**thericosuave rolled a random image posted in comment #28 at original character ** this is fuuuuuuuucking awesome, mfw when i saw it!

I'm not talking out of my ass.
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/25/10854229-witness-zimmerman-never-tried-to-help-trayvon-martin

Yeah but it sounds like your two "witnesses" are talking out of their asses, probably hyped up with all the media attention. The gun shot wound didn't enter through Trayvon's back, it was through his front. Meaning that Trayvon was on top of him at the time of the gun shot, and let's not forget that Zimmerman is overweight and has asthma and much older than the young, athletic, taller Trayvon Martin. So according to them, Zimmerman was beating up Trayvon straggled on top of him while the original witness who wasn't exposed to the media hype and bias stated the complete opposite. Seems legit.

Conversation has been over. No point in debating on FJ, i'm here for the funny : )

This is a relative new law. You are no authority on its practical application...no one is yet. The scenario I posed is WELL within possibility. Believe it or not there are folks who still HATE each other because of color of skin...or even something as petty as the color of your shirt when you are wearing on the wrong corner. If I simply disliked the color of your skin and were a petty, unstable armed miscreant who maybe disliked you for your internet posts (or maybe the fact that you were wearing a hoody) that would be more motive than many a haneous crime throughout the history of mankind had. I could certainly stage signs of struggle very easily, though the stand your grown law doesn't require it. So your first few points are answered to my satisfaction. People have CERTAINLY been known to kill with little or no motive.

The aditional scenario you presented is not conflicting in my point of view since I am not questioning that law and the ability to protect yourself from home intrusion. This was law before this stand your ground stuff. I support it.

I too believe that a more defensive prerogative should be the letter of the law...I see many potential problems in this law. That is the reason I didn't want to get into this particular case. I don't know exactly what happened, just the narrative reported...I don't know anyone ever will, but would like the focus to shift from race to gun laws.

Although I wouldn't consider myself an expert on this particular law, unless you are a lawyer, I can tell you that I am in a much better position to know a lot about this law than you do. The stand your ground law would not let the situation as you have described it take place and automatically take the favor of the killer.

And I agree with shifting the focus away from race, especially since I believe that race was not a major motivating factor in this case, although, as you have stated, it is difficult to know precisely what happened. However, you say you wish the focus to be transferred to gun laws, which I strongly disagree with. Making firearms illegal or extremely difficult to obtain legally will do nothing but take them out of the hands of the average, law-abiding citizen and keep them in the hands of criminals and serious offenders. Firearms are an important part of our rights and are a great help to national security. The only reason the Japanese didn't invade the West coast of the U.S. was because they were afraid of the strength of all our civilians armed with guns.

I was stating that there was one eyewitness to the actual altercation - the other witnesses were only to the results of the altercation once it was finished. And the fact that they heard no sounds of a fight doesn't mean there wasn't one. It means just that, they didn't hear it. And if Martin yelled when the gun was pulled out (which would be a reasonable reaction if you know the person you were just beating was about to shoot you), what bearing does that have on the rest of the altercation?

Don't worry dude, I thumbed you up where I could. A lot of Funnyjunk consists of nothing more than sheltered little kids who can't see past their own noses. Let em ignore the facts all they want.

You should research more. The FIRST witness account that went public was 2 females who saw ZImmerman straddled on top of Martin.

That isn't true. I don't know what else to say beyond that.

I'm not talking out of my ass.
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/25/10854229-witness-zimmerman-never-tried-to-help-trayvon-martin

Yeah but it sounds like your two "witnesses" are talking out of their asses, probably hyped up with all the media attention. The gun shot wound didn't enter through Trayvon's back, it was through his front. Meaning that Trayvon was on top of him at the time of the gun shot, and let's not forget that Zimmerman is overweight and has asthma and much older than the young, athletic, taller Trayvon Martin. So according to them, Zimmerman was beating up Trayvon straggled on top of him while the original witness who wasn't exposed to the media hype and bias stated the complete opposite. Seems legit.

Conversation has been over. No point in debating on FJ, i'm here for the funny : )

Absolutely nothing on this document states that the witnesses claimed that Zimmerman started the altercation, and, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that none of the three witnesses observed the beginning of the altercation, and only one actually observed the altercation while it was still in progress. This one witness told police that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was crying out for help - like I said.

You should probably read through a document before you use it in your argument, and know your facts about the incident.

I was stating that there was one eyewitness to the actual altercation - the other witnesses were only to the results of the altercation once it was finished. And the fact that they heard no sounds of a fight doesn't mean there wasn't one. It means just that, they didn't hear it. And if Martin yelled when the gun was pulled out (which would be a reasonable reaction if you know the person you were just beating was about to shoot you), what bearing does that have on the rest of the altercation?

While he was talking to her, he was shoved and the ear-piece fell out, and she heard a confrontation.

>Even if I concede that Zimmerman was "chasing Martin down", which I do not,

This really isn't something that's disputable. It's something that was even in Zimmermans account of the story.
Travyon saw him, tried to get away, and couldn't.

How would the girl be able to tell if he was shoved and the earpiece fell out or if he took it out when he was going to verbally confront Zimmerman? And you haven't addressed the serious possibility that this teenage girl, who has obvious reason to be biased, is not a reliable source of testimony.

I agree that Zimmerman was following Martin, but "chasing him down" implies that Martin started running away and Zimmerman chased him until he caught up, which didn't happen. He kept following Martin, and eventually lost sight of him.

You are still avoiding the main concern here, which is that Zimmerman's life is being ruined by the media and a public unaware of the facts is calling for his arrest due to the media's portrayal of the incident when legally he has done nothing wrong.