Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Apart from that hilariousness, I note your goalpost move from the "Judge said it was a sure thing" to now "Well the Judge was wrong".

Not at all. Those are both accurate.

So before you admit to being wrong about that, why should we let you move the discussion to whether or not the Judge was wrong to say it was a reasonable conclusion??

My position, the entire time, was the issue with the lesters conclusion that GZ would have fled but for the monitoring.

And it all summed up in this earlier post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8459857&postcount=2642

You're simply wrong, johnny karate. I used a particular part of the ruling as evidence to show why I disagreed with the notion that Lester 'gave GZ every benefit of the doubt'. That's it.

It has nothing to do with unfairly disparaging GZ - it has to do with making a sound valid argument:
GZ did not turn in a passport
GZ moved money between accounts
GZ was ordered to wear an ankle monitor
therefor
GZ intent to leave the country was thwarted.

I disagree that it is possible for Lester to reasonably draw that conclusion from the information he had.

Prior to that, I don't recall complaining or otherwise really being concerned with judge Lester.

 

[This is The End]

So, you are no longer interested in having a discussion ??

How do you get that from this:

So before you admit to being wrong about that, why should we let you move the discussion to whether or not the Judge was wrong to say it was a reasonable conclusion??

OK forget it.

We have absolutely driven the Judges opinion on the passport and paypal issue into the ground.

You say you have answered the questions and I believe you.

You still maintain that the Judge said it was a sure thing. I don't know what else can be said about that.

Frankly it has been discussed to death.

How about your opinion on the "chamber check" audio which your link to an article led me to find? If that actually turns out to be real, could it be the first thing that shows us why the charge is Murder 2?

Not to get off topic, but what is with your question marks TheL8Elvis? I noticed you always put a space before them. Does that make it so you can search for your posts easier or is it just a style thing?

 

[Dancing David]

Please don't, stop.
Please.

Seriously hasn't this discussion been done at least three times?

 

[Dan O.]

How about your opinion on the "chamber check" audio which your link to an article led me to find? If that actually turns out to be real, could it be the first thing that shows us why the charge is Murder 2?

I'm not sure that a chamber check adds significantly to the situation. George isn't claiming that he forgot he was carrying the gun. At most, it would add to George's realization that he was getting into a situation where he might need to use the gun. But this is already built up from George's description of Trayvon during the phone call.

 

[triforcharity]

Not sure why he would chamber check the weapon. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If that is true, then it might explain why the State has filed the charges, as it implies intent.

Now, before any flies off the handle, and starts accusing me of making stuff up, I said IF.

But, hearing the audio, it doesn't appear to me to be a chamber check, but it's hard to tell. It sounds to me more like a flashlight being tapped to try to get it working.

But, I could be wrong.

I'll have to go the the local gun range and see if they have a KelTec PF9 I can shoot.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm not sure that a chamber check adds significantly to the situation.

Having his weapon out would be a material discrepancy in his story. It would also almost certainly make Zimmerman the agressor and if it was found that he pointed at Martin could remove his ability to claim self-defense (that is, he could be found to be attempting a forcible felony - agravated battery).

It's almost always a bad idea to brandish a weapon outside your dwelling.

ETA: In one of his statements, Zimmerman does claim to have forgotten or not realized that he was carrying at the time of the verbal altercation at the T which seems odd to those who don't practice daily carry but does kind of turn in to carrying your wallet at some point - it just becomes force of habit and not particularly remarkable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis
So, you are no longer interested in having a discussion ??

How do you get that from this:

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths
So before you admit to being wrong about that, why should we let you move the discussion to whether or not the Judge was wrong to say it was a reasonable conclusion??

I got to the no longer interested in having a discussion this way:
Has this thread has become some kind of tit-for-tat ? You are only interested in answering questions if someone else goes first on a different topic ?

Two more questions you didn't answer.

As far as moving the discussion, the post from more than three weeks ago should show the issue I have was the conclusion that was drawn by the judge. I didn't move the goalposts.

