Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #43 - tacogrenade (08/13/2013) [-]
i wasnt really paying attention to the case buhhhh why was this man not pleed guilty??? he shot a innocent kidd...wtf..
#297 to #43 - funkyrednipples (08/14/2013) [-]
I seriously read all your comments. I think you honestly just hear everyone say Zimmerman killed someone and that's all you know of the subject. Then you asked a question and argued the correct answer.

Go **** yourself tacogrenade.
User avatar #321 to #297 - trunsako (08/14/2013) [-]
Thank you.
#53 to #43 - draeman (08/13/2013) [-]
It's Trayvon's brethren....they came back for revenge!
It's Trayvon's brethren....they came back for revenge!
User avatar #50 to #43 - trunsako (08/13/2013) [-]
An innocent kid that attacked a man with a gun. That tends to not end well in most situations.
User avatar #69 to #50 - binomancha (08/13/2013) [-]
watch the video this should be enough evidence for u.......unless your a troll then whayever
User avatar #51 to #50 - tacogrenade (08/13/2013) [-]
Still...maybe not innocent but was it really necessary to shoot himm.. you go to prison for accidentally killing anyone but an ADULT shoots a KID for SELF-DEFENSE and its ok?? Doesn't sound like justice to me..
User avatar #106 to #51 - derpyhoovezz (08/13/2013) [-]
If you were pinned on the ground, getting your ass beat, haveing your head smashed against the concrete(Wich can easily be fatal, if done correctly) You wouldnt just let it go and call the cops
User avatar #57 to #51 - trunsako (08/13/2013) [-]
If I was being viciously attacked by a stranger that fit the description of a criminal that was in the area. I'd shoot the ****** in a heartbeat because I don't know if he has a knife on him or not. And that is Justice, there was not enough evidence against George Zimmerman to pin him with murder. Remember justice is blind. And yes, it is ok. It's called Justifiable Homicide and it's a very strong argument in court cases that have enough evidence for it. What you're talking about is manslaughter, and in that case your life is not in danger thus had no reason of taking someone's life other than it was an accident.
User avatar #98 to #57 - slugnugget (08/13/2013) [-]
you mean the mexican manlet with a gun that who following a teenager around in the middle of the night? Yeh id throw ******* bricks at him too.
User avatar #61 to #57 - tacogrenade (08/13/2013) [-]
BUT ITS A ******* KID, CALL THE COPS LET THEM WORRY ABOUT IT. Like rpzombie commented, He aint ******* batman....
User avatar #70 to #61 - durkadurka (08/13/2013) [-]
> Trayvon was 17. He wasn't some little kid.
> Zimmerman had called the cops
> There's not much you can do when this guy is on top of you, beating the **** out of you.
User avatar #64 to #61 - roliga (08/13/2013) [-]
He's not a kid, he was bigger than George zimmerman, 17 years old, and a football star buying the ingredients for making drugs, you tell me thats a kid? ******** .
#59 to #57 - tacogrenade has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #60 to #59 - trunsako (08/13/2013) [-]
He did several times before. And when the cops arrived it was far too late and the robber was off with his loot.
User avatar #55 to #51 - tacogrenade (08/13/2013) [-]
Besides was there proof he was beat... scars bruces ?? he looked fine to me... Its like if a cop beat the **** out of a street kid cause he pushed him... w/e the more i think about the more pissed of i get.. w/e happen happen cant change that i guesss
User avatar #188 to #55 - defender (08/13/2013) [-]
Are you really that stupid or do you work extra hard at it?
#77 to #55 - Rascal (08/13/2013) [-]
Do you have any idea how stupid your comments make you look, you ******* ****** ?
User avatar #187 to #77 - DJstar (08/13/2013) [-]
Im black! my skin is like chorcoal color and if you walk around in a damn hoodie at night, of course you're gonna seem suspicious! he lived in what, florida? a hoodie in florida? how is that not looking suspicious!
#58 to #55 - trunsako (08/13/2013) [-]
Totally no evidence of scars or bruises.
#278 to #58 - amonomous (08/14/2013) [-]
That's not even him though.
User avatar #319 to #278 - wooyoungkim (08/14/2013) [-]
Yes he is you dumb cunt.
#323 to #319 - amonomous (08/15/2013) [-]
You can clearly see the difference between pictures...

