Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

No one claimed you can attack someone for simply following you.

The statute does not require someone to be fearful, concerned, or worried before they have the legal right to defend themselves.

Only that they have a reasonable belief the other person intends to use imminent unlawful force.

You have yet to provide an argument as to why it was unreasonable for Martin to have that belief regarding Zimmerman.

I don't even have to show that it wasn't reasonable for Martin to have that belief because it was well demonstrated he didn't have any such belief. Because someone who had that belief doesn't call a girl living 180 miles away to shoot the bull, he'd call the police.

And that's something you haven't even addressed, why did he call Rachel Jeantel instead of the police if he was in fear of imminent unlawful actions by Zimmerman?

I'm not sure what you are blathering about.

You said "this has already been through the court system". As we are discussing Martin's alleged assault of Zimmerman, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that it "has already been through the court system".

Kindly do so, or retract your silly claim.

The jury believed that Zimmerman acted in lawful self defense.

 

[12AX7]

You have 2 of 3 correct. Primarily I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, while the "Martin was chased down and killed for carrying Skittles and wearing a hoodie" people are not critical thinkers and driven by emotion and unable to objectively examine the facts.

Who has said "Martin was chased down and killed for carrying Skittles and wearing a hoodie"? Seriously. Who?

Was Martin profiled? I believe so. Did Zimmerman bear some culpability in the matter? I believe so.

For example, you haven't disputed anything I've said and are resorting to race-baiting and name calling.

You've been asked repeatedly for an argument as to why it was unreasonable for Martin to have that Zimmerman meant him harm and acted accordingly. See, for the Zimmerman supporters like you, it appears the right to self-defense is reserved only for the white, conservative-leaning gun owners.

In fact, if you think I'm paining with a broad brush, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Martin supporter (or at the very least someone like me who thinks Zimmerman acted foolishly) on any firearms or conservative forum. Go and see; report back what you find.

No race-baiting or name calling; I'm pointing out the fact that most Zimmerman supporters fit one or more of those three characteristics. I'm sorry if that offends you.

At least johnny attempts to counter my arguments, even though he is forced to ignore and/or deny the available evidence in order to do so.

I don't think we're talking about the same Johnny here. If you're referring to "johnny karate" above, you seem to have some reading comprehension issues. In fact, I see you have ignored this:

No one claimed you can attack someone for simply following you.

The statute does not require someone to be fearful, concerned, or worried before they have the legal right to defend themselves.

Only that they have a reasonable belief the other person intends to use imminent unlawful force.

You have yet to provide an argument as to why it was unreasonable for Martin to have that belief regarding Zimmerman.



I'm not sure what you are blathering about.

You said "this has already been through the court system". As we are discussing Martin's alleged assault of Zimmerman, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that it "has already been through the court system".

Kindly do so, or retract your silly claim.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[12AX7]

The best part is that if this was a situation in which the police shot and killed someone they thought intended to use imminent unlawful force, these same people would be falling all over themselves to defend the actions of the police.

But apparently a teenage kid merely punching someone in the same situation is beyond the pale.

Yep. It's bizarre.

 

[Dan O.]

It's not a "personal belief", it's a fact supported by evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense at the trial.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense are here presenting arguments. Since they cannot be cross examined here, appeal to their authority is rejected.

What is the support for the "claim" that George didn't go beyond the "T"? George himself claims that he went past the "T" to the next street. George claims that he just stood there for several minutes while the black kid got away. If George had followed the street towards the back entrance and later cut through to the walk in the common area, he could have been seen walking towards the "T" by the witness and he could have ended up behind Travon if Trayvon had stopped shortly past the "T". All of the evidence of the struggle was found past the "T" except for the small flashlight which was found near the "T" in almost the exact spot where George was arrested.

 

[WildCat]

Who has said "Martin was chased down and killed for carrying Skittles and wearing a hoodie"? Seriousy. Who?

Pretty much everyone who took the pro-Martin side, how could you have missed it? Rep. Bobby Rush even spoke on the floor of the HoR wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles, it was absurd.

Was Martin profiled? I believe so. Did Zimmerman bear some culpability in the matter? I believe so.

Maybe he was, but it's entirely irrelevant. It's not illegal to call the police on a person you find suspicious, even if that suspicion is because of racial profiling.

You've been asked repeatedly for an argument as to why it was unreasonable for Martin to have that Zimmerman meant him harm and acted accordingly. See, for the Zimmerman supporters like you, it appears the right to self-defense is reserved ony for the white, conservative-leaning gun owners.

100% false. And I'm not a conservative, unless you think conservatives are pro-gay rights, pro-science, atheist, and think abortion should be legal among other things. The problem you have is that Martin did not believe Zimmerman was a threat to him, as demonstrated by his not calling the police and going back to the "T" to confront Zimmerman.

In fact, if you think I'm paining with a broad brush, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Martin supporter (or at the very least someone like me who thinks Zimmerman acted foolishly) on any firearms forum. Go and see; report back what you find.

Maybe because most people on firearms forums are well-versed on what is and what isn't lawful self defense, while the Martin supporters think "stand your ground" laws allow you to attack someone for following you.

