Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Night Strike]

Okay, so here's what could have probably happened. After smoking a blunt and twerkin on some fire ass lean, Trayvon might have been a little bit lost. That would explain why he may have been seen as suspicious, because he was getting close to the houses trying to get a close look at the numbers on the houses to find the right address, but was going up to the wrong houses and into the wrong yards, and perhaps that's why he did not make it home? Sounds like he might have been tripping balls.

Why do we have to keep speculating about what might have happened instead of just letting this story die (like it always should have)? All this speculating about Martin is just as bad as the speculating about Zimmerman, and it's ALL highly annoying.

[Lootifer]

="PS"]not sure what the average height is in New Zealand, but here I think it's 5'6.5". 5-11 is almost a half foot taller than average

5'9.5 is average for all males above 20 in the US. But more importantly, it's the height plus weight that makes him small; he is slightly above average height, but well below average weigght implying he was skinny and, seeing as he isnt what I would call tall, small. Again, this had no bearing on the arguments in this thread; you can be small and a very good fighter, which it looks like he was.

I would consider myself both skinny and small*.....

*

show

Haha, if it makes you feel better, sure, thats what I look like.

[spurgistan]

Definitely a hero.

Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

There was exactly ZERO evidence that he committed manslaughter. If you are on the ground getting your ass beat and your head pounded into the pavement you have a right to protect yourself even to the extent of pulling out a gun and shooting the person assaulting you.

There's a dead unarmed person. And witnesses who say he pursued that dead unarmed person (albeit witnesses who were informed by the soon-to-be-dead person). So, uhh, evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

Martin v. Zimmerman was an inside job.

[Woodruff]

Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

I didn't see that conviction - got a link? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Woodruff]

Definitely a hero.
Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

The facts presented to a jury said otherwise.

No they didn't. He wasn't tried for manslaughter.

[Woodruff]

This would make a pretty good movie now. Just write in some sort of "based on a true story" ironic twist at the end, like "and the person in the truck was the prosecutor!"

By M. Night Shamaladingdong.

[Woodruff]

Okay, so here's what could have probably happened. After smoking a blunt and twerkin on some fire ass lean, Trayvon might have been a little bit lost. That would explain why he may have been seen as suspicious, because he was getting close to the houses trying to get a close look at the numbers on the houses to find the right address, but was going up to the wrong houses and into the wrong yards, and perhaps that's why he did not make it home? Sounds like he might have been tripping balls.

Gosh, that's not character-assassination at all! What was even the point of that post?

[patrickaa317]

Definitely a hero.
Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

The facts presented to a jury said otherwise.

No they didn't. He wasn't tried for manslaughter.

Actually, the jury could have found him guilty of manslaughter. The jury did ask for clarification on the manslaughter charge the last day of deliberation.

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-asks-for--clarificaton--on-manslaughter-charge-221141455.html

MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.

[loutil]

Definitely a hero.

Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

There was exactly ZERO evidence that he committed manslaughter. If you are on the ground getting your ass beat and your head pounded into the pavement you have a right to protect yourself even to the extent of pulling out a gun and shooting the person assaulting you.

There's a dead unarmed person. And witnesses who say he pursued that dead unarmed person (albeit witnesses who were informed by the soon-to-be-dead person). So, uhh, evidence.

LOL...that is not evidence of manslaughter. I can pursue anyone I want, it is not a crime. If I pursue you and YOU attack me I have the right to defend myself. If I feel my life is in danger I can justifiably kill you. Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .
Note: said witness you mentioned testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman and threw the first punch...

[AAFitz]

Definitely a hero.

Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

There was exactly ZERO evidence that he committed manslaughter. If you are on the ground getting your ass beat and your head pounded into the pavement you have a right to protect yourself even to the extent of pulling out a gun and shooting the person assaulting you.

There's a dead unarmed person. And witnesses who say he pursued that dead unarmed person (albeit witnesses who were informed by the soon-to-be-dead person). So, uhh, evidence.

LOL...that is not evidence of manslaughter. I can pursue anyone I want, it is not a crime. If I pursue you and YOU attack me I have the right to defend myself. If I feel my life is in danger I can justifiably kill you. Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .
Note: said witness you mentioned testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman and threw the first punch...

The police advised him to not approach the kid. He was a moron, thought he knew best, and now an innocent is dead, and Zimmerman is the only one at fault. If it were not for Zimmermans actions, the kid would have walked home. His actions caused the death in every way conceivable, he was and is a moron, and essentially just thought he was a tough guy with a little pistol....when really, he was just a moron with one.

Now understand, I realize he thought he knew what he was doing, he thought he was doing good, but he was untrained, too stupid to take good advice, and got a kid killed. He wrongfully harassed an innocent person, undoubtedly because of race, undoubtedly only because he had a gun, and undoubtedly and obviously because he was stupid, because the police told him to back off, because they know what happens when morons like him try to do the job of trained officers, and he ignored him.

Further, to think its a stretch, that a guy was too much of an idiot to listen to the advice of police, was not enough of an idiot to cause the kid to defend himself, than you also, are a moron and upon reading your suggestion that you can just pursue and question and essentially harass anyone you want and not have the risk that they will defend themselves from what they consider an attack...you really, really are a moron....but I point this out only for you....everyone else that read that, already had it confirmed.

Thats the real problem with guns...the let moronic little pussies start shit they couldn't otherwise ever handle.

Really, the moral of this story, is if you have a gun, dont be a moron...and really...in most cases, let the cops do their job. Watching the Ateam and reading Jack reacher novels does not make you a vigilante...it makes you a moron and in this case, for all intents and purposes...a murderer.

[loutil]

Definitely a hero.

Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

There was exactly ZERO evidence that he committed manslaughter. If you are on the ground getting your ass beat and your head pounded into the pavement you have a right to protect yourself even to the extent of pulling out a gun and shooting the person assaulting you.

There's a dead unarmed person. And witnesses who say he pursued that dead unarmed person (albeit witnesses who were informed by the soon-to-be-dead person). So, uhh, evidence.

LOL...that is not evidence of manslaughter. I can pursue anyone I want, it is not a crime. If I pursue you and YOU attack me I have the right to defend myself. If I feel my life is in danger I can justifiably kill you. Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .
Note: said witness you mentioned testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman and threw the first punch...

The police advised him to not approach the kid. He was a moron, thought he knew best, and now an innocent is dead, and Zimmerman is the only one at fault. If it were not for Zimmermans actions, the kid would have walked home. His actions caused the death in every way conceivable, he was and is a moron, and essentially just thought he was a tough guy with a little pistol....when really, he was just a moron with one.

Now understand, I realize he thought he knew what he was doing, he thought he was doing good, but he was untrained, too stupid to take good advice, and got a kid killed. He wrongfully harassed an innocent person, undoubtedly because of race, undoubtedly only because he had a gun, and undoubtedly and obviously because he was stupid, because the police told him to back off, because they know what happens when morons like him try to do the job of trained officers, and he ignored him.

Further, to think its a stretch, that a guy was too much of an idiot to listen to the advice of police, was not enough of an idiot to cause the kid to defend himself, than you also, are a moron and upon reading your suggestion that you can just pursue and question and essentially harass anyone you want and not have the risk that they will defend themselves from what they consider an attack...you really, really are a moron....but I point this out only for you....everyone else that read that, already had it confirmed.

Thats the real problem with guns...the let moronic little pussies start shit they couldn't otherwise ever handle.

Really, the moral of this story, is if you have a gun, dont be a moron...and really...in most cases, let the cops do their job. Watching the Ateam and reading Jack reacher novels does not make you a vigilante...it makes you a moron and in this case, for all intents and purposes...a murderer.

It is interesting that when someone lacks actual facts they resort to the ad hominen attack. Well done
Let us try and examine ACTUAL facts. 1. The police NEVER told him not to follow. The 911 dispatcher said it was not necessary. Not the same as the police telling him NOT to follow. 2. This was no "innocent kid". This was someone with a history of burglary and fighting. This was someone who was high on drugs at the time and was scoring "Lean" when this happened. The timeline suggests he was lurking or casing the area and not heading directly home.
3. Race had nothing to do with it. Even the FBI could find NOTHING in Zimmerman's history to suggest racial animus. 4. Once again, he did not "ignore" trained police officers no matter how many times you wish to repeat that. 5. You fail at reading comprehension or you just like to add your own facts. I NEVER said it was ok to question or harass anyone. I never suggested Zimmerman did that. Go read the transcript especially the testimony of Trayvon's girlfriend. Zimmerman did in fact follow Trayvon, which is NOT breaking any law. It was Trayvon who confronted Zimmerman and punched him...breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground. This is the evidence and testimony. But please do not let the facts get in the way of your arguments.
Calling me a moron just shows you lack the intellectual ability to actually counter an argument.
Finally, Zimmerman did not start "shit". He was a neighborhood watch person in a neighborhood that had been continually victimized by young black males. He called 911 and chose to follow the suspect until the police arrived. Maybe not the best move but certainly does not make him a moron or a pussy. Please retort by calling me more names...
They say you should never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[john9blue]

i hate when stupid fucks don't realize that sometimes more than one person can be at fault

[patches70]

This was someone who was high on drugs at the time

Not sure if that's exactly accurate. He had weed in his system, but THC is detectable up to 30 days after smoking (or eating for that matter) weed. He might have been high, he might not have been. No actual drugs were found on him.
Just sayin' is all.

and was scoring "Lean" when this happened.

Allegedly, at best. Logic dictates that it's probable he was scoring lean, but it's also possible he just likes Arizona watermelon fruit cocktail and eating skittles. No one really knows for sure.
Just sayin' is all.

The timeline suggests he was lurking or casing the area and not heading directly home.

Maybe, maybe not. He might have just been meandering, maybe taking his time with his walk for a bit of introspection, maybe he just wanted to get out of the house for a bit. Lurking, subjective probably. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Maybe it appears that way to one person, but not to another. <shrugs>
And even if he wasn't directly home, there's nothing wrong with that, lots of reasons that don't include lurking or casing. No one really knows. There are just plenty of other possible scenarios that don't involve lurking or casing that explain Martin's actions.
Just sayin' is all.

And anybody who still thinks Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter just doesn't accept reality. Zimmerman had a fair trail, he was acquitted. So saying he's guilty of either of those crimes is just wrong since reality shows otherwise. Zimmerman is guilty of being an idiot, but people can't be sent to jail for that. Thankfully, since pretty much everyone is an idiot at one time or another.

And anyone who thinks Zimmerman has sole responsibility isn't being intellectually honest. Martin certainly played a role in his own death.

Stuff happens, people get emotional, but it's probably a good idea to step back, look at the whole picture and just learn from it. That's how we human beings learn after all, by screwing up, sometimes screwing up very badly.
Ain't nothing going to bring back Martin, and ain't nothing going to absolve his death in Zimmerman's own mind. The rest of us can learn a bit from their mistakes. But if we only concentrate on the actions of only one of them, then we don't learn everything we could.

[BigBallinStalin]

@j9b

Absolute answers render the world seemingly easier to understand, so I can't hate them for being intellectually lazy. I wished more people thought critically, so I am disappoint. Nevertheless, hating doesn't help.

[loutil]

This was someone who was high on drugs at the time

Not sure if that's exactly accurate. He had weed in his system, but THC is detectable up to 30 days after smoking (or eating for that matter) weed. He might have been high, he might not have been. No actual drugs were found on him.
Just sayin' is all.
I can accept that.

and was scoring "Lean" when this happened.

Allegedly, at best. Logic dictates that it's probable he was scoring lean, but it's also possible he just likes Arizona watermelon fruit cocktail and eating skittles. No one really knows for sure.
Just sayin' is all.

We have a screen pull from his cell phone where one of his friends describes the ingredients needed after Trayvon asked about it. So I am going with the more likely scenario he was scoring some Lean.

The timeline suggests he was lurking or casing the area and not heading directly home.

Maybe, maybe not. He might have just been meandering, maybe taking his time with his walk for a bit of introspection, maybe he just wanted to get out of the house for a bit. Lurking, subjective probably. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Maybe it appears that way to one person, but not to another. <shrugs>
And even if he wasn't directly home, there's nothing wrong with that, lots of reasons that don't include lurking or casing. No one really knows. There are just plenty of other possible scenarios that don't involve lurking or casing that explain Martin's actions.
Just sayin' is all.
We do know he has a history of burglary. We do know there had been a rash of burglaries in that neighborhood recently. I would suggest it is not normal to meander between peoples houses. Just sayin' is all ....

And anybody who still thinks Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter just doesn't accept reality. Zimmerman had a fair trail, he was acquitted. So saying he's guilty of either of those crimes is just wrong since reality shows otherwise. Zimmerman is guilty of being an idiot, but people can't be sent to jail for that. Thankfully, since pretty much everyone is an idiot at one time or another.

