Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Prederick wrote:

HOLY sh*t JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS A MURDEROUS THUG.

Hellz yeah, she's OG.

Why is her ring finger like halfway up?

The slight finger extension makes for a more structured, formal bird flipping than the more conventional, but sloppy closed fist. I use the form myself, and feel it has a statuesque grandeur.

It lacks the passion that comes with the closed fist though. It would be more appropriate for more passive "oh, f you" than an angry "F YOU!"

Stengah wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Prederick wrote:

HOLY sh*t JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS A MURDEROUS THUG.

Hellz yeah, she's OG.

Why is her ring finger like halfway up?

The slight finger extension makes for a more structured, formal bird flipping than the more conventional, but sloppy closed fist. I use the form myself, and feel it has a statuesque grandeur.

It lacks the passion that comes with the closed fist though. It would be more appropriate for more passive "oh, f you" than an angry "F YOU!"

I couldn't disagree more! It speaks to both passion and thought at once--"Not only should you go f*ck yourself," it says, "but I have refashioned myself, erected this edifice in blood and muscle and bone to tell you go f*ck yourself." No, the closed fist has far more the tossed-off quality.

Could be regional differences. I have never seen anyone in Canada do it that way, and never saw it with the half-closed fingers until an American movie (Top Gun, for trivia buffs).

I'd say 90% of Americans use the clenched fist bird, but I agree with SpacePPoliceman that it lacks the proper flourish. Thumb out is the only way to go. Let 'em know it's not your first rodeo.

Thumb out, good.

Other fingers halfway up, no you're doing it wrong, and giving me a middle finger plus 1.5 fingers based on 3 half fingers.

No worries, KG. FB is the root of all evil.

I prefer to play it cool.

IMAGE(http://www.bob-owens.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/obama-finger-.jpg)

I personally enjoy the full-middle/bent index/extended thumb combo.

I am, personally, a big fan of the toothy grin accompanied by the enthusiastic and sarcastic thumbs up. You'd be surprised how violently disappointed folks get when you do this when they were expecting an angry expression of disapproval.

TWO THUMBS way up!

Paleocon wrote:

I am, personally, a big fan of the toothy grin accompanied by the enthusiastic and sarcastic thumbs up. You'd be surprised how violently disappointed folks get when you do this when they were expecting an angry expression of disapproval.

A nod and a wink have gotten me wonderfully confused looks. But when I do feel the urge to flip a bird the raised knuckle variant requires a little less effort and is easier to maintain as otherwise I'd have to involve the wrist in squaring up the target in question. The fist variant feels less focused since my middle finger dips towards the palm when I roll the other fingers.

Rezzy wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am, personally, a big fan of the toothy grin accompanied by the enthusiastic and sarcastic thumbs up. You'd be surprised how violently disappointed folks get when you do this when they were expecting an angry expression of disapproval.

A nod and a wink have gotten me wonderfully confused looks. But when I do feel the urge to flip a bird the raised knuckle variant requires a little less effort and is easier to maintain as otherwise I'd have to involve the wrist in squaring up the target in question. The fist variant feels less focused since my middle finger dips towards the palm when I roll the other fingers.

It's actually pretty entertaining watching inherently angry people grind mental gears at this reaction. I will even occasionally bark out an enthusiastic "good for you!" just to hear the twisting of metal in their skulls.

Nothing fcuks with a tough guy like laughing at him.

Paleocon wrote:

I am, personally, a big fan of the toothy grin accompanied by the enthusiastic and sarcastic thumbs up. You'd be surprised how violently disappointed folks get when you do this when they were expecting an angry expression of disapproval.

This. I also will address them as "Professor" , just in case they hadn't realized that my thumbs are dripping with sarcasm.

Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am, personally, a big fan of the toothy grin accompanied by the enthusiastic and sarcastic thumbs up. You'd be surprised how violently disappointed folks get when you do this when they were expecting an angry expression of disapproval.

This. I also will address them as "Professor" , just in case they hadn't realized that my thumbs are dripping with sarcasm.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/axcygvX.jpg)

Paleocon wrote:

I am, personally, a big fan of the toothy grin accompanied by the enthusiastic and sarcastic thumbs up. You'd be surprised how violently disappointed folks get when you do this when they were expecting an angry expression of disapproval.

My mother enjoys a big grin and a wave with a "Have a nice day!!"

Drives others bat-f*cking insane.

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zw2SVloYz60/SfDyFWOpJdI/AAAAAAAABb4/su0kzRrf6t0/s400/bush-flips-bird.jpg)

I think this is the site you guys are looking for.
THE BIRD, THE FINGER, THE LEGEND
IMAGE(http://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/johnny20cash20finger202.jpg?w=600&h=469)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18556018-judge-denies-delay-bars-evidence-in-george-zimmerman-trial?lite

A Florida judge ruled Tuesday that George Zimmerman’s defense team cannot mention Trayvon Martin’s suspension from school, prior marijuana use, text messages or past fighting during opening statements at next month’s trial.

I'm... confused. Why was this even a part of their opening statements? It has absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question. This is why I'm not cut out to be in law. If I was this judge, I would have thrown that defense attorney out of the courtroom after using the word "moron" extensively.

Demosthenes wrote:

I'm... confused. Why was this even a part of their opening statements? It has absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question. This is why I'm not cut out to be in law. If I was this judge, I would have thrown that defense attorney out of the courtroom after using the word "moron" extensively.

