might want to try a little harder.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 15, 2013, 09:30:20 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k48qU4fxqSg
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 15, 2013, 09:32:51 pm
Now that's an "appeal to authority/popularity" fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Eric has consistently provided evidence supporting what he says.  All you've done is... repeat yourself and then say that "Hey all of these people disagree with you so therefore you must be wrong"

Might want to try a little harder.

I posted the Florida statute which says that a fear for loss of life or great bodily harm is all that is required for the use of lethal force.  Don't know what else I can do.  Even the link QueenofHearts posted states, "1) A defendant is "justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." This means that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin did not actually have to be necessary; Zimmerman simply had to have a reasonable belief that it was necessary. (This is typical of self-defense in other states.)"

In the end it does not matter if Martin could have used deadly force or not.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 15, 2013, 09:39:39 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k48qU4fxqSg

Is this, like, Tourettes Guy 2.0?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 15, 2013, 11:00:53 pm
Angry Grandpa is an awesome youtube actor. He and his grandson started out doing spoof videos of the old man years ago, back when they lived in a soon-to-be-condemned trailer park in Savannah, Georgia. Grandpa is an old line Dixie democrat, working man type, and he came down to Florida to visit the site in a woody thicket where Caylee Anthony's tiny body was found, to leave flowers and say a prayer. He was soon in free flowing tears and unable to continue the recording. It was the only serious video he has ever done.

Although this one is over the top and part of grandpa's "act", he is no doubt seriously pissed off by the Zimmerman acquittal (I doubt the TV was live, but a DVR cap being replayed to enact the Grandpa Raging episode).
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: BrandonL337 on July 15, 2013, 11:21:39 pm
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

Holy, shit, there are no words.  How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sigmaleph on July 15, 2013, 11:35:45 pm
Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers that have been on NPR, local public radio, commercial radio, and the networks are wrong.

...or perhaps you are?

Now that's an "appeal to authority/popularity" fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Eric has consistently provided evidence supporting what he says.  All you've done is... repeat yourself and then say that "Hey all of these people disagree with you so therefore you must be wrong"

Might want to try a little harder.

I have to disagree with you here, Nickerson's argument is not fallacious. If a large number of experts agree to something in their field of expertise, that is decent evidence in favour of it. Not perfect, of course, but it's not irrelevant either. This is even more so in law, which is a human construction and where the truth is ultimately determined by human beliefs and actions.

That is, conditional on his premise being true and in fact the judge, the prosecution and every other legal expert consulted on the matter agree with him. I have no idea if this is true or not, and I generally trust Eric's knowledge on the subject so it seems odd. But in any case, that would be a matter of factual error, not fallacious reasoning.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on July 15, 2013, 11:37:30 pm
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

Holy, shit, there are no words.  How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?

And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 15, 2013, 11:46:37 pm
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

Holy, shit, there are no words.  How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?

And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...

I say let them.  They'll ruin their reputation, and give Zimmerman what he deserves: more publicity.  His life was over the moment this went public, think about it...there are going to be people who are none too pleased with the verdict, and some who are quite literally out for his blood.  He'll have to watch his back until either this dies down or, if he gets enough media attention post facto, then it'll last until he's dead.  He will NEVER lead the life he did before this, its no longer possible.  He gets just what he deserves, freedom and life in a nightmare of constant fear.

I, personally, hope no one ever forgets this and that Zimmerman lives a nice, LONG life.  Let him live to 100 years-old, and let every day be filled with fear of retribution.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 15, 2013, 11:52:48 pm
Jesus fuck.  What more did this idiot do?

Ironbite-seriously...the fuck!?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 15, 2013, 11:53:28 pm
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

Holy, shit, there are no words.  How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?

And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...

Well it's their job to defend people in court. Even the one's that are guilty.

I'm slightly sceptical about these accusations that keep popping up. I mean on one hand the timing is what it is while on the other hand it does make sense that she's been afraid of him untill now so she didn't come out with this before...

I'd like to say the court can handle this, that they are better equipped and have better access to facts than a random person with an internet connection but after the last time Zimmerman was in court I'm not sure if I trust the US justice system's judgement.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: wrightway on July 16, 2013, 12:14:36 am
"Folks, this is a victory for the rule of law; in that Florida apparently no longer has rules or laws"

Stephen Colbert
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on July 16, 2013, 12:38:02 am
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

Holy, shit, there are no words.  How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?

And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...

Well it's their job to defend people in court. Even the one's that are guilty.

I'm slightly sceptical about these accusations that keep popping up. I mean on one hand the timing is what it is while on the other hand it does make sense that she's been afraid of him untill now so she didn't come out with this before...

I'd like to say the court can handle this, that they are better equipped and have better access to facts than a random person with an internet connection but after the last time Zimmerman was in court I'm not sure if I trust the US justice system's judgement.

That article was written a year ago, apparently, so it isn't an accusation that was suddenly made after he got acquitted.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 16, 2013, 01:08:14 am
Oh.

