Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

So his fatal mistake was thinking that running behind buildings into the darkness was a good way to escape a creepy man in a truck who was following him, not expecting him to get out and chase him into the darkness for no reason.

That was a big blunder, him not knowing that the man had a penchant for violence such as assault, rape, and now killing.

When a post starts with "so", generally what follows has little to do with the actual argument at hand.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Based on the standards you establish in the Michael Brown thread for the reliability of eyewitnesses, please explain why you think this witness is credible.

No.

Well, we know Zimmerman is violent, but did someone call him a felon? Can you provide a quote?

Sure.

I'm sorry, would it be more accurate to call him a "strongarm robber"? I keep forgetting when shoving someone is a sign you're a violent felon and when it's just a misunderstanding. As I said above, if you haven't re-examined your opinion of George Zimmerman after all of the violent outbursts since his acquittal, there's something else at work there.

 

[johnny karate]

No.

Yeah, pretty much what I expected. I do appreciate the fact that you cut to the chase without post after post of tedious sophistry.

Sure.

I'm not seeing where Unabogie called Zimmerman a felon. Are you sure you quoted the right post?

 

[Unabogie]

Yeah, pretty much what I expected. I do appreciate the fact that you cut to the chase without post after post of tedious sophistry.



I'm not seeing where Unabogie called Zimmerman a felon. Are you sure you quoted the right post?

I think the poster doesn't understand the concept of a double standard.

 

[Upchurch]

Please present evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

It is amazing to me that this point still hasn't sunk in. We have no evidence of who physically assaulted who first, remembering that even grabbing someone legally counts as assault.

There are only two people who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead.

 

[Unabogie]

It is amazing to me that this point still hasn't sunk in. We have no evidence of who physically assaulted who first, remembering that even grabbing someone legally counts as assault.

There are only two people who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead.

Apparently this point is as hard to understand as the one pointing out that George Zimmerman's word can't be taken at face value, considering that his freedom was riding on him telling a version of events that painted him as a meek victim. The term "self-serving" was a hard one to grasp.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah, pretty much what I expected. I do appreciate the fact that you cut to the chase without post after post of tedious sophistry.

No one is forcing you to post tedious sophistry.

I have no interest in belaboring this discussion regarding an incident from 2005. I provided my link to simply provide context from my earlier post.

I'm not seeing where Unabogie called Zimmerman a felon. Are you sure you quoted the right post?

If you want to pretend that what I quoted was not calling GZ a violent felon, then I think the tedious sophistry has already begun.

 

[Unabogie]

No one is forcing you to post tedious sophistry.

I have no interest in belaboring this discussion regarding an incident from 2005. I provided my link to simply provide context from my earlier post.



If you want to pretend that what I quoted was not calling GZ a violent felon, then I think the tedious sophistry has already begun.

It was not. It was calling you out on your blatant double standard. Note: Michael Brown is not a felon either, yet the word "felon" occurs constantly in that thread.

 

[Mumbles]

It is amazing to me that this point still hasn't sunk in. We have no evidence of who physically assaulted who first, remembering that even grabbing someone legally counts as assault.

There are only two people who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead.

And the survivor is a known liar, with a definite interest in spinning falsehoods, and who also has a penchant for violence, *and* who chased the dead party.

 

[johnny karate]

No one is forcing you to post tedious sophistry.

I have no interest in belaboring this discussion regarding an incident from 2005. I provided my link to simply provide context from my earlier post.

Your entire premise on this point was that there was reason to doubt the officer’s version of events and believe Zimmerman’s. And you offered as your sole piece of evidence the testimony of a witness who is not only a close friend of Zimmerman’s, but is also recalling events that took place seven years prior.

Taking into account your strict guidelines for what determines reliable eyewitness testimony, and your refusal to defend the credibility of this particular witness, we can therefore take this as a tacit admission that this single piece of evidence you presented is in fact poor evidence that actually proves nothing.

Which brings us back to where we started: Zimmerman shoved a cop, and there exists no credible evidence to the contrary.

If you disagree, please state your case and defend your “evidence”.

If you choose otherwise, your concession will be accepted and the matter will be considered closed.

If you want to pretend that what I quoted was not calling GZ a violent felon, then I think the tedious sophistry has already begun.

I’m not “pretending” anything. Unabogie was quite clearly referencing Michael Brown (the guy who has been accused of being a violent felon) and not George Zimmerman, and at no point did he actually call Zimmerman a felon.

 

[Mumbles]

That's a lie.

I go where the evidence goes.

Obviously, you do not. The clear evidence is that Zimmerman chased Martin down, and has a long history of violence. Other evidence clearly shows that he shot and killed Martin. Evidence also shows that Zimmerman is a pathological liar - including in the events that led to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

As of today, there is no evidence, apart from Zimmerman's absurd reenactment, that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and the only known witness to the beginning of the fight, one Rachel Jeantelle, states that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

So, the only resolution is that you believe that either walking by someone, or running away from them, is "assault".