And anyone who thinks Zimmerman has sole responsibility isn't being intellectually honest. Martin certainly played a role in his own death.

Stuff happens, people get emotional, but it's probably a good idea to step back, look at the whole picture and just learn from it. That's how we human beings learn after all, by screwing up, sometimes screwing up very badly.
Ain't nothing going to bring back Martin, and ain't nothing going to absolve his death in Zimmerman's own mind. The rest of us can learn a bit from their mistakes. But if we only concentrate on the actions of only one of them, then we don't learn everything we could.

[nietzsche]

Hey, last night I read the wikipedia article on this.

Come on people, if you are allowed to draw only one conclusion of all this, let it be this: you are all puppets of the media, they played you.

[Phatscotty]

Hey, last night I read the wikipedia article on this.

Come on people, if you are allowed to draw only one conclusion of all this, let it be this: you are all puppets of the media, they played you.

Finally, Nietze agrees with Glenn Beck!

(from a year ago)

[Lootifer]

i hate when stupid fucks don't realize that sometimes more than one person can be at fault

In the defense of the stupid fucks, most of them dont think they are being stupid. They see the black and white solution to be as rational as you see their view being stupid to be rational.

[Woodruff]

Definitely a hero.
Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

The facts presented to a jury said otherwise.

No they didn't. He wasn't tried for manslaughter.

Actually, the jury could have found him guilty of manslaughter. The jury did ask for clarification on the manslaughter charge the last day of deliberation.

Interesting! I honestly did not realize they had that flexibility. I have always been under the impression that the jury had to follow along with whatever the charges were. Thanks for that.

So then the question that comes to my mind next is...why don't prosecutors just ALWAYS make the charges as high as possible? What incentive is there for them to "shoot for accuracy", if the jury can still go with the lesser charge? It seems to be asking for unfairness.

[Woodruff]

Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .

Did that make sense when you wrote it?

[Woodruff]

The police advised him to not approach the kid. He was a moron, thought he knew best, and now an innocent is dead, and Zimmerman is the only one at fault. If it were not for Zimmermans actions, the kid would have walked home. His actions caused the death in every way conceivable

I don't think these are fair statements. Is Zimmerman primarily at fault? In my opinion, yes...though only by a bit. But certainly Martin deserves a healthy share of the blame, if events went down as we believe they did.

Yes, if it were not for Zimmerman's actions, Martin would have walked home. Quite likely, the same could be said for Martin's actions.

[Woodruff]

1. The police NEVER told him not to follow. The 911 dispatcher said it was not necessary. Not the same as the police telling him NOT to follow.

You're trying to excuse idiotic behavior based on a technicality of wording when the police dispatcher's intent was clear.

2. This was no "innocent kid". This was someone with a history of burglary and fighting. This was someone who was high on drugs at the time and was scoring "Lean" when this happened.

Wait, what? I don't recall seeing evidence of a drug test having been performed on Martin that showed he was under the influence at the time. Got a link?

4. Once again, he did not "ignore" trained police officers no matter how many times you wish to repeat that.

He just ignored their advisement. Is that really a relevant distinction in your mind?

[Phatscotty]

Definitely a hero.
Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

The facts presented to a jury said otherwise.

No they didn't. He wasn't tried for manslaughter.

Actually, the jury could have found him guilty of manslaughter. The jury did ask for clarification on the manslaughter charge the last day of deliberation.

Interesting! I honestly did not realize they had that flexibility.

I continue to be astonished at what you don't know about this case. I do know it won't change your opinion one bit. They could have found him guilty of aggravated assault as well, but they did not.

By the book self defense.

[Woodruff]

Definitely a hero.
Also guilty of at least manslaughter.

The facts presented to a jury said otherwise.

No they didn't. He wasn't tried for manslaughter.

Actually, the jury could have found him guilty of manslaughter. The jury did ask for clarification on the manslaughter charge the last day of deliberation.

Interesting! I honestly did not realize they had that flexibility.

I continue to be astonished at what you don't know about this case.

I continue to be astonished by your inability to understand that other people (because we all know YOU won't do this) are willing to admit when they are lacking information or when they've made a mistake. Perhaps if you weren't so intent on assassinating Martin and I's character, you might find some more time for that.

I do know it won't change your opinion one bit.

It's too bad that you can't read, then.

By the book self defense.

I suppose when "by the book" includes "create a dangerous situation and then be forced to defend yourself".