Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

Elvis, I agree, it's a moot point WRT: The NW and GZ's case.

However, the HOA may very well be held liable.

 

[This is The End]

Just in case you missed it, still waiting for evidence of your claim that those incidents with the cousin were investigated...

I suppose I understand why you keep asking that.

But I would point out that it implies that you believe that it is not being investigated.

Could you confirm or deny that?

I mean, why keep asking people for proof that it is being investigated unless you personally believe that it isn't being investigated?

Even if it was not chargeable under the statute of limitations, I'm pretty sure they would still investigate it somewhat. If it is chargeable, police love to wait until the very last minute to announce charges.

 

[This is The End]

Case in point:

I post a series of phots with the injuries to Zimmerman that I find apparent.

Problem:The Articles Of Faith require the injuries not to be there.

Solution: Attack the arrows!!!!

"require the injuries not to be there"

Who in the world is claiming that??

 

[This is The End]

No one found anything odd about the excerpts from the interview I posted from post #2908 to #2911??

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8465403&postcount=2908

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I suppose I understand why you keep asking that.
But I would point out that it implies that you believe that it is not being investigated.
Could you confirm or deny that?

I can confirm I do not believe anything is being investigated.

I mean, why keep asking people for proof that it is being investigated unless you personally believe that it isn't being investigated?

Because posters have stated that it is being investigated. I wanted them to back up their claims.

Even if it was not chargeable under the statute of limitations, I'm pretty sure they would still investigate it somewhat. If it is chargeable, police love to wait until the very last minute to announce charges.

Well, it seems we have all the info we're going to get on it for a while. I don't foresee anything coming out of it, but much may remain to be revealed.

 

[Mumbles]

This Neighborhood Watch issue seems a little irrelevant. Let's say that carrying a handgun was prohibited by the Neighborhood Watch - so what? As far as I know, he was still legally entitled to carry a gun. Carrying a gun by itself doesn't make him any more or less criminally culpable, even if it was against the Neighborhood Watch's rules. The only real consequence of breaking their rules is that he could have been "fired" by the Neighborhood Watch.

Well, it ultimately is irrelevant. But it's his excuse for chasing around Martin, who at the time was just walking home from the store. Take it away, and it becomes clear that Zimmerman is just some lunatic harassing a local kid.

 

[mgidm86]

We shall all be witness to it. That said, when I heard/saw him say that on tv my first thought was it sounded like something a radical extremist or stalker would say.

To me, it sounded like something dumb you would say because you are nervous. Some of his other statements do as well.

A lot of what I'm reading in this thread is about what George "said" at various times throughout this case.

Ever since a car accident I was involved in several years ago, I've been interviewed on the scene (a bit dazed at the time, plus adrenaline), I've been questioned in depositions, etc. My car was hit hard from behind, the other driver admits to being at fault.

Upon reading the various transcripts, I have seen that there are important things I sometimes left out, or inconsistencies maybe. Point is, when you are being interviewed, it is sometimes hard to think clearly. I'd imagine being on national television would be much worse. You're concerned that the other side is waiting for you to say something they can use against you. In my case I clearly was not at fault, yet they attack me anyways.

"Where were you going when the accident occured?"

Me: "I was driving home from work" (I later remembered I was not)

"Did the paramedics examine you"

Me: "No" (well they did ask me a bunch of questions and took my pulse)

I was absolutely terrible at my depostion. I hadn't slept, had a headache, and was just "off" that day.

My point is that people in this thread are picking apart every word George has said. "Gods plan", "he skipped, not ran". Sure he's doing damage control and padding the story as he goes, but I don't put a lot of weight on everything George has said, either for or against him, short of a confession or some extremely damning information.

To me, the real story in this case is how NBC admitted to doctoring the 911 tape and make George appear racist, and eventually fired someone over it. Yet we go on, quoting whatever the hell they want to print. THAT, is scary.

 

[Unabogie]

To me, the real story in this case is how NBC admitted to doctoring the 911 tape and make George appear racist, and eventually fired someone over it. Yet we go on, quoting whatever the hell they want to print. THAT, is scary.

Gee I thought the real story was a dead 17 year old.

Silly me.

 

[Mumbles]

To me, the real story in this case is how NBC admitted to doctoring the 911 tape and make George appear racist, and eventually fired someone over it. Yet we go on, quoting whatever the hell they want to print. THAT, is scary.

Meh. The police phone call had been released in full, before that happened, and had been widely circulated. It's irresponsible to edit in the way that NBC did, but the complete tape still makes Zimmerman look like an idiot that freaked out because Martin was a black guy walking down the street. And despite former chief Lee's assertion, it's was obvious that Zimmerman had identified Martin as a black guy.

ETA: does anyone honestly believe that Zimmerman would have called the cops on, and then ran after, a 17 year old white girl, and that everyone would be okay with that sort of behavior?

One other note: given that the only reason to let Zimmerman go is his own after-the-fact story about how he just got out of his car to look around when Martin brutally attacked him, is it really a good idea to defend him by claiming that his story is false?

 

[Noztradamus]

Define simpler times. Justified homicide is a concept that predates our system of laws. Hell, it predates the system of laws we inherited from.

Justified homicide requires ... justification. If that lacks credibility, it's homicide.

 

[sgtbaker]

No one found anything odd about the excerpts from the interview I posted from post #2908 to #2911??

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8465403&postcount=2908

I don't understand what you found odd. He knew the police were on their way and he had a gun in his hand. It might be cause for alarm.

Hannity asked two separate questions in the second quote. I am not sure what he is saying, "No," to.
"Did you look over at Trayvon?"
or
"Did you look over at him at any time and realize he was in really bad shape?"
I recall in the police interview that he didn't know he shot Trayvon. He claims climbed on top of him to prevent him from starting up again.

To the third, we've been down this road before. The memory has very little concept of time. It usually requires markers, such as a television show coming on or a routine to help people remember approximate times. It's not unusual for people to not be exact in time recollection.

 

[sgtbaker]

To me, it sounded like something dumb you would say because you are nervous. Some of his other statements do as well.

A lot of what I'm reading in this thread is about what George "said" at various times throughout this case.

Ever since a car accident I was involved in several years ago, I've been interviewed on the scene (a bit dazed at the time, plus adrenaline), I've been questioned in depositions, etc. My car was hit hard from behind, the other driver admits to being at fault.

Upon reading the various transcripts, I have seen that there are important things I sometimes left out, or inconsistencies maybe. Point is, when you are being interviewed, it is sometimes hard to think clearly. I'd imagine being on national television would be much worse. You're concerned that the other side is waiting for you to say something they can use against you. In my case I clearly was not at fault, yet they attack me anyways.

"Where were you going when the accident occured?"

Me: "I was driving home from work" (I later remembered I was not)

"Did the paramedics examine you"

Me: "No" (well they did ask me a bunch of questions and took my pulse)

I was absolutely terrible at my depostion. I hadn't slept, had a headache, and was just "off" that day.

My point is that people in this thread are picking apart every word George has said. "Gods plan", "he skipped, not ran". Sure he's doing damage control and padding the story as he goes, but I don't put a lot of weight on everything George has said, either for or against him, short of a confession or some extremely damning information.

To me, the real story in this case is how NBC admitted to doctoring the 911 tape and make George appear racist, and eventually fired someone over it. Yet we go on, quoting whatever the hell they want to print. THAT, is scary.

I know exactly what you mean about memory being faulty. I was in a coma for a few days and spent a long time recovering after my accident, so I wasn't immediately interviewed. My first predeposition was six months after the accident. When asked what the last thing I remembered was, my original answer was making it to the dotted line. We changed lawyers and didn't give another deposition till three and a half years later. When asked the same question I answered stepping off the curb. Why? I can't exlain it. 20 years later I still get confused over what I am sure I remember and what parts of what other people have told me have subsequently become part of my memory, simply filling in the gaps.

 

[This is The End]

To the third, we've been down this road before. The memory has very little concept of time. It usually requires markers, such as a television show coming on or a routine to help people remember approximate times. It's not unusual for people to not be exact in time recollection.

Wouldn't that make more sense if the Hannity interview happened soon after the shooting...

It is almost 4 months later...

HANNITY: And how long was it between the time you shot him to the time the police actually got to the scene?

ZIMMERMAN: It felt like forever. I would say 15 to 30 seconds.

HANNITY: It was that quick?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

What about the next few posts? All appears to be consistent with the events to you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8465403#post8465403

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is that people in thisABC thread are picking apart every word George has said. "Gods plan", "he skipped, not ran".

You don't think this is justified? After all, he admits that he shot and killed a person, and he's claiming self-defense. I suspect his words will be picked over to a similar degree in his murder trial.

FWIW, the "God's plan" comment was part of Zimmerman's implication that he should not second guess or judge his own actions.

What a very strange thing to say. It sounds as if he's saying he ought not have a conscience.

In other parts of his ABC Hannity interview he spoke as if he had no choice in his actions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Define simpler times. Justified homicide is a concept that predates our system of laws. Hell, it predates the system of laws we inherited from.

One of the things a little unusual about the Florida law is that a person claiming self defense doesn't have to exhaust all possibilities of escaping or avoiding the danger that justifies his use of deadly force. That's partly what complicated this case. (It's certainly what caused such a long delay in charges being filed.)

 

[sgtbaker]

Wouldn't that make more sense if the Hannity interview happened soon after the shooting...

It is almost 4 months later...

I really am trying to understand what you are saying but I am just not seeing where you are going with this. I will admit that I don't know exactly how long after the police actually got there; if his time is way off or dead on.

What about the next few posts? All appears to be consistent with the events to you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8465403#post8465403

I don't know what you are getting at. The highlighted text seems to be very similar to his other recounts of that part of the incident.

The only one that really sticks out is not knowing Trayvon was dead until he was at the police station but I don't know how far he was from the body, or what he could see before he was taken to the station. I don't recall if he was quoted in saying anything contradictory, at the scene. If you have something specific, that I am not seeing in the quotes, feel free to point them out to me.

 

[Cylinder]

What a very strange thing to say. It sounds as if he's saying he ought not have a conscience.

Why should Zimmerman's conscience object to him acting to save his life? The evidence is clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman and did not relent in his attack until the point that Zimmerman was forced to act. There is nothing to apologize for.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should Zimmerman's conscience object to him acting to save his life?

That's intellectually dishonest question begging. It's a loaded question in that assumes a premise I'm not willing to cede. Further, it's an attempt to respond to my comments by changing what I said. (I said nothing about a conscience objecting to saving one's life. A conscience ought be active in encouraging one to examine the question of whether or not killing someone was justified.)

The evidence is clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman and did not relent in his attack until the point that Zimmerman was forced to act. There is nothing to apologize for.

Nice try, but I said nothing about apologizing. I said it's strange that he thinks he ought not second guess or judge his own actions.

Even if he was entirely right and the killing was justified, he should still at least be willing to question his actions. "God's plan" again results in premature satisfaction of curiosity.

 

[a_unique_person]

God made him do it.

 

[johnny karate]

Why should Zimmerman's conscience object to him acting to save his life? The evidence is clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman and did not relent in his attack until the point that Zimmerman was forced to act. There is nothing to apologize for.

I've bolded the claims that require you to provide the evidence that is so clear.

Also, you seemed to have missed my response to your previous post:

By "Articles of Faith" do you mean the official medical documents? Because that's what I've been using as reference for the multiple times I've listed Zimmerman's injuries.

For your convenience, here is that list again:

- Broken nose

- Two small cuts on the back of the head (.5 cm and 2 cm)

- Forehead abrasion (noted by the EMT on the scene, but not the doctor the next day)

Feel free to double-check my math, but I count four injuries in total, three of which were pretty minor.

Can you explain to me why I should believe what your Picture of a Thousand Blue Arrows tells me about Zimmerman's injuries over the reports of the medical professionals who examined him?

I look forward to your rebuttal.