Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

stand your ground law doesn't cover zimmerman, defense can try to argue and the prosecution would have to be so dumb as to let it work out that way given what we know so far.

If that was the case every criminal who got attacked or shot by their victim would use this defense. It doesn't work that way

 

[Onemic]

I already said Zimmerman should go to jail, you're just upset because i'm reporting something that you disagree with.

Not upset at all. Like I said, I know where you stand. I'm just giving an explanation as to why no one else does.

 

[akira28]

Which is why instead of reading the news articles and details, he asks GAF members about what the news articles say and what the details are.

 

[MightyHealthy]

People click on the thread for information and instead get a couple of dolts who are practically trolling with their insults against people who apparently have the audacity to believe that there was injustice.

 

[LuCkymoON]

The "stand your ground" thing doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't it basically imply that if you get into any fight or altercation in Florida, whoever pulls out their gun and kills the other first wins the fight and can't be charged for it?

How the fuck does that make any sense? That's like saying everyone who goes to a bar should bring a gun in case they get into a bar fight and need to "defend" themselves.

it's basically a law that allows dueling.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yeah, what a tricky guy I am! Countering claims of what must be true with scenarios in which it may not be. Such duplicitous, squirmy behavior! I love that this can basically sum up the conversation thus far:

-"That cannot ever be true!"

"Actually, if this, this and this happened it could possibly be true."

-"OMG WHY YOU DEFENDING HIM YOU FUCKING TROLL?!?!?!?! How do you know for a fact that happened?! WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING TO KNOW?"

"Uhhh..."

And then when people get called out on their ridiculous reactions and inability to process language it's my problem, all of a sudden. Oh, it's because I'm hiding behind things and dancing around. That's the only explanation! I can't come up with any reasonable refutation of his position, so it must be some kind of troll game.

The points I was making clearly flew over your head. And as far as the little squabble we had here, only one person between us has become emotional.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

welp, we're all talking in circles at this point.

I'll be back when something interesting happens or comes out.

 

[Onemic]

Yeah, what a tricky guy I am! Countering claims of what must be true with scenarios in which it may not be. Such duplicitous, squirmy behavior! I love that this can basically sum up the conversation thus far:

-"That cannot ever be true!"

"Actually, if this, this and this happened it could possibly be true."

-"OMG WHY YOU DEFENDING HIM YOU FUCKING TROLL?!?!?!?! How do you know for a fact that happened?! WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING TO KNOW?"

"Uhhh..."

And then when people get called out on their ridiculous reactions and inability to process language it's my problem, all of a sudden. Oh, it's because I'm hiding behind things and dancing around. That's the only explanation! I can't come up with any reasonable refutation of his position, so it must be some kind of troll game.

Your initial posts of the thread:

What is the guy's story? Surely you don't believe he told the cops he shot the boy because he was black and they just moved on. I strongly suspect there is more to this story that hasn't been, and wouldn't be, presented by the lawyer of the child's family. All of our information is coming from him at this point. I don't think it's wise to assume we know everything relevant.

I can think of any number of scenarios, most of them rather unlikely. However, I think the police just letting an obvious murder go without prosecution is just as unlikely as any potential scenario I could dream up.

Isn't the amount of blind incompetence assumed in your view of the story as unlikely as the kid doing something? Think about how incredibly blatant the police would have to be to even attempt something like this. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you can't choose it by default because you deem some other scenario unlikely.

This definitely deosn't look like someone who isn't biased towards one side...

 

[KHarvey16]

The points I was making clearly flew over your head. And as far as the little squabble we had here, only one person between us has become emotional.

Uh huh. I haven't changed my position one tiny little bit since the second I started in here. That you perceive anything I've done as 'hiding' betrays a deep misunderstanding. You just know in your heart of hearts that all I want to do is defend cops and racists everywhere.

Your initial posts of the thread:







This definitely deosn't look like someone who isn't biased towards one side...

It doesn't? Again, read the damn words. Just the words as they are written there. Put your finger over my name if it helps.

 

[Raguel]

Jesus christ, the idiots in this thread... I check here to see if there are any news, but reading through it makes me more depresses because of the likes of Kharvey and Kodmos. God damn.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I warned you all, just look at his goddamn tag, he lives for this kind of stuff!

Man I just read the thread in his tag, hilarious. He gets off on being obtuse I guess.

 

[Onemic]

Uh huh. I haven't changed my position one tiny little bit since the second I started in here. That you perceive anything I've done as 'hiding' betrays a deep misunderstanding. You just know in your heart of hearts that all I want to do is defend cops and racists everywhere.



It doesn't? Again, read the damn words. Just the words as they are written there. Put your finger over my name if it helps.

It's either one of two things: you're deliberately being obtuse just to fuck with people in this thread like the thread in your tag or you have a slight bias toward the pd and zimmerman. With this thread and your posting history I honestly have no idea. Maybe it's both.

 

[la flama blanca]

Man I just read the thread in his tag, hilarious. He gets off on being obtuse I guess.

He's like this in every god damn thread. He's studying law at Devry University or something

 

[KodMoS]

Jesus christ, the idiots in this thread... I check here to see if there are any news, but reading through it makes me more depresses because of the likes of Kharvey and Kodmos. God damn.

You shouldn't get upset with me, I'm just reiterating an eye-witness report.

 

[Raxus]

Your initial posts of the thread:

This definitely doesn't look like someone who isn't biased towards one side...

KHarvey is only pointing out legal strategy any defendant worth his/her salt would use.

If Zimmerman were to be persecuted to the full extent of the law you have to be prepared with the evidence you do have to counter these claims.

 

[iammeiam]

That's clearly bullshit as to students. Whether Mr. Zimmerman feels safe is up to him. This constitutes punishment without due process, and Zimmerman would have a legal claim against the State should he choose to pursue it. It also, as I said, imperils the integrity of any conviction eventually secured against Zimmerman, because it is State action that undermines his presumption of innocence.

Their explicitly stated reason for withdrawing him is due to the controversy--this is a factual thing, that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. At no point are they withdrawing him because he shot a kid, they are withdrawing him because he is at the center of a gigantic shitstorm they want no part of. If he is on campus, it will turn violent, and it is likely non-Zimmerman students on both sides will get hurt. THAT is what they are stated as trying to prevent. You can call them out for lying, but again their reasons for withdrawing him from courses have nothing to do with whether or not he is the criminal here or the victim of a media smear campaign. I don't even know if that's the official reason put down on the paperwork (my guess would be more that the controversy rendered him incapable of attending classes this term, so they're withdrawing him), but there is absolutely nothing about their statement that presumes his guilt or damages his eventual conviction.

 

[Onemic]

KHarvey is only pointing out legal strategy any defendant worth his/her salt would use.

If Zimmerman were to be persecuted to the full extent of the law you have to be prepared with the evidence you do have to counter these claims.

So being obtuse. I got ya.

 

[Raxus]

So being obtuse. I got ya.

KHarv isn't being obtuse. The law is simply obstuse.

Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be

Stand Your Ground Wiki.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Uh huh. I haven't changed my position one tiny little bit since the second I started in here. That you perceive anything I've done as 'hiding' betrays a deep misunderstanding. You just know in your heart of hearts that all I want to do is defend cops and racists everywhere.



It doesn't? Again, read the damn words. Just the words as they are written there. Put your finger over my name if it helps.

Where did i ever say you changed positions? I think you are projecting other people's posts onto mine. Your little summation in the previous post was also incredibly dishonest. The only interaction I have had with you in here has been over the witness correction, and I never stated your hypotheticals can never be true, I said they were irrelevant. I am also not anywhere near as emotional as you are attempting to portray me. I don't 'know within my heart of hearts.' I can only comment on the evidence before me. From what I see, there is a clear bias within most of your posts here. Nothing obscene, or completely impudent, but it is definitely apparent. Especially with the emotion you have been laying out with lately.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's either one of two things: you're deliberately being obtuse just to fuck with people in this thread like the thread in your tag or you have a slight bias toward the pd and zimmerman. With this thread and your posting history I honestly have no idea. Maybe it's both.