OK forget it.

We have absolutely driven the Judges opinion on the passport and paypal issue into the ground.

You say you have answered the questions and I believe you.

You still maintain that the Judge said it was a sure thing. I don't know what else can be said about that.

Frankly it has been discussed to death.

Convenient. Let's just move on, even though you never bothered answering my questions, or explained why you think the judges claim that GZ would flee the country is a reasonable conclusion. Quite telling.

How about your opinion on the "chamber check" audio which your link to an article led me to find? If that actually turns out to be real, could it be the first thing that shows us why the charge is Murder 2?

I know that certain groups of people would love to show that GZ had his gun out chasing TM around ... but my opinion is there is no evidence GZ had his gun out. He's carrying a flashlight, a cell phone, keys, and doing a chamber check then reloading his magazine while talking to the NEN operator ? Not plausible.

Not to get off topic, but what is with your question marks TheL8Elvis? I noticed you always put a space before them. Does that make it so you can search for your posts easier or is it just a style thing?

Just something I do, wasn't really aware of it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

ETA: In one of his statements, Zimmerman does claim to have forgotten or not realized that he was carrying at the time of the verbal altercation at the T which seems odd to those who don't practice daily carry but does kind of turn in to carrying your wallet at some point - it just becomes force of habit and not particularly remarkable.

Just to play devils advocate, wouldn't it sort of be the opposite? That is, if you carry all the time wouldn't you be more likely to always be aware of it? As an example, I carry a cell phone at all times, so if I needed it, I'd instantly reach for it. On the other hand if you only carried say, 25% or 50% of the time, I can see where it would be easier to forget.

A couple of other thoughts on this subject.
1. If I was going into what I considered a potentially dangerous situation, I'd most certainly be intensely aware of whether I was carrying (I'm imagining here, I don't actually carry). A good example might be if I was about to walk down a dark alley where I felt uncomfortable.
2. Therefore I find it unusual (not impossible) that GZ would have forgotten, UNLESS he didn't think he was going into a dangerous situation, that is, unless he thought TM was gone and was just looking for an address as he says he was.

As I see it that's one the things that makes this case so unusual compared to many cases I've seen in the media, in this case in almost every instance completely different yet plausible (unprovable) theories can be put forth. Actual evidence on the other hand, as you know , tends to support GZ's story - actually I think a much better way to put it is that it does not contradict GZ's story.

 

[WildCat]

Not sure why he would chamber check the weapon. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If that is true, then it might explain why the State has filed the charges, as it implies intent.

I'm pretty sure the state isn't basing its charges on a post by a CSI wannabe on an internet forum.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm pretty sure the state isn't basing its charges on a post by a CSI wannabe on an internet forum.

True, but from the evidence we've seen so far it appears they aren't basing it on anything more concrete than that either , at least with regard to murder 2 charges.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm pretty sure the state isn't basing its charges on a post by a CSI wannabe on an internet forum.

Oh good, you're back.

Now we can resume our conversation.

Previously, you claimed this:

It seems clear to me there's multiple injuries and abrasions and marks, indicating multiple punches.

Now granted, you made this statement before being aware of the release of the medical records.

But now that you are up to speed on the basic facts of the case that the rest of us had already known for weeks, do you stand by the above statement?

And if so, what evidence can you point to that Zimmerman sustained more injuries than those indicated in the medical reports?

 

[WildCat]

Oh good, you're back.

Now we can resume our conversation.

Previously, you claimed this:


Now granted, you made this statement before being aware of the release of the medical records.

But now that you are up to speed on the basic facts of the case that the rest of us had already known for weeks, do you stand by the above statement?

And if so, what evidence can you point to that Zimmerman sustained more injuries than those indicated in the medical reports?

The medical reports indicate multiple injuries, so I have no idea what you're on about?

Now tell me again about your theory of clumsy Zimmerman falling down and hitting his head multiple times. Or was it that his wife worked him over that night? I forget who was making which claim.

