• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
Unabogie - suppose, for the sake of argument, GZ wanted to get a nearby street address to where he was standing on the phone with NEN. (i.e. Like 123 retreat view circle)

What ways could he accomplish that task ?
Click to expand...

Unabogie said:
Why would he want that? He was either heading back to his truck or he wasn't. The question from the dispatcher was: where do you want us to meet you? So are you saying he wasn't headed back to his truck after all? And besides, he got out of his car and ran after Trayvon well before he was asked where they should meet. Right? First he got out and chased the "suspect", then they told him to stop, then they asked where they could meet him.

How in that scenario would he need an address on Retreat View?
Click to expand...

You understand, it was a simple hypothetical question, which you completely dodged, right ?

Unabogie said:
Also, if they found his flashlight on, how does that square with his story? He said he didn't want to walk back to his car immediately because it was dark and his flashlight wasn't working. Now we find out that it was working after all? Did he lie about that too? Remember, on the NEN call, from the time he claimed he was walking back to his truck to the time the call ended, it took 84 seconds and the walk back is about 10 seconds on the walkthough. When asked about that discrepancy, he said he stopped on Retreat View. Why? He said he was scared because it was dark and his flashlight wouldn't work. That doesn't help George at all, does it?
Click to expand...

The other flashlight didn't work. The 'tactical' flashlight.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
You understand, it was a simple hypothetical question, which you completely dodged, right ?



The other flashlight didn't work. The 'tactical' flashlight.
Click to expand...

Isn't his problem the same no matter which flashlight it was? In order to explain the timeline, he said he waited on Retreat View for at least two minutes because he was afraid of the dark, since he had no flashlight. Now you're saying he had one, and it worked, but because the other one didn't work, his story now makes sense? If he had a working flashlight, why did he say he didn't want to walk back without a flashlight?

As to your hypothetical, if he was indeed scared of the scary thug who has just circled his car, he could have stayed in his car and driven around the block to get the address.
 
Unabogie said:
Isn't his problem the same no matter which flashlight it was? In order to explain the timeline, he said he waited on Retreat View for at least two minutes because he was afraid of the dark, since he had no flashlight. Now you're saying he had one, and it worked, but because the other one didn't work, his story now makes sense? If he had a working flashlight, why did he say he didn't want to walk back without a flashlight?
Click to expand...

I have been saying he had a working flashlight for quite a while, because that is what the police report said.

I have not made any claims about how it makes his story make more or less sense, that has just been you.

Unabogie said:
As to your hypothetical, if he was indeed scared of the scary thug who has just circled his car, he could have stayed in his car and driven around the block to get the address.
Click to expand...

Of course, in the walkthrough, there's that ridiculous statement that he had to walk through because there were no addresses on the backs of the houses, when just to his right there's the fronts of all the houses on Twin Trees​
Yes, he could have driven around. The point being you now understand and can admit he would have had to do something to get the street address. He could not get it by remaining where he was. So that should satisfy you as why he claims he had to walk through.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
I have been saying he had a working flashlight for quite a while, because that is what the police report said.

I have not made any claims about how it makes his story make more or less sense, that has just been you.



Of course, in the walkthrough, there's that ridiculous statement that he had to walk through because there were no addresses on the backs of the houses, when just to his right there's the fronts of all the houses on Twin Trees​
Yes, he could have driven around. The point being you now understand and can admit he would have had to do something to get the street address. He could not get it by remaining where he was. So that should satisfy you as why he claims he had to walk through.
Click to expand...

Hang on and bring that goal post back. If he wanted to give the address on Twin Trees, then he should have just given that address and said "it's the 19999 but I don't know the street name. It's the one you're on if you just drive straight through". But that's not what you said!

Unabogie - suppose, for the sake of argument, GZ wanted to get a nearby street address to where he was standing on the phone with NEN. (i.e. Like 123 retreat view circle)

What ways could he accomplish that task ?
Click to expand...

You're the one who mentioned Retreat View, not me. His truck was parked on Twin Trees. If he need an address on Twin Trees, he should have just looked at the house that was right in front of him and said "I see this address, but I don't know the street." He didn't do that. If he needed and address on Retreat View, which is the street YOU brought up, he should have stayed in his car.

Hey, I just realized. He should have stayed in his car in either scenario!

Funny that!
 
Unabogie said:
Hang on and bring that goal post back. If he wanted to give the address on Twin Trees, then he should have just given that address and said "it's the 19999 but I don't know the street name. It's the one you're on if you just drive straight through". But that's not what you said!
...
Click to expand...