Skin color, skinny-looking, ears not as out.
User avatar #324 to #323 - wooyoungkim (08/16/2013) [-]
There is something called the internet where you can actually find something called "credible" sources and "facts". This picture is one of them. Also Zimmerman was much skinnier during the time of the incident, like how Trayvon Martin didn't look like a 13 year old like the picture the media used to portray this "racist murder of an innocent black child"
#47 to #43 - Rascal (08/13/2013) [-]
He was found not guilty, because what the media loved to leave out, was that there was an alert in the area for a house robber on the loose in that area, and Treyvon matched the description. That being said, Zimmerman followed him, to make sure, and Treyvon martin went into his dads house, so zimmerman stopped following him. Later, Treyvon went out to find zimmerman for following him, and started beating the **** out of him, knocking him to the ground and starting to punch his head into the concrete. So zimmerman pulled a gun, and shot him in self defense. As for Treyvon being innocent, because the media loves to get idiots to make it a racial thing, Treyvon was a gang-banging little douche, and Zimmerman was mexican, not white, like they kept trying to make him.
#54 to #47 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
"there was an alert in the area for a house robber on the loose in that area, and Treyvon matched the description."

You act like zimmerman was a cop, Following anyone around town like that is stalking. It's just harassment and invasion of privacy. If zimm was ******* batman, your explanation would be completely logical and unbiased.

So let me try.

>Black kid goes to store, buys skittles and tea
>Mexican is on neighborhood watch and believes he's batman
>Mexican batman stalks black kid around town in the dark
>Black kid finds Mexican batman later that night. (presumably still stalking him, otherwise why would with grown man in a car get into a fist fight with a black kid walking around town.)
>Black kid overpowers mexican batman aka zimm in a fist fight
>Black kid gets shot.
>Zimm supporters unite and say "the little ****** was a criminal anyway"

</current events>

I'm sick of hearing of the case too honestly, as a legal student I was bombarded by this ******** story on a daily basis. I don't care if zimm gets away with it, this case was nothing special. Hundreds of blatantly racially charges murders happened just during the time this case was awaiting trial and nobody gave a **** . Thats just society, nobody gives a **** .
#73 to #54 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
Stalking, in a legal definition:
Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.
Following a person around a neighborhood (over the course of an hour or so) is not legally considered stalking.
Should he have been acting like batman? No, but it's wasn't illegal.
#83 to #73 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
The time frame being an hour or more or less is debatable. And there's simply no legitimate reason for him to be following the boy. Additionally this is not a figure of legal authority or supervision. This is a man, following a little boy in the dark. Some people would call this suspicious behavior of a potential rapist.

As for your definition, If you knew anything about actual law you'd know every state has their own Statutes which define the elements of each criminal and civil offense within that jurisdiction. So your general definition nit-picking is completely oblivious. You should delete that comment. You're embarrassing yourself.

I don't mean to be a dick, but those are generalized definitions used to educate the public on the meaning of common offenses and are in no way a reliable way to research the particular elements of a crime within a given state. An actual state statues would either list a time frame, or a basis for determination such as there being a non-malicious motivation for the actions which could lead a person to believe it wasn't just to stalk the person. And in this case he was blatantly following trayvon and has admitted such.

I went to law school for 2 years, please. Save the Google searches.
#266 to #83 - tinypoodle (08/14/2013) [-]
Oh my gosh he was not a 'little boy'!!!! He was a rather tall and fit 17 year old, not some innocent little toddler. One more year and he'd be called an adult. Stop making him seem so harmless.
User avatar #315 to #266 - rprzombie (08/14/2013) [-]
he died after just turning 17 and was only 5"11 thats not abnormally tall. and contrary to pictures that aren't him such as in the content above. He was very skinny.
User avatar #317 to #315 - rprzombie (08/14/2013) [-]
just to add on, he was 157lbs at death, kinda tiny imo. I was larger at that age and ive always been skinny.
#101 to #83 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
1. "I don't mean to be a dick"
You are being a dick, actually.
2. "Save the Google searches."
Actually, you might want to check this out and tell me exactly where Zimmerman broke the law: www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048
3. "There's simply no legitimate reason for him to be following the boy."
You evidently didn't follow the trial, then. There was a spate of robberies in Zimmerman's neighborhood prior to the shooting, and Martin looked like one of the suspects (in Zimmerman's eyes).
4. "I went to law school for 2 years"
I don't give a **** , you could have gone to law school for thirty years, and you'd still be wrong. It doesn't matter what your moral standings are, or whatever opinions you might have, but legally, by Florida's law, George Zimmerman was not in the wrong. The law was broken the second Martin attacked him. And even then, nobody knows for sure if he attacked him first, but based on the evidence available, Zimmerman deserved to walk free.
#117 to #101 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I'll go ahead and spell it out in the technical sense so you can understand a little easier. The arrest and charge was not made because a policeman was not there to arrest Zimmerman when he violated the law. But that fact remains that as per Florida statutes.

