Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Belz...]

Trayvon: “I lost da 1st round but won da 2nd nd 3rd.”

See that grammar ? Totally a thug.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My standard is that it's your claim, prove it.

It originally came from TMs youtube channel.
They yell "trayvon" in it.
It looks like him.
Mark O'Mara claims he has a video of TM refereeing a fight.

That s adequate proof for this purpose.

Well, it matters where people get their information from. Strangely enough, getting all your news from hate sites tends to skew the perspective.

Perhaps, I wouldn't know.

But what does matter is if the information is accurate or not, not where it comes from..if only there was a name for that kind of fallacy where you attack the source, not the information itself...

We've already demonstrated that O'Mara is perfectly happy to lie and make up smears when it helps his client. I'm not sure why you persist in using him as a source. His credibility is shot.

Sure, won the case, but his credibility is shot. Meanwhile, BDLR is completely incompetent too....In Bizzaro world

We yeah, you can believe anything you want. But if you want other people to believe it too, you have to present proof.

I presented more than enough evidence for any reasonable person.

No, that sounds like a person texting bravado. Do you have any proof such a fight took place, or whether or not is was just a bunch of shoving, like for instance, how Zimmerman shoved that DEA agent? No, you have nothing but this alleged text, from which you've extrapolated the worst possible interpretation. When Zimmerman committed his many assaults, you have a totally different standard. One in which an accusation with a named complainant is not enough.

But all those texts don't meet your standard :roll eyes:

Well yes, since you still haven't shown a single case in which Martin was engaged in violence.

Did you close your eyes when reading my response ?

Some of the earliest text messages date back to early November 2011, in which Trayvon, a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade, indicates he was suspended from school for being in a fistfight.
He was also suspended for vandalism, yet you say he's not a vandal ?

And yet you want to complain about my so called double standards ?

I can give you several for his murderer. They include assault, rape, and threatening with a loaded gun.

Would you disagree that if there were allegations that Trayvon Martin assaulted people, committed rape, and threatened a woman with a loaded shotgun, that you'd consider that rock solid evidence of a violent "thug"? Of course you would, since your standards include skipping classes and writing "WTF" on his locker, or getting caught with an empty weed baggie. Had Martin threatened a woman with a gun there'd be no doubt in your mind he was a depraved maniac.

So...let's see.
If I say GZ is also a thug, you will agree TM is a thug ?
Is that how this works ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

See that grammar ? Totally a thug.

I've noticed you haven't actually addressed any of my evidence.

Have any constructive posts ?

 

[Belz...]

I've noticed you haven't actually addressed any of my evidence.

Have any constructive posts ?

Is humour still allowed, here ?

 

[Dan O.]

His firearm was carried at the 3 o'clock position.

Cop pulls gun from Zimmerman's ass...


... Video at 6 o'clock.

 

[johnny karate]

It's not about the law, but about the evidence. We cannot establish who attacked who first. How do you not return a not guilty verdict in those cases ?

I presented the evidence. It's not a question of who attacked who, but a question of whether or not circumstances indicate Martin was legally defending himself. They clearly do.

 

[McHell]

I'm saying that any conclusion is about who assaulted who first is speculation. There is no physical evidence and no third-party impartial witness to the event.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is not evidence, it just isn't conclusive evidence, as some have claimed on both sides of the issue. The highlighted portion most closely fits my position.

If you were to ask my opinion, I'm leaning toward the conclusion that Martin attempted to verbally confront Zimmerman about following him and Zimmerman grabbed or attempted to grab Martin, constituting the first actual assault of the encounter. That, however, is just speculation on my part based on the available evidence. It is not meant to be an actual conclusion and I am willing to be swayed by any new evidence.

Fair enough, thanks. I think we are more or less in agreement except for mior details.

 

[johnny karate]

It's his own excuse, not mine.
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.ph...ding-misstated-nature-of-trayvon-martin-video

He stated that the video showed "two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy," when what happened was Trayvon Martin, along with a buddy, was videotaping two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike. Though it was unintentional, it is a particular concern to us because we are and have been committed to disputing misinformation in every aspect of this case, not causing it. For that, Mr. O’Mara apologizes.