Well serves me right for not checking the dates or reading thorougly through the article.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 16, 2013, 01:11:25 am
Am I the only one bothered by one of the jurors being a racist and saying things such as:

“I think George was pretty consistent..told the truth basically. It happened, “pretty much the way George said."
“I have no doubt George feared for his life, in the situation he was in at the time."
“Zimmerman’s heart was in the right place … just went terribly wrong."
"Trayvon should’ve walked away."
"I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him (George Zimmerman)."
"Rachel Jeantel was not credible…I felt bad for her. A lot of the time, she was using phrases I’ve never heard before."
“I think all of us (the jury) didn’t think race played a role."
"I didn’t understand why the case had gotten so big because I didn’t see this case as racial."
"And all the people that want him guilty, aren’t going to have any closure. I just never saw it as a racial thing."
“George Zimmerman was just frustrated. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. Too many things were happening in his neighborhood. I think he’s changed now."
“I think he has every right to carry a gun."
George Zimmerman is going to be more responsible with a gun than anyone else on the planet right now.
Initial jury vote was: 3 for not guilty, 1 for second degree murder, 2 for manslaughter
"The laws regarding manslaughter, self-defense, etc. were very confusing to comprehend."
*sobs* “This was an emotional trial." *Anderson Cooper asks if she felt sad for Trayvon Martin*……………….Um yes and I feel sorry for George too.
It’s just sad that we all had to come together and figure out what is going to happen to this man’s life afterwards."

Source: Anderson Cooper interview
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 16, 2013, 01:13:38 am
Quote
"Trayvon should’ve walked away."

Well, he did. George kept following him after he tried to flee.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 16, 2013, 01:35:52 am
About the same juror:

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/fb9aa49d330139dcddcec9921e5970d5/tumblr_mq094idNrc1qzeo2zo1_500.png)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 16, 2013, 01:39:03 am
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished. (http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/stevie-wonder-boycott-florida-until-stand-your-ground-law-is-abolished)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 16, 2013, 01:41:26 am
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished. (http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/stevie-wonder-boycott-florida-until-stand-your-ground-law-is-abolished)

Didn't see that one coming.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: unknown on July 16, 2013, 02:02:19 am
Am I the only one bothered by one of the jurors being a racist and saying things such as:

“I think George was pretty consistent..told the truth basically. It happened, “pretty much the way George said."
“I have no doubt George feared for his life, in the situation he was in at the time."
“Zimmerman’s heart was in the right place … just went terribly wrong."
"Trayvon should’ve walked away."
"I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him (George Zimmerman)."
"Rachel Jeantel was not credible…I felt bad for her. A lot of the time, she was using phrases I’ve never heard before."
“I think all of us (the jury) didn’t think race played a role."
"I didn’t understand why the case had gotten so big because I didn’t see this case as racial."
"And all the people that want him guilty, aren’t going to have any closure. I just never saw it as a racial thing."
“George Zimmerman was just frustrated. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. Too many things were happening in his neighborhood. I think he’s changed now."
“I think he has every right to carry a gun."
George Zimmerman is going to be more responsible with a gun than anyone else on the planet right now.
Initial jury vote was: 3 for not guilty, 1 for second degree murder, 2 for manslaughter
"The laws regarding manslaughter, self-defense, etc. were very confusing to comprehend."
*sobs* “This was an emotional trial." *Anderson Cooper asks if she felt sad for Trayvon Martin*……………….Um yes and I feel sorry for George too.
It’s just sad that we all had to come together and figure out what is going to happen to this man’s life afterwards."

Source: Anderson Cooper interview

Is this the same one who said that if the previous burglaries had been committed by whites or Mexicans, then she was confident Zimmerman would have reacted the exact same way?  I think my grandma said she's planning to write a book about this.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 16, 2013, 02:03:15 am
Yep, that's the one.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 16, 2013, 02:14:22 am
Is this the same one who said that if the previous burglaries had been committed by whites or Mexicans, then she was confident Zimmerman would have reacted the exact same way?  I think my grandma said she's planning to write a book about this.

If that were true, it might actually reflect worse on Zimmerman's character. He's now going from a racist to a paranoid lunatic who will stalk and threaten anyone he sees so he can feel like a badass cop.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 16, 2013, 03:39:10 am
Christ, that fucking Zimmerman relative IAmA. This just says it all:

Quote
Okay guys, I have tried sleeping for four and a half hours, and I'm really out of it. Just wanted to clarify that, holy shit, I am not George, you guys. As for the whole "Yeah, he's trying to paint his relative like an angel", fuck you. Seriously, you have no idea what this case has done to my family, and to see it EVERYWHERE without being able to say something is fucking brutal. I hear so much bullshit about George it's not even funny. I was pretty much homeless for six months due to this bullshit, living off the kindness of friends. I am here to defend George and clear things up. Is George an angel? No. As a matter of a fact, he stole a computer monitor from me after this whole thing happened. I do not even LIKE George anymore. But, I know all of that was because of what he was going through. I will try to answer some questions but I'm on 48 hours of no sleep here. Also, I could not do an AMA before the trial ended. I don't want to fuck anything up, but I have been itching to finally publicly be able to defend someone I know. There are still a lot of misconceptions out there floating around, and I want to try to fix that.

Sample of my inbox, I'll just do one.

I hope God whoever God is, never relieve your son of this horrendous crime against a young child and the faith of millions of people. May it forever remain in his paranoid conscience and may his own conscience never forgive him and may it kill him dead one day!

Well, I'm not George's mother, but you sound like a good Christian with Christian values...I'm seeing a LOT of stuff like this. And frankly, it is sad. Have you all motherfuckers never seen Se7en? Don't be the last sin.