 

[Giz]

It is amazing to me that this point still hasn't sunk in. We have no evidence of who physically assaulted who first, remembering that even grabbing someone legally counts as assault.

There are only two people who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead.

So I'll chalk you down as a "not guilty" was the appropriate verdict?

 

[Giz]

Obviously, you do not. The clear evidence is that Zimmerman chased Martin down, and has a long history of violence. Other evidence clearly shows that he shot and killed Martin. Evidence also shows that Zimmerman is a pathological liar - including in the events that led to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

As of today, there is no evidence, apart from Zimmerman's absurd reenactment, that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and the only known witness to the beginning of the fight, one Rachel Jeantelle, states that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

So, the only resolution is that you believe that either walking by someone, or running away from them, is "assault".

You are so biased and blinkered due to race, it is incredible.

 

[Mumbles]

Continue home and go inside.

Ah, so we're back to sundown towns.

Stop in a well lit area and call the NEN.

Which would have likely led to him being killed by Zimmerman.

 

[Mumbles]

You are so biased and blinkered due to race, it is incredible.

And here's where I know I'm done with you.

You claimed to follow evidence. I posted what the actual evidence is. You basically project your own bias onto me.

Thanks, we're done.

 

[Upchurch]

So I'll chalk you down as a "not guilty" was the appropriate verdict?

Legally, yes.

I do not, however, have any illusions that the verdict implies that he is innocent in actuality.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your entire premise on this point was that there was reason to doubt the officer’s version of events and believe Zimmerman’s. And you offered as your sole piece of evidence the testimony of a witness who is not only a close friend of Zimmerman’s, but is also recalling events that took place seven years prior.

Taking into account your strict guidelines for what determines reliable eyewitness testimony, and your refusal to defend the credibility of this particular witness, we can therefore take this as a tacit admission that this single piece of evidence you presented is in fact poor evidence that actually proves nothing.

Which brings us back to where we started: Zimmerman shoved a cop, and there exists no credible evidence to the contrary.

If you disagree, please state your case and defend your “evidence”.

If you choose otherwise, your concession will be accepted and the matter will be considered closed.

*shrugs*I can't control how you interpret my lack of desire to go down this useless rabbit hole.

I’m not “pretending” anything. Unabogie was quite clearly referencing Michael Brown (the guy who has been accused of being a violent felon) and not George Zimmerman, and at no point did he actually call Zimmerman a felon.

I don't think it was clear at all. In fact, I interpret the meaning quite differently than you.
But since this is the GZ thread, that's who I am discussing here. If you want to talk about brown being a felon in the appropriate thread, I'll be happy to discuss it there.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ah, so we're back to sundown towns.

No.

If TM was scared of the creepy ass cracker, I offered 2 reasonable responses for him that have nothing to do with race.

Which would have likely led to him being killed by Zimmerman.

Is there some reason any of us besides you should come to that conclusion ?

 

[Psiload]

I'll only note this: we still have no answer to a very simple question.

What was Trayvon Martin supposed to do?

And I don't mean the Martin in Zimmerman's story who runs away, and then runs back, punches him so that he falls both forwards and backwards, and then caves Zimmerman's head in, but it recovered overnight...

No.

You are walking down the street, some person is staring at you. You walk by, and they begin following you. You run away, and this person gets out of his car and chases you. That's all documented. What do you do?

Go home, despite doing nothing illegal, and lead this weirdo directly to your house?

Stand and defend yourself, at which point the weirdo shoots you?

Yell for help - at which point he'll shoot you and claim that he was yelling?

What would I do? I'd Run. I would run far away.

If I was legitimately scared of a person who was staring at me, and then chasing me. I would run away. I would rely on my speed and endurance to outdistance my peruser, and take me out of harm's way.

In Trayvon Martin's case, he had exactly 4 minutes and 7 seconds of time in which to run away. We know this. This is what the evidence shows. That is the amount of time which elapsed between Zimmerman saying "he's running", and the start of the direct confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin.

4 minutes and 7 seconds.

I am a 47 year-old man, and if you gave me 4 minutes and 7 seconds, I could easily put a half a mile between me, and the person staring at me in your rhetorical situation. Half a mile away. My stalker would have trouble shooting me with a sniper rifle at that distance. A point-blank shot, such as Martin suffered, would not be possible.

There is only one conceivable reason why I would would be back at just about the same exact spot from which I had started running, being shot point blank, if I had been granted 4 minutes and 7 seconds of running time, and that reason is because I wasn't scared, and that's exactly where I wanted to be. Back where I started, confronting my stalker.

 

[Upchurch]

There is only one conceivable reason why I would would be back at just about the same exact spot from which I had started running, if I had been granted 4 minutes and 7 seconds of running time, and that reason is because I wasn't scared, and that's exactly where I wanted to be.

But Martin didn't have a legal obligation to run, and he may not have known that Zimmerman was armed (as far as I recall). Didn't Martin have the right to stand his ground?