No race-baiting or name calling; I'm pointing out the fact that most Zimmerman supporters fit one or more of those three characteristics. I'm sorry if that offends you.

And you were wrong in my case. Also whites are the most common demographic in the USA, so your observation isn't as illustrative as you believe. Most supporters of green energy are white too, that doesn't make it a racial issue.

I don't think we're talking about the same Johnny here. If you're referring to "johnny karate" above, you seem to have some reading comprehension issues. In fact, I see you have ignored this:




But whatever helps you sleep at night.

I have addressed everything he said, someone has a reading comprehension issue and it isn't me.

 

[WildCat]

Neither the prosecution nor the defense are here presenting arguments. Since they cannot be cross examined here, appeal to their authority is rejected.

That's not an appeal to authority fallacy, since they are the actual experts in this case. Unless you think you have more knowledge of the case than they do?

What is the support for the "claim" that George didn't go beyond the "T"? George himself claims that he went past the "T" to the next street. George claims that he just stood there for several minutes while the black kid got away. If George had followed the street towards the back entrance and later cut through to the walk in the common area, he could have been seen walking towards the "T" by the witness and he could have ended up behind Travon if Trayvon had stopped shortly past the "T". All of the evidence of the struggle was found past the "T" except for the small flashlight which was found near the "T" in almost the exact spot where George was arrested.

Oh boy, here we go again with people claiming that a few feet beyond the T is a material discrepancy. There's no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman left the general area of the "T", and we know from his phone call to the police that he did not know where Martin was and was certainly not in his sight. We also know that the confrontation happened in the "T" area. We also know that Martin wasn't afraid Zimmerman was going to use unlawful force on him, because he would have called the police if he had instead of shooting the bull with Rachel Jeantel.

The trouble with all the pro-Martin scenario is it relies in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever, such as Zimmerman chasing down Martin or trying to make a citizen's arrest on him.

 

[12AX7]

I think John Oliver summed it up best:

“That we can get a verdict like this, not because the system has broken down, but the system worked exactly as it was designed. How does 2013 Florida have a law that seems cut and pasted from 1881 Tombstone? Because – let’s be clear here – according to current Florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following him, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, get into a confrontation with him and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida will say, ‘Well, look, you did what you could.'”

 

[Giz]

I think John Oliver summed it up best:

Except that Oliver missed out the :
Get into a confrontation with him (which martin chooses and initiates)
In the process you get scared (are on your back being assaulted, yelling for help over and over and the attacker doesn't stop and no one comes to help)

 

[Dan O.]

The argument was:

There was a witness at the trial who saw someone go past her unit towards the "T", and since Zimmerman never left the "T" area it could only have been Martin going back.

The alternate hypothesis is that Trayvon stopped running shortly past the "T" and continued to talk to his girlfriend and that it was Zimmerman that circled around and was comming back towards the "T". The unrefuted hypothesis refutes the claim that "it could only have been Martin going back".

 

[12AX7]

Except that Oliver missed out the :
Get into a confrontation after being told not to follow Martin in the first place with him (which martin chooses and initiates)
In the process you get scared (are on your back being assaulted, yelling for help over and over and the attacker doesn't stop and no one comes to help)

ftfy.

So, what do you think would have happened if Zimmerman had not followed Martin (like he was asked to do*) and simply waited for the police to arrive?

*Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that."

 

[johnny karate]

I don't even have to show that it wasn't reasonable for Martin to have that belief because it was well demonstrated he didn't have any such belief. Because someone who had that belief doesn't call a girl living 180 miles away to shoot the bull, he'd call the police.

You should really familiarize yourself with the basic facts.

Martin was already on the phone when he noticed Zimmerman watching him.

Also, being on the phone with a friend does not preclude one from having a reasonable belief that someone else intended to use imminent unlawful force against them.

Nor does Florida law require that you must call the police as a suitable demonstration of that belief before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

And that's something you haven't even addressed, why did he call Rachel Jeantel instead of the police if he was in fear of imminent unlawful actions by Zimmerman?

Let's ignore for the time being that you have - once again - dishonestly conflated "fear" with "belief". Mostly, because it gets a little tiresome to point out every dishonest argument you make.

We'll also ignore the fact that you seem to be unaware that Martin was already on the phone by the time Zimmerman was following him.

So your question on its face is, at best, dishonest and ignorant.

But since you've already exhibited incoherence regarding your grasp of the basic and undisputed facts, let me expand on the chronology of events to see if we can enlighten you:

Martin walks home at night talking on the phone with his friend.

Zimmerman sits in his car watching Martin.

Martin sees him and runs away.

Zimmerman follows Martin.

Zimmerman makes no attempt to identify himself or announce his intentions.

Zimmerman makes a quick move for his pocket.

Hopefully, that will clear things up for you. If you are still confused about what happened and when, please let me know.

Now... in that exact scenario I just described, please explain how is was not reasonable for Martin to believe Zimmerman intended to use imminent unlawful force against him.

The jury believed that Zimmerman acted in lawful self defense.

It's weird that you presume to know what the jury believed.

Personally, I think I'd rather listen to the jurors themselves on that matter.

Here's what one of them had to say about it:

George Zimmerman got away with murder.

But of course your bizarre proclamations about what other people believe regarding the trial of George Zimmerman are beside the point.

We are discussing whether or not Martin criminally assaulted Zimmerman, and anxiously awaiting you to provide evidence of that crime.

 

[johnny karate]

Except that Oliver missed out the :
Get into a confrontation with him (which martin chooses and initiates)
In the process you get scared (are on your back being assaulted, yelling for help over and over and the attacker doesn't stop and no one comes to help)

Please present your evidence that Martin chose and initiated the confrontation.

 

[12AX7]

Please present your evidence that Martin chose and initiated the confrontation.

You won't get it. See, the Zimmerman Fan Club™® knows that they only have Z's word because, you know, the other guy is dead. Therefore it's easy to make Martin the attacker.

See, IMHO, after this was ignored:

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that."

Anything after that (and I mean anything) is solely Zimmerman's fault.

"But...but... he was concerned about his neighborhood, Martin's location, etc!" cry the Zimmerfans™® . Nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense.

Zimmerman chose (read: chose) to continue this confrontation after being told by professional law enforcement not to.

So like I said, John Oliver nailed it:

"Because – let’s be clear here – according to current Florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following him, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, get into a confrontation with him and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida will say, ‘Well, look, you did what you could.'”

 

[WildCat]

The argument was:

​

The alternate hypothesis is that Trayvon stopped running shortly past the "T" and continued to talk to his girlfriend and that it was Zimmerman that circled around and was comming back towards the "T". The unrefuted hypothesis refutes the claim that "it could only have been Martin going back".

So how did they miss each other, especially with Martin talking to Jeantel the whole time?

 

[WildCat]

johnny johnny johnny, you have yet to explain why a person who was in fear of imminent unlawful force against him would choose to talk with agirl 180 miles away instead of calling the police. And according to Jeantel this conversation continued right up until the confrontation.

Do you know who was concerned enough to call the police? George Zimmerman.

 

[WildCat]

You won't get it. See, the Zimmerman Fan Club™® knows that they only have Z's word because, you know, the other guy is dead.

Is that all we had, the word of Zimmerman? No other witnesses? No recorded phone calls? No phone records? No physical evidence like a shell casing, blood splatter, bruises?

As I've said before, the only way the Saint Trayvon worshippers can cling to their beliefs is by ignoring the bulk of the evidence, much like creationists do when they ignore all the evidence for the ToE.

 

[Dan O.]

So how did they miss each other, especially with Martin talking to Jeantel the whole time?

This a simple reconstruction. Trayvon is spooked by George aparently following him and runs into the cut through towards the "T". He turns the corner and finds a hiding spot among the shadows and bushes. Here he waits and watches, speaking in a whisper while George is near. George parks his truck at the entrance to the cut through with the headlights shining towards the "T". he gets out of his truck and heads in the direction he thought the kid went. George goes past the "T" and towards Retreat View Circle where he disappears from Trayvon's sight. After a few minutes, Trayvon believes he has lost George and returns to the path and resumes his trip home, still talking to his girlfriend. Having circled around, George is headed up the path and the two come face to face.

 

[Mumbles]

Please present your evidence that Martin chose and initiated the confrontation.

Um...isn't one of the gun-lovers' mottos "When seconds count, police are only minutes away?" But Martin was supposed to call the police, for a guy who was following him?

 

[Mumbles]

This a simple reconstruction. Trayvon is spooked by George aparently following him and runs into the cut through towards the "T". He turns the corner and finds a hiding spot among the shadows and bushes. Here he waits and watches, speaking in a whisper while George is near. George parks his truck at the entrance to the cut through with the headlights shining towards the "T". he gets out of his truck and heads in the direction he tout the kid went. George goes past the "T" and towards Retreat View Circle where he disappears from Trayvon's sight. After a few minutes, Trayvon believes he has lost George and returns to the path and resumes his trip home, still talking to his girlfriend. Having circled around, George is headed up the path and the two come face to face.

An even more simple hypothesis - Zimmerman, in addition to his other obvious lies, also lied about where he left his car, and only walked to the "T" shortly before the fight started, spotted Martin, and immediately resumed his pursuit.

 

[Dan O.]

An even more simple hypothesis - Zimmerman, in addition to his other obvious lies, also lied about where he left his car, and only walked to the "T" shortly before the fight started, spotted Martin, and immediately resumed his pursuit.

Where Geprge parked his car should not be in dispute. There was an officer specifically canvassing the cars on the street hoping for a lead that would identify the unknown boy. The license plate on George's vehicle was called in and it came back registered to George Zimmerman on Retreat View Circle. It is possible that the officer did not make note of the location of the car. And Shelly removed the vehicle from the scene shortly afterwards.


The smartest location for George to have parked would be at the far end of the path south of the "T" where he could watch both the path and the back entrance. George would never need to get out of his truck.