WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
So it is your contention that Zimmerman intended to grab or detain Martin? If so, your evidence is...?No, it's not.
So it is your contention that Zimmerman intended to grab or detain Martin? If so, your evidence is...?No, it's not.
There's no indication Zimmerman was running after Martin
So it is your contention that Zimmerman intended to grab or detain Martin? If so, your evidence is...?
Really.
Do you think "chase" is more accurate than "follow"?
Relevance?What decision could he have made before Zimmerman approached him? Did he decide to psychicly compel Zimmerman to follow him? To bring a gun? Use some common sense.
Isn't it also possible that in the wake of recent burglaries Zimmerman saw someone he didn't recognize acting suspiciously (as he reported to the police dispatcher), called the police, and then followed him so as to keep him in his sight until police arrived?You're right; it's possible for instance that Martin contributed to creating the scenario by spraying himself with that new Axe body spray that causes the neighborhood watch to stalk and chase you. I did indeed assume without evidence that couldn't be true. My apologies.
Perhaps you should apply for the $1 million prize with this amazing ability you have to read other people's thoughts.It's true; some people can kill unarmed kids without even a twinge of remorse.
Isn't it also possible that in the wake of recent burglaries Zimmerman saw someone he didn't recognize acting suspiciously (as he reported to the police dispatcher), called the police, and then followed him so as to keep him in his sight until police arrived?
And if he'd stopped after "called the police," this thread wouldn't exist. The police told him, in no uncertain terms, not to pursue, and he did anyway.
"breathlessly?except for the 911 call where Zimmerman says that Martin ran away, and then breathlessly states that he is pursuing him. So your claim is false.
No, he agrees to meet the police at the mailboxes, then he requests the police call him when they arrive.The fact that Zimmerman chased Martin, who ran away after noticing him.
And the fact that Zimmerman refused to meet with police at a provided place, and insisted on pursuing Martin.
Relevance?
Isn't it also possible that in the wake of recent burglaries Zimmerman saw someone he didn't recognize acting suspiciously (as he reported to the police dispatcher), called the police, and then followed him so as to keep him in his sight until police arrived?
Perhaps you should apply for the $1 million prize with this amazing ability you have to read other people's thoughts.
None of which is relevant in determining who confronted whom. We know Zimmerman was following Martin, we don't know how the confrontation was initiated.And if he'd stopped after "called the police," this thread wouldn't exist. The police told him, in no uncertain terms, not to pursue, and he did anyway.
The only misdeeds in evidence are Zimmerman's. You can keep ignoring that simple fact, but it doesn't magically go away.
And of course if Martin had beat Zimmerman to death, this thread probably wouldn't exist either.
I'm really baffled by the amount of speculation taken as evidence on a skeptics board. Speculation is fine, but taking it as more than that isn't.
It's perfectly possible, based on the actual evidence, that Zimmerman was in the wrong on one level, and still justified in the shooting. Or unjustified.
Cue another round of repeating the same speculation and assumptions in response.
EDIT: It would be fallacious to believe that because Zimmerman did something wrong, he must have also done something else wrong.
Yes, relevance. Did I make a claim that Martin intentionally made Zimmerman think he was suspicious?*facepalm*
And what happens when Martin reaches the end of the bank of homes? He wasn't standing still you know. If Martin had been a burglar do you think leaving the sight of the person following him would not have decreased his chances of getting caught?Despite the fact that one has an unobstructed view of that entire particular bank of houses from the road, and actually physically pursuing the "suspect" was not necessary at all?
Did someone make a claim that a gun was necesary to keep someone in sight?By the way, just how many guns are usually necessary to "keep someone in sight until the cops arrive"?
Maybe Zimmerman wanted to keep Martin in sight so he could point him out when police arrived?Martin was killed in close proximity to his father's house, and a significant distance from the road where Zimmerman had to leave his car. Perhaps Zimmerman wanted to keep Martin's zits "in sight" until police arrived?
I'm not asking you to make any assumptions at all.Ah, now I'm supposed to make an assumption without evidence...in favor of the killer. Of course he does feel remorse; how could I not have assumed it?
You can? What recording are you listening to that you can make that claim?we can hear a completely different voice from Zimmerman's screaming for help
I like how you use the word"speculation" here. We know that Zimmerman chased after Martin,
we can hear a completely different voice from Zimmerman's screaming for help,
we can hear a gunshot, and we know that Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin.
But we're just speculating that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
Why, maybe Martin was jumping up and down on his head as he fearfully screamed for help. Perhaps Martin transformed into the Incredible Hulk and attacked Zimmerman - negros tend to do that.
Is that eyewitness correction a fact or is it merely a allegation?
However the story the police have of this witness is different, she is the one they claim refused an interview at first.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...tin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story
Yes, relevance. Did I make a claim that Martin intentionally made Zimmerman think he was suspicious?
And what happens when Martin reaches the end of the bank of homes? He wasn't standing still you know. If Martin had been a burglar do you think leaving the sight of the person following him would not have decreased his chances of getting caught?
Did someone make a claim that a gun was necesary to keep someone in sight?
Maybe Zimmerman wanted to keep Martin in sight so he could point him out when police arrived?
I'm not asking you to make any assumptions at all.
Do you retract your claim that Zimmerman expressed an intention to stop Martin? If not, will you be providing any evidence to support this claim?
How about your claim that "Martin never made a single decision that contributed to the creation of a confrontation"? Will you be providing evidence for this?
But the statement that Martin had no disciplinary problems at school were also proven false. At the time he was killed he was suspended from school for 10 days, for reasons the family has so far refused to divulge.
Back when I was in high school a 10 day suspension would have had to be for something very serious, but in today's idiotic "zero tolerance" climate who knows? Maybe he just drew a picture of a gun, or brought a GI Joedollaction figure to school complete with his tiny plastic gun.
Sure it does, people in this very thread are using that statement to "prove" that Zimmerman was a racist out to shoot black people.
Isn't "follow" a more accurate word to use than "chase"? And aren't you missing something, like the fact (verified by both Zimmerman and the wiitnesses) that a fight ensued at some point?