"(2) Any 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."

This section of the statute applies because Zimmerman fits the definition provided in the statute by willfully following and harassing the boy.

Harassment is verified by the given definition in the statute itself

"“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose."

Additionally an argument can be made that Zimmerman was guilty of aggravated stalking, given this definition in the statute.
"(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

This is verified by the definition of "credible threat" provided in the statute

"“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests."

I can't believe you literally handed me all the statutes and you're not reading it.
User avatar #119 to #117 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
...and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."
This part never happened during his "stalking" of Martin.

engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose."
Neither did this.

Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree
He didn't do it maliciously or repeatedly.
User avatar #123 to #119 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
1. Anyone who would follow you through the rain in a vehicle and then get out, regardless of if you knew they were armed or not is an obvious threat and would give a reasonable person cause for fear.

2. He died, That's a little worse than emotional distress and the major reason Zimmerman was charged with a more significant crime than stalking. You didn't try very hard with this one.

3. I said an argument can be made for the statutes definition of aggravated stalking, This is already beyond the point of being guilty of stalking a person. This would have to be argued in court and I have no intention of trying to prove that in a fj comment.

My point is that these charges EASILY apply above and beyond what would be required to arrest Zimmerman for stalking if he had been seen by a cop before the fight. And its true. The fact of if its malicious or not would be decided in court...AFTER being arrested for it,
User avatar #128 to #123 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
1. There's no proof that Martin suffered emotional fear or distress, or that Zimmerman was "stalking" him with the intent of murdering him. The law is not subjective to what you think happened, although you should've known that already, right, with that 2-year law degree?
2. Zimmerman did not begin the fight. He died because he attacked a man with a loaded gun, not because Zimmerman stalked him and murdered him, or attempted to.
3. An argument could be made, yes, but never proved, because like I said, the law isn't subjective to what you think happened.
#144 to #128 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
1. It doesn't matter if trayvon was scared or not.
"person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person"_ means that he was in a position where a reasonable person would have reason to fear injury of death. It's ironic that you mention being subjective in this sense. Being that your statement subjectively claims that trayvon himself has to be proven to have been in distress.

2. He committed a crime against trayvon, most would consider that "Starting a fight".

You seem to think that because Zimmerman wasn't arrested, or charged with stalking that he doesn't fit the crime. This is simply an example of the state charging him with the highest applicable crime.

Here's an example. When you want to charge somebody with murder, you don't charge them with attempted murder even though he HAS to have attempted it to complete it. You're simply not allowed to charge people for lesser related crimes when charging them for larger and more important crimes.
#108 to #101 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
1. K

2. You should open your eyes and read. Section C alone is enough to have arrested Zimmerman, consider he was armed and engaged the boy on foot after leaving his vehicle.

Also just like i told you, in section B it states "over a period of time, however short,". But it was only an hour right?

So yes, under Florida state law Zimmerman could have been arrested for stalking, under not only one given criterion but TWO of them.

3. Again he's not a cop or any type of authority figure. If you think all citizens have the right to stalk pedestrians they see as suspicious you need to go back to reading batman comics where your logic will apply.

4. If i didn't complete my degree I wouldn't be able to point out you're being a complete tard. I'd just have to call you stupid. Which in this case in an entirely legitimate alternate tactic.