Yes, it is what I said. I said give a street address, and gave an example. I should have used e.g., not i.e. - but the point was street name and number.

Because GZ said he wanted to give them a street name, so that rules out him saying "it's the 19999 but I don't know the street name".

I understand that you don't believe his story. That's clear. But you keep saying what he said makes no sense, when in fact it does make sense, even if you don't believe it. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes, it is what I said. I said give a street address, and gave an example. I should have used e.g., not i.e. - but the point was street name and number.

Because GZ said he wanted to give them a street name, so that rules out him saying "it's the 19999 but I don't know the street name".

I understand that you don't believe his story. That's clear. But you keep saying what he said makes no sense, when in fact it does make sense, even if you don't believe it. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

No, he said he wanted to get out to find an "address". And anyone who has called the police 46 times knows they can get by without your exact help in finding the place. But beyond that, he says he wanted to find an address because they asked him for it. They didn't!!!

They asked him this only after it was clear he was out and about, following the suspect. So even if he wanted the street as well as the address:


  1. He never said that, since he never mentions addresses at all on the phone. In fact, all he says is "****, he's running". Then he huffs and puffs for 30 seconds. THEN they start talking addresses.
  2. He said they asked him for an address, which is why he was looking for one. No, they did not!
  3. He admitted to the dispatcher he was following him. Then he later denies this. Do you believe his denial? Or is he lying about this?
The idea that he exited the car to find an address flies in the face of all know information. You can hear the call for yourself. You can hear him out chasing the kid.
 
I doubt very seriously that any good dictionary would define "Mexican" in terms of race. I do however know that professionals working in demography and population genetics would never describe a nationality as a race.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
I agree. Where I have problems in this thread is that Georgy is at the same time both cunning enough to concoct false justifications but not cunning enough to keep his story consistent. My filter is to assume he's stupider than that. Stupid enough, actually, to not be efficient and to make mistakes that lead to inconsistent behaviors.

I like to view the whole thing through the "wannabe hero" lens. I think George's world has rather more bad guys in it than the real world.
Click to expand...

What part of Zimmeman's story do you feel would constitute cunning on his part?

Because all I see is a guy claiming he did nothing wrong. Children manage such denials all the time.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
I doubt very seriously that any good dictionary would define "Mexican" in terms of race. I do however know that professionals working in demography and population genetics would never describe a nationality as a race.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to doubt all you wish.. I'd prefer to know.

race 1 (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
USAGE NOTE:
...The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another, many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
Click to expand...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race

So once you stop cherry picking context, then yes, Mexican can be used in discussions of race.
 
Last edited:
Here's the funny thing about the Trayvon Truthers. They'll invent 1001 theories why GZ has to be lying, why he had to be chasing TM with an intent to catch him etc. All of which are based 100% on assumptions based on 20/20 hindsight. But they apply no skepticism to their theories.

Example. Let's examine this idea that seems eminently reasonable to them in every way, that GZ chased down and cornered TM with the intent of restraining him. Now maybe it's just me, but that is ONE HELL of a gutsy act. Because at that moment GZ thought TM was a suspicious person that was possibly (likely?) a criminal. Criminals are often armed right?

And what happens when GZ meets up with this guy he chased down? He gets his ass handed to him. But wait a minute, he confronted him and was trying to detain him [I almost forgot, he had the 50 pound fat guy advantage ;)], right? Wouldn't any self-respecting gung ho wanna be cop racist hot head have his gun unholstered and in hand if he was going to detain the dangerous criminal? Yet one can say with reasonable certainty he did not, because TM hands his ass to him and only after a minute of fighting is he able to unhoslter and use his weapon, a weapon which I surmise that TM didn't know he had.

Now again, think about it. You are ARMED and chasing someone in the dark that you believe to be a criminal, and you intend to detain this possibly violent criminal! Yet you don't have your gun drawn! Almost leads someone to think maybe he wasn't trying to get right up on them or detain them at all ;).

BTW, would someone PLEASE make the argument that GZ would not have unholstered his gun because it is against the law? Because I really, really want someone to make that argument, after arguing the entire thread what a lawless violent lying hot head he is.

Lastly, I'd feel remiss if I didn't say that I'm not arguing that my theory above disproves the possibility that GZ tried to detain TM, it's still possible.
 
Unabogie said:
.... In order to explain the timeline, he said he waited on Retreat View for at least two minutes because he was afraid of the dark, since he had no flashlight. Now you're saying he had one, and it worked, but because the other one didn't work, his story now makes sense? If he had a working flashlight, why did he say he didn't want to walk back without a flashlight?.....
Click to expand...

