State v Zimmerman

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:08 pm

Live trial here -- http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx? ... 4667563001 (they just took a 1 hour recess until 1pm)

However, for those interested in discussing the trial, I thought starting a thread with a link to the live broadcast of the trial would be helpful.

If a mod wishes to merge with the other Zimmerman related thread,that's cool too.

User avatar
Collector1337
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:24 am
About me: I am a satire of your stereotype about me.
Location: US Mother Fucking A
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Collector1337 » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:31 pm

The fact a case of self-defense like this makes it this far, goes to show what a joke the so-called "justice" system is.

What a fucking waste of tax payer dollars.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51317
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:32 pm

A youtube summary at the end of each week would be good.

Zimmerman is guilty. Of being an idiot.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:34 pm

Collector1337 wrote:The fact a case of self-defense like this makes it this far, goes to show what a joke the so-called "justice" system is.

What a fucking waste of tax payer dollars.
Self defense will often make it this far. It's up to the jury to decide if it was self-defense.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Animavore » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:36 pm

He shot a black person. He'll get away with it regardless.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.


Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:04 pm

On the second day of the George Zimmerman trial, prosecutors attempted to paint Zimmerman as an increasingly overzealous neighborhood watch participant who finally snapped after law enforcement did not respond to his calls. Meanwhile, defense got a prosecution witness to admit that Zimmerman’s call to police about alleged victim Trayvon Martin was justified based on Zimmerman’s description of events.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... suspicious

The defense established an important factual element of Zimmerman's case: A prosecution witness admitted that Zimmerman's call to police was justified based on Zimmerman's description of events on the phone.
Meanwhile, defense attorney Mark O’Mara cross-examined Wendy Dorival, who served as volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police Department. Dorival stated that neighborhood watch volunteers were not supposed to follow suspects, but added that she thought Zimmerman was a professional person, and had tried to recruit him to a citizens patrol program. She said that it was suspicious that a person – Trayvon Martin – was walking in the rain between houses without a particular purpose.
According to another witness, a 911 operator, it is not within the purview of 911 operators to give orders to callers.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tyrannical » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:16 pm

Tero wrote:A youtube summary at the end of each week would be good.

Zimmerman is guilty. Of being an idiot.
What's dumber than an idiot? Because that is what Trayvon was. Any number of words would have sent Zimmerman happily on his way. Instead Trayvon ends up on top of Zimmerman beating him into the ground.

Zimmerman actually liked black people which is the kicker. Did you know he once reported a cop for using excessive force on a homeless black man? Not your typical racist.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51317
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:17 pm

But it's perfectly legal to walk in the rain between houses without a purpose, just as it is legal for an overzealous wanna be cop to wander around in the rain with a gun in his pants. If we could just make all these idiots just to meet up with each other,not the rest of us. Wandering around with skittle and ice tea and maybe a little dope in your head should not lead to a deadly force situation if ether had any brains.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:25 pm

Tero wrote:But it's perfectly legal to walk in the rain between houses without a purpose, just as it is legal for an overzealous wanna be cop to wander around in the rain with a gun in his pants. If we could just make all these idiots just to meet up with each other,not the rest of us. Wandering around with skittle and ice tea and maybe a little dope in your head should not lead to a deadly force situation if ether had any brains.
It's perfectly legal to have a crow bar, a balaclava, gloves, rope and a lock-pick, but having those things under certain circumstances does create a suspicion that one might be up to something.

Similarly, walking around, in the dark, at night, between houses (not on sidewalks but across what amounts to people's yards, without a particular purpose, scoping things out, may well seems suspicious, too.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51317
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:38 pm

Maybe we could make it some kind of game. Assign pairs of these clueless people to act out their perversions. Then when Z shoots the gun with blanks, they shake hands and go home. Game over.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tyrannical » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:17 pm

Tero wrote:But it's perfectly legal to walk in the rain between houses without a purpose, just as it is legal for an overzealous wanna be cop to wander around in the rain with a gun in his pants. If we could just make all these idiots just to meet up with each other,not the rest of us. Wandering around with skittle and ice tea and maybe a little dope in your head should not lead to a deadly force situation if ether had any brains.
Actually, he was trespassing on people's back lawns.

You know it wasn't ice tea, right? It was Arizona Ice Team Company watermelon fruit punch, which is mixed with skittles and cough syrup as mentioned on Trayvon's Facebook page.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:48 pm

Tero wrote:Maybe we could make it some kind of game. Assign pairs of these clueless people to act out their perversions. Then when Z shoots the gun with blanks, they shake hands and go home. Game over.
I also think it would be perfectly reasonable for someone in the neighborhood, seeing Zimmerman parked on the street for a long period of time sitting in his truck scoping out the neighborhood to call the police and ask them to check it out because there is a suspicious dude sitting in a truck on the street for no apparent purpose. And, I think it would be perfectly fine for a person to walk up to Mr. Zimmerman's car and say to him -- "what are you doing here?" It would not, in that circumstance, be appropriate for Zimmerman to attack the guy, and if Zimmerman did attack the guy who approached him and asked "what are you doing here?" then it would be reasonable for that person to defend himself. It may be "stupid" to approach a person in a car that way, of course, but that's another matter.

I think that if Zimmerman were a black man, and Martin was white, and Zimmerman did exactly the same things as reported, that most people would not think it reasonable for Martin to attack Zimmerman.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51317
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:56 pm

Yes well, we clearly have a 29 year old idiot and a teen idiot. Which one would you think has some experience to counteract his lack of smarts?

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51317
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:54 pm


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests