The Zimmerman LIE

Originally Posted by 00stephen

"Usually"? But not always? And what facts do you have that Zimmerman self-inflicted wounds to the back of his head?

Two tiny cuts that required no stitches or even so much as a steri-strip? Killer didn't even go to the ER?

His head was slammed into concrete so hard that it allegedly split his skin, but there's no sign of bruising - not even any discoloration?

You guys will believe anything.

Fvcking liberals, fact always seems to go away when it coincides with their opinions.

Originally Posted by 325inthe510

Fvcking liberals, fact always seems to go away when it coincides with their opinions.

So many places I could go with this fine bit of rightwing wisdom, but I'll just walk away and leave this here:

Originally Posted by Lair

Two tiny cuts that required no stitches or even so much as a steri-strip? Killer didn't even go to the ER?

His head was slammed into concrete so hard that it allegedly split his skin, but there's no sign of bruising - not even any discoloration?

You guys will believe anything.

as usual, you are a typical white trash california a$$hole who has no clue about anything. I worked as a district attorney, and I put "bad guys" away. You're possibly one of the stupidest pieces of s I have ever dealt with, and I truly hope you never ever get banned from any BMW forum because the insane ramblings that you offer the world only buttress my factually valid views on just about everything.

You're such an inane (look up the word) loser that even the most hackiest of left-wing communo-libtards on this site won't touch you with a ten foot pole. Take the hint jackoff.

Originally Posted by Lair

Can't make your case with facts? Make shlt up!

Originally Posted by 00stephen

And what facts do you have that Zimmerman self-inflicted wounds to the back of his head?

Originally Posted by Lair

Two tiny cuts that required no stitches or even so much as a steri-strip? Killer didn't even go to the ER? His head was slammed into concrete so hard that it allegedly split his skin, but there's no sign of bruising - not even any discoloration?

You responded to my question with three questions of your own, none of which are an answer.

(One was already addressed when you got into a debate with someone else about whether stitches are typically used in scalp lacerations -- they're not, because of hair growth, staples or glue are the preferred choice.)

Originally Posted by Lair

the police station video shows he doesn't have a scratch on him

Wait a minute, but you just said there are two tiny cuts. First you said he didn't have a scratch, now you claim he has two cuts. You insist they're tiny, even though they are visible from a security camera X number meters away -- so they must not be *that* tiny. You claim there's no bruising, discoloration, or adhesives... But you were clearly wrong in your initial assessment based upon the resolution of the first video provided, so it's quite possible you're wrong with your revised assessment based on the quality of the current video.

But most importantly, you claim that you do not make s*** up, that Zimmerman's wounds are self-inflicted, and that you arrive at such opinions with facts. Respectfully, I repeat the unanswered question: What facts do you have to back up your claim his wounds are self-inflicted?

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

It is true that you can kill someone for no good reason, claim self defense and get away with it. In order to do so, you have to arrange for no witnesses. You have to ensure that the version of events you tell the police matches all the physical evidence they collect. The version of events you tell police must be such that any reasonable person would agree that deadly force was justified. You have to be able to lie well and stay consistent with your story no matter how many times you have to tell it to a zillion cops, detectives and prosecutors. And rest assured you'll be lying to people that have a lot of tricks up their sleeve for tripping up people that are lying. Oh, and since theres no SofL on murder, you'll have to tell that same story to everyone for the rest of your life. So yes, you can get away with it.

Hopefully somewhere in there, the bad guys get caught and the good guys get exonerated.

The legal alternatives are to have people afraid to defend themselves until they look around for witnesses/think through the evidence, or simply say its always illegal to kill someone, even if they fear for their lives. Neither of those is better than the current laws.



Remember that ABC News originally alleged that the local PD did a crappy job with the intitial investigation. The latent accusation was that they didnt care about a dead black kid, so they FUBARed the investigation specifically to let Z go. Dont know if thats true, but if so, it obviously is a serious wrench in the works described above.

It remains to be seen if the subsequent investigation turned up good evidence against Z, or if the arrest is a publicity sham.



The DA has to convince a grand jury to hand down an indictment. However, I have no idea what the evidentiary standards are or how often grand juries refuse to indict when the DA wants them to.

Good post that clarifies a lot.
I agree with everything you said above.
On the highlighted sentence... pre-existing laws already allowed for self-defense claims. As with any crime, someone can lie their way out. But when a murder is involved, we need to minimize the chances for that to happen.
Stand Your Ground laws (the different versions in different states) go a few steps beyond that and in my opinion in the wrong direction. I see a problem there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-wide-scrutiny

It's not clear if Zimmerman's lawyers will claim a Stand Your Ground defense. Some experts have said it may not apply, because Zimmerman fired his gun after ending up on his back, meaning that he was not in a position to invoke the law. Other legal experts have suggested that the Stand Your Ground law should have applied to Trayvon, if anyone, because he appears to have stood his ground against an armed stranger confronting him on a dark street.

Originally Posted by Act of God

as usual, you are a typical white trash california a$$hole who has no clue about anything. I worked as a district attorney, and I put "bad guys" away. You're possibly one of the stupidest pieces of s I have ever dealt with, and I truly hope you never ever get banned from any BMW forum because the insane ramblings that you offer the world only buttress my factually valid views on just about everything.

You're such an inane (look up the word) loser that even the most hackiest of left-wing communo-libtards on this site won't touch you with a ten foot pole. Take the hint jackoff.

I've seen some mancrushes in my time, but you are teh win.

Originally Posted by 00stephen

You responded to my question with three questions of your own, none of which are an answer.

(One was already addressed when you got into a debate with someone else about whether stitches are typically used in scalp lacerations -- they're not, because of hair growth, staples or glue are the preferred choice.)

Wait a minute, but you just said there are two tiny cuts. First you said he didn't have a scratch, now you claim he has two cuts. You insist they're tiny, even though they are visible from a security camera X number meters away -- so they must not be *that* tiny. You claim there's no bruising, discoloration, or adhesives... But you were clearly wrong in your initial assessment based upon the resolution of the first video provided, so it's quite possible you're wrong with your revised assessment based on the quality of the current video.

But most importantly, you claim that you do not make s*** up, that Zimmerman's wounds are self-inflicted, and that you arrive at such opinions with facts. Respectfully, I repeat the unanswered question: What facts do you have to back up your claim his wounds are self-inflicted?

Odd - I've had stitches in the back of my head after a republican hit me from behind, and Zimmerman's head doesn't look anything like the back of my head after mine was injured. Again, he must be such a giant, stinking pvssy that the mere sight of a black kid in a hoody caused him to fear for his life.

How many times do I have to list the facts that lead me to conlude Zimmerman is a lying sack of shlt? Just accept the fact that I don't give a flying fvck what you think and move on.

Originally Posted by Lair

Odd - I've had stitches in the back of my head after a republican hit me from behind,

I can 100% guarantee this is made up.

Originally Posted by Lair

Odd - I've had stitches in the back of my head after a republican hit me from behind, and Zimmerman's head doesn't look anything like the back of my head after mine was injured. Again, he must be such a giant, stinking pvssy that the mere sight of a black kid in a hoody caused him to fear for his life.

How many times do I have to list the facts that lead me to conlude Zimmerman is a lying sack of shlt? Just accept the fact that I don't give a flying fvck what you think and move on.

you ignorant fvck. since you make all those republican jokes i will assume you have a grievance against them for something they did , maybe even repeatedly. if someone does something repeatedly to you or someone close to you , you will develop a bias towards that group of people , just like you did. his fvcking neighborhood was repeatedly robbed and vandalized by young black men so naturally he grew suspicious of a young black man (say he was a kid all you want) in a hoodie walking through his neighborhood. none of us on here know what happened next but i have a very hard time believing that he just walked up to him and shot him in the chest. the media and all these activists can ***** and complain all they want but if hillbillies were robbing and ravaging through compton , with time the brothers would start confronting overall wearing white boys with mullets as well and i wouldn't blame them. what the fvck is so hard for you to understand that he had every right to be suspicious of martin. are all hoodie wearing blacks criminals? no , but in this case he had every right to be suspicious of him. come on man at least admit that much.

Originally Posted by Master Po

On the highlighted sentence... pre-existing laws already allowed for self-defense claims. As with any crime, someone can lie their way out. But when a murder is involved, we need to minimize the chances for that to happen.
Stand Your Ground laws (the different versions in different states) go a few steps beyond that and in my opinion in the wrong direction. I see a problem there.

I am open to SYG needing revision because I havent really delved into it. But in all the griping and chatter about it, Ive never heard anyone cite a single real-world instance where it was abused and someone got away with assault/murder. Have you?

Originally Posted by Master Po

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-wide-scrutiny

It's not clear if Zimmerman's lawyers will claim a Stand Your Ground defense. Some experts have said it may not apply, because Zimmerman fired his gun after ending up on his back, meaning that he was not in a position to invoke the law. Other legal experts have suggested that the Stand Your Ground law should have applied to Trayvon, if anyone, because he appears to have stood his ground against an armed stranger confronting him on a dark street.

umm, wut?

Theyre not seriously saying that Stand Your Ground doesnt apply because Zimmerman wasnt in a standing position, right? They dont think its that literal, do they? Or do they?

Originally Posted by Act of God

I can 100% guarantee this is made up.

I can 100% guarantee that you're a liar.

Originally Posted by mistrzmiasta

you ignorant fvck. since you make all those republican jokes i will assume you have a grievance against them for something they did , maybe even repeatedly. if someone does something repeatedly to you or someone close to you , you will develop a bias towards that group of people , just like you did. his fvcking neighborhood was repeatedly robbed and vandalized by young black men so naturally he grew suspicious of a young black man (say he was a kid all you want) in a hoodie walking through his neighborhood. none of us on here know what happened next but i have a very hard time believing that he just walked up to him and shot him in the chest. the media and all these activists can ***** and complain all they want but if hillbillies were robbing and ravaging through compton , with time the brothers would start confronting overall wearing white boys with mullets as well and i wouldn't blame them. what the fvck is so hard for you to understand that he had every right to be suspicious of martin. are all hoodie wearing blacks criminals? no , but in this case he had every right to be suspicious of him. come on man at least admit that much.

FK you, *******.

I make republican jokes because republicans are a fvcking joke.

Zimmerman is a random pudgy pvssy that decided he was going to be a hero. That's all. Now there's a dead 17 year old unarmed kid to show for it.

Congrats for supporting a loser douchebag that decided to be a neighborhood troll because he couldn't get a job with the police force.

Originally Posted by Lair

FK you, *******.

I make republican jokes because republicans are a fvcking joke.

Zimmerman is a random pudgy pvssy that decided he was going to be a hero. That's all. Now there's a dead 17 year old unarmed kid to show for it.

Congrats for supporting a loser douchebag that decided to be a neighborhood troll because he couldn't get a job with the police force.

Lair brings the lolz nothing more though

Originally Posted by Lair

Odd - I've had stitches in the back of my head after a republican hit me from behind, and Zimmerman's head doesn't look anything like the back of my head after mine was injured.

Did you read her voter id card before or after she hit you? Could such affiliation explain your animosity and misguided presumptions, or are you simply associating two unrelated groups of people whose only commonality involves arguments that make your head hurt?

Originally Posted by Lair

How many times do I have to list the facts that lead me to conlude Zimmerman is lying {and self-inflicted his wounds}?

Just once would suffice.

As such, I repeat the unanswered question: What facts do you have to back up your claim Zimmerman's wounds are self-inflicted?

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

Theyre not seriously saying that Stand Your Ground doesnt apply because Zimmerman wasnt in a standing position, right? They dont think its that literal, do they? Or do they?

They're simply saying Stand Your Ground may not need to be invoked.

Localities without a Stand Your Ground statute compel a "Duty to Retreat" before the use of self-defense... as long as a course of retreat is available. People are saying that Stand Your Ground could be moot in this case, as the shooting would also be lawful under "Duty to Retreat" -- since retreat was not possible when the defendant's back is to the ground with someone atop him.(*)

So Zimmerman has two defenses with which to work: Stand Your Ground, and self-defense under an inability to retreat. Proponents of SYG might prefer he use the latter, as to not unnecessarily politicize the former.

(* Of course, Zimmerman's attorney would still have to provide some evidence this was the case, and the prosecutors would have to provide a preponderance of evidence that (TM) wasn't atop him.)

Originally Posted by 00stephen

They're simply saying Stand Your Ground may not need to be invoked.

Localities without a Stand Your Ground statute compel a "Duty to Retreat" before the use of self-defense... as long as a course of retreat is available. People are saying that Stand Your Ground could be moot in this case, as the shooting would also be lawful under "Duty to Retreat" -- since retreat was not possible when the defendant's back is to the ground with someone atop him.(*)

So Zimmerman has two defenses with which to work: Stand Your Ground, and self-defense under an inability to retreat. Proponents of SYG might prefer he use the latter, as to not unnecessarily politicize the former.

(* Of course, Zimmerman's attorney would still have to provide some evidence this was the case, and the prosecutors would have to provide a preponderance of evidence that (TM) wasn't atop him.)

Not entirely correct. Zimmerman told his story, and that is HIS evidence. The prosecutors need to find evidence to the contrary, which they can't, and the witnesses they DO have both solidify Zimmerman's story...not to mention the physical evidence of cuts and grass.

Originally Posted by Master Po

Good post that clarifies a lot.
I agree with everything you said above.
On the highlighted sentence... pre-existing laws already allowed for self-defense claims. As with any crime, someone can lie their way out. But when a murder is involved, we need to minimize the chances for that to happen.
Stand Your Ground laws (the different versions in different states) go a few steps beyond that and in my opinion in the wrong direction. I see a problem there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-wide-scrutiny

I'd say instead of minimizing the chance of a guilty person getting away, we need to minimize our chances of convicting innocent people.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

umm, wut?

Theyre not seriously saying that Stand Your Ground doesnt apply because Zimmerman wasnt in a standing position, right? They dont think its that literal, do they? Or do they?

How can you stand your ground if you're lying down on the job?

Unless, of course, you are a king of cattle with the right to defend them.