But yes, it was stupid of him to make that mistake.

A lie is intentional. Do you believe O'mara intentionally lied about something that would be so obviously seen as a lie ? I think he's smarter than that.

Smarter than what? To tell a lie, then lie about the lie?

Do you deny that he could be lying in both cases?

As for condemning TM, I'm just showing you the evidence of his fondness of fights.

Do you believe it's TM in the video, or no ?

The video won't play. But sure, I'll concede it's a video of Martin standing there watching other people fight.

But I thought the point was to demonstrate he was violent. How does a video of him not participating in violence demonstrate he is violent?

 

[johnny karate]

That's fine. Neither being biased nor hypocritcal make it wrong.

Well, at least you admit to it. That's progress.

 

[johnny karate]

I have no proof of circumstantial evidence ?
I know, the womens jewelry just fell into his backpack. :roll eyes:

It's sad that you would bring this up knowing there is no evidence to support your allegation that even approaches the standards you set for believing something like this about Zimmerman. But it is a nice reminder of your biases and dishonesty.

And he was 17. He can't legally own or purchase a handgun. So there's that.

But he can at 18. Or would you think a 15 year-old who expressed interest in acquiring a car intended to steal one and drive it illegally?

You were asked this before and conveniently ignored it: Did Martin make specific mention of wishing to acquire a gun illegally? If not, how do you know that was his intent?

Criminal activity and a penchant for violence. How does that not meet the definition of thug ?

It might if you could establish either.

List the crimes you can prove Matin committed, along with your evidence.

List the evidence of Martin being violent.

 

[McHell]

It's not about the law, but about the evidence. We cannot establish who attacked who first. How do you not return a not guilty verdict in those cases ?

INAL but I don't think we need to establish "who attacked who first," necessarily. In this particular case, essentially it was necessary to establish that Zimmerman (intentionally or unintentionally) provoked Martin into using force, and/or that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

There are several key pieces of physical evidence that support both of those points - in addition to the holes, contradictions, and absurd excuses within Zimmerman's story. Namely the locations of items at the crime scene (such as the body, shell casing, tactical flashlight, etc,); Martin's autopsy report; multiple witness statements; etc. The jury instructions ask the jury to use their common sense to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Legally, one could disregard portions or the entirety of Zimmerman's story, leaving only the physical evidence mentioned above, which to my mind should have been enough for manslaughter.

 

[johnny karate]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-martin-was-suspended-three-times-from-school
Trayvon Martin, the teenager whose shooting death has sparked a national uproar, was suspended from school last month for having a baggie that contained marijuana residue in his book bag, a family spokesman said Monday.

So:
Skipping school to the point of suspension.
Suspension from school for drugs and vandalism
Circumstantial evidence of stealing jewelry.
Videos of being involved in fights.
Texts regarding fights, including references to opponent not bleeding enough.
Being kicked out of his mothers home for unknown reasons.
Described himself as a "gangsta"
Discussed illegally purchasing/owning a handgun
Illegal drug use

Criminal activity and a penchant for violence. How does that not meet the definition of thug ?

Which of the above is a demonstration that Martin is violent?

You keep harping on this video that shows Martin not being violent, and insisting it demonstrates he's violent. Could walk me though the logic of that? Because it seems like a wildly stupid thing to assert.

 

[Unabogie]

It's sad that you would bring this up knowing there is no evidence to support your allegation that even approaches the standards you set for believing something like this about Zimmerman. But it is a nice reminder of your biases and dishonesty.

Earlier, he wrote:

The default state we are all in is innocent.

To claim that we are all simply "not guilty" of crimes, but not innocent, is simply absurd.

Indeed. Trayvon Martin, having never been found guilty of any crime, is innocent of every sort of infraction, especially "burglary", by TheL8Elvis's own standard.

I'll post it again.

The default state we are all in is innocent.

