George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[Arctish]

That's right folks. Kel-Tec's best customer has been arrested yet again on suspicion of domestic violence with a weapon. No word yet on which model he was using this time.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

He was minding his own business when the domestics attacked him.

 

[RavenSky]

This violent murdering jackass needs to be in prison already.

Given how many arrests this jerk has had for being a violent prick - both before and after he murdered Trayvon - it just disgusts me how many people still defend him.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well maybe when he kills again, the proper people will see fit to lock him up.

 

[aeebee50]

He is hooked on being in the news.

 

[Davka]

Doesn't a man have the right to violence in the privacy of his own home? Fascist pricks.

Thanks, Obama.

 

[Warpoet]

The most interesting thing about these "Zimmerman dun fucked up again" threads is how his defenders grow quieter and quieter each time.

 

[Rhea]

So the people who originally defending him vociferously, they are surprised by this, right? "Who'd have thought that nice boy would do this?" Or maybe it's still, "He was in teh right again, just defending himself against thugs and right to do so!!11!!"

 

[Derec]

Given how many arrests this jerk has had for being a violent prick - both before and after he murdered Trayvon - it just disgusts me how many people still defend him.

Just because Z is a violent prick doesn't mean that Trayvon wasn't one as well. And being a violent prick does not mean one forfeits one's right to self defense or the need for the state to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Rhea]

Given how many arrests this jerk has had for being a violent prick - both before and after he murdered Trayvon - it just disgusts me how many people still defend him.

Just because Z is a violent prick doesn't mean that Trayvon wasn't one as well. And being a violent prick does not mean one forfeits one's right to self defense or the need for the state to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is interesting juxtaposed against the argument that the "evidence" that Zimmerman was not lying about events was the "history" of Martin being a thug. It was all so "probable" that Martin was the instigator. So the evidence now shows that Zimmerman is a much more violent and vicious thug than Martin ever was. So we can now conclude that Zimmerman was probably lying in all of his testimony about the actions that he claims Martin made that triggered Zimmerman's "self defense need," right?

 

[EPresence2]

Just because Z is a violent prick doesn't mean that Trayvon wasn't one as well. And being a violent prick does not mean one forfeits one's right to self defense or the need for the state to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is interesting juxtaposed against the argument that the "evidence" that Zimmerman was not lying about events was the "history" of Martin being a thug. It was all so "probable" that Martin was the instigator. So the evidence now shows that Zimmerman is a much more violent and vicious thug than Martin ever was. So we can now conclude that Zimmerman was probably lying in all of his testimony about the actions that he claims Martin made that triggered Zimmerman's "self defense need," right?

To be fair, GZ was being threatened on a regulatory basis after the TM homicide case. That might make one acquire weapons for fear of retribution. His life really went to shit during and after the incident - some of it his own doing. I remember all the vilification being showered on the guy - some of which was legitimate while others was not. I also recall having discussions with some people who couldn't seem to understand the innocent until proven guilty standard of American justice; they seem to think that following someone and manifesting mistrust verbally was sufficient reason to justify a pounding by TM. We don't know who started the physical altercation, which is important to remember. And just because GZ lied doesn't make him probably lying in all his testimony. Was all that Dorian Johnson said probably a lie because parts of his testimony were clearly at odds with the physical evidence? I am trying to be fair, though selective focus creeps in sometimes. Nobody else seems to be apologizing for their selective focus. It's like nobody wants to unilaterally disarm or something.

 

[Nexus]

And being a violent prick does not mean one forfeits one's right to self defense...

Actually its does if that violent prick is the one instigating the situation that leads to needing to use self defense. The narrative that Zimmerman innocently found himself at the wrong place at wrong time against the wrong person doesn't stand upon plausible scrutiny anymore. It didn't for me after I learned of his previous run in with the undercover cop before all this.