It isn't either of those things. I don't have any preference here; NO explanation for how this went down is somehow desirable to me. It's a shitty situation with a dead kid. You can try to "pffft!" my position away by calling it obtuse but that's not an argument.

Where did i ever say you changed positions? I think you are projecting other people's posts onto mine. Your little summation in the previous post was also incredibly dishonest. The only interaction I have had with you in here has been over the witness correction, and I never stated your hypotheticals can never be true, I said they were irrelevant. I am also not anywhere near as emotional as you are attempting to portray me. I don't 'know within my heart of hearts.' I can only comment on the evidence before me. From what I see, there is a clear bias within most of your posts here. Nothing obscene, or completely impudent, but it is definitely apparent. Especially with the emotion you have been laying out with lately.

You summarized my position as claiming a particular scenario was likely, when I did no such thing. You inserted that for some reason and it wasn't because I said anything to suggest it.

 

[Particle Physicist]

KHarvey is only pointing out legal strategy any defendant worth his/her salt would use.

If Zimmerman were to be persecuted to the full extent of the law you have to be prepared with the evidence you do have to counter these claims.

Everyone that has been following this story knows about that law (maybe not the specific article). Pointing out that the Zimmerman's lawyers will use that defense... Is pointless. That is the law he is already using as defense. Good job?

 

[MightyHealthy]

If those of you who kept up with the details might remember, some folks worried about Norm Wolfinger's involvement (since he once cleared the lead investigator for this case, Sgt. Anthony Raimondo, over not arresting a lieutenant's son who attacked 3 people)

Well, worry no more, he has recused himself from the case:

About three hours later, Gov. Rick Scott announced that the local state attorney, Norman Wolfinger, had recused himself from the case. In a letter to Scott, Wolfinger said that while he thought he could fairly oversee any prosecution that develops in the case, his recusal was aimed at “toning down the rhetoric and preserving the integrity of the investigation.” Scott appointed Angela B. Corey, the state attorney for the Jacksonville area, to take over the case.

Scott also appointed a task force led by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll to conduct hearings on the case and to make recommendations for any changes to state law or procedures. Carroll is African-American.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation...ep-aside-in-trayvon-martin-investigation.html

 

[Particle Physicist]

It isn't either of those things. I don't have any preference here; NO explanation for how this went down is somehow desirable to me. It's a shitty situation with a dead kid. You can try to "pffft!" my position away by calling it obtuse but that's not an argument.



You summarized my position as claiming a particular scenario was likely, when I did no such thing. You inserted that for some reason and it wasn't because I said anything to suggest it.

That one word is what you are hinging on right now? Why you seem to have a mental breakdown? My bad, you did not say 'likely' you said 'if.' and IF you understood my point, (that is, your point was irrelevant) then you would realize that the word I chose was inconsequential.

 

[KodMoS]

People click on the thread for information and instead get a couple of dolts who are practically trolling with their insults against people who apparently have the audacity to believe that there was injustice.

Apparently I'm arguing with children who get upset their emotions cloud their judgement.

 

[KHarvey16]

That one word is what you are hinging on right now? Why you seem to have a mental breakdown? My bad, you did not say 'likely' you said 'if.' and IF you understood my point, (that is, your point was irrelevant) then you would realize that the word I chose was inconsequential.

It isn't inconsequential, and the point I made was not irrelevant. I perfectly understood what you were saying. You want to argue with someone else who says things I'm not saying. You should invite them in.

 

[elrechazado]

People still talk to Harvey? I feel a duty to flee when I see his posts on topics like this.