Also, I am not trying to paint us as the only victims...obviously the loss of Trayvon was a terrible thing. But just refer to the above. I DO NOT speak for George. I'm just shedding light on MY FAMILIES side of the situation. I'm not a PR guy. The "George's past" argument is a joke as well, you all talk about George's past, what of Trayvon's? What of this "child's" past of violence and trying to purchase guns and doing drugs? I don't bring that up to try to smear his grave, just that seriously, why is his past not relevant?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 16, 2013, 03:57:28 am
Quote
The "George's past" argument is a joke as well, you all talk about George's past, what of Trayvon's? What of this "child's" past of violence and trying to purchase guns and doing drugs? I don't bring that up to try to smear his grave, just that seriously, why is his past not relevant?

Because it's NOT relevant. The constant sniping at Martin is a form of character assassination and almost like an ad hominem: whether or not he was a thug or on his way to becoming a career criminal, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't doing anything illegal or even really suspicious when Zimmerman began following and scaring him.

On the other hand, Zimmerman's past IS relevant. The question at hand was whether Zimmerman was negligent, or even malicious or motivated by some kind of character flaw like racism or arrogance, in pursuing an innocent person and shooting an unarmed kid. If he's established to be racist against blacks, that would indicate a potential racist motivation for suspecting Martin of wrongdoing when he was literally doing nothing but walking down the street. If he was established as violent or willing to disproportionately use force to solve conflicts, that would indicate that he had killed someone who didn't do anything to deserve it.

Character means nothing when determining if a person who was innocent of wrongdoing was stalked and killed by a wannabe cop. It means EVERYTHING when determining if said wannabe cop was acting appropriately.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 16, 2013, 05:25:05 am
Trayvon died twice. Once at the hands of George Zimmerman, and the other at the hands of the court. Enough said, relative of George.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 16, 2013, 05:32:17 am
I think it helps people who want to support Zimmerman in coping with the idea of him killing someone. If they can claim that Trayvon was some kind of thug, they can stop caring about his death or even say that Zimmerman was "cleaning the filth off our streets."

It's a lot harder to handle the idea that someone who was supposedly using his God-given right for self-defense had killed someone he wasn't supposed to.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Lt. Fred on July 16, 2013, 09:06:16 am
Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers that have been on NPR, local public radio, commercial radio, and the networks are wrong.

...or perhaps you are?

Now that's an "appeal to authority/popularity" fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Eric has consistently provided evidence supporting what he says.  All you've done is... repeat yourself and then say that "Hey all of these people disagree with you so therefore you must be wrong"

Might want to try a little harder.

I have to disagree with you here, Nickerson's argument is not fallacious. If a large number of experts agree to something in their field of expertise, that is decent evidence in favour of it.

It'd be a useful heuristic, not real evidence.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sigmaleph on July 16, 2013, 10:50:23 am
There's no dichotomy there. A useful heuristic pointing in favour of a claim is also evidence. Evidence in favour of a claim is, essentially, any information that once you learn it raises your subjective probability that the claim is true. In practical terms, very weak evidence is usually excluded because it's not worth updating on, but this is not relevant here.

And either way, the main point is the same. Call it a heuristic or call it evidence, the main point is that it's not fallacious to bring up the opinion of experts on the subject of their expertise.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 16, 2013, 07:15:03 pm
Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers

Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.


As an aside, the State may* have grounds for a mistrial...

Quote from: Juror B37
JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

Zimmerman did not use a Stand Your Ground defense, yet it seems the jurors used their interpretation of that law in their deliberations. I don't know what jury instructions they were given, but if Zimmerman didn't use SYG, I strongly doubt they were given a jury instruction on it. Which means the jury used their own beliefs about the law, rather than what the Judge told them.



* I am basing that only on one comment by a juror. The way the jury deliberated may not be accurately portrayed by her comment.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 16, 2013, 09:42:54 pm
The prosecutor in the case was also fucked up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/who-is-angela-corey-from-being-fired-to-prosecuting-zimmerman.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=9174187

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-04/news/sns-rt-us-usa-florida-shooting-coreybre83312u-20120404_1_prosecutor-tough-reputation-lethal-force

Not about race. And she was fired once before. Okay.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Lt. Fred on July 16, 2013, 11:36:26 pm
There's no dichotomy there. A useful heuristic pointing in favour of a claim is also evidence.

That's basically the definition of heuristic: "something useful for solving a problem or coming to understanding other than evidence." Racist stereotypes are heuristics. Most logical fallacies are heuristics.




Also, it's quite amusing to watch Alan Dershowitz abandon what little honest claim to liberalism he ever had over this case. More money in hackery anyway.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 17, 2013, 01:34:00 am
Screw it, I'm just going to quote David Draiman. Sorry in advance, he doesn't turn off capslock.

Quote
ZIMMERMAN/TRAYVON MARTIN;

THE CASE IS OVER AND A VERDICT HAS BEEN GIVEN. NOW;

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION MAY BE ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE,

1. NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED IN ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR DESTRUCTION AS A RESULT OF THIS.

2. POLITICISING THIS EVENT (AS THE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE MEDIA HAVE BOTH DONE) IS IRRESPONSIBLE, ABHORRENT, AND SELFISH. THERE’S ALREADY FAR TOO MUCH RACIAL TENSION AND BASELESS HATRED IN THIS WORLD, AND THOSE ON EITHER SIDE WHO TRY TO USE THIS AS A MEANS OF FURTHERING THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS, FEAR/HATE MONGERING, OR FURTHERING THEIR OWN RISE TO FAME OR POWER, SHOULD BE CALLED OUT AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.

3. THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF EXAMPLES OF BOTH JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE ALL OVER THE WORLD, EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES, THIS IS NOT, NOR SHOULD IT BE MADE TO BE A BLACK OR WHITE OR HISPANIC ISSUE.