I don't think I fully grasp the significance of the flashlights, but doesn't this gated townhouse community have streetlights? Do you really need a flashlight to walk around after dark? If it doesn't have lights, maybe that's the reason there's so much crime and everybody's so scared. Maybe the residents could all agree to keep their porch lights on, or don't they have porch lights either?
 
Unabogie said:
Ha, fine. The fact remains that on the NEN call, he says "****, he's running". And he then proceeds to run after Trayvon.
Click to expand...

Yes, he said in his initial interview he wanted to see where TM went so he could tell the police when they got there.

Unabogie said:
I don't know if your victory is Pyrrhic or not. I suspect so.
Click to expand...

If you want to nit-pick GZ recollection of the details, it's only reasonable that you be accurate, isn't it ?
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
Here's the funny thing about the Trayvon Truthers. They'll invent 1001 theories why GZ has to be lying, why he had to be chasing TM with an intent to catch him etc. All of which are based 100% on assumptions based on 20/20 hindsight. But they apply no skepticism to their theories.

Example. Let's examine this idea that seems eminently reasonable to them in every way, that GZ chased down and cornered TM with the intent of restraining him. Now maybe it's just me, but that is ONE HELL of a gutsy act. Because at that moment GZ thought TM was a suspicious person that was possibly (likely?) a criminal. Criminals are often armed right?

And what happens when GZ meets up with this guy he chased down? He gets his ass handed to him. But wait a minute, he confronted him and was trying to detain him [I almost forgot, he had the 50 pound fat guy advantage ;)], right? Wouldn't any self-respecting gung ho wanna be cop racist hot head have his gun unholstered and in hand if he was going to detain the dangerous criminal? Yet one can say with reasonable certainty he did not, because TM hands his ass to him and only after a minute of fighting is he able to unhoslter and use his weapon, a weapon which I surmise that TM didn't know he had.

Now again, think about it. You are ARMED and chasing someone in the dark that you believe to be a criminal, and you intend to detain this possibly violent criminal! Yet you don't have your gun drawn! Almost leads someone to think maybe he wasn't trying to get right up on them or detain them at all ;).

BTW, would someone PLEASE make the argument that GZ would not have unholstered his gun because it is against the law? Because I really, really want someone to make that argument, after arguing the entire thread what a lawless violent lying hot head he is.

Lastly, I'd feel remiss if I didn't say that I'm not arguing that my theory above disproves the possibility that GZ tried to detain TM, it's still possible.
Click to expand...
The argument that GZ was illegally 'brandishing' his weapon has already floated by, including recently.

It's one thing to speculate on multiple possibilities.
It's another thing entirely to refuse to look at the facts and build assertions on things already disproven.

But the latter seems very popular.
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
Here's the funny thing about the Trayvon Truthers. They'll invent 1001 theories why GZ has to be lying, why he had to be chasing TM with an intent to catch him etc. All of which are based 100% on assumptions based on 20/20 hindsight. But they apply no skepticism to their theories.

Example. Let's examine this idea that seems eminently reasonable to them in every way, that GZ chased down and cornered TM with the intent of restraining him. Now maybe it's just me, but that is ONE HELL of a gutsy act. Because at that moment GZ thought TM was a suspicious person that was possibly (likely?) a criminal. Criminals are often armed right?

And what happens when GZ meets up with this guy he chased down? He gets his ass handed to him. But wait a minute, he confronted him and was trying to detain him [I almost forgot, he had the 50 pound fat guy advantage ;)], right? Wouldn't any self-respecting gung ho wanna be cop racist hot head have his gun unholstered and in hand if he was going to detain the dangerous criminal? Yet one can say with reasonable certainty he did not, because TM hands his ass to him and only after a minute of fighting is he able to unhoslter and use his weapon, a weapon which I surmise that TM didn't know he had.

Now again, think about it. You are ARMED and chasing someone in the dark that you believe to be a criminal, and you intend to detain this possibly violent criminal! Yet you don't have your gun drawn! Almost leads someone to think maybe he wasn't trying to get right up on them or detain them at all ;).

BTW, would someone PLEASE make the argument that GZ would not have unholstered his gun because it is against the law? Because I really, really want someone to make that argument, after arguing the entire thread what a lawless violent lying hot head he is.

Lastly, I'd feel remiss if I didn't say that I'm not arguing that my theory above disproves the possibility that GZ tried to detain TM, it's still possible.
Click to expand...

So in the end, we've come down to Zimmerman truthers and Trayvon truthers. That pretty much settles it then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom