Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Kaosium]

Um no, but I think society might be best served to put "sexually assaulting cousins" in jail . To clarify, I have no idea whether these allegations are true, but your statement above is a silly strawman.

Strawman or not it's something to think about.

 

[Dan O.]

So the evidence that GZ tried to take TM into custody is:

1) GZ got out of his truck
2) TM hit him
3) After TM hit him, he was south of the tee

But my position (asking for evidence) is weak ....

Gotcha.

That's your position. The mighty Trayvon left hook that knocks George 20-30 feet south of the Tee.


It is generally accepted that Travon hit George once. But where was George when that happened? And what had George done that provoked that attack?

Doesn't George say that he was reaching into his pocket for his phone when Travyvon attacked him? Don't you see that such an action after being stalked for several blocks by someone that then displays characteristics of defending his turf by questioning what he's doing there could easily trigger a panic reaction because it looks like he is reaching for a gun?!

The evidence is all consistent with Trayvon hitting George once and then sitting on him and restraining him until witnesses came. Then Trayvon must have started to get off of George because otherwise there is no way for George to have retrieved the gun hun he was packing.

Trayvon had the opportunity to kill George if he were motivated to do so. All it would have taken would have been to continue to punch George with that flying fist and to repeatedly slam George's head on the pavement. George didn't have a chance once he was mounted MMA style. He might have held off a couple of punches with his arms and this would have been evidenced by some serious bruising to the upper arms (where is this evidence). But eventually, another blow would land on his face. This would stun his ability to defend himself and blow after blow would successively land. There is no evidence of defensive wounds on George and no evidence of repeated blows to his face.

This is why your argument is week. There is a scenario that fits with the evidence we know. The evidence is inconsistent with the story George is telling (pick your version, they all fail). You seem reluctant to address this part of the case.

 

[This is The End]

2) TM hit him

Well at least you knew not to write TM hit him first. We have plenty of evidence that M hit Z, and about zero evidence of the latter.

 

[This is The End]

That's where you ought to start, isn't it? Whether touching between boys and girls roughly the age is considered 'rape?' Last I checked it wasn't, went more or less in the 'normal byproduct of human development' category. Has this changed?

What do you know. About the 5th person in this thread to discuss rape as if both parties give consent.

We are not talking about both parties giving consent. How hard is this to grasp?

 

[This is The End]

Sometimes people get all worked up in a media firestorm and say and do things they regret.

Not true. She gave the interview within a day or two of the shooting as far as I know. Either way it was long before this story blew up.

Since the 'racism' charges have been revealed as bogus

Also not true. The only person claiming that is Z himself on Hannity. As far as I know the Federal case is still open.

and this charge seems awfully specious on the face of it

Also not true. As far as I know it is not. Nothing about her claims seems suspicious compared to similar molestation claims. It is common for the victim to not come forward, and to be in fear of the perpetrator, for many years after the abuse.

 

[This is The End]

I don't understand why that statement is any better than when I turned it around:

You seriously don't see the difference between the girls parents discussing their daughters abuse and Z's parents saying that their son did it??

 

[This is The End]

And what you took away from that was:

Yeah, defend the post that compares both parties giving consent to rape....

 

[This is The End]

What evidence is there it was against her will or there was any violence? I'm wondering just how many 'child rapists' there would be if many years later it could be decided that it was 'against their will' if they were later convinced it was unusual conduct and they were 'abused?' Looks to me more like a case of kissing cousins and her deciding many years later that it was actually all that unusual behavior. Anyone ever been prosecuted in a case with similar parameters? What support do you have for the idea that what she claimed is considered 'rape' by anyone. I'm just curious where this comes from, I was taught something quite different in school.



They called it 'kissing cousins' once upon a time. Do you suppose society would be best served if we put them all in jail?





I doubt it. Sounds to me more like someone getting all worked up by the media firestorm. Should we have an investigation into the entire family for covering up this criminal conspiracy of child rapists? I'm thinking that's getting pretty ridiculous now. It's also the first time I heard anything about a hispanic making fun of fellow hispanics being called 'racism.' That's silly.

Just an absolutely disgusting argument here. I can't believe I am even responding to this post.

It is not "just kissing cousins" if both parties don't give consent. She specifically says he forced her. She says he tried to resist and he was older and bigger.

Yes it is common for child molestation victims to not come out for many years. What does the cases not being prosecuted because of the Statue of Limitations have to do with anything??

What support do you have for the idea that what she claimed is considered 'rape' by anyone.

If you would read the thread you would see multiple cites that show that rape does not require intercourse. Digital penetrations still counts as rape. And it takes even less than that to be considered molestation.

Sounds to me more like someone getting all worked up by the media firestorm.

I doubt you read my previous post yet, but when you do you can stop using this argument. She told the detective long before the media firestorm. As far as I know it was within 2 days of the shooting. The families and both the prosecution and the defense also did not want this to come out.

It's also the first time I heard anything about a hispanic making fun of fellow hispanics being called 'racism.'

If that is seriously the first time you have heard about that I suggest you do some research into L.A. gangs. There is a considerable amount of Latino on Latino and Asian on Asian crime and hate. Even from peoples from the same home country, usually because they are from different regions.

 

[This is The End]

Strawman or not it's something to think about.

Do you go into other rape case threads and ask people to compare it to both parties giving consent?

 

[This is The End]

Doesn't George say that he was reaching into his pocket for his phone when Travyvon attacked him?

Actually Z made it sound worse in his own words than if someone was actually trying to paint the picture of M defending himself.

I blame the lawyer more than anything for this.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

HANNITY: One shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: One shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: So he said to you, you have expletive, you have a problem. Those are the exact words used. You remember it?

ZIMMERMAN: "Do you have a problem? What's your problem?"

HANNITY: What's your problem.

And you said to him, "I don't have a problem."

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: You reached for your phone?

ZIMMERMAN: I reached for it as I was saying, "No, I don't have a problem."

 

[triforcharity]

What evidence is there it was against her will or there was any violence?

The words of the victim herself would be pretty good evidence.

Touching someone sexually, against their will, is certainly qualified as violence. But, maybe you have a different definition.

I'm wondering just how many 'child rapists' there would be if many years later it could be decided that it was 'against their will' if they were later convinced it was unusual conduct and they were 'abused?' Looks to me more like a case of kissing cousins and her deciding many years later that it was actually all that unusual behavior.

So, now you're psychic?

You've never been the victim of sexual assault have you?

Anyone ever been prosecuted in a case with similar parameters?

I'm sure there has. Would that seem all that unusual to you? Would that surprise you?

What support do you have for the idea that what she claimed is considered 'rape' by anyone. I'm just curious where this comes from, I was taught something quite different in school.

Sorry, Florida doesn't specifically call it rape. It's actually called "sexual battery" here. But, it's definitely rape/sexual battery.

Go here to read Florida's definition of sexual battery.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0794/Sections/0794.011.html

Fl. SS 794.11 (h)

They called it 'kissing cousins' once upon a time. Do you suppose society would be best served if we put them all in jail?

You think that "kissing cousins" is the same as someone forcing another person to allow sexual acts to be performed on them, against their will? Are you ******* kidding me?!?!?!?! What the **** ??? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

If someone touches another, against their will sexually, it's rape/sexual battery, and should absolutely, without a doubt, be punished for their crimes. Yes, I agree, put them in jail. For life.

I doubt it. Sounds to me more like someone getting all worked up by the media firestorm.

Which you have no way of knowing or proving.

Should we have an investigation into the entire family for covering up this criminal conspiracy of child rapists?

I wouldn't object to it, no. Would it constitute a criminal conspiracy, maybe. Is it illegal NOT to report it? Quite possibly. (See Fl SS 794.027)

I'm thinking that's getting pretty ridiculous now.

Yes, your entire post is quite ridiculous. I'd agree.

It's also the first time I heard anything about a hispanic making fun of fellow hispanics being called 'racism.' That's silly.

So, would you prefer the term "prejudice"? We can call it that if it makes you feel better sir.

It would even sound good too.

"George Zimmerman was "prejudiced" against Mexicans."

Will that suit your fancy better?

 

[This is The End]

Don't you suppose his wife, for example, still has bank accounts ?

Well, we do know that the wife loves credit cards:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8458996#post8458996

Then again, this is America, everyone has 5 credit cards....

Here are the bond conditions just so we can be specific:

1. The Defendant's bail shall be set at $1,000,000 with the following conditions:

a. The Defendant shall refrain from criminal activity of any kind

b. The Defendant shall not have any contact with the victim's family, directly or indirectly, except as necessary to conduct pretrial discover through his attorneys

c. The Defendant shall be subject to electronic monitoring at his own expense

d. The Defendant shall not leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this Court

e. The Defendant shall check in with the Pre-trial Release Department every 48 hours

f. The Defendant shall not enter the property of the Orlando-Sanford International Airport

g. The Defendant shall not open or maintain a bank account

h. The Defendant shall not consume any alcohol

i. The Defendant shall obey a curfew between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

j. The Defendant shall not apply for or obtain a passport

 

[Kaosium]

Just an absolutely disgusting argument here. I can't believe I am even responding to this post.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have. Take a look at what it is. It is a case of cousins touching that many years later she decided amounted to 'abuse.' The words she could have used at the time are 'I'll tell mommy and daddy.' Her excuse for not doing so is her father really liked George Zimmerman. I think that's a ridiculous reason unless he's not much of a father, and as this starts to reflect on her family it might be best not to make this farce anymore absurd than it already is.

Did you ever find a case like this prosecuted? Cousins of roughly the same age being prosecuted for sexual abuse not revealed until many years later? There might be a reason for that, look into it. Also you might want to look into why Janet Reno is now a member of the Innocence Project.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You seriously don't see the difference between the girls parents discussing their daughters abuse and Z's parents saying that their son did it??

Yes, but I haven't a clue how what you just said relates to :

You would think if those claims were false that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are true they might have reason to not want to discuss it

I might also think if the claims were true, the family members would say so. Why not ? Why leave your daughter all alone in the public eye, all you have to do is say ' Yes, she told us that something happened'. Why not say something ?

 

[Kaosium]

The words of the victim herself would be pretty good evidence.

It's called 'innocent until proven guilty'--look into it. It prevents premature 'outrage' and allows one to think rationally when emotive charges are made.

 

[This is The End]

Then perhaps you shouldn't have. Take a look at what it is. It is a case of cousins touching that many years later she decided amounted to 'abuse.'

That is an outright lie. That is not what she claims at all.

She specifically claims that she resisted and was forced. It specifically was not kissing cousins.

Do you go into other rape threads and say "All this is is a case of the woman later changing her mind and lying about giving consent"???

I now wouldn't be surprised if you do do that.

I told you already in two posts that it is very common for kids that are molested as children to not have the courage to come out well into adulthood.

 

[This is The End]

Did you ever find a case like this prosecuted?

Did you not happen to read where a poster tried to pull that yesterday??

Obviously we won't find a case that has a Statue of Limitations prosecuted. That makes ZERO sense.

Are you denying that there are cases where family members rate and molest other family members of the same age? Cause if you do I have news for you, it happens.

 

[This is The End]

Yes, but I haven't a clue how what you just said relates to :

You would think if those claims were false that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are true they might have reason to not want to discuss it

I might also think if the claims were true, the family members would say so. Why not ? Why leave your daughter all alone in the public eye, all you have to do is say ' Yes, she told us that something happened'. Why not say something ?

You never heard of families choosing to not discuss abuse?? It happens.

Also, families usually speak up if someone lies.

Your "lets flip it around" analogy is not equal and it is flawed.

Did you miss the part where the victim, the families, the defense, and the prosecution did not want this to come out?? It was only revealed because the prosecution did not make it clear to the Judge that the statement was only about the racism.

 

[triforcharity]

It's called 'innocent until guilty'--look into it. It prevents premature 'outrage' and allows one to think rationally when emotive charges are made.

I'm very familiar with the term.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss the rest of your post that I responded to.

But, if you want to distance yourself from that idiotic position of yours, I would understand.

 

[This is The End]

OK so far we have from the attack the victim crowd:

#1: Repeatedly say that it happened when they were 8. Ignore the fact that she claims to be in fear and to have been raped over the course of her entire childhood.

#2: Repeatedly ask for evidence that cases that are outside of their Statue of Limitations have been prosecuted. First of all that makes ZERO sense. Secondly, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not the girl was molested.

#3: Repeatedly frame the story to make it sound like both parties gave consent. Completely ignore the fact that she claims to have resisted and it was forced.

Am I missing any arguments that stoop to such disgusting levels as those??