Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

That’s a good point. You keep accusing Martin of criminality, but you have also said we are all innocent until actually convicted of a crime.

So is Martin not then innocent of all crimes?

Yes, in a court of law.

As you pointed out, you don't believe GZ is innocent. I don't believe TM is innocent in the same way.

Hey, speaking of ignoring things, I asked you to cite this claim and you didn’t.

That's because I already had...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/trayvon-martin/article1951821.html

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.

 

[johnny karate]

Fighting and liking to fight is inherently violent.

And you've proven neither apply to Martin.

Oh, I see. I was wrong. Shellie Zimmerman committed perjury, because she said so.

But your argument was so convincing. I find your retraction now to be less than sincere and another example of dishonest argumentation.

TM likes fighting because he said so.

Can you quote him saying that? Because I don't think you can.

All you have are texts describing a fight that you have no evidence really took place. If a teenage boy bragged about his sexual conquests, would you believe that, too?

With Shellie Zimmerman we have an actual documented event to which she explicitly and unambiguously admitted. And that wasn't good enough for you.

With Martin, we have some casual texts describing an event that may or may not have occurred. It could just be the fabrications of a boastful teenager. Absent any corroborating evidence, we have no way of knowing.

You'll have to do better to meet your own standards of evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Fighting and liking to fight is inherently violent.

I think the distinction was between fighting and liking fights that one doesn't participate in. Is watching boxing violent ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think the distinction was between fighting and liking fights that one doesn't participate in. Is watching boxing violent ?

Probably not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And you've proven neither apply to Martin.

I disagree. And around and arounn we go.

But your argument was so convincing. I find your retraction now to be less than sincere and another example of dishonest argumentation.

Can you quote him saying that? Because I don't think you can.

All you have are texts describing a fight that you have no evidence really took place.

Why would I bother quoting him - you would just say I can't prove it was him who typed the text...

If a teenage boy bragged about his sexual conquests, would you believe that, too?

If it conquest happened in the schoolyard with people gathered around, probably.

With Shellie Zimmerman we have an actual documented event to which she explicitly and unambiguously admitted. And that wasn't good enough for you.

With Martin, we have some casual texts describing an event that may or may not have occurred. It could just be the fabrications of a boastful teenager. Absent any corroborating evidence, we have no way of knowing.

You'll have to do better to meet your own standards of evidence.

You right. We'll never know. I'm ok with that, and find the burden of proof for me to have an opinion on whether someone was a thug or not has been met.

 

[Dan O.]

An experienced fighter that gets in a good first punch would have been able to pummel George into unconsciousness. Trayvon got in the first punch, dominated George the entire time. George never even got his hands into play. Yet George is able to get up immediately after shooting Trayvon. A thug would never have given George the chance.

 

[Cylinder]

An experienced fighter that gets in a good first punch would have been able to pummel George into unconsciousness. Trayvon got in the first punch, dominated George the entire time. George never even got his hands into play. Yet George is able to get up immediately after shooting Trayvon. A thug would never have given George the chance.

Aren't you getting dangerously close to Zimmerman's own narrative there?

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, in a court of law.

As you pointed out, you don't believe GZ is innocent. I don't believe TM is innocent in the same way.

What I don't believe is that Zimmerman was proven innocent for the crime for which he was charged and tried. And as a matter of law, I am correct.

Martin, on the other hand, has never been charged with a crime or even arrested. And according to your standard, that makes him innocent by default.

So I'm not sure how you can then assert he is a criminal.

That's because I already had...

Oh I see... we're relying on the texts of a teenage boy again as being truthful accounts of things that really happened.

Odd that his school didn't mention "fighting" as a reason he was suspended. But clearly, their records must be incorrect, because if you can't believe what a teenager says in a text to his friends, what can you believe?

However, my favorite part of the article you cited would have to be this:

“So you just turning into a lil hoodlum,” one friend, whose name has been withheld, texted Trayvon.

Trayvon replied: “No not at all.”

So there you have it. Martin texted that he wasn't a hoodlum (which, as you know, is a synonym for "thug"). Therefore it must be true.

Martin has been conclusively proven to not have been a thug.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What I don't believe is that Zimmerman was proven innocent for the crime for which he was charged and tried. And as a matter of law, I am correct.

Who in the world claimed that was the case ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So there you have it. Martin texted that he wasn't a hoodlum (which, as you know, is a synonym for "thug"). Therefore it must be true.

Martin has been conclusively proven to not have been a thug.

Yet he was suspended for vandalism (vandal, as you know, is a synonym for "thug"). Therefore it must be true.

Martin has been conclusively proven to have been a thug.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Odd that his school didn't mention "fighting" as a reason he was suspended. But clearly, their records must be incorrect, because if you can't believe what a teenager says in a text to his friends, what can you believe?

Not odd, as I don't recall the school mentioning any explanations for his suspensions in prior years. Perhaps that's why.