SO ALL OF YOU OUT THERE, GET OFF OF YOUR SOAPBOXES, CUT THE CRAP, MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES, AND LETS FOCUS ON ALL OF THE OTHER ATROCITIES THAT OCCUR ALL OVER THE GLOBE (LIKE THE SCHOOL MASSACRE IN NIGERIA WHICH THE MEDIA HAS BASICALLY GLOSSED OVER IN FAVOR OF THE ZIMMERMAN FRENZY). THERE IS NO GREATER PIMP THAN THE MEDIA. THEY ARE EXPERTS IN WHORING SOMETHING OUT UNTIL IT IS BROKEN, DRIED UP, AND NO LONGER OF USE TO THEM. DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BE MANIPULATED BY THIS SLIGHT OF HAND BULLS–T.

OK … I’M DONE.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 17, 2013, 02:14:59 am
Because he used capslock, it is now impossible to not read that as the lyrics to a Disturbed song.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Søren on July 17, 2013, 04:52:35 am
Oh fuck now, now that rant is the end of down with the sickness
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 17, 2013, 07:14:09 am
Kinda wordy for a Disturbed song.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 17, 2013, 08:56:14 am
Because he used capslock, it is now impossible to not read that as the lyrics to a Disturbed song.
I've only seen him turn off capslock once. During that, he crowned himself "Ambassador of Rock at Spotify"
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sigmaleph on July 17, 2013, 10:32:22 am
There's no dichotomy there. A useful heuristic pointing in favour of a claim is also evidence.

That's basically the definition of heuristic: "something useful for solving a problem or coming to understanding other than evidence." Racist stereotypes are heuristics. Most logical fallacies are heuristics.

Not how I usually see the terms used, but there's no point in arguing semantics. The ultimate point is whether referencing expert opinion, in this case, provides information that is useful and relevant to the argument. I argue it is, and shouldn't be dismissed. Do you disagree?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Damen on July 17, 2013, 11:04:11 am
I find it interesting to note that Martin had a greater claim to protection under the Stand Your Ground law, considering he had been stalked and then confronted by a complete stranger for no discernible reason with the end result being an altercation.

It's also probably why Zimmerman's defense didn't try to use Stand Your Ground as the basis of his defense.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 17, 2013, 07:56:15 pm
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/ef798bee89c1d117c0bf9b6b3bdf3600/tumblr_mq0pafwUah1qc8jh0o2_250.gif)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/a4cab1ab9d54b57b0a29efdf6b1a0864/tumblr_mq0pafwUah1qc8jh0o4_250.gif)

I got nothin'.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 17, 2013, 09:46:02 pm
[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.

Okay, from the Judges instructions to the jury:

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self - defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing
George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self - defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self - defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.


The full instructions here... http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf (http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf)

Again, "A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."  Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force as soon as he thought he was in danger of great bodily harm.  That is all the was required.

Also you can see that Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground".  Zimmerman did use that defense because it is part of Florida's self-defense statute.  People are getting confused on this because Zimmerman did not ask for a self-defense hearing based on the stand your ground section to avoid prosecution.  He and his lawyers decided to go right to trial.

Now, here is comments about the decision from the Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/prosecutors-weigh-in-on-george-zimmerman-verdict/-/1637132/20987802/-/item/0/-/v4mjuj/-/index.html (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/prosecutors-weigh-in-on-george-zimmerman-verdict/-/1637132/20987802/-/item/0/-/v4mjuj/-/index.html)

Read it and you will notice one thing, not one mention that Zimmerman did not have the right to use deadly force under the law.  Had that been the case, as you are saying, that would have been the central argument.  It was not.

I find it interesting to note that Martin had a greater claim to protection under the Stand Your Ground law, considering he had been stalked and then confronted by a complete stranger for no discernible reason with the end result being an altercation.

It's also probably why Zimmerman's defense didn't try to use Stand Your Ground as the basis of his defense.

Zimmerman did use the stand your ground law as it is part of Florida's self-defense statute.  See the above jury instructions from the Judge with states that Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground. 

Martin would have been covered by the law, and not Zimmerman, if the prosecution could have proved Zimmerman started the physical altercation or threatened Martin with physical harm.  Unfortunately they could not. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 17, 2013, 11:14:30 pm
Anyways, KYM has it's own page (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/trayvon-martins-death-we-are-trayvon-martin) on the case. Lots of images and videos, as well as a lot of controversy in the comments.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on July 18, 2013, 01:44:41 am
I found this article on Zimmerman's past, according to his old MySpace page. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16/zimmermans-old-myspace-account-reveals-racist-sexist-violent-behavior/) Gee, why wasn't this brought up in the trial?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 18, 2013, 08:01:23 pm
Gee, it's as if these 2 actually want there to be riots or something ... (http://gawker.com/racist-trolls-try-to-stir-shit-up-at-peaceful-racial-pr-830545176)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 18, 2013, 08:08:28 pm
What I've learned from all of this:

When white people demonstrate, it's a "protest". When black people demonstrate, it's a "riot".
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 18, 2013, 08:10:24 pm
Damn skippy and don't you forget it.

Ironbite-*goes off to protest*
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: erictheblue on July 18, 2013, 08:59:05 pm
[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.