Glad to see that we'll be getting an actual independent investigation of this case.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It isn't inconsequential, and the point I made was not irrelevant. I perfectly understood what you were saying. You want to argue with someone else who says things I'm not saying. You should invite them in.

Wat? Here, I'll restate why the motivation behind correcting a witness and dismissing another witness is irrelevant. When the police did that, they completely screwed with the scientific method. They fudged data. As a consequence of the data fudging, most of the data collected that day by those police officers lost its credibility. Understanding the motivation behind why the police decided to act that way does absolutely nothing about the credibility. An independent third party cannot be confident any of their data is accurate because some of it was proven to be falsified. The other data may very well be true, but it cannot be trusted. Motivation is irrelevant in this instance.

 

[Big-E]

Thread exploded last I checked and I hoped an arrest was made. Sad that we are going back to the beginning. The man should have been arrested if the police did there job and should have been arrested after the family and media did the police's job for them.

 

[Big-E]

Wat? Here, I'll restate why the motivation behind correcting a witness and dismissing another witness is irrelevant. When the police did that, they completely screwed with the scientific method. They fudged data. As a consequence of the data fudging, most of the data collected that day by those police officers lost its credibility. Understanding the motivation behind why the police decided to act that way does absolutely nothing about the credibility. An independent third party cannot be confident any of their data is accurate because some of it was proven to be falsified. The other data may very well be true, but it cannot be trusted. Motivation is irrelevant in this instance.

Ya I don't understand how what you are saying is so hard to understand. As police, you need to look at all the evidence and witness correction shows gross incompetence and a complete loss of credibility.

 

[KHarvey16]

Wat? No I wasn't. Here, I'll restate why the motivation behind correcting a witness and dismissing another witness is irrelevant. When the police did that, they completely screwed with the scientific method. They fudged data. As a consequence of the data fudging, most of the data collected that day by those police officers lost its credibility. Understanding the motivation behind why the police decided to act that way does absolutely nothing about the credibility. An independent third party cannot be confident any of their data is accurate because some of it was proven to be falsified. The other data may very well be true, but it cannot be trusted. Motivation is irrelevant in this instance.

That might be the case if the subjects here were not human beings. Anyone conducting or looking into the investigation can consult the list of witnesses and ask them directly, with no need to rely on data that's been called into question. I can't imagine the independent federal investigation would not do this.

 

[commedieu]

I threw the flag up early on K-man. The guy just argues for the sake of arguing.

Honestly, try to stop wasting your text & tempers folks.

You know their motivation behind the whole thing. Whether or not they admit it, is on them.

All the arguing is just bringing hostility to the thread. It really has no place here, considering the issue & the facts.

There should honestly be a warning in the OP to not waste the time, as new people are coming in and falling in the trap/cycle.

Also, the ignore feature really sucks.

 

[Korey]

Do yourself a favor and put Kharvey on ignore, which should boost your enjoyment of this thread by about 2.5 million %

 

[Particle Physicist]

That might be the case if the subjects here were not human beings. Anyone conducting or looking into the investigation can consult the list of witnesses and ask them directly, with no need to rely on data that's been called into question. I can't imagine the independent federal investigation would not do this.

Yes, an independent investigation would help mitigate this issue. Which is why I am glad the FBI has stepped in

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes, an independent investigation would help mitigate this issue. Which is why I am glad the FBI has stepped in

Which is something we can agree on!

 

[soundahfekz]

I threw the flag up early on K-man. The guy just argues for the sake of arguing.

Honestly, try to stop wasting your text & tempers folks.

You know their motivation behind the whole thing. Whether or not they admit it, is on them.

All the arguing is just bringing hostility to the thread. It really has no place here, considering the issue & the facts.

There should honestly be a warning in the OP to not waste the time, as new people are coming in and falling in the trap/cycle.

Also, the ignore feature really sucks.

Yeah, he gets off on arguing the minute details ad nauseam because it makes him feel as if he's more intelligent than everyone else. Take what you can get I guess.