 

[johnny karate]

The medical reports indicate multiple injuries, so I have no idea what you're on about?

Do the medical reports indicate multiple injuries and abrasions and marks as you claimed Zimmerman sustained?

Now tell me again about your theory of clumsy Zimmerman falling down and hitting his head multiple times. Or was it that his wife worked him over that night? I forget who was making which claim.

Because I actually answer questions put to me, this was covered quite some time ago:

I'm claiming Zimmerman received two small cuts during the struggle. Perhaps one was sustained when he actually fell. I don't know.

While dodging questions put to you, you keep repeating this same bizarre straw man about people claiming Zimmerman must have fallen multiple times. I'm not sure from where you're getting that. But it is amusing to watch. Almost as amusing as it was when it was revealed through your woefully misplaced mockery that you had no idea the medical records had been released. Now that was hilarious.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Or was it that his wife worked him over that night? I forget who was making which claim.

That one was claimed by "Rare Truth", who later claimed that's not what he said/meant, though links to the actual post revealed otherwise. I think you need to start including these with some of your posts .

 

[WildCat]

Do the medical reports indicate multiple injuries and abrasions and marks as you claimed Zimmerman sustained?

Perhaps the abrasions weren't considered "injuries" from a medical POV? The pics don't lie, the abrasions are there. But like a 9/11 truther who claims not to see airplane debris at the Pentagon, you'll claim you don't see the abrasions, right?

Because I actually answer questions put to me, this was covered quite some time ago:



While dodging questions put to you, you keep repeating this same bizarre straw man about people claiming Zimmerman must have fallen multiple times. I'm not sure from where you're getting that. But it is amusing to watch. Almost as amusing as it was when it was revealed through your woefully misplaced mockery that you had no idea the medical records had been released. Now that was hilarious.

Ah, so you do admit that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and this assault continued beyond the initial punch to the face.

Baby steps...

 

[johnny karate]

Perhaps the abrasions weren't considered "injuries" from a medical POV? The pics don't lie, the abrasions are there.

And your expertise to diagnose injuries from a photo is what exactly?

But like a 9/11 truther who claims not to see airplane debris at the Pentagon, you'll claim you don't see the abrasions, right?

Weird comparison. Are there photos of the airplane debris that aren't otherwise acknowledged as airplane debris, thus requiring us to rely on self-appointed Internet experts like yourself to tell us it is in fact airplane debris?

See, I'm not denying anything. I'm just going by what the medical records indicate.

And it's funny that you bring up 9/11 truthers. Your crack photo analysis reminds of those truthers who claim to know the composition of a pool of molten metal just by looking at a photo of it.

They're abrasions because WildCat says so!

Ah, so you do admit that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and this assault continued beyond the initial punch to the face.

I don't recall any such admission, nor am I aware of any evidence beyond Zimmerman's claim that Martin did assault him beyond a punch in the face.

But I look forward to the evidence you provide that proves Zimmerman's other injuries were the result of Martin assaulting him as opposed to just incidental injuries sustained while the two of them struggled.

Baby steps...

Yes, baby steps. Like actually being aware of all the evidence before mocking those who already are. That was an important baby step for you. And I'm glad to see you finally took it, even if it was a few weeks late.

 

[johnny karate]

That one was claimed by "Rare Truth", who later claimed that's not what he said/meant, though links to the actual post revealed otherwise. I think you need to start including these with some of your posts .

I agree. It would be most amusing to see WildCat include such terribly witty macros in his posts.

He can even start with one from only a few pages ago:

You've seen medical reports?

Ha ha... it's funny because everyone else already knew the medical reports had been released weeks ago.

 

[AlBell]

...

I thought you were interested in a discussion, I was clearly mistaken.

Something you are correct about. I recognized the real situation after just a few posts.

 

[WildCat]

And your expertise to diagnose injuries from a photo is what exactly?

You need a medical degree to identify an abrasion in a photo? Some other special knowledge?

Weird comparison. Are there photos of the airplane debris that aren't otherwise acknowledged as airplane debris, thus requiring us to rely on self-appointed Internet experts like yourself to tell us it is in fact airplane debris?

See, I'm not denying anything. I'm just going by what the medical records indicate.

You're clearly denying the abrasions in the photo.

And it's funny that you bring up 9/11 truthers. Your crack photo analysis reminds of those truthers who claim to know the composition of a pool of molten metal just by looking at a photo of it.

They're abrasions because WildCat says so!

What "pool of molten metal"? Are you referring to the molten material dripping from the WTC? A more apt analogy to what you're doing is denying that there's anything dripping from the tower at all. Like you're denying there's abrasions on Zimmerman's head in the photos.

I don't recall any such admission, nor am I aware of any evidence beyond Zimmerman's claim that Martin did assault him beyond a punch in the face.

So now you're back to claiming clumsy Zimmerman fell multiple times, cutting the back of his head twice?

But I look forward to the evidence you provide that proves Zimmerman's other injuries were the result of Martin assaulting him as opposed to just incidental injuries sustained while the two of them struggled.

Holy crap, just one sentence ago you denied any evidence of an assult beyond the initial punch, now here you are admitting the assault continued beyond that punch.

Are you feeling ok?

Yes, baby steps. Like actually being aware of all the evidence before mocking those who already are. That was an important baby step for you. And I'm glad to see you finally took it, even if it was a few weeks late.

Pardon me for missing a post in a several thousand post thread.

Now do tell more about the asault that wasn't really an assault and didn't continue beyond a single punch except for the two of them struggling on the ground that somehow doesn't qualify as contnuing the assault? Fascinating stuff there Johnny, I guess Zimmerman was struggling with himself while on the ground?

 

[johnny karate]

You need a medical degree to identify an abrasion in a photo? Some other special knowledge?

Apparently not. And not only that, but I guess having medical expertise is a hindrance to identifying abrasions because the medical professionals who actually examined Zimmerman did not note the multiple abrasions you claim exist in the photo.

They're abrasions because WildCat says so!

You're clearly denying the abrasions in the photo.

You're clearly not providing evidence that what you claim are abrasions are actually abrasions, as opposed to say, dried blood.

They're abrasions because WildCat says so!

What "pool of molten metal"? Are you referring to the molten material dripping from the WTC? A more apt analogy to what you're doing is denying that there's anything dripping from the tower at all. Like you're denying there's abrasions on Zimmerman's head in the photos.

All I'm denying is your unsubstantiated claim that they are in fact abrasions.

They're abrasions because WildCat says so!

So now you're back to claiming clumsy Zimmerman fell multiple times, cutting the back of his head twice?

I never claimed that to begin with, nor am I claiming it now. I guess reading and comprehending what people are stating is proving as difficult for you as keeping up with the basic facts of the case that everyone else seems to be fully aware.

Holy crap, just one sentence ago you denied any evidence of an assult beyond the initial punch, now here you are admitting the assault continued beyond that punch.

How is two people struggling the same thing as one of them assaulting the other?

(Here's a hint: It's not.)

Pardon me for missing a post in a several thousand post thread.

No, what needs to be pardoned is being willfully ignorant of the material facts, and then implying others who are better informed are lying when they refer to those facts.

Acknowledge that and offer an apology, and then you will have my pardon.

Until then, the wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance you displayed will continue to be mocked.

Now do tell more about the asault that wasn't really an assault and didn't continue beyond a single punch except for the two of them struggling on the ground that somehow doesn't qualify as contnuing the assault? Fascinating stuff there Johnny, I guess Zimmerman was struggling with himself while on the ground?

You seem to think that when two people struggle it means one of them is assaulting the other, which is a very strange interpretation.

But then again, you seem to think I've claimed Zimmerman fell down multiple times, and for a month afterward, you thought the medical records hadn't been released.

So maybe what you think isn't the best measure of what actually happened.