Okay, from the Judges instructions to the jury:

What I asked for was somewhere where the Judge said Zimmerman had a self-defense claim. What you gave me is the stock Jury Instruction. But even if those were the judge's own words (and not a stock reading), it never says Zimmerman had the self-defense claim. All it does is tell the jury that if they believe Zimmerman was in mortal danger, then they could find him not guilty based on self-defense.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mythbuster43 on July 18, 2013, 09:13:25 pm
What I've learned from all of this:

When white people demonstrate, it's a "protest". When black people demonstrate, it's a "riot".

It's sort of like when a white guy smokes pot, he's a "stoner" but when a black guy smokes pot he's a "gangsta." Or like when a white preacher says that America deserves to be destroyed by God, he's a "good Christian concerned about moral decay in the country" but when a black preacher says it, he's an "anti-American terrorist sympathizer."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 18, 2013, 10:22:24 pm
What I asked for was somewhere where the Judge said Zimmerman had a self-defense claim. What you gave me is the stock Jury Instruction. But even if those were the judge's own words (and not a stock reading), it never says Zimmerman had the self-defense claim. All it does is tell the jury that if they believe Zimmerman was in mortal danger, then they could find him not guilty based on self-defense.

If you looked at the link you would that those are the instruction from the Judge to the Jury in this specific case, those are her instructions.

No, they don't say if the Jury believe he was in mortal danger, it says if they believe they he thought he was in mortal danger, "George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."  It even says in that instructions "he danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual."  Meaning they could have though differently than he did but if they believed he feared for his life he had the right to use deadly force.

So the jury found that Zimmerman could have feared for his life (reasonable doubt he did not) and that was all that was needed for a self defense claim, or as you put it earlier to escalate to deadly force.

The instruction also mean the the jury did not use their own interpretation of the law, as you stated before.

Zimmerman did not use a Stand Your Ground defense, yet it seems the jurors used their interpretation of that law in their deliberations.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: nickiknack on July 19, 2013, 02:18:57 pm
All for the love of god, not this shit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/was-treyvon-at-7-11-buying-skittles-and-fruit-juice-to-make-a-drug/).
Quote
Was Trayvon at 7-11 Buying Skittles and Fruit Juice to Make a Drug?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 19, 2013, 02:56:03 pm
Even if he was, that's not illegal.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 19, 2013, 03:13:14 pm
Even if he was, that's not illegal.
And even if it was illegal it would not be a reason to kill him.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 19, 2013, 03:58:45 pm
What drug is made using skittles and iced tea?

EDIT- ah yes, purple drank. Except not.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 19, 2013, 03:59:39 pm
It's like.....I can't.....

Ironbite-*supernovas*
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 19, 2013, 05:28:17 pm
Things like this are why I say the following:

Zimmerman may have been sitting in the defense, but it was Trayvon that was on trial, and the verdict was "Guilty for the purposes of being the scapegoat"
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 19, 2013, 10:26:45 pm
But it's not "thug" when white kids do it, or just get w/e off-the-shelf bs high they can get a hold of...no, they're "troubled youth".
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: cheese007 on July 19, 2013, 11:03:06 pm
President had some commentary on this today: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/19/203706929/obama-explains-black-america-to-white-america?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130719
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 20, 2013, 02:06:18 am
The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Lt. Fred on July 20, 2013, 02:32:32 am
Things like this are why I say the following:

Zimmerman may have been sitting in the defense, but it was Trayvon that was on trial, and the verdict was "Guilty for the purposes of being the scapegoat"

The infamous "driving while black" offence has been extended. Now "walking while black" is illegal.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 20, 2013, 02:39:04 am
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 20, 2013, 02:56:25 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsY_XXCg3bk

Interesting suggestion about arming all black people and the response.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 20, 2013, 03:09:24 am
Interesting suggestion about arming all black people and the response.

Yes. I am already outraged that gun-advocates defend Zimmerman so strongly when he (at least in my impression) was the agressor, but this racism inherent in pro-gun/self-defence groups should be more on the news.

People argue against Moore's "KKK led to NRA" video but despite their outrage on accusations of racism NRA and pro-gun groups don't seem to want to defend black people, or even want them armed.

"But you see, they are just thugs..."
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 20, 2013, 04:22:23 am
Interesting suggestion about arming all black people and the response.

Yes. I am already outraged that gun-advocates defend Zimmerman so strongly when he (at least in my impression) was the agressor, but this racism inherent in pro-gun/self-defence groups should be more on the news.

People argue against Moore's "KKK led to NRA" video but despite their outrage on accusations of racism NRA and pro-gun groups don't seem to want to defend black people, or even want them armed.

"But you see, they are just thugs..."

The NRA is a pretty shitty organization. Even a lot of gun nuts don't like them, because they often don't actually work for the people as much as their own pockets.

Speaking of gun nuts, there's also a lot of criticism of Zimmerman in firearms circles. Obviously the people who think Trayvon was some thug who was smashing his head into the ground repeatedly think he did the right thing (because these are the people who are dumb anyway), but people are using Zimmerman as an example of what NOT to do. He didn't identify himself as far as we're aware and actively sought out a potentially dangerous scenario.

You're supposed to use your weapon to defend against sudden danger in your daily life, not to keep your ass alive when you throw yourself into it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 10:29:32 am
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.

Legally, no.  If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony.  That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 20, 2013, 11:02:01 am
So again, because Martin feared for his own life, as Zimmerman did in this case, because he's black he has no right to stand his ground.

