Zimmerman arrested again

[Michchamp]

Nobody made those arguments. Nobody is holding GZ out to be a hero. Nobody is celebrating the things he did before, during or after that night. Nobody is even saying he's a great guy. But Champ's side lost - every law enforcement agency that investigated the case except Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's DOJ plus a jury of Zimmerman's peers determined Zimmerman acted in self defense. All he has left is spin.

LOL, Al Sharpton is a law enforcement agency now? "Jesse Jackson's DOJ"? WTF?

You pretend like you're some more-educated, well-thought out intellectual "conservative," but your rants are just as unhinged as the next dumbass Fox News parrot.

Actually the county DA's didn't "determine" Zimmerman acted in self defense... they charged him (eventually) with second degree murder, you clod.

 

[Spartanmack]

LOL, Al Sharpton is a law enforcement agency now? "Jesse Jackson's DOJ"? WTF?

You pretend like you're some more-educated, well-thought out intellectual "conservative," but your rants are just as unhinged as the next dumbass Fox News parrot.

Actually the county DA's didn't "determine" Zimmerman acted in self defense... they charged him (eventually) with second degree murder, you clod.

I didn't think you were so stupid that you wouldn't see the joke in there - that Holder and Obama kowtow to the race baiters and give them undue influence - but I guess I was wrong. You are that stupid. By the way, nice unhinged rant you went on to accuse me of going on unhinged rants because you're too dumb to get the joke. You clod.

And the County's DA did not charge Zimmerman. A special prosecutor, Angela Corey who is from the 4th District (Sanford is in the 18th) was assigned to take the place of the county DA. Corey then chose to forego a grand jury and determine whether to charge Zimmerman herself. Corey has been accused of withholding discovery data from the defense (she fired her director of IT after he mentioned he was concerned about the information being withheld). She was also accused by Alan Dershowitz (who you probably hate because although he is a liberal, he is also Jewish and we all know you're an anti-semitic asshole bigot), of filing a false and misleading Probable Cause affadavit. Sounds like a real winner.

 

[Michchamp]

it's not normal to need to convene a grand jury to charge someone with murder after they admitted to shooting and killing an unarmed kid, the police showed up on the scene...

this was not a complicated case.

 

[Spartanmack]

this was not a complicated case.

I agree. An unfortunate and horrible tragedy, but not overly complicated.

 

[Michchamp]

I agree. An unfortunate and horrible tragedy, but not overly complicated.

right... a douchey, cop-wannabe, loser with a violent history (both before and after the incident) stalked and shot a kid to death. Murder 2.

the case became a national issue when local cops & DA didn't lift a finger to prosecute him. and then dumbasses (like you) fell all over themselves to defend George Zimmerman and his conduct, including hailing him as a local hero and good guy to his neighbors, while denying hailing him as s local hero and good guy.

That about sum it up for you, jacko?

 

[Spartanmack]

right... a cop-wannabe with no history of violence before the incident was assaulted by a person he wasn't profiling but thought looked suspicious who he shot in self defense but was charged with Murder 2 after a media circus turned this into something it wasn't and demanded an indictment.

the case became a national issue when local cops & DA declared he acted in self defense when outraged race baiters hailed as Civil Rights icons by dumbasses (like me). and then those same dumbasses (like me) fell all over themselves to convict him in the court of public opinion of racially profiling and murdering a sweet little boy (who was actually a violent criminal) making him out to be the poster child for how America is the most racist place in the world.

That about sum it up for you, jacko?

Edited for accuracy...

Verdict: Not guilty.

There, that about does it.

 

[Thumb]

Wait, you're actually claiming now that Treyvon was a violent criminal?

Do you ever get tired of talking out of your ass?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Person A
- suspended for fighting and drug possession at school
- posts photos of himself getting high on social media
- has text exchange w/ friends on his phone re: narcotics deals such as codeine, marijuana, etc
- has text exchange w/ friends about putting together gun deals
- posts photos of himself w/ his homies flashing gang signs, flashing cash and his gold teeth, tattoos and guns

I don't think he got suspended for fighting. Most of the violent image stuff came from his own tweets (so it could have been teenage posturing); I don't think he ever got in trouble over anything involving violence. He got in trouble for drugs, spraypainting, and he was caught with women's jewelry (including wedding bands) that was impounded, but nobody figured out where it came from and Martin refused to say who had given it to him.