 

[abusori]

I warned you all, just look at his goddamn tag, he lives for this kind of stuff!

Oh man, that thread is hilarious. Tags are so useful sometimes.
I personally think they should've gone with "innocent until proven pedantic." Though maybe it has less initial impact?

I'm just dead surprised that this guy isn't behind bars already. I assumed when I first read this thread that it wouldn't be a week, and now this.

 

[Kettch]

Which until the State proves otherwise is not a crime for which the State may deprive Zimmerman of liberty.

Admitting to killing an unarmed child means you are deprived of liberty and arrested while you await trial. Not being allowed into college shouldn't even be a concern, because he shouldn't be free.

As I said, if the police aren't going to do their job others need to take up the slack to protect people. They aren't going to wait for him to kill a student in "self defense" next (though according to you, if he did, they should let him in again the next day while he's investigated right?).

 

[Stinkles]

ouch @ the new Ben Stiller movie - talk about bad timing. "Neighborhood Watch." Overzealous watch volunteers arresting little kids. :-\ I feel bad for them.

 

[empty vessel]

Their explicitly stated reason for withdrawing him is due to the controversy--this is a factual thing, that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. At no point are they withdrawing him because he shot a kid, they are withdrawing him because he is at the center of a gigantic shitstorm they want no part of. If he is on campus, it will turn violent, and it is likely non-Zimmerman students on both sides will get hurt. THAT is what they are stated as trying to prevent. You can call them out for lying, but again their reasons for withdrawing him from courses have nothing to do with whether or not he is the criminal here or the victim of a media smear campaign. I don't even know if that's the official reason put down on the paperwork (my guess would be more that the controversy rendered him incapable of attending classes this term, so they're withdrawing him), but there is absolutely nothing about their statement that presumes his guilt or damages his eventual conviction.

You can keep saying this, but Zimmerman has a civil rights claim against the State for depriving him of liberty (and property) without due process, and its actions do indeed undermine his presumption of innocence. This is notwithstanding its stated reason that it is acting because a "controversy" has placed its students in danger, which is clearly nonsense. No students are endangered by Zimmerman's presence at the school. If the State is genuinely concerned that students will inflict violence on Zimmerman, it cannot punish Zimmerman for that reason. Do you see nothing wrong with the State punishing somebody because of the belief that others will violate the law and commit violence against that person?

Admitting to killing an unarmed child means you are deprived of liberty and arrested while you await trial.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the presumption is that one is free while one awaits trial. An accused has all the rights and liberties as one not accused, including liberty before trial. Of course, here, no charges have even been filed.

Not being allowed into college shouldn't even be a concern, because he shouldn't be free.

You should see the Eighth Amendment, which presumes that people are free until convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with due process. Naturally, of course, because they are presumed innocent until they are convicted.

As I said, if the police aren't going to do their job others need to take up the slack to protect people. They aren't going to wait for him to kill a student in "self defense" next (though according to you, if he did, they should let him in again the next day while he's investigated right?).

Absolutely, and without a shred of doubt.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

ouch @ the new Ben Stiller movie - talk about bad timing. "Neighborhood Watch." Overzealous watch volunteers arresting little kids. :-\ I feel bad for them.

that was my first thought when I saw the trailer for it at the theater over the weekend.

 

[iammeiam]

You can keep saying this, but Zimmerman has a civil rights claim against the State for depriving him of liberty (and property) without due process, and its actions do indeed undermine his presumption of innocence. This is notwithstanding its stated reason that it is acting because a "controversy" has placed its students in danger, which is clearly nonsense. No students are endangered by Zimmerman's presence at the school. If the State is genuinely concerned that students will inflict violence on Zimmerman, it cannot punish Zimmerman for that reason. Do you see nothing wrong with the State punishing somebody because of the belief that others will violate the law and commit violence against that person?