Zimmerman's attorneys wanted to paint a picture that Martin was a violent thug--someone who fought, used drugs, got suspended from school, possibly once had stolen goods on him--to justify Zimmerman stalking and shooting him. It sounds better for Zimmerman to claim that than just admit he followed Martin because he was black.

It's a bit of a "people in glass houses" thing. Zimmerman isn't exactly squeaky clean, either. He committed battery against a police officer while drunk back in 2005 and also had his ex-fiancee file a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. And Zimmerman's past is much more relevant than Martin's for this trial.

*sigh*

One of the tactics the prosecution might use is to attack Zimmerman's character and paint him as a racist looking to commit a hate crime. The defense likely hoped to counter this character attack on their client by revealing some violent and criminal character flaws about the deceased. This is a substantial win for the prosecution.

It's worth noting that Zimmerman would have no knowledge of Martin's background on the night in question (and in fact, if he acted on the assumption that Martin had a background like that, it would be prejudice, whether or not Martin had such a background). That background may be relevant if they're arguing about what Martin might have done that night—but only in that specific context: "He's known to have been in fights" suggests that he's capable of throwing a punch, and that Zimmerman may have felt his life was threatened.

It may be relevant if the defense attempts to argue that Martin intentionally set out to beat the sh*t out of Zimmerman (although I think that would get laughed out of court), or that Zimmerman did in fact observe Martin engaged in criminal behavior (ditto).

But that's pretty much it. Outside of that, Martin's background should have no bearing on the case. It's not relevant to questions of Zimmerman's guilt, since it's not information Zimmerman was privy to at the time—and it is Zimmerman's behavior at that time that is in question.

(To sum up: Martin's history may be relevant if the question comes up of whether Martin was capable of making Zimmerman feel his life was threatened. Not relevant to the case as a whole, because [em]Martin is the victim here[/em], no matter what he did in other circumstances.)

So far as I've read, the defense has continued to be that Martin attacked Zimmerman. They likely want to use these prior acts to counter statements that "Martin would never have done that."

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So far as I've read, the defense has continued to be that Martin attacked Zimmerman. They likely want to use these prior acts to counter statements that "Martin would never have done that."

Do they have witnesses to the event? Video footage? Anything other than the word of the man who shot the victim?

Seems like if you're going to go with self-defense, there should be some evidence to submit that this particular incident was self-defense. A history of violent behavior is not indicative of unwarranted violent behavior in a future event on either person's side, but as the one holding the gun, it seems like burden of proof on such a claim is on the defense's side now. You can't convict someone of theft charges solely because they used to steal things.

Of course, this could be flipped around to say that the prosecution needs to prove malicious intent, but with one person dead, and the other confirmed as holding and firing the gun that killed him... they have a much smaller mountain to climb, as they only need to prove that the defense is wrong on self-defense.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So far as I've read, the defense has continued to be that Martin attacked Zimmerman. They likely want to use these prior acts to counter statements that "Martin would never have done that."

Sure. The appropriate time to bring up those prior acts, then, is when the question arises. Asking the question and answering it yourself is something you do when you have something to say that you can't just come out and say, and the opposition isn't going to come out and give you an excuse to say it. (i.e. if the prosecution doesn't actually argue that it would be contrary to Martin's character, then the defense doesn't get to say "No, really, here's some evidence.")

If the defense wants to say "here's some evidence that Martin had poor character" for any reason other than disputing a claim that he had good character, that's out of bounds—because Martin isn't on trial here.

If the defense suggests that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and then the prosecution says "that would be out of character", the defense will still be able to bring up this evidence of his character.

Hint: The prosecution won't do that, they'll say "Sure—any reasonable person might attack someone who seems to be aggressively stalking them with ill intent." And then Martin's character is irrelevant.

Yeah, the ruling is just that they can't mention them in their opening, not that they're banned entirely.

The judge ruled that the evidence about past fights could not be mentioned in opening statements but said it could be admitted during trial if the defense can authenticate it and overcome rules against hearsay evidence.

The defense certainly isn't taking any chances. The recently released contents of Trayvon's phone messages and texts are getting no shortage of coverage by the major news outlets.

ringsnort wrote:

The defense certainly isn't taking any chances. The recently released contents of Trayvon's phone messages and texts are getting no shortage of coverage by the major news outlets.

True, but by all accounts I have read, Zimmerman was already stalking the Martin. At that point, I think the prosecution could wave aggressiveness as he wasn't the instigator.

Demosthenes wrote:
ringsnort wrote:

The defense certainly isn't taking any chances. The recently released contents of Trayvon's phone messages and texts are getting no shortage of coverage by the major news outlets.

True, but by all accounts I have read, Zimmerman was already stalking the Martin. At that point, I think the prosecution could wave aggressiveness as he wasn't the instigator.

On it's own, Zimmerman following Trayvon wouldn't seem to justify Trayvon's assault on Zimmerman. Additionally, the second degree murder charge against Zimmerman itself supports the contention that, at worst, Zimmerman's actions were not premeditated. Thus, there was no "stalking of the Martin" as you put it.

In spite of the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't have been there in the first place, the prosecution has to overcome or somehow have dismissed the substantial physical evidence of the defensive wounds sustained by the defendant. Also, if the contention that Zimmerman did in fact lose sight of Trayvon during his pursuit and that Trayvon elected to assault Zimmerman rather than simply continue on his way, that too directly supports the defense's contention of self defense.

The use of "pursuit" really bothers me.

Ah. The slutshaming the raps victim defense.