There was trouble, but nothing that really shows that he was violent. The defense didn't even bring that stuff into the trail.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think he got suspended for fighting. Most of the violent image stuff came from his own tweets (so it could have been teenage posturing); I don't think he ever got in trouble over anything involving violence. He got in trouble for drugs, spraypainting, and he was caught with women's jewelry (including wedding bands) that was impounded, but nobody figured out where it came from and Martin refused to say who had given it to him.

There was trouble, but nothing that really shows that he was violent. The defense didn't even bring that stuff into the trail.

Well, it wasn't really relevent at the trial, since Zimmerman obviously didn't know who Martin was, let alone was he aware of his online presence. And pictures on the web really doesn't mean someone was violent, nor does it support the idea that he would've ambushed Zimmerman.

on a slightly related note... if you heard about a black kid getting killed, and someone dropped words like "thug," said he should pull his pants up, posted obvious race-baiting pics of the kid posing on the web, all for the purpose of either implying or explicitly saying it supported the kid being violent and excusing his murder... you'd consider that a tad racist, wouldn't you?

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't think he got suspended for fighting. Most of the violent image stuff came from his own tweets (so it could have been teenage posturing); I don't think he ever got in trouble over anything involving violence. He got in trouble for drugs, spraypainting, and he was caught with women's jewelry (including wedding bands) that was impounded, but nobody figured out where it came from and Martin refused to say who had given it to him.

There was trouble, but nothing that really shows that he was violent. The defense didn't even bring that stuff into the trail.

My bad, confusing his texts w/ the suspension - that doesn't change much though. And wouldn't that stuff all be inadmissible in at trial? Maybe not since Trayvon wasn't on trial but according to a Daily Mail piece (first one that shows up in Google search) the judge ruled that some of the Trayvon Martin's texts and other social media statements and pictures of him getting high, etc won't be allowed in opening statements in the murder trial of George Zimmerman. Not sure if they were allowed during other proceedings but I'm late for a dinner downtown - will have to look later.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well, it wasn't really relevent at the trial, since Zimmerman obviously didn't know who Martin was, let alone was he aware of his online presence. And pictures on the web really doesn't mean someone was violent, nor does it support the idea that he would've ambushed Zimmerman.

on a slightly related note... if you heard about a black kid getting killed, and someone dropped words like "thug," said he should pull his pants up, posted obvious race-baiting pics of the kid posing on the web, all for the purpose of either implying or explicitly saying it supported the kid being violent and excusing his murder... you'd consider that a tad racist, wouldn't you?

If someone did all that, sure, I'd suspect racial bias. Although, "obvious race-baiting pics" is kind of a subjective thing, and there really was an issue of the press using old pictures of Martin as a little kid.

 

[Gulo Blue]

My bad, confusing his texts w/ the suspension - that doesn't change much though. And wouldn't that stuff all be inadmissible in at trial? Maybe not since Trayvon wasn't on trial but according to a Daily Mail piece (first one that shows up in Google search) the judge ruled that some of the Trayvon Martin's texts and other social media statements and pictures of him getting high, etc won't be allowed in opening statements in the murder trial of George Zimmerman. Not sure if they were allowed during other proceedings but I'm late for a dinner downtown - will have to look later.

Yeah. It really doesn't matter. Whether Martin tended towards violence or Zimmerman was unhinged...it doesn't clear up the picture.

We've got Zimmerman's story, little to no conflicting evidence, and we didn't get much of anyone else's side of the story. There's not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. The police questioned Zimmerman for 5 hours, he passed some sort of stress test lie detector, they consulted the attorneys, and they initially determined there wasn't enough evidence to go to trial (even though the police wasn't to go with a manslaughter charge.) With political pressure, there was a crap load of investigating, but still, not enough evidence to prove anything.

I think that's mostly factual. Beyond that, everyone seems to have a lot of opinions. I think Zimmerman was a d-bag during the trial and has been a d-bag since and I'm pretty suspicious that he got away with manslaughter or murder.