To claim that we are all simply "not guilty" of crimes, but not innocent, is simply absurd.

So since Trayvon Martin is innocent of any such infraction, those infractions cannot ever be used to prove he was a "thug" or violent if one wants to maintain any sort of intellectual honesty.

 

[johnny karate]

I presented more than enough evidence for any reasonable person.

But we're using your standards, which have demonstrated themselves to be anything but reasonable. You know, like how a woman admitting she committed perjury isn't proof enough that she committed perjury, or a sworn affidavit from a law enforcement officer isn't enough proof that a guy assaulted him.

Based on that standard, I'm not sure how you can prove anything about Martin.

But all those texts don't meet your standard :roll eyes:

And they wouldn't come close to meeting yours if they were Zimmerman's text.

Considering you don't believe when a woman admits to perjury to the media and the world regarding an actual recorded event of perjury, I'm not sure why you would believe what one teenage boy would text to his friend about something you don't even know took place.

So I'll echo Unabogie's question: What evidence do you have that Martin is telling the truth about an actual event?

So...let's see.
If I say GZ is also a thug, you will agree TM is a thug ?
Is that how this works ?

No one needs you to admit Zimmerman is a thug. We know he is, and we have ample proof that rises above school suspensions and text messages.

 

[johnny karate]

So since Trayvon Martin is innocent of any such infraction, those infractions cannot ever be used to prove he was a "thug" or violent if one wants to maintain any sort of intellectual honesty.

I think that horse might have left the barn.

 

[Unabogie]

No one needs you to admit Zimmerman is a thug. We know he is, and we have ample proof of it that rises above school suspensions and text messages.

Of course we do. Just imagine what Zimmerman's supporters would say if it were disclosed that Trayvon Martin had the following rap sheet.

• Assault against a law enforcement officer.
• Rape and child molestation
• Domestic abuse
• Kicking a dog
• Road rage including death threats and stalking
• Barricading himself in a home with a bag full of guns, refusing to allow police inside
• And of course, shooting and killing someone who wasn't armed, while claiming he was in fear for his life.

Seriously, is there any doubt about how such a list would be used to support Zimmerman? But on the other side, Trayvon Martin wrote on his locker, got busted with weed, and skipped classes.

THUG!!!

 

[Belz...]

I presented the evidence. It's not a question of who attacked who, but a question of whether or not circumstances indicate Martin was legally defending himself. They clearly do.

Have you considered that perhaps what is convincing to you might not be entirely convincing to everybody else ?

I'm not even sure what you think is such good evidence for Martin defending himself.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Smarter than what? To tell a lie, then lie about the lie?

Smarter than to tell a lie that would be so easily caught out, and apparently, get him most likely disbarred and facing criminal charges.

Do you deny that he could be lying in both cases?

Nope. Absolutely possible.

The video won't play. But sure, I'll concede it's a video of Martin standing there watching other people fight.

But I thought the point was to demonstrate he was violent. How does a video of him not participating in violence demonstrate he is violent?

Thanks, it's evidence that he likes fights. When he has videos of fights, and texts about the fights he's in, and his girlfriend complains he likes fighting too much, he gets in trouble at school for fighting ... at this point its obvious he likes fighting.

 

[johnny karate]

Have you considered that perhaps what is convincing to you might not be entirely convincing to everybody else ?

I'm not even sure what you think is such good evidence for Martin defending himself.

I've laid out the evidence - more accurately the facts about the circumstances of the encounter between Martin and Zimmerman - and explained how under Florida law it is pretty much the perfect storm of a self-defense scenario.

Based on those facts, I don't see how an argument can be made that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and I've invited other posters to try to argue otherwise.

No one seems to be up to the challenge.

If you find my argument unconvincing, so be it. But know that I find out-of -hand dismissals and bare assertions unconvincing as well.

 

[Belz...]

If you find my argument unconvincing, so be it. But know that I find out-of -hand dismissals and bare assertions unconvincing as well.

What else do you want me to tell you except that I don't find it convincing ?