PS: Thank you for doing as i told you to and researching the statutes, you're now a little smarter. Next time try reading them also.
User avatar #116 to #108 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
Now I'm actually starting to doubt you have any credentials in regards to law whatsoever.
Or, at least you didn't read the statutes.
1. C: “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety.
Zimmerman did not make any threat towards Martin. He didn't walk up to him and hold him at gunpoint. He only took out the gun after he was being attacked.
2. Like I said earlier (which I guess you chose to ignore), "Should he have been acting like batman? No, but it wasn't illegal." Again, he was the neighborhood watch volunteer for his gated community. If somebody is just walking around in the rain aimlessly in a gated community, I would probably call the police if I lived there. Maybe not follow them, but still.
3. You obviously didn't complete your degree. And calling somebody stupid is never a "legitimate tactic", it just makes you look like a four year old.
4. I've taken courses on both Criminal Justice and Business Law. If I wanted to originally, I could have brought up the Florida law, but I just used the general definition. You don't need to act like a pretentious ******* because you studied law for two years (big whoop).
5. The funny thing is, the trial is over and Zimmerman is not guilty. So basically, your arguments are pretty worthless when you consider he's never going to go to jail for a crime you thought he should've been convicted for.
#120 to #116 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
1. Walking up to somebody and pointing a gun at them is called Attempted murder.

2. Trayvon wasn't walking around aimlessly, he went tot he store and then home. And yes like a reasonable law abiding citizen you would call the police. Because stalking is illegal.

3. I can post a pic if you'd like. I'm rather proud of it.

See comment #117 I don't know why you didn't read the statutes after looking them up but Zimmerman clearly committed the crime of stalking under Florida law. It's plain as day, he simply wasn't arrested for it which of course he wouldn't be charged or arrested for when he shot the kid. Police are required to only charge with the highest relevant offenses.
User avatar #121 to #120 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
1. Otherwise known as "taking what I said completely out of context."
2. When he returned to the community, he was walking around aimlessly, as stated by Zimmerman. But there's no evidence to prove that, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
3. Please, don't. It's already far too apparent that you're proud of it, even though it seemed to do nothing in way of your actual intelligence, or attitude.

I did see it, by the way.
#149 to #121 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
There's nothing argumentative here. Are we done yet?

Need i remind you this started with you questioning my claim that Zimmerman has "Stalked" Trayvon prior to the incident in my explanation of the event. Given the Florida state statutes It's abundantly clear that Zimmerman has committed the crime of stalking (and arguably aggravated stalking) as defined by the state statutes. Everything else we're talking about here is really just the fat on the steak.

I hope that by now even if you don't agree that Zimmerman could have been found guilty of aggravated stalking or simply stalking. He CLEARLY could have been arrested for it had an actual policemen observed what he was doing.
User avatar #154 to #149 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
"He CLEARLY could have been arrested for it had an actual policemen observed what he was doing."
Considering Zimmerman had called the police and told them what he was doing, I highly doubt he would've been arrested for "stalking" Martin.
#159 to #154 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
we just read the statues together, he fits the entire criteria to the point where there are only 1 or 2 small details which would even be contested in a trial scenario. Thats far beyond whats needed for an arrest.
User avatar #163 to #159 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
Actually, that's where you're wrong, again.
He fits the entire criteria based on what you think happened.

Not based on what we know happened.

And yeah, we're done here, and for future reference: just because you studied law for 2 years does not give you any permission whatsoever to be a colossal dick to anybody who you think is wrong (regardless of if they are or not). Come back once you've passed the Bar, and then we'll talk.
#170 to #163 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
So you're done making points to debate and argue? It's funny for you to turn to sitting there telling me i wasn't there so i don't know what REALLY happened. Considering the length argument we just shared where we both presented the FACTS of the case which have already gone public and talked over the relevant laws within the jurisdiction.

While I'm sure this was a great learning experience for you, learning about statutes existing, getting taught how to read them, practicing on an actual case with somebody who understands the procedure. You basically just played the role of a legal student in a law 101 exercise. But for me, this was only Tuesday.

I'm not going to expect a thank you since you can't even admit you've run out of arguments to make at the end of a debate. "we're done here" is a nice touch tough.

For what its worth, I'm sorry for being a dick or coming off as one. I'm not perfect and I get irritated when I'm trying to explain the law to somebody being difficult. But I've answered all of your questions, responded to every retort and argument you've mustered and while you're "Done" I could actually expand on this topic much further.