 

[tigersofjustice]

Oh, I didn't realize actual acts aren't indicative of one's personality. And if a kid who gets high isn't a thug and another kid gets in a fight isn't a thug and another kid who posts thuggish pictures of himself on social media also isn't a thug then it stands to reason that if one person does ALL of those things plus sells drugs and guns, he's probably not a a thug.

Or are you saying what matters is your personal biased conjecture, which after ignoring actual acts, you've decided Zimmerman was the thug and Trayvon was just a sweet little boy? Or are you saying that I'm the one fixating on a single "act" to draw an unrealistic conclusion? I'm not, that's what you're doing. But if so, let's try a little exercise. Here's a list of all the things two people have done. Take a look at the them, study 'em for a bit, then tell me which person you think is a thug:

Person A
- suspended for fighting and drug possession at school
- posts photos of himself getting high on social media
- has text exchange w/ friends on his phone re: narcotics deals such as codeine, marijuana, etc
- has text exchange w/ friends about putting together gun deals
- posts photos of himself w/ his homies flashing gang signs, flashing cash and his gold teeth, tattoos and guns

Person B
- pushed a cop 7 years ago when he was drunk and just 21 years old (do college aged kids do stupid stuff when they're drunk?) but is now a neighborhood watch captain who regularly voluntarily helps out neighbors in need.

By the way, have you ever spoken to a cop? People resist arrest ALL the time and they get "assaulted" quite regularly. Maybe not in whatever sleepy little suburb you may live in where they hand out speeding tickets and bust drunk drivers

I give up. Now you are trying to suggest resisting arrest isn't all that bad because it happens "ALL the time". Ok.

 

[tigersofjustice]

Nobody made those arguments. Nobody is holding GZ out to be a hero. Nobody is celebrating the things he did before, during or after that night. Nobody is even saying he's a great guy. But Champ's side lost - every law enforcement agency that investigated the case except Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's DOJ plus a jury of Zimmerman's peers determined Zimmerman acted in self defense. All he has left is spin.

There is legal self defense and there is moral right/wrong.

I don't even think champ is arguing that what Zimmerman did was not meeting the legal definition under Florida law of self defense that couldn't be negated beyond a reasonable doubt. I would actually agree that it did....because it is a poorly written law that gives anyone and everyone the green light to kill anybody when they feel legitimately threatened no matter how that situation evolved.

That said, he was in the wrong, morally. He caused that kids death unnecessarily by acting like an idiot. He put himself in a position to have his 'life threatened' by acting like an idiot. And because he's a tubby lard ass who can't fight as you previously stated, he killed a kid because he couldn't reasonably defend himself from a couple of fists without lethal force. He would have been convicted of something in a number of states, but Florida is a bit different. He is still morally wrong for the incident.

Martin didn't help himself because he could have run rather than stayed and fought. But that is the nature of fight or flight, either/or will happen depending on the person and the situation and neither is unreasonable. Just shows you that to be safe, running is probably the better option, especially when the other party is fat.

 

[Spartanmack]

I give up. Now you are trying to suggest resisting arrest isn't all that bad because it happens "ALL the time". Ok.

Are you intentionally ignoring everything except one little misconstrued detail so you can dismiss my argument on the basis of something I'm not saying?

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah. It really doesn't matter. Whether Martin tended towards violence or Zimmerman was unhinged...it doesn't clear up the picture.

We've got Zimmerman's story, little to no conflicting evidence, and we didn't get much of anyone else's side of the story. There's not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. The police questioned Zimmerman for 5 hours, he passed some sort of stress test lie detector, they consulted the attorneys, and they initially determined there wasn't enough evidence to go to trial (even though the police wasn't to go with a manslaughter charge.) With political pressure, there was a crap load of investigating, but still, not enough evidence to prove anything.

I think that's mostly factual. Beyond that, everyone seems to have a lot of opinions. I think Zimmerman was a d-bag during the trial and has been a d-bag since and I'm pretty suspicious that he got away with manslaughter or murder.

