Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

Q: Did you pursue this kid? Did you want to catch him?

A: No (chuckles)

6:00 mark on part3.

Anyone believe that? After saying "*********** punks" who "******** always get away", "****, he's running", "are you following him? Yeah", he says no, he didn't want to catch him?

This guy is toast.

Yep. You could tell clearly the detectives weren't buying it.

That's why when I posted that clip, and said it was the most damning of all...and then I was berated for *why* it was damning... was just absolute silliness.

ANYONE who listens to that Part 3 tape would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not understand how damning it is.

 

[Unabogie]

Yep. You could tell clearly the detectives weren't buying it.

That's why when I posted that clip, and said it was the most damning of all...and then I was berated for *why* it was damning... was just absolute silliness.

ANYONE who listens to that Part 3 tape would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not understand how damning it is.

I didn't see the bond hearing, but people talked about how unprepared Gilbreath was and what a bad witness he would be. Serino is kind of awesome.

He sounds like someone from central casting. This heartens me. They didn't do a bad job after all and I think Trayvon's killer will pay for what he did.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's another tidbit, from part 3 towards the beginning. The first address given is NOT 1440, it's 111 Retreat View Circle, Sanford, FL. Google that, and then explain where that fits into George's narrative?

That's the clubhouse. That's where he said he initiated the call from ... why is this a problem ?

 

[Unabogie]

That's the clubhouse. That's where he said he initiated the call from ... why is this a problem ?

Really? Google Maps put it over by George's house. Maybe my Google-fu failed me.

Yeah, here:

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf...=us&ei=kfDkT9uCGuqs2gWVs7XaCQ&ved=0CAsQ8gEwAA

That's not in the place where I thought he first saw him. That's like: I just left my house and someone is up ahead. You getting something different?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I didn't see the bond hearing, but people talked about how unprepared Gilbreath was and what a bad witness he would be. Serino is kind of awesome.

He sounds like someone from central casting. This heartens me. They didn't do a bad job after all and I think Trayvon's killer will pay for what he did.

Because you listened to Serinos interview (the detective who said everything supports GZ) and you liked his interview, suddenly the entire SPD didn't do a bad job ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really? Google Maps put it over by George's house. Maybe my Google-fu failed me.

Yeah, here:

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf...=us&ei=kfDkT9uCGuqs2gWVs7XaCQ&ved=0CAsQ8gEwAA

That's not in the place where I thought he first saw him. That's like: I just left my house and someone is up ahead. You getting something different?

It's 1111 RVC.

 

[Unabogie]

Because you listened to Serinos interview (the detective who said everything supports GZ) and you liked his interview, suddenly the entire SPD didn't do a bad job ?

Did you listen to that interview? They had gone very deeply into both Trayvon's life and George's. They had parsed his story very carefully and identified inconsistencies. They had a good grasp of the facts and the physical locations. Yes, after hearing that interview, I think they did a much better job than I had been led to believe. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Unabogie]

It's 1111 RVC.

Ok, I'll defer because I can't remember where he said that.

That makes sense, though.

 

[KatieG]

Watching the reenactment, I nearly died laughing at the knuckle bandages on GZs head. Those are NOT butterfly bandages. Perhaps the wife/nurse in training put those on for him. I guarantee you no medical professional did that business. Same with the bandage on his nose. That isn't a piece that goes across the nose, again it's a knuckle bandage.

What a couple of knuckle heads.

 

[This is The End]

Knowing what terms mean doesn't make one dishonest.

Insisting terms mean things they don't mean, however, is an example of deep ignorance. And your ignorance is not evidence of dishonesty by me or anyone else.

Most ironic post ever. You were likely proven wrong with at least 4 solid examples. You refuted none of it and responded with one liners and called people names.

 

[Unabogie]

Most ironic post ever. You were likely proven wrong with at least 4 solid examples. You refuted none of it and responded with one liners and called people names.

Yes, and no one seems to want to touch that devastating interview with Serino and his partner.