Unlike other Travon supporters I can concede that he was severely beating Zimmerman on the sidewalk yet given Zimmerman's past and now known future violent tendencies its obvious Travon was right to fight him. He was facing a dangerous thug out to hurt him and surrendering peacefully wasn't an option. Travon's true mistake that cost him his life was that he didn't finish Zimmerman while he had the upper hand during the fight. He must have let up as if he were in a school yard scuffle not realizing the lethal response and weapon awaiting him.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, the answer is more guns. If I'm reading everyone correctly.

 

[Derec]

And being a violent prick does not mean one forfeits one's right to self defense...

Actually its does if that violent prick is the one instigating the situation that leads to needing to use self defense. The narrative that Zimmerman innocently found himself at the wrong place at wrong time against the wrong person doesn't stand upon plausible scrutiny anymore. It didn't for me after I learned of his previous run in with the undercover cop before all this.

Unlike other Travon supporters I can concede that he was severely beating Zimmerman on the sidewalk yet given Zimmerman's past and now known future violent tendencies its obvious Travon was right to fight him. He was facing a dangerous thug out to hurt him and surrendering peacefully wasn't an option. Travon's true mistake that cost him his life was that he didn't finish Zimmerman while he had the upper hand during the fight. He must have let up as if he were in a school yard scuffle not realizing the lethal response and weapon awaiting him.

But what you say is giving Z justification to use deadly force against an assailant who, as you say, is capable of "finishing him off".

 

[Derec]

This is interesting juxtaposed against the argument that the "evidence" that Zimmerman was not lying about events was the "history" of Martin being a thug. It was all so "probable" that Martin was the instigator. So the evidence now shows that Zimmerman is a much more violent and vicious thug than Martin ever was. So we can now conclude that Zimmerman was probably lying in all of his testimony about the actions that he claims Martin made that triggered Zimmerman's "self defense need," right?

None of Z's past or future misadventures change the exculpatory evidence. Evidence such as injuries to Z's head and the lack of similar injuries to Trayvon, showing that the "whoop ass" was quite one-sided. You also have prosecution's star witness Rachel "Precious" Jaentel admit that Trayvon wanted to give Z a "whoop ass" as well as using racist slurs ("creepy ass cracker"). There are also witnesses who saw Trayvon on top of Z.
Last but certainly not least, it doesn't matter whether Z was "probably lying". This was a criminal trial, not a college sexual assault kangaroo tribunal. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "probably".

 

[Nexus]

But what you say is giving Z justification to use deadly force against an assailant who, as you say, is capable of "finishing him off".

No because Z wasn't justified in confronting M in the first place. Z created the conflict situation and therefore can't claim self defense afterwards.

 

[Derec]

But what you say is giving Z justification to use deadly force against an assailant who, as you say, is capable of "finishing him off".

No because Z wasn't justified in confronting M in the first place. Z created the conflict situation and therefore can't claim self defense afterwards.

We discussed that ad nauseam years ago, during the original "Dying for Skittles" thread. You do not lose right to self defense by merely confronting somebody. The question is who attacked whom, not who spoke to whom first, and evidence suggests it was M attacking Z.

 

[Nexus]

Last but certainly not least, it doesn't matter whether Z was "probably lying".

This is your problem. You're not interested in what actually happened just what narrative can be sold with the proper rhetoric. That's a flaw of our justice system not a feature. It may be necessary to keep the government in check against tyranny but to pretend that "guilty" people getting away with their crime is a good thing is silly.

 

[EPresence2]

But what you say is giving Z justification to use deadly force against an assailant who, as you say, is capable of "finishing him off".

No because Z wasn't justified in confronting M in the first place. Z created the conflict situation and therefore can't claim self defense afterwards.

So GZ made a initial mistake that should preclude him from later defending himself when the situation escalates? Imagine the converted GZ imagining while he's being beaten (to death?): "Well I deserve this for following this guy and telling him XYZ." You are making an absurd conclusion given the force escalation involved - some levels are more acceptable than others.

 

[Nexus]

You do not lose right to self defense by merely confronting somebody. The question is who attacked whom, not who spoke to whom first, and evidence suggests it was M attacking Z.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You shouldn't be able to confront someone that's not doing anything illegal. If you do then you forfeit any self defense claims later.