Ironbite-as per Florida law.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 20, 2013, 11:55:16 am
I will point out that Florida's law was written by a man who is part of a group called Sons of Confederate Soldiers. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mellenORL on July 20, 2013, 12:34:48 pm
Not defending Senator Peaden's SOCS membership, but he has repeatedly expressed serious objections to how the law has been used in courts, especially in the case of Zimmerman;

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/)

Note especially that he says Zimmerman lost any right to SYG the moment he began following Martin.

Regardless, the way Judge Nelson instructed the jury, after being psyched out by O'Mara and West waving about the chance of a judicial error finding of mistrial and thereby reversal, citing from a different case, she then excluded portions of the SYG statutes for their use in reaching a verdict. The  wording they had left to work with is so open to interpretation - if defendant "believes" they are in danger, even if not in "actual" danger - that it left a huge hole through which Zimmerman pranced his way to freedom. That the jury was initially split 3 to 3 on guilty versus not leaves me with some hope that the very thing Nelson feared - a future charge of procedural, legal error leading to an embarrassing reversal of her rulings and declaration of mistrial, may very well occur. West and O'Mara are slick, psychologically manipulative geniuses. They succeeded in having the law interpreted to their client's advantage, only.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 01:06:28 pm
So again, because Martin feared for his own life, as Zimmerman did in this case, because he's black he has no right to stand his ground.

Ironbite-as per Florida law.

The issue is that there was no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life.  The defense argued that had Martin feared for his life he would have gone directly back the house he was staying.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 20, 2013, 01:36:10 pm
So again, Martin did not have the right to stand his ground.

Ironbite-is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 20, 2013, 01:43:23 pm
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?

And because I am an evil, evil man:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: R. U. Sirius on July 20, 2013, 01:46:44 pm
Because Martin was black.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 01:48:07 pm
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?

The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could.  Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away. 

Because Martin was black.

People keep saying this, but I'm not buying it.  The state simply did not have the evidence to convict Zimmerman under the law.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 20, 2013, 01:54:52 pm
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?

The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could.  Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away. 

So Zimmerman's defense argued against Stand your ground.

Got it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 01:55:24 pm
So again, Martin did not have the right to stand his ground.

Ironbite-is that what you're saying?

If Martin attacked Zimmerman first, no he did not.

If Zimmerman attacked first, yes he did.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 01:56:08 pm
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?

The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could.  Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away. 

So Zimmerman's defense argued against Stand your ground.

Got it.

They argued against any stand your ground claim Martin may have had.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 20, 2013, 01:56:14 pm
Fucking being attacked.  What about being followed by a suspicious looking guy in a truck?

Ironbite-did Martin in fact feared for his life?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 02:00:33 pm
Fucking being attacked.  What about being followed by a suspicious looking guy in a truck?

Ironbite-did Martin in fact feared for his life?

Know one knows if he did or not.  Not knowing helped Zimmerman.  Personally I still think Zimmerman grabbed Martin first giving Martin every right to defend himself.  However there is no way to prove that and I, as well as everyone else, maybe wrong.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Auri-El on July 20, 2013, 02:33:47 pm
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?

The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could.  Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away. 

Except he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't chased Martin down. And if I understand it right, Martin had no obligation to retreat and was perfectly within his rights to defend himself. Regardless of who threw the first punch, if it was Martin, I still think Zimmerman should have been held responsible for putting Martin in a position where he thought he had to attack Zimmerman to protect himself. I doubt Martin went out that night looking for a fight, unlike Zimmerman.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 03:16:36 pm
Except he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't chased Martin down. And if I understand it right, Martin had no obligation to retreat and was perfectly within his rights to defend himself. Regardless of who threw the first punch, if it was Martin, I still think Zimmerman should have been held responsible for putting Martin in a position where he thought he had to attack Zimmerman to protect himself. I doubt Martin went out that night looking for a fight, unlike Zimmerman.

It is a doubled edged sword.  Martin did have the right to stand his ground, but it is reasonable to think a person who feared for their live would go to safety if he had a chance.  This was brought up in the case of the women who got 20 years for firing at her husband.  The prosecution brought up the fact that she passed multiply ways to escape while on her way to get her gun.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: chitoryu12 on July 20, 2013, 03:34:59 pm
Except he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't chased Martin down. And if I understand it right, Martin had no obligation to retreat and was perfectly within his rights to defend himself. Regardless of who threw the first punch, if it was Martin, I still think Zimmerman should have been held responsible for putting Martin in a position where he thought he had to attack Zimmerman to protect himself. I doubt Martin went out that night looking for a fight, unlike Zimmerman.

It is a doubled edged sword.  Martin did have the right to stand his ground, but it is reasonable to think a person who feared for their live would go to safety if he had a chance.  This was brought up in the case of the women who got 20 years for firing at her husband.  The prosecution brought up the fact that she passed multiply ways to escape while on her way to get her gun.

The problem is that by its very nature, Stand Your Ground says that you do NOT have a duty to retreat before fighting back. As long as Martin could have reasonably feared for his life, he didn't have to run at all. Suggesting that he may have been in legitimate fear of his life from the guy following him in a truck when he was alone at night (who then got out of his truck to try and continue following him) means that Stand Your Ground would have applied if they bothered to use it in Martin's case. Which they didn't.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 04:07:55 pm
The problem is that by its very nature, Stand Your Ground says that you do NOT have a duty to retreat before fighting back. As long as Martin could have reasonably feared for his life, he didn't have to run at all. Suggesting that he may have been in legitimate fear of his life from the guy following him in a truck when he was alone at night (who then got out of his truck to try and continue following him) means that Stand Your Ground would have applied if they bothered to use it in Martin's case. Which they didn't.