I think I may have been explaining myself poorly: My main objection is to the idea that kicking him out of school due to 'the controversy' in any way impacts the eventual trial and undermines his presumed innocence in the shooting. Had the school released a statement saying they kicked him out for being a murderer, I'd see the connection. Here they reference something else, the very real controversy, as well as safety in general (and they're not indicating Zimmerman himself is the threat to safety, but the circumstances surrounding him, so they're not pulling the safety card because they're presuming him a murderer.)

My guess is that he wasn't officially kicked due to a non-explanation like controversy, but due to the end result: He's been 'in hiding' for an extended period of time, which likely means he hasn't been attending classes. Their own policy allows for an instructor to withdraw the student, without warning, from any class once more than 10% of sessions have been missed (here) Once withdrawn for attendance-related reasons, students cannot appeal for re-entry into the course. If he's been out since the shooting, he's over the 10% threshold in all his classes and so would be withdrawn from all of them. If you're withdrawn from all classes, you're withdrawn from the college. I'm guessing it's not something they actually act on frequently, but they certainly appear to be within their stated policies to remove him from his courses.

The safety/controversy angle comes into play as the reasoning behind the non-attendance, and how you explain it to the press (vs 'He stopped showing up for class'.) Him showing up wouldn't be a particularly great environment for anyone, and they're not going to encourage him back. The attendance should give them due process to kick him in the paperwork, at no point presuming him guilty of a crime.

 

[coldfoot]

You can keep saying this, but Zimmerman has a civil rights claim against the State for depriving him of liberty (and property) without due process, and its actions do indeed undermine his presumption of innocence.

I'm sure they thought about that and figured a guy hiding from death threats won't bother suing them as he has more important things to worry about. Just like if this shooting happened in a proper northern state, he'd be in jail now.

 

[Onemic]

Did anyone see the Miami Herald article which says that Zimmerman has a history of warning neighbours about suspicious looking people, specifically young black males?

Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Derwind]

ouch @ the new Ben Stiller movie - talk about bad timing. "Neighborhood Watch." Overzealous watch volunteers arresting little kids. :-\ I feel bad for them.

I mentioned this earlier on in the thread. I was shocked at how much the trailer parodied this case. Honestly the timing of this movie is pretty amazing...

 

[manipulate]

Man, I don't know why, but curiousity got the better of me and I went over to stormfront and had a look at their thread on Trayvon Martin. Holy shit @ humanity.

 

[Derwind]

Man, I don't know why, but curiousity got the better of me and I went over to stormfront and had a look at their thread on Trayvon Martin. Holy shit @ humanity.

With a site like stormfront you knew what to expect bro...

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I mentioned this earlier on in the thread. I was shocked at how much the trailer parodied this case. Honestly the timing of this movie is pretty amazing...

I'll watch it just for Richard Ayoade

 

[Unknown One]

That article makes me furious.

 

[GaimeGuy]

what if Zimmerman was innocence all along?

Innocent of what?


Regardless of how the court case plays out (and it WILL go to court.... if it doesn't, things are far more corrupt than any of us could imagine), Zimmerman confronted a 17 year old unarmed teen and killed him. The 17 year old was, at worst, defending himself from a strange man that followed and contfronted him. That 17 year old, Travyon, died, and he did nothing to provoke the situation he found himself in.

There is no innocence for Zimmerman here, regardless of whether he's acquitted of all charges, or found guilty of 1st degree murder, or found guilty of 2nd degree murder , or convicted of some form of manslaughter. He killed Travyon. A 17-year old teen aspiring to become an aviation mechanic will never get to pursue his dreams, or start a family, or smile, laugh, or cry ever again.

Zimmerman is anything but innocent.

 

[jaxword]

Man, I don't know why, but curiousity got the better of me and I went over to stormfront and had a look at their thread on Trayvon Martin. Holy shit @ humanity.

Man, what did you expect?

There's some posters on neogaf who would prefer stormfront. Not for racism, but for the perfect echo chamber for a majority to scream persecution by the minority.