Watching that bond hearing again, I recall thinking that they may be exaggerating how much George's story had changed or how they may have minor issues that could make him look guilty in the hands of a skilled lawyer. But hearing that interview with Serino, George is a mess. He was all over the place with completely unbelievable answers. He did that weird whisper thing he did on the jailhouse tapes. And he feigned amnesia whenever he got stumped.

So someone could argue that George was just nervous and wasn't lying, right? But now you have the utter gift, which is his potted palm impression, and wow, he looks like a complete weirdo and grifter.

I wonder if Dershowitz can listen to that interview and still say with a straight face that this guy shouldn't be charged. And I'd love to see George try to pull that act with a jury.

I voted that he wouldn't get convicted in that other poll post on this subject. While I think he's likely guilty as hell, I thought that he would be a plausible witness and would skate by on reasonable doubt. I do not think this any more. I think he will be convicted on murder two. And mainly because a jury will see his constant lying as an attempt to hide his true actions.

 

[Rare Truth]

First to post in the new thread! Yay!

Thanks mods. That thread was becoming a beach to load.

 

[KatieG]

I brought a new popcorn machine and a new coffee maker. The diet Dr. Pepper is all mine, ye varlets!

So, I'm thinkin' GZ is in a bit of trouble at this point.

 

[WildCat]

Most ironic post ever. You were likely proven wrong with at least 4 solid examples. You refuted none of it and responded with one liners and called people names.

I'm sorry, did you just say I was proven wrong by your "examples" of non-physical involvements that you claim are physical involvements?

 

[This is The End]

"Physical involvement".

I have no idea why you are so confused.

Well that explains why you are confused. You still don't know the phrase in question or you are flat out lying.

We're discussing "getting physically involved with an activity".

You've said about 3 different versions of the phrase that clearly show you are trying to make it more favorable to your incorrect argument.

I'd really like to hear you explain how people running in a race together are not "physically involved" in the race just because they aren't touching any other humans! Again, please address this paragraph.

Why do I get the feeling you won't, but instead respond with a one liner or name calling?

The activity Z reported was M walking around.

Z got out of his truck and joined the walking around.

He clearly got physically involved with the activity he reported.

From the NW guide:

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons."

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

Notice how they make a point of distinguishing the activity and persons? Make good note of the word or there.

 

[This is The End]

I'm sorry, did you just say I was proven wrong by your "examples" of non-physical involvements that you claim are physical involvements?

OK is that being confused or just flat out more lies. My examples where clearly physical involvement contrasted with non-physical involvement.

Read my posts and tell me you haven't completely misrepresented them with your quote:

Not sure why I used basketball earlier, there are fouls for contact.

Baseball.

In baseball you are physically involved with the activity of baseball. You make contact with no humans at all. Though you do touch bats and balls.

How about track & field. Running.

When sprinting in a race with other contestants you are surely physically involved in an activity and you are touching no humans or anything at all. If you were watching the race from the stands (or a truck) you would not be physically involved in the activity.
The activity Z reported was someone walking around. When Z joined the walking around surely he became physically involved in that activity.

If the activity someone reports is a hostage situation. Then negotiating with the hostage taker or talking to the hostages surely would be becoming physically involved in that activity.

Again, I am not convinced that sentence means what WildCat is trying to spin it to mean. That is, that physical contact with a human is required when the direct object is an activity.

We can end this argument if you will just say this:

I WildCat believe that people in a race with each other in track & field are not physically involved in the activity of the race.

Because that is one of the clear examples I made of physical involvement which you either lie or get confused and say I quote:

your "examples" of non-physical involvements that you claim are physical involvements

Here's the older post:

In that sentence you are getting physically involved with an activity, not with a human or humans.

Following or approaching the activity would be physically involved.

For instance, a basketball game is an activity. If you started playing the game you would be "physically involved" in it, even though you are yet to make contact with another player or the ball.

Or, more close to the topic, if you called in a robbery hostage situation. Trying to personally talk down, negotiate, or even approaching the hostages, would be "getting physically involved" even though you never make contact with any humans.

I seriously doubt it means otherwise or else they would not have to follow it up with "or apprehen[d] any suspicious persons". Which has a separate direct object.

Why else would "physically involved" specifically refer to "activity" and "apprehend" specifically refer to "person".

 

[This is The End]

I think we all agree that anyone is going to have some inconsistencies in hours of questioning.

In light of that, it seems that the sheer number of inconsistencies between the reenactment, the interviews, and the not911 call is just staggering. Staggering to the point that some of them just flat out don't make any sense at all.

I'm having a hard time believing that is an expected normal amount of inconsistency.

 

[Unabogie]

I think we all agree that anyone is going to have some inconsistencies in hours of questioning.

In light of that, it seems that the sheer number of inconsistencies between the reenactment, the interviews, and the not911 call is just staggering. Staggering to the point that some of them just flat out don't make any sense at all.

I'm having a hard time believing that is an expected normal amount of inconsistency.

Yes, and let's add in a few more from the bond hearing.

1. He said on the stand that he didn't know Trayvon was a teenager, while on the NEN tape he says "late teens".
2. He says he told the detectives he was remorseful. Anyone watching the interviews can tell that's a lie.
3. He says he didn't give multiple accounts. Well, ok, maybe he doesn't realize how all over the place he is, but we certainly can notice it.

I think just his timeline is enough to convict him. Just when he says he is at the clubhouse vs when he says he's at the crime scene. When he claims he wasn't following, yet he's clearly following. When he says he was going back to the truck but then changes that to say he stayed on Retreat View because he didn't want to walk back to his truck. Yet he does just that, which is why he's at the T in the first place. Where he says he was hit from the south and went down to the north, yet ended up 50' south of the T. How he can't explain key details. How he claims he moved the body with the arms out yet that's not how the body was found. How he says he was smothered but you don't hear that on the tape. How he claims that he was hit 30 times in the face. How Trayvon talked like a movie gang banger.



His story...is...not credible.

 

[Rare Truth]

Yes, and let's add in a few more from the bond hearing.

1. He said on the stand that he didn't know Trayvon was a teenager, while on the NEN tape he says "late teens".
2. He says he told the detectives he was remorseful. Anyone watching the interviews can tell that's a lie.
3. He says he didn't give multiple accounts. Well, ok, maybe he doesn't realize how all over the place he is, but we certainly can notice it.

I think just his timeline is enough to convict him. Just when he says he is at the clubhouse vs when he says he's at the crime scene. When he claims he wasn't following, yet he's clearly following. When he says he was going back to the truck but then changes that to say he stayed on Retreat View because he didn't want to walk back to his truck. Yet he does just that, which is why he's at the T in the first place. Where he says he was hit from the south and went down to the north, yet ended up 50' south of the T. How he can't explain key details. How he claims he moved the body with the arms out yet that's not how the body was found. How he says he was smothered but you don't hear that on the tape. How he claims that he was hit 30 times in the face. How Trayvon talked like a movie gang banger.



His story...is...not credible.

All those molehills of inconsistencies, compounded, turn into a mountain of lies.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well that explains why you are confused. You still don't know the phrase in question or you are flat out lying.

We're discussing "getting physically involved with an activity".
[...]

Brought over from old thread:

Aside from (arguably) things like thinking, imagining, etc - everything is a 'physical activity'.

You are making arbitrary distinctions to suit your scenario.

"If you were watching the race from the stands (or a truck) you would not be physically involved in the activity."

Everyone at the track is physically involved in the activity of going to the racetrack for the race

I think a reasonable person could interpret physically involved as, for example, getting involved in a confrontation. Like the witness 'John' - who stepped outside to get 'physically involved' with GZ and TM by yelling at them but didn't run over and try to break up the fight, but ran inside to call the police. By your definition, he was physically involved. I think if you asked someone not involved in this discussion if John was 'physically involved' - they would clearly say no.