*promote the cringe-worthiness.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, June 24th, 2013 10:46am PDT - promote requested by original submitter not_blankfist.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

When the joke deliverer has to say "That's funny", it probably ain't.

But it'll win, I sure do hope George is vindicated.

For his sake, and ours, I hope that's not indicative of the quality of defense he's about to receive.
Are they setting up an appeal based on inadequate council? If so, we should somehow force his current council to re-pay the state for the full cost of the trial they wasted.
epic fail

he's goin away for a long time.

Yep, he's f'd...

Ugghhhh, that state prosecutor....douche-meter pegged the red-WTF is up with a 6-person, all-female jury?? Poor George, he's gonna get kangarooed!

If they could prove without a doubt that it was self defense based on concrete evidence, they wouldn't be so desperate to paint Martin as a threatening gangsta thug.

It would be completely irrelevant if he was a sweet innocent boy or a hard core gangster. If they could prove it, it wouldn't matter

If Chewbacca lived on Endor you must ACQUIT.
That does not. make. sense.

Oh wow! That was a massive lawyer fail.

it relates to the fact that they summoned about 500 jurors for this trial. usually only having like 12 or so... also, it was probably very hard to find people who hadnèt actually already heard of what was going on as it was all over the news.

If you have to apologize half a dozen way before you tell the joke, you probably shouldn't.

Still, that wasn't as bad as I Imagined.

That was hilarious, he just botched the delivery.

That's the thing, they don't have to prove it was self defense. The prosecution has to prove it wasn't.

Negatory. Claiming self defense flips the burden. We know that Martin is dead by Zimmerman's hand. The defense now has to prove they have a good reason to kill. Same thing with the insanity plea. Google Affirmative defense

Well I stand corrected and he's screwed.

A jury cannot know about the case--but a judge can. A jury has to listen to a judge--and the judge has all the power...how fucked up is that for rational thought?

I get the joke--concrete! Because Martin allegedly used the sidewalk to hit Zimmerman with...huehue...

Okay...first thing I must say is this (And this is not to you Trancecoach, you're a smart cookie I respect, this is just a general statement to everyone to include myself.)

Learn the fucking law if you speak about it!

This is Florida! (Think Sparta.) Florida is a different breed than even other states such as Texas and Arizona.

Zimmerman seems to have 100% legal rights to have shot Martin under our stupid laws. Even supposing it was a dick piece of human shit move, the bigger question remains--is the government allowed to convict a piece of shit who doesn't break the law? If so, our society is so fucked.

The law here is pretty clear and many examples exist of it getting people off. You CAN chase someone down and start a confrontation, then shot them. Hell, you can be part of a drug deal gone bad and kill someone and get off. Someone can throw a beer bottle at you and you can shoot them.

A similar situation to Zimmerman's happened with a guy named Dooley. He was black though, old, and the guy he shot was a white veteran--so he is fucked. He will have a Public Pretender, so he is fucked. Same as Zimmerman, I believe he is pretty covered by the law, even though he flashed a gun by pulling up his shirt.

"I hope you don't think this is inappropriate."

No, a fucking murder trial where is the perfect place for your fucking joke. Even ignoring the insult to the victim's family, you'd think his client would feel that it's not really a place for levity.

It's too bad they can't bring up the type of gang-banger the victim was-If Zim had met-up with some punk-ass chulos with La Raza tats and they beat the shit out of him, he'd have probably shot the Hispanics as well, he'd have shot a white person, he was ready to use his nayborhood-watch shooter and looking for a reason just as little, innocent, beat-you-to-within-an-inch Skittle-man was....Combined with a law that's not insane or perfect (though it may need instruction pamphlets for the socially-impaired) the whole things' a huge clusterfuck because everyone involved is and was, developmentally-disabled!

What's up with the Zimmerman support, at Videosift of all places? I can understand chinglalera blindly defending anyone in Zimmerman's position just to maintain their rebellious online persona, but jesus christ

The Martin gangsta persona is bullshit, but the paranoid racist with delusions of grandeur portrayal of Zimmerman seems to be pretty accurate. Idiot should have stayed in his car, and although the asinine law may acquit the motherfucker, he killed Martin, and it was his (Zimmerman's) own damn fault.

And yes, catbutt, even the far-rightie nutters have a small delegation here at VS, replete with their own delusions, as well as the occasional drifter who succumbs, temporarily, to their representative media's onslaught of stupidity and faux rage.

I'm surprised Zimmerman didn't shoot his lawyer for looking out of place.

Almost doesn't matter anymore. Even if he is acquitted, his life is effectively over. Especially if he keeps gaining weight at the rate he's going

Assuming the defence fail to prove he committed an act of self defence, the prosecution still have to prove that he is guilty of his alleged crime.

Either way there is more burden on the prosecution since they must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he committed the alleged crime, whilst the defence only have to prove the reasonable possibility that it was self defence to cast reasonable doubt on the possibility of guilt.

They don't have to prove that he killed him. There is no dispute that Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman has admitted as much. The only dispute is if he did it in self defense or not.

If Zimmerman has "100% legal rights to have shot Martin" then the state wouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting him.

I think Zimmerman will be found guilty. Zimmerman's defense waved the right to a pre-trial "stand your ground" hearing. If he won the pre-trial hearing, it would have granted him immunity to any further criminal or civil trials. Waving the right to that hearing could mean that they didn't think he stood a chance of wining, so they're taking their chances on a jury trial.

I find it funny that you tell others to "learn the fucking law if you speak about it!" when you don't seem to know the law yourself. Here is the law for your reading pleasure. Notice there are several exceptions which I'll highlight:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I thought even the defense agreed that SYG didn't apply. Or was that Zimmerman first set of lawyers

Presumed Guiltocent - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been added as a related post - related requested by pumkinandstorm on that post.

The problem is none of that which you highlighted furthers your argument. If Zimmerman hit Travon, you would be right. But "provoking" the fight goes far beyond just tailing someone and making them feel like a punk bitch as you profile them. That is in no way physical, and in no way deserves a physical response. If it did, I could have beat the fuck out of a whole lot of people, some defenseless.

Anyways, a drug deal in and of itself is in no way provoking a fight. It has happened where offenders get off doing these deals (or having done illegal shit and someone got shot.) Already been done. Shooter got off. He had a legal right to be where he was (I.e., not in the guy's home illegally) and there was a slight break in the drug deal before the attack. (I.e. he turned his back and took a step or two, and got hit from behind. Drug deal, turn around, fight, kill, but you are okay...)

Remember, there is always an exception that can be found in the law. And calm down Jimnms, no need to rage. Just read the law a bit closer and try to think like a pussy would, like Zimmerman would. It could one day get you off of murder charges.

Calm down, I'm not the one raging, and I wasn't making any argument, I simply stated facts, and based on those facts made a prediction that Zimmerman will be found guilty. Of course with a jury it's not really about the law anymore but which lawyer convinces the jury who was right. Still based on what I've seen of Zimmerman's defense, it's not looking good for him.

You claimed that Florida law "is pretty clear and many examples exist of it getting people off. You CAN chase someone down and start a confrontation, then shot them. Hell, you can be part of a drug deal gone bad and kill someone and get off. Someone can throw a beer bottle at you and you can shoot them." You provided no proof of your claims, and I simply supplied a link to the law showing that what you claim about the law isn't true. The law doesn't "get people off," lawyers do.

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.

What are you rambling on about? You made several claims about what you could get away with under the "stand your ground" law, which I pointed out are false, and you go on to say there were many examples of "it" getting people off, yet you don't provide any.

I don't know why you keep obsessing over the "stand your ground" law. It didn't get Zimmerman off, it wasn't even used by his defense. Zimmerman's defense waved the right to a pre-trial "stand your ground" hearing. If he won that hearing, he would have had immunity to any further criminal or civil trials.

I'm as surprised as any that Zimmerman was found not guilty. I didn't watch any coverage of the trial or obsess over reading every detail published about it, so I don't know what circumstances convinced the jury to find him not guilty. Zimmerman may not be guilty of murder, but he can still be looking at a wrongful death suit in civil court, although I doubt that would do much good.