That pretty much sums it up. Although, as I've said it's my opinion that GZ acted in self defense that night. I don't think he wanted to kill him or that Martin deserved to die and like most reasonable people - probably even Zimmerman (at the time anyway, who knows what he thinks now after having been through all the investigations and trials, death threats, etc), I wish he hadn't. If Zimmerman is justified in shooting Martin in self defense, Martin's death however tragic, doesn't change that.

And my opinion that Martin was a thug, speaks to the likelihood that he put himself in that situation and assaulted Zimmerman - by no means am I saying he deserved to die because he was a thug or if other prefer, acted "thuggish". All these guys screaming form the mountain tops that you're always better off fleeing even when armed (see "Gun Rights FAIL" thread) - do they think that Martin shouldn't or couldn't have fled? Are they saying he was cornered in a wide open space? or that a sinewy 17 year old kid who played football couldn't outrun a fat piece of crap like GZ? It doesn't add up.

 

[Michchamp]

There is legal self defense and there is moral right/wrong.

I don't even think champ is arguing that what Zimmerman did was not meeting the legal definition under Florida law of self defense that couldn't be negated beyond a reasonable doubt. I would actually agree that it did....because it is a poorly written law that gives anyone and everyone the green light to kill anybody when they feel legitimately threatened no matter how that situation evolved.

this is not exactly what I'm arguing, for reasons you touch on below.

Self defense is one thing; what Zimmerman did was not self-defense though. Under traditional common law (and under the majority view of most states' laws) you could not successfully plead self-defense if you create the violent situation in the first place. This is just common sense, really, intended to require people to avoid conflict, let the authorities handle it, and not take matters into their own hands. Call the police. If the police aren't responsive, call your elected officials and get the police chief replaced. If the elected officials don't do anything, vote them out, or complain to your federal officials.

And there's obviously an need to avoid giving people an incentive to go around packing, picking fights, or looking for trouble, mouth writing checks their ass can't cover, then pleading self-defense after they have to resort a gun to defend themselves... like Zimmerman, apparently.

None of these things are new ideas... they've only been established through hundreds of years of criminal law & experience, going back to Medeival England, that showed this is unquestionably the way things should be.

The Florida-type "Stand Your Ground" laws completely screw all this up. Even though those were not at issue in Zimmerman's trial, they played a role in the Sanford PD's decision to simply let him walk.

That said, he was in the wrong, morally. He caused that kids death unnecessarily by acting like an idiot. He put himself in a position to have his 'life threatened' by acting like an idiot. And because he's a tubby lard ass who can't fight as you previously stated, he killed a kid because he couldn't reasonably defend himself from a couple of fists without lethal force. He would have been convicted of something in a number of states, but Florida is a bit different. He is still morally wrong for the incident. ...

exactly.

Zimmerman is human waste.

Martin may not have been an angel, but he was still just a kid, acting like a kid, doing things most kids do.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why does anybody think they know who started the fight?

 

[Michchamp]

Why does anybody think they know who started the fight?

it's really immaterial, since it's clear Zimmerman went out of the way to put himself in a violent situation. (except to internet lawyer wannabes like SpartanVag... who will make up anything and say anything no matter how preposterous it may be) and also since one side of the story was permanently silenced.

In a murder #2 or manslaughter trial, conducted by a competent prosecutor, as a juror it would come down to whether you believe Zimmerman is credible, or believe Martin was really that bad of a dude... (Look at this thug pose! He's a THUG! *wink wink* He's got Money in his hand!) and attacked Zimmerman, completely unprovoked while Zimmerman was trying to extricate himself from the situation.

that story seems ludicrous to me. Zimmerman should've taken his lumps and gone back to the gym. Also should have left policing to the professionals. The state, and the people of Florida (were they more like the people of say... oh, just about any state that's not an internet meme, and less like the people of Florida) had an overwhelming interest in seeing him convicted for the good of society. A good 10-20 years (eligible for parole) would've set him straight, and sent a message to other wannabe Dirty Harry's that the state won't tolerate Vigilante Justice, murder for being a black teen, etc.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's really immaterial

I don't believe that at all. If Zimmerman was no longer looking for Martin and was jumped that's an entirely different animal than if he found him and stopped him. There's a lot of ways it could have happened.