I understand what the laws says, but you can still argue that a person who truly feared for their life would try and get to a safe place as fast as possible.  The state did argue that Martin was the person in fear for his life, but there was no evidence to prove that.  Since it was Zimmerman on trial it is he who get the benefit of doubt.

The state simply had no evidence to support a self defense claim for Martin, that is why it did not apply.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 20, 2013, 04:44:03 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/

Quote
Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.

Wait... WHAT!??!?! How the FUCK, Florida?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 20, 2013, 06:36:03 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/

Quote
Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.

Wait... WHAT!??!?! How the FUCK, Florida?

There's been an awful lot of shady stuff with this case. And whatever happened to that witness who appeared in court before he actually testified? I thought that was illegal, but I haven't heard about any consequences. Forgive me if that was posted a few pages back, it's hard to read every post in this thread.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 20, 2013, 06:38:39 pm
There has been. And I didn't hear about the witness.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Sleepy on July 20, 2013, 06:42:21 pm
Here's the article on it. Haven't heard any updates.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19382248-prosecution-zimmerman-witness-may-have-shown-up-too-early?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19382248-prosecution-zimmerman-witness-may-have-shown-up-too-early?lite)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ironbite on July 20, 2013, 06:46:50 pm
.....oh no.  Can you say mistrial?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 20, 2013, 06:49:21 pm
Someone probably could, but the question is would it have any effect?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Shane for Wax on July 20, 2013, 06:57:09 pm
Here's the article on it. Haven't heard any updates.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19382248-prosecution-zimmerman-witness-may-have-shown-up-too-early?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19382248-prosecution-zimmerman-witness-may-have-shown-up-too-early?lite)

"Editor's note: George Zimmerman has sued NBC Universal for defamation. The company strongly denies the allegation." My favorite lines in that whole article, tbh. Thanks, NBC, you made me smirk.

And thanks, Sleepy, for the link. Much appreciated.

As for a mistrial, I sincerely hope they move for one.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Auri-El on July 20, 2013, 07:01:54 pm
How does that work, though? If a mistrial is declared after he was acquitted, does the verdict get thrown out, or is he protected under double jeopardy?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Clochette on July 20, 2013, 07:02:53 pm
Someone probably could, but the question is would it have any effect?

Zimmerman can't be tried again, right? That would be double jeopardy.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 07:16:00 pm
Since it is the states screw up I don't think Zimmerman can get retried.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 20, 2013, 08:02:20 pm
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.

Legally, no.  If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony.  That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 20, 2013, 10:34:17 pm
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.

Legally, no.  If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony.  That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.

Yes, you are correct.  Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin.  There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life. 
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 21, 2013, 12:18:28 am
They pulled it out of their ass for Zimmerman, and he was the one who had the fucking gun.

The court could've reasonably proven Martin's innocence... assuming they didn't crucify him for being a black kid.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Askold on July 21, 2013, 12:27:38 am
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.

Legally, no.  If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony.  That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.

Yes, you are correct.  Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin.  There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life. 

Why did Zimmerman have to threaten Martin? I thought that (this court at least) said that Stand your ground is in effect if the defender BELIEVES that their life is in danger?

Zimmerman was released because the jury believed that HE believed that Martin might have killed him. Martin was stalked and cornered by an armed thug, now explain to me why Martin had to have proof that his life was in danger?

(I hate to say, is it because he was black? But the only other differences are that he was unarmed and that he is now dead.)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 21, 2013, 01:12:57 am
Trust me if Zimmerman was black then he would have gotten convicted
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 21, 2013, 01:14:44 am
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.

Legally, no.  If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony.  That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.

Yes, you are correct.  Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin.  There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life. 

Why did Zimmerman have to threaten Martin? I thought that (this court at least) said that Stand your ground is in effect if the defender BELIEVES that their life is in danger?

Zimmerman was released because the jury believed that HE believed that Martin might have killed him. Martin was stalked and cornered by an armed thug, now explain to me why Martin had to have proof that his life was in danger?

(I hate to say, is it because he was black? But the only other differences are that he was unarmed and that he is now dead.)
Exactly my point. All he had to do was believe he was in danger. Therefore, legally, he could have legally killed Zimmerman. However, in reality, he couldn't legally kill Zimmerman, because he's black.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: kefkaownsall on July 21, 2013, 01:24:03 am
Seeing as in the same state two black people with stronger cases then if Trayvon shot Zimmerman were told they couldn't stand their ground pretty much
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: mythbuster43 on July 21, 2013, 02:59:36 am
All for the love of god, not this shit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/was-treyvon-at-7-11-buying-skittles-and-fruit-juice-to-make-a-drug/).
Quote
Was Trayvon at 7-11 Buying Skittles and Fruit Juice to Make a Drug?

It's the Gateway Pundit, so that kind of stupidity is not unexpected. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs doesn't call Jim Hoft "the Dumbest Man on the Internet" for nothing.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: m52nickerson on July 21, 2013, 12:50:35 pm
Obama's speech was awesome.

The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.

Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.

Legally, no.  If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony.  That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.

Yes, you are correct.  Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin.  There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life. 

Why did Zimmerman have to threaten Martin? I thought that (this court at least) said that Stand your ground is in effect if the defender BELIEVES that their life is in danger?

Zimmerman was released because the jury believed that HE believed that Martin might have killed him. Martin was stalked and cornered by an armed thug, now explain to me why Martin had to have proof that his life was in danger?

