Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[sgtbaker]

There's a rather noticeable difference between burglarizing a house, and Trayvon's activities, which according to George's phone call with the police consisted of "walking around, looking about". George seems to realize this as well, which is why, in his walk through, he changes his story to Martin standing still and staring at a particular house.

That's a good theory but you don't specifically know why George's narrative changed unless you can read minds. Your suspicion is no more evidence of what "George is really thinking," than George's suspicion of Trayvon's presence is of what he was really doing.

And the evidence that George ran after Trayvon is, again, contained in his own police call, where he states that Martin "is running", immediately gets out of his car and begins running as well, and when asked if he's following, states "yeah". George, again, seems to realize that this is a problem, which is why he fabricates a story of him getting out to find an address due to the dispacher's repeated insistence on getting one. Although, oddly, he never did give that address to the dispacher.

We've been over the difference between following to see where someone went and following to detain someone. Until you have something to prove his intent, you are still relying on assertions, not evidence.

The reason why people suspect that he assaulted Trayvon is simple - all known evidence shows that Trayvon wished to avoid George, and that George wanted to ensure that Trayvon didn't get away.

I hate the annoying FIFY so I am just going to say flat out, the evidence you cited are still suspicions and nothing more. You don't know what Trayvon wished and neither do I. I can say the fact that Trayvon ran from that particular area and then three minutes later, he's back and involved in a physical altercation with the man he wished nothing more than to get away from is a bit problematic for me.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because coming from the man who murdered the teenager, it was one of the most depraved and disgusting things I've ever heard?

Your emotions appear to have overridden any possibility of having a rational discussion with you in this thread.

Predestination in not at all uncommon in Catholicism, and if nothing else, GZ prison phone calls revealed he is a religious man. Taken in context, I don't find it any better or worse than other religious dogma, including TMs mother statements.

 

[johnny karate]

Since one statement came from a grieving mother trying to reconcile with the death of her son, and the other came from the guy who killed him, I think a reasonable person would find the difference between them to be self-evident.

 

[johnny karate]

For the strawman thinking challenged...

They look exactly like this:

On the other hand even if GZ was getting beaten and he acted in self-defense, well that's not legitimate under ANY circumstances.

...a lot of people in this thread that clearly would like to see us move to a guilty until proven innocent system - at least for cases where they don't like the defendant.

Being lectured about straw man arguments by someone who so recently posted a couple of whoppers is like being lectured about alcohol abuse by someone who is hungover.

 

[Unabogie]

Your emotions appear to have overridden any possibility of having a rational discussion with you in this thread.

Predestination in not at all uncommon in Catholicism, and if nothing else, GZ prison phone calls revealed he is a religious man. Taken in context, I don't find it any better or worse than other religious dogma, including TMs mother statements.

You don't know me, so you have no earthly idea what my emotions are. Your attacking me, instead of my argument is a sorry tactic here.

On to the substance, if you can't tell the difference between why it's so much worse for the killer to say it's all god's plan, then you should be reminded of the defendant who asked for leniency after killing his parents because he was an orphan. Some people get to state that they are orphans, while others don't. Usually a person who kills his parents doesn't.

Same way that the guy who kills your kid doesn't get to say goddidit without risking a punch in the neck.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You don't know me, so you have no earthly idea what my emotions are. Your attacking me, instead of my argument is a sorry tactic here.

I am making an inference based on your posts and your choice to not actually address and answer questions, and your continuing appeals to emotion.

On to the substance, if you can't tell the difference between why it's so much worse for the killer to say it's all god's plan, then you should be reminded of the defendant who asked for leniency after killing his parents because he was an orphan. Some people get to state that they are orphans, while others don't. Usually a person who kills his parents doesn't.

Same way that the guy who kills your kid doesn't get to say goddidit without risking a punch in the neck.

I can't tell why it's worse. It's either Gods plan or it wasn't. It's a simple binary. If it was Gods plan, then both GZ and TMs mother were right.

If it wasn't Gods plan, they are both wrong.

 

[This is The End]

Can you show me the post where NBS even remotely alluded to this?

Did you have fun attacking your strawmen ?

By all means. Let's analyze NBS's post. You both wish that it had no context. So would NBS. Unfortunately for you it was a direct response to a quote. Good luck convincing others.

It continued for a decade, until George was all growed up. He was no longer a minor when he committed acts of rape. Sure, he started his career as a rapist early, but he kept at it until he got it right.

Maybe it did. Doesn't change the cold hard facts that it's almost unprecedented for prosecutors to prosecute this type of case. In fact, I'd be curious if there are any precedents for prosecuting someone under similar circumstances. I can't recall reading about anything similar in my lifetime.

 

[This is The End]

[insert inane strawman here in rebuttal about how intercourse is not required for a molestation or rape claim].

The law that says intercourse is not required for it to be rape is an inane strawman according to NBS.

I have a question, do you believe the woman more or less or just as much as you believe Zimmerman?

 

[This is The End]

And in the case of the alleged sexual assault/rape/whatever the appropriate charge would be, we have no evidence other than the word of the accuser.

That's odd. You're completely ignoring two claims.

Both sets of parents were told, after which Z was not allowed to go to any extended family events anymore.

One set of parents confronted Z at a restaurant, Z said he was sorry and got up and left.

TheL8Elvis surely has heard about both of the above, yet TheL8Elvis claims that "we have no evidence other than the word of the accuser".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's odd. You're completely ignoring two claims.

Both sets of parents were told, after which Z was not allowed to go to any extended family events anymore.

One set of parents confronted Z at a restaurant, Z said he was sorry and got up and left.

TheL8Elvis surely has heard about both of the above, yet TheL8Elvis claims that "we have no evidence other than the word of the accuser".

And until the parents/sister/friend speak up to corroborate the story, it's still no more than her word at this point.

 

[This is The End]

And until the parents/sister/friend speak up to corroborate the story, it's still no more than her word at this point.

So you think she's making that up too! You seriously don't think that would have come out by now?? No one would have checked this out?

This is just as unbelievable as your theory that absolutely no one checked M's hands for blood, or that blood on his hands just washed away, never to be seen again.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

By all means. Let's analyze NBS's post. You both wish that it had no context. So would NBS. Unfortunately for you it was a direct response to a quote. Good luck convincing others.

OK, thanks, shouldn't be too hard. Here is the claim:

Maybe it did. Doesn't change the cold hard facts that it's almost unprecedented for prosecutors to prosecute this type of case. In fact, I'd be curious if there are any precedents for prosecuting someone under similar circumstances. I can't recall reading about anything similar in my lifetime.

Here is your first strawman:

Teen-aged rapists and sexual molesters don't exist because Natural Born Skeptic has never heard of or read about them.

Please point out where NBS said they don't exist.

Now, onto the second strawman:

That's odd. According to Natural Born Skeptic the "cold hard facts" say that you might as well terrorize, rape, and molest your cousin during her entire childhood. As long as you are only a couple years older than her, no prosecutor would every charge you. Even if you don't stop until after you are an adult. Those are the "cold hard facts".

I can't see where he says that the reason GZ won't be prosecuted is the age difference. In fact, I don't see that he says GZ won't be prosecuted at all.

I don't know what you think the 'context' of Unabogies statement adds.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So you think she's making that up too! You seriously don't think that would have come out by now?? No one would have checked this out?

This is just as unbelievable as your theory that absolutely no one checked M's hands for blood, or that blood on his hands just washed away, never to be seen again.

So, you have some evidence that someone corroborated her story ? Someone 'checked it out' ? Please, share.

Becuase, otherwise, I will continue to stand by my understanding that we only have her word as evidence right now, in public knowledge. And I've not said one way or the other whether I think she is making anything up or not.

As far as my theory about TMs hands, a quote would be nice. I never claimed no one checked his hands for blood.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

Imagine that, you completely ignore the context of the post and the post it was responding to....

 

[This is The End]

So, you have some evidence that someone corroborated her story ? Someone 'checked it out' ? Please, share.

Becuase, otherwise, I will continue to stand by my understanding that we only have her word as evidence right now, in public knowledge. And I've not said one way or the other whether I think she is making anything up or not.

You don't think that if she was lying then either set of parents would have come out and said that's not true?

Or that any member of the extended family would have come out and said "Hey, wait a minute, he was never banned from all family events..."

You don't realize that if it is true they might not want to say so? You also don't realize that if it was not true then they would have every reason to come out immediately and say she is lying?

Isn't that convenient.

She just made up the story that Z was confronted about it and said he was sorry. To a cop.

She just made up the story that both sets of parents were told and they decided to ban Z from all extended family events. To a cop she told this yarn.

I'm not saying we should believe her 100% either, so even if you are right about all of that it doesn't change the fact that you seem to be hiding two key claims when you say that all we have is her word.

 

[This is The End]

We should put Z's claims that M attacked him on the same ground as the cousins claims of Z being a rapist.

Which one has more witnesses? Which one will we have more evidence of? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You don't think that if she was lying then either set of parents would have come out and said that's not true?

Or that any member of the extended family would have come out and said "Hey, wait a minute, he was never banned from all family events..."

You don't realize that if it is true they might not want to say so? You also don't realize that if it was not true then they would have every reason to come out immediately and say she is lying?

Isn't that convenient.

She just made up the story that Z was confronted about it and said he was sorry. To a cop.

She just made up the story that both sets of parents were told and they decided to ban Z from all extended family events. To a cop she told this yarn.

I'm not saying we should believe her 100% either, so even if you are right about all of that it doesn't change the fact that you seem to be hiding two key claims when you say that all we have is her word.

So no, you don't have any evidence other than her word. Thanks.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Imagine that, you completely ignore the context of the post and the post it was responding to....

Context doesn't make the things you claim NBS said exist.

 

[This is The End]

So no, you don't have any evidence other than her word. Thanks.

So yes, you do believe that both sets of parents and the extended family would not come out in support of Z if she were lying.

You also believe that they would have no reason to keep quiet if she were telling the truth.

Did I miss the reports of them saying she is lying?

 

[This is The End]

1. The allegations would have to be 10+ years old.

That's odd. I thought the claim was that this ended 6 to 8 years ago.

2. The accused would have to have been a minor at the time the alleged assaults took place. And there would be NO accusations the assaults continued into the perpetrators adulthood

That's odd. Because in this case the rape and molestation continued until the perpetrator was an adult.

3. No sexual intercourse ever took place. Most of the encounters involved forced touching. [insert inane strawman here in rebuttal about how intercourse is not required for a molestation or rape claim].

Well at least on this one you admit to already knowing that intercourse is not required for it to be rape.

So can anyone cite such a prosecution? I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've sure never heard of such a case.

So you want us to find a case that matches those 3 points that are not what happened in this case? Gotcha.

Now let's go back to your original response to Unabogie's post and see how that all matches up:

It continued for a decade, until George was all growed up. He was no longer a minor when he committed acts of rape. Sure, he started his career as a rapist early, but he kept at it until he got it right.

Maybe it did. Doesn't change the cold hard facts that it's almost unprecedented for prosecutors to prosecute this type of case. In fact, I'd be curious if there are any precedents for prosecuting someone under similar circumstances. I can't recall reading about anything similar in my lifetime.

[/QUOTE]