The Zimmerman case?

  On 7/15/2013 at 6:44 AM, lumpenprol said:

I fingered Michelle does that count?

 

You score bonus points!

How did her vegetables taste?

Sensationalised media circus that has little to do with the original event. Racist murderer, throw away the key. Innocent citizen defends himself, let him go free. It's certainly not the kind of trial where truth is established and justice is done. Wahh he was black/white! He must be guilty/innocent.

"Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder." -Syreeta McFadden

but he didn't. none of his (relevant) background was brought into the trial. did you even look at or read about it?

  On 7/15/2013 at 8:16 AM, J3FF3R00 said:

"Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder." -Syreeta McFadden

im actually pretty confident that this has happened in multiple countries.

  On 7/15/2013 at 8:22 AM, MisterE said:

but he didn't. none of his (relevant) background was brought into the trial. did you even look at or read about it?

None of his background information was relevant.

first of all the main point is that it wasn't brought into the trial.

2nd the fact that he got into fights frequently and enjoyed them and bragged about it and had a brother asking to teach him how to fight was irrelevant? zim's whole defense was that he acted in self defense, which requires that he not be the initial aggressor. can you tell me how someone having a history of frequently being in fights and getting into trouble because of them is completely irrelevant to who may have started it?

if this weren't the case it was, if zim hadn't become a stand-in for a white guy in a white on black racism nationwide spectacle, would that background have been declared irrelevant by the judge? in some cases, yeah, it is, but it seems like it's according to the whim of the judge. so i guess since this judge ruled it irrelevant in this case, it WAS, to the actual trial as it went down. it's not irrelevant to me and my opinion in the matter though, and i think it's dumb of people to want to judge on their own and see zimmerman 'pay' when these facts are out there and they want to simply ignore them. but again the main point is that it was NOT brought into the trial, so i still have to wonder how trayvon was the one on trial there.

on the other hand, was trayvons 12 year old pic that the media insisted on using and still do to this day relevant?

  On 7/15/2013 at 8:16 AM, J3FF3R00 said:

"Only on the internet can any random unknown person be quoted and treated as some kind of expert." - Chunky Magee, WATMM member

IMHO This guy was a vigilante with an axe to grind who went out with a weapon looking for someone to use it on.

The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time and scuffled with the wrong guy.

"Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."

  On 7/15/2013 at 6:03 AM, lumpenprol said:

it's worst than the holocoste, which is ironick that shooter was white Jew

he's not jewish.

And yet in the same state...

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/324906/19/Fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots

i agree that case looks fucked. i agree with that, though, because i think people have a right to defend themselves. that article is being a bit dishonest when it tries to imply that zimmerman used the stand your ground defense in court.

but with regard to what zim said on the 911 tape, my opinion is that punching someone in the nose and slamming their head into a sidewalk, kind of does make you an asshole. actually it makes you a big one. even if they followed you for like several feet i would still consider you an asshole for doing that. but scuffle sounds so much more innocent and is hard to argue with so i guess you have a point.

but i would expect that if i broke a guy's nose and slammed his head into a sidewalk, i'll probably end up going to jail or prison if i'm caught. it's kinda frowned on. even if he actually did 'follow' me before i did that. he could have prob followed me for over 100 meters, and since following someone is perfectly legal, it wouldn't help me in my trial when i was in court for jumping him and slamming his head into the pavement. trayvon prob knew that too and didn't intend on getting caught....

so how many more times was he going to slam his head if zim hadn't shot? does anyone here know? does anyone expect that he was just coincidentally going to stop right at that moment? was zimmerman supposed to assume that a guy slamming his head over and over was just going to stop? so if any one of us is having our head slammed into the pavement, are we supposed to think of that person and their safety if we have a means to stop them, before we think of our own safety, which is already non-existent?

if zimmerman planned on shooting this kid to get some good use out of his gun, why did he call the cops to be on their way just before doing it? if zim was so racist why did he mentor some black kids? why did he take a black girl to his prom?

A man goes following a person who he feels is "up to no good" despite already calling the police and being told not to pursue.

He follows the person anyway which causes a confrontation. This ends in a fight where both people are on the ground.

The man shoots the other person.

Who's at fault here?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10179180/Trayvon-Martin-killing-US-Department-of-Justice-announces-review-of-Zimmerman-case.html

dude was 17. i don't care how much taller he was. zimmerman was 29 and doesn't look much like the wind would knock him over. i don't understand how some 17 year old could so easily overtake him and overpower him. adrenaline?

also, about the history of getting in to fights.... martin really is an anomaly. a teenaged boy who gets in to fights. i grew up with people like that. they're called teenagers.

:mistere:

  On 7/15/2013 at 9:24 AM, chunky said:

 

  On 7/15/2013 at 8:16 AM, J3FF3R00 said:

 

"Only on the internet can any random unknown person be quoted and treated as some kind of expert." - Chunky Magee, WATMM member

Touché.

Good work watmm. Lumpy wins this thread

I made a film years ago about George Zimmerman. I fucked up my ending, wherein he would have had a cavalry sword shoved up his ass.

Nonetheless, here is all that I'm willing to read on this topic for the next week.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/

  Quote

I have seen nothing within the actual case presented by the prosecution that would allow for a stable and unvacillating belief that George Zimmerman was guilty.

That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

-----

 

When you have a society that takes at its founding the hatred and degradation of a people, when that society inscribes that degradation in its most hallowed document, and continues to inscribe hatred in its laws and policies, it is fantastic to believe that its citizens will derive no ill messaging.

It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended. To expect our juries, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final play in the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn't come back from twenty-four down.

To paraphrase a great man -- We are what our record says we are. How can we sensibly expect different?

 

You should not be troubled that George Zimmerman "got away" with the killing of Trayvon Martin, you should be troubled that you live in a country that ensures that Trayvon Martin will happen. Trayvon Martin is happening again in Florida. Right now:

Okay, I lied. Here's two more things to consider:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

  Quote

The Florida killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen earlier this year, has brought national attention to the laws that allow people to use lethal force to defend themselves.

At least 20 states have laws with provisions that don’t require civilians to flee from an intruder before fighting back, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, eight states, all of them in the south, specifically use the phrasing, “Stand Your Ground.” That includes Florida.

Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense, these laws have been defended by gun rights groups for empowering civilians. They’ve also been criticized by civil rights groups for encouraging violence and being racially biased.

A recent study suggests that laws may lead to more deaths. According to a June study [pdf] by researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws.

The study, which analyzed FBI crime data nationwide from 2000-2009, says it could mean either that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the use of violence in states with the laws. “Regardless, the study said, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”

  On 7/15/2013 at 6:46 AM, MisterE said:

but apparently it's much too far fetched that the gov would ever be involved in something like that. riiiight. because the media really stands to gain the most from it. the media has a running history with enjoying the vast majority of votes from all of the various minority groups out there, which helps keeps them fat, rich, and powerful. the media actually has to worry about keeping those votes.

 

who would've figured you were just as conspiratorial as any of the people you insult, but it's apparently not idiotic when the conspiracy has to do with the government manipulating the media to exacerbate a racial divide to get votes. Bravo

hey, what does everyone think of these florida teens who decided to engage in florida most popular past time

Some fat mestizo kills a black teen... everyone blames whitey, everyone call the teen a "child". Either way, justice for Trayman.

apparently I wasn't completely right about the stand your ground law not being involved in the case. even though the defense didn't invoke it, it was in the jury instructions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/15/after_aiding_zimmermans_case_alec_backed

I wonder what role this played in the jury's deliberation. supposedly one of the jurors is planning on writing a book.

  On 7/16/2013 at 1:56 AM, vasio said:

Some fat mestizo kills a black teen... everyone blames whitey, everyone call the teen a "child". Either way, justice for Trayman.

he wasn't fat when he shot him lol.

Quote from the BBC:

"If it had been a white boy who had been murdered, and a black guy who had murdered him, would they have acquitted him?"

The president is black now (or half black/half jew, whatever), so these arguments are hysterical. With Rodney King you had the video tape and anyone can see that the police were in the wrong. With this case it's different. If someone could bring some decent evidence like a video of the killing then it would be sorted out. What we get instead is 'ugh yeah trayvon's cousin's girlfriend's uncle said that trayvon was totally under-toadstooled maaahn" then you get 'no way dood zimmerman had that triple authorised and rubberstamped by an inflatable jabberwocky'. Every communist Phd has the pure evidence that is completely made up then every NRA member has his own bullshit too because nobody except the shooter knows what happened. Actually Obama said the right thing about accepting the verdict, it's quite funny how the 'bipartisan' stuff works. If Romney was President the Zimmerman guy would have been convicted.It's weird that the jewish press/media push for leaders to do the opposite of what their own voters want but there you are. It's a funny old world!!!!

  On 7/15/2013 at 8:53 PM, Mirezzi said:

 

Okay, I lied. Here's two more things to consider:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

 

  Quote

The Florida killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen earlier this year, has brought national attention to the laws that allow people to use lethal force to defend themselves.

At least 20 states have laws with provisions that don’t require civilians to flee from an intruder before fighting back, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, eight states, all of them in the south, specifically use the phrasing, “Stand Your Ground.” That includes Florida.

Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense, these laws have been defended by gun rights groups for empowering civilians. They’ve also been criticized by civil rights groups for encouraging violence and being racially biased.

A recent study suggests that laws may lead to more deaths. According to a June study [pdf] by researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws.

The study, which analyzed FBI crime data nationwide from 2000-2009, says it could mean either that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the use of violence in states with the laws. “Regardless, the study said, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”

 

So people are just defending their houses now instead of running away (or getting shot by not shooting first). Seems like a positive development.