(I hate to say, is it because he was black? But the only other differences are that he was unarmed and that he is now dead.)

Sorry, I meant to say Zimmerman would not have had to actually threatened Martin.

The state would have had to prove Martin feared for his life because Zimmerman was the one on trial.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: ThunderWulf on July 22, 2013, 07:51:51 pm
I know this has probably been mentioned since I don't feel like going through all 15 pages that have been posted on here since I last looked at this thread, but I just wanted to say this.

Regardless of Trayvon's actions and whether or not he attacked Zimmerman or to what extent etc., Zimmerman PURPOSELY PUT HIMSELF in that situation.  He went out of his way to follow Trayvon, even though a dispatcher recommended he didn't, and had his weapon ready and already drawn when he went after Trayvon.  Whether or not Trayvon did or didn't attack him or if Zimmerman's life was or wasn't in danger, he was very obviously looking for an excuse to be a vigilante.  If he hadn't gone out of his way and purposely put himself in a situation where he may need to use his gun so he could be the badass hero, none of this would have ever happened.  So yes, Zimmerman is guilty of AT LEAST manslaughter, NO MATTER WHAT Trayvon's actions were.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Meshakhad on July 23, 2013, 11:17:42 am
I'm not as angry about this, because I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was defending himself. Maybe after the altercation started, Trayvon quickly got the upper hand, and decided to go a step further. Maybe he was on top, and said something about teaching Zimmerman a lesson. At which point, Zimmerman feared that Trayvon might kill him. For that matter, Trayvon may have actually intended to do so.

I agree that he's probably guilty, but it's far from a sure thing. What is important is that this went to a trial. Remember, the police were originally not going to so much as charge Zimmerman. That's where the controversy really got going. If they had booked him immediately, I don't think the media would have latched on to the same degree.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: DiscoBerry on July 23, 2013, 12:33:03 pm
The Conspiratards have chimed in, and I have to say I thought this would have happened much sooner.   

Trayvon Martin Never Exsisted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7NQWqjiSUc

How the fuck do you look up school enrollment of minors?
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on July 23, 2013, 01:03:00 pm
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: DiscoBerry on July 23, 2013, 01:43:17 pm
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.

(click to show/hide)

I have to say his clothes are not the baggy gansta sag, the right said they were
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: R. U. Sirius on July 23, 2013, 04:20:21 pm
The Conspiratards have chimed in, and I have to say I thought this would have happened much sooner.   

Trayvon Martin Never Exsisted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7NQWqjiSUc

How the fuck do you look up school enrollment of minors?

I can't help thinking this is a poe. Claiming there's nobody...not one single person...named Trayvon Martin in a country of 300 million people? I find that VERY difficult to believe, particularly since the screenshot they showed seemed to have double-digit results.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: KZN02 on July 23, 2013, 07:09:50 pm
The Conspiratards have chimed in, and I have to say I thought this would have happened much sooner.   

Trayvon Martin Never Exsisted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7NQWqjiSUc

How the fuck do you look up school enrollment of minors?

I can't help thinking this is a poe. Claiming there's nobody...not one single person...named Trayvon Martin in a country of 300 million people? I find that VERY difficult to believe, particularly since the screenshot they showed seemed to have double-digit results.
Which is ironic, considering the photos of people with the same name (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp) used to portray Trayvon in a negative light.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on July 23, 2013, 08:57:30 pm
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.

(click to show/hide)

I have to say his clothes are not the baggy gansta sag, the right said they were

Seriously, I see rich white kids wearing that exact style of outfit all the time, and no one is accusing them of "looking gangster".

As an aside, I really regret having looked at that picture. His facial expression is just.... christ, I don't even know how to put it into words. I hope like hell his family hasn't seen it.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: Zygarde on July 24, 2013, 03:30:12 am
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.

(click to show/hide)


...It's very eerie how similar me and Trayvon are physically it's all so surreal and a bit scary that if the right conditions are met, dead kid could be me.
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: gomer21xx on July 24, 2013, 12:01:07 pm
A couple of my family members posted this (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=608832945815209&set=vb.100000655287332&type=2&theater) video on Facebook.

And I honestly don't know what to make of it. o.o
Title: Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
Post by: R. U. Sirius on July 24, 2013, 02:04:10 pm
It's just another character assassination against Trayvon Martin.

It doesn't matter what Trayvon's character was.

It doesn't matter if he was making drugs with the drink and candy he had bought.

It doesn't even matter if he was winning the fight at the moment he was shot.

What matters is that George Zimmerman followed him against police orders, armed with a gun, based on no evidence other than the clothes Trayvon was wearing. What matters is that George Zimmerman went looking for trouble and couldn't take it when he found it. What matters is that George Zimmerman is solely responsible for everything that happened in that confrontation, up to and including the death of Trayvon Martin. Even if a credible self-defense case could have been built, which I highly doubt, it still remains that he started the confrontation.

In the therapy group I attend, one of the older white men said that "all Martin had to do was call back, 'I'm going home' and everything would have been fine." To which I snapped back, "If someone's following me and doesn't show a badge, I don't have to justify myself to them for anything. Plus, if someone's following me and doesn't identify themselves, I'm not going to give that person my destination or even head for my destination if I think they might be dangerous."

That video is nothing more than another attempt by the Right to assassinate Martin's character, using many of the same tactics that they decry in that very video, especially appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks and presenting opinions and speculation as fact.