Now if they said "he wasn't suspended his junior year" you might have something.

 

[johnny karate]

Why would I bother quoting him - you would just say I can't prove it was him who typed the text...

I have no problem believing Martin typed the texts traced to his phone. But you are still burdened with the task of establishing he is speaking truthfully about actual events.

If it conquest happened in the schoolyard with people gathered around, probably.

You seem to be implying there are witnesses to Martin's alleged love of fighting. If so, please cite them so we can assess their credibility based on the standards you established in the Michael Brown thread.

You right. We'll never know. I'm ok with that, and find the burden of proof for me to have an opinion on whether someone was a thug or not has been met.

You can hold whatever opinion you want. But when you assert things as factual on a skeptic's forum, you will be challenged to substantiate your assertions. And when you fail to do so adequately, it will be pointed out that you have dubious opinions.

 

[johnny karate]

Who in the world claimed that was the case ?

I didn't say anyone did. I was merely clarifying my position that you had misconstrued.

 

[johnny karate]

Yet he was suspended for vandalism (vandal, as you know, is a synonym for "thug"). Therefore it must be true.

Martin has been conclusively proven to have been a thug.

Well, not so fast there. How do we know Martin actually committed vanadalism?

You have argued that we can't really know if Zimmerman shoved a cop.

Was Martin convicted for the crime of vandalism?

How do we know if the teacher or school official who claimed he was committing vandalism is telling the truth?

These are the same arguments you used to deny Zimmerman committed battery on a law enforcement officer.

Why would they not apply to Martin?

 

[johnny karate]

Not odd, as I don't recall the school mentioning any explanations for his suspensions in prior years. Perhaps that's why.

Now if they said "he wasn't suspended his junior year" you might have something.

So no corroboration from the school, then.

Looks like you're back to establishing Martin was being truthful about actual events in his texts.

 

[Unabogie]

So no corroboration from the school, then.

Looks like you're back to establishing Martin was being truthful about actual events in his texts.

Of course Martin was truthful. He truthfully explained that he wasn't a hoodlum. Since everything he wrote in his texts is 100% true, we've now proven conclusively that Martin was not a thug.

Now, back to the person who has a rap sheet that includes rape, murder, and assault?

 

[Unabogie]

Well, not so fast there. How do we know Martin actually committed vanadalism?

You have argued that we can't really know if Zimmerman shoved a cop.

Was Martin convicted for the crime of vandalism?

How do we know if the teacher or school official who claimed he was committing vandalism is telling the truth?

These are the same arguments you used to deny Zimmerman committed battery on a law enforcement officer.

Why would they not apply to Martin?

Well, we're back to the problem of using inflammatory language anyway. For the crime of vandalism, Trayvon Martin allegedly wrote "WTF" on his locker. Now, let's parse the meaning of the word vandalism.

action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.

Yes, technically writing on a locker in school qualifies, I guess. But you'd probably guess that vandalism is more along the lines of tagging gang signs on walls, or destroying something like a window. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any student who hadn't written on their desk or locker at one point or another. And writing "WTF", while silly, isn't exactly the kind of thing you'd equate with a person being actually violent. So how on earth does this one episode of writing on a locker, even if true, go in any way towards showing a propensity for violence?

The answer is that it does not. Can the same thing be said for the things Zimmerman has done prior to and after the trial? Can any of his episodes even be argued are not violent, if true?

So you have Martin, if true, is a naughty boy. If Zimmerman's are all true (and we have named complainants for all of them), then he's a psycho.

So we're left with hate sites that purport to have video of Martin watching a fight and some vague text about a schoolyard fist fight (did any of us make it through high school without one?) as proof that he was inherently violent, and we can only get there if we apply a far different standard of proof to Martin than we do to Zimmerman.

Do I have it all summed up?

 

[Dan O.]

Aren't you getting dangerously close to Zimmerman's own narrative there?

It is Zimmerman's narative. The problem is Zimmerman's miraculous survival. If he was actually getting pounded by a thug there is no way out for him. The reality is that George Zimmerman was taken down and detained until help arrived.

 

[12AX7]

Thanks, it's evidence that he likes fights.

This proves absolutely nothing. My 67-year-old mother with end-stage emphasema/COPD loves her some UFC.

And let's not forget that the violent thug Martin, upon his first encounter with Zimmerman, went immediately to "beat a man's ass" mode instead of walking past Zimmerman.

Oh wait.

Anyway, Zimmerman's own words to dispatch describe how violently confrontational Martin was:

"****, he's running."

I guess he meant Martin was running towards him in an obvious pot-fuelled Skittle rage, and not away from him.

Oh wait.

Doesn't matter. Zimmerman was so concerned about this violent thug that he stayed put until trained law enforcement arrived to handle the situation.

Oh wait.

 

[12AX7]

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

Where did I claim GZ was not thug ?

OK, we can clear this one up post-haste:

Do you think Zimmerman is a thug?