Have a nice day.
#273 to #170 - tinypoodle (08/14/2013) [-]
Get over yourself holy crap.
#265 to #170 - matthewac (08/14/2013) [-]
Someone generally comes off as a dick when they act like they have no respect for an opinion or show of intelligence or experience other than their own. At least that's what I think.

That being said, you both seem to have good points and since I don't study law I'm not going to verbalize an opinion on either of your arguments.
User avatar #178 to #170 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
What do you mean, "am I done making points to debate and argue"? And, what do you mean "I can't admit I've run out of arguments to make at the end of a debate"?
You're the one who said, in #149, "Are we done yet?"
Yes, we are.
There's nothing else to debate. Neither of us agree with each other, neither of us are going to agree with each other. We could debate for the next month and nothing would change.
Also, it wasn't a learning experience, because I already knew what statues are, you didn't *teach* me how to read them, and
Seriously? Is your head that inflated? My God. Good luck with life, sincerely, getting around with that attitude. I think you'd be better suited for Tumblr.
#182 to #178 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
You're the same ass-hat who linked me a generalized legal definition. But yeah lol you totally knew what statutes were before this.

If you look over the comments from start to finish your posts have gotten smaller and smaller and smaller. I've clarified everything I said and everything in the statutes that you've argued with thus far. And despite all the information we both have on the case you've fallen back to "its just what you think happened".

Had you accepted with some grace or dignity that you ran out of points or arguments to present you would've been met with a compliment (believe it or not) because this has actually been an enjoyable hour for me thanks to you.

You can deny it if you like, but its obvious you've learned a couple of things about law in the last hour and a half and I feel pretty proud of that. You should to.

From your attitude though, I'm going to conclude you're probably quite a bit younger than myself. So I shouldn't have been so insulting in retrospect.
User avatar #183 to #182 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
"its just what you think happened".
Because it is. You have no evidence to provide, so...
Clearly you don't understand the phrase "agree to disagree", so that's about it.
Have a good one.
#189 to #183 - rprzombie (08/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Nationally known case, all confidential information given over to the public and force fed to us by the media from the moment a verdict was declared. Both sides entire court room argument transcribed and available to anyone at all who wants to look it up. Thousands of posts on thousands of websites just like this.

Yeah, you're right. Nobody knows anything about it.

This isn't "agreeing to disagree", that implys equality. You've simply run out of arguments to make and you got backed into a corner so now all of your posts are about me; A person you've met through a dozen or so fj comments.

No hard feelings, well not from me anyway. But you're not even talking about the case anymore. So I'll be on my way, before you bore me into oblivion.

Go ahead and leave another comment so you can feel like you go to have the "last word" though. I know how big that is with little kids on the internet.

bye then.
#311 to #189 - thewazabro (08/14/2013) [-]
Shut the 			****		 up.
Shut the **** up.
#318 to #311 - rprzombie (08/14/2013) [-]
This image has expired
>4 hours after argument ends

"shut the **** up"

Look, I realize i was insulting and i actually stated repeatedly that it was a regrettable drawback. The law is the law, and to this moment nobody has said anything to the contrary of my point that Zimm was stalking trayvon before the incident. We even got into the Florida state statutes of what constitutes "stalking" and...he was. Case closed. All of this over me explaining to a troll a simplified version of what happened. I'm not even a liberal nor did i lose any sleep over zimmerman's acquittal

Everyones looking for bandwagons here and it was just 2 people.
User avatar #257 to #189 - dummerbaztard (08/14/2013) [-]
God, rpzombie you are such an annoying piece of **** , with your retarded reaction images in your tryhard discussion.
User avatar #316 to #257 - rprzombie (08/14/2013) [-]
Eh, I was right. Sorry you didnt like the images.
#190 to #189 - npfortytwo (08/13/2013) [-]
you still haven't provided me with any evidence from the actual shooting to support your theory
Go ahead and leave another comment so you can feel like you go to have the "last word" though. I know how big that is with little kids on the internet.
isn't that what you just did?
the irony
What was I thinking assuming nobody would be trolling on a post about Trayvon Martin
Silly me.
 Friends (0)